GENIUS FORUMS

from impacts come consequences that are true and real : they alone have meaning.

Actually, considering who I was back then, I must have put it in feminist terms - that a woman putting on makeup is objectifying herself, turning herself into an object, stating that her only value is aesthetic, and so dis-empowering herself; she is declaring herself to be an object rather than a subject.

thinking that life is a means to an end is an absurdity;for it is rather a transference to other means.
quickly our introspection walks an unreal path,for interpreting existing belief is not by mannerism or dogma that excludes possibility.

Okay, I'm not sure what to make of today. I had to go grocery shopping, and I skipped the mascara. I went out wearing a sweatshirt, sweatpants, and no make-up of any kind. Because it does not make a personal difference to me whether I wear mascara or not, and because I picked up the idea of skipping it from some of the comments on this thread rather than as something I came up with entirely on my own, I felt like I was just following a different herd. Whichever I choose, it will by default be of one herd or another.

Anyway, despite no mascara and being dressed down, the cashier started flirting with me. I hadn't even made eye contact with him much less said anything when he called me a pretty girl and went on about some kind of related nonsense. I give up.

Feedback requested.

Dan the manWere you sober when you posted that?

Alcohol wise yes, dope wise no. But then dope for frequent smokers is just the equivalent of something like valium.

I was impressed with a couple of you posts on this thread, and that motivated me to ask a few questions. Should have realised it was pointless asking you anything potentially meaningful in a practical sense.

Carry on then laddie with your head in your own cloud.

Well, Jimbo, I interpreted your questions as you being a smartarse. I don't think you can blame me for that. Since they were sincere queries I'll answer them:

Dan,

Have you any advice on how to learn to tolerate untruth in society?

That's entirely dependent on your circumstances and your actual values. As we know, it is easier for us here in Australia to be philosophical in a pure way than it is for Americans. You can't think if you can't eat. "Compromise" is always somewhat culturally contexual - BUT - we're talking there about pragmatism, not actual compromise of one's ideas and mind.

For instance, you must compromise at least partly in meeting the gov requirements for the dole,

I don't, actually, at least not since I got disability. But before that I certainly had to put up with a load of crap. It's sort of ironic I guess that being true to myself and not compromising was a factor in me getting disability.

or to work for anyone else.

Well, yes, but that depends on your values. When I was working I was the unhappiest I've ever been. I'm lucky to have survived it, really.

Do you hold you tongue a lot down the pub?

Yes I do. Well, depends. If conversation (which I'm usually not engaged in) turns to something remotely meaningful I tend not to. Mostly I am just socially polite; I don't tend to engage in frivolous chat. My opinions tend to get me in trouble in such environments so I am "careful" about when and how I express them. I'm not an idiot (I'm talking about when I'm sober; when I'm not I get pretty cavalier; however, if I start talking about "woman", the ironic thing is that barmaids actually treat me better - I think you know why).

If you compromise in small ways, are those sort of things truly egoless for you, in the moment, or do you need to rationalise it?

I don't need to rationalise it because I'm talking about the kind of compromises one if forced to make in an imperfect world. Plus, I recognise them for what they are. That's the main point. If you have to compromise for survival, then that's fine, but the main thing is to know that that's what you're doing. If you don't recognise it you have no capacity to move forward. It's like being hypocritical. I actually wish there was more true hypocrisy in the world.

Had you already separated yourself enough from society, in the sense of it no longer constantly being in your face, by the time you considered yourself to be a sage?

Society is always in your face. The question is about how much you identify with it, not how much you are forced for pragmatic reasons to engage it. But one must take a stance against its stupidity where doing do appears useful. I don't advocate martyrdom, Jimbo, just consciousness...

Were you ever stupid, as in mild "angry young man" style, or have you always had a naturally calm personality?

Hell, no, I spent my entire 20's in that mode, and much of my 30's. If intelligence doesn't make you an angry young man at some point then intelligence isn't really there.

[edit: fixed a typo]

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Okay, I'm not sure what to make of today. I had to go grocery shopping, and I skipped the mascara. I went out wearing a sweatshirt, sweatpants, and no make-up of any kind. Because it does not make a personal difference to me whether I wear mascara or not, and because I picked up the idea of skipping it from some of the comments on this thread rather than as something I came up with entirely on my own, I felt like I was just following a different herd. Whichever I choose, it will by default be of one herd or another.

I have no idea how to respond to that. I mean, I know what it all means, but I just have no idea what to say.....

Anyway, despite no mascara and being dressed down, the cashier started flirting with me. I hadn't even made eye contact with him much less said anything when he called me a pretty girl and went on about some kind of related nonsense. I give up. Feedback requested.

Either the cashier is desperate or a deviant or you're a spunkrat makeup or not....

Thank you Dan. I wasn't being a smartarse. It is just something I have trouble with fairly constantly.

It is a catch22 in regards truth - truth is causing emotional reactions in me, or anxiety (which me me worry about my mental state of health), as a result of feeling as if I need to be actively dismissive of inane emotionalism (I work with a lot of womanly types, and political correctness in many social scenes gets up my goat). I haven't found that I can always relax with having to compromise for my own benefit, which I take to mean my ego is far too strong.

Part of the desire to act against what I determine to be stupidity, comes not just from truth, but from an increased level of opinionatedness as a result of posting in authoritive tones on forums.

I think the only advice I can give is that you try and be as detached from it as you possibly can. You have to try and come to terms with your alienation from the norms of society. It isn't an easy thing to do but it's in your own best interest to strive for a more compassionate rather than "angry" disposition.

Either that or become a full blown alcho and get yourself on disability :)

Elizabeth - that is actually interesting to me that you don't feel different not wearing makeup; I do. I never wear it, and if I do, I feel like i am being fake and wind up pretty disgusted with myself. (it is something I have not done outside of theater class in at least 10 years, probably longer, though - but I don't even like it in theater)

Dan Rowden wrote: Either that or become a full blown alcho and get yourself on disability :)

You can get disability for being an alcoholic?
I need to move. :p

-Rory

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Okay, I'm not sure what to make of today. I had to go grocery shopping, ....

Anyway, despite no mascara and being dressed down, the cashier started flirting with me. I hadn't even made eye contact with him much less said anything when he called me a pretty girl and went on about some kind of related nonsense. I give up.

Feedback requested.

Silly girl, sixty-eight year old men don't count. :)

Rory,

You can get disability for being an alcoholic?
I need to move. :p

In Canada, you can get disability for drug-induced psychosis... quite literally, experiencing a full-blown psychotic reaction because you took drugs you shouldn't have been taking in the first place. Then you can spend those fat disability checks ($1000/month) on more drugs.

Easiest job in the world, I reckon.

Carl G wrote:Silly girl, sixty-eight year old men don't count. :)

He looked like he was in his 20s, and this was not the line of feedback I was expecting for this... From a philosophy forum I was expecting additional theories on why a male would flirt with a female.

This and other threads indicated that it was the make-up (and on other threads, particular kinds of clothing were also considered causes) that prompted guys to view females as sex objects or otherwise open to flirtation. I had neither of those, and none of my behavior was in the least bit suggestive.

Maybe it's the culture that suggests this is an appropriate way to treat all females. Maybe it was just a flirtatious guy who just acts like that to pretty much all females (and again we are back to culture because I doubt he would have commented on the attractiveness of a male customer). Some females will call both males and females "darlin' " or "sugar" but guys don't call each other darling (and if a guy calls a female sugar, it's almost like he's calling her a whore, but if a female calls someone sugar, it doesn't have the same meaning).

Does any of this have any meaning other than what we assign to it? I understand that guys here are assigning a particular meaning to make-up, yet other groups assign the meaning "professionalism" to make-up on females (well, depending on how it is applied would indicate what profession...).

Things only have the meaning that we give them or that a group assigns to them. By recognizing different cultural paradigms and allowing for the probability that people of a different culture are not going to know all of the nuances of our culture, we can understand when something is an insult but not be insulted because we give more weight to the intention.

Of course, I'm seeing a difference from my opinion on what is or is not "harmless."

Rory, no it does not make a personal difference to me. What does or does not make a difference is whether or not I am taken seriously. If I were to go to the beach in a business-like outfit, I would not be taken as seriously as if I were wearing a bikini, in fact I would probably be laughed at, and I would feel uncomfortable because I was not being taken seriously. If I showed up at a meeting in a bikini, I would not be taken seriously at all, but I would if I were wearing a business-like outfit - and I would be extremely uncomfortable (even if it was 92 degrees and 80% humidity, therefore making a bikini a more practical solution to the climate), but I'd be uncomfortable because of not being taken seriously.

That is what I meant by "the greater good." The greater good is "being taken seriously." The challenge seems to be the diversity of what is or is not taken seriously by different "herds." I understand the reasoning of why some here are saying they would not take a wrapped package seriously, but it seems to me that a herd of sages would simply understand why a package may either be wrapped or unwrapped, and take each individual thought on its own merit - independent of the package, and independent of any other thoughts that may or may not be of value from the same source.

Rory, perhaps you feel fake when you are wearing makeup because you identify yourself as someone who does not wear makeup. I do not identify myself as either someone who wears makeup or as someone who does not wear makeup. I am my thoughts.

Since I am my thoughts, I could only feel fake by intentionally mis-stating my thoughts, or acting as though I felt differently than I do (outside of - as you mentioned - a theatrical type of performance where a person's body, words, and behavior are known to be mere artistic representations of a separate concept).

The outside is, as Dan said, a reflection of the inside, but my inside says that my outside is irrelevant except for practical functionality - and part of that practical functionality is the influence my outside can have on communicating my thoughts interactively with other people's thoughts.

I have been thinking it through from a larger perspective, and I do recognize that make-up is environmentally unsound. From an interpersonal perspective, it seems that educating people about each other's perspectives on make-up would be the first step, and once enough people recognized the lack of significance of make-up that the interpersonal barriers would drop, then the make-up itself would go away. Then again, proving the insignificance of make-up by not wearing it would also be a step of educating people about its insignificance. Then again to some people it is significant, as it is a sign of respect for their cultural paradigm, therefore also a sign of respect for them. A couple of years before my father died, I know he found it very disrespectful of me that I refused to dye my hair anymore. He wanted me to wear make-up in the house and I went along with that because it seemed harmless enough, but hair dye was making my hair fall out, stung my scalp, was ridiculous to keep up with, and just in general did not seem like a healthy option, but Dad was very offended. Others take a lack of make-up or other conventions as a lack of enough respect for them to look our best around them.

People need to not be so easily offended, and to think more rationally - but how can a rational person most rationally present to those who are set in society? Yes, if make-up was the biggest issue, then no make-up would be the way to go - it would be irrational to try to convince others not to wear make-up while wearing make-up. Once make-up is the biggest problem humanity has to contend with, then it's a no-brainer. The thing is, there are bigger issues that need to be prioritorized - and it is the faction of society that expects make-up and dress codes that need to be communicated with the most about these more important issues.

I guess I'm still working on this one. I just see both sides so clearly, and because I can not attach real significance to superficiality, it just does not matter to me personally and I'm having a hard time understanding the dynamics of how or why it is important to others.

Eliza, the biggest problem with make-up is the amount of time, effort, and money it consumes.

It cost me $25 seven years ago to buy an electric hair-trimmer. I use it once every three months on my scalp, and once a week on my face. It takes less than five seconds to apply antiperspirant to my armpits, and I rarely need to buy more than 1 or 2 bars a year, at $5 each. Toothbrushes, toothpaste, and mouthwash cost me less than $20 per year. Soap and shampoo, also less than $20. At today's prices, I could conceivably spend less than $500 on personal hygiene for the rest of my life, and easily average less than 5 minutes a day applying these products.

You will be hard-pressed finding any woman who can make the same claims. There are individual products that cost more than my lifetime sanitary needs. Admittedly, there are men who spend insane amounts of time and money on hair and facial products (not to mention in the gym); from what I understand of Kevin's theory, though, they are considered Women.

What can you say about the psyche of a person who is willing to spend all of this money "on themselves" (a ridiculous phrase, which really means the opposite: "for others")? Who would find this necessary? I say that advertisers managed to pull a fast one on humanity, convincing one-half of the species that it is necessary to buy products they neither need nor, in many cases, want.

Geeze - I never knew about all the health hazards of just mascara. All the common brands are in the moderate to higher risk category (and I found it particularly ironic that the brand for allergy sufferers is actually in the higher risk category). Lots of carcinogens... and appearantly if the carcinogens are not fresh, there is a higher risk of bacterial infestations which can cause blindness.

Okay, that does it. All the make-up is going in the garbage right now.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Rory,

You can get disability for being an alcoholic?
I need to move. :p

In Canada, you can get disability for drug-induced psychosis... quite literally, experiencing a full-blown psychotic reaction because you took drugs you shouldn't have been taking in the first place. Then you can spend those fat disability checks ($1000/month) on more drugs.

Easiest job in the world, I reckon.

$1000 a month? I need to move! lol my disability check is only $400 some odd...

and Elizabeth, good on you! :)


But I think with me it's not that I identify as someone who does not wear makeup, but that I fail to identify as someone who wears makeup. There was never a conscious decision about it, I just never bothered. In fact there was a time in middle school where I thought about wearing makeup because everyone else was starting to... it lasted all of one day and I felt fake doing it, so I stopped.


-Rory

The very term "make-up" gives it away. Women literally make themselves up. Their worth as a person depends on it.

There is also the rather quaint phrase, "putting on my face". The women who say this are basically implying that when they are without make-up they don't have a face. They are faceless, without identity.

The funny thing is, the made-up woman is virtually identical to the millions of other made-up women who parade around the place. In the act of putting on their identity they lose their identity, which, of course, is the whole point.

"Make-up" needn't just apply to lipstick, mascara, and the like. It also applies to the style of dress one chooses to adopt, to the image one wishes to convey to others. It also applies to the ideas one picks up and displays like a nice pair of earrings, and to the social and professional organizations one joins. All of these things involve hiding behind contrivances for the sake of egotistical gain.

-

David Quinn wrote:All of these things involve hiding behind contrivances for the sake of egotistical gain.

All these things and so much more.

Then again, much pretending, peacock parading and puffing up to appear bigger and stronger or flashing colors is a way for nature to deal with selecting mates or leaders, even while the animal kingdom often lets the male perform that part. Anyway, trickery in that regard is not some human invention.

Another observation regarding make-up would be that it's aimed at trying to appear way younger and more vigorous, more wealthy and desirable but not only in a sexual sense. That's why make-up is as well used by actors, business people and politicians as part of their perception management that breeds success.

But egotistical gain? It seems more like a compromise toward the fact people judge by appearances on a primary, animalistic level. So it becomes a survival mechanism in a society which as a whole is indeed contrived and superficial. We're still mostly animal.

It's the ego that often pretends otherwise.

David:

"Make-up" needn't just apply to lipstick, mascara, and the like. It also applies to the style of dress one chooses to adopt, to the image one wishes to convey to others. It also applies to the ideas one picks up and displays like a nice pair of earrings, and to the social and professional organizations one joins. All of these things involve hiding behind contrivances for the sake of egotistical gain.

Elizabeth:

and because I picked up the idea of skipping it from some of the comments on this thread rather than as something I came up with entirely on my own, I felt like I was just following a different herd. Whichever I choose, it will by default be of one herd or another.

Rather than choosing what either herd wants, there exists a third choice…what do you want?

Elizabeth:

It seems to me that a herd of sages would simply understand why a package may either be wrapped or unwrapped, and take each individual thought on its own merit - independent of the package, and independent of any other thoughts that may or may not be of value from the same source.

You’d think so, and in a perfect world, it may be. Frankly, I don’t think that you should worry about gaining acceptance and meriting that type of respect because it is about ourselves diminishing as we grow closer to relating to truth…not Truth. When we speak the truth, if those people are not ready to hear it, they will not respect you anyway.

It all goes back to the manipulative lie in order for one to understand the truth. If it is important to you that you lead people to the truth, then ponder this notion:

You are fussing about men lying in order to enlighten another…they explain that such “lying” is but a tool, and, yet, you use make-up for that very reason. They, most likely, think it as harmless as a dab of mascara does for you.

The problem with deception is that you must be very skilled at it and know the most probable outcome, because if you fail, they may not be thinking about truth but things that you didn't intend for them to think about at all.

"To thine ownself be true"

passthrough wrote:
Rather than choosing what either herd wants, there exists a third choice…what do you want?

You (that sensation of being a something) are the result of conditioning.

passthrough wrote:Rather than choosing what either herd wants, there exists a third choice…what do you want?

That was my dilemma - I didn't care. I didn't have enough data to want either way. If I wanted one or another, then it would have been easy.

At this point I have gathered enough data to make a choice based on logic.

You are fussing about men lying in order to enlighten another…they explain that such “lying” is but a tool, and, yet, you use make-up for that very reason.

No, I do not view make-up as a lie because people know it is make-up. Is wearing clothing a lie? My arms and legs are not actually made of a cotton blend - but clothing is not a lie because people are aware that it is clothing. Dan stated that on principle, he stays away from establishments that require such things as a dinner jacket - yet I have seen pictures of him wearing a shirt and pants. I also doubt that Dan is made of a cotton blend, but I do not consider it a lie that Dan is wearing clothing. Perhaps Dan is conforming to the herd by not appearing stark naked on the internet, but I do not think less of him for wearing clothes.

Truth is more a matter of communicating known accurate representation. Wearing make-up is no more of a lie than clothes because people know that make-up is make-up, and people know that clothes are clothes. A lie is telling your buddies that you are tougher, braver, or more of whatever than you really are for the intention of them believing something that you know is not an accurate representation of reality. Not all men lie, so those that do and claim that all men lie and that everyone knows it is all lies is also detracting from truthful men - and the lies are not as apparent as make-up.

Make-up is designed to make a woman more attractive than she really is, so it can certainly be classed as a lie. It is an attempt to seduce others into believing in an illusion.

Applying make-up is also a calculated act on the part of the woman, which reveals her calculating nature. Yet at the same time she tries to pretend to herself and to others that she is spontaneous, virtuous and innocent. More calculation. More lies.

Trying to equate this behaviour with the wearing of basic clothing is yet another lie.

-

David Quinn wrote: Trying to equate this behaviour with the wearing of basic clothing is yet another lie.

No, it is a perception. What line of "reasoning" caused you to deduce that it was a lie?

Buttinsky here!

Clothing is a need like food and shelter.

passthrough wrote:

You are fussing about men lying in order to enlighten another…they explain that such “lying” is but a tool, and, yet, you use make-up for that very reason. They, most likely, think it as harmless as a dab of mascara does for you.

The problem with deception is that you must be very skilled at it and know the most probable outcome, because if you fail, they may not be thinking about truth but things that you didn't intend for them to think about at all.

Lying is far too strong a word for what enlightened teachers do. It is more a case of tailoring the truth to suit the mentality of the listener.

For example, in the presence of the average person still stuck in the conventional materialistic outlook, the enlightened teacher might talk about how everything is an illusion. He might explain how things are mentally-created, generated out of concepts, have no objective existence, and so on. While all this is true as far as it goes, it is by no means the whole story. The teacher's primary goal here is to ease his student out of his crude materialistic mindset.

Should the student grasp the fact that everything is an illusion, and should he become fully absorbed in this truth such that it begins to alter his mind profoundly, the enlightened teacher might then change tack. He might start talking about how things are not really illusory after all, how they are really direct manifestations of Reality and therefore absolutely real. And so in this way, the teachers can guide the person past a more advanced pitfall and lead him further long the path to enlightenment.

The enlightened teacher can't explain how things are absolutely real, and not illusory, to the ordinary person trapped in conventional materialism. He isn't ready for that type of truth. He would only misunderstand it. His attachment to the materialistic outlook would only be reaffirmed and strengthened So in effect, such a teaching, in those circumstances, would constitute a lie.

Kevin illustrated this basic dynamic in "Poison for the Heart":

To the women in my audience, cause and effect is most definitely real.

To the men in my audience, cause and effect is most definitely not real.

Both of these cases involve expressing truth to suit the circumstances.

-

kowtaaia wrote:Clothing is a need like food and shelter.

Certain clothing may be useful for sanitary reasons, but in certain weather, most clothing is only a social custom.