GENIUS FORUMS

Quote:
Jamesh: What the self is not is the physical, though it is totally caused and effected by the physical. It is caused by the relativity of the physical.

Cory: Could you not say that about anything though? In other words, does the same apply for an apple, a banana, a car? Do you think that all ‘apparently’ separate objects are not physical, but rather, are merely effects caused by the relativity of ‘the physical’?

Yes, that’s what I think, just changing your last two words ‘the physical’ to 'the foundational causes/forces'.

Cory: I’m thinking that the ‘relativity which causes’ that you speak of, rather than being a cause, IS the object that you think is the effect.

lame joke ahead:
Perhaps the physical is not the physical, but rather, it is caused by the relativity of the physical.

I don't see this comment as being irrational, as far as I am concerned it is close to the truth.

Quote:
Jamesh: Where that relativity becomes causally balanced, then an effect occurs

Cory: Well, it could just as easily be considered a cause, no? An effect, is a cause. Both are physical. It doesn’t make sense to say that one isn’t physical.

Not really, what you need to realise is that while everything a human senses appear as effects, there are not really any true effects. The cause and effect phrase is intrinsically delusional (though it still has immense value).

[I'm going to take it for granted that you understand that the parts of all things are at all times moving and I hope you'll except the truth that it wrong to think that nothingness, or complete emptiness, or zero properties, to exist in any form. A reason for this is that if there was nothingness then it would be impossible for it to be within the totality, as nothingness could not be formed or affected by the totality - what would it form and what would it affect?. The concept of space, even the space between atoms, as being emptiness is just nonsensical]

When I use the term 'causally balanced' I am indicating that in any particular location within the totality, the two fundamental forces are in state where the power of their forces are (primarily) equalised by the affect of each other, and to a consciousness outside of the location, this equalised action forms a kind of time stasis. Why?, because between the causally balanced location, and the spatial area that surrounds the said location, which will usually be filled with similarly formed 'balanced locality units' , there will be a lesser degree of causal interaction - less force is emanating from the balanced unit, and that creates a relativity against that which is not so balanced. Within each balance though, no part of it will form into a balance that is permanently 100% perfectly stable (but that which causes this, the infinite dualistic forces themselves, will be perfectly stable both because they are infinite and 100% instable relative to each other).

Can you now see how the relativity is formed, there are spatial areas that expand and contract at slower rates than others, there is a structural difference in the state of the universe from one location to another and if there are differences then this is what relativity is? Everything that is, is completely interconnected, completely causal, completely formed by the same fundamental process, completely in motion as a result of the same fundamental process, but still different due to different degrees of causal action within.

Less causal action provides to a conscious entity the ability to notice differences from one part of the universe to the next. Think of the balanced locality unit as a kind of slowing down of time, but only if you are outside of it. Remember though that time is an effect, it does not cause itself, but it is just one aspect, a property caused to exist by the same fundamental action as that which causes Space, Motion, Gravity, Materialness and Change all to exist at the same permanent instant. I use the terms Expansion and Contraction to describe the fundamental forces, as these terms can be applied to all these aspects. The term 'force' covers all causal actions and gives such actions permanent power, a power that can be distributed. You need two forces because nothing can occur without relativity.

.
Cory: The effect that you are talking about; the self, or an apple IS the relative configuration. I think it’s an illusion to see it any other way.

Yes, but I really think that is what I was basically saying.

Quote:
Jamesh: and that effect is a form that is not exactly the same as the form of its causes.

Cory: Yes, but it is a physical form none-the-less, a physical form which effects other forms and causes other physical forms.

To me it is only physical by coincidence. I know there are no basic units of existence that are truly solid. If everything is moving, and it is, how could that which is most physically fundamental be the cause of anything if it was truly solid?. If you are not using physical in this sense then what do you mean by physical. To me physical means anything finite with a property. It does not mean that which is infinite cannot have properties, even in order to be described even as infinite it must have a property. The totality lumps together everything infinite, yet the totality cannot be an infinity that consists of a single infinite cause. Because it has differences within itself, it has parts.

Anything with more than one property has parts. Therefore the totality consists of two causal infinities, to be infinitely causal they must have their own power supply, in order to have their own power supply then that is what they must be, entirely. A cause that affects in a singular way. No other cause within the world of matter is first caused by or affects in a singular way. Therefore there must be another infinite cause that is of the completely opposite nature to the other.

Quote:
Jamesh: The same applies to the self that emerges from the physical self

Cory: I don’t understand this. I thought you originally said that the self is not physical. I might have read your post wrong.

The self emerges from the physical (used in the normal sense). The reason it emerges is because it is the total sum of all synergistic relativities, both of all that is within these synergistic 'barriers' to that which surrounds it. The key word here is the word 'total'. From 1 + 1, both 1 and 1, and 2 can be perceived. The 2 is a additional concept because we can generalise. We can perceive a point or a vista. The self is the vista, a thought is a point within a mental vista that alters because of interactions between memory and all bodily senses/switches.


Quote:
Jamesh: And that’s why we humans now conceptually and emotionally fuck about with things like mind and matter.

Cory: Can you give me examples of such humans? Not quite sure what you mean.

Just a comment about our desire for the fantasy of having a soul.


Quote:
Jamesh: the foundational causes alter the forms balanced structure, causing permanent change.

Cory: I really don’t understand what you are trying to say here. I could be a moron though. Help me out here James.

Well, it is difficult subject matter, I'm not aware of anyone here understanding what I am getting at. I am going where the QRS and followers don't seem to wish to go. They don't seem to want to understand why cause and effect occurs, which pisses me off for people who class themselves as more aware of reality than anyone they know. It isn't really surprising that I consider them fundamentalists.

Edit (I'm off on a wild tangent here:) : When physicists understand reality in the manner in which I am saying here, or in some previous related posts, and some partly seem to, then a proper TOE/ GUT can be achieved. They will need to understand the relativity between universal constants though, and vary the constants accordingly, as well as layered universes.

An atom stays balanced for longer than compound things because, within it is a holistic aural layer of near perfect causal balance that forms a strong barrier to causal intrusions and extrusions. The barrier is the boundary between one level of universe and another.

Something does extrude from everything however, even in atoms the balance is never perfect. All things of compound matter emit light, different atoms emit other causal rays on the electromagnetic spectrum (thats how we get red shift), some of which merge on the pinball path outward with other rays to form the compound that is light.

Obviously light is a compound because it can be caused to create different colours in things, as what occurs when using a prism, and to do this it must be a thing with divisible properties a thing of parts. The different light parts coming from the prism blocks or deflects only some of the emissions from the molecules it hits which changes the content and causal power of the resulting light reflection to our eyes. The structure of thing itself, as in the form of its crystaline structure which will cause or nor cause X internal and external reflections, and the sum of its synergies, its external nature, together with the angle the light hits, will multiple the possible range of colours by an almost infinite factor.

JamesH: Evolution has commenced for this new existence-of-form within the totality,

Cory: Commenced when? You sound as if you think this start date is fairly recent.

I think of the universe as being in a permanent state of bubbling, finiteness bubbling out from the meeting of two infinities. Not like soap bubbles though but like auras, where there the ratio of one of the two forces goes from 100% to something lesser due to it merging into the opposite force. Spectrum Field bubbles I guess one could call them. The ratios vary due to the new formation being causally affected by bubbles formed at different times.

Now when I say different times, I mean different causal configurations, because that is what actually causes time. Different causal configurations within space will mean that the ratios of the power of each force will vary and the causal flow will cause convergence to one of the causal poles. When this occurs, it allows for spatial expansion or contraction at a fundamental level, which in turn means that new 'balanced locality units' can start to reform. As every part of the universe is relative to all others, across the universe there will be locals that are new and locals that are old, and locals with a spectrum in between. We are just one universe though within a finite parallel and an infinite hierarchical layered totality.

Cory,

DQ: The key difference is that Schopenhauer used Eastern philosophical concepts to rationalize his emotional indulgences - his pessimism, melancholy and self-pity. In contrast, the other three went beyond all emotions, beliefs and worldviews, and opened themselves up to the majesty of the Infinite.

Cory: I enjoy reading Kierkguaard just as much if not more than I enjoy reading Schopenhauer, however, Kierkguaard on more than a few occasions expressed his profound depression and melancholy. He almost seems manic-depressive. There is such excessive productivity and brilliance in contrast to excessive malencholy and depression which he himself admits in his journals.

It's all speculation, really. There is talk that he suffered from temporal lobe epilepsy, which also would have accounted for his excessive writing habits. But who knows?

He did write in his journals that he once went to see his doctor to see if his "melancholy" could be treated. I assume this means that he suffered from depression to some degree, although it obviously wasn't severe enough to enervate him completely.

And if Schopenhauer really was a pessimist, then why was he putting so much care into writing books? Did schopenhauer really assert that he was a pessimist? Or is that just the way people interpret him?

I think it is a fair description. He was essentially a pessimist because he never really broke free of the ego, and thus all of his views were generated out of the normal egotistical perspective on things.

He was aware enough to know that the ego will always be fundamentally doomed, that even its best laid plans will eventually go to waste with extinction and death. But he wasn't aware enough to overcome this pessimistic outlook and rejoice freely in God's wisdom.

According to Wikipedia:

[Schopenhauer] is commonly known for having espoused a sort of philosophical pessimism that saw life as being essentially evil, futile, and full of suffering. However, upon closer inspection, in accordance with Eastern thought, especially that of Hinduism and Buddhism, he saw salvation, deliverance, or escape from suffering in aesthetic contemplation, sympathy for others, and ascetic living.

In other words, being egotistically-minded, he viewed the world as being threatening, dangerous, and murderous. His solution was, not to go beyond the ego itself and dive into the timeless wisdom of the Infinite, but to try and withdraw from the world as much as possible, to sympathize with everyone for their horrible plight, and to keep distracting himself with artistic pleasures.

What views of Schopenhauers do you find the most disagreeable?

I've always liked Schopenhauer to some extent. He wrote like a human being, as opposed to an academic andriod, and he was more or less on the right track. He just didn't go all the way with it. For whatever reason, he pulled up short of breaking through into ultimate understanding.

So I generally find his views a bit naive and undeveloped, his thinking a bit kindergartenish. He was like a child who looked promising and had plenty of natural potential, but didn't really fulfil it.

-

The Masculine and Feminism are results of hormones of

Testosterone and Estrogen which both Male and Female have

both but the percent is different.

But relating to the Psychology of both is dramatic so it appears

because Estrogen seem to make people (More civilized which is

in both males and females) make all actions seem to have

emotion and Testosterone ( the more Barbaric one) of not

linking Action with emotions. Like all things you need a mid of

the road in order to be perfect.

Tek wrote:The Masculine and Feminism are results of hormones

Correct so fo far, for the most part.

it appears Estrogen seem to make people more civilized

It doesn't appear that way to me.

Would there be civilization (science, philosophy, technology, medicine, justice, etc) if it weren't for men? No, there would be no civilization. The civil force that created civilization was male.

Estrogen makes people more scattered and passive.

and Testosterone (the more Barbaric one) of not linking Action with emotions.

Rather, it is barbaric to link action with emotions.

All actions should be based on truth and reason. Emotions should play no part.

Kevin wrote:

Rather, it is barbaric to link action with emotions.

All actions should be based on truth and reason. Emotions should play no part.

Hey Kevin,

earlier on this thread David said that the sage is touched with great sensations and feelings, and it is these sensations and feelings that make life worth living.

Reason/logic are simply tools for aligning oneself with these great feelings and sensations.

What is the relationship between Reason and 'feeling/sensation'

And also, what is the relationship between these great feelings and sensations of the sage to aesthetics?

Is the truth beautiful to the sage, and thus is their great sensation and feeling with the truth?

Cory Duchesne wrote:

KS wrote:All actions should be based on truth and reason. Emotions should play no part.

earlier on this thread David said that the sage is touched with great sensations and feelings, and it is these sensations and feelings that make life worth living.

Yes. But these feelings and sensations are not emotions.

The way I see it, "emotions" are always tied to a deluded conception of self. For example, fear, hatred, love/longing/desire, joy, sadness, excitement, boredom, etc.

Examples of non-emotional feelings and sensations would be:

I feel thirsty when I need a drink.

I feel the peace, depth, and power of mind that comes when I am at one with the Universe.

I sense that the salesman I am talking to is lying to me.

I feel, intuitively, that a person has a natural talent for something.

Reason/logic are simply tools for aligning oneself with these great feelings and sensations.

What is the relationship between Reason and 'feeling/sensation'?

Feelings and sensations are to some extent informed and shaped by reason and logic. And the feelings and sensations provide material for logic and reason to work with. So they feed off each other.

And also, what is the relationship between these great feelings and sensations of the sage to aesthetics?

Is the truth beautiful to the sage, and thus is their great sensation and feeling with the truth?

It's difficult to answer this question, since the sage sees all things as the same. He sees all things as caused, infinitely caused. He sees not only the thing itself, but its infinite causes, in the experience. This is the Buddha-nature of all things.

So you could say that everything appears equally beautiful - whether it be a pile of rotting bodies, or a beautiful rainbow or sunset. But then the term "beautiful" doesn't really mean anything. Things are just as they are.

A sage still experience foul smells, bad music, or poor art . . . which you could call "ugliness" . . . but his reaction to them is not emotional.

Is the truth beautiful to the sage, and thus is their great sensation and feeling with the truth?

Truth is beautiful until you reach it. Then it is just what it is.

kevin wrote:

So you could say that everything appears equally beautiful -

whether it be a pile of rotting bodies, or a beautiful rainbow or sunset. But then the term "beautiful" doesn't really mean anything. Things are just as they are.

Doesnt this imply that the sage is indifferent to what happens to him, indifferent to what he expiences?

the sage still experience foul smells, bad music, or poor art . . . which you could call "ugliness" . . . but his reaction to them is not emotional.

But are the sensations he experiences from bad smells, music and art 'different' from the sensations he experiences from good art, good smells, sunset, meditation?

Are you saying the sage is indifferent to what experiences he has?

Or is he lead by what 'feels' and appears most great to him?

David Quinn quoted:

Ramakrishna: - If you wish to thread the needle, make the thread pointed, and remove all extraneous fibres. Then the thread will pass easily into the eye of the needle. So if thou wishest to concentrate thy heart on God, be meek, humble, poor of spirit, and remove all filaments of desire. –

Do you consider being “meek, humble, poor of spirit” as being “masculine”? If so how did you arrive at that conclusion?

DQ:

At the same time, I think it is important to push on from this traditional framework and distill these terms to their purest essence, thus enabling us to arrive at a conception of what it means to be, say, purely masculine or purely feminine.

If I could learn anything from this forum, I would most like to understand why most of you favor “masculine” over “feminine” instead of acknowledging both as beneficial and necessary.

Misters Q, R, and S, do you feel that you have learned everything that there is to learn and therefore you can stop learning? Do you talk to a woman and a child and learn from their wisdom as though you were their student? If you do not accept women and children as equally necessary in the spectrum, if you don’t learn from their mistakes AND from their wisdom, then your logic is stagnant and severely flawed both subjectively and objectively. If you wish “to push on from this traditional framework and distill these terms to their purest essence” then please analyze and/or criticize this profoundly significant chapter of the Tao Te Ching…

#28:

Know the masculine,
but keep to the feminine:
and become a watershed to the world.
If you embrace the world,
the Tao will never leave you
and you become as a little child.

Know the white,
yet keep to the black:
be a model for the world.
If you are a model for the world,
the Tao inside you will strengthen
and you will return whole to your eternal beginning.

Know the honorable,
but do not shun the disgraced:
embracing the world as it is.
If you embrace the world with compassion,
then your virtue will return you to the Uncarved Block.

The block of wood is carved into utensils
by carving void into the wood.
The Master uses the utensils, yet prefers to keep to the block
because of its limitless possibilities.
Great works do not involve discarding substance.

Translated by J. McDonald

"He who knows the male (active force), yet keeps to the female (the passive force or receptive element), becomes like a ravine, receiving all sort of things.
Being the all-encompassing ravine he knows a power that he never calls upon in vain. This is returning to the state of infancy.
He who knows the white, yet keeps and cleaves to the black becomes the standard by which all things are tested, he becomes the model for the world.
As such he has all the time the eternal power that never errs; and he returns to the limitless, a primordial nothingness.
He who knows glory, yet keeps to obscurity or even cleaves to ignominy,
turns into the valley that receives into it all kind of things. And being such a valley he has all the time a power that suffices. So he returns again to some pristine simplicity, returns to the state of simplicity: its the raw, uncarved block.
Break up simple awareness and it becomes shaped. Next it becomes someones tool in the hands of the wise man. For when a block is sawed up it's made into subordinates or implements.
When the wise man uses it, it becomes chief.
So the greatest carver does the least cutting, as they say. The great ruler doesn't cut up

Translated by T. Byrn

Alyosha wrote:

If I could learn anything from this forum, I would most like to understand why most of you favor “masculine” over “feminine” instead of acknowledging both as beneficial and necessary.

I think its because they think the typical way of humanity is feminine, irrational and subservient to woman. They think men focus their energies on pleasing woman rather than becoming genius.

Personally I feel that its easier to be feminine (sexual, emotional, family-based, non-individual then it is to be masculine (asexual, unemotional, rational, individual).

They think in order to break free from the ways of the world you have to become highly rational, single minded, unconcerned with family, woman, and without vanity.

I agree with this as well, but I also think 'passivity and obedience' is important as well. In order to be truthful, one must be receptive and passive to nature, to the involuntary, to the accidental, one must be obedient rather than willful at times.

I feel that the destination and the journey is not without femininity, but it is a femininity that has become transcended by masculinity.

Masculinity definitely becomes blunted and degraded by focus on the feminine.

But the feminine gets degraded by too much masculinity.

Truth continues to elude man as long as he creates systems.

So I agree with QRS that the world is in need of more masculinity, but I just think femininty is important as well.

The QRS equate femininity with vulgarity though, and not much more.

I define feminity differently I guess.

I believe that feelings and sensations are not conscious, and Quinn and Solway have admited that feelings and sensations are an important part of the sage.

Therefore, part of what the sage is, is unconscious and without reason.

He is both masculine and feminine.

Quinn would say that if you are half mascluine and half feminine, that the feminine would take over and corrupt you.

But that is not the feminine taking over, that is vulgarity.

Shoddy masculinity begets shoddy femininity

Great masculinity begets great femininity.

Q, R, and S, pay heed to these words!

You see that that the sage is of great feelings. Feelings are not conscious.

therefore, what the sage is, is partly unconscious.

But I think woman on average are definitely a bit more resistant to living a truthful, clearminded life. Q, R, and S have done a good job at opening my eyes to the danger of woman.

Cory Duchesne:

They think men focus their energies on pleasing woman rather than becoming genius.

And Gay men focus their energies on screwing other men, and rich men focus their energies on obtaining money, and dictators focus their energy on power, and spiritual men focus their energy on obtaining enlightenment. Desires, muses, obsessions these are genderless traits.

Personally I feel that its easier to be feminine (sexual, emotional, family-based, non-individual then it is to be masculine (asexual, unemotional, rational, individual).

How did you come to the conclusion that femininity is more sexual than masculinity? All of my empirical evidence suggests otherwise. Masculinity was traditionally considered “unemotional” but this was merely because men repressed their emotions instead of acknowledging them or transcending them. This passé attribute (the stereotypical masculinity of the 1950’s) is detrimental to the obtainment of enlightenment. Rationality tends to be more “masculine” but “intuition” is far more “feminine” (the gut feelings of a mother are way more accurate than those of a father, women develop psychic awareness more easily than men do). As for individual vs. universal, both attitudes are necessary and we must find a balance (which is why laissez faire capitalism and true communism are both inefficient and purely idealistic models). The rational mind must be transcended at some point if one wishes to obtain enlightenment (temporarily not permanently). Lastly, there is a fine line between narrow-minded vs. single-minded, and stubbornness vs. persistence. The best word I can find is perseverance (and perseverance is neither masculine nor feminine).

Shoddy masculinity begets shoddy femininity

Great masculinity begets great femininity.

I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. You hit the nail on the head.

Alyosha wrote:

How did you come to the conclusion that femininity is more sexual than masculinity?

My conceptions of femininty and masculinity also come from understanding the greek gods dionysus and appollo.

Sexuality, because it is intoxicating seems more dionysian than appolonian. Dionysian temperment is chaotic, sensual, emotional, sexual.

An appollonian temperment is concerned with order, justice, rationality.

Not a bad framework to base you conceptions on Cory. But I’m sure you heard the statistic that men think about sex an average of once every 7 seconds. This is probably accredited to the fact that men have their sexual organs on the outside of their body and therefore are constantly reminded of its presence. So I would say that men are the procurers of sexuality whereas women are the objects.

Cory wrote:

Great masculinity begets great femininity.

Q, R, and S, pay heed to these words!

It depends on what you mean by femininity. You would have to be giving it a different meaning to the one I normally give it for your statement to make any sense.

From the perspective of my own lexicon, what you're saying is akin to, "Great good begets great evil".

Perhaps you should describe to us precisely what you mean by "femininity" (and you too Alyosha). It may be that we can all meet on common ground on this issue, after all.

-

David Quinn wrote:Cory wrote:

Great masculinity begets great femininity.

Q, R, and S, pay heed to these words!

It depends on what you mean by femininity. You would have to be giving it a different meaning to the one I normally give it for your statement to make any sense.

From the perspective of my own lexicon, what you're saying is akin to, "Great good begets great evil".

-

David,

Is this really the comparison you meant to make? It seems like you are saying that men are good and women are evil.

uh-oh! Now that's flawed logic on many, MANY levels. Does DQ believe in "good" and "evil"? Ha Ha. I am very interested in seeing how this one plays out.

Ok David

First off,

Do you see passivity, submission, obedience, unconsciousness, and sensuality all as feminine traits?

Adam Pfleghaar:

Let’s see if we can distill masculine and feminine qualities to their absolute sense.
Feminine has the qualities of acceptance, receptiveness, yielding, and nurturing. I am sure you would like to find a way to label all these words as masculine “in their purest sense”, but I think you are only suiting your own interests (and I can’t imagine what those interests are).
Masculine has the qualities of scrutiny, momentum, elimination, and creation.

alyosha wrote,

Not a bad framework to base you conceptions on Cory. But I’m sure you heard the statistic that men think about sex an average of once every 7 seconds. This is probably accredited to the fact that men have their sexual organs on the outside of their body and therefore are constantly reminded of its presence. So I would say that men are the procurers of sexuality whereas women are the objects.

Well sure, most men are very addicted to woman, they are very feminine and any masculinity they have is employed to preserve their vulgar sensuality and their low level of consciousness. The feminine is the master and the mascluine is the slave.

This is what Q, R and S focus on the most, and that is why I respect them.

They focus on the fact that man employs his masculinity to preserve a less conscious state, a state of masculinity that is enslaved to food, sex and family.

Some men are not average though, some men wonder deeply and are motivated for truth much more often then they are motivated for sex. The appolonian drive is much more active in these rare individuals.

That is why so few woman become great thinkers, because the appolonian is masculine and woman are less masculine.

Well sure, most men are very addicted to woman, they are very feminine and any masculinity they have is employed to preserve their vulgar sensuality and their low level of consciousness. The feminine is the master and the mascluine is the slave.

Good intentions Cory, but I disagree with your comparisons. Being addicted to women is not “feminine”. Men are slaves to their desires regardless of gender. You are arbitrarily attaching a gender to the state of desire/muse/obsession and this is totally unwarranted. By this same logic you could say that men are a slave to money and therefore the object of desire (money) is the root of the negative attribute. The money is not the cause of the slavery the obsessive desire is the cause of the slavery. Instead of “feminine” attributes why not just say “monetary” attributes. Or Masculine vs. Monetary psychology. Flawed logic.

They focus on the fact that man employs his masculinity to preserve a less conscious state, a state of masculinity that is enslaved to food, sex and family.

Notice you said “a state of masculinity” was that a mistake on your part? Whether it was intentional or not I agree with you. These “negative” attributes that you attach to “femininity” are really just “a state of masculinity”.

Alyosha,

But I’m sure you heard the statistic that men think about sex an average of once every 7 seconds. This is probably accredited to the fact that men have their sexual organs on the outside of their body and therefore are constantly reminded of its presence. So I would say that men are the procurers of sexuality whereas women are the objects.

As befits the traditional principle of male (active) and female (passive).

It is probably true that men think about sex every 7 seconds (although this has never been my experience as a man, but I'll let it pass as a clumsy generalization). And while this sounds horrific on the surface, it implies that men spend most of their time not thinking about sex, which I think is pretty accurate. There is plenty of room here for mathematics, science, technology, ethics, philosophy, wisdom, etc - that is, the creation of civilization and the solving of intellectual issues.

In contrast, women think about sex nearly all the time. Not in the obvious, pornographic sense that men think about it, but in the indirect feminine sense of constantly thinking about clothes, hair, shopping catalogues, men, relationships, interior decorating, etc. In fact, no matter what a woman does or thinks about, it is nearly always down in the context of her own relationship as a woman with the rest of the universe. It is always sexual in nature.

And interestingly, women have no shame over this. A woman can flick through an underwear catalogue on a crowded train and not find it the least bit odd.

-

Elizabeth,

DQ: From the perspective of my own lexicon, what you're saying is akin to, "Great good begets great evil".

EI: Is this really the comparison you meant to make? It seems like you are saying that men are good and women are evil.

I was simply referring to the contradiction involved. I could have just as easily said, "Great gorging of food begets great slimness". Or "Great heroin-taking begets great health."

If the feminine refers to the passive, unconscious, chaotic, incoherent, flowy aspect of mind, then increasing one's consciousness, clarity, consistency, rationality and purposefulness won't lead to an increase in the feminine.

-

DQ wrote:

I was simply referring to the contradiction involved. I could have just as easily said, "Great gorging of food begets great slimness". Or "Great heroin-taking begets great health."

I thought you only meant the contradiction, which is why I asked if that was the comparison that you meant to make rather than jumping to the misogyny conclusion that another might have jumped to. I do, however, find it interesting that this was the particular analogy that first came to your head rather than "Great gorging of food begets great slimness" or "Great heroin-taking begets great health."

AlyOshA wrote:If I could learn anything from this forum, I would most like to understand why most of you favor “masculine” over “feminine” instead of acknowledging both as beneficial and necessary.

Because only masculine characteristics can help one along the path to enlightenment, as well as gain a deeper understanding of God.