GENIUS FORUMS

Leyla wrote:

As for you Ryan, you're just a silly little boy!

You were being silly too Leyla, don't deny it.

David Hodges:

Sue: David H. has shown by his writing that he is capable of reflection. The degree that he is capable of reflection is the degree of depth he possesses. Because he has this depth, he is interesting. Marsha had as much depth as fireworks, therefore, everything she wrote was experienced as superficial nonsense.

While I guess I should thank you for your kind words, I disagree about Marsha. I learned a lot from her. She had a different perspective - a more earthy perspective, I would say, which was a good counterpart to the sometimes extremely cerebral and abstract discussions.

I think it was Marsha’s “earthly perspective” that I found most uninteresting about her. But I do see how that earthiness could be useful – as I once admitted, I’d want her standing beside me if I ever found myself in the middle of a bar fight. Of course, she would have been the one that started the fight in the first place, but nevertheless…

The bottom line is that Marsha’s inability to reflect upon her life and actions made her thoughts ungrounded and consistently irrational. Yes, she had a one-eyed pointedness – she kept telling everyone to get off their arse and stop being losers, etc, but never specified for what end. Not having a clear goal for your life, but telling everyone else what to do, is clearly feminine minded. So was her habit of using page after page of forum space to tell tales of her life that had no philosophical point whatsoever. And when these things were pointed out to her, she would further collapse into a screaming, naughty child, shouting abuse and swearing at all in her way. This didn’t have the effect of furthering the discussion; it just fed those who used her for entertainment, and made others quickly move away from her silliness, over to other threads.

You say that she was a “good counterpart” to the serious work that Genius Forum performs. This is true, for her scattered mind readily spewed forth the worldly point of view, and that does create material for the thinkers here to respond to. But sadly, because her mind was completely at the mercy of circumstances, when her life hit more rough patches than smooth, she was reduced to calling people names, and not much else. This state of affairs was not in anyway thought provoking, and therefore her contribution here was, at bottom, useless.

It would have been great if things had turned out differently, and she'd developed a stronger connection to her mind - for then we may have witnessed some interesting thinking.
.

Have to agree with Sue. She was okay when she had her attachments giving her some strength, but once those started falling away, she went right with them. I thought the forum improved a lot after she left.

You're lucky I like you, but I want you to know that, if anything, my "anger" is just as much a figment of your imagination as it is Ryan's.

I can only relate to my own circumstances. I don't really have clue as to how your mind is changing. All i have noticed is an increasingly aggressive attitude.

For me, nilhilism (rational purposelessness) creates a viewpoint of not giving a fuck, from which one can be aggressive without necessarily being emotionally angry. Nonetheless negative emotion relating to the loss of purpose and the confusion of one's direction is still there. That is what I am seeing coming out of you.

I do think you've gone up a level in your understanding of reality, and I think the result is uneasiness of mind. I imagine that will pass, providing you do not cause the rest of the universe to attack you.

Ryan, Ryan, Ryan---when will you learn to appropriately nurse that bruised ego?

You were being silly too Leyla, don't deny it.

Of course I deny it!

This is how we crossed paths, this time:

I wrote to Dan,

Perhaps I just stick out more now that she's no longer here---for all the wrong reasons...

Ryan, the reluctant sadist, intelligently responded to what he considers “silly” without specifying why he thinks it silly:

You stick out because you have the mouth of a sailor, god damn Leyla! And don't tell me to F* off either!

So, tell me, what do you think was silly about that statement, aside from your usual attempts to get my silly attention?

~

James,

I can understand how I come across as not giving a fuck because I actually don’t give a fuck about offending stupid people. So, I don’t really interpret that as not giving a fuck since I very much give a fuck about things and people who are not stupid. They are like a life-giving breath of fresh air to me! Hence, I give a fuck about myself, and have managed to survive so far!

Now, naturally that boils down to my appearing more aggressive as the noose appears to tighten. So, on the grand scale of things, such aggressiveness is actually a good thing given that such judgments are logically and empirically accurate.

I have grown up with the rest of the universe “attacking” me in every possible sense of the idea. I am not concerned about that. In fact, it’s those moments where there has been sufficient and proper challenge that have borne the most fruit.

Regarding the uneasiness of mind: such a thing is not solely dependent upon causing the rest of the universe to attack one. It has to do with fear. You might recall a story of mine about an ex-boyfriend who had me by the throat and my own surprise at just how easy (and super-conscious, I might add) my mind was at the time. I mean, seriously, the last thing you want to do in a situation like that is be afraid.

I have a rational purpose, James, non-inherent though it may be. More rational than trying not to cause/being worried about causing the rest of the universe to attack me, which pales by comparison.

.

Leyla wrote:

Ryan, the reluctant sadist, intelligently responded to what he considers “silly” without specifying why he thinks it silly:

No, no. you’re were being silly when you responded by calling me a whore, and comparing me to a maggot.

You see, I was the initiator of silliness, but you responded with a certain degree of silliness as well, so therefore you are an equal contributor in it.

So you can indeed claim that I was behaving silly, as I was, but you must also be capable of acknowledging that you were being equally as silly as well.

Because The fire of silliness cannot burn unless you add fuel onto it, and you were the fuel Leyla, and then you became the very fire that you criticize, the fuel is the fire.

Basically what I’m getting at is that we are the same fire Leyla, don’t fight it, don’t resist, just accept.

Leyla,

Developing strengths is important.

May the force be with you :)

L: So, tell me, what do you think was silly about that statement, aside from your usual attempts to get my silly attention?

R: So you can indeed claim that I was behaving silly, as I was, but you must also be capable of acknowledging that you were being equally as silly as well.

Crikey, Ryan. Are you really that far down the philosophical food chain?

Try to keep up, instead of taking every discussion backwards to absolutely fucking nowhere, before I abandon all hope for you (and I‘m pretty close, I must say).

~

J: May the force be with you :)

Why, thank you, James--and with you.

.

How is acknowledging mutual silliness further down the philosophical food chain than denial of one's own silliness while judging the silliness of another bieng?

Matt Gregory wrote:Have to agree with Sue. She was okay when she had her attachments giving her some strength, but once those started falling away, she went right with them. I thought the forum improved a lot after she left.

Surely you simply mean you found her aggressive nature hard to deal with.

I don't see that the forum has improved in her absence, at all.

.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:How is acknowledging mutual silliness further down the philosophical food chain than denial of one's own silliness while judging the silliness of another bieng?

It isn't when the acknowledgment is essentially the denial in itself.

.

Are you saying that if you acknowledged your silliness, you would be denying your silliness? Sounds silly to me, so maybe I didn't understand.

Leyla wrote:

It isn't when the acknowledgment is essentially the denial in itself.

Huh? it seems to me that a denial only happens when you fail to acknowledge something.

Really, it’s not that hard--one doesn’t even require memory since the whole thing is chronologically documented and available. All you have to do is go back to the beginning of the exchange:

I wrote:

Of course, I agree with Dave and Dan.

I love Marsha and did not find her shallow, especially if that means anything even remotely related to insincere. She is an incredibly talented writer and demonstrated her capacity to think on many occasions, even if those thoughts were not directly pointed at "the path to Enlightenment."

Accordingly, I thank you for the compliment, Dan. Perhaps I just stick out more now that she's no longer here---for all the wrong reasons...

[potential for philosophical discourse]

Ryan selectively responded as follows:

Quote:
Accordingly, I thank you for the compliment, Dan. Perhaps I just stick out more now that she's no longer here---for all the wrong reasons...

R: You stick out because you have the mouth of a sailor, god damn Leyla! And don't tell me to F* off either!

[Note: no “mouth of a sailor” was present in the post to which he was responding]

To which I then replied:

Quote:
You stick out because you have the mouth of a sailor, god damn Leyla! And don't tell me to F* off either!

L: That’s Captain to you, whore!

Quote:
I think I caused a nervous breakdown in her when I criticised the inferiority of everything islam.

[Seriously, this comment above took the cake for stupidity--talk about preening the ego]

L: [laughs!] You’re hallucinating, Ryan. Though, you’re stupidity sometimes is rather testing.

Quote:
I remember she went on an angry rant for the fact that I still lived with my parents.

L: It was not an angry rant for the fact that you still lived with your parents. It was sheer disgust at your parasitic (like maggots to a carcass) and hypocritical nature. A wake-up call, if you will. Obviously, fell on deaf ears--do maggots even have ears?

[Still no “sailor’s mouth,” aside from to the comment that begged for it---and, lo and behold…]

R: Well, I can either live with my parents or I could go on welfare or disability checks, but both are rather deflating to your bourgeois values Leyla, we all cant be the world champion of female arm wrestling like you, you know…

No philosophical value, at all. Not to mention how utterly deluded Ryan’s perception of others (in this case, me) is. Deflating to my bourgeois values? I hold no such implied values! Ryan is seriously deluding himself.

So, the question is, whose bourgeois values make me stick out and what relationship does that have to silliness?

.

And some reckon this forum has improved for Marsha's absence....

Man, if only she knew the implied power she wielded!

.

Leyla wrote:

I hold no such implied values!

Then why do you see living with one's parents as a negative thing? What do you think the better option is and why?

Leyla Shen wrote:That’s Captain to you, whore!

If that was not silliness, were you being serious?

Ryan wrote:Leyla wrote:

Ryan, the reluctant sadist, intelligently responded to what he considers “silly” without specifying why he thinks it silly:

No, no. you’re were being silly when you responded by calling me a whore, and comparing me to a maggot.

You see, I was the initiator of silliness, but you responded with a certain degree of silliness as well,

Ryan 'fessed up to his silliness, so either you were serious or you don't have the courage to be honest and truthful about your silliness. What does that board description say again girl? I also still don't see the logic in your statement about "when the acknowledgment is essentially the denial in itself. "
.

(Ryan pokes his head out from behind Elizabeth, So there! take that Leyla!)

The only time I think it’s a negative thing for an person to live at home is when such a living arrangement is less conducive to his development as an individual than not.

As I recall the incident with Marsha, you were filled with such contempt for your parents that I could hardly imagine you making any progress at all---unless such a contempt eventually bears the fruit of independence of mind. In my view, that is obviously not the case. You would have no such resentment for them if it were.

Had I absolutely held that living at home with one’s parents is negative, I’d have kicked my children out a long time ago.

No-one can escape interdependence. The question is always: what are you depending on and why?

So, Ryan, why are you depending on such disgusting things as your parents?

.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:(Ryan pokes his head out from behind Elizabeth, So there! take that Leyla!)

Naturally, always looking for the closest thing to mummy you can find.

Edit: Elizabeth suffers from the same malady as you, by the way.

.

Leyla wrote:

So, Ryan, why are you depending on such disgusting things as your parents?

It is tolerable because regardless of how imperfect they are, they give me space, freedom, and solitude. Even though I vent their imperfections, I have no contempt. I feel for the suffering they have endured and do endure. One cannot have contempt for ignorant people, they are so frail and weak. My mother is a traditional woman that feels useful by serving the family, she feels fulfilled by pleasing the men by cooking, cleaning, and providing a fertile home environment.

I was thinking about living near her until she dies because she has no relationship with my alcoholic father, they fight a lot, and she has invested everything into me. She has even said that if I ever moved far away she would have no reason for living, it is a strange relationship; her degree of attachment is unlike anything I have ever seen in my life.

To compensate for a failed marriage, she invested everything into me, I am all her meaning, and this has resulted in a super-strong emotional bond on her part, and I feed her illusion because if she knows truth of how I’m not attached to anybody including her, I think it would kill her.

She is a strong woman in many ways, but her attachment to me is one of the most irrational things I have ever encountered. She shakes and sobs uncontrollably at the thought of me not being in her life.

My reasoning is this: She is one of the sole reasons I possess the intelligence I do, she provided a warm, clean, and stable environment for me and I feel that I at least owe her the duty of not causing her a lot of suffering. I want her life to be as comfortable and gentle as possible.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:... she invested everything into me, I am all her meaning, and this has resulted in a super-strong emotional bond on her part, and I feed her illusion because if she knows truth of how I’m not attached to anybody including her, I think it would kill her.

It's interesting and a tough call but one could say you can never be sure about the level of your own attachment to this arrangement until you step away from it.

As a general rule relationships with strong dependency from one side for an extended period creates almost always a hidden co-dependency which will not be admitted to. Ones thoughts just block it out and keep on making justifications.

There's no easy way of telling this is all really the case, until you test it out. Your reasoning in itself is understandable and your degree of self-knowledge might be enough. But it's perhaps a more dangerous 'game' you're playing than you're realizing.

Leyla Shen wrote:Naturally, always looking for the closest thing to mummy you can find.

It doesn't work that way Leyla. I was standing up against irrationality. Perhaps one day when I am tired and someone is slinging more irrationality at me, maybe Ryan will fight with me on that battle. How is it that men can fight shoulder to shoulder and no one thinks twice, but if a female pops into the picture, it's "mummy?"

And why is it that men can fight shoulder to shoulder, but if a female is being attacked, the other females bandy together against her instead of at her shoulder?

Leyla Shen wrote:Edit: Elizabeth suffers from the same malady as you, by the way.

What malady is that?

Ryan wrote:I was thinking about living near her until she dies because she has no relationship with my alcoholic father, they fight a lot, and she has invested everything into me. She has even said that if I ever moved far away she would have no reason for living, it is a strange relationship; her degree of attachment is unlike anything I have ever seen in my life.

To compensate for a failed marriage, she invested everything into me, I am all her meaning, and this has resulted in a super-strong emotional bond on her part, and I feed her illusion because if she knows truth of how I’m not attached to anybody including her, I think it would kill her.

She is a strong woman in many ways, but her attachment to me is one of the most irrational things I have ever encountered. She shakes and sobs uncontrollably at the thought of me not being in her life.

What your mother has done to you is called "parentification" and it is a form of child abuse. She has made you her subsittute husband at the expense of your own development. The level of guilt and manipulation is especially difficult if you are in a guilded cage.

I suggest you do some research on parentification. It may or may not help you, but at least you will understand what is going on.

Elizabeth wrote:

She has made you her substitute husband at the expense of your own development.

I wouldn’t say I’m the replacement husband, I don’t satisfy any of his roles. Although I do provide her with psychological advice after her and my father feud. We have more of a master/servant relationship and a doctor/patient relationship.

Diebert wrote:

It's interesting and a tough call but one could say you can never be sure about the level of your own attachment to this arrangement until you step away from it.

Well, I did move away for a year, and there didn’t seem to be any attachment on my part. I rarely thought of anyone from my hometown. However, when I came home for visits, my mother always met me at the door sobbing, and I always felt unemotional and alienated.

There have been repeating fantasies in my mind of her dying, which I thought could an indicator of my attachment, but as soon as I learned how to cook, and do some survival things, the fantasies went away.

I've concluded I don't believe I would feel anything if she died, but then again it is difficult to be certain.

It is not the duty of the child to provide emotional support for the parent - which is what she is demanding from you. It is moreso the duty of the spouse or the parent to provide such support. It is the duty of the parent to raise the child to become an independent adult - which she not only has neglected to do, but has activly opposed in you.

Parentification does not mean incest, nor does it necessarily mean financial support. Emotional bondage is sufficient to be considered parentification.