GENIUS FORUMS

Iolaus wrote:the whole evolutionary paradigm is nonsense

Can you explain why you believe this?

Iolaus wrote:In my view, the duality, the yin-yang, reaches to almost the highest tier of reality. Our entire universe/world is built upon the positive negative, or masculine feminine forces.

I suppose that you could conceptualise it that way if you wanted to. I'm not really sure about extending masculinity and femininity beyond living creatures though.

Iolaus wrote:But if I am correct about the functioning of the duality in reality creation, then it might indeed be necessary to denote pure consciousness to one gender, and pure materiality/malleability to the other.

We can then call mind male, and the body female. This means that existence itself is ultimately female, and that which makes life worth living, is the gift of the masculine force.

I don't really see the need for the split to be based on consciousness though, because as far as I can tell, men and women are relatively equally conscious (maybe in slightly different ways though) - perhaps active/receptive would be a better split if that's the way that you want to go about it.

David Quinn wrote:In other words, you don't really know how far masculinity extends beyond the sexual realm.

Masculinity is a description of a set of qualities that are most associated with men. The extent that I know about masculinity is the extent to which I've observed men's and women's behaviour. I wouldn't claim to know everything that there is to know about masculinity - far from it - but I'll try to explain my point. For a start: if there were no women, then all behaviours would be masculine, and hence the term would lose its meaning, since we might as well simply call it "humanity". Since there are women, we can divide behaviours into the two classes masculinity and femininity. So masculinity and femininity are necessarily interrelated by the fact that they each lay claim to a subset of human behaviour. Furthermore: human beings are created through sexual reproduction, spend most of their time in societies comprised of both men and women, and typically seek intimate relationships with members of the opposite sex from at least adolescence onwards and in some cases even earlier. In other words, men and women are constantly relating to one another at almost every stage of life. So my case is twofold: that masculinity and femininity are necessarily interrelated, and that the primary characteristics of those two categories lie in the (sexual) relationships between men and women.

Now, if you want to assert that there are other aspects to masculinity beyond the sexual, then I'm willing to entertain the idea, so please feel free to hit me with some examples.

David Quinn wrote:

guest_of_logic wrote:

David Quinn wrote:It's curious that you don't object to Anna's elevation of the feminine to the serving of life and her downgrading of the masculine to being the feminine's help mate.

Yes, it's curious to me in hindsight, too. Basically it's because I didn't want to pick nits with her otherwise excellent post. If I were to address that point in the light of the emphasis that you've given it, I would say that both masculine and feminine are devoted to the equal serving of life, and to the extent that the masculine "serves the female", the feminine likewise "serves the male", so that it's no big deal in the end - Anna has simply emphasised one end of the bargain, which is natural given that the other end is usually emphasised even more on this forum.

If I might be allowed to imagine it from Anna's perspective (and let her please tell me if I am wrong), I would guess that what she is saying is that the feminine - through childrearing, etc - is more explicitly involved with life itself than the masculine, which is more involved with moulding external forms - and, given that life is all of our concern - that the masculine is essentially a support unit for the feminine.

Let me put it in simple terms: the woman births the child and nurtures it; the man "serves" her by building the structures that support that child and its welfare and education whilst the woman performs this vital role.

Yes, that is most likely what Anna was talking about.

It is pure fantasy, of course. A woman contributes very little to the creation and birth of a child. For example, she doesn't consciously reach inside her and put together the child out of the amino acids that are swirling around down there. Nature does it all for her. She barely has to do a thing. Her only noteworthy contribution is laying down and spreading her legs at each end of the process. And even that is very passive.

Consciously, she is no closer to the creation of the child than her husband is.

Forgive me, but it seems to me that you've indulged in a straw-man here. Neither I nor Anna wrote nor implied that a woman creates life consciously in the same way that a factory worker assembles a computer. That's not the point. The point is simply that women are more closely associated with the process of creating and nurturing new life than men are, given that they are the ones with wombs and breasts, and the associated natural skills.

David Quinn wrote:

guest_of_logic wrote:

David Quinn wrote:That is certainly true for those whose masculinity doesn't extend beyond the realm of sexuality and relationships. But there is no law that says we have to define ourselves by other people's lack of purpose and vision.

Which, from one perspective, is a refutation of the QRS view of women, isn't it? None of us should have to define ourselves by the "lack of purpose and vision" that holds to such a childish and unrealistic version of masculinity and femininity as the dichotomy between spiritual consciousness and unconsciousness (talking about lack of purpose and vision, anyway).

But you don't really know whether it is a childish and unrealistic version since, by your own admission, you only know about the kind of masculinity that is esconsed in the sexual realm.

It's a very narrow definition that you've got going. That's one reason that makes it unrealistic. It's childish because in its narrowness it simultaneously implements a definitive bias against femininity, whereas a mature view of the matter would at least admit to the strengths of femininity, rather that to simply emphasise what you perceive as its weaknesses.

David Quinn wrote:

guest_of_logic wrote:

I'm wondering what is motivating you to force these arbitrary limits upon the masculine.

They're not arbitrary, they're what I observe occurring in my family and in the families of those around me whom I consider to be balanced and healthy groups.

What you happened to have arbitrarily experienced in your local area? Are we to conclude, then, that it is a case of your own small horizons creating these limits?

Oh, well I should add that my observations of course extend far further than what I mentioned, those are just the most significant observations that I've made. I live in a society - I see masculinity and femininity expressed every day, in friends, strangers, films, books, online, etc.

Guest,

the whole evolutionary paradigm is nonsense

Can you explain why you believe this?

Nah. I've learned that it is futile, although it is a big interest of mine. Every once in a while I point it out so that people will know me better, as Alex says, to 'show up.'

I suppose that you could conceptualise it that way if you wanted to. I'm not really sure about extending masculinity and femininity beyond living creatures though.

Male and female are but one iteration of an ever-repeating pattern that allows the universe to unfold.

I don't really see the need for the split to be based on consciousness though, because as far as I can tell, men and women are relatively equally conscious (maybe in slightly different ways though) - perhaps active/receptive would be a better split if that's the way that you want to go about it.

As to whether men have an advantage in consciousness, I am not sure, because I do think that what they are aware of is different, and that which most appeals to one's own awareness will seem more important. For example, one of the TBs here used to mock women for being fond of poodles and babies. Yet I think this is one area that women have a distinct consciousness advantage that is directly spiritual. They love little living things and babylike things because of their biology and brains, sure, but that is also because their brains are better equipped for them to see the value of these beings, which means that they see the ultimate reality of these beings - that the consciousness inside of them is real as their own. And I believe that this is the main spiritual blockage of our ego bound state - that we are quite aware of our own real subjective existence, but quite a lot less aware of the reality of someone else's. Women are notoriously more squeamish about performing acts of cruelty, and more likely to defend an animal against such. And this is also where I fault them for not living up to their gender role of putting a halt to the worst cruelties and offenses of the men.

But if it is true that the yin-yang is the fundament of the manifested universe, and perhaps the unmanifest as well, then we have the basic of consciousness and unconsciousness. The likely candidate for unconsciousness is the material. It would be a problem if it weren't so. Because the nonconscious must be totally malleable and without will. So far as I can see, nonbiologic things have this property, and living things all possess will. Women are more receptive, and more bound to the body at least in some ways, and so they tend to be equated with the bodily part of our lives. But without that there be a passive element, there is nothing for the active to work upon, so its very existence is negated.

Women might be put in the class of nonconsciousness if you were to make a long list of yin and yang attributes, in which the female is always included with the set of cold, passive, darkness and so on, and the male with light, active and heat.
But a human being is a far cry from a rock, and it seems likely that their consciousness can be developed as can a man's. I am not sure they have had good guidance, though, since men took over religion about 2-4,000 years ago and ousted the female role models.

Iolaus wrote:[Women]love little living things and babylike things because of their biology and brains, [my italics]

Garbage. I'm biologically female with a female-sexed brain, but I don't love little living things and babylike things.

So your conclusion that women are, by gift of their biology, free of the main spiritual blockage is also garbage.

Pretty much everything she says is garbage, Kelly.

I am a little surprised you haven't picked up on that by now.

I'm biologically female with a female-sexed brain

Are you saying this because you undertook some form of test to determine your brain-sex?
As you desire mental masculinity so very much, I just wonder if that bolded comment is true.

It is hard to tell. As desiring masculinity can either be a case of desiring what one doesn't have, as in desiring an opposite that can be used to form a unity, or it can be a case of the natural accommodation of likenesses, as in individual H2O molecules forming into a quantity of water.

When you used to have females partners - were you the more dominant partner?

Jamesh wrote:

I'm biologically female with a female-sexed brain

Are you saying this because you undertook some form of test to determine your brain-sex?
As you desire mental masculinity so very much, I just wonder if that bolded comment is true.

I was talking about the physiological makeup of the brain, not psychology. Anna Oleynik's underlying point is - if an individual can see value in insignificant things, they see their ultimate reality. But valuing lowly things has nought to do with seeing ultimate reality. It is more likely to be from feeling strong and in control, around the powerless and weak. That has to do with psychology, not biology per se, as Anna believes.

I think Anna believes the main spiritual blockage is valuing oneself, more highly than other things. Her conclusion is that those who value other things more than themselves do not have this problem. She equates the submissiveness of women with valuing other things more than themselves. Yet, as I showed above, this is likely to be from feeling powerful among the vulnerable. We all know how powerful Mother Theresa was and still is - and she was constantly kowtowing and blessing people.

It is hard to tell. As desiring masculinity can either be a case of desiring what one doesn't have, as in desiring an opposite that can be used to form a unity,

Females such as Anna is speaking about fit into this case. They desire masculinity whenever they wish to sell their femininity more widely: they enhance it by displaying it more self-assuredly, and imaginatively. This isn't more than a watered-down version of masculinity, and is therefore a mockery of same. Mother Theresa probably had enough cunning to know how to present the appearance of being attractively humble and submissive. It was extremely successful in conquering millions of people - yet no intelligent person could call her cult of suffering a sign of wisdom.

or it can be a case of the natural accommodation of likenesses, as in individual H2O molecules forming into a quantity of water.

You mean, when the flame of consciousness starts to burn like a wildfire, destroying all feminine thoughts, moods, and actions?

When you used to have females partners - were you the more dominant partner?

Why you believe the dynamic of having partners isn't within the sphere of femininity is beyond me.

[edited entire post]

Iolaus wrote:As to whether men have an advantage in consciousness, I am not sure, because I do think that what they are aware of is different, and that which most appeals to one's own awareness will seem more important. For example, one of the TBs here used to mock women for being fond of poodles and babies. Yet I think this is one area that women have a distinct consciousness advantage that is directly spiritual. They love little living things and babylike things because of their biology and brains, sure, but that is also because their brains are better equipped for them to see the value of these beings, which means that they see the ultimate reality of these beings - that the consciousness inside of them is real as their own.

That is, quite possibly, the worst piece of reasoning I have ever seen. Even a poodle would be ashamed of it.

-

guest_of_logic wrote:Masculinity is a description of a set of qualities that are most associated with men. The extent that I know about masculinity is the extent to which I've observed men's and women's behaviour. I wouldn't claim to know everything that there is to know about masculinity - far from it - but I'll try to explain my point. For a start: if there were no women, then all behaviours would be masculine, and hence the term would lose its meaning, since we might as well simply call it "humanity".

The men who are left would still have feminine elements to their minds (unless were they perfect Buddhas). I personally measure masculinity in relation to the highest goal open to the human race - namely, full consciousness of ultimate reality. In a world where women were absent, some men would be closer to this goal of full consciousness (and therefore more masculine) and others would be more feminine.

Since there are women, we can divide behaviours into the two classes masculinity and femininity. So masculinity and femininity are necessarily interrelated by the fact that they each lay claim to a subset of human behaviour.

But this is no argument against the idea that a particular subset can be eliminated.

Cannibalism can claim to be a subset of human behaviour, yet it is perfectly possible for the human race to live without it.

Furthermore: human beings are created through sexual reproduction, spend most of their time in societies comprised of both men and women, and typically seek intimate relationships with members of the opposite sex from at least adolescence onwards and in some cases even earlier.

And some grow bored by this and want to move on to a more noble kind of life.

In other words, men and women are constantly relating to one another at almost every stage of life.

You can't lift your gaze to what is possible in life if you keep your focus on what is average.

Now, if you want to assert that there are other aspects to masculinity beyond the sexual, then I'm willing to entertain the idea, so please feel free to hit me with some examples.

Higher expressions of masculinity can be found in art, science and philosophy, in the expression of genius, in which the focus is on achieving great things, without any concern for being praised by the world or impressing women. And the very highest expression is the conquering of all ignorance and becoming truly wise.

guest_of_logic wrote:

David Quinn wrote: It is pure fantasy, of course. A woman contributes very little to the creation and birth of a child. For example, she doesn't consciously reach inside her and put together the child out of the amino acids that are swirling around down there. Nature does it all for her. She barely has to do a thing. Her only noteworthy contribution is laying down and spreading her legs at each end of the process. And even that is very passive.

Consciously, she is no closer to the creation of the child than her husband is.

Forgive me, but it seems to me that you've indulged in a straw-man here. Neither I nor Anna wrote nor implied that a woman creates life consciously in the same way that a factory worker assembles a computer. That's not the point. The point is simply that women are more closely associated with the process of creating and nurturing new life than men are, given that they are the ones with wombs and breasts, and the associated natural skills.

You mean Nature's breasts and wombs. Women have no more ownership of these things than they do of a distant star, or a cloud of electrons. Their relationship to them is tenuous at best.

I have no ownership of my own heart. It beats of its own accord and if it decides to stop there is little I can do about it, except hope that someone will come along and rescue me.

-

guest_of_logic wrote:The point is simply that women are more closely associated with the process of creating and nurturing new life than men are, given that they are the ones with wombs and breasts, and the associated natural skills.

This is really low-level reasoning, more commonly found among uneducated farming families.

Here's a question for members of this forum:

Was puberty a major shock, changing your ideas about yourself?
Was it a minor nuisance and not really a part of yourself?

David Quinn wrote:A woman contributes very little to the creation and birth of a child. For example, she doesn't consciously reach inside her and put together the child out of the amino acids that are swirling around down there. Nature does it all for her. She barely has to do a thing. Her only noteworthy contribution is laying down and spreading her legs at each end of the process.

A responsible woman does consciously gather the right amino acids, vitamins, and minerals to contribute to the creation of a healthy child, along with refraining from things that would be unhealthy ingredients for a child (such as drugs or alcohol) for an extended period of time. The male, on the other hand, only has to choose to make a sperm deposit in a female rather than in the toilet, sheets, or wherever else.

guest_of_logic wrote:The point is simply that women are more closely associated with the process of creating and nurturing new life than men are, given that they are the ones with wombs and breasts, and the associated natural skills.

I have seen some excellent single fathers. Furthermore, there are different kinds of nurturing - some that females are naturally more disposed to, and some that males are naturally more disposed to. Females are better at nurturing through direct and obvious care. Males are better at nurturing through being playful. In earlier stages of fetal development, men's roles as protector/provider were equally important to nurturing as wombs/breasts; it is only aberration and societal malfunction that occasionally turn men from protector to attacker.

guest_of_logic wrote:masculinity and femininity are necessarily interrelated

Agreed. I believe that God is all that exists. Parts of God can be found in different forms, but that does not make one part better or worse than another - although one part may be better suited for a certain task than another. People born without hands can do basically the same things with their feet as we can do with our hands, and can do more with their feet than we can do with ours. Similar to how humans can learn to get along just fine without hands, or without feet - we could learn to get along just fine without one gender or the other. Nevertheless we do best walking on our feet and manipulating things with our hands.

Degrading women for taking care of men is as silly as feet degrading hands for the hands washing the feet when the feet won't wash the hands. Feet could explain that they are better equipped to kick or run away from an attacker, protecting the more delicate hands, while hands debate their skills in self defense - but it is all a rather silly debate. The bigger question is why so many of us continue to engage in a debate once we realize how silly it is.

Kelly Jones wrote:Here's a question for members of this forum:

Was puberty a major shock, changing your ideas about yourself?
Was it a minor nuisance and not really a part of yourself?

Much more of a nuisance than a shock, and certainly not part of what I consider to be my "self" - but the changes were slow enough and pervasive enough that I can neither call it minor. Neither can I really tally what changed as a direct result of puberty. I once enjoyed cliff climbing, and it was very easy for me - but breast development made that too difficult to enjoy anymore. That one was obviously related, but was my loss of sense of direction actually part of changes related to puberty? How about going from math being my strong suit to becoming difficult? Was that puberty, or was it something else? And some brain-sex differences are different from birth, and have nothing to do with puberty. Science still knows far too little about human brain development.

Elizabeth wrote:I believe that God is all that exists. Parts of God can be found in different forms, but that does not make one part better or worse than another - although one part may be better suited for a certain task than another.

Sounds alright so far.

Degrading women for taking care of men is as silly as feet degrading hands for the hands washing the feet when the feet won't wash the hands.

I don't think your analogy works. God is everything, the "body", but the parts aren't in fixed relationships like a human body. God doesn't have a purpose; it isn't suited to any task, nor do its parts operate cooperatively. So while the genders evolved to function together, they are not made to fulfil a purpose.

For instance, masculine psychology, as suited to the task of philosophy, is a new evolutionary form that is to today's biological men what today's human is to a chimpanzee (or perhaps, a mouse).

Reproducing is not a sacred function embedded into a conscious being's physiology. So gender is also not necessarily oriented to reproduction. Make of yourself what you will.

[edited to add mouse]

Kelly Jones wrote:Reproducing is not a sacred function embedded into a conscious being's physiology. So gender is also not necessarily oriented to reproduction. Make of yourself what you will.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Reproducing, or reproduction, is not a sacred function. It is, however, a biological function. Whether or not it is "embedded" is only salient if by that term you mean something other than "is an integral part of." Otherwise, it is indeed embedded in a being's physiology. And psychology, as a conscoius being is aware of his or her potential role in reproducing other conscious beings. It is unquestionably true that anyone can legitimately decide not to engage in reproduction. In this sense, gender is not necessarily oriented to reproduction. But it is true that members of both sexes experience reproductive urges. If reproduction is not desired and yet the satisfaction of the biological urges is, gender plays a huge role in the kind of consequences faced if prophylactic measures are ignored: the babe is stuck with the baby.

Iolaus: And it is ridiculous to think that these little semi-animal beasts, two and three year olds, have so imbibed this culture that they actually refrain from playing according to their inner desires and instead comply with society.

If the knowledge of the gender of a child in vitro causes the female to produce more of the same sex-supporting hormone, then this conditioning takes place far sooner than 2-3 yr. olds. I think it might be more ridiculous to think these children are hatching their characteristics in the vacuum of themselves. These babies we smile at, and teach to smile at us in return, do not come by this naturally. As soon as their facial muscles have sufficiently mimicked what we want, floods of praise and reinforcement come in return. Your infants did not smile at you until you taught them. So, no, I think it's pretty ridiculous to think you are watching some kind of gender-purity taking place in daycare circumstances.

Iolaus: I'm telling you Pye, you are in a losing battle, a no-win, a foolishness and a waste of your time and your life, if you doggedly pursue this fantasy.

Things are going very well, thank you. Much "winning" and no "waste." And here as well, you demonstrate one of the greatest collective failings of feminism (female value-centered thinking): that ideas of womanity become points of tyranny that women perpetrate over one another; that there is really only one way women ought to conduct themselves. Third-wave feminists did this to all women, too, leaving them just as confused and confined as socially conditioned gender-roles did/do. Boo, hiss, Iolaus. Nay-saying gets you what you ask for - nothing.

Iolaus: I have to question whether we can find some sort of 'true' human nature by studying children who have suffered severe neglect, albeit they may have been nurtured by animals.

What you find in this is a distinct lack of what we call human nature. What we think it means to be human is a transcendent idea, set in motion by 1 + 1 + 1 + 1, etc. in social setting. There is no true human nature - that's the whole point! It shall resemble nothing more than what the animal encounters in everyday survival, until by transcendent idea, we think of new configurations to handle that life among others.

Iolaus: Yes, but you see, if the male achieves transcendence while being male, why cannot the female achieve transcendence while being female?

I rather think what we might call 'successful' transcendence has nothing to do with our sexual immanence as its foundation. I imagine a number of what we have called sages might say the same thing. Strikes me that a turning away from ourselves as definitive sexual sub-categories alone, and instead heading toward a transcendent idea of a human ground of being is what has generally been working for folks all along. That, in a nutshell, is what David & Co. have yet to transcend here.

"Truth, Courage, Honesty, Logic, Wisdom, and Perfection" are qualities that women have/can/and do display from time to time. (Rare in dudes, too, yes?) Would that we did not have the "Masculinity" in there to assume one has to possess that as well, in order to engender (ha!) everything else on the list. David has simply taken the best, most valued transcendent human qualities and run off with them into the man-cave.

Iolaus: But I also think that if we waited for women to invent the things that men have invented, that we would be lucky if we had a canoe.

You can't be this stupid. Or rather willfully ignorant. Duh, water; duh, wood-floats; duh, there are some trees over there, etc . . . . Gee, Iolaus, you really are a screaming breed of this kind of feminist; rather misogynistic in your own way.

Alex: I suspect you are around 27-28 (?)

I am 52; no pulling age-rank on me.

I still want to know how Pye is oriented in relation to these questions, and the question is valid, even if she would never answer.

I'm not exactly sure what you want from me regarding psychology, Alex. I'm not too interested in looking at anything through a restricted lens. In my understanding, psychology can only make its observations if it's located a norm to make them against. Surely you get the drift that the "norm" is not what I am here to reinforce?

xerox: No. Merely demonstrating how easy it is to work the wounders of relativist narrative to say nothing.

I don't know what the "No." was for, but your labeling-as-such (wonders of relativist narrative) is going to make you miss important realities about living, breathing, cause-and-effect. The label makes it cased-closed for you (mind-closed, too).

xerox: Its very difficult to understand where you stand on the gender thing, pye.

Perhaps because I am not standing on it?

xerox: My position is that gender psychology is a load of very interesting rubbish that feeds off of and into the big lie of self identity. Its driven by self glorification and self aggrandisement by proxy. Part of that elevation of self comes from the denigration of the other side, manifest thru projected ressentiment. These threads drip in that stuff. Its a bit of a game from what l can see.

In spite of your, shall we say, snotty and frustrated attitude above, you have surely come to see that we are in complete agreement about this?

guest_of_logic: How about "men have general tendencies in this direction, and women have general tendencies in that direction", then?

guest, I am filching a quote from David in this self-same thread to answer you:

You can't lift your gaze to what is possible in life if you keep your focus on what is average.

Do excuse those things I have not managed to address here right now. Time permitting, I'll run through and make another gleaning.

Let me say, though, along the lines of Kelly above, that there is nothing whatever about me that would be traditionally considered - or ever has been considered - in the world at large as "masculine" (and I don't mean David's definition). I have zero of what are considered to be "masculine" physical traits. I am thin/long-boned, fine-featured, "pretty, etc. I do not have a masculine voice or a masculine gait or an 'aggressive' manner or anything in modern parlance considered "dikey." I could not ever, in this sense, be mistaken for a man, or stand as a proving ground of this physical relationship between reason and "masculinity."

oh . . . and, btw, functioning ovaries/hormones. I am not through menopause - I am in it.

And if I am to believe what all the medicos and scientists tell me, I should be experiencing irrationality, emotionalism, bouts of crying & hysteria, loss-of sense of self, little-to-no sex-feelings, and everything else that is put forth by this paradigm.

Instead, attention to living, breathing cause and effect allows me to eat better, exercise/oxygenate my body, think my way through it; create various modes of address. In other words, transcend.

And if I am to believe in an unmovable nature to this paradigm - in a sense succumb to it as a deterministic matter, then I will self-fulfill it. If I am to believe this the unchangeable nature of peri-menopausal women, then I would have to say there is something quite wrong with me, all whilst things are going so very right.

Kelly,

Garbage. I'm biologically female with a female-sexed brain, but I don't love little living things and babylike things.

So your conclusion that women are, by gift of their biology, free of the main spiritual blockage is also garbage.

I am talking about women in general. And you have described yourself as a masculine woman in the past. Furthermore, you have a very strong agenda here and I doubt you would be aware of or admit your maternal tendencies even if you once had them. As to your brain, it is entirely likely that it is masculine. Why do you suppose some people feel like a man in a woman's body and vice versa?

I notice you did not answer Jamesh's question. Were you the more dominant or masculine partner in your lesbian relationships?

Anna Oleynik's underlying point is - if an individual can see value in insignificant things, they see their ultimate reality.

Wow! Now that is reasoning that a poodle would not be foolish enough to produce.
So now the inner consciousness of the highest product of 'evolution' - human beings and mammals are insignificant. Tell me, what is more significant in this universe, that you know of, than human consciousness?

(That for you who most likely does not believe there is a higher consciousness.)

Was puberty a major shock, changing your ideas about yourself?
Was it a minor nuisance and not really a part of yourself?

I was mad and it was unwelcome.

That is, quite possibly, the worst piece of reasoning I have ever seen. Even a poodle would be ashamed of it.

Generally, people treat one another badly, and they could not possibly do it unless they fail to see the real inner being. The more one sees it, the less one can perform heinous acts. That is why people are far more likely to hurt strangers and need to downgrade the humanity of their enemies. Assuming in an intellectual way that other creatures or humans have an inner being is not the same as truly experiencing the reality of it. Women respond more readily to the inner being of others. Girls can be more emotionally cruel, though. But they are not liked for it among other females.

Elisabeth,

The bigger question is why so many of us continue to engage in a debate once we realize how silly it is.

I agree with all you said and was actually hoping for something a little different than this. But some of it is useful.

Pye,

If the knowledge of the gender of a child in vitro causes the female to produce more of the same sex-supporting hormone, then this conditioning takes place far sooner than 2-3 yr. olds. I think it might be more ridiculous to think these children are hatching their characteristics in the vacuum of themselves. These babies we smile at, and teach to smile at us in return, do not come by this naturally. As soon as their facial muscles have sufficiently mimicked what we want, floods of praise and reinforcement come in return. Your infants did not smile at you until you taught them. So, no, I think it's pretty ridiculous to think you are watching some kind of gender-purity taking place in daycare circumstances.

I know what I saw. I never said that there was no acculturation at all, but 2 and 3-year olds have not have basic instincts and interests stamped out of them, and certainly not by liberal parents who abhor pressuring them. And how do you account for the masculine-brained girl or the feminine-brained boy who manage to keep the wrong interests and drives year after year after year?

Things are going very well, thank you. Much "winning" and no "waste."

But I never said you would be aware of the waste. People can dedicate their whole lives to false ideas.
And they can even win! Look at Richard Dawkins.

And here as well, you demonstrate one of the greatest collective failings of feminism (female value-centered thinking): that ideas of womanity become points of tyranny that women perpetrate over one another; that there is really only one way women ought to conduct themselves.

Perhaps they are just reacting to rhetoric they find false. But I have clearly said that I don't agree with putting people's lives into boxes. What I do disagree with, is encouraging women to live up to an ideal which doesn't really exist, at the sacrifice of what might be a truer satisfaction. And when someone denigrates motherhood, it raises red flags for me.

What do you recommend I read on the feral topic? Are there any articles on line?

I rather think what we might call 'successful' transcendence has nothing to do with our sexual immanence as its foundation.

Well, it is difficult to know what you mean by this. It would seem that our immanence IS our foundation. And we are men and we are women.

Strikes me that a turning away from ourselves as definitive sexual sub-categories alone, and instead heading toward a transcendent idea of a human ground of being is what has generally been working for folks all along.

Well, yes, for those who attain a great amount of transcendence, depending on what kind you mean, their roles as sexual beings might fade into the background.

That, in a nutshell, is what David & Co. have yet to transcend here.

I think they would disagree with that.

"Truth, Courage, Honesty, Logic, Wisdom, and Perfection" are qualities that women have/can/and do display from time to time.

They certainly have, regardless of the gender roles their society promotes. I read a nice anthropology book about the Bedouin, who are tribal overlayed by Islam, and they have an open admiration and encouragement of these masculine characteristics - and they do think men excel at them - but this masculine ideal is also held by the women as something to strive for, which seems good to me.

David has simply taken the best, most valued transcendent human qualities and run off with them into the man-cave.

Yes.

Iolaus: But I also think that if we waited for women to invent the things that men have invented, that we would be lucky if we had a canoe.


You can't be this stupid. Or rather willfully ignorant. Duh, water; duh, wood-floats; duh, there are some trees over there, etc . . . . Gee, Iolaus, you really are a screaming breed of this kind of feminist; rather misogynistic in your own way.

I'm really sorry. Maybe they would invent the canoe, maybe they invented agriculture, maybe they invented medicine, but I do not think women have the interest to invent much, especially deep structural things,and may not be capable of creating civilization. And maybe they should not be expected to, because of their relative lack of freedom. But they do have enough freedom for more of them to have invented and taken an interest in things, yet they have not. Women are just not driven to do the things that men do.

On the other hand, I am not sure tribal people can create civilization either, since I think ours was jump-started by more advanced beings, from either space or someplace on earth.

...

brokenhead wrote:Reproducing, or reproduction, is not a sacred function. It is, however, a biological function.

Biology argument:
Sex is in our cells, but we're not going to die if we don't use our sexuality.

members of both sexes experience reproductive urges.

Psychology argument:
A conscious sexual organism (a person with sex) that has no interest at all in reproducing will not experience reproductive urges.

If reproduction is not desired and yet the satisfaction of the biological urges is, gender plays a huge role in the kind of consequences faced if prophylactic measures are ignored: the babe is stuck with the baby.

Can you put this more simply? I don't know what you mean here.

Pye wrote:Instead, attention to living, breathing cause and effect allows me to eat better, exercise/oxygenate my body, think my way through it; create various modes of address. In other words, transcend.

I'm interested in exploring this idea of trascendance you have.

You write:

if I am to believe in an unmovable nature to this paradigm [hysteria in menopause] ... then I will self-fulfill it.

Fine, you wish to resist the norm. You're unusual for a female. Can we take it you mean, by transcendance, thinking for yourself, and "transcending the animal realm of blind belief"....?

Strikes me that a turning away from ourselves as definitive sexual sub-categories alone, and instead heading toward a transcendent idea of a human ground of being is what has generally been working for folks all along. That, in a nutshell, is what David & Co. have yet to transcend here.

Speaking for myself only, I'm more interested in transcending the delusion that there is a human ground of being.

"Truth, Courage, Honesty, Logic, Wisdom, and Perfection" are qualities that women have/can/and do display from time to time. (Rare in dudes, too, yes?)

Rare in just about everybody. Women can display those qualities, but only if they cast off their timidity, daintiness, and concern over how they display. Which is why women haven't and don't. They're not interested in essence, but only in manifestation. Why would they? It'd get them nowhere they want to go.

Would that we did not have the "Masculinity" in there to assume one has to possess that as well, in order to engender (ha!) everything else on the list. David has simply taken the best, most valued transcendent human qualities and run off with them into the man-cave.

It'd be definitely unfair of David to do so, if women (of both sexes) had a habit of going for the jugular. But they're more concerned in looking and sounding like pretty youthful lassies.

Anna, although she appears quite a New Age lassie, is more masculine than yourself. She doesn't express herself using academic fal-di-lals. She goes for the essence more. She's a fighter, or rather, her whinging has more fight.

Kelly Jones wrote:

brokenhead wrote:If reproduction is not desired and yet the satisfaction of the biological urges is, gender plays a huge role in the kind of consequences faced if prophylactic measures are ignored: the babe is stuck with the baby.

Can you put this more simply? I don't know what you mean here.

Yes.

If you want to fuck but you don't want kids, it is important for the girl to take charge of birth control, since she's the one that would get pregnant.

Iolaus wrote:

Garbage. I'm biologically female with a female-sexed brain, but I don't love little living things and babylike things. So your conclusion that women are, by gift of their biology, free of the main spiritual blockage is also garbage.

I am talking about women in general.

You seem to be saying that biological females generally love babylike things, mostly because of their biology. I am saying that it is mostly because of their psychology. It is not so easy to separate biology from psychology, but I'm doing so for a reason.

And you have described yourself as a masculine woman in the past.

I am masculine psychologically. I am more satisfied by thinking and depth of character. You are masculine psychologically as well, but less than me because you don't like thinking much at all. You don't tend to push your reasoning, though you persevere in pushing your agenda on others. We both have female sexed brain and cells - so our primary and secondary sex characters are female. But your tertiary and quaternary sex characters are much more feminine than mine.

Furthermore, you have a very strong agenda here

Yes, to become as wise as possible, and help others to be wise. Nothing wrong with that.

and I doubt you would be aware of or admit your maternal tendencies even if you once had them.

I recreated my feminine tendencies and made them male. So I cultivate reason, patience, and wisdom, with great care and deep love, like a mother might look after a baby.

As to your brain, it is entirely likely that it is masculine. Why do you suppose some people feel like a man in a woman's body and vice versa?

Since you asked about myself directly, and for the purpose of removing any mystery surrounding masculinisation, or masculinity, I'm willing to talk about myself.

It's possible that my brain is somewhat more male in sex, but I think that is not entirely likely. Also, my testosterone level in 2005 was the same as 75% of other females.

What really happened is that Nature conspired to discourage me crossing-over into womanhood.

Here is my mostly boring story:
I grew up in the country, which encouraged me to be self-sufficient; I had two brothers closer to my age who were my play-mates; my elder sister - the eldest - was encouraged early in life to cross-over out of her natural boyishness, turning her into an upset, confused person, and not nice to be around; my mother was as intellectually flaccid as a lettuce; by contrast, my father was inventive, self-reliant, and gave the household a structure; and I loved classical music. So I was attracted to masculinity. But I also played with dolls, experimented with face-paint, sometimes wore 70s Indian chemises, had long hair, took singing lessons, played moody classical-romantic piano music, and was encouraged to babysit or care for children in our Baptist church community, all of which I enjoyed. I did barely any sciences at school, though I enjoyed what I did do. I was encouraged towards more girlish scholastic pursuits like music, languages, art, drama, and the like. I was discouraged to learn how engines work, or to do horrible chores like chopping the firewood on a freezing winter's night, or to operate machinery, or to fix the electric fence, or to ride my motorbike on the road illegally. Of these things I was rather oblivious, and vaguely grateful to avoid. So I was brought up as a boy-girl, and I was essentially a girl on a farm. Anyone who grows up on a farm knows the power of thought to be much greater than physical force - but the exhausting work usually deadens that knowledge. Because I wasn't forced to do that hard physical work, my knowledge remained alive. Being around dumb animals also stimulates an appreciation for levels of consciousness; perhaps it was this that encouraged me to veer away from having friends (physical association), and more to admiring a few of the other intellectual loners from afar (who were male!).

So Nature kept drawing me towards more masculine preferences. At university, I lived at a women's college and found the frivolity and nonsense not to my liking. I was overjoyed to move out, and be accepted into an alternative share-house of eight mature persons - lesbians, free-thinkers, teachers, DIYers. I felt at home among these mildly eccentric people, among the outspoken and mentally lively. I was attracted to individuals with character (not merely unusual ideas and appearances). I also learnt around this time that I was totally alone in the world, meaning, no one is remotely interested in whether I live or die. That was a big knowledge, which sharpened my ability to judge value. If I found a person as unsentimental and cynical as myself, and yet remained cheerful, energetic, philosophical, and truthful, I was immediately drawn to them. I found a few women like this, but it was mostly populated by men. Around this time (I was about 26), I encountered the Genius Forum, via Rhett Hamilton. Rhett was beginning to stand on his two feet about masculinity, and his ideas flowed on to influence my thoughts on the differences between the sexes. This is all just to explain that I've never felt like a man in a woman's body. Nature just kept forcing me to grow.

I notice you did not answer Jamesh's question. Were you the more dominant or masculine partner in your lesbian relationships?

One last personal account.

I could never have a relationship with a woman. I'll explain why. One loves because one idealises. Being more of an intellectual person, my idealisations of women were of mental things to be admired from afar - not physical lusts. I intuitively knew my idealisations to be fantasies - idyllic dreams. But with all these women, my dreams were too rapidly destroyed by experiencing the disenchanting reality to be able to sustain any love. They didn't have enough brains, substance, character, vision. In other words, not masculine enough. By extreme contrast, I was able to sustain admiration of at least three men, long enough to be happy to learn more - so Nature fed me more masculinity through these few relationships. I think the reason I was never ensnared in a relationship for long was because of that knowledge of mine: no one is authentically interested in whether I live or die. It has been easy for me to see that the love anyone has for another is only for their own dreams.

Anna Oleynik's underlying point is - if an individual can see value in insignificant things, they see their ultimate reality.

So now the inner consciousness of the highest product of 'evolution' - human beings and mammals are insignificant. Tell me, what is more significant in this universe, that you know of, than human consciousness?

Are you asking me why I don't believe a baby human being has the same level of consciousness as an adult?

(That for you who most likely does not believe there is a higher consciousness.)

That there are different levels of consciousness, is strongly evident.

Was puberty a major shock, changing your ideas about yourself? Was it a minor nuisance and not really a part of yourself?

I was mad and it was unwelcome.

Interesting. Do you think your sense of self changed because of puberty?

Anna to David wrote:Generally, people treat one another badly, and they could not possibly do it unless they fail to see the real inner being. The more one sees it, the less one can perform heinous acts. That is why people are far more likely to hurt strangers and need to downgrade the humanity of their enemies. Assuming in an intellectual way that other creatures or humans have an inner being is not the same as truly experiencing the reality of it. Women respond more readily to the inner being of others. Girls can be more emotionally cruel, though. But they are not liked for it among other females.

More poodle-thinking.

By "inner being", and what you earlier referred to as "their ultimate reality", you are referring to personality and character, and not to Ultimate Reality.

There are two ways to answer your statement.

1. You're not talking about understanding Ultimate Reality. So your conclusion that women do not experience the main spiritual blockage of the ego, is still garbage, since you're not talking about spirituality at all.

2. No one can appreciate a person's personality and character, unless they understand that person's values and ideas. The substance of a person is what they really think is true. For that, intellectual insight is needed. So even here, women cannot respond readily to the inner being of others, unless they have a strong intellect. But as is strongly evident, women are body-people. They identify with their physical bodies, not with their thoughts.

Notice how young boys love zooming around the place on BMX bikes? Their brains are connected with everything: they are everything and very close to the intuitive experience of enlightenment. But the girls are afraid of being hurt: they are a little part in the centre of the world, fixed and constrained - the ego.

Pye did a nice job of showing that biology does not have as much power as psychology and thinking. That's unusual, and more power to her. No thinking person would be so fatalistic as to be determined by their biology.

KJ

brokenhead wrote:If you want to fuck but you don't want kids, it is important for the girl to take charge of birth control, since she's the one that would get pregnant.

This isn't relevant to the topic, namely, that how one chooses to behave in regards to one's sexuality is driven more by psychology, than biology.

Shahrazad wrote:beingof1,

Is your real name David? Because Alex was obviously talking to David when he made that post. But not you; David Quinn.

I know.

Being:
In the past,( I think a year or so ago) what looked like I was being rude to you was actually a much larger issue at stake and you just happened to walk in the middle of it and asked me to identify myself.

Shahrazad:
I wish I could remember that. I may have Alzheimer's already. Or maybe it's just as good that I forgot.

I did enjoy our short conversation about the Aramaic translation of the NT at the other forum.

I have no recollection of that either. What forum was that? Worldly Matters?

You are right, it was someone else who had a similar screename as you. It was two conversations a couple of years ago and I thought it was you.

What is your favorite NT translation?

I enjoy the Aramaic very much. For English translations, I would say, the best I have ever read (other than my own) was done by Kenneth Wuest but that is very hard to find.

A really good solid translation that stays true to the text, as much as you can with English, would be the Amplified Version.

Kelly Jones wrote:

brokenhead wrote:If you want to fuck but you don't want kids, it is important for the girl to take charge of birth control, since she's the one that would get pregnant.

This isn't relevant to the topic, namely, that how one chooses to behave in regards to one's sexuality is driven more by psychology, than biology.

You did ask.

Being,

You are right, it was someone else who had a similar screename as you. It was two conversations a couple of years ago and I thought it was you.

Don't rule it out yet. It may have been me.

-

Kenneth Wuest Titles

Which work of Wuest are you referring to? And have you yet forgiven me? ;-) (If you uncheck '1973' you will see all his various books. If you choose least expensive editions it will show you the cheapest versions. The $1.00 a book booksellers usually charge $4-6 for shipping so they make a little more and that is how they survive. They are called 'penny-booksellers'.

[This has been a public service announcement from Alex Jacob, perfidious Jew, and who yet loves y'all with Judeo-Christian love, Love, 'love' and luv].