GENIUS FORUMS

Beingof1 wrote:A woman needs to know a man would care for her and give himself as a sacrifice if needed. A woman is only deeply attracted to unconditioned love of deep caring. Again; if she can clear the cloud in her mind long enough that is full of fantasy men.

Would this knowledge change anything? One can only hope she would feel bad about invoking such sacrificial yet still instinctual drive in another human being. This is why an unclouded mind would make her essentially masculine, as she stops being an ideal for as well men as herself, and the world, while she has now wisdom, clarity, as ideal and completing lover.

Feel i should explain. I as "enlightenedgenius" generously left a few thoughts here recently about women topics, but all was gone including myself from this forum within a day or so. So not sure who read it, who responded, but do accept my apology if feeling ignored it was not my doing.
Now im "awakeninggenius" and hope to last a bit longer. Do see my introductory post in GENIUS forum.

Geez, im disrespected quite enough over here, didnt expect it on this somewhat impressive forum. Perhaps it was a fluke or mistake, computer glitch. Oh well, "seven times seventy" right?

I felt that i followed the rules, but with ksolway not responding to my plea for explanation im just left to guess, i guess.

Anyway until i hear from the boss or bosses Ill refrain from suggesting that its totally useless for these women here to write a single word here in this forum really helps no one.

EGG

Kunga wrote:Isn't following the rules herd mentality ?

Creating, respecting and seeing the value in rules and law is a hallmark of consciousness, provided the rules and laws are good, and also provided that your reasons for using the rules are good. Rules can be misused, but just as easily, a lack of rules can be misused. The herd mentality is largely driven by oblivious animal lust, paying heed to rules mainly because they are coerced or frightened, rather than being truly principled, appreciative and respectful. Capitalism(freedom) left unregulated leads to blind, competitive consumerism, so the more conscious members of society value restraints to preserve the good, and hence we have socialist elements introduced.

It's quite telling to contrast the pastime of shopping or eating (entirely unabstract and visceral, often a medium to throw rules out the window and consume to ones hearts content) to the pastime of sports, where the game is relatively abstract, a symbol for life, with an emphasis on a relative inhibition of desire and working around rules. Even higher are the endeavors of science or philosophy, where respect for law is primary. Art is a mixed bag, where the least conscious prefer to make a big mess and call it art, while greater artists are disciplined, and hard working, paying close attention to boundaries, harmony, relationship and form.

@Carmel, Kunga et alii:

http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x43/ ... theman.jpg

Diebert:
All choice is action, too. But in the way I employed the term the only actual action lies in transformation.

Carmel:
That's true in a a sense...it's a rising, transcending or letting go of that which is false, but I also see it as a standing still and letting the lies and delusions drop off, shrink and eventually fade away into the nothingness that they are...what is left to manifest is truth, but you are right to say that this requires a transformation.

Diebert:
Any other case would be called repeat, copy or reflex (recoil). All wise choices are action by this definition. All ignorance is unconscious and therefore reflex and doomed to repeat.

Carmel:
...and it does, repeat an repeat and repeat in the unconscious individual. That can clearly be seen in the repetitive mantra of the misogynist. He is like a blind child who keeps riding the same broken ferris wheel and is constantly going nowhere. Perhaps, he just likes the soothing motion of it...

Quel dommage.

Diebert:
Rarity is part of its very nature. And it's rare for a woman to "be rare", as it is too tempting to be mundane, to give up, to yield, to flow, looking for specialty through props or audience instead.

Carmel:
It is rare for anyone. You need look no further than this forum to witness that. The weak mindness individuals here easily succumb to the group dynamics exchanging truth for approval and a little injection to the ego...as you say "reflex" and "repeat".

Diebert:
But one can escape what others want you to be.

Carmel:
One certainly can escape what others want us to be, but this requires a level of introspection, courage and self honesty that most people simply don't possess.

"Have you exchanged, a walk on part on the wall, for a lead role in a cage" ~Pink Floyd

...and that is exactly what is happening here. Some of the members here are attached to women through either lust, envy or hate. It is truly incredulous what lengths people will go through to escape their own freedom. They don't know that freedom starts in the mind, but instead they live like caged animals, not knowing that only they, themselves possess the key to unlock the door and free themselves...

Carmel wrote: Some of the members here are attached to women through either lust, envy or hate.

Love too... can't forget love...

That's true, but I may have covered that with "lust"! I tend to view "romantic love" and "lust" as being so similiar in nature, that the two words are essentially synonomous.

From my view, the only "real love" is that which exists in the form of "agape".

Carmel wrote:That's true, but I may have covered that with "lust"! I tend to view "romantic love" and "lust" as being so similiar in nature, that the two words are essentially synonomous.

I think it best to say romantic love encompasses lust.

Back to your original point though about members being attached to women; I think men, not just here but everywhere, express their attachment to woman through love, while women express their attachment to woman through envy. Rare is the attachment to woman expressed in the form of hatred, unless it's coming from a rather psychotic individual. Of course there are occasional bouts by both sexes where they proclaim their hatred of woman out of frustration, but they quickly go back to loving and envying them.

Carmel wrote:From my view, the only "real love" is that which exists in the form of "agape".

In your view, how would agape be expressed?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

Beingof1 wrote:A woman needs to know a man would care for her and give himself as a sacrifice if needed. A woman is only deeply attracted to unconditioned love of deep caring. Again; if she can clear the cloud in her mind long enough that is full of fantasy men.

Would this knowledge change anything? One can only hope she would feel bad about invoking such sacrificial yet still instinctual drive in another human being. This is why an unclouded mind would make her essentially masculine, as she stops being an ideal for as well men as herself, and the world, while she has now wisdom, clarity, as ideal and completing lover.

A woman`s nature is to blend with a male. It completes her and brings satisfaction. Certainly there is the transcendent experience beyond this but bringing relationships up to this understanding would help overall. Men need to stop corrupting women after they gain their trust. This acts fosters resentment in both parties.

The man ends up feeling contempt for what he created(a form of projected self loathing) and the woman feels disgust at being lied to and used.

The way to heal relationships is to see your highest good in the partner. Allow for a enlightening breakthrough at any moment. Seek out illumination in each other beyond being attached to the outcome. If you realize you are involved with another aspect of Gods manifestation, there would be love/agape on the mans part and respect on the part of the woman.

Carmel wrote:repeat an repeat and repeat in the unconscious individual. That can clearly be seen in the repetitive mantra of the misogynist.

Carmel, you have never responded to reasonable corrections of this dogmatic belief. For instance:

- The very first point in this thread you made, was exactly the same as the one made above. I replied that a person can criticise women fairly.
> No response from you.

- You said that misogynists were egotists for identifying themselves in relation to women. I replied that a person can know themselves without regard to others, as I do.
> No response from you.

- You claimed that my views on women were from the turn of the century. This was after you refused to examine information I offered from the last decade.
>You haven't apologised for your rudeness.

- You claimed the information was not from peer-reviewed journals, and that the author (Leonard Sax) had credibility issues. But the information was from peer-reviewed journals, and you refused to explain what the credibility issues were, even though Diebert asked you to.

- You tried to put words in my mouth, claiming that I simply made into masculine what you regarded as positive feminine traits. For instance, you claimed that I regarded all intuition as masculine. But I explained what I meant by intuition, as an artifact of reasoning, and that I didn't see this in women.
>No response from you.

- You claimed that both men and women resort to poor stress-coping options, equating obesity in women with alcoholism in men. When I showed that men may not be overeating as a way to alleviate stress, but to maintain a bulky body image, you had no response. I showed that there are studies where alcoholism is linked to stress in women, but not in men, you responded with nothing.

- You claimed that the 3-5% difference in I.Q. scores between men and women was insignificant. I posted a quote from David Jessel and Anne Moir's "Brain Sex", which indicates that a 5% difference can be very significant.
>You responded with nothing, but continued to state it was insignificant.

- You continue to ignore the fact that men feature far more than women throughout all higher levels of mathematic test scores, when the different rates of brain development are taken into account.
> No response.

- When faced with the correlation between logic, high maths scores, and wisdom, you responded saying men have "overinflated egos", preventing them from becoming wise. I replied that a weak ego (self-minimisation) and dishonestly hiding egotism, is much worse - and women are more likely to engage in this kind of self-effacement owing to fear of risk.
>No response from you.

- You claimed that women live in tune with nature, and adjust, rather than asking the "system" to adjust to them. I provided quotes from Camille Paglia showing that women's passivity is not responsible for civilisation, and all the benefits it provides.
>But you have ignored this also.

Instead of honouring the mechanism of rational dialogue, you completely ignore responses, as if they had not been offered. Then you return - safe in your ignorance - to the exact same points you raised previously!

It is highly disrespectful of you to behave like this on a discussion forum.


...

Beingof1 wrote:Men need to stop corrupting women after they gain their trust. This acts fosters resentment in both parties.

Men need to stop giving in to women's need to blend and merge. Women should not be encouraged to trust. That need to be accepted drives them to ignore the processes of rational discussion, as they believe their welfare in the tribe is under threat when their views are challenged. They need to be encouraged to think.

The way to heal relationships

Stop right there. Forget relationships. Get centred in your own individuality and the truth of it. Then all those love-needing relationships will be revealed as illusions of the ego.


...

and what is ego ?


Definitions of ego on the Web:

an inflated feeling of pride in your superiority to others
self: your consciousness of your own identity
(psychoanalysis) the conscious mind
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

In spirituality, and especially nondual, mystical and eastern meditative traditions, the human being is often conceived as being in the illusion of individual existence, and separated from other aspects of creation. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_(spirituality)


BTW...i don't feel a need for love anymore. i see the attachment us humans have for it....but i think it is nessesary to feel love toward new born babys & care lovingly for them....or to care lovingly towards this earth...i think one can reach a point where they can give love to others without expecting anything in return....to say that love is only a selfish egotistical thing is misunderstanding what true love is....which is unselfishness...and truely caring for the welfare of others.

The sun shines, without love.
The wind blows, without love.
The leaf falls, without love.

The wise man lives, without love.


...

Love is the sun,wind, leaf and wise man. :)

And presumably also dog-shit, cancer and a dismembered Sudanese baby.

Dan Rowden wrote:And presumably also dog-shit, cancer and a dismembered Sudanese baby.

When you're Enlightened you see all things as equal..... no ?

You see all things for what they are. On one level all things are "equal"; on another, they are not - e.g. Kleenex and sandpaper are not equal in the context of the need to wipe one's....anyway, you get the idea.

yes....we need to live in this dulistic world realistically...knowing ultimately all things are interdependant...not inherently existing...equal in their empty nature...but if we wipe our ass with sandpaper we will know Enlightenment.... :)))

Kelly:

Men need to stop corrupting women after they gain their trust. This acts fosters resentment in both parties.


Men need to stop giving in to women's need to blend and merge.

In your philosophy, women are not as capable as men for undertaking the path of understanding. Now you do not want them to seek it out in men.

I guess women are just screwed either way?

Women should not be encouraged to trust.

Take a second look at what I am saying. Try not to color it with your experiences of misplaced trust.

That need to be accepted drives them to ignore the processes of rational discussion, as they believe their welfare in the tribe is under threat when their views are challenged. They need to be encouraged to think.

This part - truly insightful.

My experience tells me that most women will deny reality itself in order to appear to be indespensible. They are the first to create enemies in and ouside of the tribe and will lie, deny, and twist reality in order to 'win' the argument.

Do you think something like that might be happening now?

The way to heal relationships


Stop right there. Forget relationships.

You are kidding right? We have a relationship - it is platonic and never have we met but have spoke over the internet. Should we crash and burn it now or later?


I am not against relationships at all. The parties just need to know what is involved.

Get centred in your own individuality and the truth of it.

I know

Then all those love-needing relationships will be revealed as illusions of the ego.

Misplaced trust is an illusion of the ego If you put your entire faith in a mere mortal human, you are setting yourself up to fail.

All relationships, without exception, will create some pain and others will hurt you.

Its a matter of enduring the wrong and believing the other person is worth the pain and effort.

Kunga wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:

No..you're wrong again...from my observations of the guys here that respond favorably towards her...they are young men..some teens. That's a fact.

Name them.

jupivu & Anders S.

???

Show an example where I responded "favourably" to her, presuming that by "favourably" you mean going out of one's way to support, compliment etc.

Beingof1 wrote:Beingof1: Men need to stop corrupting women after they gain their trust. This acts fosters resentment in both parties.

I wrote: Men need to stop giving in to women's need to blend and merge.

Beingof1: In your philosophy, women are not as capable as men for undertaking the path of understanding. Now you do not want them to seek it out in men. I guess women are just screwed either way?

I can't follow the reasoning you present. Namely, that if someone is less capable than another, that means they automatically must trust someone else to help them. The truth is, it just means women have to work harder to get to the same bottom rung. It doesn't mean that for women, the need to rely on one's own reasoning is suddenly obsolete.

Kelly: Women should not be encouraged to trust.

Beingof1: Take a second look at what I am saying. Try not to color it with your experiences of misplaced trust.

....in other people, or external authorities. Blind trust.

My experience tells me that most women will deny reality itself in order to appear to be indespensible. They are the first to create enemies in and ouside of the tribe and will lie, deny, and twist reality in order to 'win' the argument. Do you think something like that might be happening now?

That's why I pointed out that women's need to find approval should not be encouraged, such as by building personal relationships. Their need for personal relationship is so strong, that any interaction will be dominated by it. The seeds of all discussions with women will bear fruit not with greater understanding (the purpose and content of the discussion), but with their motivation for engaging in it, namely, bolstering the delusion of inherent existence. They use interaction to feel more concrete, not to become wiser. So one has to really be on guard at all times with women.

Beingof1: The way to heal relationships

Kelly: Stop right there. Forget relationships.

Beingof1: You are kidding right? We have a relationship - it is platonic and never have we met but have spoke over the internet. Should we crash and burn it now or later?

All things are in relationship automatically and immediately, without anyone having to build anything. Focussing on trying to build relationships is an act of destroying consciousness.

I am not against relationships at all. The parties just need to know what is involved.

If anyone is a member of the Genius Forum, and they are seeking anything other than a perfect understanding of Reality, then they have ignored the information on what is involved. It is all clearly explained in the Welcome forum.

Kelly: Then all those love-needing relationships will be revealed as illusions of the ego.

Beingof1: Misplaced trust is an illusion of the ego If you put your entire faith in a mere mortal human, you are setting yourself up to fail.

All relationships, without exception, will create some pain and others will hurt you.

Its a matter of enduring the wrong and believing the other person is worth the pain and effort.

There shouldn't be any pain of an emotional sort, such as feeling hurt, or relieved, when engaging with others in a discussion. Or doing anything at all, for that matter. If there is, the ego is involved. It is not a matter of it being wrong to be "putting your whole faith in a human being". Rather, it is misunderstanding the nature of existence, so that one feels that there is anything to be gained or lost by what one experiences.

That is, one doesn't realise the nature of the relationships that one is automatically and immediately involved in - whether with people, with the room, the air, gravity, passing cars, fish in the sea, the gradually warming climate, etc. etc. etc.
...

Carmel wrote:...and [ignorance] does, repeat an repeat and repeat in the unconscious individual. That can clearly be seen in the repetitive mantra of the misogynist.

It can, but there's in my view not much misogyny around here. For the simple reason that there's no hatred, no strong emotion, not even lurking behind the calm words. If anything, the strong emotion toward women (and from women to anything else), like any tie, any attachment, is regarded as the most important thing for people to look into, if they want to understand themselves.

It is rare for anyone.

True enough. But even when diamonds are rare, there are still some hard to access, difficult places one at least stands a chance to find them. This forum is such a hard place, with some pain, delusions and twists - of course when it's not mind-numbingly dumb, as remains the default. Just like with men...

Some of the members here are attached to women through either lust, envy or hate.

It's how the feminine being interfaces with the world, through emotional relating. And like she can become the "world" to men, she's also the "world" to herself. This is the delusion of woman and why it has to be pointed out for the benefit of all emotional beings grasping to understand.

I admire Kelly for her whit and wisdom. She is evidence that ignorance and egotism aren't wholly determinate of women.

I'm surprised women are so quick to knock her down, she could present a beacon of hope for woman.

Instead, there seems to arise jealousy about her.

Does not bode well.

Animus: I admire Kelly for her whit and wisdom. She is evidence that ignorance and egotism aren't wholly determinate of women.

Carmel:
Is that because you're a misogynist? Just recently she said "Women are very wretched". She relies on childish ad hominems and subjective opinions too heavily. There's nothing to admire about that. Most of the men here are more objective about women than she is.

Animus:
I'm surprised women are so quick to knock her down, she could present a beacon of hope for woman.

Carmel:
It's her blatantly biased arguments, the selective quote mining and confirmation bias that she chronically employs that I'm challenging. It has nothing to do with "knocking her down". It has nothing to do with "her" at all.

Animus:
Instead, there seems to arise jealousy about her.

Does not bode well.

Carmel:
That's assumptive and therefore a logical fallacy. does not bode well.

edit: typo