GENIUS FORUMS

Kunga wrote:Bullshit...i could care less about that. (Goes to show you really don't know me). (regarding dating)

Please. You lap up Zag's empty flattery just like a silly adolescent. Don't feel bad - most women do the same thing.

I know spiritual truth. it's not here. spiritual truth is liberating not stagnantly preoccupied with women bashing.

That you see "women bashing" indicates that you don't know spiritual truth at all. What you know (have known) is quasi-religious, new-age baloney. Time to grow up a tad.

Kelly needs to prove shes a man. a real man doesn't have to prove anything.

Nice cliché. Oddly, there's almost a thread of truth to it, in that a "real" man knows there's nothing to prove.

Dan Rowden wrote:empty flattery just like a silly adolescent.

Oh...and Kelly isn't flattered by her adolescent fan club here ? Most of the guys that adore her are young men that know nothing of women other than their experiences of rejection.

Dan Rowden wrote:That you see "women bashing" indicates that you don't know spiritual truth at all. What you know (have known) is quasi-religious, new-age baloney. Time to grow up a tad.

A real spiritual teacher knows how to speak without hostility ....and dosn't need to self-aggrandize themselves as being wise.

Kunga wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:empty flattery just like a silly adolescent.

Oh...and Kelly isn't flattered by her adolescent fan club here ? Most of the guys that adore her are young men that know nothing of women other than their experiences of rejection.

Hmm, I'm not aware of any guys that adore her. That claim smacks of jealousy to me. I'm sure it's a surprise for Kelly! (not the jealousy part)

Dan Rowden wrote:

That you see "women bashing" indicates that you don't know spiritual truth at all. What you know (have known) is quasi-religious, new-age baloney. Time to grow up a tad.

A real spiritual teacher knows how to speak without hostility ....and doesn't need to self-aggrandize themselves as being wise.

I don't think you have the knowledge or authority to say who is and is not wise.

Dan Rowden wrote:That claim smacks of jealousy to me

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. I have no reason to be jealous . I do not need admiration from men for my self-respect. Whereas if Kelly had no respect she would wither like a flower. She feeds off respect.

Dan Rowden wrote:I don't think you have the knowledge or authority to say who is and is not wise.

What authority does Kelly have to insist of her own self-made wisdom...calling herself wise.....all she knows is what others have written. No original thoughts.

I have the authority to think for myself, and consider whom ever i think as wise....you do not have that authority to tell me whom i can consider wise or not.
There is no wisdom without compassion. The wise are not arrogant.

...says the student of a Buddhist teacher. Every piece of understanding is necessarily original. If you understood understanding, you'd understand this.

Kunga wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:That claim smacks of jealousy to me

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.

btw...i'm on the phone with Elizabeth now.

They're teenagers, are they?

btw...i'm on the phone with Elizabeth now.

So? Say hi anyway.

yes (Anders is ) Jupivu is probebly in his early 20's if not younger.

"Hi Dan" (from Elizabeth)

Hmm, perhaps you could explain the actual relevance of that to me. Is it wrong for a young man to admire an intelligent woman? If not, it seems odd for you to make a point of this if it isn't coming from jealousy.

Dan's absolutely correct in saying there's no woman bashing going on here. Anyone who thinks misogyny is always gratuitous hatred of women, like a revengeful spirit on being rejected by women, is absolutely wrong. It's funny, actually. Very revealing.

Women commonly believe that anyone who criticises women, must be doing so out of envy. It shows a ginormous sense of their own importance. How else could they be so totally incapable of seeing any alternative explanation? Kunga, it's the same attitude driving your false assumption that any male showing interest in my views must be worshipping me. How can you fail to even consider any alternative explanations, like a strong shared interest in socially deviant ideas?

The funny thing here is, I have more often been challenged to heated discussion by young men who don't like my ideas. Disagreement to agreement, it is probably on a 10,000,000:1 ratio. The rare occasion when a male tries to form some emotional-romantic-sexual bonds, I directly challenge them, and this *has never failed to provoke positive growth*. I've never experienced groupie-type adulation, because of this challenge to lift their game intellectually and morally. Lastly, the young blokes who sometimes imitate my views, or who ask my opinion, are rarely fed direct answers. In this again, I stop any kind of following. I strongly believe that giving people all the answers, significantly prevents them from learning.

...

they are more impressionable....and searching for truths that justify their own issues with women...the herd mentality of the mens world...seeking to identify with others that reinforce their assurance of masculinity...at the same token boosting their ego's .....(Elizabeth helped me with the last statement) :)

I believe Anders is finishing high school, so is perhaps 17 or 18. Jupta is at university, and is 19. Otto Weininger was 21 when he finished his masterpiece, so he was running on well-trained legs for many years before that.

Most teenagers are gullible and impressionable, and easily influenced through wanting to find identity amongst their friends or idols. But there are some that are already running towards the light at such an early age, who want nothing but the highest, and war against God himself. These are the ones Kunga and Elizabeth don't know about, obviously.

I too. I was already a confirmed loner, and often did my own thing during high school. Two of my five senior school subjects were studied alone (by correspondence, and with a teacher outside of school hours), and was generally self-reliant for other classes. I could have done most of it not attending school classes. My teachers told me not to work so hard, and said my (lack of ) social life was a cause for concern. My first real mentor, Rhett Hamilton, was also a strong-minded, self-reliant type, who had serious issues in school because he didn't want to swallow the rote-regurgitations but to think. His schizotypal character was already forming as a teenager, as was mine, as was Anders', Jupta's, and many others past and present.


...

Kunga wrote:they are more impressionable....and searching for truths that justify their own issues with women...the herd mentality of the mens world...seeking to identify with others that reinforce their assurance of masculinity...at the same token boosting their ego's .....(Elizabeth helped me with the last statement) :)

The funny thing about that - which Elizabeth ought, frankly, understand - is that there is no assurance whatever is my notion of masculinity. There is only challenge - and a healthy dose of pain. If you do not know this, you have never experienced masculinity.

Kelly, to play devil's advocate I have a few questions if you don't mind.

How do you see overcoming the organisational hurdles in trying to achieve the shift in consciousness that you think is necessary? Specifically, outside of this forum, your website and your YouTube channel, how does a desire for non-mediocrity in the individual actively and effectively manifest in the public space? Where do you see other avenues of wisdom promotion?

Isn't such a fight against mediocrity in society ultimately a folly since Nature itself is "mediocre", that a system of valuing when applied to Nature doesn't inherently make sense to ask and so renders it pointless? How do you tackle this sort of Post-Modernist opposition?

How can you promote wisdom in the individual and in society without at some point having to resort to essentially politics and people management, and therefore be forced into compromise? How much different is this from any other past individual who wished to gain power over others through their ideas and convictions?

Supposing the point arises when the promotion of wisdom in the individual within society becomes a reality, leading to a wiser populace, how different do you think the route to get there would be from any other ideology of the past? Do you think it should be more a grassroots type development, or do you think a top-down individual leader is better? Or possibly a leader arising naturally from a grassroots organisation? Do you see yourself as that kind of individual?

More personally, how justified is it to ask how much can the desire to see societal transformation, in a way that mirrors our own wants, be a product of selflessness and wisdom? A cynic could say this is just narcissism repackaged in an inoffensive selfless-friendly way, but still ultimately narcissism... ?

.

There is, I think, a very signal difference between fighting mediocrity, and, promoting excellence. The former is concerned with the conditions of the already-manifest, the latter with setting new conditions for higher thought. The former sees the already-manifest as empirical truth; the latter sees it as something possible to transcend. If one thinks about this difference, it becomes profound in observation, and even more so in practice. For if no evolution at all were thought possible, there would be no possible fighting of mediocrity or no possible promotion of excellence at all.

I've yet to know any human genius that spends its focus and its time re-asserting - nay, wallowing - in what the "stoo-pud" people do. I know of no path to excellence that buries its roots there and feeds itself in this way. Genius is intimately involved with the workings of cause-and-effect - less to reaffirm the already-manifest, and more to bring forth that which has not yet been seen, in itself, and in others.

The great irony of studies, statistics, and various other empirical data regarding human beings is that it assembles a picture of the human being that will, in the end, describe no-one. This is because it can only add-up all the various individual manifestations, one at a time, to reach its sum. In the end, everything will always point back to us - not as a group, but as those individual subjectivities who deviate more or less. It is, paradoxically, yet another circuitous route that seeks an end-run around the evolutionary pressures and exegencies of inhabiting dynamic individual consciousness.

.

The fight against mediocrity, ignorance, and lack of awareness of higher goals, must by definition be positioned in their opposite.

It's bleedingly obvious that it's impossible to point out mediocrity without contrast.


...

Robert wrote:Kelly, to play devil's advocate I have a few questions if you don't mind.

How do you see overcoming the organisational hurdles in trying to achieve the shift in consciousness that you think is necessary? Specifically, outside of this forum, your website and your YouTube channel, how does a desire for non-mediocrity in the individual actively and effectively manifest in the public space? Where do you see other avenues of wisdom promotion?

Isn't such a fight against mediocrity in society ultimately a folly since Nature itself is "mediocre", that a system of valuing when applied to Nature doesn't inherently make sense to ask and so renders it pointless? How do you tackle this sort of Post-Modernist opposition?

How can you promote wisdom in the individual and in society without at some point having to resort to essentially politics and people management, and therefore be forced into compromise? How much different is this from any other past individual who wished to gain power over others through their ideas and convictions?

Supposing the point arises when the promotion of wisdom in the individual within society becomes a reality, leading to a wiser populace, how different do you think the route to get there would be from any other ideology of the past? Do you think it should be more a grassroots type development, or do you think a top-down individual leader is better? Or possibly a leader arising naturally from a grassroots organisation? Do you see yourself as that kind of individual?

More personally, how justified is it to ask how much can the desire to see societal transformation, in a way that mirrors our own wants, be a product of selflessness and wisdom? A cynic could say this is just narcissism repackaged in an inoffensive selfless-friendly way, but still ultimately narcissism... ?

This boils down to one idea. The path to enlightenment is always centred on the individual's relationship to Nature. Whatever brings one's attention to this, away from the herd-minded mentality, is helpful to promote wisdom.

Politics and organisation tends always to ignore the individual, in favour of ciphers. I am not fighting against a group, or society, or a political system, but against mental blockages to being centred. Kierkegaard aptly called this centredness: inwardness. Is it not obvious that one can never address a crowd? There are only individuals.

Nature isn't inherently mediocre, because deludedness and ignorance aren't real. They are passing froth, the superficial play of shadows. The truth is, Nature doesn't care if people return to the source or not. Yet it is not folly to galvanise enlightenment in people: mediocrity does vanish when excellence appears. Nature has paroxyms of joy when a wise person appears.

Whether it is pointless depends what you mean by pointless.


...

Fighting mediocrity is to battle one's own shortcomings, deflected.

A true genius has no place in the world, he can only but drown and finally revel in the average, for it is their struggle which brought him forth in the first.

Kelly: It's bleedingly obvious that it's impossible to point out mediocrity without contrast.

Right. And it is this bleeding obviousness that bears more thinking, rather than more begetting of itself . . . .

Pye:
The great irony of studies, statistics, and various other empirical data regarding human beings is that it assembles a picture of the human being that will, in the end, describe no-one.

Carmel:
That's true, but generalizations based on false stereotypes "describe no-one" even less accurately. The purpose of providing empirical data is to challenge, dispel these myths and to keep these discussion about gender from flying off into the "henids"...which from where I sit, is the "great irony".

Pye wrote:

Kelly: It's bleedingly obvious that it's impossible to point out mediocrity without contrast.

Right. And it is this bleeding obviousness that bears more thinking, rather than more begetting of itself . . . .

It's the same thing. Pointing out mediocrity, vagueness and blurriness bears more thinking when others wake up to their ignorance. Then intelligence does get begotten, like a flame lighting another flame.

...

Carmel wrote:generalizations based on false stereotypes "describe no-one" even less accurately.

This is little more than a henid. No scientific theories are absolutely false or true. So empirical facts can't be said to describe absolutely no one. I mean, how would you know for certain?

The purpose of providing empirical data is to challenge, dispel these myths

This again proves to be an insufficiently worked out idea. Scientists are not magically free of prejudices. Universities have agendas. Empirical data always comes back to an observer, who has a particular psychology, education, and worldview. Is the scientist wise? Does the scientist demonstrate an uncompromising will to truth?

and to keep these discussion about gender from flying off into the "henids"...which from where I sit, is the "great irony".

There is rather a redupled irony in this statement. Not only are your views often henidic, but they aren't sufficiently developed to be able to fly off into the henids. Try again.


...

Kelly:
This is little more than a henid. No scientific theories are absolutely false or true. So empirical facts can't be said to describe absolutely no one. I mean, how would you know for certain?

Carmel:
Empirical evidence is more convincing than your blatantly biased ramblings. All you have offered is a regurgitated opinion based on Weininger's archaic and obsolete psycho-babble. You're stuck in 1903. Gender studies have evolved since then. It's time for you to catch up.

Kelly:
This again proves to be an insufficiently worked out idea. Scientists are not magically free of prejudices. Universities have agendas.

Carmel:
What? ..and you are free of prejudices and an agenda?
That really doesn't seem to be the case.

Kelly:
Empirical data always comes back to an observer, who has a particular psychology, education, and worldview. Is the scientist wise? Does the scientist demonstrate an uncompromising will to truth?

Carmel:
Do you? ...because I am not seeing that. In your world fat men are "muscular guard dogs". You rely heavily on stereotypes except when they don't suit your agenda. "Women's intuition" is now man's intuition. The "male ego" is magically the female ego. You've mentally arranged so that all positive human qualities are "masculine" and all negative ones are "feminine". It's like your mind is crazy fun house of mirrors where self delusion and mental distortions take precedence over objective reality.

Kelly:
There is rather a redupled irony in this statement. Not only are your views often henidic, but they aren't sufficiently developed to be able to fly off into the henids. Try again.

Carmel:
That your rationalizations are elaborate certainly doesn't not make them any more believable or realistic, in fact, often it makes them less so. It really is a case of "thou doth protest too much". When you break down all of your orchestrations, there is really nothing there...nothing at all. It's an elaborate presentation which is designed to...gain approval? feed some egos? I'm not sure what your motive is, but it surely is not "truth" or "reality".