GENIUS FORUMS

Again, in the interests of clarity, can I ask everyone to acknowledge who it is they are quoting and responding to. It shouldn't be left to the reader to try and work out what is going on in this regard.

-

Sschaula wrote:

Sue wrote: The problem with having feelings for women, even pity, is that these very feelings are a direct cause of women being trapped in womanhood. When a man has any emotional attachment to Woman: love, hate, pity, delight, desire, respect, etc., these emotions create the circumstances that women exist in. Ceasing to feel anything for women means that they can become free.

Scott wrote: I agree that if you feel nothing for women they can become free, but I don't agree that feeling pity for women keeps them trapped. If the pity came from delusion, such as feeling pity towards a woman who isn't beautiful, that will only keep her trapped. However, if I feel pity coming from the truth, it may set her free. If I look at her, and see only components of makeup, flesh, hairspray, ignorance....and point out what she is to her, it may cause her to realize the truth.

For a female to realize the truth of Woman she would have to be highly conscious, which wouldn’t make her a woman at all. So, your idea that women (in general) might be able to benefit from being exposed to Truth is idealistic and kind spirited, but essentially incorrect. For most females, and quite a few males, Woman is a heavenly place. There, everyday is a perfect day, and every woman sees herself as a perfect being. In Woman there is no conscious discriminating and defining: instead the past, the present and the future magically swirl into one, causing her to always appear spontaneous and free. There is no memory, so there is no real thought. For her, the world is not a place of hardship and toil, since every moment a new world appears, bringing with it new vistas for her to enjoy.

Sue wrote: … women fear nothing.

Scott wrote: On the other hand, I think women fear a lot of things.

Man can experience directly a sense of loss and gain, but a woman can only experience these things indirectly, because he is conscious and she is not. When a man experiences fear for example, he has nothing to fall back upon except his own mind and will. But; when a fearful situation confronts a woman, she has Woman to carry her through it. She can call upon any emotion, as well as any man, to create path ways for her to travel through any event. Man on the other hand, must gouge out a path of his own, with no one to help or protect him.

It's just that with women, something magical happens that cause them to rarely seek out the actual way to relieving their suffering. They just think "I'll drink more...I'll pray more...I'll work harder." Same with men. None of us like to feel crappy; none of us like to not know the way out.

When a man suffers he usually does so in private, but when a woman suffers, the whole world has to know about it. Why do you think that is so?

On some level, I'm betting they (women) know exactly what it is. And I'm also betting they want the promises of enlightenment.

Taking into account what I said previously about the 'World of Woman', how would enlightenment improve her life?

Sue wrote: “Quitting relationships” is a great idea if you truly love women…

Scott wrote: Personally I've found it tough. It's easy to think of the truth throughout the day, but it's hard to make yourself not be attracted to what you're attracted to. It's easy to stay out of relationships, but hard to stop thinking about women in that light. It's hard to make your philosophy perfect...it's hard to attain yoga.

Woman is a huge attachment, because so much of everyday life is tied to her. Through Woman, man is given entry into society. He gains his status: husband, boyfriend, lover, father and son; as well as his role in life: provider, protector and propagator. If you don’t value these categories, you essentially become an outcast. No wonder most men want to tuck themselves tightly into the marriage bed, they’re terrified of being flung out into the cold.

So, it is good to see that a few men are at least trying to acclimatize themselves to living out in the cold.

Sue:

For a female to realize the truth of Woman she would have to be highly conscious, which wouldn’t make her a woman at all.

How is it you came under the delusion that sex somehow lies outside of sex?

Man can experience directly a sense of loss and gain, but a woman can only experience these things indirectly, because he is conscious and she is not.

How is one to make sense of this statement? A sleeping truth swaddled in a lie? I don't, I can't.

When a man suffers he usually does so in private, but when a woman suffers, the whole world has to know about it. Why do you think that is so?

I don't.

Woman is a huge attachment, because so much of everyday life is tied to her. Through Woman, man is given entry into society. He gains his status: husband, boyfriend, lover, father and son; as well as his role in life: provider, protector and propagator. If you don’t value these categories, you essentially become an outcast. No wonder most men want to tuck themselves tightly into the marriage bed, they’re terrified of being flung out into the cold.

What about the extraordinary that is tied to woman?

frank wrote:

Quote:
It then becomes I DO what I SAY.

I SAY 'Good, Wise Family Man' is a great possibility for me.

I then DO 'Good, Wise Family Man' to the best of my ability.

I SAY Musician (as a hobby) is a great possibility for me.

I then DO Music to the best of my ability.

Sue wrote.

This is a philosophy forum, not your mum’s kitchen! This stuff might impress her, but it sounds very much like plagiarism to me: as it sounds very similar to, “I think I can, I think I can” said The Little Engine That Could.

* * *

I’ve got a new mantra for you to try: Thinking is important.

That might do the trick.

No, they are Forms...these possibilities.
They are structures....or Forms.

Because they change...undergo flux...they lack inherent existence...Wisdom recognises the Form is not permanent and will 'fall away'..

Living on the Dole and Living Alone is also Form...

Forms of Living.

One's Form is one's preference...one's Meaning, which one is Free to do...

It does not follow that one is necessarily 'unhealthily attached' simply because one lives inside a Form...any Form.

A Sangha is a Form.

However you live, it will have Form to it...Structure...

You will either feel oppressed by the Form you live inside of or Live happily enough inside of it...
That depends on the Meaning you bring to it.

Circumstances will change...

These things are activities...the pleasure is having the Form be beautiful...even for a moment...

Life is for Doing...as short as it is.

It's up to Me.

It's what you Bring to it.

frank the tank.

frank the tank said: One's Form is one's preference...one's Meaning, which one is Free to do...

It does not follow that one is necessarily 'unhealthily attached' simply because one lives inside a Form...any Form.

A Sangha is a Form.

However you live, it will have Form to it...Structure...

You will either feel oppressed by the Form you live inside of or Live happily enough inside of it...
That depends on the Meaning you bring to it.

Circumstances will change...

These things are activities...the pleasure is having the Form be beautiful...even for a moment...

Life is for Doing's short as it is.

Once again Frank the Tank is very wise. It certainly seems to me that one's form or way of life makes no difference in thinking about real philosophy. Schopenhaur liked booze and whores and I like a lot of what he wrote. I have tried many hokey and funky monk ways of life like extreme renunciation and celibacy. After a while I could see I was only fooling myself. Now I've renounced renunciation - that's how serious I've become.

What is plain to see no matter how you choose to live your life is that you completely disappear at night. You and your world vanishes. This means to me that the dream that I see and the dreamer himself is not real or permanent. Real to me means permanent. So, 'I' am not real either. However, there is a thing called a dream and a thing called a dreamer. They change, but the forms may in fact be real.

Sue, you wrote:

For a female to realize the truth of Woman she would have to be highly conscious, which wouldn’t make her a woman at all. So, your idea that women (in general) might be able to benefit from being exposed to Truth is idealistic and kind spirited, but essentially incorrect.

It may be incorrect. I think the more people hear truths and find them to be true, the more conscious they become. If this impacts women or not, I don't know. I know it impacted me, and can impact others. I know women are usually not receptive, but I can't say whether or not it helps...not yet at least.

For most females, and quite a few males, Woman is a heavenly place. There, everyday is a perfect day, and every woman sees herself as a perfect being.

Until she realizes she isn't, when it's pointed out to her...either by a man, a woman or her own thoughts. The trick is making her remember it.

In Woman there is no conscious discriminating and defining: instead the past, the present and the future magically swirl into one, causing her to always appear spontaneous and free. There is no memory, so there is no real thought.

This is very fantastic sounding. I am quite sure women have a memory, albeit not a consciously thinking one. The fact that a memory is there, though, is good evidence that it could be grown into a consciously thinking one. You have to admit that it's possible.

If not, then why not? What causes women to be so incapable?

For her, the world is not a place of hardship and toil, since every moment a new world appears, bringing with it new vistas for her to enjoy.

I don't believe she enjoys when the new world is one of hardship and toil.

Man can experience directly a sense of loss and gain, but a woman can only experience these things indirectly, because he is conscious and she is not. When a man experiences fear for example, he has nothing to fall back upon except his own mind and will. But; when a fearful situation confronts a woman, she has Woman to carry her through it. She can call upon any emotion, as well as any man, to create path ways for her to travel through any event. Man on the other hand, must gouge out a path of his own, with no one to help or protect him.

When a man suffers he usually does so in private, but when a woman suffers, the whole world has to know about it. Why do you think that is so?

Because she doesn't know how to deal with it. You are right...but my point is mainly that it may not be hopeless. Women MAY benefit from hearing the truth. Perhaps they won't have a satori right then and there, but maybe something sticks with them deep in their minds and later on in life they realize something is true. Maybe if this happens enough to her, she'll become more and more conscious...and someday be capable of thought. Maybe there are a couple of women out there that are like this.

Taking into account what I said previously about the 'World of Woman', how would enlightenment improve her life?

The world of woman is hell. If she becomes a tiny bit conscious, she will see that it's as if she's on a rollercoaster...having ups and downs, climbs and drops. The highs can be great, and the lows can be horrible. Seeing this, she will see that the highs aren't worth the lows and find a way off the ride.

This would be a great accomplishment, if she could see it. Like I said before, I think it's possible for a woman to see it.

Woman is a huge attachment, because so much of everyday life is tied to her. Through Woman, man is given entry into society. He gains his status: husband, boyfriend, lover, father and son; as well as his role in life: provider, protector and propagator. If you don’t value these categories, you essentially become an outcast. No wonder most men want to tuck themselves tightly into the marriage bed, they’re terrified of being flung out into the cold.

So, it is good to see that a few men are at least trying to acclimatize themselves to living out in the cold.

I don't think a man should be considered a man unless he does this. If he's the type that acts like a woman in social life, he should be considered a "fairy".

Not to be hateful, but to be truthful about how he is, in order to help him.

There are plenty of men out in the cold living the heroic life on the dole.

They may not be thinkers. A lot of them are insane.

The dole is designed for the insane and the weak - those who refuse to work for their own needs.

Oh, I see you were actually being critical of QRS and the other thinkers here who rely on the dole. Well I'm not one of them. Who cares what they do, anyway? What matters is what you do. David Quinn may be a horrible human being. That doesn't concern me and who I am....why does it concern you so much?

It is hard for me to take advice from a bum. It's just the way I was raised. It is like listening to a doper talk about his great insights when he's high on reefer. It just sort of goes in one ear and out the other with me because such a person has little credibility to me. Or - it is like taking advice about children from a person who never had kids. Same thing. I lived in California, so believe me, I've met my share of 'sages' and seen them set up their cults. No end to people who want to worship them.

Anyway, I'm very interested in what Frank the Tank has been saying. He seems to know the score.

Unwise must be proud of his work! What is it you do for society unwise? Do you think doing away with social security would advance society?

I don't understand your comment, Suergaz. Why does it matter what I do? The only point I am making is that I provide for my own needs through labor. You see, the body requires food and shelter. Why should I force YOU provide those things for ME? At the root of it, it is immoral.

unwise

Why should I force YOU provide those things for ME? At the root of it, it is immoral.

I think you have your conception of social security backwards. Social nets are set up to protect those least able to fend for themselves. There was no violent bum's rebellion that lead to the siphoning of taxes off in their direction. The ROOT of social security is morality (or at the very least, pragmatism & forethought) on the part of the advantaged, not immorality on the side of the disadvantaged.

The only point I am making is that I provide for my own needs through labor.

Good job making that point, because that piece of irrelevent trivia is, indeed, "the only point" you've managed to convey. ...if I forget that you've already clearly shown your disgust with those who manage to uncover and take advantage of the modern equivalent of the monastic life.

There are many ways to live. You decided to live as a labourer. Splendid. Do you want a fucking medal? You really deserve it, what with your untiring devotion to the moral system that was passed down to you ("just the way [you] were raised"), and that rejects the advice of anyone lower on the social ladder than you ("a bum").

You misunderstand. I am not against a social net for those who cannot fend for themselves. On the other hand, I have only contempt for those who are able-bodied but REFUSE to participate in the game. They deserve no dole. THEY are bums. On top of this, they bite the hand that feeds them by saying that we are inferior creatures.

It certainly seems to me that one's form or way of life makes no difference in thinking about real philosophy.

That's the point Socrates was making.

The Form of One's Life wasn't so relevant as the Inquiry into the aspects that made up that Life...an unexamined Life is a Life not worth Living...

In Athens, Socrates 'hung out' with philosophical types and saw that it boiled down to a 'Heavyweight Title Fight' between the respective Forms...biffo, bumpo...

Socrates thought that Philosophy is Inquiry...nothing else.

Socrates saw the 'lust for Power' the protagonists had as they promoted their particular brands of meaning...

Socrates developed a thing that was later dubbed the Socratic Method...a form of Inquiry or questioning...that very quickly exposed the Hubris of the Form protagonists...any Form PR pimping perpetrator...

When the 'Form Fans' were demolished they turned on Socrates and said 'OK smartarse..which Form should a Life take?'

Socrates would reply 'I don't know'...

This pissed them off no end and eventually led to them taking Socrates to Trial, conviction and the Hemlock thang...

You can't get away with saying 'I don't know'....apparently.

You get the Joke don't ya'...ya' just gotta get it...it's hilarious.

Some fuel for the Anti-Woman Lobby has been centred around Nietschke's sexism.
Some examination of Fred's circumstances revealed that his Pa died when he was quite young...which left him in a Household populated by Fred, his Ma, his Sis, his Maternal Grandma, 2 Aunts...(Yikes)...

When he got to breeding age he wanted to get laid but he was particularly tongue-tied and uncomfortable thusly rendering him unsuitable to the gals...

Fred probably got laid a couple of times and one of those times he got Syphilis..which led to his early Death...

Score: Gals 2
Fred minus 10

It's not inconceivable that Nietschke's 'Sexist' stance was based on resentment...hubris...

As strikingly brilliant as Nietschke's thinking was...he wasn't immune to coloured posturing...

frank

Yea, good one, Frank. I have found that hatred of women usually stems from a man's inability to get pussy. Women look past this man onto a more fair and interesting specimen -and the offended man strikes back with all sorts of philosophical pay back....

Now, Socrates:

When the 'Form Fans' were demolished they turned on Socrates and said 'OK smartarse..which Form should a Life take?'

Socrates would reply 'I don't know'...

This pissed them off no end and eventually led to them taking Socrates to Trial, conviction and the Hemlock thang...

Nowadays, such a person is summarily banned from the forum he says such a thing.....

Frank was extraordinarily blind to his own reality:

Some fuel for the Anti-Woman Lobby has been centred around Nietschke's sexism. Some examination of Fred's circumstances revealed that his Pa died when he was quite young...which left him in a Household populated by Fred, his Ma, his Sis, his Maternal Grandma, 2 Aunts...(Yikes)...

When he got to breeding age he wanted to get laid but he was particularly tongue-tied and uncomfortable thusly rendering him unsuitable to the gals...

Fred probably got laid a couple of times and one of those times he got Syphilis..which led to his early Death...

Score: Gals 2
Fred minus 10

It's not inconceivable that Nietschke's 'Sexist' stance was based on resentment...hubris...

As strikingly brilliant as Nietschke's thinking was...he wasn't immune to coloured posturing...

Wow. How you can offer a post that contains multiple logical fallacies (subtle ad homs, appeals to sentiment, argument from ignorance, petitio principii [begging the question], and then accuse someone of "coloured posturing" is something towards which I can only express amazement.

I think perhaps it is overdue that I return from my forum sabbitcal and respond to some of this gibberish. It's kind of painful to just sit back and watch it unfold...


Dan Rowden

Suergaz wrote:

Sue: For a female to realize the truth of Woman she would have to be highly conscious, which wouldn’t make her a woman at all.

gaz: How is it you came under the delusion that sex somehow lies outside of sex?

You’re not taking into account the fact that the sexes are not that clear cut: some females are very masculine minded, while some males are very feminine minded. One or two of those masculine minded females may possess the potential for philosophy. And as I said above, once a female understands Woman, she can no longer be taken in by Her.

Sue: Man can experience directly a sense of loss and gain, but a woman can only experience these things indirectly, because he is conscious and she is not.

gaz: How is one to make sense of this statement? A sleeping truth swaddled in a lie? I don't, I can't.

Man has an inner life: therefore he experiences life first-hand. Woman doesn't have an inner life and therefore depends on others to provide a life for her. This is made obvious by the fact that women surround themselves with friends, family, children, pets, fashion and all other manner of adornments to give her life meaning and substance. Man doesn’t rely on others for his life, instead he uses his ability to discern and discriminate to carve out a life for himself.

Women look for life outwardly, men find life inwardly.

Sue: When a man suffers he usually does so in private, but when a woman suffers, the whole world has to know about it. Why do you think that is so?

gaz: I don't.

Males with even a tiny dash of masculinity prefer to rely on their own strength of mind to get them through difficult situations: hence the saying, “Men suffer in silence”. Women do not have the inner strength of men, so they instead call upon every person in ear shot to “make it better”. For example: Women visit health professionals far more often than men do. A consequence of this is the tendency for men to die earlier than women.

But it is better to die a young man, than to die an old woman.

What about the extraordinary that is tied to woman?

Oh yes, let’s list a few “extraordinary” things about woman:

(1) Men want to believe women have minds of their own, because they can’t accept the fact that the women they have devote their whole lives to are essentially nothing more than vending machines.

(2) “Men are evil”, so say every woman from the dawn of civilization. Once said, man has spent his every moment trying to get back into her good books.

(3) Women choose men like they choose a new pair of shoes: will other women be envious of them, do they show how sexy and desirable I am, and will they last until I find something better?

The only extraordinary thing tied to woman, is man – and he should know better.

Wow. How you can offer a post that contains multiple logical fallacies (subtle ad homs, appeals to sentiment, argument from ignorance, petitio principii [begging the question], and then accuse someone of "coloured posturing" is something towards which I can only express amazement.

I'm not immune to coloured posturing...who is?...what's amazing about it?...it's commonplace.

The subtle ad homs, appeals to sentiment, argument from ignorance, petitio principii.....this is the exclusive domain of Frank huh?....prior to Frank this did not exist on this Board huh?

What is amazing NOT is that when one's prejudices are being pandered to the entire gamut of logical fallacies are deemed OK.
This would constitute hubris wouldn't it?..

I think perhaps it is overdue that I return from my forum sabbitcal and respond to some of this gibberish. It's kind of painful to just sit back and watch it unfold...

Yes, some good old chest-thumping King Kong style would supply that extra, exquisite nuance of Hilarity...Basil Fawlty does it well...

frank

Dan wrote:

I think perhaps it is overdue that I return from my forum sabbitcal and respond to some of this gibberish.

About time, too, I say.

Scott wrote:

I don't think a man should be considered a man unless he does this [acclimatises himself to living out in the cold]. If he's the type that acts like a woman in social life, he should be considered a "fairy".

Not to be hateful, but to be truthful about how he is, in order to help him.

I wholeheartedly agree. And good on you for saying so.

Females are far from the only one's who need a helping hand.

That's why I'm a masculinist.

I reckon the world at large really isn't capable of the keen discernment required for a full understanding of Sue's philosophy.

Do you know how many young boys I've seen in the past couple of weeks walking around in short parkas with fake fur-rimmed hoods and wide, knitted headbands? I mean, it's cold here, but far from the arctic.

Talk about "being in touch with your feminine side."

Leyla,

Well the crazy thing is that in America you're seen as a man only if you pursue women and get pussy. To be "out in the cold" you're less of a man. I think this is due to the peacefulness of the country...there's no hardship here beyond gas being 3 bucks a gallon, or perhaps our boredom with everything in life. Man isn't the same strong being he was when times got tough...he's just a human being like women. The more shoes he has, the more masculine. The more he pays for his haircut, the more he is a man. Women don't see what men go through, because it isn't external things anymore. He doesn't even need to get up from his recliner because she is there to hand him his beer. Life has gotten easy.

I don't think America needs a rude awakening. I think life being easy is good, and we're fortunate over here. I just think that our country needs to look at itself honestly...everyone needs to become aware of what we are doing, and who we truly are.

I think more people are becoming aware, too. Women provide a good means of escaping from Woman. They act insane when feminine men try to court them! Of course, gradually, men begin to see this and hopefully have the balls to escape. Sometimes it takes a good dose of insanity from his significant other for him to grow the balls. I think as more and more women become more and more crazy, more and more men will escape.

The feminist movement did a good job of allowing women to be their true selves, and men have the rare opportunity of seeing this clearly...on tv, in cafes, in schools, on movies, in malls, in their homes, in grocery stores. Men are finally starting to see that there's nothing behind all of the mascara and colorful fabric.

Sue: For a female to realize the truth of Woman she would have to be highly conscious, which wouldn’t make her a woman at all.

suergaz: How is it you came under the delusion that sex somehow lies outside of sex?

Sue: You’re not taking into account the fact that the sexes are not that clear cut: some females are very masculine minded, while some males are very feminine minded. One or two of those masculine minded females may possess the potential for philosophy. And as I said above, once a female understands Woman, she can no longer be taken in by Her.

How can one help but see that the sexes are not "clear cut" as you say? You attempt to form truths from generalizations and then point to exceptions. My philosophy is true to character at the very least. I don't feel the need to be true to my sex, it is something I can't help.

Sue: Man can experience directly a sense of loss and gain, but a woman can only experience these things indirectly, because he is conscious and she is not.

suergaz: How is one to make sense of this statement? A sleeping truth swaddled in a lie? I don't, I can't.


Sue:Man has an inner life: therefore he experiences life first-hand. Woman doesn't have an inner life and therefore depends on others to provide a life for her. This is made obvious by the fact that women surround themselves with friends, family, children, pets, fashion and all other manner of adornments to give her life meaning and substance. Man doesn’t rely on others for his life, instead he uses his ability to discern and discriminate to carve out a life for himself.
Women look for life outwardly, men find life inwardly.

Both man and woman experience life 'first-hand' as you put it. Both have an 'inner life' as you call it. Your little examples, adornments of your generalizations, are trite. Why pretend gross generalizations are truths or conducive to truth? Men and women differ rhythmically. Their discernment and discrimination in everything most often seems at odds because of this. Odds which will always be a pleasure to the sexes.

Sue: When a man suffers he usually does so in private, but when a woman suffers, the whole world has to know about it. Why do you think that is so?

suergaz: I don't.

Sue:Males with even a tiny dash of masculinity prefer to rely on their own strength of mind to get them through difficult situations: hence the saying, “Men suffer in silence”. Women do not have the inner strength of men, so they instead call upon every person in ear shot to “make it better”. For example: Women visit health professionals far more often than men do. A consequence of this is the tendency for men to die earlier than women.

But it is better to die a young man, than to die an old woman.

There are noble women whose suffering cannot be articulated, and they die with it, nobly. There are women in whom the inner life wants to burst and spring forth into life out of love, but find no match in spirit. There are noblewomen whose love, and intelligence in love simply rule the passions of young men. This is not romanticization. It is intelligence, desire, love, it is will.

suergaz:
What about the extraordinary that is tied to woman?

Sue: Oh yes, let’s list a few “extraordinary” things about woman:

(1) Men want to believe women have minds of their own, because they can’t accept the fact that the women they have devote their whole lives to are essentially nothing more than vending machines.

(2) “Men are evil”, so say every woman from the dawn of civilization. Once said, man has spent his every moment trying to get back into her good books.

(3) Women choose men like they choose a new pair of shoes: will other women be envious of them, do they show how sexy and desirable I am, and will they last until I find something better?

(1) A noble man has no need of belief in the mind of a beautiful and intelligent woman. He simply loves it.

(2) What honest man hasn't been made to feel ashamed of his strengths or individuality? To pretend this primarily stems from the admonitions of women, and not rather reproof from weaker, more dishonest men, is ridiculous!

(3) Not all women choose men that way. Heroines have always loved the heroic, and consequently, the hero.

The only extraordinary thing tied to woman, is man – and he should know better.

The only extraordinary thing tied to woman is her self. With what else could she love the extraordinary man?

David Quinn wrote:

Sometimes, it seems that you're so immersed in the own hurt-filled soap-opera of your own memories that you don't really perceive what is going on around you. In a way, you're not really interacting with us as such, but with figures in your imagination. We are being forced to wear their clothing and act out their roles in your pantomine. I have to say, it's getting tiresome.

This comment was aimed more at Frank, but I realize it applies to me as well. Yes, David, I'm a bit hostile towards you and some of the genius forums values and ways of speaking, but I think this is because you so confidently and seemingly arrogantly dismissed among other things, 2 things that I've enjoyed speculating and being uncetain about. 1) Mentalistic universe and 2) Radical reorientation of consciousness at death of physical body (merging into the consciousness of god)

I suppose there is a part of me that wants to learn, aknowledge and be certain of potential truths that I would rather not value, and accompanying that desire to be influenced by you, there is this really aggressive urge to throw at you every attack I can muster. I want to know and be confident that the person who is making an impact on me isnt a neurotic narcisist who has become very good with words and argument to compensate for his fear of valuing what 'I' value.

And what I am, or was.....is someone who valued things that you didnt/dont. And to face someone who both doesnt value what I do, and yet is quite refreshing, is to feel a desire to think more like that person, yet there is also a desire to conquer that person. There's a part of me that wants to conquer you - - so I can tell myself - yes cory, you were right all along - he was a fool.....

But, I find that believing in life-everlasting and a mentalistic universe is much more enjoyable then beliving in the contrary, so, that being said, and judging by my experience of how things work, I am probably wrong. It's not that i'm terrified of a godless reality, of mortality - - but to speculate and hope for the contrary is just more pleasurable - and more interesting.

You have to admit the thought of this life being training for life in higher dimensions with less physical limitations is very stimulating and exciting for someone who hasnt been excited and stimulated by much else but falsehoods and mere sensations -

David, you are a spiritual person who says the personality does not survive death, yet at the same time, much of what you say seems highly moral.

This is indeed intriguing, and like I said, it keeps me coming back to this forum, and it keeps me wanting to attack you.

David Quinn wrote:

To me, knowing the Truth is extremely meaningful. I love knowing it and I love sharing this knowledge with others.

What is this love you speak of? Can we make a distinction between mere pleasure (which is the seed of pain) and this 'other' quality of energy that keeps you going?

To say you are just an unemotional robot who feels nothing, just seems off.

You have said a number of times that you enjoy your reality, that you love, etc...

Can you explain?