GENIUS FORUMS

Ultimately, there is no sameness or oneness, either.

what are you implying.
that there's twoness.

these are merely conceptual distinctions and have no absolute reality.

not one, not two breaks the conceptual addiction.

Quinn actually says nothing exists,
the gateway to nirvana closes on any discrimination whatsoever.

Orenholt,

As Diebert recommended, I think you should cut back on the posts, and spend more time thinking. But for both of us to have recommended this, doesn't bode well.

Orenholt wrote:Why would she think that a woman's only value is in being female?

A female's capability for wisdom is typically nil, with nil effects in philosophy. That is, nil value: the value of being female.

It's true that most females stick to society's patterns but what you're denying/ignoring is that most men do too!

No, I didn't expect you to see what I was pointing to.

It is a woman's social role to be submissive and obedient most of the time and they are punished if they rebel.

Didn't stop Socrates, Jesus, Hui Neng, Weininger, Galileo. Nor has it held Sue or myself back.

Anyway, as if a philosopher gives a stuff about how others view them.

KJ: That you even value having a mate, let alone a perfect mate, reflects back on what Sue is saying about females having nothing to prove. They exist in relation to the others, to what society has established.

O: How does that mean that I have nothing to prove?

How can an individual, someone who thinks for themselves, traverses the ground for understanding on their own "thinking legs", have a mate --- even desire a mate? What possible psychological utility would a mate provide for someone who is fully competent and wise? It is only the person who is nothing in themselves, and who depends utterly for substance on others, who needs a mate.

KJ: you don't fully understand that, which the Genius Forum was created to promote: understanding what is ultimately real. That is what real philosophy is about. So it is extremely arrogant to jump to your conclusion about Sue's assessment of womanhood, without exploring your own lack of understanding of philosophy, and what it takes to make progress therein.

O: Ok so maybe I dismissed her a little quickly but why should I not? Why should I pay any more attention to her saying that women have no inward insight than to a random hobo yelling that Jesus is coming back?

"Why should I be wise?" said the fool.

Why do you assume that I am the one who lacks something?

I already explained this. I think you should stop posting, and spend some time thinking.


.

Orenholt wrote:Getoriks, please explain how that invalidates the following:

I don't mind some women being called unconscious, because some in fact are, but to make the word "woman" itself which already encompasses a certain group of people synonymous with "unconscious" when it doesn't apply to all people within that group and actually applies to some people outside of the group is inaccurate. You shouldn't call a woman unconscious just because she's a woman. Likewise you shouldn't say that a man is a woman just because he is unconscious.

Also, not to go off on a tangent but all humans are inescapably self serving.

It invalidates it because no one here (at least not any insightful or wise person here) ever once called a female unconscious just because she is female. In other words, no one here ever said that females as a group are unconscious. What they said was that women (cultural fictional idealized character) are unconscious, and that the vast majority of females embody this character. Therefore, it's not that females are inherently unconscious (which is why it is possible for females to become wise), it's that most females just so happen to currently be unconscious (because most females just so happen to embody woman).

But why is this woman character unconscious? Because she is unthinking. But why is that? Because men need to prove their worth, so they have to think. But women need not prove their worth, since they are already of worth, so they don't have to think. Most men are of very little but just enough worth, so they do very little thinking -- only enough to survive. These men are what Nietzsche called the Last Men -- comfortable with just collecting enough cheese for the winter and for retirement, but not really striving for anything, be it wisdom or even just excellence in relationships, sports, crafts, professions, etc.

---

It is true that there is no such thing as altruism, and that we are all self-serving. Indeed, if we do not see this, we will most definitely have a kind of philosophical haughtiness or spiritual avarice, which is very easy for others to detect! But the question is what kind of selfishness do we have? One that we do not see, which leads to self-centered aimlessness, or one that we do see, which leads to the transcending of the unreal, which frees us from the chaos of all delusion? Do we go on working for our self in the sense of always feeling justified in being annoyed and bothered by everything, or do we go on working for our self in the sense of giving up our knee-jerk reactions and self-righteous posturings? Do we work for ourselves by believing we have a self, or do we work for ourselves by realizing that what we call self is really just a bundle of conditionings, an aggregation of shifting moods and "personalities" which moves so quickly that it fools us into thinking that we have a unified consciousness?

Indeed, a spiritually wise person comes into contact with a large number of self-proclaimed "seekers" who are merely sanctimonious and dramatic emotionalists or sentimentalists who imagine that they actually understand deep spiritual truths because they have an airy-fairy feeling of "everything being so wonderful and fabulous". The teacher knows that spiritual potential and capability, let alone quality, neither can nor should be grafted onto such unsuitable "personalities". Yes, a spiritually wise person also comes into contact with a large number of self-proclaimed "adepts" who are merely self-congratulatory vanity praisers, self-impressed at having come to a few dozen logical answers and conclusions concerning philosophical and spiritual problems and questions, as if this series of stirrings in their sleep meant they were actually starting to wake up. These self-satisfied imposters must realize the full extent of their selfishness, for their own sake, for the sake of God, and for goodness sake.

"You have spent all your life in the belief that you are wholly devoted to others, and never self-seeking. Nothing so feeds self-conceit as this sort of internal testimony that one is quite free from self-love, and always generously devoted to one's neighbours. But all this devotion that seems to be for others is really for yourself. Your self-love reaches to the point of perpetual self-congratulation that you are free from it; all your sensitiveness is lest you might not be fully satisfied with self; this is at the root of all your scruples. It is the "I" which makes you so keen and sensitive. You want God as well as man to always be satisfied with you, and you want to be satisfied with yourself in all your dealings with God. Besides, you are not accustomed to be contented with a simple good will -- your self-love wants a lively emotion, a reassuring pleasure, some kind of charm or excitement. You are too much used to being guided by imagination and suppose that your mind and will are inactive if you are not conscious of their workings. And thus you are dependent upon a kind of excitement similar to that which the passions arouse, or theatrical representations. By dint of refinement you fall into the opposite extreme -- a real coarseness of imagination. Nothing is more opposed, not only to the life of faith, but also to true wisdom. There is no more dangerous illusion than the fancies by which people try to avoid illusion. It is imagination which leads us astray; and the certainty which we seek through imagination, feeling, and taste, is one of the most dangerous sources from which fanaticism springs. This is the gulf of vanity and corruption which God would make you discover in your heart; you must look upon it with the calm and simplicity belonging to true humility. It is mere self-love to be inconsolable at seeing one's own imperfections; but to stand face to face with them, neither flattering nor tolerating them, seeking to correct oneself without becoming petty -- this is to desire what is good for its own sake, and for God's."
- Francis Fenelon

Dennis Mahar wrote:

Ultimately, there is no sameness or oneness, either.

what are you implying.
that there's twoness.

these are merely conceptual distinctions and have no absolute reality.

not one, not two breaks the conceptual addiction.

Quinn actually says nothing exists,
the gateway to nirvana closes on any discrimination whatsoever.

Indeed. There can't be a twoness, and there can't be a oneness either, for to assert non-duality is to assert duality. Thus, conceptual non-distinction lacks absolute reality just as much as conceptual distinction does.

Kelly Jones wrote:

Orenholt wrote:Why would she think that a woman's only value is in being female?

A female's capability for wisdom is typically nil, with nil effects in philosophy. That is, nil value: the value of being female.

Ok let me see if I am getting this straight.
little or no philosophical value = the value of being female.
But why can we not say that it is the value of being the common man as well?
As I said to Diebert, I don't mind if we say that wisdom is of the "superman" but to say that it's simply of "men" in general isn't true.

It is a woman's social role to be submissive and obedient most of the time and they are punished if they rebel.

Didn't stop Socrates, Jesus, Hui Neng, Weininger, Galileo. Nor has it held Sue or myself back.
Anyway, as if a philosopher gives a stuff about how others view them.

That's true but it takes a good bit of courage and confidence and dedication to be a philosopher.
Just look at what happened to Socrates and Jesus. They were both killed.
Most people male or female wouldn't be willing to risk themselves for an ideal.

How can an individual, someone who thinks for themselves, traverses the ground for understanding on their own "thinking legs", have a mate --- even desire a mate? What possible psychological utility would a mate provide for someone who is fully competent and wise? It is only the person who is nothing in themselves, and who depends utterly for substance on others, who needs a mate.

Why would you think that I need a mate for those reasons?
I like having a mate for a number of unrelated reasons.
Sometimes I do get bored and horny and it's just convenient to find relief for those things in other people.

Why do you assume that I am the one who lacks something?

I already explained this. I think you should stop posting, and spend some time thinking.

I will read over some of the arguments again if it will satisfy you.

Getoriks wrote: It invalidates it because no one here (at least not any insightful or wise person here) ever once called a female unconscious just because she is female.

True, very true. BUT! They have called a male a female for being unconscious and a female a male for being conscious.

In other words, no one here ever said that females as a group are unconscious. What they said was that women (cultural fictional idealized character) are unconscious, and that the vast majority of females embody this character. Therefore, it's not that females are inherently unconscious (which is why it is possible for females to become wise), it's that most females just so happen to currently be unconscious (because most females just so happen to embody woman).

But they're using the same word for 2 different things.
1.) Woman, the biological female
2.) Woman, the unconscious people

Orenholt, taking a break from posting and going back to reading and thinking is not for satisfying Kelly or anyone here but yourself. You're the one who lacks the understanding. They're telling you to do some serious thinking for your own good, not theirs. They are not telling you to go away for good either -- simply, you're not getting what's being said. Relax, take it easy, and reconsider their messages. While you're at it, here are two questions in particular for you to ponder (and anyone else reading this thread who has the same frustration Orenholt has):

1. They are using the terms interchangeably. How come? Don't just say they are being intellectually dishonest, unscrupulous, or lazy. Think about this. How come they are using them so interchangeably?

2. The vast, vast majority of notable philosophers, and wise sages in particular, have been male. How come?

Thus, conceptual non-distinction lacks absolute reality just as much as conceptual distinction does.

concepts distinguish.
they don't not-distinguish.

orenholt 'gets' causality in her way.
what's the rush to kill her.

too much to handle.

there's no real reason why the sobriquet 'woman' is parlayed as unconsciousness.

Orenholt wrote: I don't mind if we say that wisdom is of the "superman" but to say that it's simply of "men" in general isn't true.

Pokémon avatar, Orenholt, really? ;)

In a world were everything is already baptized using some ideal form, it should not be such a big deal to say that we're all "from woman" as well as "under woman" and grow up to be "from man" and "over man". The problem is that an idea like "superman" has already been proven to become fertile grounds for racism and other divisions in the human race with way more dumbing effects in its wake. It's important not to place an idea too far beyond our familiar world and our ancestry as it would become "otherworldly". One could relate way easier to the simple gender division like all kids can and then discard what one feels is not relevant along the way. Of course that requires some level of self-determination.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

Orenholt wrote: I don't mind if we say that wisdom is of the "superman" but to say that it's simply of "men" in general isn't true.

Pokémon avatar, Orenholt, really? ;)

Lol yes. XD
Not to stray off topic but I chose this avatar because I feel like I can relate to the character of Mewtwo. (Mewtwo is genderless but his voice actor is male so I will call Mewtwo "he") He was betrayed by those that created him and decided to stand alone and destroy all those who opposed or wanted to control him. That's basically how I felt most of my childhood. But in the end Mewtwo becomes more enlightened about life. He says "I see now that the circumstances of one's birth are irrelevant. It is what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are." and I completely agree with that statement. :)

In a world were everything is already baptized using some ideal form, it should not be such a big deal to say that we're all "from woman" as well as "under woman" and grow up to be "from man" and "over man". The problem is that an idea like "superman" has already been proven to become fertile grounds for racism and other divisions in the human race with way more dumbing effects in its wake. It's important not to place an idea too far beyond our familiar world and our ancestry as it would become "otherworldly". One could relate way easier to the simple gender division like all kids can and then discard what one feels is not relevant along the way. Of course that requires some level of self-determination.

Just because some people take "superman" in the wrong way doesn't mean that the word itself is inapplicable.
Just because it's easier for men to relate to the gender division doesn't mean that it's a good idea. It may be easier for some people to relate to the race division. It wouldn't be right to say that the words "African Americans" are equal to the word "unconscious" would it? Explain to me how that's any different.

Getoriks wrote: 1. They are using the terms interchangeably. How come? Don't just say they are being intellectually dishonest, unscrupulous, or lazy. Think about this. How come they are using them so interchangeably?

I still have not come to a conclusion at to why it would be acceptable to use these words interchangeably because I do not think that it is acceptable. It does seem dishonest.

2. The vast, vast majority of notable philosophers, and wise sages in particular, have been male. How come?

My guess it that it is because males in general suffer differently or possibly more in life than females. Women are held to lower standards than men because people think they are not capable. Yes, men must do things to prove themselves such as being physically strong and hide their emotions. A man who is physically weak and cries is seen as being "feminine" because women are ALLOWED to do those things and they're basically trying to insult him because it is a social "fact" that women are not capable of being strong or controlling the appearance of their emotions. Men of course do get sad and feel like crying but because of social conditioning they do their best not to show it because if they did people would try to insult them by comparing them to the "inferior" females.

This suffering because of being held to higher standards makes them hold themselves to higher standards too. Men will look for ways to alleviate their suffering and this sometimes, in very rare cases, leads not to becoming a drunk, adulterer or compulsive gambler but to something more positive, the search for enlightenment.

This isn't to say that females have a completely easy life though. Much of the time females will have a very hard life but their suffering is different because they are not held to a higher standard. A woman may be beaten on a regular basis by her husband for not being submissive enough. That encourages her to be more submissive and she has learned that people respond differently when a woman cries than when a man does. She may use her tears as a weapon whether consciously or unconsciously. So instead of saying "No! I am not your slave!" She makes herself more pitiful to appeal to his emotions of empathy because she feels she has no hope of escaping or being independent because all her life people have told her she isn't capable so she believes it. (Not to mention she is probably afraid of being beaten again.)

Orenholt isn't really going to be able to correctly and truthfully observe the differences in psychology between the sexes as long as her knowledge of the fundamentals of philosophy/enlightenment aren't at least somewhat solid. As she firmly believes that the ego is a fundamental characteristic of consciousness, there really is hardly any reason for her to observe any conclusive evidence that women are at any disadvantage.

In fact, all that these conversations can lead to is a conclusion involving an unconscious, baseless, scornful attitude towards women on our part based on our past experiences.

To Orenholt, I think you should really consider if being here while holding this view is really worth your time. Many of the members here have been holding their views for over a decade, and it's obvious that you're pretty green when it comes to these matters. You seem intelligent enough, but steadfast in your attachments. A lot more reading and reflecting, here and elsewhere, would do you some good. Try to figure out why philosophers, not just here but all around the world, view the ego as an enemy of enlightenment.

Russell wrote:Orenholt isn't really going to be able to correctly and truthfully observe the differences in psychology between the sexes as long as her knowledge of the fundamentals of philosophy/enlightenment aren't at least somewhat solid. As she firmly believes that the ego is a fundamental characteristic of consciousness, there really is hardly any reason for her to observe any conclusive evidence that women are at any disadvantage.

I do admit that women are at a disadvantage! I just explained in my post to Getoriks why there are more enlightened men than women. I'm just saying it's not right to make the words synonymous.

It still stands that your views on the ego will continue to thwart any potential for progress if you want to see where David and others are coming from.

Russell wrote:It still stands that your views on the ego will continue to thwart any potential for progress if you want to see where David and others are coming from.

I don't see how that view of mine "corrupts" this view of mine.
The only thing that I've really said about the ego is that it seeks satisfaction and that an intelligent person uses its "wanting" to "seek" long term satisfaction.

Yes, you don't understand because you don't understand.

Again,

A lot more reading and reflecting, here and elsewhere, would do you some good. Try to figure out why philosophers, not just here but all around the world, view the ego as an enemy of enlightenment.

Russell wrote:A lot more reading and reflecting, here and elsewhere, would do you some good. Try to figure out why philosophers, not just here but all around the world, view the ego as an enemy of enlightenment.

But I already know the reason.
It comes from the idea in Buddhism of the "four noble truths".

Then surely enlightenment, and the path to enlightenment, is meaningless to you, if cessation of egotism is impossible (as you've asserted). Which causes one to wonder what motive you have in being here.

Russell wrote:Then surely enlightenment, and the path to enlightenment, is meaningless to you, if cessation of egotism is impossible (as you've asserted). Which causes one to wonder what motive you have in being here.

I believe that one can become enlightened while still having an ego.
And because someone suggested this forum to me.

I believe that one can become enlightened while still having an ego.

Well many of us that you have been talking to will claim otherwise. And I assure you, you won't understand, nor agree on the woman issue as long as you remain in such a position.

OK, assuming that I give up the idea that one can be enlightened and still have an ego at the same time, how would that change my position on the other?

how would that change my position on the other?

You won't know until you first understand why we can't be egotistical and enlightened at the same time. Many of us have gone at length on some of the reasons to you already, but by all appearances, it's going to take a lot more reading and reflecting on your part for you to really conclude this for yourself.

I know that's not what you wanted to hear, but that's all I can tell you at this point.

Orenholt wrote:I believe that one can become enlightened while still having an ego.

Can you remind me how you're defining enlightenment?

Orenholt wrote:Just because some people take "superman" in the wrong way doesn't mean that the word itself is inapplicable.

I guess you answered your own question then in the end. If only you could apply it!

Dan Rowden wrote: Can you remind me how you're defining enlightenment?

Being free of delusion, not desire.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: I guess you answered your own question then in the end. If only you could apply it!

I know that you guys are meaning "men" in a different sense, I'm just saying that it's not right to use the same word for both. :(
"Superman" doesn't automatically mean something racial.
And you didn't answer me on how using race rather than gender is different.

Orenholt wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote: Can you remind me how you're defining enlightenment?

Being free of delusion, not desire.

So, in psychological terms, what do you call the part of us that holds to the notion of an "I", an inherently extant self that experiences loss and gain and from which all sorts of desire emanates? That's we I call call "ego". But what do you call it?