GENIUS FORUMS

CP,

Haha, those types. :-) I've known a couple, myself.

I don't know if she had no will...maybe she was just trying to please you? Maybe her will was to please.

In war, the enemy is detected by his clothing.

On the Genius Forum, it is by the quality of his thinking.

Often people try to disguise it by molding their expressions to resemble the top dogs. Dogs in a pack have the pack's fear, so attack where a single dog would not.

Biological males on the forum attacking the defenceless and innocent females their minds have created strikes me as the worst form of hypocrisy.

What are you going to do about it? If you leave biological females "on the streets", then you've unjustly overlooked her capacity for thought - more domination. If you try to educate her, she'll become attached to you sexually, and you'll have to contend with your own lust for power by altering her intellectually - more domination.

Which avenue will you take?

Will you only help those females you're sexually attracted to, and have children with, to ensure you're emotionally bonded enough for her to cope with your enterprise?

Will you choose only to help the more intellectually developed females - who are always going to be the courtesan type?

How are you going to deal with your sexual attraction? Get to know your young hottie, who only knows you're attracted? Visit once a week, for an hour, and let your lust bleed through her brain, wiping out any hope for her freedom?

So, which is better? Computer games or love affairs?

.

Kelly,

David,

Would you answer a few questions about the factors in your decision to help Sue in philosophy?

Would you answer a few questions about the factors in your decision to help Sue in philosophy?

My motivation is primarily out of seeking causes to rebirth my self into a more resilient and rational form, and secondly from feeling overcooked about my heavy karma.

Obviously Sue was more intelligent and honest than all the women you'd met to date. However, you shouldered the responsibility of helping Sue, far more in time and effort than you have done for any abused baby, regardless of whether the guilt was directly your own or not. What was going on there?

I don't think it's possible to adequately discuss this issue without divulging personal details of people other than ourselves, and therefore I don't think it is appropriate to do it on a public forum. Suffice it to say that I helped her partly because I value her as a thinker, and partly because she is the mother of my son, Tristram.

We can privately discuss it further, if you like. Or you can discuss it with Sue when you contact her next.

-

I don't think it's possible to adequately discuss this issue without divulging personal details of people other than ourselves

Maybe.

I am interested in your reasoning, as you recall it, from when you were a 20-something philosopher. Sue's and Tristram's background don't interest me, rather only in the scenario represented by Sue, and consequently, your son. Treat them as types, if you will. The only information I'm introducing is that you got heavily involved in Sue's life - but I don't think that is still private information.

I assume you met plenty of struggling thinkers during your "outreach", but you never decided to become involved in their lives and development to the same extent. Evidently the main factor would have had to be sexual attraction, meaning Sue had to be an unusual individual. So, it would seem that you were emotionally incapable of helping these struggling thinkers.

One only has so much time. Getting involved in a single individual's life to such an extent is a risk. I don't see that Kevin or Dan has gotten so involved with struggling thinkers, to the extent that his (pl.) life was shared extensively for that purpose. Not to the same extent you have.

This assumption seems correct in view of facilitating the functionality of the mother of your son.

If it is correct, then it is a terrible fate you've chosen for biological females: they get no assistance unless you fuck and impregnate them.

It is obvious that given the instinctive dependency of females, that none will be interested in philosophy unless she's sexually attracted to the "ideal" philosopher first. If she only ever meets living philosophers, her ego will be revolted by being regarded as purely intellectual. This means signs of emotional bonding need to be shown her.

How did you ensure that you weren't deluded by your own game? How did you ensure that she was able to deconstruct your game?

Kelly

.

Kelly,

Now you're sounding kind of desperate...for some attention from David. You seem jealous of Sue.

If it is correct, then it is a terrible fate you've chosen for biological females: they get no assistance unless you fuck and impregnate them.

This seems like you're trying to ask David to help you, or at least understand why he hasn't yet. I hope you can get past this, if it's the case.

Kelly,

I am interested in your reasoning, as you recall it, from when you were a 20-something philosopher. Sue's and Tristram's background don't interest me, rather only in the scenario represented by Sue, and consequently, your son. Treat them as types, if you will. The only information I'm introducing is that you got heavily involved in Sue's life - but I don't think that is still private information.

That's all right, then.

I can't really justify my becoming involved with Sue on any philosophical level. I was a "struggling thinker" myself at the time. I hadn't yet committed myself to leading a philosophic life; I was still exploring what the world had to offer; and I was still deeply spellbound by women. Also, because of my ongoing attempts to grapple with the issues of the spiritual path, I was afflicted with a fair amount of despair and turmoil at the time and wasn't really in a position to think clearly about my long-term future. So when Sue came along, an intelligent and introspective woman, I couldn't see any good reason not to get involved with her.

I doubt that I would make the same choice nowadays. Not because I don't like Sue or don't value her thinking, but simply because I place more value on my freedom and solitude these days. But I was a different person back then.

If it is correct, then it is a terrible fate you've chosen for biological females: they get no assistance unless you fuck and impregnate them.

I probably would have been life-long friends with Sue, even if I never got involved with her, just as I am life-long friends with Kevin, Dan and a few others.

-

David,

You've overlooked the key issue completely. My assumption that you were emotionally bonding with Sue was correct, as well as my second assumption, that you did so consciously, as your letters to Kevin show (you were conscious of the consequences of your actions).

I am putting it to you that what you were in the past is still being rebirthed, obviously in lesser strength, nevertheless still exists. You aren't entirely a different person, your past continues to have consequences. Therefore, you must have consciously reasoned how to ensure that the attachment you had to explore and express, which was affecting Sue and your son, should be deconstructed.

This "blatantly obvious" reasoning needs to be expressed. Since struggling thinkers need to explore and express their attachments and blockages, to learn why the attachments are so powerful, they benefit from explicit examples of the specific tools that others have used. Sue has recommended (in this thread, and otherwhere): therapy, reading books, writing, watching movies, going for walks, talking to people. But these aren't attachment-specific tools, but general stimulants for thought. So, how did you ensure that the attachments you were exploring with the relationship with Sue and Tristram could be deconstructed?



[edit: I should mention I am not addressing you, David, as a unique person, but as the "philosopher-type" who experienced the standard blockage of sexual attachments. I am asking for your personal methods, which are necessarily still standard. Personally, woman is represented variously, ie. madam big-tits, or blossoming school-girl, or ; but philosophically, she is represented unvaryingly as the consort who stamps one with society's approval.]


Kelly

David,

I don't think life-long friendship and valuing freedom and solitude are consistent. Is not a spiritual friend temporary, since it is based on a particular purpose?

Are you defining life as only that aspect of your consciousness that is wise?


Kelly

.

Sschaula wrote:

Kevin wrote:
Adult women might understand more than young children, but not a lot more.

Last night I was watching a documentary about women who were hardcore sex workers (extreme abuse, etc). They had no idea why they did what they did.

One quote I remember from one woman: "Women will keep providing pornography, without knowing why."

I agree with what you've said here. We must ask this though: do men know "why"? It seems that adult men and women are on the same level of innocence, or "childishness". It's not as if men are the only sexual creatures...women have sexual urges too. And it's not as if most adults of either sex fully comprehend what they're doing. The implications of the act. Most adults have sex without thinking of it...that's why the divorce rate is so high.

Yes, both sexes are sexual creatures, but the difference is that woman is 100% emotion driven, so that sex is just a natural part of her nature - whereas man uses sex to take short ‘holidays’ from the rest of his mind. Therefore, the degree of man’s sexual component depends on his other values. For example: if he values filling his life with distractions, courting and sex will play a major role. On the other hand, if he values developing his mind, sex will be a minor activity.

That being said, adult women don't have the minds of children.

Children are highly impressionable, as are women. The reason for this is that they do not possess enough consciousness to be able to discriminate effectively, and instead rely heavily on their emotional attachment to more conscious men to get through life.

You are absolutely correct when you say they "might understand more than young children, but not a lot more." We should also say the same for our own gender.

It is true that most men are little more than women themselves, and therefore hardly ever consider the consequences of their actions. But there remains a distinct difference between these men and women in general – and that is because men's more developed consciousness makes them capable of reflection. They can look inside themselves, question their motives, and consider the consequences of their actions. Women can’t do this, for they do not possess an inner life.

Now...linking a woman's mind to the mind of a child should not happen. As adults, we learn to deal with the things we've grown up with...to accept them as the way things are. Both men and women grow up with sex, and feelings we have about it, and we have to deal with it and eventually accept it. But a child hasn't dealt with it yet. To impose an adult's conceptions about sex onto a blank slate causes harm. Just look at anyone who's been sexually abused as a child...they turn out differently than a child raised without that.

Having sex with a fully grown woman doesn't cause such horrible things to happen to her mind.

Women and children live using an extremely low level of consciousness. They depend greatly upon the mercy and assistance given them by the more conscious men who direct their lives. When men mistreat or injure women and children, they are forced, because they are conscious, to take complete responsibility for their actions, and suffer accordingly. The abused and used underlings don’t suffer in the same way as the men who wronged them, for they only experience life in the most superficial way, and therefore all events are of equal significance.

-
Sue

cosmic_prostitute wrote:Nick wrote:

He's not separating himself from nature in the manner you are thinking. He's explaining how nature has no cares either way.

No but Quinn cares either way because he would like to see technology develop the fetus over women because he has the ideal that humans will someday be free from sexual desire. I am simply pointing out that he cares as do I, I think it is more intelligent for the fetus to be raised within the human body.

I wasn't arguing whether DQ or anyone else has any cares. What I'm saying is the totality itself has no cares. The totality is unconscious, making something like caring an impossibility.

cosmic_prostitute wrote:Nick wrote:

Whatever happens, happens, nature simply is. The reason for the referring to nature as a female is because they are both unconscious entities.

I suppose it depends on what you define Nature as.

I’m suggesting that nature isn’t an unconscious entity. For instance: we have gone from single celled bacteria to multicelluar organisms to fish to reptiles to mammals to human beings. So we see higher jumps in complexity, this doesn’t seem like an unconscious process, it seems like a highly intelligent process.

For the record I define nature as the Totality, God, and/or the Universe. More to the point, although evolution seems to create more complex ogranisms over time, there are still many instances where nature simplifies itself. An example of a of this in the manner we are speaking would be a mass extinction. Complexity is always fluctuacting. Also, I still don't understand your reasoning behind the idea of increasing atomic comlexity having to be driven by consciousness. Cause and effect, an unconscious event(s), is constanlty increasing and decreasing the complexity of all things within nature.

cosmic_prostitute wrote:Nick wrote:

Also, how did you come to the conclusion that nature cares to begin with?

It does seem that nature/universe is striving for greater order, perfection and harmony.

What do you see as an infinite example of nature striving for perfection? Certaintly when an organism becomes conscious they can strive for perfection, but eventually that consciousness comes to an end. Like I said earlier, the structure of things within the totalitly are always changing. This means complexity, and pretty much any other attribute of all finite things is constantly fluctuating.

cosmic_prostitute wrote:And there is no nature separate from god and there is no god separate from entities cooperating with each other.

Yes, everything within the totality is just one tiny piece of the God machine working in perfect harmony. Again this begs the question; how can there be a striving by the unconscious totality (striving necessarily being a conscious effort) for perfection, especially when perfection is all there is?

sue hindmarsh wrote:[The abused and used underlings don’t suffer in the same way as the men who wronged them, for they only experience life in the most superficial way, and therefore all events are of equal significance.

-
Sue

I wouldn't go as far as saying all events are equal in significance to women and children. Through their attachment to more conscious men, they can see that he does assign different amounts of significance to events. This allows the woman or child to copy his methods and assign varying amounts of significance to individual events or entities. Even though they aren't consciously creating this significance on their own, they still end up regarding events with different levels of significance.

Of course if no men were around to set an example of what higher consciousness is capable of, woman's lower level of consciousness would view all events (with the exception of death) with similiar significance. Even animals like elephants are conscious enough to sense the greater significance in the death of their kin, compared to other events.

sschaula wrote:Kelly,

Now you're sounding kind of desperate...for some attention from David. You seem jealous of Sue.

My exploration of this topic is exactly about dealing with sexual attachment, which is driven by the biological instinct to reproduce and bond with sexual mates. It's not by chance that such attachments are deconstructed, Scott. Being explicit about the reasoning used by philosopher-types is the whole purpose of my questioning of David.

Females and males both have deep-ingrained instincts to move up the ranks, to ensure their own blood-line is continued. Any jealousy, hatred, murderousness, admiration, lust, etc. comes from this urge. So it is inevitable for anyone still deluded by egotism (which drives the urge for sexual reproduction) to experience rank-concerns.

For instance, if I were a gorilla, and the Genius Forum was a gorilla group, I'd be sitting around Sue grooming her, and fondling her babies, because she'd be the top-ranking female. Associating with her would mean I'd be more likely to rank higher, and get copulation opportunities.

Males in the tribe are tolerated if they share the big man's bloodline (his values). That's where any aggressive rivalry would come from in the forum.

My interest is not to challenge Sue's status, but to get a grip on the basic methods used to deconstruct sexual attachment.

If it is correct, then it is a terrible fate you've chosen for biological females: they get no assistance unless you fuck and impregnate them.

Scott: This seems like you're trying to ask David to help you, or at least understand why he hasn't yet. I hope you can get past this, if it's the case.

I am clarifying the issues that are rarely discussed on this forum. Typically misogyny is mistaken as men's education, or for males only, without being explicit as to the nitty-gritty of how females become masculine. As far as I can see, Sue has been scratching the surface.

What happened to David's projected second part, Psychology of the Ego, of The Wisdom of the Infinite? Why doesn't Sue write about her psychotherapy and thought-processes? Why doesn't Dan write about what it's like to continue to live with a female, and Kevin about his reasoning for and experiences of "marriage" to another? I'm damned if I submit to this lack of honesty about one's existential development on the subject of love.


Kelly

I should add that I don't think writing to the forum has the necessary weight as an essay. It's too easy for the precious words to be lost in pages of unreferenced chatter.

Kevin's Misogyny Unlimited is too limited.

.

Took a few days, Kelly, but I am glad I left it to you to stretch out the monkey's tail. I knew it would happen. You had been groomin' too long.

HHAHHAHAHHhaHAHHHHAAAAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAAA!!!!!!!!!!!

. . . but to get a grip on the basic methods used to deconstruct sexual attachment.

There's no trick. You shouldn't focus on "deconstructing" anything, since that which you are seeking to deconstruct is an illusion.

Rather, simply focus on Truth and love the Truth with all your heart. No complicated deconstruction required.

FOCUS ON THE TRUTH. Forget about all the lies. JUST FOCUS ON THE TRUTH. Skip over the lies. FOCUS ON THE TRUTH. Please, don't bring up the lies. JUST FOCUS ON THE TRUTH.

HHHAHHAAAAHHAHHAAAAAHHAHHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAA!!!!

Groom on you crazy monkey.

HAHAHAHHAHAAAAAHHHHAHHAH!!!

ETC.

The hypocrisy kills me. Always has.

Faizi

Kelly wrote:

Personally, woman is represented variously, ie. madam big-tits, or blossoming school-girl, or ; but philosophically, she is represented unvaryingly as the consort who stamps one with society's approval.

Yes, and that's precisely why she is so limited.

As a female, you might want to start exploring other ideas: like "men."

.

Glad you're back, Marsha.

MKFaizi wrote:Took a few days, Kelly, but I am glad I left it to you to stretch out the monkey's tail. I knew it would happen. You had been groomin' too long.

HHAHHAHAHHhaHAHHHHAAAAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAAA!!!!!!!!!!!

Is stretching the monkey's tail the same as eating the elephant? If so, I'm still as unenlightened as I was before. The major change is realising that the reason I get hyper-aroused during discussions (nervy), is because my subconscious reminds me that I'm likely to be screamed at, and back-handed, for "talking back".

.

PLEASE DON'T EXSPOSE ME!!! DON'T QUESTION!! LOVE THE TRUTH WITH ALL YOUR HEART AND DON'T EXPOSE ME FOR THE LIAR THAT I AM!!

HAHAHHAAAAHHAHHAHHAAAHhaHHAHHHHAAHHHAHHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Makes me want to throw up. PATHETIC.

Kelly wrote:

my subconscious reminds me that I'm likely to be screamed at, and back-handed, for "talking back".

Boo hoo. Get over it.

Faizi

Leyla Shen wrote:As a female, you might want to start exploring other ideas: like "men."

Wind sweeping through a savannah causes the grass-heads to bob and sway.

.

Rather than whining and backing off in retreat, why not own up to your accusations?

Stretching out the monkey's tail has nothing to do with eating the elephant.

You started off telling truth. So, tell it.

Come on. Stretch it out.

Kevin is telling you to ignore the lies in favor of truth.

Impossible.

Frankly, I wish Marsha's advice was plain and reasoned, instead of a hysterical scream from the ceiling. Ever seen Madagascan monkeys inside a suburban house, bouncing off walls?

ksolway wrote:

. . . but to get a grip on the basic methods used to deconstruct sexual attachment.

There's no trick. You shouldn't focus on "deconstructing" anything, since that which you are seeking to deconstruct is an illusion.

Rather, simply focus on Truth and love the Truth with all your heart. No complicated deconstruction required.

Kevin,

This "love" comes from understanding, which comes from having reasoned. Sexual attachment is so deep that the Truth cannot be focussed on purely, as long as this agitation has a hold over the subconscious.

Your timeless statements work for those who need to be calmed down with mantras. But it doesn't work for those who need to do tantra, and "fish for monsters in the soul".

Come on, have you something else to offer?


Kelly

MKFaizi wrote:Rather than whining and backing off in retreat, why not own up to your accusations?

Stretching out the monkey's tail has nothing to do with eating the elephant.

You started off telling truth. So, tell it.

Come on. Stretch it out.

Kevin is telling you to ignore the lies in favor of truth.

Impossible.

I wish you'd stop using silly animal metaphors.

Understanding the folly of rank-chasing and preening each other's coats is nothing to get excited about. It's piddly psychology.

Behaving like an out-of-control cannon, and shooting everyone down in distrust, is not the same as egolessness.

Tell me, if you write so often, and rather excitedly, "Get over it", then doesn't that say you haven't ?

.

MKFaizi wrote:K: my subconscious reminds me that I'm likely to be screamed at, and back-handed, for "talking back".

Marsha: Boo hoo. Get over it.

That's the same approach you're criticising Kevin for. Get over it. It's truly horrible advice to anyone who was abused as a child by parents who taught that power is the solution to all problems.

Do you really think that is the solution, Marsha?

"Don't think about it, ignore it, get over it, put on a happy face, the world will never change, we've heard it all before, shut up and go away, etc."

Why don't you stop using exactly the same method as these power-mongering infantile animals, and start proactively reasoning to create a different solution? Namely, take individuality out of the role of fighting the jungle, and into the role of reasoning about absolute truths - that are the same for all people?


Kelly

.