GENIUS FORUMS

Pye,

And Masculinity -- the replacement myth -- needs taken down just as assiduously and readily as the myth of Woman. This misty-eyed 'men-of-old' talk is grossly unfitting, if not retrograde to the hell-realms of ego.

Elsewhere has been written the 'nothingness' of women -- their fickle, indecisive and substanceless nature that is incapable of being anything but what it takes on, and what it takes on to please. Here also are the extreme examples of this -- women so believing this that they assume they will have to become men in order to become something, so fickle and so easily led as to bear this out. That something that one thinks they can/will become is the problem entirely, for all.

You cannot escape one cage by shuttling everyone over into another one. "Masculinity" is a myth. It has to go, too.

Traditionally, the term "masculinity" has refered to the bundle of psychological traits found most often in men. As we all know, men are generally physically stronger, more aggressive, more single-minded, more attached to logic, more solution-orientated, and more anti-social. Women, on the other hand, tend to be more passive, more nurturing, more attached to feelings and relationships, more sensual, more childlike and more able to find happiness in the moment. These are generalizations, of course, but most men and women seem to fit neatly into their respective gender categories.

Men are usually more extreme in everything they do. They are the ones who commit the great crimes like serial killing, just as they are the ones who create the great masterpieces in music, art, science and philosophy. The masculine qualities of aggression and single-mindedness lend themselves to the achievement of great things, whether it be in creation or destruction. Women, on the other hand, generally do very little of note either way.

Because of this, men are far more suited to the philosophic life than women are. The goal of enlightenment/perfection is very lofty and difficult to reach. It is literally the greatest prize open to the human mind. If someone wants to attain it, they have to be highly motivated, mentally-resilient, aggressive, single-minded, attached to logic, and anti-social. In other words, they have to be masculine.

So, far from being a myth, masculinity is a critical reality that everyone needs to acknowledge and put into practice.

-

Some time ago, I wrote this:

My interest in masculinity and femininity is spiritual in nature. It is important to keep this in mind when studying my thought. All of my comments and observations about women are made in the context of the Absolute. The Absolute is my primary interest in life. I have no desire to hurt people, especially women, but at the same time the truth needs to be said!

In simple terms, I define the masculine to be that in us which seeks greatness. It is the active principle and incorporated into it are the traditional masculine qualities of idealism, courage, persistence, single-mindedness, rationality, independence, and the desire to dominate.

The feminine, on the other hand, is that part of us which is easily contented and loves going with the flow. It incorporates the qualities of unconsciousness, submissiveness, passiveness, absorption in immediacy, indulgence in emotional pleasure, scatteredness, and the desire to minimize one's existence.

All of us have these two aspects within us to varying degrees. In women, the feminine is overwhelming and forms the core of their ego, personality and psychology. Very few women have significant amounts of masculinity in them; in those instances where masculine behaviour is displayed it is usually simulated. In most cases, women can only ape masculinity and only then under certain specific conditions (which, ultimately, are created and sustained by men).

Men in general are also very feminine, but in some men at least the masculine is large enough and deep-rooted enough to have an impact on their lives. These men can be thought of as possessing a "masculine consciousness". Yet, in truth, only a perfectly enlightened Buddha is entirely without femininity, for only such a being has thoroughly eliminated his ego (together with its feminine and masculine parts). To the degree that a man has an ego femininity still exists as a force inside him.

Men constantly suppress what little masculinity they have in order to remain pleasing to women. Very rarely, for example, does a man allow his masculinity to infiltrate his personal thought to any significant degree, for the simple reason that masculine forms of thinking tend to be very unpopular with women. When a man becomes more masculine in his thinking, he becomes more independent and solitary in his mind and therefore less concerned with women's desires and more indifferent to their charms. Women, therefore, despise and fear masculine thinkers.

When men do express some masculinity, it is usually done with women's implicit (or explicit) approval. Because women in the main are crude, sensual creatures with little or no higher aspirations, the masculinity that men tend to express is usually just as crude, sensuous and aimless. At other times, men just explode out of sheer frustration at having to constantly suppress a significant part of themselves - their masculine yearnings, their soul and conscience.

Men clearly have a love-hate relationship with their masculinity. While they might feel violated and cheated at having to constantly suppress their masculinity, they are at the same time deeply afraid of it. They are afraid of its potential, of where it might lead them and what it might do. For they know deep down that masculinity seeks higher things than a wife, and that to go beyond wife is to go beyond the warm embrace of the human race and venture alone into unknown territory. Most men think it much more desirable to be safely tied to a woman than to be cast adrift in the loftiness and solitude of greatness, and they quite willingly shut down large tracts of their minds to facilitate this.

As far as the spiritual path is concerned, the cultivation of masculinity and the elimination of femininity is the foundation for all spiritual and philosophical development. The goal is to go beyond both the masculine and the feminine, but only the masculine can achieve this. In other words, only the active principle can eliminate itself - after it has eliminated the passive principle. The perfect Buddha is neither masculine nor feminine, nor a mix of both - just as Nature itself is none of these things.


-

Jason,

Jamesh: Alternatively you might be trying to save the world, noticing its permanent trend to feminine ways and delusion - but isn't this desire in reality just the sex drive in a more generalised form, an attempt to procreate future human worlds that knows what you know.

David: Yes, it's a form of procreation. However, given that we are constantly generating consequences with every action we perform, we are all engaged in procreation in every single moment of the day, whether we like it not. The sage merely ensures that his procreation is the wisest possible.

Jason: David, one of your main teachings is cause and effect. If you accept that from every cause, innumerable effects spread out into the universe, then how can you know what actions will lead to the wisest possible effects? It's like the chaos theory and butterfly effect: maybe your supposedy wise posts on this board will somehow cause(through a huge number of cascading effects) the total snuffing out of all wisdom 1000 years from now. Whereas if you didn't post, in 1000 years time wisdom would reign supreme for all of humanity.

That's entirely possible. As we both know, there are no certainties or guarantees about the future. It seems more likely to me that if people are successfully awakened in the here and now, it will bode well for the health of wisdom in the future. But I could be wrong.

Perhaps the human race will become even more repulsed by the spectre of wisdom when they encounter these newly-awakened people and will make a concerted effort to stamp out wisdom once and for all. That's certainly possible. It strikes me as less likely, however.

-

Kelly,

Pye: Elsewhere has been written the 'nothingness' of women -- their fickle, indecisive and substanceless nature that is incapable of being anything but what it takes on, and what it takes on to please. Here also are the extreme examples of this -- women so believing this that they assume they will have to become men in order to become something, so fickle and so easily led as to bear this out.

Leyla: But I think the point is, in the event that women do respond in this manner, nothing has been lost. They are no less unwise than they were before.

Kelly: On the contrary, a woman who sees her God-given equipment as meagre in comparison to her task, and responds to the situation by relying on God's grace to opt for different equipment, is certainly unwise in a womanly sense. She has lost herself.

Well, that’s kind of my point. Your qualifier “unwise in a womanly sense” says it quite well.

Even “a womanly sense” is an option provided for by God’s grace.

Having a sex change, for example, does not necessarily make the transsexual enlightened and wise; nor, indeed, any more unenlightened and wise than they were previously. Where is the evidence to the contrary specifically in relation to sex change?

Kelly: I think this worries you, Leyla, and Pye. What could you be if you don't have the fallback position of "I'm acceptable just as I am" ?

It doesn’t worry me. I don’t, and never have, cared for being acceptable. In fact, I was so acceptable I spent a good part of my youth deliberately being unacceptable. I still behave unacceptably. I’m almost certain that most consider this rather cute, in a sort of unconscious way (as you have said elsewhere, despite any truth that may be coming out of my mouth) -- in fact, it seems to have its problems in that it is seen as extraordinarily mysterious. But I understand what you’re saying. It’s very difficult for someone who is acceptable as “they are” (meaning in this context, because they are associated with the female body) to be unacceptable despite their attempts! Which is rather annoying, actually. So, what point is there to becoming a physical male just to satisfy them?

No, the greater challenge, in my view, is quite the opposite.

Leyla: It is not for them, apparently, that this forum exists. It is for those who wish to see beyond their own physicality into the quality of their soul (or thought), if they can.

Kelly: Hormones, among other things, create the soul / conscience. As I've written elsewhere, conscience is consciousness of consciousness.

Yes, among other things.

Kelly:

The way I see it, David and Kevin typically make long-term responses. Unfortunately, the individual they address is a long way behind, and has usually forgotten the precise information they need, by the time they need it.

They probably just stick to the basics, because if people do grok these basics properly then they should be able to think for themselves. I don’t think they enjoy (ahh another emotion) having to respond on this forum with a lot of thought to questions that are repeated from time to time. Wolf, Dave Toast and maybe David Hodges have gone on to think for themselves. I still have question marks about you, Sue and Rhett – there is far too much earnestness and extremeness in what you post, for me, a nihilist, to take that much notice of what you say.

Who tries talking to a motormouth who never listens? (oops)

Are you describing just me or both of us?

I get the impression that the QRS never really listen. It is like we non-enlightened have nothing to offer them, and I don’t think that is true.

Perhaps it's only because there is "the rest of us" that they talk at all.

Maybe, something makes me think they’d still get involved in arguments, even without a desire to promote the reality truths they see.

Quote:
Sadly, I have finally decided for certain that I am philosophically superior to them. They are just people pretending to be find purpose in being a robot, hence what you will always get back is rote answers, practiced stuff.

Would the stuff be correct only if it was always different, exciting, contradictory even?

This is worded a bit like I think they are more incorrect than correct, which is not really the case. Incomplete rather than complete is the way I’d put it.

Perhaps you'd find the Soka Gakkai Nichiren Buddhist sect satisfying, Jamesh. If you are devoted to chanting in singsong Japanese, especially when the sun rises in all its glory, you'll always find something different and interesting, because you'll never be troubled to see that it has no meaning.

My disappointment with the completeness of their philosophies does lead me to take immediate interest in new similar philosophies that come up, yes (like that Actual Freedom site that Dan posted a few months ago for instance).

As for your sarcasm in pointing to some dud religion, well then you clearly know little of me. One of my objections to the QRS is precisely what you are pointing to here – imo they have a kind of romantic love of rational mysticism – as shown by professing enlightenment and being in love with people like Kierkegaard, and all the eastern gurus like Nagarjuna who carry on about emptiness without actually saying anything and who often say things that conflict with other things they’ve said.

Me: Thank god I am not enlightened. The whole concept of enlightenment clearly needs rejection.
Kelly: Rejecting what, exactly?

The facade of achievement, of superiority over other humans, I guess. What Pye said here: “That something that one thinks they can/will become is the problem entirely, for all.”

Am I thus hypocritical when I said “Sadly, I have finally decided for certain that I am philosophically superior to them”.

Yes :) I think I said that because I was cranky about inconsistencies I feel in David’s responses to Victor on this thread. I’d also had a few drinks.
http://p088.ezboard.com/fponderersguild ... 1448.topic

I know I’m not philosophically superior in toto, I lack experience and display far too much immaturity, too much aggression, but in some areas I do find them lacking.

David:
“If a person doesn't despise everything that women stand for”
I'm not sure that I see the problem.

At TPG you recently said: “Since a Buddha has broken down the illusion of things existing, he is no longer capable of perceiving a threat in anything. This is because he perceives that nothing fundamentally exists, not even his own self. Thus, the whole basis for experiencing emotion vanishes. The process of generating emotion inside his brain is permanently disabled. From now on, it is literally impossible for him to experience an emotion of any kind. He is in Nirvana.”

To despise requires emotion. To despise everything about some other thing requires a LOT of emotion. To use words like “He is in Nirvana” requires emotional attachment to some ideal and the use of emotions to even sense Nirvana day-to-day.

What is an example of something women stand for that is compatible with a life of wisdom?

A societal structure that makes others produce resources that you can use.

David: In addition, how can the valuing of truth, or indeed of anything at all, lead to anything other than a one-sided value system? You're asking for the impossible, James.

Most probably I am asking for the impossible. Values are needed for action, purpose and direction, and valuing truth is needed to steer one towards rationally considered change. Any value does require onesidedness, I agree. I would just like you to make it clearer that any vlaued thing is not the whole truth though, that one should be aware of the limitation of this onesideness, whenever they utilise it for practical reasons.

David: (Or perhaps you're just asking for a response).

Maybe, I do chuck this same wobbly every 6 months or so :). Clearly I am seeking acknowledge from others for ideas of mine that I have not seen the QRS express. In my head your philosophies do not tie everything together in a sufficiently complete form for me to say “that’s all I need to know”.

You do tie everything together in a sort of two dimensional way, your posts are like the provision of a set of instructions on how an individual can draw reality themselves on a piece of paper, but I want a three dimensional understanding. I want both the inside and outside of reality or the yin and yang of reality together with an unbiased combination of the two, to be encompassed all in the one mental picture. I think your value leanings towards Yang distorts this three dimensional picture in some fashion, albeit that I cannot disagree that valuing those yang attributes that are philosophically positive is needed for progression. It is this non-distorted perfection that I’m after, and to get it I think one has to delve more deeply into truths like Everything is Caused, to separate and understand its yin and yang components and then to recombine them into a new conceptual “Everything is Caused”, that has a trivalent meaning.

Those philosophical systems I’ve seen elsewhere on the web that do offer views on non-duality (the combination of the two yin and yang poles) tend to be too wishy washy, too irrationally spiritual, too inclined to Mind/Matter dualism. They don’t appear to pay equal enough critical attention to the inside and outside components of reality, and make things one dimensional rather than three dimensional.

I predict you’ll just think l’m crapping on, but I don’t think so – I think this is a reason certain people continue to argue with you, even where they accept your core teachings.

And so, why have these "masterpieces" of masculinity often been created by gay men? Walt Whitman? He was an excellent example of extreme masculinity (supporting Manifest Destiny) and feminity (bringing all the universe into himself). Truman Capote's "In Cold Blood" in comparison to his "Breakfast at Tiffany's". I think you'll find, at least in Art and Literature, the males who created the greatest works in "masculine" modes almost always have an equally strong feminine component somewhere in their canon.

True piercing intellect is formed at the intersection of light and shadow, where contrast dissolves into a lightening bolt.

In the end, the only direction for the male ego to travel is back into the Flow. I know this personally from repeated experience on edges of my psyche. That is why Hitler ate a bullet in a bunker and why Kenneth Rexroth said, "At the beginning and ending of all things is Love".

From observation inward and outward those that champion MASCULINITY over feminity greatly fear this Love. As if they will lose their identity by relinquishing themselves to it, because it means total loss of all imagined control. That's why corporate ultracapitalists of both sexes are such control freaks. They fear the possibility that the causational nature of the universe veres toward Sharing and Intermingling which means loss of property ownership, and such societies obviously equivocate property, masculinity, power, and control. And that is why we are in such a hotbed of patriarchal mayhem over petroleum. Because we forget that eventually each and everyone one of us will become carbon-based sludge at the complete mercy of tectonic Flow.

So, in my queer opinion, the only rational goal of Real Men should be to align themselves with what is aligning them anyway.

Leyla Shen wrote:Having a sex change, for example, does not necessarily make the transsexual enlightened and wise; nor, indeed, any more unenlightened and wise than they were previously. Where is the evidence to the contrary specifically in relation to sex change?

Perhaps after having read David's exposition above, you'll realise that the sex change I've been exploring (that a woman must become a man, to become wise) has nothing to do with testosterone therapy.

It's all to do with the psychology of an individual.

I don't see a man, just because there's a hairy face. I see a man in any expression of enlightenment.

Leyla wrote:

Kelly: I think this worries you, Leyla, and Pye. What could you be if you don't have the fallback position of "I'm acceptable just as I am" ?

It doesn’t worry me. I don’t, and never have, cared for being acceptable. In fact, I was so acceptable I spent a good part of my youth deliberately being unacceptable. I still behave unacceptably. I’m almost certain that most consider this rather cute, in a sort of unconscious way (as you have said elsewhere, despite any truth that may be coming out of my mouth) -- in fact, it seems to have its problems in that it is seen as extraordinarily mysterious. But I understand what you’re saying. It’s very difficult for someone who is acceptable as “they are” (meaning in this context, because they are associated with the female body) to be unacceptable despite their attempts! Which is rather annoying, actually. So, what point is there to becoming a physical male just to satisfy them?

No, the greater challenge, in my view, is quite the opposite.

Given my clarification above, do you still hold that you think you are acceptable to yourself, as you are?

David: That's entirely possible. As we both know, there are no certainties or guarantees about the future. It seems more likely to me that if people are successfully awakened in the here and now, it will bode well for the health of wisdom in the future. But I could be wrong.

Perhaps the human race will become even more repulsed by the spectre of wisdom when they encounter these newly-awakened people and will make a concerted effort to stamp out wisdom once and for all. That's certainly possible. It strikes me as less likely, however.

You say it strikes you as less likely, but what rational basis does that belief have? You cannot know what effects will ultimately be caused by your actions given the massive complexity of cause and effect. So saying that a sages actions are the "wisest possible", in this context, strikes me as being a rationally unsuportable claim, just a hunch. So why do you make it?

Jason: How does a person who chooses to be sterilized in order to prevent having any children fit into that scheme?

David: Given that we have evolved the ability to "break" our genetic programming to some extent with the development of the conscious mind, and also that mutations are a relatively frequent occurance in evolution, and that the desire for humans to sterilize themselves is extremely rare, I'm not sure that I see the point of the question.

The point of the question is obvious I would have thought. It was to challenge Kevin's seemingly absolute and universal declaration that:

Ksolway: Everything all animals and plants do is for the purpose of passing their genes on to the next generation. Everything. Now are human beings so different to all other animals? I think not.

I think it's completely justified to challenge a universally applicable declaration with even the merest skerrick of evidence that contradicts it. I question your motivations in asking what the point is. Seems to me you may be simply trying to defend Kevin, and get him out of a tight spot.

Jason: Where do homosexuals fit in?

David:Now this is a far more interesting question. The fact that homosexuals consistently make up around 10% of the male population suggests that they had had an important role to play in our evolution as a species. It may well be that male homosexuals have arisen for the primary purpose of stengthening the bond between hetrosexual males.
<snip>

I think there may be another aspect to evolution that you and Kevin may be missing. I have not studied evolution and genetics a great deal, so I could easily be wrong, but my understanding is that evolution favours those who are simply good enough to pass on their genes. It doesn't mean they are perfected at passing on their genes.

This means that genetically programmed behaviours that do not favour survival of the genes can be propagated, so long as on balance the genes that do favour survival allow them to pass on there genes. For example, blue eyes may not have any survival benefit, they could even be a deficit, but as long as the animal that has blue eyes manages to pass on their genes, blue eyes can continue to survive. In this way genetically programmed characteristics that do not have any benefit for genetic survival can still be retained. This would allow for genetically programed human behaviours that are not responsible for the survival of their genes.

(There is also a whole other discussion about "purpose" in evolution, and how one even decides which behaviours favour genetic survival that I'm not getting into.)

Kelly,

Perhaps after having read David's exposition above, you'll realise that the sex change I've been exploring (that a woman must become a man, to become wise) has nothing to do with testosterone therapy.

Well, no, I didn’t “realise” that, since I have assumed that Pye’s statement -- where the conversation started -- was precisely about physical women and men. I assumed then that you also were aware of this and that your reference to “equipment” was a reference to, you know, tits, arse, vagina, penis.

I have no reason to believe that David’s words are your words. Especially when they appear after yours.

It's all to do with the psychology of an individual.

Correct. I feel a bit like we’re arguing over semantics here, no?

I don't see a man, just because there's a hairy face. I see a man in any expression of enlightenment.

Yes, I have seen you mention this before.

Given my clarification above, do you still hold that you think you are acceptable to yourself, as you are?

Acceptable to myself? What an odd question. Firstly, if I were able to take myself out and look at it, am I the thing that I am looking at or that which is doing the looking?

I think that’s an entirely emotionally-based (egoistic) question.

I am, however, quite conscious of the fact that -- whilst I have a good grasp on the English language for every-day purposes -- what I communicate sometimes, particularly on this forum, is not as clear and concise as I’d like it to be. I don’t think in words, you see. Not even when I’m reading them. As David rather recently said, they are only indicators. However, they do appear to be useful for any real communication to take place, so I have decided to give them more attention in recent months. More attention to refining them so they speak of the indicated, rather than becoming the whole purpose in and of themselves.

That's a pretty big project, I reckon.

Antimime wrote:

And so, why have these "masterpieces" of masculinity often been created by gay men? Walt Whitman? He was an excellent example of extreme masculinity (supporting Manifest Destiny) and feminity (bringing all the universe into himself). Truman Capote's "In Cold Blood" in comparison to his "Breakfast at Tiffany's".

Yes, homosexuals have been responsible for a lot of great work. Oscar Wilde is a good example. Although he wasn't a philosopher who understood the Infinite, his observations on human psychology were very cutting and definitely a product of masculine depth.

From my observations, a fair proportion of homosexuals tend to be very masculine - even more masculine than the average heterosexual men. They are the dominant partners in their relationships - they are the ones who "wear the pants" - and they have to be more masculine than normal because their partners, being men, are themselves a lot more masculine than the wives of heterosexual men.

Added to this, homosexuals are often very creative people. So when you combine an abnormally masculine person with a creative bent, the result is often a work of great depth.

I think you'll find, at least in Art and Literature, the males who created the greatest works in "masculine" modes almost always have an equally strong feminine component somewhere in their canon.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this, but it is evident that homosexuals are more in touch with their sensual sides than heterosexuals.

In the end, the only direction for the male ego to travel is back into the Flow. I know this personally from repeated experience on edges of my psyche. That is why Hitler ate a bullet in a bunker and why Kenneth Rexroth said, "At the beginning and ending of all things is Love".

Leaving aside the dubious act of quoting mediocre, mentally-juvenile men, what do you mean exactly by "repeated experience on edges of my psyche"? Are you talking about a will to creative madness here? Or are you talking the immeasurably purer act of opening up to Ultimate Truth?

From observation inward and outward those that champion MASCULINITY over feminity greatly fear this Love.

They certainly fear being swallowed up by the feminine unconsciousness of the world. This should be no surprise, given that they place so much value on their own existence, their own minds, and their understanding of the highest truth.

As if they will lose their identity by relinquishing themselves to it, because it means total loss of all imagined control. That's why corporate ultracapitalists of both sexes are such control freaks. They fear the possibility that the causational nature of the universe veres toward Sharing and Intermingling which means loss of property ownership, and such societies obviously equivocate property, masculinity, power, and control. And that is why we are in such a hotbed of patriarchal mayhem over petroleum. Because we forget that eventually each and everyone one of us will become carbon-based sludge at the complete mercy of tectonic Flow.

In my opinion, the opposite is the case. Those who foster "the partriachal mayhem over petroleum" are nowhere near masculine enough for my liking. They are using whatever masculine qualities they have for the feminine aims of acquiring wealth, power, social status, happy marriages, comfortable lifestyles, and mediocre habits. This is an abuse of masculinity, and quite unforgiveable.

What we desperately need in this world is for people to conquer this desire for feminine pleasure and instead push their masculinity to even greater heights. We need people to start directing their aggressive impulses towards the conquering of ignorance, emotional attachments, false values and mediocrity. It is the obsession with petty aims which creates all the problems.

So, in my queer opinion, the only rational goal of Real Men should be to align themselves with what is aligning them anyway.

If you mean by this the nature of Reality as understood by enlightened sages, then I would agree with you.

-

DavidQuinn000 wrote: Added to this, homosexuals are often very creative people.

They also have good fashion sense and like musical theatre so I am told.

Leaving aside the dubious act of quoting mediocre, mentally-juvenile men, what do you mean exactly by "repeated experience on edges of my psyche"? Are you talking about a will to creative madness here? Or are you talking the immeasurably purer act of opening up to Ultimate Truth?

I'm not quite sure why Whitman and Rexroth are considered mediocre or juvenille, aside from the fact that creative types tend to favor childish spontaneity over the snoozy stoicism of pure Logos. But even the most advanced sages (Eastern particularly) value silliness as a key to cracking the ego.

Opening up to the Ultimate Truth is an act of Creative Madness.

They certainly fear being swallowed up by the feminine unconsciousness of the world. This should be no surprise, given that they place so much value on their own existence, their own minds, and their understanding of the highest truth.

But in the pursuit of understanding self, existense, mind, individual being, Truth, through meditation, life experience, or intellectual investigation, a person will eventually come to the place "at the edge of the psyche" where all differientiation between I and Thou is thrown out the window.

What we desperately need in this world is for people to conquer this desire for feminine pleasure and instead push their masculinity to even greater heights. We need people to start directing their aggressive impulses towards the conquering of ignorance, emotional attachments, false values and mediocrity. It is the obsession with petty aims which creates all the problems.

What a great illustration of Fascism!

I admit I tend to be over dramatic and paint with broad strokes but thats why...

They also have good fashion sense and like musical theatre so I am told.

From my observations, a fair proportion of homosexuals tend to be very masculine - even more masculine than the average heterosexual men.

Intellectually masculine sure, except for close relationships and social opinions where they seem to be quite feminine then even if they are the dominant partner. This is probably just because of them being a minority that gets discrimination from the majority, they praise equality, tolerance, fashion too much, imo. I think past discrimination has made them more open minded that the average Joe, and this open mindedness widens their intellectual interests and allows them to think more masculinely.

Jason wrote:

DQ: That's entirely possible. As we both know, there are no certainties or guarantees about the future. It seems more likely to me that if people are successfully awakened in the here and now, it will bode well for the health of wisdom in the future. But I could be wrong.

Perhaps the human race will become even more repulsed by the spectre of wisdom when they encounter these newly-awakened people and will make a concerted effort to stamp out wisdom once and for all. That's certainly possible. It strikes me as less likely, however.

J: You say it strikes you as less likely, but what rational basis does that belief have? You cannot know what effects will ultimately be caused by your actions given the massive complexity of cause and effect. So saying that a sages actions are the "wisest possible", in this context, strikes me as being a rationally unsuportable claim, just a hunch. So why do you make it?

Because the available evidence suggests it.

A farmer doesn't know what effects will ultimately be caused by his actions given the massive complexity of cause and effect, yet this doesn't stop him from planting crops in his field in the hope that it will lead to a harvest. He doesn't know for sure that it will lead to a harvest, and sometimes it won't. But the avaliable evidence suggests to him the likelihood that it will.

-

Antimine wrote:

DQ: Leaving aside the dubious act of quoting mediocre, mentally-juvenile men, what do you mean exactly by "repeated experience on edges of my psyche"? Are you talking about a will to creative madness here? Or are you talking the immeasurably purer act of opening up to Ultimate Truth?

A: I'm not quite sure why Whitman and Rexroth are considered mediocre or juvenille, aside from the fact that creative types tend to favor childish spontaneity over the snoozy stoicism of pure Logos.

Whitman and Rexroth both had zero compehension of the nature of Reality, and, worse, they weren't even aware of their lack. That pretty much defines mediocrity, in my book.

Calling the rational life the "snoozy stoicism of pure Logos" immediately tells me that you are looking at it from the outside. You haven't really explored it subjectively.

But even the most advanced sages (Eastern particularly) value silliness as a key to cracking the ego.

Do you mean those fake gurus who openly pander to gullible people's desires to be thoughtless and stupid in order to attract hordes of followers?

By far and away the silliest thing one can do in this world is value truth. But most people find this brand of silliness a bit too silly.

Opening up to the Ultimate Truth is an act of Creative Madness.

And I'm asking you whether you claim to have done it.

DQ: They certainly fear being swallowed up by the feminine unconsciousness of the world. This should be no surprise, given that they place so much value on their own existence, their own minds, and their understanding of the highest truth.

A: But in the pursuit of understanding self, existense, mind, individual being, Truth, through meditation, life experience, or intellectual investigation, a person will eventually come to the place "at the edge of the psyche" where all differientiation between I and Thou is thrown out the window.

Yes, but if he is sage, he will transcend this distinction between I and Thou through heightened rationality and raised consciousness. What he won't do is push away the distinction by erecting mental blocks and diving back into feminine unconsciousness, which is what you seem to be advocating.

You're aware of the problem, but you are pointing in the wrong direction for the solution.

DQ: What we desperately need in this world is for people to conquer this desire for feminine pleasure and instead push their masculinity to even greater heights. We need people to start directing their aggressive impulses towards the conquering of ignorance, emotional attachments, false values and mediocrity. It is the obsession with petty aims which creates all the problems.

A: What a great illustration of Fascism!

Now you're just being silly.


-

Jason,

Jason: How does a person who chooses to be sterilized in order to prevent having any children fit into that scheme?

David: Given that we have evolved the ability to "break" our genetic programming to some extent with the development of the conscious mind, and also that mutations are a relatively frequent occurance in evolution, and that the desire for humans to sterilize themselves is extremely rare, I'm not sure that I see the point of the question.

Jason: The point of the question is obvious I would have thought. It was to challenge Kevin's seemingly absolute and universal declaration that:

Ksolway: Everything all animals and plants do is for the purpose of passing their genes on to the next generation. Everything. Now are human beings so different to all other animals? I think not.

I think it's completely justified to challenge a universally applicable declaration with even the merest skerrick of evidence that contradicts it. I question your motivations in asking what the point is.

You missed my point. Given that the desire to sterilize oneself is very rare - i.e. an exception to the rule - and given that random genetic mutations happen every now and then, it could easily be that the desire to sterilize oneself is the result of random genetic mutations - in which case, there is no conflict with Kevin's generalization.

I question your motivations in asking what the point is. Seems to me you may be simply trying to defend Kevin, and get him out of a tight spot.

Kevin is perfectly capable of defending himself, so that wasn't my motivation.

Jason: Where do homosexuals fit in?

David:Now this is a far more interesting question. The fact that homosexuals consistently make up around 10% of the male population suggests that they had had an important role to play in our evolution as a species. It may well be that male homosexuals have arisen for the primary purpose of stengthening the bond between hetrosexual males.

Jason: I think there may be another aspect to evolution that you and Kevin may be missing. I have not studied evolution and genetics a great deal, so I could easily be wrong, but my understanding is that evolution favours those who are simply good enough to pass on their genes. It doesn't mean they are perfected at passing on their genes.

This means that genetically programmed behaviours that do not favour survival of the genes can be propagated, so long as on balance the genes that do favour survival allow them to pass on there genes. For example, blue eyes may not have any survival benefit, they could even be a deficit, but as long as the animal that has blue eyes manages to pass on their genes, blue eyes can continue to survive. In this way genetically programmed characteristics that do not have any benefit for genetic survival can still be retained. This would allow for genetically programed human behaviours that are not responsible for the survival of their genes.

That's a fair point. It may be that homosexuality had a useful function way back in our ape days, but then, as we started evolving into humans, it began to lose its usefulness. The genes for homosexuality were retained in the human gene pool, even though they were no longer useful, simply because there was no pressing need for evolution to weed them out. Like the appendix, homosexuality might simply be a vestigal remnant of the past.

Alternatively, it may be that homosexuals played the role of the tribal shaman in the past. Not being a "regular guy" with a female mate, the homosexual could play the role of the alien withdoctor or priest, and thus help keep the tribe in check through a supernatural presence.

Antimime, do you have any theories about why homosexuality exists and why homosexuals comprise 10% of the population? There doesn't seem to be anything too conclusive in the literature.

(There is also a whole other discussion about "purpose" in evolution, and how one even decides which behaviours favour genetic survival that I'm not getting into.)

It would be worth your while to study up on the theory properly. It's very easy to approach those kinds of issues if you know the theory.

-

I've never studied the theory, but it seems simple to me. If you take anything and try to make a copy of it, you're never going to come up with an exact replica of it. Evolutionary mutation. And although no two mutations are ever identical, some mutations last a long time and some don't last very long. Natural selection.

Monkeys - the head male primate in a clan had sexual rights over all the females (the female monkeys were geared to choose the most dominant male), this meant that the less physically dominant male monkeys couldn't fuck without being picked on. Some of the more masculine monkeys would have thought they had a chance to either defeat the head honcho, or get a fuck on the side. As monkeys are quite intelligent though the weaker male monkeys would have had more will to ulitise their intelligence and either would have A) intelligently combined forces with another similar male monkey to defeat the head monkey or distract him while one had a fuck or B) given up on attempting to fuck females, and as there would have been similar monkeys around in the same position they probably starting playing with each other (they'd get attacked by the head monkey if they mixed with the females) which lead to bisexuality.

Weaker male body - more propensity for homosexuality (firstly via bisexuality), hence we have the Queen type of homosexual, who as you say were probably kept in the troupe because they were smarter. The more masculine or dominant partner in a homo relationship is probably more bi inclined, but as they can exercise more power over a weaker male than an female who thinks differently, they choose the male.

DavidQuinn000 wrote: You missed my point. Given that the desire to sterilize oneself is very rare - i.e. an exception to the rule - and given that random genetic mutations happen every now and then, it could easily be that the desire to sterilize oneself is the result of random genetic mutations - in which case, there is no conflict with Kevin's generalization.

I thought that could have been what you were suggesting, but it seems kind of nonsensical. An animal with mutated genes will still be a perfect expresson of those genes, no matter that they are mutated or rare. I also think it's a pretty big call to say that a complex conscious decision like sterilisation is linked directly to some particular genes. Anyway, maybe Kevin wasn't making an absolute statement?

DavidQuinn000 wrote: That's a fair point. It may be that homosexuality had a useful function way back in our ape days, but then, as we started evolving into humans, it began to lose its usefulness. The genes for homosexuality were retained in the human gene pool, even though they were no longer useful, simply because there was no pressing need for evolution to weed them out. Like the appendix, homosexuality might simply be a vestigal remnant of the past.

Homosexuals: the appendix of the human race. Yeah it does have a certain ring to it. But seriously, if homosexuality is a genetic expression, and it has no benefit in passing on genes, that suggests that other genetic characteristics could have nothing to do with passing on genes. As you say, we've all still got an appendix. We still have tail bones, wisdom teeth, goosebumps. If these things have survived then other evolutionarily useless or negative genetic characteristics and behaviours could be spread throughout the population.

Kelly writes:

Pye's reincarnation, above, is choice to maintain the belief that a woman is okay as she is, and doesn't have to make any fundamental changes.

Woman is not okay as she is. Her condition is deplorable, and as all things determined and caused, her condition is what she becomes; it is her limiters.

As long as this condition makes her more valuable (hence protected and pleased) as an object-wanted -- instead of a subject-wanting -- there will be no impetus to reach inward for the supreme dip into subjectivity that all the masculine-autonomy direction encourages. Her creations are limited and driven biologically (just as with men), and further limited and driven culturally (mostly by men). These are conditions, just as these same conditions (biological and cultural) support and expect less-social, autonomous behaviour from men.

They are restricted conditions (for all) and hence for women in particular, make for some ridiculous compensatory strivings for excellence in ridiculous and restricted fields. I don't know how all the neurosis and neurotic thinking surrounding females and femininity can be mistaken for anything other than similar human impulses to some sort of excellence, some kind of value, forced into object-shapes.

Leyla writes

Given this, one may think that such discussions only exacerbate an already intolerable condition between the sexes.

This can be accomplished better than leaping over, too. This can be conscious work that directs and expects the qualities themselves. I value truth, and courage and wisdom, I value fluid intelligence. These things can be spoken of by everyone; it's that simple. Everyone can see more or less where everyone else is coming from in their awareness. The "categories" become different; the templates don't have to block the view.

L: How would you go about the challenge of making men and women both more conducive to the highest levels of reason?

That way exactly. Putting forth as many possible conditions conducive to the highest levels of reason. I could say defensively for days what I know is demonstrated through years teaching, that males and females can be equally encouraged to abstract thinking; where they fall off either edge is equivalent numerically for either gender. I simply do not have clear evidence in any of my experiences that under the conducive conditions, females are less capable of abstract thinking, or for that matter, less possessed of autonomous impulse. Been told and told and told and told that females can't think like this. Again and again, I can't find this to be true. In my life either.

I would want to speak to the qualities themselves, in every case, for everyone to register awareness. Why sink to the penury of mere statisticians? :)

David writes:

Traditionally, the term "masculinity" has refered to the bundle of psychological traits found most often in men. As we all know, men are generally physically stronger, more aggressive, more single-minded, more attached to logic, more solution-orientated, and more anti-social. Women, on the other hand, tend to be more passive, more nurturing, more attached to feelings and relationships, more sensual, more childlike and more able to find happiness in the moment. These are generalizations, of course, but most men and women seem to fit neatly into their respective gender categories.

There is no use in any of this to me. I could easily argue the fundamental aggressiveness of women; their lesser attachments to feelings and relationships (in their fluid changing of them); their extremely sharp logic; and then as well argue a fundamental and immense "passivity" in males overall; a giving-over, if not to women for love and care, then god; a fundamental weakness and fear at the core of it too. These gender assignations do nothing to advance the qualities desired in any case.

D: a perfectly enlightened Buddha is entirely without femininity

This is false. I am still curious as to which buddha-words or buddha-teachings you form your idea of this perfectly enlightened buddha entirely without the great passivity of understanding, the great effortless comfort of knowing and mergence; this passive-expansive universe taking-within or merging without. The inward journey in itself, the attention to flow in all things -- these sorts of qualities and yearnings that can be cast either way. It's a waste of time to subdivide into categories so amenably irritant to ego, pro and con.


.

Leyla,

I'll try, in a third post, to clarify what I said in the last two. All three have the same meaning, namely, that the enlightened person uses their genetically-derived equipment to be capable of mutating out of an unenlightened understanding. But I don't expect you to accept that.

The most useful of the genetic equipment given to humans, in this task, is the masculine. We can safely assume that testosterone drives it, because it is more obvious in those with a higher testosterone blood count. The most useful of the masculine is character, where testosterone is manifested as things like: aggression, determination, persistence, intellectual clarity and strength, individuality, and the ability to delve into the essential nature of power (causation).

The less useful, yet still related, manifestions of testosterone are: physical strength and stamina, a larger bodily organism (more encompassing), a deep and calm voice capable of commanding, a higher metabolism (capable of greater endurance and force), more muscle and less body fat (greater bodily coordination and control), facial and bodily hair (overt distinction from childhood), obvious signs of sexual arousal (being used to honesty and less natural deceptiveness), and so on. All these factors help develop the masculine character.

A type needs to be created that can cope with the demands of becoming enlightened, and not to sustain any impulse to reneg.

You'll have noticed that I often used comparatives. This is because females have testosterone, and in most areas, have the same manifestations. The key is the proportion.

So, only a female that recognises her natural disadvantages relative to the task, may start to remedy them, as honestly as possible, and therefore gradually. Her major disadvantage is that she has frequent tendencies not to cope with spiritual demands in this logical way, but to depend instinctively on her natural disadvantages.



-

Pye wrote:Woman is not okay as she is. Her condition is deplorable, and as all things determined and caused, her condition is what she becomes; it is her limiters.

No, if she were 100% isolated, and existed inherently, then she would be incapable of mutating. As it is, she is free to break the mold.

As long as this condition makes her more valuable (hence protected and pleased) as an object-wanted -- instead of a subject-wanting -- there will be no impetus to reach inward for the supreme dip into subjectivity that all the masculine-autonomy direction encourages. Her creations are limited and driven biologically (just as with men), and further limited and driven culturally (mostly by men). These are conditions, just as these same conditions (biological and cultural) support and expect less-social, autonomous behaviour from men.

I agree with all this.

This is how I'd break down your post:

You say you value "putting forth as many possible conditions conducive to the highest levels of reason" but you don't see an emphasis on masculinity as other than "a waste of time to subdivide into categories so amenably irritant to ego, pro and con."

BECAUSE

You have never experienced any female who is less capable than any male of reaching the highest levels of reason.

This is equivalent to claiming to be perfect, Pye.

Are you sure you haven't decided that, instead of being #158 in the pile, you've decided to be #1 of everyone in the list after #158?

They are restricted conditions (for all) and hence for women in particular, make for some ridiculous compensatory strivings for excellence in ridiculous and restricted fields.

Do you mean that a woman's deplorable conditions (what constitutes femininity) urge her to make the same egotistical mistakes?

I don't know how all the neurosis and neurotic thinking surrounding females and femininity can be mistaken for anything other than similar human impulses to some sort of excellence, some kind of value, forced into object-shapes.

Why do you see it as a deplorable condition to put forth as many possible conditions conducive to the highest levels of reason? Why do you see the conscious work that directs and expects the qualities [I suppose: of the highest levels of reason ?] themselves, as neurosis? Do you think valuing truth, and courage and wisdom, and fluid intelligence (whatever that is) are also deplorable female conditions?

Or that valuing these qualities doesn't block the view in a helpful way?

I would want to speak to the qualities themselves, in every case, for everyone to register awareness. Why sink to the penury of mere statisticians? :)

I think it's a wake-up call. If one looks honestly at what humans are capable of, and realises that one is inseparable from this, then it means one is capable of being influenced.

I certainly don't care if it is mistaken as power-mongering when I say "I want to kill all evil". I know it is the very opposite, since there is absolutely no power to be gained in killing all evil.

I could easily argue the fundamental aggressiveness of women;

Did you know women, far more than men, go for the terror-inducing, and extremely violent videos? Doesn't that say something about an instinctively criminal nature?

... their lesser attachments to feelings and relationships (in their fluid changing of them);

Most love poetry has been written by men. Is this a neurotic, deplorable condition, one of those ego-irritating expressions of valuing something over something else?

....their extremely sharp logic;

Do you mean acute, as in "going straight to the core of the matter", rather than "hurtful and vindictive"?

....and then as well argue a fundamental and immense "passivity" in males overall; a giving-over, if not to women for love and care, then god;

Yes, most males are childish, playing 12-year-old computer games for hours and hours. But is this really a sign of passivity, or of going for the symbolic realm of most power?

.... a fundamental weakness and fear at the core of it too.

Why do you distinguish men as overall being passive, yet not say that women are exactly the same? Wouldn't this fit your hypothesis more accurately?

I'm at a loss how to understand your conclusion, that you see, statistically, both females and males to be equally weak, yet both having exactly the same manifestations of reaching the highest levels of reason.

These gender assignations do nothing to advance the qualities desired in any case.

But how can the qualities be advanced, if all humans are the same, having manifested the highest levels of reason, and all equally weak?



I've edited your quote below, but it means the same:

this perfectly enlightened buddha [is] entirely [feminine, because feminine is] the great passivity of understanding, the great effortless comfort of knowing and mergence; this passive-expansive universe taking-within or merging without. The inward journey in itself, the attention to flow in all things

I disagree with this Pye. It still presents a self, that is separate from the content, holding onto understanding, knowing, moving, and attending. This is not the ultimate feminine, which is utterly empty.

kjones wrote:

Pye wrote:Woman is not okay as she is. Her condition is deplorable, and as all things determined and caused, her condition is what she becomes; it is her limiters.

No, if she were 100% isolated, and existed inherently, then she would be incapable of mutating. As it is, she is free to break the mold.

Break your mold.

You have never experienced any female who is less capable than any male of reaching the highest levels of reason.

This is equivalent to claiming to be perfect, Pye.

I'll go along with this. No wonder men used to worship women as God. The very thing that makes her rich makes me feel poor.

They are restricted conditions (for all) and hence for women in particular, make for some ridiculous compensatory strivings for excellence in ridiculous and restricted fields.

Do you mean that a woman's deplorable conditions (what constitutes femininity) urge her to make the same egotistical mistakes?

This is like saying biology is fate. But so is nationality. Being defeated in a conquered country brings out some strange behavior, does it not? How about being considered second rate on the basis of having more brains than brawn? Ethic is character, and character is fate.

I could easily argue the fundamental aggressiveness of women;

Did you know women, far more than men, go for the terror-inducing, and extremely violent videos? Doesn't that say something about an instinctively criminal nature?

Aggressivness and violence are human social traits.

....and then as well argue a fundamental and immense "passivity" in males overall; a giving-over, if not to women for love and care, then god;

Yes, most males are childish, playing 12-year-old computer games for hours and hours. But is this really a sign of passivity, or of going for the symbolic realm of most power?

Can you imagine an army of women? I'd rather try to hurd a million chickens as tell half as many women to Charge.



I've edited your quote below, but it means the same:

this perfectly enlightened buddha [is] entirely [feminine, because feminine is] the great passivity of understanding, the great effortless comfort of knowing and mergence; this passive-expansive universe taking-within or merging without. The inward journey in itself, the attention to flow in all things

You know me better than my mirror! Especially the Buddhaha part.

forgive my disrespect. pb

Kelly, you wrote the following (and I'm keeping it to the very last two of your posts, for now):

Pye: Elsewhere has been written the 'nothingness' of women -- their fickle, indecisive and substanceless nature that is incapable of being anything but what it takes on, and what it takes on to please. Here also are the extreme examples of this -- women so believing this that they assume they will have to become men in order to become something, so fickle and so easily led as to bear this out.

Leyla: But I think the point is, in the event that women do respond in this manner, nothing has been lost. They are no less unwise than they were before.

Kelly: On the contrary, a woman who sees her God-given equipment as meagre in comparison to her task, and responds to the situation by relying on God's grace to opt for different equipment, is certainly unwise in a womanly sense. She has lost herself.

(Then I tried to point out that my assumption was that Pye was referring to women becoming physical men -- emphasised in bold above -- which was all but entirely ignored as a significant part of this particular conversation. Kind of like me saying, "Yes, I know what a cat is, but I'm referring to dogs, here.")

Kelly, in her last post to me: I'll try, in a third post, to clarify what I said in the last two. All three have the same meaning, namely, that the enlightened person uses their genetically-derived equipment to be capable of mutating out of an unenlightened understanding. But I don't expect you to accept that.

Wot? An enlightened person (that is, a person who has already achieved enlightenment) uses their masculinity (“in this task,” being enlightenment itself, I thought) to mutate out of an unenlightened understanding?

Of course I don’t accept that. What kind of enlightenment is it that is still possessed of “unenlightened understanding”? “Unenlightened” understanding on what subject? Reality? Illusion? Delusion?

Given this, how would you personally define/describe the perfectly enlightened Buddha?

(No problems with the rest of your last post.)

David Quinn wrote:

Diebert wrote: It seems way more obvious to me that homosexuality itself has as primary purpose to strengthen the bonds between people of the same sex, when the circumstances call for it.

Your point here is unclear. Can you expand on it?

It's just another way to regard sexuality in relation to group dynamics. Studies over the last decades are suggesting that procreation is not the main function of sex between mammals (example is the work of Joan Roughgarden). Relieve of internal anxieties and determination of status in the group are just as important and of more immediate concern. Combined with the bonding between individuals with smell and touch; intimate familiarity. These things all have clear purpose for the functioning of a group of complex beings.

In other words homosexuality could be seen as a natural expression of sexuality, while perhaps only less favourable because of lacking the 'bonus': procreation possibilities. With artificial insemination on the rise, the amount of lesbian couples will naturally rise. Also we can see the decline of importance given to the 'classical' marriage now children can be raised in different settings like single parent, gay marriage, adoption and so on.

David Quinn wrote: This doesn't explain why homosexuals consistently comprise 10% of the population, in cultures all around the world. This release of tension could just as easily be achieved without the existence of homosexuals, with the added bonus that the entire population is passing on its genes.

Release of tension and bonding of group members might not be just as easy when dependent only on the other gender for this. The differences between the sexes in physiological and psychological sense could turn this into a more difficult option in lets say 10% of the cases.

David Quinn wrote: Indeed, one can go to any male social club nowadays and witness the strong heterosexual bonding which goes on - a bonding that implicitly and explicitly defines itself in contrast with homosexuality.

Sure, but that bonding might just as well be an aspect of a general sexuality underlying the more overt and developed forms of hetero or homo-sexuality. I'd call it "proto-sexuality". No need to contrast this with anything. The hostility against homo-sexuality would seem to me more like some cultural element that such clubs also are inclined to nurture. Gays are associated with all kinds of things and could as well question some deep beliefs about the sanctified state of relations with women. It might point for them too much to the underlying raw and ruling structure of sexuality itself, something that many like to hide behind the illusive innocence of 'women'?