GENIUS FORUMS

Ryan,

K: A man with even the slightest degree of wisdom, knows that power is a delusion. He'll probably just feel sad for the female, and less sad the wiser he is.

R: Kelly, you must understand that the sexuality of males functions much differently than females, you assume your subjective experience is universal. Males are affected much differently by the opposite sex than females.

Actually, females are far more immersed in sexuality than males, generally speaking. I think you'll find that men can direct and coordinate their behaviour better, are more conscious of the sudden intensity of impulses (and the mental conflict this causes), and are far more capable of understanding the ramifications of chastity.

All women are - as the proverb goes - nuns with their breasts exposed. So, men have the goods for celibacy, not women.

K: Not even solitude will prevent lust. Only a conscious decision to abandon what is hurting one's mind, will begin to prevent it.

R: It’s not that simple for young males I’m afraid. Male sexuality at its peek is like a ragging hurricane.

For the majority, this is probably true. However, some males take no pride in their sexuality, and value the quality of their thinking extremely highly. Two examples: Kevin and Rhett, both highly masculine males, who minimised sexual interactions in their early 20s. As far as i know, they largely abandoned sexuality because of how it degraded consciousness. It is like turning off a tap gradually. Sexual desire is a branch of the root lust (the ego): it won't diminish until non-attachment makes sense.

Keep it simple. Explore things as cause and effect, and then allow your thoughts to roam naturally.

Desire is your karma, so it's nothing to make a fuss over. Just keep turning your mind back to the source of all things: cause and effect.

Slowly, over many years, your mind will come to centre on emptiness, and this will begin transforming your entire being.


.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Kelly Jones wrote:Have they indicated their willingness to stop being emotionally manipulative? This is the entire point.

Also, do you mind telling us how you interacted with these "abused" women,...?

You're still not differentiating well - that's why I took this to one subject at a time.

My previous post was to clarify the point of the accuracy of my data (people are willing to tell me the truth even if it is embarrassing). From that, you are trying to blend two topics that need to be differentiated from each other.

Who do you want me to explain about my interactions with?
(choose from the following)

1. abused women
2. women who like to play "damsel in distress"
.

Kelly Jones wrote:It makes no difference to me. I bundle them altogether because there is no difference between a person who has a habit of self-injuring physically and one who self-injures psychologically.

Did any of them admit to being willing to stop abusing or emotionally manipulating themselves and others?

What was your conduct towards them?

I ask you to choose between two groups, and you present with two additional groups, and state that it makes no difference to you so you bundle them all together. At least we agree that you are not differentiating between these various groups of women.

In order to cover all of the categories of women that you are asking about, I can only answer with the behaviors that I presented to all of them - which does not fully address your earlier inquiry. If you do not differentiate between the types of women, then you would not be able to understand the different methods of communicating with them.

I behaved in an open, compassionate, and understanding manner. This is how I get the truth from people. People tend to not talk to you if they think you will not understand things from their perspective.

Understanding from their perspective is also a useful tool for helping others see your perspective as well. The Truth is made of the perspectives of everyone and much more. Just as we can see depth better with two eyes than one, we can see depth of Truth better from two perspectives than one. The more perspectives we can see, the more dimensions of Truth we can see.

I'm sooooo not surprised by your reply, Elizabeth.

I'd have been surprised if you'd written:

I do not treat women any different from men. I always behave in an open, truthful, absolutely plain-speaking and logical manner. As people generally hate this, I encourage them to explore and to speak the truth, by remaining light-spirited, relaxed, grounded, and interested in everything.

I never touch people, tell them that I feel sorry for them, give them hugs, or smile lovingly into their eyes. In fact, I rarely make eye contact, because I'm listening very carefully to what they say, and wish to optimise my reasoning powers.

Understanding the meaning of what people say is generally easy for me. I rarely show my agreement, since I find that this compromises a person's independence of thought. My sensitivity to truthfulness seems to encourage others to behave more rationally, but i don't coerce them to copy me.

I prefer that people say what they think, and not play games, for fear of having emotional support withdrawn.

Many people want me to accept them, just as they are. They say things like "Truth is made of all perspectives --- so just by being conscious and having a perspective, one knows Truth". I reply truthfully, and correct this falsehood absolutely, and other falsehoods - since falsehoods do exist.

I've heard people say that Truth has degrees: one can tell a small lie, or a big lie. But I correct this too, that there is falsehood, and then there is truth. There's truth and not-truth, end of story.

-

Kelly,

I wrote (bold added)

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:I behaved in an open, compassionate, and understanding manner. This is how I get the truth from people. People tend to not talk to you if they think you will not understand things from their perspective.

"People" is a genderless term used when describing men and women. I described how I treat people - if I'd meant just women, I would have said "women." I strive to say what I mean and mean what I say - and to communicate clearly. You seem to make up definitions just to suit your desires rather than to communicate a mutually understandable point (e.g. "abuse" is anything that Kelly finds objectionable).

Kelly, from the time we have met, you have continually thrown barbs at me. I threw one back at you, and immediatly Leyla jumps to your defense telling me to drop the condescending "sweetie" and - I believe it was Ryan - who popped up to tell you that you have a heart of gold. Meanwhile you continue to twist my words and continue with your condescending tone to me - which is appearantly acceptable for Kelly the Great, just not for me. Somehow you have this board wrapped around your pinkie finger, and I recognize that reason is no match for you since you have simply decided that you are right about everything. You might be willing to take the plugs out of your ears for Dan, the Davids, Kevin, or Sue - but it appears that you have decided that you are better than all of the rest of us. It would be illogical for me to waste more of my time on this matter.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:"People" is a genderless term used when describing men and women. I described how I treat people - if I'd meant just women, I would have said "women."

My question was about your conduct towards these anecdotal women of yours. You replied referring to "people". This word usually includes men and women. So, i assume you don't distinguish between the sexes in how you treat them.

You answered the second of my two questions, by revealing that you have a bad habit of emotionally manipulating people. Clear to anyone who prefers independence of mind, at least.

But you haven't answered the first. Namely, have any of the females you have been referring to mentioned to you that they were willing to abandon emotional manipulation and abuse, of themselves and others?

I strive to say what I mean and mean what I say - and to communicate clearly. You seem to make up definitions just to suit your desires rather than to communicate a mutually understandable point (e.g. "abuse" is anything that Kelly finds objectionable).

I'm pretty sure you don't understand my points, but others may. There's no need to abandon true definitions just because others don't use or understand them.

Kelly, from the time we have met, you have continually thrown barbs at me.

Praise and applause usually means someone has lied, and is actively pandering to the ego. Intense conflict and disagreement may signal that some important truth is being discussed.

While the latter may seem abusive, since there is suffering and open conflict, it is actually deeply compassionate. I have been wrestling the mind of the reader, out of the grip of the ego. It remains to be seen whether this holiness is evident to the reader who needs it.

I threw one back at you, and immediatly Leyla jumps to your defense telling me to drop the condescending "sweetie" and - I believe it was Ryan - who popped up to tell you that you have a heart of gold.

That's their problem, not mine.

Meanwhile you continue to twist my words and continue with your condescending tone to me - which is appearantly acceptable for Kelly the Great, just not for me. Somehow you have this board wrapped around your pinkie finger, and I recognize that reason is no match for you since you have simply decided that you are right about everything.

I don't like abusing people. I prefer stimulating the mind to think.

Also, it's often not enough to point to Ultimate Reality, because understanding it won't arise when there are strong attachments. The attachment to the feminine mind is the greatest hindrance to wisdom, so i focus on it emphatically.

I try to help unwrap people from women's apron strings. It is always going to offend the one who's cocooned in them. That is an important truth to get used to.

Recognising the depth of an attachment, that has no reasoning to support it, is the first step to abandoning it.

You might be willing to take the plugs out of your ears for Dan, the Davids, Kevin, or Sue - but it appears that you have decided that you are better than all of the rest of us. It would be illogical for me to waste more of my time on this matter.

I value truth, so i am naturally drawn to truthful words. I "listen to" and think about everyone who posts here, depending on how much good sound they make. There's not much point in focussing on the good and healthy.

Perhaps you should stop looking for praise, emotional support, and approval, and start focussing on truthfulness, individuality, rationality, and emptiness.

Did any of your anecdotal females mention that they were willing to stop emotionally manipulating and abusing themselves and others?


------------------

Kelly Jones wrote:

Keep it simple. Explore things as cause and effect, and then allow your thoughts to roam naturally.

Desire is your karma, so it's nothing to make a fuss over. Just keep turning your mind back to the source of all things: cause and effect.

Slowly, over many years, your mind will come to centre on emptiness, and this will begin transforming your entire being.

Thanks Kelly, but I don’t require advice. Sexuality is a minor thing anyhow, it’s presence doesn’t cause any intense suffering, just a slight discontent.

The truth is that the libido will probably slow down as I age without ‘me’ doing anything to initiate it.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:The truth is that the libido will probably slow down as I age without ‘me’ doing anything to initiate it.

I've heard that people who haven't reproduced by their early forties (end of the reproductive and parenting years) experience significantly greater libido.

My plan is to kidnap a child - or perhaps be kidnapped by a ready-made family - sometime in the next few years. Any thoughts on how to avoid long-term consequences.....?

Kelly: I can find no flaw in your reasoning---in the overall subject of this thread or in your individual and astute posts---yet there is one thing about which I wanted to ask...

Kelly Jones wrote:
The feminine mind is characterised by irrationality.

Why do you suppose that is?

Could the "irrationality" often attributed to women be in fact logic---left-brain-dominance---without it's intuitive, creative (right-brain) counterpart to make it function properly?

Logic cannot function alone---the left brain gets stuck, looping, over-analyzing, cycling dead-end thought patterns endlessly because there is no intuitive or creative (right-brained---masculine, as I reason) component; it needs a "kick in the ass" from the right brain...like a record skipping, the right brain often whacks the needle (randomness) and places it someplace else. Alternatively, it places it somewhere apparently random but which later makes complete sense when reasoned.

Or perhaps this "irrationality" is due to over-rationalization, which is by definition not rational?

Could it be that most females' left brains are interpretting rather badly what's coming out of the (mute) right brain? Rationalizing incorrectly what "came to them" on the right side, which tends to know things but can't express very effectively without left brain help (the hemisphere which has the best grasp of language, words, and verbal communication of course), might explain why women are commonly viewed as "irrational" or "illogical."

(Logic ought to be women's strongest mental quality, but it isn't; nearly everything "feminine" can be observed as a left hemisphere characterisitic, from wordiness to worrying to lack of creativity to lack of deep abstract thought to being linear, et cetera, with the exception of logic, which is considered to be a "masculine" trait but which doesn't hold logically in this model. As in, how can men be better at something than women when it really shouldn't be predominantly a 'male strength?')

Anyway, I'd like to 'hear' your ideas on this---as well as anyone else's, for that matter.

Edit:

Kelly Jones wrote:
My plan is to kidnap a child - or perhaps be kidnapped by a ready-made family - sometime in the next few years. Any thoughts on how to avoid long-term consequences.....?

Don't get caught or don't do it in the first place.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:
The truth is that the libido will probably slow down as I age without ‘me’ doing anything to initiate it.

Not so for me---I (a male who) just turned 36, and my rather annoying libido has not subsided in any degree whatsoever since my teens. I gave into it twice over the last three years (had sex with women), out of weakness---as though similar to an alcoholic who's addicted "for life."

The addiction is, however, like most men, to female sexual power and beauty power rather than to alcohol, of course. I employ various tactics to deny the libido, but they don't always work (it's easier to deny my ego than my libido) and I have to simply distract and use whatever tricks that come to mind; it's always there and I simply suffer with it. Which is fine: suffering is always beneficial for the mind and spirit. I just need to be vigiliant and catch myself if I find that I'm tempted and beginning to make excuses = deceiving myself...

So, I'd recommend not relying on it diminishing as the "solution" for it, because it might be exactly the same as it is now, even in twenty years' time.

Nordicus,

Nordicvs wrote:

Kelly Jones wrote:
The feminine mind is characterised by irrationality.

Why do you suppose that is?

Could the "irrationality" often attributed to women be in fact logic---left-brain-dominance---without it's intuitive, creative (right-brain) counterpart to make it function properly?

No, i don't think so. Rationality is when any identity is recognised to be itself. Identity starts with intuition and ends with logic, to verify the identity as itself.

The irrational mind doesn't have clear intuitions, because each identity lacks the step of recognising itself. It lacks the memory to make any identities at all. So there is no ground for creativity.

I think the feminine mind is irrational, largely because parents encourage little girls to live up to a glamorous fairy self-image. Young girls often have imagined realms like "Planet Nature" or "Cat World", with made-up language, mystical symbols, transport, and secret relationships. Such worlds are all sensation, imagination, emotion, and "do whatever you like to do". As such, the feminine-mind never gets grounded in reflexive identity (truth), but is always "change!-change!-change!".

I'm horrified at parents that feed these little girls' flightiness with lots of hugging, crying and laughing, and an overwhelming sensory environment. Highly colourful bedrooms full of toys, puppets, dolls, glitter and shine ------- it starves the children of opportunities to grow and deepen the all-important mental strength: to think without physiological distractions.

Logic cannot function alone---the left brain gets stuck, looping, over-analyzing, cycling dead-end thought patterns endlessly because there is no intuitive or creative (right-brained---masculine, as I reason) component; it needs a "kick in the ass" from the right brain...like a record skipping, the right brain often whacks the needle (randomness) and places it someplace else. Alternatively, it places it somewhere apparently random but which later makes complete sense when reasoned.

If thoughts are looping fruitlessly, it means the mind is lingering on something. A logical identity is just what it is. Reality is made of infinite logical identities.

Or perhaps this "irrationality" is due to over-rationalization, which is by definition not rational?

I'm not sure what over-rationalisation is. Could you explain further?

Could it be that most females' left brains are interpretting rather badly what's coming out of the (mute) right brain? Rationalizing incorrectly what "came to them" on the right side, which tends to know things but can't express very effectively without left brain help (the hemisphere which has the best grasp of language, words, and verbal communication of course), might explain why women are commonly viewed as "irrational" or "illogical."

I think you're saying that women think rationally, but can't express or act on their thoughts rationally. However, the act of thinking is itself expressed and acted-on. It is evident when thinking that all one's expression and behaviour reflects thoughtfulness. So women ought rightly to reflect thoughtfulness, if indeed that were a feminine trait.

(Logic ought to be women's strongest mental quality, but it isn't; nearly everything "feminine" can be observed as a left hemisphere characterisitic, from wordiness to worrying to lack of creativity to lack of deep abstract thought to being linear, et cetera, with the exception of logic, which is considered to be a "masculine" trait but which doesn't hold logically in this model. As in, how can men be better at something than women when it really shouldn't be predominantly a 'male strength?')

I don't know what you're saying here.

Kelly Jones wrote: My plan is to kidnap a child - or perhaps be kidnapped by a ready-made family - sometime in the next few years. Any thoughts on how to avoid long-term consequences.....?

Nordicus: Don't get caught or don't do it in the first place.

It was tongue-in-cheek.

After watching a DVD called "After Maeve" of a mother indulgently grieving over her dead 10yo daughter for half an hour - the DVD goes for an hour, but i got bored - the idea started to decompose.

The addiction is, however, like most men, to female sexual power and beauty power rather than to alcohol, of course. I employ various tactics to deny the libido, but they don't always work (it's easier to deny my ego than my libido) and I have to simply distract and use whatever tricks that come to mind; it's always there and I simply suffer with it. Which is fine: suffering is always beneficial for the mind and spirit. I just need to be vigiliant and catch myself if I find that I'm tempted and beginning to make excuses = deceiving myself...

The last line holds the key: deceiving oneself.

Women like to "go blank" so that a desireable image can be projected on them. Coquetry consists of nothing more than a woman posing as what you think she is - not what she thinks you want. Women are very tuned into emotion and body cues, that is, how people express and act-out their thoughts.

But because women have no self-awareness, it is always the conscious, masculine man who has to, and can, catch the illusion on the fly.

It is his choice whether to puff the little dream out, or fan it into a full-blown delusion.



.

Nordicvs wrote:

The addiction is, however, like most men, to female sexual power and beauty power rather than to alcohol, of course. I employ various tactics to deny the libido, but they don't always work (it's easier to deny my ego than my libido) and I have to simply distract and use whatever tricks that come to mind; it's always there and I simply suffer with it. Which is fine: suffering is always beneficial for the mind and spirit. I just need to be vigiliant and catch myself if I find that I'm tempted and beginning to make excuses = deceiving myself...

That’s lovely, at least I have something to look forward to later in life… Usually I justify the whole thing based on the fact that the energy release in the body (during orgasm) actually acts as a pain reliever, even though it causes pain to the body in the process.

There is the illusion that one has the ability to stop it, but the libido is too powerful many of the times - in men anyway, I don’t know if this is the case in females..

That is why claiming that there has been a perfectly enlightened Buddha free from all sexual desire is highly unlikely, the evidence suggests otherwise.

Ryan wrote:

That is why claiming that there has been a perfectly enlightened Buddha free from all sexual desire is highly unlikely, the evidence suggests otherwise.

Kelly wrote of focusing one’s mind on causality in an effort to free the mind from those illusions that keep it trapped in the feminine. Illusions such as happiness and sadness, loss and gain can’t begin to be destroyed whilst one continues to hold onto them for dear life. And whilst holding onto them, the hold of the feminine remains fast.

A man who works to untie his mind from the illusions that support the feminine has a greater chance at perfect freedom than does a man who remains bound.

-
Sue

When there's a build-up of semen, then wanking to "milk the cow" can help. At least one doesn't have to wash the sheets so often.

I think i tend to identify my biological impulses as belonging to my "animal ancestors". So they aren't really "part of my soul".

Use it if it's helpful.

claiming that there has been a perfectly enlightened Buddha free from all sexual desire is highly unlikely, the evidence suggests otherwise.

It's a logical possibility, given that non-attachment precludes sexual desire.

There's a story by Kierkegaard that i've been thinking about recently. It's about a gambler trying to get off the hook. Each evening, as the time comes closer, he promises that "just this hour, i won't go down to the tavern --- i'll put it off for an hour". He manages to hoax the "hook" of his desire for just an hour. The next night, he tries two hours. And after that, puts it off for an evening.

Gradually, he comes to be able to hoax himself out of the entire mentality, by keeping his purpose uppermost in his mind. The sickness passed by small doses of going "cold".


.

But I enjoy fucking. What's the point of being perfect, anyway? Woman is just the local surrogate for an otherwise abstract God.

I'm 52 and have more mojo that I know what to do with.

Woman is just the local surrogate for an otherwise abstract God.

That's insightful.

So, if you have no superstition, you have no need for love.

reedsch wrote:What's the point of being perfect, anyway?

Having sex, or emotionally manipulating people to satisfy one's needs, isn't the opposite of perfection.

The point of this thread is to dig deeper into human psychology, specifically into why women like abuse. My opinion is that abuse is basically anything that suffocates interest in Ultimate Truth.

Women are into heavy abuse, because abuse prevents any real thinking, and real thinking dismantles her.

What is a woman but a superfluity, a bundle of emotions, shrieking over the latest fashions, endless gossiping/nagging/bitching, slavering over babies, and incredibly bad-tempered, wasteful, disorganised, and a complete waste of time?

If she ever stopped flaunting her breasts, or jiggling her bottom, or changing adornments, or stopped checking to see whether everyone was looking, then men would quickly lose interest in her, and no longer be distracted by her --- and instead turn to digging deeply into profound and eternal questions such as the nature of reality, consciousness, how things exist, and what the self actually is.

If she wasn't there taunting and teasing, nagging and bitching, men might actually begin to live in freedom. They might realise what idiots they are to slave away at a mindless shitty job for the majority of their conscious hours, or to have the dubious honour of plugging away at a mindless shitty vagina --- or hoping to --- for the majority of their semi-conscious hours.

It may even occur to them that the great highlights, such as international soccer via satellite, watching his sons grow to repeat his errors dutifully, and watching his daughters grow to couple with men like him, are bribes in the great mindless convention that is Society/Womanity.

God knows, a free man might get to thinking about other things. Like, what are things? Are they real? Are they perfect or imperfect? What about all things? As he'd no longer have any reason to get a job or entertain a self-centred baby, he has no reason to despise himself any longer. What a relief to be a free man.



.

Kelly Jones wrote: No, i don't think so. Rationality is when any identity is recognised to be itself. Identity starts with intuition and ends with logic, to verify the identity as itself.

The irrational mind doesn't have clear intuitions, because each identity lacks the step of recognising itself. It lacks the memory to make any identities at all. So there is no ground for creativity.

Hmm. Since logic is left-brained and intuition-creativity is right-brained (the left hemisphere is only responsible for talent; for example, the skill it takes to copy something, like images or sentences, word-structures, or the skill it takes to move a paintbrush or pencil around with accuracy and precision), what you just stated was that the right hemisphere of the brain isn't rational, which is true, but perception is also in the right brain---all that we take in through our senses gets stored there, then it's all processed through the left brain, which tries to make sense out of it.

Since the right hemisphere is mute (the left brain handles speech, words, most symbols, and language), everything it perceives (which is absolutely everything possible to be perceieved by a given individual) is filtered and translated by the left hemisphere, and this is why people (who are not dominated by their left brains) who aren't good with words opt for other types of expression---like poetry or art, more creative, abstract means.

Which means what?

1. The right brain sees everything crystal clearly---it knows, it identifies and discerns, it sees the truth of things; there are no systems or lies to filter reality through, no fallacies of reason or delusion...but it can't express itself with words and can't understand many things, like time, (linear) sequence, or even logic.

2. The right brain is the irrational mind. It is also the creative mind. Women seem prone to irrationality, but women are not more creative than men, or more intuitive on average, and generally have lower perceptive abilities than men---in essence, they are, like 90% of the people on this planet, overwhelmingly dominated by their left brains. (This is why I cannot make sense of "women are more irrational" in terms of brain hemispheric dominance.)

3. This is confusing. So, I'll re-post your above sentence with two words replaced: "The right brain doesn't have clear intuitions, because each identity lacks the step of recognising itself. It lacks the memory to make any identities at all. So there is no ground for creativity."

4. The right brain does indeed have clear intuitions (but they're understood with only one side of the mind---the left---and put into other terms, mainly words, in effect converted/interpreted into a common reality), as well as the ability, the "grounds" you speak of, to be creative. The problem with the right brain's intuition is that it requires the left side to make sense out of it; its perception and intuition are pristine, pure, so any trouble is due to the left brain mucking things up, misdeciphering, skipping a step in logical argumentation, being emotional, over-analyzing...

5. This means that the rational mind is where we "lack the memory" (which each hemisphere has for various types of memory) "to make identities." The right brain recalls faces and pictures, concepts and shapes of symbols, while the left brain recalls words, names, numbers, and objects; so which is an "identity?"---a concept or an object? Which one will determine which side is responsible for its memory.

However, the right hemisphere certainly "lacks the step of recognising itself." The right brain doesn't work in terms of steps---it randomly moves about in its own way, which has no recognizable patterns as far as scientists call tell (but may exist nonetheless); it can't understand time and tends to think in terms of spatial 3D reality and "the big picture," universally, not concerned many details. (Probably suited man well as he strolled across plains, searching for silhouettes of prey on the horizon, deeming which to pursue and which to escape.)

Anyway, nobody is all masculine or all feminine, nor is anyone completely right-brain-dominated or left-brain-dominated---every human switches back and forth between brains doing just about anything, yet it's more than evident that most of us exercise our left brains far, far more than the right (as time moves forward for humanity, it seems that we are becoming increasingly dominated by our left brains, which explains how the world is becoming "sensibly moronic" with every passing day, with little individual logical choices proving disastrous for the planet as a whole).

If all of this is sound, and I would not agree with it if it wasn't, the confusing bit comes with logic and rationality. I don't understand fully how men have become more rational, reasonable, and logical in spite of going from being overwhelmingly right brained, compared to women (I refuse to say "right-brain-dominated" because the right mind is not the organizational, controlling force in the brain---the "will to power" seems to reside on the left side, the drive to organize, manipulate, control) to merely being right-brained slightly more than women on average.

[The possible links to schizophrenia seem huge with this, but I'm not sure exactly in what ways...]

Kelly Jones wrote: I think the feminine mind is irrational, largely because parents encourage little girls to live up to a glamorous fairy self-image. Young girls often have imagined realms like "Planet Nature" or "Cat World", with made-up language, mystical symbols, transport, and secret relationships. Such worlds are all sensation, imagination, emotion, and "do whatever you like to do". As such, the feminine-mind never gets grounded in reflexive identity (truth), but is always "change!-change!-change!".

So, is the problem that girls are pretty imaginative (boys are, too, by the way) and cling to fantasy, or rather that they fail to "grow out of this" as they age---staying as little girls for most of their lives?

If so, it fits with what I know and have determined to be a gross majority of women (as well as men, far lower in severity) who seem to never grow up at all. Globalization-domestication-civilization seem to be synonymous with not only feminization, corporatization, but also infantacization.

The question is what do boys do differently during the school years that girls don't do? Young girls and boys appear to have equal amounts of potential, yet the way we parent and educate them turns them into sheep, as simple as milk, with girls appearing to regress back into childhood as the school years end...

Kelly Jones wrote: I'm horrified at parents that feed these little girls' flightiness with lots of hugging, crying and laughing, and an overwhelming sensory environment. Highly colourful bedrooms full of toys, puppets, dolls, glitter and shine ------- it starves the children of opportunities to grow and deepen the all-important mental strength: to think without physiological distractions.

As an artist, I disagree---highly colourful and vivid surroundings would do the opposite of stifle creativity (sensory deprivation leads to mental stagnation, boredom, depression of the central nervous system, which is why there are so many higher case of seasonal affective disorder in northern climates: the pervasive blandness of ice and snow is death for the right brain).

I think what it does is reinforce the (left-brained) already-apparent fixation for girls upon objects, and either manipulating those objects or manipulating the dolls (and later, boys, and still later: men) to manipulate those objects for her, another "doll" herself.

Strictly speaking, with that environment, girls ought to be very stimulated and creative; of course, creativity peaks when suffering and often when very bored (and doing something with that other than turning on an entertainment device, like a TV), as well as when having no usual means of communication...but girls are usually better with words than boys, and girls are coddled, over-protected, pampered---and entertained---beyond belief. As they enter school, it all goes to shit: already feminine and having loads of potential, they sit and count and organize and rationalize, and exercise their left brains every day, leaving the other side to gather dust and spiderwebs.

I agree parents are a problem, but so is school---far worse for boys, though, whose strength is---right-brained---experiential learning, doing...not sitting, being spoon-fed info, and playing tennis with words.

Kelly Jones wrote: If thoughts are looping fruitlessly, it means the mind is lingering on something. A logical identity is just what it is. Reality is made of infinite logical identities.

Hmm. Reality as I see it is insane; horribly brutal chaos---the perception of which is reconstructed, in saner terms, by the other half of the brain which puts it into a word we invented called "reality." Basically, it's a left brained delusion of perceptions, ideas and concepts it did not perceive itself but is forced to sift through and try to create (for which it needs the right side) something sensible, about which it lies, logicizes, and settles into some sort of frame peacefully for its emotions (as "feelings" are found in the opposite hemisphere); to be at peace with it, to fit it into that which it already knows, so it can resume taking direction from the will.

Kelly Jones wrote: I'm not sure what over-rationalisation is. Could you explain further?

Over-rationalization is part of what many people refer to "over-analysis," too much sequential or circular thinking; the left brain dominating the entire brain and turning it into a Swiss watch that won't tell the correct time.

Excuse my pop-culture reference, but Spock, for example, on Star Trek, would be a perfect example of an utterly left-brained person; his artistic ability is the only thing they totally 'got wrong' (he would be completely devoid of humour, creativity, intuition, or randomness; music is entirely right-brained, from the ability to hear it and create it, even though the left side creates the rules and supplies words---Spock would be able to play an instrument yet he'd be unable to create any original piece), plus he would be intensely talkative, object-fixated, worrysome, and he would not be very good at chess since that requires spatial perception and intuitive (thinking "moves ahead"), abstract thinking. Otherwise, he's perfectly suited for an intellectual life in a box (or floating box, as the case might be); stick him out in the wilderness without technology, and he's lost.

Dead, really. He would not survive because as some many-toothed alien beast charged at his face, he'd been cycling logical courses of action to avoid being eaten---and he'd be lunch before he finished. Natural life works faster than words and does not obey logic---as we saw from Spock's troubles on that planet with large, hairy proto-humanoids (in the epidsode, "The Galieo Seven," if memory serves); he applied logic, over-thought things, and damn near got everyone killed. (It was the act at the end of that episode, the desperate and illogical burning off of the fuel reserves right away as a signal rather than logically using it all to stay alive as long as possible, which saved them---meaning that Captain Logic is a really bad commander in a crisis; he needs some nutty, wild ideas, and instincts, to properly lead.)

When confronted with anything but logic, an overly logical mind collapses inevitably. As long as everything's fine and operating within logical parameters (and devoid of humour or even sarcasm, which the left brain has trouble with), logic works great.

But nothing was ever created with logic; no one ever used a rational system to invent something.

Also, the left brain is perpetually consumed with details, which is why very logical people and intellectuals often miss the "bigger picture." Over-analysis happens always with details---which I think is why women tend to pick apart some minor point during a conversation instead of remaining focused on the subject in its entirity; and it's not just women, since I have seen many men do it and I have caught myself doing it here and there (I did it here in another thread: lost perspective, due to anger over something I misunderstood, and began circling one small point like a shark, until I finally left it, stepped back and returned to in a different frame of mind).

Over-rationalization = over-anaysis = over-thinking. All thought and no action. I see nothing wrong with logic (in moderation; when necessary); it's awesome for beings shut-up in sterile boxes with nothing much to do but think. But I'm no fan of it; I don't see it as anything but a bloated side-effect of civilization and the feminization of humans in this artifical environment. It is the opposite of instinct, which I hold as the most important quality ...that we are trying to destroy and re-create and re-organize into our own constructs.

(Anyway, the character of Spock on that show realized this, too, when he later said, "Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end.")

Kelly Jones wrote: I think you're saying that women think rationally, but can't express or act on their thoughts rationally. However, the act of thinking is itself expressed and acted-on. It is evident when thinking that all one's expression and behaviour reflects thoughtfulness. So women ought rightly to reflect thoughtfulness, if indeed that were a feminine trait.

Yes.

Kelly Jones wrote: I don't know what you're saying here.

When we think of "male traits" and "female traits" we tend to look at examples in civilization; and we have it wrong, because this isn't true male behaviour anymore than dog behaviour is common among wolves. No, we have to look back about ten thousand years to see man as he really was.

And what was he? He was a hunter; he was part of a small social group, a tribe, and had thought along those lines for about two million years. He didn't talk a lot because it's not a good idea to be chatty when you're stalking a herd of large land mammals; nor can one be sensitive and overly-thoughtful...everything's reduced to action, intuitively reacting to the forest and its many forms of life, and it takes mental hardness, concentration and patience, and the ability to get off a shot (at a moving target) when the timing's right; or else everyone goes hungry.

There is nothing logical about hunting (logically, we ought to just avoid all that needless and messy, bloody work and simply farm...which is what we ended up doing in Sumer; and logically, we ought to just control the animals and have them nearby instead of chasing after them and hunting them..., which is also what we ended up doing), but it helped humans survive, with meaning and purpose and fulfillment, for over 2 million years.

He was also builder and guardian; the building of shelters required more problem-solving (left brained stuff), so it was simplistic yet useful for the needs of his tribe.

Anyway, ancient man had all the abilities we have now, but they were streamlined, simple, evident only for what was necessary---and then 'necessities' began to change. The hunter-gatherer model was abandoned when we found a more logical way; people settled down and farmed. Populations grew, causing the surrounding forests to disappear to accommodate greater 'needs,' confused as wants = greater greed (sensible choices, details, eclipsing a bigger picture; the result?---everything we see today: ordered madness). After a while doing that, the settlements used up everything they've saved, produced, and hoarded (generating wealth and the first class structure with its appointed first king, who along with his riches needed protection: the hunter role was perverted in the soldier role, with all the accompanying rationalizations to kill, fight, and die), so they used these soldiers to invade other places for their crap, which has been the pattern of nations and empires ever since.

Man was rounded up and taken from the trees, enslaved, cleaned up, and placed to work on the farm (doing, what had been for thousands of centuries, "woman's work"). He moved indoors, like a pet dog; his nature became feminine, no longer masculine; his thinking eventually became left-brain-dominated, like women's, because he served women and their interests, needs, and values.

He was domesticated. His "traits" are no longer applicable today because they have not existed for ten thousand years (and these pure traits, observed since in natural peoples conquered and assimilated by empires, became demonized: "savage," "barbaric"---like wearing pants!---et cetera, which has never stopped, really, just changing for the times and to fit each successive delusion). And so essentially he stopped being Man and became some sort of alien, schiziod she-male.

Thus, "logic" was not a strong trait in men originally; it certainly was not a "masculine trait" among those cave painting, animal-preying-and-praying neolithic nomadic tribes. I'm not saying ancient man was illogical; I'm saying he used logic only when necessary. Men today talk a third less than women do on a daily basis, and historically we've been the creative, intuitive (up until about the 1700s, it seems, until women began claiming that trait as their own, as men really began developing the left brain, especially since the Age of Enlightenment).

So, if all these female or feminine or left-brained traits became "male traits" over time, with man's stronger nature going dormant and female's stronger nature staying as it was ten millenia ago, man's weaker nature (as in that which he does or thinks, which hasn't traditionally been male behaviour or culture but which began as civilization began) was his "feminine side," or what I call left-brained-dominance. One's "stronger nature" would be something that gender did for a couple million years, of course. With all that is available, today in the world, for left-brained stimulation...it just boggles me why most women aren't utterly logical in most ways (it's not logical).

Out of practice, perhaps....like a boxer who hasn't fought in a thousand years. ;)

Not sure I've explained it very well, or at all, but there we go.

Kelly Jones wrote: It was tongue-in-cheek.

After watching a DVD called "After Maeve" of a mother indulgently grieving over her dead 10yo daughter for half an hour - the DVD goes for an hour, but i got bored - the idea started to decompose.

Ah, okay. Damn. I was going to add a more conventional choice: "try adoption." But now I have to leave it as a redundant after-thought.

Kelly Jones wrote: The last line holds the key: deceiving oneself.

Women like to "go blank" so that a desireable image can be projected on them. Coquetry consists of nothing more than a woman posing as what you think she is - not what she thinks you want. Women are very tuned into emotion and body cues, that is, how people express and act-out their thoughts.

But because women have no self-awareness, it is always the conscious, masculine man who has to, and can, catch the illusion on the fly.

It is his choice whether to puff the little dream out, or fan it into a full-blown delusion.

Some keen observations; I've noticed some of those too.

Makes sense---maybe that really is what they call "female intuition." The ability to perceive the intangible, just one-on-one, in non-verbal ways. Again, this would be a strong female trait; since women hardly hunted in groups way-back-when, it stands to reason that men would be better in---and prone to be in---groups, gangs, packs, teams, and obviously it explains why men are so naturally suited to team sports and non-verbal activities.

Ryan Rudolph wrote: That’s lovely, at least I have something to look forward to later in life… Usually I justify the whole thing based on the fact that the energy release in the body (during orgasm) actually acts as a pain reliever, even though it causes pain to the body in the process.

There is the illusion that one has the ability to stop it, but the libido is too powerful many of the times - in men anyway, I don’t know if this is the case in females..

That is why claiming that there has been a perfectly enlightened Buddha free from all sexual desire is highly unlikely, the evidence suggests otherwise.

Evidence suggests that no one is as smart as Einstein (who I consider the latest, and probably most famous example of human evolution, via pedomorphism, skipping ahead a bit, in terms of left-right-hemisphereic balance: both sides of his brain were very different---having similar 'malformed' math areas and missing creases---from average people's), yet it is probable that many exist, somewhere, perhaps not in merely the math station of the creative-talent fusion, or right-left-brain harmony (genius).

It's always seemed impossible to me that one person could suppress-repress his nature and trick himself so completely as to free himself from the slavery of his own biology; and when I see pictures of Tibetan monks and such, I always wonder how "above temptation" they'd be if they lived in any large city in North America, surrounded and encompassed by the onslaught of female sexuality. Clearly, their temptation-resistance is attached to and aided by their reclusiveness.

But hey, some dudes can turn down their own breathing and heart rates, so why not? It is possible, but I have no idea how a guy would do it while being born, raised, and living in and around (pussy-whipped thoroughly) this western cult of female sexuality his whole life.

Hi Nordicus,


If it were strictly true that logic were not capable of perceiving all things in Reality accurately, such that a highly logical individual (or brain) would be incapable of perceiving accurately anything other than creativity-free experiences, then there would be absolutely no way for creative experiences to exist.

My usage of "logic" is pretty simple. It just means, "a thing is what it is", or "a thing is not what it is not".

Another way to look at this idea, is to divide the brain up into two halves: a rational half and a creative half. If it were true that a highly logical individual could not use the creative half of the brain, then creativity could never be defined with any identity at all. It could not even amount to "possibly a sort of something-or-other, but possibly not" - because that in itself is a logical definition.

Nordicvs wrote:

Kelly Jones wrote: No, i don't think so. Rationality is when any identity is recognised to be itself. Identity starts with intuition and ends with logic, to verify the identity as itself.

The irrational mind doesn't have clear intuitions, because each identity lacks the step of recognising itself. It lacks the memory to make any identities at all. So there is no ground for creativity.

Hmm. Since logic is left-brained and intuition-creativity is right-brained (the left hemisphere is only responsible for talent; for example, the skill it takes to copy something, like images or sentences, word-structures, or the skill it takes to move a paintbrush or pencil around with accuracy and precision), what you just stated was that the right hemisphere of the brain isn't rational,

No, you missed my point. The irrational mind has no grounds for creativity at all.

That means, the rational individual is the creative individual. You may see what i meant in my explanation, in the above quote.

which is true, but perception is also in the right brain---all that we take in through our senses gets stored there, then it's all processed through the left brain, which tries to make sense out of it.

Dividing the brain up in this way isn't necessary. I think you're trying to declare a logical person to be unbalanced, and unable to experience everything life has to offer.

I agree that it makes sense to know things as they truly are. To my mind, logic is the underlying operation of all perceptions, more fundamental than emotions, and absolutely inescapable.

Even the attempt to flee logic relies on logic, to identify it.

Since the right hemisphere is mute (the left brain handles speech, words, most symbols, and language), everything it perceives (which is absolutely everything possible to be perceieved by a given individual) is filtered and translated by the left hemisphere, and this is why people (who are not dominated by their left brains) who aren't good with words opt for other types of expression---like poetry or art, more creative, abstract means.

Illogical. If everything that could possibly be experienced is perceived by "the right hemisphere", then it is logically impossible for a "left hemisphere" to play any part in the construction process. Things don't exist before they are perceived.

You're coming a-cropper on the idea that logic is only half of one's experiences. In fact, it is fundamental. Even the vaguest intuition demands the operation of logic, to be very vague and ghostly.

Which means what?

1. The right brain sees everything crystal clearly---it knows, it identifies and discerns, it sees the truth of things; there are no systems or lies to filter reality through, no fallacies of reason or delusion...but it can't express itself with words and can't understand many things, like time, (linear) sequence, or even logic.

2. The right brain is the irrational mind. It is also the creative mind. Women seem prone to irrationality, but women are not more creative than men, or more intuitive on average, and generally have lower perceptive abilities than men---in essence, they are, like 90% of the people on this planet, overwhelmingly dominated by their left brains. (This is why I cannot make sense of "women are more irrational" in terms of brain hemispheric dominance.)

I don't divide the brain up hemispherically into masculine and feminine. Doing so falls into the popular misconception that women generally have to be equally good as men at something.

Your argument is looking suspiciously like an attempt to justify marriage.

For example:

"My wife is really a wonderful, thoughtful person. But she needs me to clarify her ideas."

You aren't married or engaged, are you?

I divide the totality of all brains into intelligent and non-intelligent. Then i see how individual brains - which is really characters - compare.

Here is my current definition of creativity:

Bringing intuitions to greatest clarity by reasoning, which involves deductive (and possibly also inductive) logic.

3. This is confusing. So, I'll re-post your above sentence with two words replaced: "The right brain doesn't have clear intuitions, because each identity lacks the step of recognising itself. It lacks the memory to make any identities at all. So there is no ground for creativity."

No, don't do that.

The right brain is an essential part of the rational brain, because the rational brain uses both halves.

4. The right brain does indeed have clear intuitions (but they're understood with only one side of the mind---the left---and put into other terms, mainly words, in effect converted/interpreted into a common reality), as well as the ability, the "grounds" you speak of, to be creative. The problem with the right brain's intuition is that it requires the left side to make sense out of it; its perception and intuition are pristine, pure, so any trouble is due to the left brain mucking things up, misdeciphering, skipping a step in logical argumentation, being emotional, over-analyzing...

Here's your "validation of marriage" idea in all its glory.

Sticking the knife into masculinity and reasoning.

The queerest part of your argument is that you believe that a pristine and pure perception doesn't need to be itself, a logically defined thing.

5. This means that the rational mind is where we "lack the memory" (which each hemisphere has for various types of memory) "to make identities." The right brain recalls faces and pictures, concepts and shapes of symbols, while the left brain recalls words, names, numbers, and objects; so which is an "identity?"---a concept or an object? Which one will determine which side is responsible for its memory.

Any of these things are identities. Absolutely everything has an identity.

Also, things aren't really concepts or objects, or any form we suppose. They just are what they are.

I would say that memory comes from an intuition defined to be what it is, contrasted with what it is not. So a memory is the essence of creativity.

If you want to choose brain halves, then memory derives from both halves.

However, the right hemisphere certainly "lacks the step of recognising itself." The right brain doesn't work in terms of steps---it randomly moves about in its own way, which has no recognizable patterns as far as scientists call tell (but may exist nonetheless);

This is such a funny piece of writing.

You must have been in loops trying to recognise what can't be recognised.

it can't understand time and tends to think in terms of spatial 3D reality and "the big picture," universally, not concerned many details. (Probably suited man well as he strolled across plains, searching for silhouettes of prey on the horizon, deeming which to pursue and which to escape.)

Anyway, nobody is all masculine or all feminine, nor is anyone completely right-brain-dominated or left-brain-dominated---

Again, for the sake of laying down a memory more deeply, rationality and creativity are not masculine and feminine respectively. They are purely masculine.

Doesn't matter whether you want to apply brain-halves.

Incidentally, it is possible to be all masculine or all feminine.

every human switches back and forth between brains doing just about anything, yet it's more than evident that most of us exercise our left brains far, far more than the right (as time moves forward for humanity, it seems that we are becoming increasingly dominated by our left brains, which explains how the world is becoming "sensibly moronic" with every passing day, with little individual logical choices proving disastrous for the planet as a whole).

If one doesn't exercise one's brain to its greatest potential, one is definitely moronising. Meaning, naturally, using reason to its greatest extent.

Individual logical choices, whether little or large, are essential to avoid disaster. How do you think pollution occurs? Surely not by thinking about cause and effect?

If all of this is sound, and I would not agree with it if it wasn't,

It's not sound.

the confusing bit comes with logic and rationality. I don't understand fully how men have become more rational, reasonable, and logical in spite of going from being overwhelmingly right brained, compared to women (I refuse to say "right-brain-dominated" because the right mind is not the organizational, controlling force in the brain---the "will to power" seems to reside on the left side, the drive to organize, manipulate, control) to merely being right-brained slightly more than women on average.

What time scale are you referring to here?

Are you saying men are now generally more rational, reasonable and logical?

Are you saying men are now generally more organisational, manipulative, and controlling?

[The possible links to schizophrenia seem huge with this, but I'm not sure exactly in what ways...]

I thought schizophrenia was a euphemism for "basket-cases".

Kelly Jones wrote:I think the feminine mind is irrational, largely because parents encourage little girls to live up to a glamorous fairy self-image. Young girls often have imagined realms like "Planet Nature" or "Cat World", with made-up language, mystical symbols, transport, and secret relationships. Such worlds are all sensation, imagination, emotion, and "do whatever you like to do". As such, the feminine-mind never gets grounded in reflexive identity (truth), but is always "change!-change!-change!".

So, is the problem that girls are pretty imaginative (boys are, too, by the way) and cling to fantasy, or rather that they fail to "grow out of this" as they age---staying as little girls for most of their lives?

The problem is the quality of the imagination, which is equivalent to the quality of creativity, reasoning, and intuition. That's why they don't grow out of it.

If so, it fits with what I know and have determined to be a gross majority of women (as well as men, far lower in severity) who seem to never grow up at all.

Globalization-domestication-civilization seem to be synonymous with not only feminization, corporatization, but also infantacization.

Adults typically interpret a child's unconsciousness of its clumsiness as a relaxed self-image. I think that's why children are worshipped as wise these days. It's essentially the same reason why men are enthralled with women.

The question is what do boys do differently during the school years that girls don't do? Young girls and boys appear to have equal amounts of potential, yet the way we parent and educate them turns them into sheep, as simple as milk, with girls appearing to regress back into childhood as the school years end...

Education over thousands of years equates to biology. So, education is really "environment" - everything else.

The best thing for girls is not to have them, or teach them to love reasoning.

The human species doesn't need to be sexual anymore. Sexuality's main purpose is genetic diversity. It's very possible to engineering asexual masculine humans, genetic diversity banks, and incubator machines. We don't do it because we're still little children tied to mummy's apron-strings.

Kelly Jones wrote:I'm horrified at parents that feed these little girls' flightiness with lots of hugging, crying and laughing, and an overwhelming sensory environment. Highly colourful bedrooms full of toys, puppets, dolls, glitter and shine ------- it starves the children of opportunities to grow and deepen the all-important mental strength: to think without physiological distractions.

As an artist, I disagree---highly colourful and vivid surroundings would do the opposite of stifle creativity (sensory deprivation leads to mental stagnation, boredom, depression of the central nervous system, which is why there are so many higher case of seasonal affective disorder in northern climates: the pervasive blandness of ice and snow is death for the right brain).

Vivid focus is more important than stimulation per se. It has to be done carefully. Rewarding a child for remembering, thinking and expressing ideas, rather than being highly physical, sensual, energetic and emotional, helps to stimulate the ability to identify.

Many children find hours of entertainment by simply reading. They make new identities by contrasting memories, and inducing new possibilities, all without sensory input, in the mind.

I think what it does is reinforce the (left-brained) already-apparent fixation for girls upon objects, and either manipulating those objects or manipulating the dolls (and later, boys, and still later: men) to manipulate those objects for her, another "doll" herself.

Females are more sensate or directed by sensory input, and less rational or directed by a deep connection with ideas and memories.

I would say boys are more object-oriented. Objects are more clearly defined as identities, rather than feelings.

Strictly speaking, with that environment, girls ought to be very stimulated and creative; of course, creativity peaks when suffering and often when very bored (and doing something with that other than turning on an entertainment device, like a TV), as well as when having no usual means of communication...

There's no depth, no grounding in imagination. It's all immediacy, lacking reflection.

No creativity.

but girls are usually better with words than boys,

Not really. Girls and females generally speak a lot, because they can't form ideas. They need help to structure and clarify ideas.

Boys, on the other hand, have a deep fear of being rejected, and have been bred to solve problems. So their "I" is biologically compelled to express only things that reflect a certain high level of intellectual capability. So --- they tend to be more stressed, silent, stutter, blush, growl, and hit out.

and girls are coddled, over-protected, pampered---and entertained---beyond belief. As they enter school, it all goes to shit: already feminine and having loads of potential, they sit and count and organize and rationalize, and exercise their left brains every day, leaving the other side to gather dust and spiderwebs.

They are like knitters. They sit and rote learn, because they've never been bred to be capable of solving problems. Put a boy in the same situation, and he'd invent a knitting machine, or a labouring system.

I agree parents are a problem, but so is school---far worse for boys, though, whose strength is---right-brained---experiential learning, doing...not sitting, being spoon-fed info, and playing tennis with words.

The intelligent brain never swallows without thinking and questioning.

That's a product of rationality and inferential logic (ie. creativity).


I will respond to the rest of your post later.


.

Nordicus wrote:

Hmm. Reality as I see it is insane; horribly brutal chaos---the perception of which is reconstructed, in saner terms, by the other half of the brain which puts it into a word we invented called "reality." Basically, it's a left brained delusion of perceptions, ideas and concepts it did not perceive itself but is forced to sift through and try to create (for which it needs the right side) something sensible, about which it lies, logicizes, and settles into some sort of frame peacefully for its emotions (as "feelings" are found in the opposite hemisphere); to be at peace with it, to fit it into that which it already knows, so it can resume taking direction from the will.

You need to let go of the idea that logic is the act of identifying something as something other than what is perceived. Logic is very simple: just perceiving something as what it is.

All you need to do is accept that whatever is happening, is actually what is happening. Don't project anything more.

Any erroneous projections are created by false steps of logic. For example: the belief that a sane reality can never be experienced and identified.

The insane reality that is described above, is exactly what it is: insane. That's its logical identity. Ultimate Reality, or Reality, is the totality of all realities. It includes the reality you explained above.

Over-rationalization is part of what many people refer to "over-analysis," too much sequential or circular thinking; the left brain dominating the entire brain and turning it into a Swiss watch that won't tell the correct time.

What's happening here is doubt. Probably there's a logical mis-step that needs to be corrected.

A conscious person's thoughts don't naturally repeat.

Excuse my pop-culture reference, but Spock, for example, on Star Trek, would be a perfect example of an utterly left-brained person; his artistic ability is the only thing they totally 'got wrong' (he would be completely devoid of humour, creativity, intuition, or randomness; music is entirely right-brained, from the ability to hear it and create it, even though the left side creates the rules and supplies words---Spock would be able to play an instrument yet he'd be unable to create any original piece), plus he would be intensely talkative, object-fixated, worrysome, and he would not be very good at chess since that requires spatial perception and intuitive (thinking "moves ahead"), abstract thinking. Otherwise, he's perfectly suited for an intellectual life in a box (or floating box, as the case might be); stick him out in the wilderness without technology, and he's lost.

Dead, really. He would not survive because as some many-toothed alien beast charged at his face, he'd been cycling logical courses of action to avoid being eaten---and he'd be lunch before he finished. Natural life works faster than words and does not obey logic---as we saw from Spock's troubles on that planet with large, hairy proto-humanoids (in the epidsode, "The Galieo Seven," if memory serves); he applied logic, over-thought things, and damn near got everyone killed. (It was the act at the end of that episode, the desperate and illogical burning off of the fuel reserves right away as a signal rather than logically using it all to stay alive as long as possible, which saved them---meaning that Captain Logic is a really bad commander in a crisis; he needs some nutty, wild ideas, and instincts, to properly lead.)

When confronted with anything but logic, an overly logical mind collapses inevitably. As long as everything's fine and operating within logical parameters (and devoid of humour or even sarcasm, which the left brain has trouble with), logic works great.

But nothing was ever created with logic; no one ever used a rational system to invent something.

As David mentioned, what you're describing here is a false definition of logic. It's really an attitude to things, rather than logic.

For example, such a person has reasoned (faultily) that Ultimate Reality is a finite system with inherent rules. This leads to the belief (which is also faulty) that everything obeys these laws. You get this sort of thing in scientific delusions like "Everything obeys the laws of physics".

Realistically, this isn't over-rationalisation, but under-rationalisation.

The Hitch-Hikers' Guide to the Galaxy has many rational instances that demonstrate how funny under-rationalisation is. Here's some of them:

Vroomfondle: We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.

Trillian: Probability factor of one to one. We have normality. I repeat, we have normality.
[pauses a beat]
Trillian: Anything you still can't cope with is therefore your own problem.

Deep Thought: You're really not going to like it.
Lunkwill: Tell us.
Deep Thought: The answer to the Great Question...
Lunkwill: Yes?
Deep Thought: ...of life, the universe, and everything...
Lunkwill: Yes?
Deep Thought: ...is...
Fook: Yes?
Deep Thought: ...is...
Lunkwill, Fook: *Yes*?
Deep Thought: Forty-two.
[stunned silence]
Lunkwill, Fook: *Forty-two*?
Deep Thought: It was a tough assignment.

Slartibartfast: Perhaps I'm old and tired, but I always think the chances of finding out what really is going on are so absurdly remote that the only thing to do is to say "Hang the sense of it" and just keep yourself occupied.

Ford Prefect: This is an ancient Betelgeuse death anthem. It means, after this, things can only get better.

Max Quordlepleen: So many of you come time and time again to watch this final end of everything which I think is really wonderful and then to return home to your own eras and raise families, and strive for new and better societies and fight terrible wars for what you know is right, it gives one real hope for the whole future of lifekind.
[pauses a beat]
Max Quordlepleen: Except of course we know it hasn't got one.

Max Quordlepleen: Believe me, ladies and gentlemen, there is *nothing* penultimate about this one. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the proverbial *it*. After this, there is void... emptiness... oblivion... absolute *nothing*.
[dramatic pause]
Max Quordlepleen: Except, of course, for the sweets trolley and our fine selection of Aldebaran liqueurs. And for once, ladies and gentlemen, there is no need to worry about having a hangover in the morning, for there will *be* no more mornings.

Zaphod Beeblebrox: There's a whole new life stretching out in front of you.
Marvin: Oh, not another one.

The Book: It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, but that not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so if every planet in the universe has a population of zero, then the entire population of the universe must also be zero, and any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.

The Book: The Argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist" says God, "For proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing." "BUT," says Man, "The Babel Fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It proves you exist, so therefore you don't. QED." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that." And promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. "Ooh, that was easy." says Man and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets killed on the next zebra crossing.

The Book: The story so far: In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Nordicus wrote:Also, the left brain is perpetually consumed with details, which is why very logical people and intellectuals often miss the "bigger picture." Over-analysis happens always with details---which I think is why women tend to pick apart some minor point during a conversation instead of remaining focused on the subject in its entirity; and it's not just women, since I have seen many men do it and I have caught myself doing it here and there (I did it here in another thread: lost perspective, due to anger over something I misunderstood, and began circling one small point like a shark, until I finally left it, stepped back and returned to in a different frame of mind).

A truly highly logical mind, and i'm thinking of Kevin Solway, David Quinn, and a few others, has a habit of identifying things Truthfully. That is, it relates things to Ultimate Truth.

Very few people do this.

The only alternative habit is relating things to the ego. And it's very common: including the "very logical people and intellectuals" you mention.

Over-rationalization = over-anaysis = over-thinking. All thought and no action. I see nothing wrong with logic (in moderation; when necessary); it's awesome for beings shut-up in sterile boxes with nothing much to do but think. But I'm no fan of it; I don't see it as anything but a bloated side-effect of civilization and the feminization of humans in this artifical environment. It is the opposite of instinct, which I hold as the most important quality ...that we are trying to destroy and re-create and re-organize into our own constructs.

(Anyway, the character of Spock on that show realized this, too, when he later said, "Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end.")

Again, this is a faulty representation of logic.

You are using logic to describe logic as faulty. Clearly contradicts your argument.

Kelly Jones wrote:I think you're saying that women think rationally, but can't express or act on their thoughts rationally. However, the act of thinking is itself expressed and acted-on. It is evident when thinking that all one's expression and behaviour reflects thoughtfulness. So women ought rightly to reflect thoughtfulness, if indeed that were a feminine trait.

When we think of "male traits" and "female traits" we tend to look at examples in civilization; and we have it wrong, because this isn't true male behaviour anymore than dog behaviour is common among wolves. No, we have to look back about ten thousand years to see man as he really was.

Your argument is quite screwy if you think about it.

You claim that anything that can be experienced is necessarily an insane construction. You conclude that instinct is the most important "quality" that allows one to experience Ultimate Reality (what is ultimately real) in its "pristine" and "pure" form (the opposite of "artificial"). The problem is, you keep using logic and reason to identify that there is a "pristine" and "pure" form of Ultimate Reality to be found.

Here are the steps of logic in your argument:

Step 1
1. Making a definition: Experiences are insane (i.e. don't make sense) when constructed by logic
2. Deductive reasoning: The opposite of "constructed by logic" is anything where there is no construction by logic.
3. Conclusion: Experiences are sane when logical constructions are absent

*****Your alarm bells should be ringing right here*****

Step 2 (checks the above reasoning)
1. Making a definition: Absence of logical constructions is the same as absence of any identities
2. Deductive reasoning: If there are no identities, then is there any consciousness? No.
3. Conclusion: Therefore it is impossible to be conscious and sane.

******Thoughts begin to cycle and repeat fruitlessly*****

And what was he? He was a hunter; he was part of a small social group, a tribe, and had thought along those lines for about two million years. He didn't talk a lot because it's not a good idea to be chatty when you're stalking a herd of large land mammals; nor can one be sensitive and overly-thoughtful...everything's reduced to action, intuitively reacting to the forest and its many forms of life, and it takes mental hardness, concentration and patience, and the ability to get off a shot (at a moving target) when the timing's right; or else everyone goes hungry.

There is nothing logical about hunting (logically, we ought to just avoid all that needless and messy, bloody work and simply farm...which is what we ended up doing in Sumer; and logically, we ought to just control the animals and have them nearby instead of chasing after them and hunting them..., which is also what we ended up doing), but it helped humans survive, with meaning and purpose and fulfillment, for over 2 million years.

He was also builder and guardian; the building of shelters required more problem-solving (left brained stuff), so it was simplistic yet useful for the needs of his tribe.

Anyway, ancient man had all the abilities we have now, but they were streamlined, simple, evident only for what was necessary---and then 'necessities' began to change. The hunter-gatherer model was abandoned when we found a more logical way; people settled down and farmed. Populations grew, causing the surrounding forests to disappear to accommodate greater 'needs,' confused as wants = greater greed (sensible choices, details, eclipsing a bigger picture; the result?---everything we see today: ordered madness).

The "ideal masculine" you have described made one big illogical doozie. This doozie had the inevitable effect of "ordered madness", because that was what he was encouraging. His doozie: he instinctively believed that it was right to spend his life looking after the bodily needs of his tribe (society). He never questioned it, never went any deeper.

Never had any intuition that things arise interdependently, or that Nature is infinite, and therefore never had the thought that understanding Nature was more important than anything else.

I'd call that type of man a slave from go to woe. He was domesticated aeons and aeons ago.

Yet his drive to achieve things, hunt things, build empires, has always been distinguishable from the female's passive, safety-oriented mentality. So there is still a lasting sexual distinction to see.

After a while doing that, the settlements used up everything they've saved, produced, and hoarded (generating wealth and the first class structure with its appointed first king, who along with his riches needed protection: the hunter role was perverted in the soldier role, with all the accompanying rationalizations to kill, fight, and die), so they used these soldiers to invade other places for their crap, which has been the pattern of nations and empires ever since.

Man was rounded up and taken from the trees, enslaved, cleaned up, and placed to work on the farm (doing, what had been for thousands of centuries, "woman's work"). He moved indoors, like a pet dog; his nature became feminine, no longer masculine; his thinking eventually became left-brain-dominated, like women's, because he served women and their interests, needs, and values.

He was domesticated. His "traits" are no longer applicable today because they have not existed for ten thousand years (and these pure traits, observed since in natural peoples conquered and assimilated by empires, became demonized: "savage," "barbaric"---like wearing pants!---et cetera, which has never stopped, really, just changing for the times and to fit each successive delusion). And so essentially he stopped being Man and became some sort of alien, schiziod she-male.

Thus, "logic" was not a strong trait in men originally; it certainly was not a "masculine trait" among those cave painting, animal-preying-and-praying neolithic nomadic tribes. I'm not saying ancient man was illogical; I'm saying he used logic only when necessary. Men today talk a third less than women do on a daily basis, and historically we've been the creative, intuitive (up until about the 1700s, it seems, until women began claiming that trait as their own, as men really began developing the left brain, especially since the Age of Enlightenment).

So, if all these female or feminine or left-brained traits became "male traits" over time, with man's stronger nature going dormant and female's stronger nature staying as it was ten millenia ago, man's weaker nature (as in that which he does or thinks, which hasn't traditionally been male behaviour or culture but which began as civilization began) was his "feminine side," or what I call left-brained-dominance. One's "stronger nature" would be something that gender did for a couple million years, of course. With all that is available, today in the world, for left-brained stimulation...it just boggles me why most women aren't utterly logical in most ways (it's not logical).

Out of practice, perhaps....like a boxer who hasn't fought in a thousand years. ;)

Occasionally there has been an individual who suddenly thought it was important to understand Nature. For instance, Socrates, Diogenes, the Buddha, Jesus, Bodhidharma, Huineng, Hakuin, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Weininger, and others.

But generally speaking, the human trend has been dire femininity. It only seems to have changed recently because, over the last century, women's passive, safety-oriented mentality has become more obvious via the dramatic improvements in our technology. Human science and technology has almost always been developed for her sake.

So, feminine dominance is triumphant, like a champion boasting of his knock-out punch. Not a sign of logical thinking.

Kelly Jones wrote:It was tongue-in-cheek.

After watching a DVD called "After Maeve" of a mother indulgently grieving over her dead 10yo daughter for half an hour - the DVD goes for an hour, but i got bored - the idea started to decompose.

Ah, okay. Damn. I was going to add a more conventional choice: "try adoption." But now I have to leave it as a redundant after-thought.

Some other ways to nip the biological urge to reproduce or parent, before any of its stages germinate:

- Watch some videos of human cadavers being dissected, or even help slaughter a few animals to eat. The human torso is literally a bag of blood and guts. I helped kill a goat recently, and it was very interesting.
- Visit a zoo, watching family behaviours. See if you can detect sadist and masochist behaviours.
- Take a few girls or boys on dates and talk about non-attachment. Take newlyweds, widows, and divorcees on dates. Give them a free parent license application form, with a four-year correspondence course (with closed-book and real-time examinations).
- Donate the weekly allowance needed to rear a child, to find out how it affects your finances. Burn the money.
- Go to a few funerals, and see whether anyone gives a truthful eulogy. Check out how expensive their clothing is.
- See if you can make friends without being friendly.

Any other suggestions?

Kelly Jones wrote:The last line holds the key: deceiving oneself.

Women like to "go blank" so that a desireable image can be projected on them. Coquetry consists of nothing more than a woman posing as what you think she is - not what she thinks you want. Women are very tuned into emotion and body cues, that is, how people express and act-out their thoughts.

But because women have no self-awareness, it is always the conscious, masculine man who has to, and can, catch the illusion on the fly.

It is his choice whether to puff the little dream out, or fan it into a full-blown delusion.

Some keen observations; I've noticed some of those too.

Makes sense---maybe that really is what they call "female intuition." The ability to perceive the intangible, just one-on-one, in non-verbal ways. Again, this would be a strong female trait; since women hardly hunted in groups way-back-when, it stands to reason that men would be better in---and prone to be in---groups, gangs, packs, teams, and obviously it explains why men are so naturally suited to team sports and non-verbal activities.

Are you saying that anyone who is used to herd behaviour is highly tuned in to "going with the crowd"? I.e. no sense of individual purpose?

Evidence suggests that no one is as smart as Einstein

If this is true, you'd have to be smarter than Einstein.

Evidence suggests you're not really thinking about what you write.

yet it is probable that many exist, somewhere, perhaps not in merely the math station of the creative-talent fusion, or right-left-brain harmony (genius).

This is not a good definition of genius. Have you read the Welcome and Introduction Forum to the Genius Forum, where genius is defined?

It's always seemed impossible to me that one person could suppress-repress his nature and trick himself so completely as to free himself from the slavery of his own biology;

It's not possible nor wise to free oneself from one's biology, since one is one's biology.

However, it is both possible and wise to be free from delusional ideas.

and when I see pictures of Tibetan monks and such, I always wonder how "above temptation" they'd be if they lived in any large city in North America, surrounded and encompassed by the onslaught of female sexuality. Clearly, their temptation-resistance is attached to and aided by their reclusiveness.

Dan refuted this popular but false connection between transcendance and reclusion, in his editorial on Sanity. It's also in the opening post in the main Genius Forum thread, "Dealing with emotions".

But hey, some dudes can turn down their own breathing and heart rates, so why not? It is possible, but I have no idea how a guy would do it while being born, raised, and living in and around (pussy-whipped thoroughly) this western cult of female sexuality his whole life.

I wouldn't bother wasting time on this.

It makes far more sense to understand what causes sexual desire, and to halt it.

And this in turn can only be done successfully by pouring all one's energies into understanding emptiness.



.

Another funny deliberate under-rationalisation from HG Galaxy:

Zaphod Beeblebrox: Trillian, is this going to happen every time we use the Infinite Improbability drive?
Trillian: Very probably.

And one last one:

Vroomfondle: I demand that I am Vroomfondle.
Majikthise: That's all right, you don't need to demand that.
Vroomfondle: All right, I don't demand that I am Vroomfondle. That... is a solid fact. What we demand is solid facts!
Majikthise: No, that's exactly what we do not demand.
Vroomfondle: All right, we demand the total absence of solid facts!

.

Speaking of Douglas Adams, he did write a very thorough dictionary which contained the meaning of Liff. Amazingly, it's online (although I'm not certain how copyright laws affect the works of dead authors).

The Meaning of Liff

DES MOINES (pl.n.)
The two little lines which come down from your nose.

HOFF (vb.)
To deny indignantly something which is palpably true.

HOVE (adj.)
Descriptive of the expression seen on the face of one person in the presence of another who clearly isn't going to stop talking for a very long time.

LIFF (n.)
A book, the contents of which are totally belied by its cover. For instance, any book the dust jacket of which bears the words. 'This book will change your life'.

WROOT (n.)
A short little berk who thinks that by pulling on his pipe and gazing shrewdly at you he will give the impression that he is infinitely wise and 5 ft 11 in.

Kelly Jones wrote: If it were strictly true that logic were not capable of perceiving all things in Reality accurately, such that a highly logical individual (or brain) would be incapable of perceiving accurately anything other than creativity-free experiences, then there would be absolutely no way for creative experiences to exist.

Reality is a left-brained conception of what is perceived by and through the right hemisphere---it is a fact that perception is located in this half, it is a fact that creativity resides in this hemisphere, too, and it is a fact that logic operates only in the left hemisphere, thus logic plays absolutely no part in the act of perceiving (but rather the act of processing those perceptions, comprehending, making sense of it all; conceptualization).

Meaning that as for the truth or falsehood regarding those perceptions, it is the left side which handles that---then both sides team up in order to create "reality." The right hemisphere is virtually omniscient (able to perceive All but lacking the ability to express it---with words or in ways that the left brain can express in sane terms---using a system like logic---to others and to itself). Logic is a system, not perception itself.

Kelly Jones wrote: My usage of "logic" is pretty simple. It just means, "a thing is what it is", or "a thing is not what it is not".

That seems to be the definition of perceived reality, logically conceived.

Kelly Jones wrote:Another way to look at this idea, is to divide the brain up into two halves: a rational half and a creative half.

Indeed! That precisely sums up both hemispheres as halves. (A common misconception is that the left hemisphere can be creative, and it's true only if one extends the definition of "creation" to encompass "talent," which is really what happens on the left side---where lies and falsehoods originate as well.)

Kelly Jones wrote:If it were true that a highly logical individual could not use the creative half of the brain, then creativity could never be defined with any identity at all. It could not even amount to "possibly a sort of something-or-other, but possibly not" - because that in itself is a logical definition.

The creative half---the right hemisphere---already knows what a thing's identity is...it simply needs the other side, the left, to understand it.

Kelly Jones wrote:No, you missed my point. The irrational mind has no grounds for creativity at all.

That means, the rational individual is the creative individual. You may see what i meant in my explanation, in the above quote.

No, I got your point; I simply reason it's incorrect on the fact that logic and creativity are different sides of the same coin, as it were.

(Perhaps we need to settle upon a mutually understood definition of "creativity." To think abstractly is to think creatively, without restrictions, without systems---and that includes logic.)

Tell me, what does logic alone create?

Kelly Jones wrote: Dividing the brain up in this way isn't necessary. I think you're trying to declare a logical person to be unbalanced, and unable to experience everything life has to offer.

No, I was trying to expand on your idea that "women are irrational;" since they are more left-brain-dominated, they ought to be far more logical than men who are more right-brained. As I said, too many so-called "feminine traits" I've researched are precisely "left-brained traits," as I and others call them; therefore it does not stand to reason that women are "just irrational." In nearly every other way, they are clearly left-brained. Something's missing---and I'm interested in exploring possibilities of what exactly it is.

Kelly Jones wrote: I agree that it makes sense to know things as they truly are. To my mind, logic is the underlying operation of all perceptions, more fundamental than emotions, and absolutely inescapable.

Even the attempt to flee logic relies on logic, to identify it.

To my mind, it's slightly different---logic is the paramount operation of understanding all perceptions.

Yet I am also aware that logic is not the only way to arrive at that understanding. It can be done through intuition, for example (not the brand-name "intuition" that so many women claim they possess exclusively, and do not); as far as I'm concerned, all wisdom is known by the right hemisphere: the pursuit of wisdom is discovering what one already knows, and logic cannot always take us there (in fact, we heavily use logic as a crutch, which of course happens during eight thousand years of right-brain neglect).

Kelly Jones wrote: Illogical. If everything that could possibly be experienced is perceived by "the right hemisphere", then it is logically impossible for a "left hemisphere" to play any part in the construction process. Things don't exist before they are perceived.

You're coming a-cropper on the idea that logic is only half of one's experiences. In fact, it is fundamental. Even the vaguest intuition demands the operation of logic, to be very vague and ghostly.

Can you provide an example of how intuition requires logic?

When biologists held back a fledgling goose from its flock (for as long as a month), they found that it was able to find its group without ever traveling the route before---it had no memory or frame of reference, and there was nothing to account for how it was able to find the other geese. There was no physical evidence left behind by the other geese to let it know where to fly, but alas, it did. (Another strong example of this utter illogic is how salmon find their "breeding grounds" up alien rivers.)

Explain how even vague logic plays a part here...

Kelly Jones wrote:I don't divide the brain up hemispherically into masculine and feminine. Doing so falls into the popular misconception that women generally have to be equally good as men at something.

Damn, no, it is far from a popular misconception, or even a popular conception, that masculine-feminine is anything but a social invention---which goes for right-left hemispheres in relations to dominant traits among females and males. It is not a serious area of current scientific study, likely due to its political incorrectness.

Kelly Jones wrote: Your argument is looking suspiciously like an attempt to justify marriage.

For example:

"My wife is really a wonderful, thoughtful person. But she needs me to clarify her ideas."

You aren't married or engaged, are you?

Holy shitballs, did I ever have a good laugh over this ;)

NO! Fuck no. I see absolutely no value in marriage, have never been married or engaged, and I am very firmly resolved to never be married.

(How on Earth did you arrive at that conclusion? Not rhetorical---I'm interested since this applies to our topic here.)

Kelly Jones wrote: I divide the totality of all brains into intelligent and non-intelligent. Then i see how individual brains - which is really characters - compare.

Here is my current definition of creativity:

Bringing intuitions to greatest clarity by reasoning, which involves deductive (and possibly also inductive) logic.

Ah---we were on the same page regarding this (mutual understanding of creativity).

Once you've explained intuition that is utterly devoid of logic (in the above fledgling goose and salmon examples), then we can continue.

Kelly Jones wrote: The right brain is an essential part of the rational brain, because the rational brain uses both halves.

That makes sense...well, I'd go with "rational mind" for accuracy, but I'm just nitpicking.

Kelly Jones wrote: Here's your "validation of marriage" idea in all its glory.

Sticking the knife into masculinity and reasoning.

The queerest part of your argument is that you believe that a pristine and pure perception doesn't need to be itself, a logically defined thing.

Yet you've not illustrated why this is so queer...at least not until you explain what "pure perception" means to you.

An act of perceiving is merely taking in stimulus, like topsoil during a storm takes in water---again, we might have differing definitions for perception. We perceive millions of things every second and don't do anything logically with most of it---why? Because we're perceiving faster---much faster---than we could ever consciously conceptualize or apply reason to it all at once. It's about as possible to do this as it would be to speak a million words in one second (I don't care how enlightened one thinks he or she is, that is simply impossible). Not even the most advanced supercomputers can process a million things a second.

I value reason (quite highly), and I consider myself a "masculist," even though my notion of it (likely radical) differs it seems from most people (especially around here, in spite of being more in agreement, than in opposition, to most), evidenced by your presumption that I'd "stick a knife" through it.

Kelly Jones wrote: Any of these things are identities. Absolutely everything has an identity.

Does thought?

Kelly Jones wrote:Also, things aren't really concepts or objects, or any form we suppose. They just are what they are.

I would say that memory comes from an intuition defined to be what it is, contrasted with what it is not. So a memory is the essence of creativity.

If you want to choose brain halves, then memory derives from both halves.

Exactly right---both hemispheres are responsible for different types of memory. (In fact, a way an individual can tell whether one is using more of one's right or left hemisphere overall is to figure out which is easier to recall---names and numbers versus faces and images. One more apt to recall names more often than faces offers evidence of left-brain dominance, and the opposite, right-brainedness, for one who finds it easier to recollect faces.)

Kelly Jones wrote:This is such a funny piece of writing.

You must have been in loops trying to recognise what can't be recognised.

I was talking about the right hemisphere by itself---it recognizes differently than the left.

The split-brain experiments (mainly due to the findings of Dr. Roger W Sperry) were monumental in establishing dual-brain theory (as well as providing evidence for a "dual consciousness theory," which isn't quite a theory as of yet, but I find it quite compelling). More here...

Both hemispheres, as you see, can recognize and think independently from the other half with the corpus callosum severed...

Kelly Jones wrote:Again, for the sake of laying down a memory more deeply, rationality and creativity are not masculine and feminine respectively. They are purely masculine.

Doesn't matter whether you want to apply brain-halves.

Based on what evidence is rationality "purely masculine?"

Kelly Jones wrote: Incidentally, it is possible to be all masculine or all feminine.

True; I was talking about 'normal' people---fully genetic females can be observed in Turner syndrome patients (intensely object-oriented, among other things most of us view easily in the majority of women).

Unless you meant something else...?

Kelly Jones wrote: If one doesn't exercise one's brain to its greatest potential, one is definitely moronising. Meaning, naturally, using reason to its greatest extent.

Individual logical choices, whether little or large, are essential to avoid disaster. How do you think pollution occurs? Surely not by thinking about cause and effect?

The Industrial Age was the real beginning of that---progress produced pollution for maximum organization and profit margins.

It was completely logical. Wealth and technology exploded since then---I've never heard anyone provide a logical argument against prosperity and progress...

Kelly Jones wrote: It's not sound.

Your saying so does not make it so; I'll agree with you once you've proved it is not sound.

Kelly Jones wrote: What time scale are you referring to here?

From the dawn of civilization to current day.

Kelly Jones wrote:Are you saying men are now generally more rational, reasonable and logical?

Yes.

Kelly Jones wrote:Are you saying men are now generally more organisational, manipulative, and controlling?

Yes. In regards to their environment (manipulating on behalf of females) as well as manipulating others (although men are still not as skilled with this as females, to whom it comes as naturally as problem-solving does for males, of course).

Kelly Jones wrote: I thought schizophrenia was a euphemism for "basket-cases".

Heh. I thought it was the other way around.

Kelly Jones wrote: The problem is the quality of the imagination, which is equivalent to the quality of creativity, reasoning, and intuition. That's why they don't grow out of it.

I can't disagree there.

Kelly Jones wrote: Adults typically interpret a child's unconsciousness of its clumsiness as a relaxed self-image. I think that's why children are worshipped as wise these days. It's essentially the same reason why men are enthralled with women.

Well, that make some sense, but innocence has a clarity to it not often found in old age---under the weight of so many experiences, mental clutter, memories, delusion, bias, et cetera. From my expereince, kids see things very clearly. Innocence has no agenda other than Self.

Kelly Jones wrote: Education over thousands of years equates to biology. So, education is really "environment" - everything else.

Yes, but our manner of teaching boys has changed (and gradually over thousands of years); before we sat them down in desks and dumped words down their throats, we had them out with the men, learning experientially (right-brained learning). There's a reason men are more effeminate, and feminized, now than in any period in history, and it has to do as much with how we raise our boys as it does with who raises them (now: women).

Plus, you're talking about natural evolution---big difference between that and cultural-social evolution (which is human evolution: controlling itself based on its own constructed environments to which it adapts, now, and not the natural world).

Kelly Jones wrote:The best thing for girls is not to have them, or teach them to love reasoning.

I think that's part of it, yes, but not all.

Kelly Jones wrote:The human species doesn't need to be sexual anymore. Sexuality's main purpose is genetic diversity. It's very possible to engineering asexual masculine humans, genetic diversity banks, and incubator machines. We don't do it because we're still little children tied to mummy's apron-strings.

True.

Kelly Jones wrote: Vivid focus is more important than stimulation per se. It has to be done carefully. Rewarding a child for remembering, thinking and expressing ideas, rather than being highly physical, sensual, energetic and emotional, helps to stimulate the ability to identify.

So, they should be flexing the already dominant left brain?

Sounds like we'll have more of the same in that case. Intelligent mediocrity. Genius isn't made in classrooms, fellating orthodoxy and academic dogma---it's on the border of madness, suffering the burden of the unknown, breaking through boundaries, often illogically, creatively.

Einstein, who I consider a genius, had a bitch of a time in school---he couldn't even show his work in math assignments. His brain raced to answers before he understood them logically, skipping steps all the time, and generally processing things more quickly than he could rationally express them---he knew (right brain) the answer and then went about proving it (left brain). When forced to slow down, he got lost and could not find the answer logically.

He was tagged as "learning disabled," considered an idiot, and ended up home-schooled.

If our schooling system (far worse now than in Einstein's time) sucked ass back then, it tells me that the whole thing needs a complete revolution---a different system for boys (and for girls, if we ever expect to see a female genius in future generations), because potential Einsteins today are self-destructing before they reach an age to fully develop, adding to this Age of Mediocrity.

(Incidentally, Einstein was very right-brained, as was Leonardo Da Vinci.)

Kelly Jones wrote: Many children find hours of entertainment by simply reading. They make new identities by contrasting memories, and inducing new possibilities, all without sensory input, in the mind.

Reading can't replace experiential intelligence. It can assist independent thought, but leaning on reading results in the reproduction of ideas, not the creation of them.

Kelly Jones wrote: Females are more sensate or directed by sensory input, and less rational or directed by a deep connection with ideas and memories.

(*) I would say boys are more object-oriented. Objects are more clearly defined as identities, rather than feelings.

Wrong. (*) Now that's a popular misconception.

Boys are on average more abstract, and more 'people-persons;' they very typically break off into teams and groups and interact much more naturally than do girls, who bicker and squabble and gossip and backstab (remaining together for reasons I can't fathom, not having been one---it certainly doesn't seem to be friendship...at least not the way boys are freinds). What do girls do? They're prone to objects, like flies on dung---shiny ones, shoes, stuff; materialism (matter---Mater---maternal, matrimony, et cetera). Diamond are objects and are a girl's best friend.

A young man can live with the basics, and not hoard crap. Additionally: you think an average bachelor gives a shit if his bathroom has matching shower curtains or pretty rings and rugs and covers and flowery toilet-paper-holders? Ha! Women are notorious object-lovers and object-horders and can't exist generally without a mall nearby from which to gather their assorted stuff ("Let's go shopping!"), junk, objects, trinkets, jewlery, piles of stuffed animals, and of course large leather sacks they carry around to hold all their objects.

And boys naturally share more than girls, who cling greedily to thier precious objects.

Girls are extremely object-oriented.

Kelly Jones wrote: There's no depth, no grounding in imagination. It's all immediacy, lacking reflection.

No creativity.

Perhaps. I think they don't exercise their right brains very much. They're stuck in strict rules and regulations regarding their minds and thinking---girls need to be brought out into a field for "art school," given marijuana to smoke, and then given a bunch of paint and blank posters to paint on (no lines inbetween which to paint, like mechanized dones). Supplying them with headphones might help also (marijuana and rhythmic music sends one deep into the right brain---as does controlled breathing, which some Hindu guys figured out a long time ago, being able to breathe only through the left nostril to help meditation, et cetera). And after a few months of this we might see some creativity.

And I'd go even further: they should be left out there with basic rations, a knife, a map, and a compass, so they'd have to work together as a team to find their way out. Only challenged minds develop, and necessity inspires invention and cooperation---girls are the least creative, least challenged, least inventive, and least cooperative segments of any human population precisely because of how we miseducate, spoil and shelter them...

Kelly Jones wrote: Not really. Girls and females generally speak a lot, because they can't form ideas. They need help to structure and clarify ideas.

True, but with words, reading, writing, they surpass boys in school consistantly (and talking, yes: women speak three times as much as men, and have more than a third less meaning in their collective words). I agree with the clarification of ideas bit.

Kelly Jones wrote:Boys, on the other hand, have a deep fear of being rejected, and have been bred to solve problems. So their "I" is biologically compelled to express only things that reflect a certain high level of intellectual capability. So --- they tend to be more stressed, silent, stutter, blush, growl, and hit out.

True---that's all men have been doing for ten thousand years, solving problems that women have pointed out to them. The "problem-solver" and the "protector" both developed into an instinct for men, who are naturally more physical and better with non-verbal communication.

Kelly Jones wrote: They are like knitters. They sit and rote learn, because they've never been bred to be capable of solving problems. Put a boy in the same situation, and he'd invent a knitting machine, or a labouring system.

Yeah, probably.

Kelly Jones wrote: The intelligent brain never swallows without thinking and questioning.

That's a product of rationality and inferential logic (ie. creativity).

Hmm. This again. Okay: how do you create? First, I suppose I should ask: do consider yourself creative? If so, to both of course, what do you create and how to you go about it?

Kelly Jones wrote: You need to let go of the idea that logic is the act of identifying something as something other than what is perceived. Logic is very simple: just perceiving something as what it is.

All you need to do is accept that whatever is happening, is actually what is happening. Don't project anything more.

Any erroneous projections are created by false steps of logic. For example: the belief that a sane reality can never be experienced and identified.

Well, you're replacing "perception" with "logic" and saying they're the same thing---I can't see how you can do that without seeing the distinction. Someone even in a coma is able to perceive (and remember, at times months later, the words a loved one said at their bed while they were devoid of all consciousness and all logic); logic was not part of it! We're hardly logical when we're asleep, and in our dreams, and yet outside stimulus can enter into our subconsciousness while sleeping and affect the content and direction, "plot" of the dreams.

Unless you think logic occurs apart from consciousness...? In which case, I won't let go my idea of the separation of logic (a conscious act) and perception (which is a lot like breathing: regularly subconscious and involuntary yet can be directed, aimed, as well as enhanced) because they are separate.

Kelly Jones wrote: The insane reality that is described above, is exactly what it is: insane. That's its logical identity. Ultimate Reality, or Reality, is the totality of all realities. It includes the reality you explained above.

What's happening here is doubt. Probably there's a logical mis-step that needs to be corrected.

Okay, that could very well be. Non sequiturs crop up in reasoning all the time---as do arguments from ignorance, cyclic or circular reasoning, self-contradiction, inductive fallacies concerning facts and values, et cetera. And over-rationalization, over-analysis...

Many of these I've personally experienced due to over-thinking, though, not from thinking too little. I had a girlfriend who'd do this too---she was very bright and very left-brained, and would often "think herself stupid," I called it. She'd find the answer to something and then keep thinking, going in circles when she already knew it but couldn't stop (my sister has done this a lot, too, making the same point over and over, unable to understand how redudant her thinking was; inconcise thought). She'd end up twisted in knots, lost, and frustrated, her reasoning ability disintegrating, then immediately lash out emotionally---when two hours before she had it all worked out...

Kelly Jones wrote:A conscious person's thoughts don't naturally repeat.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Kelly Jones wrote:As David mentioned, what you're describing here is a false definition of logic. It's really an attitude to things, rather than logic.

For example, such a person has reasoned (faultily) that Ultimate Reality is a finite system with inherent rules. This leads to the belief (which is also faulty) that everything obeys these laws. You get this sort of thing in scientific delusions like "Everything obeys the laws of physics".

Realistically, this isn't over-rationalisation, but under-rationalisation.

The Hitch-Hikers' Guide to the Galaxy has many rational instances that demonstrate how funny under-rationalisation is. Here's some of them:
...

Heh. Great stuff.

Yeah, I see your point.

Kelly Jones wrote:A truly highly logical mind, and i'm thinking of Kevin Solway, David Quinn, and a few others, has a habit of identifying things Truthfully. That is, it relates things to Ultimate Truth.

Very few people do this.

The only alternative habit is relating things to the ego. And it's very common: including the "very logical people and intellectuals" you mention.

Well, I suppose I'll have to take your word on that---I'm a n00b with this "Ultimate Truth" business. In my thinking, a thing is either true or it is untrue; then again, I do not claim to be enlightened.

Kelly Jones wrote:Again, this is a faulty representation of logic.

You are using logic to describe logic as faulty. Clearly contradicts your argument.

I'm using the only system capable of conveying what I know---and I know that logic is important and that's it's also limited; it's a means to an end, not the end. From age 16 to age 23 I was practically part-Vulcan in regards to logic, in that I valued it that highly. And a year later something happened which killed my faith in the Divinity of Logic.

I still employ it, but only for things I deem necessary, such as communication. When one can arrive at exactly the same location as one would without using logic, then it is illogical to restrict oneself to (overspecialize in) only logic. And that likely makes no sense, but after three days of trying to find a better way to put it, that's the best I can come up with.

Is it "a faulty representation of logic" or is it a matter of different logic-esteem and definition of logic?

Kelly Jones wrote:Your argument is quite screwy if you think about it.

You claim that anything that can be experienced is necessarily an insane construction.

Insanity and sanity are human constructs.

Kelly Jones wrote:You conclude that instinct is the most important "quality" that allows one to experience Ultimate Reality (what is ultimately real) in its "pristine" and "pure" form (the opposite of "artificial").

The problem is, you keep using logic and reason to identify that there is a "pristine" and "pure" form of Ultimate Reality to be found.

I don't think I said anything like that---I do not know what "Ultimate Reality" is...

Kelly Jones wrote: Here are the steps of logic in your argument:

Step 1
1. Making a definition: Experiences are insane (i.e. don't make sense) when constructed by logic
2. Deductive reasoning: The opposite of "constructed by logic" is anything where there is no construction by logic.
3. Conclusion: Experiences are sane when logical constructions are absent

*****Your alarm bells should be ringing right here*****

Step 2 (checks the above reasoning)
1. Making a definition: Absence of logical constructions is the same as absence of any identities
2. Deductive reasoning: If there are no identities, then is there any consciousness? No.
3. Conclusion: Therefore it is impossible to be conscious and sane.

******Thoughts begin to cycle and repeat fruitlessly*****

Heh. Funny, but (a) I don't recall saying "experiences are sane when logical constructions are absent"---our perceptions become reality, constant memory reconstructions of the past---and (b) I doubt I even have patterns to my logic or overall thinking (damn, I hope not).

Kelly Jones wrote:The "ideal masculine" you have described made one big illogical doozie. This doozie had the inevitable effect of "ordered madness", because that was what he was encouraging. His doozie: he instinctively believed that it was right to spend his life looking after the bodily needs of his tribe (society). He never questioned it, never went any deeper.

It's not "ideal" masculine as much as it is "base" or "pure" masculine---the Wild Man was the masculine man, and he still exists today in very few numbers in his natural environment; it is only an opinion that it is "ideal," not a fact. (We cannot unlearn what we've learned; we cannot go back to that directly, therefore it is not actually ideal.)

How do you know he never questioned it? He wasn't a mindless animal; he had the same basic brain functions---the same mind---we have now, but he used it all in accordance with the law of necessity---obviously, then, it was not necessary to question it, unless it threatened the survival of the tribe.

The Wild Man was "perfect enough" to not need to be "a genius;" he was natural, he was genius. There was no need for individual overcompensation (in the seeping muck of ignorance, growing thicker and thicker as a by-product of civilization and human overspecialization---in such areas as logic, as well, mentally painting ourselves into corners).

Essentially, the last ten thousand years has not been "progress"---it's been descent, "regression," the fall from perfection. No, not regression---that would imply a returning to previously worse state when in fact we're getting worse in completely novel ways.

Kelly Jones wrote: Never had any intuition that things arise interdependently, or that Nature is infinite, and therefore never had the thought that understanding Nature was more important than anything else.

I think you're wrong---I think he knew this perfectly well. It is that which he knew that we're struggling generationally to rediscover (and failing; hence the decline of wisdom); his supreme wisdom was expressed to his sons by way of story and lessons, trials, and by watching how he went about living (experiential learning). By doing. It was passed down for hundreds of thousands of years until, in the Old World, it stopped in Mesopotamia---the resting place of the old masculine with the walls of Uruk serving as its headstone.

Kelly Jones wrote: I'd call that type of man a slave from go to woe. He was domesticated aeons and aeons ago.

I'd call that smugness---but instead I'll ask: what is your definition of "domestication?" Were Aboriginals in the New World domesticated before white men invaded, and if so, in what way?

Kelly Jones wrote:Yet his drive to achieve things, hunt things, build empires, has always been distinguishable from the female's passive, safety-oriented mentality. So there is still a lasting sexual distinction to see.

Occasionally there has been an individual who suddenly thought it was important to understand Nature. For instance, Socrates, Diogenes, the Buddha, Jesus, Bodhidharma, Huineng, Hakuin, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Weininger, and others.

But generally speaking, the human trend has been dire femininity.

What was feminine about Natives/Aboriginals?

Kelly Jones wrote:It only seems to have changed recently because, over the last century, women's passive, safety-oriented mentality has become more obvious via the dramatic improvements in our technology. Human science and technology has almost always been developed for her sake.

So, feminine dominance is triumphant, like a champion boasting of his knock-out punch. (1) Not a sign of logical thinking.

I agree.

(1) Yes, because she didn't have to think at all---he did it all for her, faciliating her inevitable dominance.

Anyway, I wanted to mention another illogical component of our conversation---"women are irrational," as you state, and yet you are a woman and quite rational....

Kelly Jones wrote:Some other ways to nip the biological urge to reproduce or parent, before any of its stages germinate:

- Watch some videos of human cadavers being dissected, or even help slaughter a few animals to eat. The human torso is literally a bag of blood and guts. I helped kill a goat recently, and it was very interesting.
- Visit a zoo, watching family behaviours. See if you can detect sadist and masochist behaviours.
- Take a few girls or boys on dates and talk about non-attachment. Take newlyweds, widows, and divorcees on dates. Give them a free parent license application form, with a four-year correspondence course (with closed-book and real-time examinations).
- Donate the weekly allowance needed to rear a child, to find out how it affects your finances. Burn the money.
- Go to a few funerals, and see whether anyone gives a truthful eulogy. Check out how expensive their clothing is.
- See if you can make friends without being friendly.

Any other suggestions?

Heh. Those are good. What I found works rather well:

---Destroy the concept of beauty (and "redefine it" to exclude the physical). This requires a brutally honest, ongoing critique of the female body; it destroys the mystique around which we tend to gather to marvel (for no good reason). It annihilates physical value, and I've found it works well.

---Create an element of negative reinforcement regarding that which you find sexually appealing---so that what used to arouse now disgusts (it's getting effective for me). Sort of like your first one above, except it's continual double-think.

---Discipline your eyes; do not let them stroll about onto and over the bodies of women; in other words, perceive the feminine marginally only---don't focus unless you have to (example: you need something from a store and the only one available has an "attractive" female at its counter; then, I simply do not make eye contact). I've been doing this for four years and it's helped a lot. All three have, but it does not get rid of the libido---then again, I've only been doing all three together for about a year, so it could be that it takes more time, or perhaps greater effort as well to reduce it further so it barely seems it exist (although it always will exist).

Kelly Jones wrote:Are you saying that anyone who is used to herd behaviour is highly tuned in to "going with the crowd"? I.e. no sense of individual purpose?

Extreme masculine is individualistic; in its more common, natural form, it tends towards small groups; a tribe would be slightly further---balanced masculine-feminine. On the other extreme is the feminine, tending towards collective. Hence, the feminine unchecked leads to the population explosions that produces the masses, the crowd, and of course going along with the crowd.

In extremes they are opposite: Masculine = less; feminine = more. Conservative versus liberal. Micromania versus meglomania. No versus Yes.

Kelly Jones wrote:If this is true, you'd have to be smarter than Einstein.

Evidence suggests you're not really thinking about what you write.

Is that still your opinion?

As for Einstein, one does not need to be more intelligent than Einstein to be able to discern the clear lack of Einsteins in the world today. However, this may not represent any "decrease in genius"---it may be reflective of an increase in self-destructive behaviour of those approaching genius (read: they blow their brains out before attaining it).

Kelly Jones wrote: This is not a good definition of genius. (2) Have you read the Welcome and Introduction Forum to the Genius Forum, where genius is defined?

It's a crude rephrasing of the "official" one I've come across, obviously using Einstein as standard (do you not consider Einstein a genius?). No (2), I haven't---but I will a bit later.

Kelly Jones wrote: It's not possible nor wise to free oneself from one's biology, since one is one's biology.

However, it is both possible and wise to be free from delusional ideas.

Sure, but procreative drive is a primal biological imperative for all creatures who are extant---it's not a delusional idea. The obsession with it, the worship of the feminine---yes, these are delusions.

Kelly Jones wrote:Dan refuted this popular but false connection between transcendance and reclusion, in his editorial on Sanity. It's also in the opening post in the main Genius Forum thread, "Dealing with emotions".

I'll check that out. Thanks.

Kelly Jones wrote:I wouldn't bother wasting time on this.

It makes far more sense to understand what causes sexual desire, and to halt it.

And this in turn can only be done successfully by pouring all one's energies into understanding emptiness.

I hear that's one way---I'd like evidence it actually works, though. Since sexual desire is biological, short of altering one's biology, it doesn't stand that it's possible to "obliterate" it anymore than it's possible to destroy the ego without having the chunk of the brain removed that's responsible for it; like fat cells, the ego does not go away---it must be denied, starved and continually starved, since it's always there.

Nordicus,


I've attempted to trim my response by chunking themes together. So it's less "chronological".


I find this discussion interesting, because the agreement -- that men and women can generally be distinguished in terms of consciousness -- is superficial. In reality, our definitions of male and female consciousness differ significantly.

This is not surprising, because, though we both emphasise the importance of a certain kind of consciousness to distinguish what is ultimately real, you've admitted that you don't know what Ultimate Reality is, or what is ultimately true, and i've implied that i do know.

My entire premise is that Genius, the kind of consciousness needed to distinguish what is ultimately real, is masculine, because it is evident in a few men. For instance: some Buddhist sages like Bodhidharma, Huang Po, Hakuin, Huineng, the Buddha; Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Jesus. Not Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci, Mozart, Feynmann, Bach, Picasso, Wagner, or the like, who showed no insight into the nature of Reality, though they had a masculine traits (a degree of Genius).

The opposite kind of consciousness can reasonably be called a feminine type, because generally speaking, all women demonstrate it most purely (and indeed most men). I'm an exception (a masculine-minded female), so i'm not relevant to this definition.

So i'm talking more about the kind of psychology, values, drives, attachments, and methods used in the path to enlightenment.

Lastly, enlightenment (understanding Ultimate Reality) rests completely on logic, because logic is "the function of consciousness that identifies and contrasts (aka memory, or understanding)".

Note: this definition of logic is fundamental to consciousness itself, and is not the same as yours.

To avoid confusion, i will never use your definition of logic unless i indicate explicitly.

Keeping these two points in mind, namely, that masculine consciousness understands the nature of Ultimate Reality, and, it is highly logical......let's have another look at (i) logic, and (ii) how to understand what is ultimately real.

K: My usage of "logic" is pretty simple. It just means, "a thing is what it is", or "a thing is not what it is not".

N: That seems to be the definition of perceived reality, logically conceived.

There is no other way to conceive of a "perceived reality" without logic. The scenario you propose is impossible (that a thing is not what it is or exists without memory).

The right hemisphere is virtually omniscient (able to perceive All but lacking the ability to express it---with words or in ways that the left brain can express in sane terms---using a system like logic---to others and to itself). Logic is a system, not perception itself.

This statement crumbles for two reasons: (i) because it supposes that truth is based on empirical data (and therefore can never be certain), (ii) because it suggests that perceptions exist prior to memory (ie. being known and recognised), but ignores the reality that it is itself being known and recognised; therefore disproving the possibility.

Even the idea that a brain is causing consciousness is not certain. I mean, how are you going to peek at experiences to test that the brain "interprets" them? It's impossible to know absolutely what particular things makes consciousness behave as it does. All claims about particular causes are scientific hypotheses.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter how logic comes about, or whether a Demon of Illogic is responsible for the constructions popping into consciousness. It cannot alter the law of identity, that a thing is what it is.

If you've gotten around to checking out Dan's article on Sanity, and the Genius Forum Welcome and Introduction, you may also feel like having a look at David Quinn's The Wisdom of the Infinite. If you haven't already done so, that is. It's the clearest piece of writing about consciousness connected with this website.

You can find it here.

Tell me, what does logic alone create?

A=A creates everything. That is a "restriction" that no thing can escape. To even try to escape it, a perception would have to deny its own reality.

There is no such thing as a pure perception, because for anything to appear in consciousness at all, for there to even be consciousness, there is identity (memory). Consciousness is of thoughts.

A perception is an appearance to mind, known as what it is. So, it is not separate from logic, which is the function of a thing appearing as what it is.

As I said, too many so-called "feminine traits" I've researched are precisely "left-brained traits," as I and others call them; therefore it does not stand to reason that women are "just irrational." In nearly every other way, they are clearly left-brained. Something's missing---and I'm interested in exploring possibilities of what exactly it is.

I'm not going to pursue this idea, because it is founded on a faulty conception of logic, as well as a faulty conception of feminine-mindedness.

You also admit that both hemispheres can reason independently, so i don't think it's worth discussing.

Can you provide an example of how intuition requires logic?

A person might have have a sudden insight that Ultimate Reality is not limited to a single thing with form. Just say it occurred while he was thinking about something else. Popped into consciousness, a hunch.

Logically, he knows the insight is exactly what it is. And, logically, the thing that is "a single thing with form" is exactly not what Ultimate Reality is. Logic, remember, being the law of identity (A=A). But he has yet to verify this insight using deductive reasoning.

Your example of a fledgling "virgin-journey" goose finding its group after being detained is not an example of intuition or illogic. It is an example of hardwired instincts, the same which stop a baby human crawling over a cliff. That is not "intuition that is utterly devoid of logic".

as far as I'm concerned, all wisdom is known by the right hemisphere: the pursuit of wisdom is discovering what one already knows, and logic cannot always take us there

I define wisdom as understanding what is ultimately real. That definition of wisdom rests on logic, using my definition of course.

K: Your argument is looking suspiciously like an attempt to justify marriage. For example: "My wife is really a wonderful, thoughtful person. But she needs me to clarify her ideas." You aren't married or engaged, are you?

N: NO! Fuck no. I see absolutely no value in marriage, have never been married or engaged, and I am very firmly resolved to never be married. (How on Earth did you arrive at that conclusion? Not rhetorical---I'm interested since this applies to our topic here.)

It was a suspicion, not a conclusion. Many who are faced with the ugly truth about the feminine mind look for ways to justify it.

However, it looks to me like you weren't even facing it.

I think your argument boils down to: logical thinking is highly feminine, and responsible for the loss of true masculinity (going on instincts). More below.

The Industrial Age was the real beginning of that---progress produced pollution for maximum organization and profit margins.

It was completely logical.

On the contrary, pollution wasn't driven by individual logical choices, but herd-minded instinct --- namely, the feminine-mind, the type of consciousness that goes in for vagueness, emotions, sensuality, merging, driftiness, and excitement. It's driven by ego (survival).

The Wild Man was "perfect enough" to not need to be "a genius;" he was natural, he was genius.

I see no reason to equate civilisation with the inability to understand what is ultimately real. But what exactly do you mean by "supreme wisdom", if not understanding Ultimate Reality?

I define domestication to be the same as feminisation, because both are perpetuation of the "pure, base" human, namely, the herd-instinct to survive, the ego.

Yes, an "indigenous" human (a member of any pre-invasion tribe) are domesticated, and feminine, because of the above definition --- but any individual who is not a member of any pre-invasion tribe, is also domesticated and feminine. The only individual who is not, is one who is conscious and without ego.

but innocence has a clarity to it not often found in old age---under the weight of so many experiences, mental clutter, memories, delusion, bias, et cetera. From my expereince, kids see things very clearly.

Since 99.999999% of humans are deluded and highly feminine, this is no argument for or against childhood or ageing. Innocence is not being easy-going about the self, but understanding that it is a purely practical construction of consciousness.

before we sat them down in desks and dumped words down their throats, we had them out with the men, learning experientially

I agree that being punished for thinking is unhelpful. Yet being "out with the men" also carries a punishment for thinking, if one is not allowed to explore alone.

For instance: Huineng was an illiterate wood-cutter who spent 15 years with a hunting tribe; Hakuin was a highly educated and literate monk, who spent most of his solitary "vagabond" youth studying koans. Both far surpassed their peers in understanding the nature of Reality.

You see, there's nowhere one goes that isn't the mind.....

K: I would say boys are more object-oriented. Objects are more clearly defined as identities, rather than feelings.

N: Boys are on average more abstract, and more 'people-persons;'

The context i was using here is not materialism, but the type of consciousness. By object-oriented, i'm referring to the ability to think as an individual, in logical terms, rather than merge and lose one's independence of mind.

The ability to play in a team is founded on independence of mind. One can see selves as abstract objects to move about in a visual spatial field, with trajectories in time.

I have no dispute that females are more materialistic. They're less capable of abstracting relationships, but act instinctively in the ego.

girls need to be brought out into a field for "art school," given marijuana to smoke, and then given a bunch of paint and blank posters to paint on

Most art galleries are -- unfortunately -- full of emotional expression by women. There's no clarity. It's really bland. Females express a lot of words, read and write a lot --- but there's nothing there.... No sense, no meaning, no depth of thought, no individuality, no reasoning, no passion for wisdom.

"Over-rationalisation" as you keep phrasing it, is lack of faith in reason. Once there is a truth, and it is completely logical, then there is absolutely no reason to question it. Thus, there is no such thing as over-thinking. What you describe is just doubt. I put it to you that women are typical doubters, because they have never seen the value in relying on their own thoughts. "There's always a male out there to make life easier...."

On your second suggestion, i agree that girls challenged to find ways to survive alone will start thinking, by necessity! Yes, females just need to think. Not your definition of logical thinking, but truly logical thinking (accepting that logic is the foundation for truth, A=A).

Okay: how do you create? First, I suppose I should ask: do consider yourself creative? If so, to both of course, what do you create

Yes, Wisdom, by thinking. Listening to the meaning of the Earth, an empty robot that operates on the whims of Reality.

A conscious person's thoughts don't naturally repeat.

By conscious i meant someone with excellent memory, individuality, and faith in reason, not drifty, dependent, and doubtful.

A conscious person's thoughts don't repeat because - from conscious awareness of why this is true - there is no belief that things or problems inherently exist. No attachment to problems or problem-solving, no lack of faith in reason, no desire to fit in with or please others.

All three have, but it does not get rid of the libido---then again, I've only been doing all three together for about a year, so it could be that it takes more time, or perhaps greater effort as well to reduce it further so it barely seems it exist (although it always will exist).

Sexual desire is one of the branches of the ego's core belief. Ego is all those thoughts, beliefs, values, emotions, etc. founded on the core belief that things inherently exist. So, sexual desire is a manifestation of a delusion.

Delusional thoughts are biological, but they don't appear in a mind that is free of delusion. Similarly, sexual desire doesn't appear in a mind free of attachment.

The only way to prove that this is true is to become enlightened.

Kelly, thanks for streamling the subjects accordingly. I do see your points better---in that we had differing definitions for a few things here. Anyway, going to think on this a bit before I give a proper reply.

I'll be taking several days' break from the computer, Nordicus.

^Alrighty.

Kelly Jones wrote: I find this discussion interesting, because the agreement -- that men and women can generally be distinguished in terms of consciousness -- is superficial. In reality, our definitions of male and female consciousness differ significantly.

I think it seems that way. I find it difficult to subscribe to the notion that the only main factor differentiating non-biological gender is consciousness, because (a) consciousness has many levels and (b) is comprised of several things; in short, I disgree with: "Absolute Femininity = unconsciousness & Absolute Masculinity = ultra-consciousness." I think it's on the right track, but it's incomplete and generalized (not 'Ultimate Truth,' if I gather the definition of this phrase 'correctly,' and I probably do not) and depends upon how one reckons masculinity.

1. There is a strong genetic difference between male and female (biological; physiological; determining physical gender);
2. There is a strong difference generally between genders in regards to degrees of hemispheric dominance in the brain (psychological; a major factor in behaviour);
3. There is a strong difference in general development (how we're raised; how mature or "adult" we become---environmental: socio-cultural) between male and female youth.

I doubt #1 plays any major role aside from modifier---due to estrogen, testoterone, whatever---of character traits; it's just physical femaleness or maleness. The other two are much more important factors for determining femininity and masculinity; psychological-psychical-phrenic "gender."

Kelly Jones wrote:This is not surprising, because, though we both emphasise the importance of a certain kind of consciousness to distinguish what is ultimately real, you've admitted that you don't know what Ultimate Reality is, or what is ultimately true, and i've implied that i do know.

I don't know what the term---"Ultimate Reality"---, what it's definition, means. Or even: "ultimately true." (To me, "ultimate" means "in the end," as in "the ultimate act of one's life is his last breath." Ultimate result = end result. And "true" is that which is not false.)

You don't know what RAFAM---"Railroad Fecundity Amplification"---means, because I have neither told you the definition of its acronym nor described its full meaning's context; you're at a disadvantage because I'm defining the term and its jargon. In fact, you know very well what RAFAM means, but I won't let you know that you're correct until you concur with my definition...

Isn't this rather manipulative and controlling of me? Slightly immature, too, like kids in a clique using a secret handshake or speaking in cultural code-words to exclude kids who look or act differently.

Kelly Jones wrote: My entire premise is that Genius, the kind of consciousness needed to distinguish what is ultimately real, is masculine, because it is evident in a few men. For instance: some Buddhist sages like Bodhidharma, Huang Po, Hakuin, Huineng, the Buddha; Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Jesus. Not Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci, Mozart, Feynmann, Bach, Picasso, Wagner, or the like, who showed no insight into the nature of Reality, though they had a masculine traits (a degree of Genius).

First (yes, I have read the site's definition), I don't agree with this definition of genius---to me, it seems that "genius" has switched meanings with "spiritually enlightened." It, in fact, really means "spiritual genius."

Second, it appears that there is no distinction between these terms: "genius," "masculine," "enlightened," "spiritual," "wise."

There are different species of genius---mathematical (Einstein, perhaps Hawking), musical (Mozart, Bach, Beethoven), artistic (Picasso, Escher, Da Vinci), inventive (Edison, Da Vinci), poetic (Rimbaud, Goethe), philosophical-psychological (Kant, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Weininger), et cetera, and, as I mentioned, spiritual (Jesus, Buddha). Just because you personally feel that one is greater or more important than the others, for whatever reason, it does not nullify the existence of genius in the others. Perhaps Einstein, Da Vinci, or Beethoven do not fit your definition of genius, but they were still geniuses ("exceptional talent, intelligence, or creativity"---or some combination of the three).

Kelly Jones wrote: The opposite kind of consciousness can reasonably be called a feminine type, because generally speaking, all women demonstrate it most purely (and indeed most men). I'm an exception (a masculine-minded female), so i'm not relevant to this definition.

So i'm talking more about the kind of psychology, values, drives, attachments, and methods used in the path to enlightenment.

Lastly, enlightenment (understanding Ultimate Reality) rests completely on logic, because logic is "the function of consciousness that identifies and contrasts (aka memory, or understanding)".

Okay.

Kelly Jones wrote: Note: this definition of logic is fundamental to consciousness itself, and is not the same as yours.

To avoid confusion, i will never use your definition of logic unless i indicate explicitly.

Alright---and for the record, "my" definition of logic is merely "a system of reasoning." I see it as nothing more than that; it's useful for some things, not very useful for others.

Kelly Jones wrote: Keeping these two points in mind, namely, that masculine consciousness understands the nature of Ultimate Reality, and, it is highly logical......let's have another look at (i) logic, and (ii) how to understand what is ultimately real.

(1) There is no other way to conceive of a "perceived reality" without logic. The scenario you propose is impossible (that a thing is not what it is or exists without memory).

This statement crumbles for two reasons: (i) because it supposes that truth is based on empirical data (and therefore can never be certain), (ii) because it suggests that perceptions exist prior to memory (ie. being known and recognised), but ignores the reality that it is itself being known and recognised; therefore disproving the possibility.

(2) Even the idea that a brain is causing consciousness is not certain. I mean, how are you going to peek at experiences to test that the brain "interprets" them? It's impossible to know absolutely what particular things makes consciousness behave as it does. All claims about particular causes are scientific hypotheses.

(1) Again, explain how the mind conceives reality during REM sleep, using memories and outside stimulus (creating at times very vivid 'realities'), all devoid of logic, reason, or actively conscious effort. If logic and reason function during (unconscious or subconscious) REM sleep, one would know it was "not real," which only happens after waking from a dream: as consciousness rises, brain waves change, sense and clarity return, A=A returns, and one can determine that one is no longer dreaming, "back in the real world." This was not possible during the dream-state because higher reasoning was absent, even though perception was active.

Reality is relative to the variety of consciousness---the mind's level of awareness. (Things can seem real in a similar way during hallucinations---the types that originate during (REM) sleep deprivation, for example. The real and surreal intermingle, and it becomes more and more difficult to distinguish between the concrete and illusion; the time it takes one to perceive and identify the concrete increases with the length of time one is deprived of REM sleep.) Billions of people are fooled every single night by a dreaming state that creates a perceived reality which is not the same reality they experience when awake.

...Unless of course you are entirely logical, rational, fully conscious in your dreams and know at all times what's real and what's not---in which case you are very unique indeed (the first person in history to claim such a thing, in fact). But this doesn't apply to the rest of us.

(2) The brain is not responsible for consciousness? Surely, you don't think it comes from the feet? ;)

Yes, it's as certain (that the brain is responsible for consciousness) as it is that a square has four sides. It's as much a scientific hypothesis or theory as is gravity, evolution, 2+2=4, or A=A, or "I am," or anything else called or considered a fact. It (LOC) can be tested when parts of the brain are either damaged or impaired (especially in controlled experiments).

Kelly Jones wrote: Ultimately, it doesn't matter how logic comes about, or whether a Demon of Illogic is responsible for the constructions popping into consciousness. It cannot alter the law of identity, that a thing is what it is.

If you've gotten around to checking out Dan's article on Sanity, and the Genius Forum Welcome and Introduction, you may also feel like having a look at David Quinn's The Wisdom of the Infinite. If you haven't already done so, that is. It's the clearest piece of writing about consciousness connected with this website.

You can find it here.

Thanks. I'll give it a read later.

Kelly Jones wrote: A=A creates everything. That is a "restriction" that no thing can escape. To even try to escape it, a perception would have to deny its own reality.

There is no such thing as a pure perception, because for anything to appear in consciousness at all, for there to even be consciousness, there is identity (memory). Consciousness is of thoughts.

A perception is an appearance to mind, known as what it is. So, it is not separate from logic, which is the function of a thing appearing as what it is.

Okay, after further thought, perhaps my definition (or description) of perception needs adjustment. It is not some simple, static tool the mind employs---it is a process and it has levels and stages. In terms of visual perception, stimulus becomes a 'henid'---when you turn your head and begin to focus on something, there is a short instance in which it is vague (a "thing," what Weininger calls a 'henid'), amorphous for a very brief instant, until reason is used---

d5s{if$}bI8U-NtG1%

That cannot be identified or made real by your reasoning process because it doesn't fit any verbal-English-language patterns of which you're aware (memory in both hemispheres), the letters (symbols) form no known words (complex symbols) that trigger understanding (clarification---realization) in your left hemisphere, even though the individual letters are understood. So each letter and symbol is identified, but it makes no sense as a whole (remaining in henid stage?). No picture can enter your mind, whereas---

tree

---makes sense to the left brain straight away, and it creates an image in your right hemisphere (relative to hemispheric dominance of course; lefties are godawful with images). What's going on here is not actively conscious, but it requires a level of consciousness to identify it. Like when you're reading a book and its author is describing a room or a meadow---you are not usually manually constructing every single image associated with those words;---you could, taking more time to do so, but, like breathing, you can take active control of it or leave it involuntary; again, it requires some level of consciousness (unlike breathing, of course) but not active consciousness.

Back to turning your head and directing your eyes upon something---what I mean by "pure perception" is the involuntary function of taking in sensory input, which is not actively conscious at all; images are processed in the right hemisphere at amazing speeds, and without focusing: peripheral vision "sees" things before they are identified consciously, or before "conscious effort;" the greater one's perception, the greater the peripheral vision, and the more quickly one can identify something on which one isn't focusing. It's not just peripherally, either:

Ths s nothr xmpl

Apart from the "d5s{if$}bI8U-NtG1%" example, this is an example of how the brain perceives non-actively---a right brained person should be able to quickly discern the meaning of that de-voweled sentence, viewing it as a whole and getting the gist of it, while a left brained person (taking more time, seeing at first the equivalent of "d5s{if$}bI8U-NtG1%") should be able to logically deduce which letters are missing and arrive at meaning, clarification, realization.

Logic (a system of reasoning) may or may not be part of this realization.

Kelly Jones wrote: I'm not going to pursue this idea, because it is founded on a faulty conception of logic, as well as a faulty conception of feminine-mindedness.

You also admit that both hemispheres can reason independently, so i don't think it's worth discussing.

Yes, they can, but they usually don't (hence left-brain dominance), not unless one is manipulated through experiment, such as the split-brain experiment or the Wada test, which involves the methodical use of an anesthetic, the effect of which is to shut down any language and/or memory function in one hemisphere (usually the left, which disables the ability of producing or understanding language but leaves the right brain able to hum and sing) in order to evaluate the other hemisphere.

Kelly Jones wrote: A person might have have a sudden insight that Ultimate Reality is not limited to a single thing with form. Just say it occurred while he was thinking about something else. (*) Popped into consciousness, a hunch.

Logically, he knows the insight is exactly what it is. And, logically, the thing that is "a single thing with form" is exactly not what Ultimate Reality is. Logic, remember, being the law of identity (A=A). But he has yet to verify this insight using deductive reasoning.

Your example of a fledgling "virgin-journey" goose finding its group after being detained is not an example of intuition or illogic. It is an example of hardwired instincts, the same which stop a baby human crawling over a cliff. (3) That is not "intuition that is utterly devoid of logic".

Yeah, and that (*) has happened to me five times in dream-state over the last year---something relevant to a problem I was working on...just popped in and became part of the dream, just before waking up, before I was fully aware it was a dream. Twice it was the exact answer I was looking for; after a couple weeks of being unable to think it out, it shows up for no reason in a dream. I am unconvinced deductive reasoning had anything to do with it.

(3) Instinct is closely linked to intuition: "the power of knowing or understanding something immediately without reason or being taught." Intuition is likely residual instinct, back from when we were sound, balanced, and natural. (It's not an example of illogic; rather: it cannot be explained logically.)

Intuition occurs without reason. That's right brain. It's faster than analysis or logical argumentation. [For life in a sterile box, no, it's not needed, and one can be mechanical and Spock-like in this environment; but I value intuition and instinct highly because I do not intend to live out my life as a soulless, expressionless bald monkey sitting in a box, facing a screen, looking at anything that doesn't fit into a rigid and narrow system of logic and repeating "does not compute" in a monotone voice. So, I'm probably biased regarding this, I'll admit.]

It seems that infants are born quite instinctual, until they get domesticated, civilized, feminized, and it fades---or succumbs to atrophy from lack of use (left-brain specialization). Example, all newborns can swim---but in ten years, half of them lose this "ability." Doesn't make much sense on a planet that's 70% water...

Kelly Jones wrote: I define wisdom as understanding what is ultimately real. That definition of wisdom rests on logic, using my definition of course.

Okay; that's helpful.

Kelly Jones wrote: It was a suspicion, not a conclusion. Many who are faced with the ugly truth about the feminine mind look for ways to justify it.

However, it looks to me like you weren't even facing it.

I think your argument boils down to: logical thinking is highly feminine, and responsible for the loss of true masculinity (going on instincts). More below.

No. I think they should have a far better grasp of logic than they do because they are by far more left-brained than men are.

I think that this statement---"the feminine is more animal"---is nonsense (one of the most absurd things I've ever heard). Animals (non-human animals) have keen instincts, sharp senses. Toss your average mall-shopping make-up-plastered woman out in the woods, and what happens? She's clueless and behaves as though she's an alien stranded on another planet. She'll complain about the bugs, the weather, the trees, everything, and sooner or later will start crying and screaming like a little girl. And unless rescued, she'll either starve to death, get eaten by something, or succumb to the elements. She has no intuitive sense in that environment---she's about as far from "animal" as possible.

Again, we obviously differ on the definition of masculine...

Kelly Jones wrote: On the contrary, pollution wasn't driven by individual logical choices, but herd-minded instinct --- namely, the feminine-mind, the type of consciousness that goes in for vagueness, emotions, sensuality, merging, driftiness, and excitement. It's driven by ego (survival).

1. Pollution was/is a by-product of societal greed, especially female greed, resulting from over-population and "free market" consumption. Want rationalized as need; necessity re-defined into excess and waste for wider profit margins, by such rational types as Adam Smith.

2. Most social mammals have a "herd-instinct"---why aren't other primates polluting their environment? Why have forests remained in areas populated by "lesser" apes for a million years? (Optional question: Why are illogical beings so good at living in harmony with other beings and their environments?)

Kelly Jones wrote: I see no reason to equate civilisation with the inability to understand what is ultimately real. But what exactly do you mean by "supreme wisdom", if not understanding Ultimate Reality?

The best kind of wisdom is that which can be learned quickly, without words---tools not only for survival but also for being in balance with the life forms around you. The wisest creature on this planet might be a bacterium; yet, for more complex multicellular life, it's clearly insects. Wisdom inhereted unconsciously; instinctually. (What is instinct except that which is crucial to survival and does not require active consciousness?) The human manner of passing wisdom from generation to generation is currently very sloppy, tedious, time-consuming; inefficient. We got close to a great system up until about 15 thousand years ago, and then it all started going to hell (it was probably nearly perfect until we became aware of our own mortality---so, in effect, greater awareness, consciousness, was the first big fat nail in the coffin of our species, as far as I see it). And now, Christ, we're the dumbest, weakest, most disease-ridden species on the planet.

I define wisdom as experiential knowledge that leads to the best possible course of action: increasing adaptability and interspecies balance.

Kelly Jones wrote: I define domestication to be the same as feminisation, because both are perpetuation of the "pure, base" human, namely, the herd-instinct to survive, the ego.

Yes, an "indigenous" human (a member of any pre-invasion tribe) are domesticated, and feminine, because of the above definition --- but any individual who is not a member of any pre-invasion tribe, is also domesticated and feminine. The only individual who is not, is one who is conscious and without ego.

And before that---when very primitive man, say, Cromagnoid, or even futher back: Homo neanderthalensis, the quintessential "cave man," 70 thousand years ago, without art or culture, using simple spears, stone tools---how feminine or domesticated do you reckon him to be?

I'm trying to ascertain your notion of the origin of domestication, and thus feminization---specifically: how far back shall we go to see non-domesticated (feral) homonoids?

Kelly Jones wrote: Since 99.999999% of humans are deluded and highly feminine, this is no argument for or against childhood or ageing. Innocence is not being easy-going about the self, but understanding that it is a purely practical construction of consciousness.

Yes, I see your point.

Kelly Jones wrote: I agree that being punished for thinking is unhelpful. Yet being "out with the men" also carries a punishment for thinking, if one is not allowed to explore alone.

For instance: Huineng was an illiterate wood-cutter who spent 15 years with a hunting tribe; Hakuin was a highly educated and literate monk, who spent most of his solitary "vagabond" youth studying koans. Both far surpassed their peers in understanding the nature of Reality.

You see, there's nowhere one goes that isn't the mind.....

Also, good points. (I don't know much of this Hakuin fellow, but he seems like my kinda guy. Then again, I find 'nomadic' types and drifters very interesting.)

Kelly Jones wrote: The context i was using here is not materialism, but the type of consciousness. By object-oriented, i'm referring to the ability to think as an individual, in logical terms, rather than merge and lose one's independence of mind.

The ability to play in a team is founded on independence of mind. One can see selves as abstract objects to move about in a visual spatial field, with trajectories in time.

I have no dispute that females are more materialistic. They're less capable of abstracting relationships, but act instinctively in the ego.

Okay---thanks for clarifying.

Kelly Jones wrote: Most art galleries are -- unfortunately -- full of emotional expression by women. There's no clarity. It's really bland. Females express a lot of words, read and write a lot --- but there's nothing there.... No sense, no meaning, no depth of thought, no individuality, no reasoning, no passion for wisdom.

"Over-rationalisation" as you keep phrasing it, is lack of faith in reason. Once there is a truth, and it is completely logical, then there is absolutely no reason to question it. Thus, there is no such thing as over-thinking. What you describe is just doubt. I put it to you that women are typical doubters, because they have never seen the value in relying on their own thoughts. "There's always a male out there to make life easier...."

Yes, okay, that makes more sense---especially now that we're clearer on the definitions of terms we're using here. "What you describe is just doubt"---this makes sense to me, and it might be (in whole or in part) what I keep witnessing in otherwise intelligent females (and some males). Coming to a correct conclusion and not realizing it (and continuing a mindless search of logicizing for that which one has already found, as if not satisfied or just unaware) is quite probably due to doubt, perhaps something clogging up the perception of that truth, too, but I still maintain there is such a thing as "over-thinking," which happens after something is solved.

It might simply be: inability to recognize a solution---due to perhaps a faulty problem solving process. Find another term if you don't like "over-thinking"---and "free thinking" isn't applicable...maybe "redundant thought," but I don't know of any other term.

Kelly Jones wrote: On your second suggestion, i agree that girls challenged to find ways to survive alone will start thinking, by necessity! Yes, females just need to think. Not your definition of logical thinking, but truly logical thinking (accepting that logic is the foundation for truth, A=A).

Can't argue that. I'd add that they also need to think about things other than what So-n-So in Hollywood is wearing, or which lipstick shade goes with her nail polish, or whatever.

Kelly Jones wrote: Yes, Wisdom, by thinking. Listening to the meaning of the Earth, an empty robot that operates on the whims of Reality.

So, you create Ultimate Reality? ;) --->

Kelly Jones wrote: I define wisdom as understanding what is ultimately real.

What I meant was shit like inventing (with concrete objects, or abstract concepts), or sculpting, or painting, or drawing, or writing poetry, et cetera...

Kelly Jones wrote: By conscious i meant someone with excellent memory, individuality, and faith in reason, not drifty, dependent, and doubtful.

A conscious person's thoughts don't repeat because - from conscious awareness of why this is true - there is no belief that things or problems inherently exist. No attachment to problems or problem-solving, no lack of faith in reason, no desire to fit in with or please others.

Okay, gotcha.

Kelly Jones wrote: Sexual desire is one of the branches of the ego's core belief. Ego is all those thoughts, beliefs, values, emotions, etc. founded on the core belief that things inherently exist. So, sexual desire is a manifestation of a delusion.

Delusional thoughts are biological, but they don't appear in a mind that is free of delusion. Similarly, sexual desire doesn't appear in a mind free of attachment.

The only way to prove that this is true is to become enlightened.

Well, I see no way to prove that "they don't appear in a mind that is free of delusion"---Buddha never had an erection in his entire life? I find that hard to believe. And Jesus never had so much as a piss-hardon in his sleep? I really, seriously doubt that he didn't. (There's no detailed biography of either of these two---and the teen years of Jesus are missing completely---so all we know is what little was written by their followers, all the good stuff that portrays them in an intended manner.) On some level of consciousness (the state of being aware and self-aware, I mean, not your type of consciousness), it's involuntary.

I don't see how it's possible to annihilate either the ego or the libido; both are intergral parts inherent in every human being, with physiological causes. Neither "can be removed" anymore than fat cells "vanish" when you lose weight---the number of fat cells never change...they get bigger or get smaller according to circumstance, the same as the ego and the libido; both are always there.

Otherwise, one simple act should be able to "get rid of them" and one would never have to worry again. That's not the case---hence discipline, and vigilance, constant vigilance. Both must be continually denied, starved; the libido must be kept from temptation and the ego must not give into praise-addiction or pride. Stopping this vigilance results in either returning, I don't care how enlightened one thinks or claims he is (which in itself seems hypocritical---being humble seems to be implied in this ego-denial, no?).