GENIUS FORUMS

Here's a preview: Google Books: The Manipulated Man

rebecca702 wrote:Guest,

It's obvious that you didn't read it very deeply, because you don't really care (I can't figure why you read it in the first place)... and you obviously have much better things to do.

Rebecca

Funny, that, Rebecca, because I've just spent a significant amount of time failing to be able to concentrate on the tennis on TV due to my growing preoccupation with how I might further participate in this thread should you have chosen to respond substantively, and deciding that it was, after all, an important thread to take a strong stand in. I had quite a lot of my next post semi-prepared in my head. It was (if I may say so) compelling, passionate and personal. Anyway - it's your call. Maybe you don't really want to hear an opposing perspective. Maybe you're happy to just swallow the poison that you're being fed.

Shahrazad wrote:David,

Reading those quotes reminded me of what a unique and courageous woman Esther Vilar was.

She died?

Nope, she lives in Barcelona and London. All that money makes such a succulent sound.

Jason wrote:Here's a preview: Google Books: The Manipulated Man

Ah, thanks; that's a pretty decent preview.

guest_of_logic wrote:

rebecca702 wrote:Guest,

It's obvious that you didn't read it very deeply, because you don't really care (I can't figure why you read it in the first place)... and you obviously have much better things to do.

Rebecca

Funny, that, Rebecca, because I've just spent a significant amount of time failing to be able to concentrate on the tennis on TV due to my growing preoccupation with how I might further participate in this thread should you have chosen to respond substantively, and deciding that it was, after all, an important thread to take a strong stand in. I had quite a lot of my next post semi-prepared in my head. It was (if I may say so) compelling, passionate and personal. Anyway - it's your call. Maybe you don't really want to hear an opposing perspective. Maybe you're happy to just swallow the poison that you're being fed.

Wait a sec, you're the one who indicated he was bailing from the discussion. Don't turn it around now.

Shahrazad wrote:David,

Reading those quotes reminded me of what a unique and courageous woman Esther Vilar was.

She died?

No, but she has received death threats, and according to her, continues to receive "threats of violence" to this day (or at least until 1998, when she claimed this). The "was" is in connection with her decision back in 1971 to write such a book. She admits that these days she wouldn't have the courage.

Interesting that she is German, who tend to be more masculine-orientated. It is probably a book that only a woman of German mentality could write.

-

No, but she has received death threats, and according to her, continues to receive "threats of violence" to this day (or at least until 1998, when she claimed this).

I admit I envy her. I would give all my possessions to be able to write a book that would cause that much turmoil. Heck, even 10% of that much turmoil.

I knew about her book back in the 70s when it came out, because my mother read it. I remember that it wasn't well received. I did sympathize a lot with her views.

Shahrazad wrote:I admit I envy her. I would give all my possessions to be able to write a book that would cause that much turmoil. Heck, even 10% of that much turmoil.

Why would you want your book to create turmoil?

Why would you want your book to create turmoil?

I guess I have always liked to go up-river. I hate the fact that people accept old paradigms without even questioning them.

I'm not sure if that answers your question.

guest -

guest_of_logic wrote:

rebecca702 wrote:Guest,

It's obvious that you didn't read it very deeply, because you don't really care (I can't figure why you read it in the first place)... and you obviously have much better things to do.

Rebecca

Funny, that, Rebecca, because I've just spent a significant amount of time failing to be able to concentrate on the tennis on TV due to my growing preoccupation with how I might further participate in this thread should you have chosen to respond substantively, and deciding that it was, after all, an important thread to take a strong stand in. I had quite a lot of my next post semi-prepared in my head. It was (if I may say so) compelling, passionate and personal. Anyway - it's your call. Maybe you don't really want to hear an opposing perspective. Maybe you're happy to just swallow the poison that you're being fed.

Funny that, guest, because here's what you said:

guest_of_logic wrote:OK, well, I don't feel like responding to that forward right now. Matter of fact, I prefer to devote my attention to other threads (not just here, but on other forums that I inhabit), so I might not respond further in this one - I just wanted to put in my two cent's worth. You will probably get the last word, if you even feel like responding knowing that my interest in continuing the discussion is lack-lustre at best. I'll at least keep on following the thread, so I'll read any response(s) that you might make.

I'm supposed to respond with effort and thought to that post and retain any self-respect? I don't know if I could write anything more patronizing if I tried...

Feel free to put out another post, darling, but I may just look down my nose at it while sipping my Manhattan and excreting wisdom-pellets on other more deserving forums that I frequent, because my time is in such very, very high demand. I may or may not choose to grace you with a reply, but you can pride yourself on your genius if I don't. My lustre is lacking and I need to attend to more important matters such as watching fuzzy yellow balls fly around, so I'll let you feel like you're on top of this one. Run along, now.

Feel free to put out another post, darling, but I may just look down my nose at it while sipping my Manhattan and excreting wisdom-pellets on other more deserving forums that I frequent, because my time is in such very, very high demand. I may or may not choose to grace you with a reply, but you can pride yourself on your genius if I don't. My lustre is lacking and I need to attend to more important matters such as watching fuzzy yellow balls fly around, so I'll let you feel like you're on top of this one. Run along, now.

Good job, Rebecca.

If you think humanity is a NEARLY-failed experiment, what could turn it around? That's my question to you!

And if you think it is ALREADY-failed, what caused this?

When you stipulate 'failed', are you assuming there was an objective?

Failure can only result if there was an objective, and, as of yet, there is no proof there ever was, or is, and I believe it is out of our capability to answer such a question of whether there is, or was, set of course, by a higher power.

There is always the possibility that everything just is, and therefore there is no such thing as failure, on an existential level, only on a subjective level. With the removal of the notion that there is an objective meaning, it gives way to a realistic realisation that 'is' is the real state of affairs which holds no specific goal to attain. Ergo, no such thing as failure, objectively speaking.

We seem to be the only species we know of with a high level, or any level, of self awareness and are defined by our advanced level of intelligence. Because things do not seem to be going our way, subjectively, does not mean that we have failed, more that individually we are just unfulfilled and are therefore sensitive to a perceived failure due to our egotistical drives, failed expectations, unfulfilled desires, fantasies, ideologies, concepts and delusions. Utopia and euphoria included. The universe is a scientific model based on negative and positive actions, not solely positive, which is why our dream of harmony will not, and cannot ever be achieved which is why we feel it is failed. It is not. It is just natural. It may not suit us, but it suits nature.

How do we fail? Is everything not perfect just as it is? One man's exlploitation is another man's success and it is this that makes things move forward and forever change. It is this that can drive the exploited to become the exploiter and thus thrust humanity forward and contributes to evolution. But we do not like this because it is not comfortable for us. It is not desirable for us.

I have observed that the natural order of things is dictated by the strongest and most powerful achieving survival. Black holes bend light and eat galaxies for breakfast. Black holes are part of our universe as is everything else in it including species of living conscious animals. There are human institutions which personify black holes. It is merely comparison and relation. The man mugging the woman on the street is no different to the epidemic killing millions. It is one entity exploiting another for it's own survival. It is no different to a black hole engulfing a galaxy. It is just a question of perspective. Infinitely small, to infinitely big but the principle is the same. It is only human morality which stands in the way and allows it to be questioned.

I feel that to stagnate would be epic failure, because, just like everything else in the universe, which we are part of, the fittest and strongest survive. The perceived 'sick' and 'cruel' game of life just doesn't suit us, and our egos, but in the eyes of nature, it is perfect as it is.

You may as well ask "If you think the universe is a NEARLY-failed experiment, what could turn it around?" and to imagine that we even dare try to turn it around is egotistical. We are merely a minute component of the universe and have to respect it's rules.

Rebecca wrote:Feel free to put out another post, darling, but I may just look down my nose at it while sipping my Manhattan and excreting wisdom-pellets on other more deserving forums that I frequent, because my time is in such very, very high demand. I may or may not choose to grace you with a reply, but you can pride yourself on your genius if I don't. My lustre is lacking and I need to attend to more important matters such as watching fuzzy yellow balls fly around, so I'll let you feel like you're on top of this one. Run along, now.

OK, fair enough - I'm very sorry for being patronising and for exuding a sense of superiority at the end of that first post. It wasn't a particularly well thought out ending and it had ugly connotations. Making mention of other things that I might have preferred to be doing instead was pretty dumb, and I can see how you would find it undignified to respond in detail. If I were to write it in hindsight I would have left it simpler - perhaps as just:
"OK, well thanks for the link, although I'm not up for making a response to it right now. I'm also not even sure if I'm up for an ongoing discussion in this thread, but I'd be interested in reading your response anyway."

Also, as Dan implied I should be, I'm sorry for the tone and implications of my second post. Again, it was a pretty dumb post in hindsight. I don't know if it ever happens to you, but sometimes I get into a frame of mind where a particular issue becomes really important to me, and imparting that conviction to other people, especially those who are coming from an opposing perspective, becomes very important to me too. That's the frame of mind that I was in with that post, and unfortunately it motivated me to use emotive tactics that were inappropriate, and probably even dishonest - not to mention entirely counter-productive to my intent, serving only to accuse and antagonise you, with little hope of imparting any conviction.

Anyway, I'm not sure whether me participating further in this thread would be a good idea after all. I'd like to send you a PM explaining myself better though, if you're willing to forgive me enough to accept it.

guest,

No harm done!

It's just clear that we disagree on this subject, and that's fine.

ezydriver,

That was a very intriguing post with many good points.

ezydriver wrote:Ergo, no such thing as failure, objectively speaking. [...] Because things do not seem to be going our way, subjectively, does not mean that we have failed, more that individually we are just unfulfilled and are therefore sensitive to a perceived failure due to our egotistical drives, failed expectations, unfulfilled desires, fantasies, ideologies, concepts and delusions.

How do we fail?

Okay, so if I defined success as evolving to use our full human brain capacity, solving many of our animalistic problems, and finding a way to live wisely on this planet - and failure as going extinct, that would still be egotistical, right? Because I'm caring about the survival of ME and not the mold or the virus.

I feel that to stagnate would be epic failure...

What do you mean by stagnate? Trying to halt any kind of change because we are afraid of losing what we already have?

You may as well ask "If you think the universe is a NEARLY-failed experiment, what could turn it around?" and to imagine that we even dare try to turn it around is egotistical. We are merely a minute component of the universe and have to respect it's rules.

Point taken.

guest_of_logic wrote: OK, fair enough - I'm very sorry for being patronising and for exuding a sense of superiority at the end of that first post. It wasn't a particularly well thought out ending and it had ugly connotations.

The irony is, your first instinct was to depict Rebecca as being submissive and easily led, thus displaying the very chauvinism you accuse others of having.

-

David, you might have had a point if I had attributed what you claim to be my depiction (that wasn't quite what I was trying to say, but let's run with it for argument's sake) to the fact that Rebecca is a woman. In fact, I did not, and I would not. You might recall that I was very critical of kissaki for the blind way in which he unthinkingly swallowed down and regurgitated QRS chauvinism, and I knew that he was male - did I ever say anything like "But gee this is strange, because I expect only women to fall submissively into traps like this"? Nope, and nor did I think it.

Don't you think that the old "it's not us it's you" trick is getting a bit old? I mean, playing it on Victor recently was really just too much.

Suggesting to anyone that they are merely swallowing "RQS" philosophy in a submissive manner is ad hominem claptrap in and of itself. It's gratuitousness, presumptive, insulting and a poor substitute for argumentation.

Just in case you wanted to know.

guest_of_logic wrote:David, you might have had a point if I had attributed what you claim to be my depiction (that wasn't quite what I was trying to say, but let's run with it for argument's sake) to the fact that Rebecca is a woman. In fact, I did not, and I would not. You might recall that I was very critical of kissaki for the blind way in which he unthinkingly swallowed down and regurgitated QRS chauvinism, and I knew that he was male - did I ever say anything like "But gee this is strange, because I expect only women to fall submissively into traps like this"? Nope, and nor did I think it.

Nonetheless, Rebecca comes across as a thoughtful person, so to accuse her right off the bat that she has simply "swallowed" the material is, at the very least, highly disrespectful.

In any case, I have little doubt that you are a chauvanist/misogynist. Most people who love women are. You haven't given me any grounds to think otherwise.

Don't you think that the old "it's not us it's you" trick is getting a bit old? I mean, playing it on Victor recently was really just too much.

Come on, mate, get real. Victor is clearly a small-minded fanatic and deserves to be treated as such.

This "it's not us it's you" trick, as you put it, isn't a trick. It is a case of turning the tables and highlighting the very same faults that the trigger-happy accuser - Victor in this case - himself has. It's a very worthwhile activity, if only to bring to the surface the psychology underlying the accuser's own fanaticism.

-

Dan Rowden wrote:Suggesting to anyone that they are merely swallowing "RQS" philosophy in a submissive manner is ad hominem claptrap in and of itself. It's gratuitousness, presumptive, insulting and a poor substitute for argumentation.

Just in case you wanted to know.

Exactly. Only a real woman sucks dick aggressively.

Dan,

Suggesting to anyone that they are merely swallowing "RQS" philosophy in a submissive manner is ad hominem claptrap in and of itself.

RQS? RQS? This is the first time I hear you use that term. Were you trying to come across as a megalomaniac, just for the laughs?

Dan,

Yeah, well, as I mentioned in my parentheses in my last post, that wasn't exactly what I was suggesting anyway (in particular, the word "submissive", which I wouldn't have used) - I was just running along with it for argument's sake. What I actually think is that it's more like some people sometimes come across a new perspective, and it's bold and it's new and it's persuasive and it seems to be consistent, and it makes use of some undeniable truths, and they've noticed some of the things that it points out before, and these people think to themselves "Hmm, yes, this seems to be pretty good", and they start adopting it, not necessarily because they're submissive and easily led (although in some cases that might be true), but because they haven't thought through the counter-examples and opposing perspectives enough to recognise yet how biased it actually is. Sometimes when the biases and opposing perspectives and counter-examples are pointed out to them, they do start to recognise it, as kissaki seemed to in his last post to this forum.

Anyway, I don't substitute suggestions like that for argumentation, I provide plenty of arguments - just ask kissaki. There was a lot in my last substantive post to this thread - the one which Rebecca, for understandable reasons, chose not to respond to.

David,

I agree that Rebecca seems very thoughtful, and I've already acknowledged that I used inappropriate emotional tactics in that post to her (in particular the last two sentences, where I used the word "swallow"). I went a little overboard for rhetorical effect, but you can read my more considered view above.

As for your belief that I'm a chauvinist/misogynist... well, I'm secure enough in myself not to get indignant over it. I've read your arguments before and they don't convince me. I guess homosexual men must hate themselves...

Victor is anything but small-minded and fanatical. Based on my observations, he's not only the most intelligent person on this forum by far, but also the most broadly knowledgeable and original-thinking. You can have a meaningful conversation with him about practically anything, including technical fields. I'm not saying that he's intellectually perfect - he seems to get it wrong from time to time - but to accuse him of being a man of faith is utterly ridiculous.

Shahrazad wrote:Dan,

Suggesting to anyone that they are merely swallowing "RQS" philosophy in a submissive manner is ad hominem claptrap in and of itself.

RQS? RQS? This is the first time I hear you use that term. Were you trying to come across as a megalomaniac, just for the laughs?

I was turning the attachment people have to that acronym on its head; yes, just for the laugh.

guest,

Victor is anything but small-minded and fanatical. Based on my observations, he's not only the most intelligent person on this forum by far, but also the most broadly knowledgeable and original-thinking.

Thanks for letting us know that you are a Victor worshiper / follower.

rebecca702 wrote:ezydriver,

That was a very intriguing post with many good points.

ezydriver wrote:Ergo, no such thing as failure, objectively speaking. [...] Because things do not seem to be going our way, subjectively, does not mean that we have failed, more that individually we are just unfulfilled and are therefore sensitive to a perceived failure due to our egotistical drives, failed expectations, unfulfilled desires, fantasies, ideologies, concepts and delusions.

How do we fail?

Okay, so if I defined success as evolving to use our full human brain capacity, solving many of our animalistic problems, and finding a way to live wisely on this planet - and failure as going extinct, that would still be egotistical, right? Because I'm caring about the survival of ME and not the mold or the virus.

Yes. It is my opinion your definition of success is just that, your opinion, your idea of. My argument against your statement, or idea, is that in your heart you feel as if success is defined as such.
My argument introduces the objective, which, we do not, and cannot know. Apologies for the philosophy 101 here.

Therefore, I would argue the nature of success in the objective sense. I feel that we experience the world collectively, as one consciousness, but subjectively based on our conditioning and expeirences. Such a powerful driving force propels each and every one of us to feel that we're right in our hearts hence ego (I won't discuss the nature of ego, and what it essentially is in this thread) . However, I pose the question, where is our personal consciousness? It is in our heads and I have trouble imagining being outside of my head, outside of my experiences. To do so would render us into nothingness. Our minds are in our heads shaped by past experience, genes and conditioning. Each and every one of us is a unique collection of psychology which differs from the next. Which is why I feel we're all too ideological pertaining to our own ideas of what is right and wrong. Philosophy 101 again, but, there is no such thing as right and wrong, objectively. There just is. What is wrong for one is right for another. The lion eating the deer, the deer eating the vole the vole eating the worm. It is not right or wrong, but just is. It is bad luck for the deer when he got caught by the lion, but it was good luck for him when he caught the vole and so on and so on. Just a model of positive and negative experiences which harbour no meaning.

This is how I feel about our idea of humanity being successful or failing. I believe there is no objective success because the objective has not, and cannot ever be defined unless we really do ask god, existence pending. In which case we're left to our own ideas about an objective success which probably stem form our personal ideas of success because of the power of our hearts, egos and personal consciousness. There is also the unanswerable question of whether god exists and if he does, did he set an objective? Possibly, but we won't know, possibly not. That sits comfortably with me now.

In a sense we all succeed and fail simultaneously bringing about a sense of mutual waiver which gives us 'is' and nothingness.

Also, is it not our egos which feel as if we should be solving our animalistic problems? Based on what I have written, may I ask, what problems? As I have said, what is a problem for one, is a problem solved for another. May the best man win. But dog eat dog does not sit comfortably with the loser. Have we not tried to solve our animalistic 'problems' by trying to egotistically over write our instincts? As if we feel we know better? Has that not messed us up to a point? (although asking that I contradict myself) Has that not removed us even further from nature, our instincts? Is ideology not dangerous? I take my examples and inspiration from animals. They don't think, they just do. They have my respect as they seem to win over humans.

Is it not our weakness which denies the negative and only focuses on the positive? Is that not unnatural? Are we really to assume that positive is the one goal? The universe is scientific, and science works on positive and negative, it is not one sided. In our persuit of the positive we bring about negative and therein lies the paradox making everything perfect as it is. If we suddenly eradicated negative, we'd have anarchy and misalignment. It would be similar to eradicating the negative terminal of a battery and converting it to positive. The battery would cease to work. The specific nature of the battery anology is a small example, but I feel it is representative of the grander principle all around us.

Ying and yang and all that. I do like your ideas and writing and I do hope you don't take my writing as dictation or self righteousness, but more of a personal opinion which probably doesn't count for much overall anyway. It is just my own observation.

Cripes, I'm not suprised I'm single.