GENIUS FORUMS

.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:My mother was insane. Many women I met growing up were quite daffy. Between my mother's conclusions, the teachings of the nuns at Catholic school, and the only compliment I remember getting as a child (when I was four years old, my father's father said to my father about me "I like her, she thinks like a man") I thought that everything about men was right, and everything about women was wrong. Both of my parents were severely abusive, but there was always the chance that I could please my father if only I were perfect, and I learned quickly that meant the perfect female (so I learned the quickest way to please a man is to get him a beer). The only females I associated with were those who did not tend to get along with females.

My exhusband was a very old-fashioned man who was unusual enough that he woke me up to the reality that men are not perfect just for being men, and it is not always women that cause a man to display ugly behaviors. In fact, I gained so much of a change of mind about men that I did not think that I could ever be romantically interested in anyone again. It was during that time that I finally realized that most women are not as crazy as my mother was, and developed friendships with females.

Apon re-learning that there are plenty of daffy women out there, but with the new realization that there are plenty of male psychopaths out there, I learned to evaluate people individually and with the chronic understanding that people can and do learn better behavior. Historical information on how each individual behaves does not get erased immediatly, but I have seen poeple grow and consider the present the most, the recent behavior second, and old history can be discounted to mostly irrelevant data. I have more often seen females grow, but that does not mean that men do not have growth potential, nor do I assume that just because I personally have not seen many (actually, practically any) males grow in maturity, I am not assuming that males have a maturity growth deficiency.

I think you've got an eye for it that could be developed, you just need to keep pushing till you see the common thread in typical female behaviour and typical male behaviour.


.

Hi Dan

I thought I'd reply to some of what you wrote.

Dan Rowden wrote:I don't think any qualifiers are necessary when speaking about men and women. "Most" is too nebulous and vague to mean anything; "all" isn't accurate because one cannot know what the situation is for all women. I think all one needs to do is say "women" or "men".

Yes I know this. What I object to is the theatrical exaggeration of 'every woman', 'no woman', etc used for effect.

Yes, men form groups. They form them for specific purposes often to do with matters of social justice.

Or drinking, playing sports, brawling & the odd gang-bang. Get real.

Your version of things is incoherent.

Is everyone just supposed to take your word for it? Do you think that simply stating an opposing view is some kind of argument?

Shardrol:
But there's also a certain male culture -- of animalistic sex, drinking & brawling -- & that grosses me out as well.

Dan:
Have you seen how modern women behave? Anyway, men get involved in brawling less than you might think, but yes there is a male sub-culture that is like that.

Yes I've seen how women behave & I was not arguing that the stereotypical female culture is superior to the stereotypical male culture. How much do I think men get involved in brawling? Somehow you just know I must be wrong, is that it?

Shardrol:
There is too much of a double standard -- one for them, one for everybody else. They can use anecdotal evidence & we're supposed to take it as meaningful, but other people's use of anecdotal evidence is dismissed.

Dan:
That's not true, it's only dismissed if it's wrong.

What exactly does 'wrong' mean here? Not in agreement with your own empirical observations & anecdotal evidence?

Shardrol:
It's okay for David to enjoy Opeth & Dan to have a beer down at the pub, but I get points off for wearing colorful clothes & having a pet cat.

Dan:
Well, we get points off too. But it's not the behaviours that matter so much as how we view them. If one sees them as expressions of lingering karmic baggage and understands their delusional nature, then that's ok by me.

Why is it better to persist in behavior one knows to be delusional than to disagree about the nature of delusion?

Shardrol:
But the biggest mistake they make is their apparent conviction that because they believe themselves to have experienced unequivocal logically-proven enlightenment, that their empirical observations partake of that quality as well. They don't.

Dan:
Well, now you're being disingenuous. We don't hold that view at all. The certainty that exists in logic does not exist in empirically based data. We have always acknowledged this.

Then how can you say with such authority that my anecdotal evidence & empirical observations can be dismissed if they're 'wrong'?

Shardrol:
In terms of subjectivity we are all looking through our own eyes & what we see is determined by the shape of the lens. One of my favourite quotes is by Paul Simon, from his song 'The Boxer': a man hears what he wants to hear & disregards the rest -- man here meaning 'person' -- I feel I should make that clear. David & Kevin & Dan are no less prone to this than any of the rest of us.

Dan:
You're more than welcome to believe that, but it's merely an assertion. You'd have to actually demonstrate the falsity of our statements about the feminine and how it manifests for it to be more than an insubstantive assertion.

As you would have to demonstrate the incoherence of my argument which you so labeled above, rather than merely assert it.

The reason you come to different conclusions is that you start out with different premises, different criteria for inference and interpretation of empirical data.

About this we can agree.

Shardrol:
This is merely logic. I like logic. But the forum moderators, who make a passionate case for logic & reason & rationality, will, when it suits them, make a passionate case for their own subjectivity or their own deliberate exaggerations.

Dan:
I don't see any exaggeration in what we say. You only do because you see the reality of the issue differently.

This translates to 'you only disagree because you don't agree with us'.

Shardrol:
I have met women who seem to me to be enlightened.

Dan:
Well, you know what I think about your self professed ability to discern enlightenment in others.

I didn't say I could discern it with 100% accuracy. I said that it was possible to feel a hint of it in the same way as you or Kevin or David might have felt a hint of it in the writings of Hakuin or Kierkegaard, for example.

Shardrol:
I know of women who are not interested in relationships.

Dan:
Yes, they probably own cats.

Owie owie owie! I meant relationships, full stop.

Shardrol:
I don't have relationships with them, obviously, but I've heard & read about yoginis who practiced alone in caves for 13 years or female hermits who lived in the middle of the woods with no human contact.

Dan:
I've also read about Santa.

I guess this would be a cutesy way of saying you don't believe such women exist.
.

Elizabeth, you asked:

What if all that needs to be given up is that which you do not need anyway?

You then supplied an answer to that question by saying:

Wisdom provides everything one needs, and any giving up is merely like the disposal of waste.

What do you consider “Wisdom” to be? What and how does it “provide everything one needs”? Also, can you give some examples of “waste”?

-
Sue

Sue,

I'm sorry it took so long for me to notice your questions to me.

You asked "What do you consider “Wisdom” to be? "

IMO, wisdom is the awareness and judgment of what is best, and the application of that awareness and judgment to produce optimal results. There are levels of wisdom which may manifest in scope (what is best for the self, what is best for the individual's group, or what is best for the Totality) or specialty, but the greater the scope and the more diverse the genres of wisdom, the greater the overall wisdom.

You asked "What and how does it 'provide everything one needs'?"

By having the awareness and judgment of what is best, and the applying that awareness and judgment to produce optimal results, the optimal results would include everything that one really needs.

You asked "Also, can you give some examples of 'waste'? "

Sure. Lets say that a child is ougrowing his toys, or an adult notices that there are a number of items that have not been used in quite some time (things that served a purpose when they were obtained, or that were given to the adult but not really needed). A wise person differentiates between what is still needed and what is not, and donates or throws away (as appropriate) what is no longer needed. The wise person no longer bears the responsibility of these unneeded items. The wise person has given up what is in fact, waste. The Totality then rewards the wise person with an uncluttered environment. Wisdom has provided more time (not having to clean or care for these items) and more peace of mind. The donated items then (optimally) go to good use by someone else. Thus the wise person has benefited the Totality especially in regards to himself and to the recipient of his donated goods.

Another waste would be association with people who are not appropriate friends. One may think they are giving up their friends, but if their friends are emotionally distressing to them, are always in need, or in some way are more of a drain than a reciprocant, "giving up" such a friendship would be more like disposing of waste. Such a friendship could be recycled if the person were to become no longer a drain, so "waste" in this instance refers to the unhealthy relationship - not the person him or herself.

Elizabeth wrote:

You asked "What do you consider “Wisdom” to be? "

IMO, wisdom is the awareness and judgment of what is best, and the application of that awareness and judgment to produce optimal results. There are levels of wisdom which may manifest in scope (what is best for the self, what is best for the individual's group, or what is best for the Totality) or specialty, but the greater the scope and the more diverse the genres of wisdom, the greater the overall wisdom.

What are you basing your judgment of “what is best” upon?
What are “genres of wisdom”?

You asked "What and how does it 'provide everything one needs'?"

By having the awareness and judgment of what is best, and the applying that awareness and judgment to produce optimal results, the optimal results would include everything that one really needs.

I don't know what you are basing this "judgment" on. It could be that you're using faulty thinking and lies - which could mean that you are doing great harm and don't even know it. Are you certain that "the best you are doing" is in accordance with Truth?

You asked "Also, can you give some examples of 'waste'? "

Sure. Lets say that a child is ougrowing his toys, or an adult notices that there are a number of items that have not been used in quite some time (things that served a purpose when they were obtained, or that were given to the adult but not really needed). A wise person differentiates between what is still needed and what is not, and donates or throws away (as appropriate) what is no longer needed. The wise person no longer bears the responsibility of these unneeded items. The wise person has given up what is in fact, waste. The Totality then rewards the wise person with an uncluttered environment. Wisdom has provided more time (not having to clean or care for these items) and more peace of mind. The donated items then (optimally) go to good use by someone else. Thus the wise person has benefited the Totality especially in regards to himself and to the recipient of his donated goods.

Another waste would be association with people who are not appropriate friends. One may think they are giving up their friends, but if their friends are emotionally distressing to them, are always in need, or in some way are more of a drain than a reciprocant, "giving up" such a friendship would be more like disposing of waste. Such a friendship could be recycled if the person were to become no longer a drain, so "waste" in this instance refers to the unhealthy relationship - not the person him or herself.

Yes, I can see how getting rid of bits and bobs that clutter up your environment, along with breaking off with friends that you don’t really like anymore could be useful. What I don’t see is how any of this has anything to do with Wisdom.

-
Sue

Sue,

Ultimate Truth is very results-orientated. Essentially, if it works, it is True. Experience, not just my experience but the experiences of all beings throughout time, shows what principles have proven themselves True repeatedly. Knowing and living in alignment with Truth is wisdom.

Genres of wisdom reflect a way that some people handle the fact that no one can know everything, and some people have talents that others do not. One may be a wise trader, in that this person knows how volatility effects the pricing of an option, what fundamentals to look for and what weight to place on each, how to forecast the market, when to short or long or whether to stick with covered calls - that sort of thing. The wise trader then watches for the correct buy signals, and patiently waits until they happen. An unwise trader either doesn't know what he is doing or doesn't have the patience and emotional detachment to stick with his rules. The unwise trader then loses everything he owns. But that is only one genre of wisdom - a wise trader may not be a wise farmer in that he may not know how to plant, care for, and harvest a crop. The unwise farmer then does not have a viable crop - and also loses the farm. The broader the areas of wisdom - such as critical thinking skills, plus the more genres of wisdom, the wiser a person can be considered to be.

No one can know everything, and it is not even necessary. Since we only have a limited amount of time and mental resources, it is actually unwise to devote too much time to areas that are not part of our mission. I may need to be able to use my car, but I don't need to know exactly how the fuel injector system works to make my car go. Learning emotional detachment from options trading helped me gain a new perspective on what really is or is not important, or even necessary in life. I may feel that is a useless activity as far as being a contribution to the world, but it affords me the opportunity of not living off of government handouts (which actually I qualify for, but do not take) because to me it is more ethical to do what I can to at least try to support myself rather than becoming a direct burden on society. In a small scope of wisdom it would be wiser for me to just take my handout and not bother anybody, as that would be what would benefit me the most. I subscribe to a larger scope of wisdom where I do what is best for society by doing what is better for more people than just myself (even if it's just trying to support myself without taking advantage of a mandated burden placed on others).

Sue wrote:

I don't know what you are basing this "judgment" on. It could be that you're using faulty thinking and lies - which could mean that you are doing great harm and don't even know it. Are you certain that "the best you are doing" is in accordance with Truth?

How can I be sure of anything except that whatever I do will be in accordance with Truth? Even if I do terribly then my results will be terrible, which would be in accordance with Truth. I can only do what appears to be the best course of action to me (as selected by inference from historical data, and measured against my ethics of the greatest good for the Overall), check from as many angles as possible that things are going well, and if they are not, correct my course of action so things are going well again.

By looking and analyzing, it is less likely that I will do great harm without even knowing it. The risk:reward ratio becomes better for the universe. The only way for me to not risk doing harm without knowing it is to just shoot myself now. I could be using faulty thinking and my judgments could be based on lies, but by keeping watch over the outcome, Reality indicates whether or not I am on the right path. By killing myself, I would guarantee that I would not do any further harm, but I would also guarantee that I could not be of any further use to anyone. Therefore it is logical to simply assess the effectiveness of what I am doing under various circumstances, repeat the circumstances that bring the most helpful results and eliminate (or minimize if elimination is impossible) the circumstances that bring harmful results.

Recognizing the possibility that my life has not only not been worth the effort, but that others would be better off without me would be recognizing one aspect of Reality, but it would be a negative aspect. Since we each only have limited time, a better use of my time is to consider how I can best be useful while not being a burden, to effect that course of action, and to verify with what resources I have that I am in fact on the right track. I have a history of accomplishing more when operating from a positive paradigm than a negative one, and that recognition is part of acceptance of Reality.

I can operate from a positive paradigm and remain realistic and objective. I (obviously) do not deny the negative or unpleasant aspects of Reality, but I don’t get fatalistic over them. I recognize that a positive mindset accomplishes more than a negative mindset – in my experience and the experiences of a great many others.

In contrast Sue, you seem to operate from a negative paradigm. You focus more on the negative aspects of Reality. You seem to covertly try to suck the joy out of others lives by calling any positive action part of the ego, deny the wisdom of being effective in one’s life, and flat out call love a lie. Just because sometimes horny guys lie about love (especially as teenagers), or sometimes have quite a different definition of love (especially as teenagers), does not make all kinds of love a lie. Anything joyous, you shoot down and try to come off like you’re doing it for the good of Truth, Reality, or Wisdom. That is wrong. You are being a pessimistic grinch trying to covertly take away the happiness of others because you have not been successful at growing any of your own.

To operate in accordance with Truth and Wisdom is to be happy. Unhappiness results from not enough understanding of the Truth or of having too much untruth in one’s life. You spread untruth into other's lives by denying the wisdom of happiness, and even I started to fall into your trap. You are a sly one Sue, but I understand the real Truth regarding thinking and emotions.

In contrast Sue, you seem to operate from a negative paradigm.

When I first joined this forum, I could not understand her rationale either, however, after reflection on her negative comments concerning my behavior, I was determined to see myself from her point of view. She is negative, but she is a light bulb in those areas that you choose to avoid. You may even choose to disagree with her opinion, but it does make you stop to think about your motives.

I had an opportunity to “see” myself in another person, who was actually a male. At first, I used my “womanly” ways to be rid of his silliness, but he just didn’t get it. So the logical, realist came out in me and stopped it once and hopefully for all. It was as if I had déjà vu, and all things Sue had said to me about me became glaringly real as I saw it in him.

As to the moderators, if they are truly detached from all things, they may see certain flawed behavioral patterns in women, but men can be just as flawed if they are not detached thinkers…they just hide it better. I think in some respects that women are more honest about their weaknesses if asked, but even the weakest man would never admit the same. If this is a flaw, I would rather have it and be closer to the truth than to hide in the shadows of untruth.

I may be a typical woman, but I do know that even “typical” woman have varying degrees of typified behavior. I know because I absolutely do not fit in with these groups of women nor would I ever desire to do so. Women, as a rule, are very demanding and draining. It takes a tremendous amount of effort to maintain a friendship, an effort that is not worth the time and energy. Further, you have to assume a role and cannot just be who you are. Men are more prone to take you at face value as long as there is no ulterior motive afoot. They are a little more interesting, but not much. I find that people, both men and women, who “think”, are rare…most skulk through life unaware.

passthrough wrote:When I first joined this forum, I could not understand her rationale either, however, after reflection on her negative comments concerning my behavior, I was determined to see myself from her point of view. She is negative, but she is a light bulb in those areas that you choose to avoid.

Sue is not completely mindless. Actually I see something quite interesting, and if you look closely enough perhaps you can see my perspective.

Closely examine David's philosophy. If you can fish through the convoluted vocabulary (that it seems he chose intentionally to stir debate), he does have some good points. Sue does follow David's philosophy (so she will have some good points as well) but she also personifies the trappings.

David used language to explain his philosophy that he knew would be inciteful (pun not intended, but noted), but mitigated the personal impact with statements that showed that he loved rather than hated women but also provided low-hanging fruit for those who were not – as he would put it - “masculine-minded” enough to climb to the higher branches of wisdom. Sue juggles the low-hanging fruit while standing under the tree. She will also sling the fruit at anyone who gets too close to the tree. (I'm glad you liked the fruit)

This creates a fascinating feed-back loop as Sue plays out everything David says, being both a follower and “evidence” that he is right by performing everything that he supposes. How femininely affirming.

David used language to explain his philosophy that he knew would be inciteful (pun not intended, but noted)

His forum might be obliviated into obscurity without it. Think about college. I absolutely hated anthropology and sociology, and yet for my degree, it was required that I take them. We had a professor teaching the class who knew of my nature and deliberately prodded me by making assertions to enliven debate, otherwise, the class would have been incredibly dull.

I'm not all together sure I agree with David's philosophy, but if he thinks himself a teacher, he and Sue, as well, are prodding their students to think. If one is to seek union with God, one must see themselves as they truly are to even begin to rid themselves of the baggage they carry. I don't really care about the rest of the confederation of women...or men. What is necessary is to strip myself of all pretentions and figure out my own philosophy.

but mitigated the personal impact with statements that showed that he loved rather than hated women but also provided low-hanging fruit for those who were not – as he would put it - “masculine-minded” enough to climb to the higher branches of wisdom.

I'm glad he "loves" women, because a forum full of men who think alike would be less than active. I think that if David did not want women on the forum, he could get rid of them a lot easier...at least those who didn't have the stomach for countering his arguments...which is what I think he means by "passion".

At this point, I am grabbing for the low-hanging fruit, but I am not settling with his nor anyone else's philosophy. Whatever or whereever I end up will be what has been revealed to me, for to rest on the limitations of what a human can perceive is not all there is. I have no proof, so don't ask. I just keep reading.

Currently, I am reading Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand...and although I see many more implications to her story than her point of Objectivism, they are stimulating an understanding of what should be considered "waste" within myself and discarded, but certainly not donated.

And, finally, no one is infallible. To incite others, is to also offer argument to your own theory. If someone comes along with a premise that causes his philosophical theory to fall short, he would be the first one to want to learn more about it. He is only enlightened to the degree that others are not more so to prove him incorrect.