GENIUS FORUMS

One other thought about 'preparation' for enlightenment.....

The man who wrote the Bhagavad Gita, Vyasa, was a train robber and murderer. At some point in this activity he became enlightened and wrote all of these great Hindu classics - incorporating views of the absolute.

Now, this and other similar cases has always aroused discussion among sages. I, myself, say there are no 'causes' that I am aware of. But the general consensus is that the 'work' takes place in some previous life. Just as the dream character finds himself with certain parents and circumstances, he also is a beneficiary from causes (karma) stemming from previous lives. This could be. At any rate, it is a fact that people can and do become enlightened without any seeming effort on their part.

unwise wrote: The man who wrote the Bhagavad Gita, Vyasa, was a train robber and murderer. At some point in this activity he became enlightened and wrote all of these great Hindu classics - incorporating views of the absolute.

All this says to me is that enlightenment might be compared to stop robbing 'trains' and murdering 'life' with everything one says or does every passing moment.

How do you know you are not robbing yourself blind right now? "Some previous life", Vyasa the criminal, ha!

For example, I do hold the view that everything we experience is mentally created, that all existence occurs within consciousness, that nothing exists beyond the mind...David

So we are 'Wired'...individually and collectively?

And it's a certain aspect of the 'Wiring' that QRS is upset about.
The 'Wiring' that impels a Man to project onto a Woman..the 'Wiring' that has the Man involuntarily swinging his head sideways to catch a more sumptuous look at that gloriously undulating 'piece of arse' disappearing around the corner...

Is it Man or Woman's fault or a defect in the character of a Man or Woman that Nature dictates they 'pollinate' the next generation?

Or is it Caused?

I'm sure many a Woman feels massively encumbered by this impertinance of Nature...that she has to arrange herself attractively to procure some seed...to 'do' Nature's bidding...

This vile language of Genius that so vilifies Woman...that 'blames' her...that condemns her...

Is Woman the wrong target for this abuse?

If there is a target...would the correct target then be the 'Wiring'?

And if Nature (the Wirer) requires a New Generation and Causes a Method to have that in existance?
And if Genius holds that as a problem...then the target for vilification must surely be directed at Nature...rather than Nature's minions...

Can we conclude QRS/Genius is effectively in revolt against Nature?

It's hilarious.

frank

The point that you are missing, frank, is that your apparently noble attempts to come to woman’s rescue is not rooted in an actual respect for women. Your reasons are either your own selfishness, or a defence of such qualities ascribed to “her” in yourself.

I do not consider females to be inherently more unconscious than males. Therefore, I don’t think females should require anyone to come to their defence--let alone “men.”

The irony is, of course, that to argue specifically for “woman” is to implicitly accept the objectification of her as unconscious.

You are a greater enemy, with you unrelenting and hysterical sense of humour, to females than is ordinarily realised.

Shen said: The point that you are missing, frank, is that your apparently noble attempts to come to woman’s rescue is not rooted in an actual respect for women. Your reasons are either your own selfishness, or a defence of such qualities ascribed to “her” in yourself.

I do not consider females to be inherently more unconscious than males. Therefore, I don’t think females should require anyone to come to their defence--let alone “men.”

The irony is, of course, that to argue specifically for “woman” is to implicitly accept the objectification of her as unconscious.

You are a greater enemy, with you unrelenting and hysterical sense of humor, to females than is ordinarily realised.

Wow, that is the typical sort of BS that I see here on a regular basis.

Frank is defending Nature, not women. And he is not patronizing women for pointing out aspects of wiring. What a strange accusation. His point is very valid - it is Nature that has made humans act as they do. Obviously, Nature has a high regard for the importance of reproduction. Ramana Maharshi said that the enlightened man sees all as god - that there are no problems with the world as it is. This is the TRUE enlightened view.

I'm just asking the question.

Is the fault in the Woman or the Wiring?....the instinctual program?

Indeed is it a Fault?...a design Fault?

If Nature decrees it...would Nature decree it as a Fault?...would Nature Invent this 'procedural' practice simply to torment Men and hinder Men's Quest for Enlightenment?

Does Nature give a fuck about You and your Rebellion?

I'm asking the question Leyla....if aspects of Breeding are considered troublesome by Genius and to be avoided...if the Mating Game is postulated as befuddling a Man...prevents his enlightenment...

Is it Woman's Fault?

Or is it the Instinctual Wiring Caused in the Human Being?

Instinctual Wiring Caused by Nature?

Then Woman is 'wrong target' is it not?...surely, if the thing is a Design Fault...then the thing perceived as the Fault must be the responsibility of the Designer...
Unless you want to postulate that Woman is the Designer...then she can't be held accountable or subjected to any blame whatsoever...can she?

Genius' Fight then is with Nature?...Is it not?

As the Greeks opined, perhaps we are 'the Playthings of the Gods?....'

frank

I had a friend who tried to stay out of the draft for Viet Nam. His strategy was to loose a dangerous amount of weight so that he would be rejected for medical problems. He began an intense program of starvation. He tells me that he thought about food all the time. He dreamed about it, and would look at traffic signs and see if he could rearrange the letters to form food words. He was quite obsessed.

If you feel like sex, why not have it? It frees the mind up to think about other things, but it is a relentless urge like eating. The sacred record is full of 'householders' - married men and women who became enlightened. To deny this is pure ignorance and arrogance. Nature is not your enemy.

OK, frank. I have to go to work now, but will respond in more detail to your questions when I can.

unwise, shut up until you can at least show a little more respect for your own mind and stop basking in the glory of Natural unwisdom.

frank,

So we are 'Wired'...individually and collectively?

You have this uncanny ability to take a perfectly clear position and respond to it into what must surely be the most nonsensical of metaphors and conclusions. David says that all existence occurs within consciousness, and suddenly you assume that he was talking about (as near as I can tell from your context) how humans are [hard-]wired with unconscious instincts. In the unlikely event that you are somehow on the same page as him, you still failed to repeat back to him what he just told you. You suck at reading comprehension.

However...

And it's a certain aspect of the 'Wiring' that QRS is upset about.
The 'Wiring' that impels a Man to project onto a Woman..the 'Wiring' that has the Man involuntarily swinging his head sideways to catch a more sumptuous look at that gloriously undulating 'piece of arse' disappearing around the corner...

You might not be so far off on this one.
http://members.optushome.com.au/davidqu ... ters01.htm
Scroll down to January 24, 1988; where Kevin Solway says:

You may wake in the morning determined to centre your mind upon God alone, then you walk out onto the street and find yourself being captivated by a girls legs. What a joke!

This vile language of Genius that so vilifies Woman...that 'blames' her...that condemns her...

Is Woman the wrong target for this abuse?

Woman, taken in the narrow sense of the biological female, is indeed the wrong target. From what you wrote about 'pollination', it seems you are talking biologically here.

I would call it 'Womanliness' that is viewed contemptuously: all the characteristics that, were they exclusively female, would indeed make females the 'weaker sex'. Importantly, Woman taken in this light lacks courage, rationality, depth, and a moral sense. These are all characteristics that men are capable of lacking as well.

Can we conclude QRS/Genius is effectively in revolt against Nature?

Good try, but you can stop trying to defeat all of "QRS/Genius" in snippy posts filled with one-liners.

Taking a moral stance against those unpleasant personality traits that prevent or hamper access to wisdom is different than revolting against nature, so long as wisdom is defined as the conscious understanding of nature. Which I do believe is the running definition around here.

Ramana Maharshi said that the enlightened man sees all as god - that there are no problems with the world as it is. This is the TRUE enlightened view.

I tend to that view as well unwise and when I 'hear' a Being complaining...I feel 2 things...firstly compassion and secondly, mirth arises from deep inside my belly...that the Being could construct a Viewpoint or have a Viewpoint caused within them.... that is at odds with whatever it is at odds with....

Now, QRS is confidently claiming Enlightenment and Leyla wants to represent that way of Thinking...the QRS way.

So Leyla, thankyou for your Courtesy and Generosity and the pleasure is mine if the Stage is cleared for your presentation...

Your Way is Garlanded...

I await.

frank

Leyla said: unwise, shut up until you can at least show a little more respect for your own mind and stop basking in the glory of Natural unwisdom

Can I assume from this emotional tantrum that Leyla is a woman?

Wow you two are really spouting out shit.

unwise wrote:

Obviously, Nature has a high regard for the importance of reproduction. Ramana Maharshi said that the enlightened man sees all as god - that there are no problems with the world as it is. This is the TRUE enlightened view.

Nature, as you put it, is reality. It doesn't have any regards...it just is the way it is. Its laws are higher than the laws of man. The enlightened man may see all as God, and that there are truly no problems, but you aren't the enlightened man. You're a being who cares about things. Don't try to speak from an enlightened point of view when you're just a human being. It's very unwise!

frank wrote: I tend to that view as well unwise and when I 'hear' a Being complaining...I feel 2 things...firstly compassion and secondly, mirth arises from deep inside my belly...that the Being could construct a Viewpoint or have a Viewpoint caused within them.... that is at odds with whatever it is at odds with....

Kind of like yourself? It's best to be honest with yourself, in matters of philosophy and spirituality. If you're a piece of shit, admit it and don't spout your shit out to everyone labelling it philosophy. What you are is just an ego in full play. Anyone with any hint of clarity in thought can see that.

Don't call your fellow humans, "Beings". It's condescending. You're one of them too. Admit it for once.

Don't pretend you're compassionate to prove that you're spiritually...on top of the game. You're not. Anyone who talks about their own compassion is generally not compassionate, but just someone stroking their own ego.

Also, "mirth arising from your belly" is just weird. Where do you come up with this stuff? Do you think this is genuine wisdom? You're like a newborn baby in spiritual terms. Your words are like gurgling, humming, moans, sighs and wails to me.

It's wrong that either of you try to teach anyone about what you know to be true. Have some humility, step up to the plate, and take a swing at what's presented here.

Stop pitching shit.

Can I assume from this emotional tantrum that Leyla is a woman?
unwise

Your gift for irony is duly noted and appreciated.

I would call it 'Womanliness' that is viewed contemptuously: all the characteristics that, were they exclusively female, would indeed make females the 'weaker sex'. Importantly, Woman taken in this light lacks courage, rationality, depth, and a moral sense. These are all characteristics that men are capable of lacking as well.
mookestink

Womanliness hmmm...the correct term would be unconsciousness wouldn't it?...isn't that what the QRS War is being waged upon?

You may wake in the morning determined to centre your mind upon God alone, then you walk out onto the street and find yourself being captivated by a girls legs. What a joke!
Solway

Until such time that Solway realises 'God' and 'Girls legs' are projections...that his Home Movie is a Home Movie...that he is ascribing Meaning to appearances that are empty and meaningless...that he is Inventing or Making it up...and superimposing his Meaning onto a thing..and trying to obtain broad agreement...

Or maybe he does realise and is grinning wryly at our antics...?
Good One Kev...you had 'em goin'...hehe..if that's the case..

What do you think of that as an Observation Point Mooke?
Just more Meaning?

Wow you two are really spouting out shit.
sschaula

Hmmm

frank

unwise wrote:

Ramana Maharshi said that the enlightened man sees all as god - that there are no problems with the world as it is. This is the TRUE enlightened view.

If that is the case, then why are you constantly perceiving problems on this forum and arguing with people?

frank also piped up:

I tend to that view as well unwise and when I 'hear' a Being complaining...I feel 2 things...firstly compassion and secondly, mirth arises from deep inside my belly...

If that is the case, then why are you always complaining about the views of QSR and the Buddha and so on?

Don't you jokers believe in your own own philosophy?

It's difficult to take the pair of you seriously when it is clear that you haven't thought about these issues very deeply and you haven't ironed out your own hypocrisies and self-contradictions. Take the log out of your own eye before you start attending to the splinters in other people's eyes.

-

I notice a lot of anger and name calling in the direction of myself and Frank the Tank. People who have something within themselves are only amused but never angered. Women are angered and throw silverware.

someone said (Leyla?): Nature, as you put it, is reality. It doesn't have any regards...it just is the way it is. Its laws are higher than the laws of man. The enlightened man may see all as God, and that there are truly no problems, but you aren't the enlightened man. You're a being who cares about things. Don't try to speak from an enlightened point of view when you're just a human being. It's very unwise!

You are not retarded are you? These are my own points. Nature is higher than man and should be respected. The activities and desires of mankind are a simple reflection of Nature. It is blasphemous to criticize it. And, I am in fact an enlightened man, but you cannot perceive it because only an enlightened man can perceive another. Do you suppose an enlightened man does not care about things? He cares about smashing your ego - which you will perceive as being quite unpleasant. Five minutes in my presence and you will pick up a knife to kill me.

unwise wrote:



Quote:

Ramana Maharshi said that the enlightened man sees all as god - that there are no problems with the world as it is. This is the TRUE enlightened view.

If that is the case, then why are you constantly perceiving problems on this forum and arguing with people?

Mr. Quinn, you are taking a superficial view. As far as I am concerned, this cult is FINE and my criticism of it is also FINE and NECESSARY. As far as I am concerned, Bush is fine, Hitler is fine, porn is fine and your cult is fine. It is also fine that I am here to make fun of your followers who are not thinking. I do have sympathy for many of your own thoughts, however. You are on the right track, but need to drop some of the foolish trappings.

unwise wrote:

It was this part of Frank's post that I thought was deep:

If Socrates opted for the Carthage Road Trip he would have ditched himself wouldn't he?

By taking the Hemlock he was true to Form...his Form...his Self..his Meaning.

Socrates is held in high esteem for 'Holding True to Form'...if he hadn't taken the Hemlock his Form or Self would be 'in tatters' as a reputation today...

Despite knowing that Form is 'empty and meaningless' Socrates held true to Form....go figure...

Socrates made a Power Play...that his Form 'wins out' over his 'persecutors'...and that's how we remember him...

Even tho' Socrates understood that Form is 'empty and meaningless'...he also understood that it is 'empty and meaningless THAT it is empty and meaningless'.....

He realized the Absurdity of the Human Condition.

Jesus held true to Form and was Crucified...and we remember him as Heroic because of it...

Holding true to Form somehow translates as 'Substance' and yet we realize Forms as 'empty and meaningless'...

There's nothing deep about this. It's just bubble and froth. If frank were to delineate the reasons why Socrates and Jesus held true to their "form", despite being persecuted for it and despite understanding the nature of emptiness, then that might mean something. That would indicate some real depth to frank's thought. However, the best he can come up with is "go figure" - meaning he doesn't know.

I differ in that I do believe in gods and beings in other places or dimensions (not to be confused with a creator GOD), and, I do not believe in free will.

Free will is obviously an illusion, but why do you believe in gods and beings in other dimensions? What evidence do you have, and why do consider it important?

What seems to be happening in my world is due to causes - most of which I am not aware of. That leaves me little room for personal freedom.

Since everything that happens is caused, there is no room for personal freedom at all - not in the ultimate sense.

DQ: It is impossible to kill what does not exist to begin with.

unwise: Again, I agree. But such truth came to me quite unexpectedly - in a flash - not something I conjured up in my brain cells. That is why I say that insight is 'grace' or something that comes from who-knows-where-or-why.

You display a disturbing need to constantly surround yourself with supernatural phenomena. Is your everyday life so uninteresting that you have to spice it up with these half-baked exotic entities?

In my own case, I arrived at the knowledge of the illusory nature of life and death via my brain engaging in reasoning and making mental connections. In other words, via simple mundane thought.

DQ: One needs to become like a pointed cotton thread, shorn of all the unnecessary extraneous elements, so that one can pass through that tiny hole and go through to the other side.

unwise: This is my problem with your teaching. From my own experience, there was no improvement with effort. Many, most, teach effort and look how many VERY DEDICATED, disappointed seekers we have. Maybe not so much in the West where we are all bullshit artists, but in the East - many dedicated seekers. Yet, in my own case - all improvement occurred when I said, "fuck it."

The fact that many dedicated people fail in becoming enlightened isn't an argument against the truth that becoming enlightenment requires dedication. This is like arguing that because many dedicated people fail to win Gold Medals, it is proof that winning a Gold Medal doesn't require any effort. It's joke reasoning.

Mr. Quinn asked me about synchronicity. This must be a trick question. Surely you know what synchronicity is - it is a very personal and meaningful merging of the outer and inner worlds that are far beyond chance. It is an experience in which the 'solidness' and 'realness' of the external world is seen through and it becomes hinged to one's consciousness quite outside of normal cause and effect.

Can you give a specific example of this? In all my years of spiritual development, I have never had occasion to call upon the concept of synchronicity to explain an experience. Cause and effect has always been perfectly sufficient in all situations.

Again, it seems to be part of your psychological desire to turn everything into a contrived brew of supernatural magic.

DQ: Why do you posit this 'something' in the first place? Do you have any proper knowledge of it? Or are you simply speculating in blind hope?

Perhaps you are simply dreaming it?

unwise: If I am dreaming, then the dream comes from somewhere - it is a 'real' dream. And, yes, I have direct knowledge of 'something' outside of the dream and dreamer.

You missed my point. You could easily be hallucinating the belief that everything is a dream, when in fact the world is real. How have you established that the world really is a dream? Or is it something you simply take on blind faith?

Mr. Quinn - your philosophy is dirtied-up by all this talk of heroic effort and female this-and-that. It gets everyone excited about side issues and it functions as an ego boost for many who suppose themselves rid of 'cunt affectations' and other silly things you guys talk about. It goes on and on. Why not talk about reality without all the trappings?

This is talking about Reality without the trappings. One cannot talk about Reality without also talking about delusion and attachment. The two always go together. The sage points to Reality by negating people's deluded beliefs and emotional attachments. There is no other way.

One of the biggest attachments people have is the attachment to woman and femininity. These attachments go to the very core of our society and help undermine humanity's will to Truth. So it is perfectly justified to speak against these attachments. In fact, a sage would be abrogating his responsibilities not to.

Just look at the reams and reams of material that frank writes in trying to defend his attachment to woman. It's very deep in everyone and has to be addressed. We can't just keep pushing it under the carpet all the time.

This is why Frank calls it 'your form' and why we both call it a cult.

Just because a group of people take an interest in a deep-rooted attachment that you don't even want to think about, doesn't make it a cult. That is dismissive and lazy.

And frank calling what I do my "form" doesn't mean anything either, as he has already admitted. Everyone lives in accordance with their form. It cannopt be helped. So to criticize a person for doing this is like criticizing them for breathing.

You are both engaging in meaningless ad-hominems and absurd smear campaigns. I wish you would start exerising your brains more and your mouths less. You're really starting to fill up this forum with junk.

-

unwise wrote:

u: Ramana Maharshi said that the enlightened man sees all as god - that there are no problems with the world as it is. This is the TRUE enlightened view.

DQ: If that is the case, then why are you constantly perceiving problems on this forum and arguing with people?

u: Mr. Quinn, you are taking a superficial view. As far as I am concerned, this cult is FINE and my criticism of it is also FINE and NECESSARY. As far as I am concerned, Bush is fine, Hitler is fine, porn is fine and your cult is fine. It is also fine that I am here to make fun of your followers who are not thinking. I do have sympathy for many of your own thoughts, however. You are on the right track, but need to drop some of the foolish trappings.

No, you're definitely being duplicitious. If you truly believed that everything is perfect, you have no basis for laughing at people, or being condescending toward them, or being critical of anything at all.

If a person were to claim that a particular piece of music was "perfect", you would expect him to celebrate every note of it with sheer joy. You wouldn't expect him to laugh condescendingly at some sections and being critical of other sections. It would indicate that he didn't really think it was perfect at all.

Your laughter at people is evidence of your own malice coming through, which, in turn, indicates that you are still feeling dissatisfied and lacking with your lot.

I am in fact an enlightened man, but you cannot perceive it because only an enlightened man can perceive another. Do you suppose an enlightened man does not care about things? He cares about smashing your ego - which you will perceive as being quite unpleasant. Five minutes in my presence and you will pick up a knife to kill me.

You're only making a fool out of yourself with these sort of comments. The quality of your thought-processes is mediocre at best and nowhere near the standard that one would expect from an enlightened person. It's also clear that you haven't challenged any of your deeper attachments. So your claim to enlightenment is wholly unbelievable.

-

R.Stephen Coyle

suergaz,

Hello,

Are you a silky fox? When will you smash that final mirror?

[edit: attempts at concealing my love]

Hi R.

I'm a 29 yearold heterosexual man on the dole! :D

David Quinn wrote:One of the biggest attachments people have is the attachment to woman and femininity. These attachments go to the very core of our society and help undermine humanity's will to Truth. So it is perfectly justified to speak against these attachments. In fact, a sage would be abrogating his responsibilities not to.

This is probably the single most misunderstood thing, and yet the most often discussed thing, here.

There is no attack on women. The attack is within one's self, on one's own attachments, and one's own delusions. Men's ideas about women tend to be romantic (quixotic, irrational).

But discussing it seems to provoke a near-instinctual need to protect the womenfolk.

Mr. Quinn said: You display a disturbing need to constantly surround yourself with supernatural phenomena. Is your everyday life so uninteresting that you have to spice it up with these half-baked exotic entities?

In my own case, I arrived at the knowledge of the illusory nature of life and death via my brain engaging in reasoning and making mental connections. In other words, via simple mundane thought.

Do you not know that the world a person sees is a reflection of their own subconscious? The world is infinitely mysterious, wonderful, surprising, terrible, unknowable.....a frightened person will see ghosts, a highly devoted person will see god, a sad individual with low self esteem will have bad luck; selfish people will have bad relationships etc. A dried-up old scientist like Stephen Hawking supposes that there is nothing new to discover.....but he had to take that back. If the world is not wonderful to you, perhaps you've been staring at your belly button too long. Such an attitude will lead to blindness in your next life. Do you stare at the wall with half-closed and crossed eyes? No wonder the world bores you and you seek escape.

As far as discovering the nature of reality with mundane thought.....this is evidence that you have not experienced pure consciousness that is prior to mentation. You do not have the full comprehensive view of the enlightened man, but you have read a lot about it.

You missed my point. You could easily be hallucinating the belief that everything is a dream, when in fact the world is real. How have you established that the world really is a dream? Or is it something you simply take on blind faith?

I've already explained that the world is dream because it has obvious psychological connections to the observer and also because it appears and disappears in sleep.

One of the biggest attachments people have is the attachment to woman and femini

I would say the greatest attachment that people naturally have is the attachment to the ego and brain - assuming that they are in control of everything and can comprehend everything and become anything. Calling yourself 'heroic men' while begging for food is very odd to me.

And frank calling what I do my "form" doesn't mean anything either, as he has already admitted. Everyone lives in accordance with their form. It cannot be helped. So to criticize a person for doing this is like criticizing them for breathing.

Yes, we understand that you are projecting your form. But that's all it is - YOUR form. Nothing wrong with it, it's just that we are not accepting YOUR form, and you take this as an insult.

No, you're definitely being duplicitious. If you truly believed that everything is perfect, you have no basis for laughing at people, or being condescending toward them, or being critical of anything at all.

You don't seem to be capable of appreciating paradox. The enlightened lives in paradox all the time. It is why we cannot be understood. This is how it is - the world is fine, but at the same time it requires me to fight against ego glorification. You are like a computer which is starting to over heat and smoke because you cannot comprehend my meaning.

If a person were to claim that a particular piece of music was "perfect", you would expect him to celebrate every note of it with sheer joy. You wouldn't expect him to laugh condescendingly at some sections and being critical of other sections. It would indicate that he didn't really think it was perfect at all.

But the 'perfect' of Nature is not quite like this. It is NECESSARY for there to be sour notes. There is a whole bunch of absurdity to Nature. This is all perfect. Hitler is necessary. Bush is necessary. Are they truthful, perfect, moral? No. Yet it is all necessary. Your cult is necessary and useful. My showing up to piss on it is also necessary. It causes thought - or really - a loss of faith in it.

Your laughter at people is evidence of your own malice coming through, which, in turn, indicates that you are still feeling dissatisfied and lacking with your lot.

The malice is your projection. You and your devotes cause me mirth and they same belly laugh Frank the Tank spoke of. You do not anger me and I know that you will all be OK in the end.

You're only making a fool out of yourself with these sort of comments. The quality of your thought-processes is mediocre at best and nowhere near the standard that one would expect from an enlightened person. It's also clear that you haven't challenged any of your deeper attachments. So your claim to enlightenment is wholly unbelievable.

The quality of my thought process is paradoxical and absurd to you who believe everything is logic. This is your own FRAME. You have defined enlightenment in your own terms, and I am here to say there is another view - a different FRAME. You believe the conscious mind reigns supreme over the subconscious and the universe itself. It doesn't. You are like a group of meditators on the beach as the Tsunami approaches the shore.

Unwise:

I've already explained that the world is dream because it has obvious psychological connections to the observer and also because it appears and disappears in sleep.

The world has obvious psychological connections to the observer, yes, but it does not appear and disappear in sleep. Why can the world not also be a reality for you?

Which world do you mean is real? It appears different to every observer. It comes and goes.

This world. We're sharing it right now. We come and go. We take it with us in dreams, and awake from them into it. That we are all different only means its appearance is shared.

frank,

mooke: I would call it 'Womanliness' that is viewed contemptuously: all the characteristics that, were they exclusively female, would indeed make females the 'weaker sex'. Importantly, Woman taken in this light lacks courage, rationality, depth, and a moral sense. These are all characteristics that men are capable of lacking as well.

frank: Womanliness hmmm...the correct term would be unconsciousness wouldn't it?...isn't that what the QRS War is being waged upon?

Although I've read suggestions that masculinity and consciousness are directly related, I've yet to meet a woman who failed the Turing test. I believe the inenviable qualities of womanliness present a separate issue from unconsciousness: both to be avoided, but for different reasons.

Until such time that Solway realises 'God' and 'Girls legs' are projections...that his Home Movie is a Home Movie...that he is ascribing Meaning to appearances that are empty and meaningless...that he is Inventing or Making it up...and superimposing his Meaning onto a thing..and trying to obtain broad agreement...

Or maybe he does realise and is grinning wryly at our antics...?
Good One Kev...you had 'em goin'...hehe..if that's the case..

What do you think of that as an Observation Point Mooke?
Just more Meaning?

I think: you wrote a beautiful piece of overanalysis. I just pasted that line (from an 18-year old piece of mail) because something you said reminded me of it, and it made me chuckle.