GENIUS FORUMS

Pye wrote:. . . it assumes that there are complementaries in place [masculine/feminine] and that these have been definitively fixed by some trick of metaphysical authority, rather than being a device of our own [social] construction

The duality of consciousness/unconsciousness is made by the individual mind.

"Metaphysical authority" and "social construction" doesn't mean anything to me.

Further, it seeks to destroy one half of that complementary,

Wisdom destroys ignorance, does it not?

on the assumption that the other half will remain intact (if this doesn't offend the laws of logic, it at least offends the laws of physics).

When ignorance is dispelled wisdom remains intact. There is no law of physics that says there must be a balance between wisdom and ignorance (or consciousness and unconsciousness).

It is the western dualistic thinking in its blindest form: of all complementaries, one is always "better" than the other categorically, as opposed to situationally, thus trouncing any fluid wisdom one gets from the knowing when of the Tao.

Wisdom is only better than ignorance if the individual personally decides it to be so. Most people decide that ignorance is better. Neither is absolutely right.

Since Socrates, everything in the world must be intelligible to be of any worth.

You are perhaps thinking of academia and economics, in which case you would be justified.

The workings of cause and effect itself, the workings of Nature, are infinite, and therefore not strictly "intelligible" in the narrow sense of the word.

And all of this is deeply embedded in the deep mists of man's psychic association between women/nature: both are chaotic, destructive forces in need of intelligibility and control.

Yes, just like the weather is chaotic, unpredictable, and often harmful, so are women.

Are you saying it is wrong to try and consciously adapt to or control the weather to the best of our ability?

For example, the statement that "females are unconscious" is more accurately rendered "I get unconscious around females."

If I say that a rock lacks a mind, does that mean I don't have a mind around rocks? No, it doesn't logically follow.

One need only explore the feminine component of one's own self to understand the feminine completely.

I suspect SE has been talking about "death" as the death of the ego, but he hasn't been at all clear about this.

dq

As it happens, I've learnt quite a bit from Sue Hindmarsh, and also from Celia Green, Valerie Solanas, and Esther Vilar.

If a woman says something worthwhile, I'll always listen.

valerie solanas the one who shot andy warhol

most criminals are male

so what did you learn from a violent woman

this is in your mind a good quality an asset to genius

well it is logical that despising often leads to violence but how that leads to enlightenment i can't see

so what is your opinion of the law is it feminine lady justice and all

so your form of awakening does not include ahimsa/non harming

ks

Yes, just like the weather is chaotic, unpredictable, and often harmful, so are women.

Are you saying it is wrong to try and consciously adapt to or control the weather to the best of our ability?

harmful but again it is mostly men that commit violent crimes

and i think it is a very bad thing to try to control the forces of nature because you could easily make things worse by creating an imbalance in nature

i do not mean controlling the climate problems greated by mankind

so even mother nature is to be despised

the trees the sea the sky the food that nurtures all

Kevin wrote:

I suspect SE has been talking about "death" as the death of the ego, but he hasn't been at all clear about this.

No, he's definitely been talking about physical death. For example:

.... complete enlightenment (according to my own terms) cannot be achieved as long as you have a body.

and,

I would also say that no human being has ever been fully enlightened because if they were, they wouldn't be here.

and,

DQ: The fully-enlightened person is like the rest of us - he lives his life on this earth and then he dies, never to be seen again.

SE: I would phrase that statement differently. I would say that the individual dies and then becomes fully enlightened.

I don't see how it can be read in any other way.

-

frank wrote:

DQ: It's as though something in me is instantly repulsed by the rampant chaos, incoherency and unconsciousness which is visibly pouring from her mind.

f: Do you agree repulsion signifies attachment?

A repulsion towards unconsciousness and lies definitely signifies an attachment to truth. No question of it.

-

sky wrote:

valerie solanas the one who shot andy warhol

most criminals are male

so what did you learn from a violent woman

Solanas wasn't perfect by any means, but I like the way she became very extreme and single-minded in her beliefs. She followed a line of thought to the very end and didn't back away from its implications simply out of fear of being ostracized by society, even though she was fully aware of just how repulsive and extreme her beliefs were in the eyes of general society.

This is very rare behaviour for anyone, let alone a woman.

this is in your mind a good quality an asset to genius

Individuality/extremism is one of the prerequisites of genius. The opposite to this is moderation, mediocrity, following the crowd, being a cypher, etc.

so what is your opinion of the law is it feminine lady justice and all

Laws are certainly necessary for civilized society, especially given how irrational and egotistical we are as a species. But they aren't infallible and often have to be challenged.

so your form of awakening does not include ahimsa/non harming

Well, there is always going to be a clash between the awakened person who values truth and a society like ours which values unconsciousness, egotism and lies. This is unavoidable. So in a sense, the awakened person tries to harm his own society - or more accurately, he tries to bring suffering to people in the form of attacking their values and undermining their beliefs and basically trying to deepen their thinking. This is more or less an expression of the "cruel to be kind" principle.

As a general rule, I don't see any reason to condone violence or murder or criminal behaviour, although there may be certain situations in which these actions are justified.

-

sky wrote:most criminals are male

It depends how you define "criminal".

If it is criminal to be unconscious or irrational, or to fail to strive for greatness, then women are more criminal than men.

so your form of awakening does not include ahimsa/non harming

Wisdom does a lot of harm to ignorance.

A priest is hurt when his ignorance is exposed.

Nothing can be done without doing harm to something.

ks

It depends how you define "criminal".

If it is criminal to be unconscious or irrational, or to fail to strive for greatness, then women are more criminal than men.

i would define criminal those who do serious violent crimes such as rape murder

it is as rare for a woman to be a serial killer as it is by your definition to be a genius

i also see those with power like corporate power who use it to abuse the whole as criminal

ex. ken lay of enron who cost people their hard earned life savings subsequent loss of homes and myriad other personal tragedies

who manipulated the energy market to the point of 'rolling blackouts' in california

causing immense difficulty for the 'little people' as to him they were insignificant

raping the environment is criminal

and most people in positions of power corporate power are men

in fact their attitude is similar to here 'men only' with rare exceptions

same with government almost exclusively male

the katrina situation is criminal

george bush is a criminal he should have been impeached but he is too wily

so therefore is a man like gore whose focus is on the single issue of climate crises is he masculine because he is single minded or feminine because his view is nurturing

bill gates in his philanthropy attempting to alleviate the suffering of disease

does he not serve the potential genius by giving them a better chance at life

i mean yes an enlightened sage does contribute invaluably to the whole

but someone has to take some action

someone has to actually go out and do the dirty work

because the impure air and the rising oceans etc. are not going to discriminate in favor of the masculine genius

disease will not be alleviated without someone taking responsibility

nuclear war requires some serious rational profound thought and skillful means to be prevented

these are elements that cannot be left up the 'chance' of good fortune

not everyone can despise the world and seek only their own 'salvation' be it genius nirvana satchitananda moksha whatever

if they did the genius would not be able to be free to devote himself to philosophy

philosophy is in a way a luxury which is only possible by the toil of those 'unconscious beings' who work to provide with relative ease the necessities of life

for this site to exist a lot of people had to and have to have very 'worldly' concerns

dq

Solanas wasn't perfect by any means, but I like the way she became very extreme and single-minded in her beliefs. She followed a line of thought to the very end and didn't back away from its implications simply out of fear of being ostracized by society, even though she was fully aware of just how repulsive and extreme her beliefs were in the eyes of general society.

This is very rare behaviour for anyone, let alone a woman.

yes i read her scum manifesto in which her views are exactly the opposite of yours in her eyes it is the male that is to be despised

so does that not give any sense that it is not about despising the sex that happens to be opposite

that people with a deep sense of truth courage honesty logic wisdom and perfection is really the point

that is the really logical rational perspective

you find women repulsive for.........reasons

and i find men idiotic with their attitudes toward women

i am pretty much done with arguing

the buddhist path of the middle way is fine for me

since you list buddha as one of your approved geniuses then i see no reason to go through you or this form of women despising genius

i will go directly to the source

i wanted to challenge you

and i have

i may have not made a dent in you fixation but some others here have seen my point

that is sufficient

i love truth more than you can know because a lie caused the death of someone dear to me when i was not yet two

so i have been aware and thinking about it for a long time

i love solitude

i am not involved with men sexually nor do i wish to be

i don't think of men as my salvation nor my oppressor

i am independent and i am no one's victim

so i will leave you with a little story

living on south beach getting hit on by men is common for both the men and the women

one day i was coming out of starbucks with a venti frapuccino

and some guy made some comment that i did not like after all i was deeply into my own thoughts and if he had not spoken to me i would not have noticed him

so i took the lid off my frapucinno and poured it over his head and walked away saying

'don't take personally you were just one a..hole over the line'

i don't despise men

i think most of them are idiots but i don't despise them

and i am always open to exceptions

my main point is this there is something 'off' with the fixation on this forum about women as inferior

it seems to me a projection

a way to dispose of those qualities less than ideal that any man here might have toward 'she'

in order to make a perfect 'he'

you could use the terms conscious and unconscious without assigning them the values of masculine and feminine

that fact that you hold so fiercely to this depiction of women does not inspire me to believe in your 'lofty indifference'

you are anything but indifferent to women

neither attachment nor aversion = indifference

bye

sky wrote:

it is as rare for a woman to be a serial killer as it is by your definition to be a genius

Camille Paglia once remarked that the reason why there are no female Mozarts is because there are no female Jack-the-Rippers. It is very rare for a woman to become extreme in any direction, either for good or bad.

yes i read [Volarie Solanas's] scum manifesto in which her views are exactly the opposite of yours in her eyes it is the male that is to be despised

so does that not give any sense that it is not about despising the sex that happens to be opposite

In my case at least, it is not about despising the opposite sex. It is about following an ideal which fundamentally challenges the status quo and reaches far beyond what is happening today.

since you list buddha as one of your approved geniuses then i see no reason to go through you or this form of women despising genius

i will go directly to the source

The Buddhist sutras certainly contain some great material, but if you really want to go the source then you need to open up your own mind to the Source directly. In the end, the Buddhist sutras are just as second-hand and removed as my own work is.

you could use the terms conscious and unconscious without assigning them the values of masculine and feminine

I could, but it's not as effective, as hardly anyone has a sufficient understanding of what unconsciousness means. Most people, and women in particular, automatically believe that they are supremely conscious beings, when in reality they are not. It is thus more effective to use a term like "femininty" because it is more confronting and can help people gain a more concrete understanding of what it means to be unconscious and just how steeped in unconsciousness they really are.

Also, men and women tend to be unconscious in fundamentally different ways. Men tend to remain unconscious by erecting mental blocks and suppressing threatening philosophic thoughts, while women simply remain unconscious because they cannot think coherently enough to escape it. In other words, men remain unconscious out of fear, women out of a lack of mental capacity.

Again, these are generalizations and don't necessarily apply to all men and all women.

that fact that you hold so fiercely to this depiction of women does not inspire me to believe in your 'lofty indifference'

you are anything but indifferent to women

neither attachment nor aversion = indifference

To be honest, women don't really mean much to me at all. I rarely think about them, and I'm only inspired to do so when I see people praising them so much, which they tend to do all the time.

In other words, if I am fixated upon anything, it is upon the fixation that the world has with women. I am fixated upon the fixation. That's what interests me more.

-

David:

A repulsion towards unconsciousness and lies definitely signifies an attachment to truth. No question of it.

Repulsion + Attraction = the path to enlightenment.

Is that what you are saying?

Perceiving a Bondage Situation on the one hand and perceiving a Freedom Situation on the Other...

Bondage versus Freedom.



David:

It is thus more effective to use a term like "femininty" because it is more confronting and can help people gain a more concrete understanding

So it's a Script Device...for Dramatic Effect.

hahaha

frank

Pye: For example, the statement that "females are unconscious" is more accurately rendered "I get unconscious around females."

Kevin: If I say that a rock lacks a mind, does that mean I don't have a mind around rocks? No, it doesn't logically follow.

that's it exactly. there is not logic involved in the problem in the first place.

.

frank,

DQ: A repulsion towards unconsciousness and lies definitely signifies an attachment to truth. No question of it.

f: Repulsion + Attraction = the path to enlightenment.

Is that what you are saying?

Perceiving a Bondage Situation on the one hand and perceiving a Freedom Situation on the Other...

Bondage versus Freedom.

Yes, frank.

DQ: It is thus more effective to use a term like "femininty" because it is more confronting and can help people gain a more concrete understanding

f: So it's a Script Device...for Dramatic Effect.

There wouldn't be any drama if people weren't so attached to women and the feminine.

-

David said,

A repulsion towards unconsciousness and lies definitely signifies an attachment to truth. No question of it.

It signifies an attachment to truth. I am going to question if it signifies a love of truth.

Which of the two will help the truth seeker?

'Woman' has been a Major Issue for Spiritual Men hasn't She?

Over the years.

Probably THE Major Issue.

Eve corrupting the Purity of Adam and so on...

frank

Yes, these spiritual men were either emotionally-immature individuals with an irrational fear of women, or else they were onto something which very few people want to deal with.

-

Scott,

DQ: A repulsion towards unconsciousness and lies definitely signifies an attachment to truth. No question of it.

S: It signifies an attachment to truth. I am going to question if it signifies a love of truth.

Which of the two will help the truth seeker?

Love and attachment are the same thing.

-

There is a difference that I have experienced. Attachment is born out of negative feelings, but love is born out of positive feelings. It's not attachment. It's open and receptive, and enjoying.

David:

Yes, these spiritual men were either emotionally-immature individuals with an irrational fear of women, or else they were onto something which very few people want to deal with.

-

In order to achieve enlightenment I have to Realise a 'Truth Scenario' that goes like this...

God or Light or Purity 'births' Man as a Possibility of either achieving that same Purity or becoming Corrupted...

God or Light or Purity 'births' Woman as the Vehicle for Corruption.

The Vehicle for Corruption separates Man from God or Light or Purity.

It's the Honourable Pledge of a Spiritual Man to separate Man from Woman in order to Reunite him with God or Light or Purity.

Is that the Realisation that Saves Frank?

frank

Scott wrote:

There is a difference that I have experienced. Attachment is born out of negative feelings, but love is born out of positive feelings. It's not attachment. It's open and receptive, and enjoying.

I suspect what you're talking about here is the emotional high that your current set of attachments sometimes give you.

-

It may be.

But there is a definite difference between hating ignorance and loving truth. The two are far apart.

dq

I am fixated upon the fixation.

lol in music that would be called secondary dominance

so whether it is woman as individuals or woman because society praises them (that really galls you as everyone can plainly see even a so called mindless soulless female as i allegedly am) or even abstractly 'the fixation on woman' you david are still being dominated by woman

dq

To be honest, women don't really mean much to me at all. I rarely think about them, and I'm only inspired to do so when I see people praising them so much, which they tend to do all the time.

the italics says it all poor baby should i apologize or something how about a lollipop you petulant child

dq

The Buddhist sutras certainly contain some great material, but if you really want to go the source then you need to open up your own mind to the Source directly. In the end, the Buddhist sutras are just as second-hand and removed as my own work is.

exactly