GENIUS FORUMS

Iolaus wrote:So how old are you and Dan?

What the fuck is that question about?

David Quinn wrote:What about Shar's numerous statements that she has no real interest on philosophy, that she finds the ideal of Buddhahood boring, and that she hates ambitious men? By rights, she should be perceiving you as a boring, hateful slob!

I think she certainly perceives the ideal of Buddhahood as boring (but then so do most women, of either sex), but I wouldn't go so far as to say she finds the whole of philosophy that way. She certainly has an abiding interest in things like theories of consciousness etc - i.e. the aspects of philosophy that lean slightly to the scientific. The ambitious men thing I didn't really understand. I think she meant a certain form of ambition because she admires philosophic, political ambition, as far as I can tell.

I am quite sure that if she was to experience a more regular level of interaction with me, she would indeed find me a boring slob. Most people do, for obvious reasons. Hateful - not so sure about that. She already knows what I think and doesn't find it hateful, or "QSR" philosophy generally. Oh, perhaps with the exception of your expressed willingness to slaughter babies and old folk :)

David,

What about Shar's numerous statements that she has no real interest on philosophy,

This is not true, David. I like philosophy, and I could have never said I have no interest in it. If you mean that philosophy is not as big a part of my life as it is of Dan's life, then you should have said so, but that would be a different point.

that she finds the ideal of Buddhahood boring,

What I find boring is your ideal of Buddhahood: a man with no sense of humor, and no emotions.

and that she hates ambitious men?

All I said is that their ambition does not impress me, but I could like an ambitious man who had other qualities.

By rights, she should be perceiving you as a boring, hateful slob!

That is not Dan at all. Are you now telling me that I know Dan better than you do? Give me a break.

My dear Shah, I am of course just joshing, and because I am a truly rational soul (one of the few here I might add) I believe I completely understand exactly what you meant when you described qualities you admire in a man.

There are certain...confluences of circumstances...that occur here from time to time...that afford me almost no end of amusement.

It might be compared to, say, a child who dresses up all the chihuahuas on the block in handmade dresses and bonnets and sets them up in the living room to have tea and tea biscuits...

David Quinn wrote:What about Shar's numerous statements that she has no real interest on philosophy, that she finds the ideal of Buddhahood boring, and that she hates ambitious men? By rights, she should be perceiving you as a boring, hateful slob!

-

Wait - is Dan ambitious? Did I miss something?

Dan wrote:

Sue's post was indeed aimed primarily at me.

You have to admit that the question of how any woman could possibly consider you husband material is an interesting one. Your philosophy is deathly to the feminine. But Shah appears to see it as not an important part of who you are. There are a few ways that she could come to that conclusion, but, the one that interests me, and which is of philosophical importance, is your part, if any, in her coming to that conclusion.

Also, Shah gave your name, not the Panamanian leader General Torrijos as the example. And she could well have given his name, as he is a world leader and therefore known to many. But she gave your name. And even if she was just having a tantrum when she wrote of you, are you saying that she doesn't really feel the way she does about you?

Yes, Dan, I think you'll agree, this is an interesting line of questioning - even if you don't need to be "told" anything, the subject is important enough to use this example. And why not use this example?

Shahrazad wrote:

Is it about me? No, not really.

That may well be true, but on the other hand, it may be about you if you are interested in exploring the workings of the feminine mind. But I ask you to remember that it was your post clarifying your position on relationships with men that I responded to. I have at no time, as Elizabeth would have it, “entrapped” you to expose this information. Dan is someone you have said you admire – I’m now exploring the consequences of that admiration.

Now she wants to embarrass Dan in public.

What do you think is in this thread that would embarrass Dan? You can’t believe that it is due to the fact that I’ve repeated what you yourself wrote describing Dan as an example of the type of man you’d allow yourself to fall in love with – because that is exactly what you yourself wrote over on the other thread. And my repeating a post that you had posted is the normal procedure in forum communication.

And my bet is that it takes a lot more than a thread like this to embarrass him. He has gotten out of far more embarrassing situations than this smelling like a rose: he is a master at it.

Why do you think Dan requires to “get out of” embarrassing situations? Would you think less of him if he did not?

She is just using me to ask Dan a question in public that she could've very well asked in private, if curiosity was her only motivating force. I mean, think about it; does she even bring up a single point that I can respond to?

Why would I discuss this with Dan only in private? You bought it up in your post, which makes it public property. And why would you think that your admiration of him needed to be discussed in private?

My “motivation” for exploring the subject of the feminine is as it always is – to expose its obstructive nature to the development of spirituality.

There have been many points you could have responded to, but no matter, here are a couple more that may interest you:

Dan’s work makes clear that the feminine must be constantly fought against if one is to develop spiritually. Is it that you have no interest in developing spiritually that makes you ignore this about him, or is it that you believe his “unflattering view of women” is just a phase he’s going through of which he’ll one day grow out of? Or is it that his philosophy appears in someway macho, and therefore is part of his “manliness” – a quality you find attracting?

Alex,

My dear Shah, I am of course just joshing, and because I am a truly rational soul (one of the few here I might add) I believe I completely understand exactly what you meant when you described qualities you admire in a man.

Thanks. It's good to know somebody understands.

You may also understand something else: that I do not choose the qualities I admire / like. If I did, I would choose to admire assholes, that way I would have millions to choose from, if I ever wanted to have a love affair or something.

There are certain...confluences of circumstances...that occur here from time to time...that afford me almost no end of amusement.

You're not the only one in that boat.

.

brokenhead wrote:

David Quinn wrote:What about Shar's numerous statements that she has no real interest on philosophy, that she finds the ideal of Buddhahood boring, and that she hates ambitious men? By rights, she should be perceiving you as a boring, hateful slob!

-

Wait - is Dan ambitious? Did I miss something?

In the sense of having a desire for philosophical perfection, yes. That's an ambition, isn't it?

Shah wrote:

David: that she finds the ideal of Buddhahood boring,

What I find boring is your ideal of Buddhahood: a man with no sense of humor, and no emotions.

Well David, you're definitely not on Shah's list of eligible bachelors.

But Dan, when did your ideal of Buddhahood become about having a sense of humour and being emotional?

Shah wrote:

Alex: My dear Shah, I am of course just joshing, and because I am a truly rational soul (one of the few here I might add) I believe I completely understand exactly what you meant when you described qualities you admire in a man.

Thanks. It's good to know somebody understands.

You may also understand something else: that I do not choose the qualities I admire / like. If I did, I would choose to admire assholes, that way I would have millions to choose from, if I ever wanted to have a love affair or something.

The fact that a man doesn't perfectly fit a woman's idea of her dream man doesn't really worry her, for from the moment she has him, she begins to overhaul him to suit her. But as Nick described, for her to get hold of him first, he has to provide some way into him - for if he doesn't, she will slid right off.

Sue,

Also, Shah gave your name, not the Panamanian leader General Torrijos as the example. And she could well have given his name, as he is a world leader and therefore known to many. But she gave your name.

I actually do talk a lot about the General, in real life and online, including this very forum. But many of you guys have heard so much about him from me, that you are probably no longer interested. I don't want to bore you with my experiences if you're not. Also, you say he is known to many, but this is a forum mostly made up of Anglo-Saxons, who don't know much about non-Anglo-Saxon leaders. Certainly, the kid I was addressing in my post would not have enough culture / historical knowledge or enough age to know who the General is. However, he knows who Dan is, so I used Dan as an example to answer his question.

-

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Dan wrote:

Sue's post was indeed aimed primarily at me.

You have to admit that the question of how any woman could possibly consider you husband material is an interesting one.

To the extent they do or could, yes, I certainly agree. Seems to me it must have to involve a form of compartmentalisation, which in itself is interesting. But then, how much does it really take for a woman to see a man that way?

Your philosophy is deathly to the feminine.

Indeed, but in my experience most people find the truth of that almost impossible to take on board. So, they essentially ignore it or compartmentalise aspects of it.

But Shah appears to see it as not an important part of who you are.

I think that's mostly because what she experiences of me is a compartmentalised thing of itself. We focus on the things that we value the most and neglect those we don't, don't we?

There are a few ways that she could come to that conclusion, but, the one that interests me, and which is of philosophical importance, is your part, if any, in her coming to that conclusion.

Did you expect that to surprise me? :)

Also, Shah gave your name, not the Panamanian leader General Torrijos as the example.

I'm not sure of the context of this point so I can't tell if it's a meaningful one or not.

And she could well have given his name, as he is a world leader and therefore known to many.

Well, maybe only those with some political knowledge - he's been dead 20 years.

But she gave your name. And even if she was just having a tantrum when she wrote of you, are you saying that she doesn't really feel the way she does about you?

I'm not saying anything specific about that either way. I don't frankly know in any detail, and more than that it doesn't ultimately concern me. Her feelings are her responsibility. That there's something there is not a point I'd argue. You can't argue the obvious.

Yes, Dan, I think you'll agree, this is an interesting line of questioning - even if you don't need to be "told" anything, the subject is important enough to use this example. And why not use this example?

Why not, indeed. Mind you, let's try not to invent things so as to make it so.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Shah wrote:

David: that she finds the ideal of Buddhahood boring,

What I find boring is your ideal of Buddhahood: a man with no sense of humor, and no emotions.

Well David, you're definitely not on Shah's list of eligible bachelors.

But Dan, when did your ideal of Buddhahood become about having a sense of humour and being emotional?

I wasn't aware it had. What sense of humour or emotion I have has no relationship whatever to my ideal of Buddhahood, it only has relation to my not having attained it. I'm sure you appreciate that certain traits I exhibit that I consider flaws, women will likely consider virtues, however many times I attempt to disavow them of such a notion. Indeed, the feminine minded see flaws as virtues in and of themselves, because it lets them off the hook in terms of ideality and it also allows for the minimisation of suffering in that context. Keep in mind, that Shah's life philosophy is, in part, the minimisation of suffering. Unfortunately, that involves developing cognitive techniques rather than trying to get to the root of the problem, but that's a very common dynamic. How many people do you know that can resist a seemingly more direct path that doesn't involve suffering along the way? One has to have a very particular disposition to choose suffering as a means to an end, when the option for a relatively workable end is right there in the aforementioned techniques.

Dan wriggles:

"Why not, indeed. Mind you, let's try not to invent things so as to make it so."

Like the endless flowers and the chocolate. Woo-hoo! Things are steamin' up round here...

Sue, who gets no Valentines, writes:

"Dan’s work makes clear that the feminine must be constantly fought against if one is to develop spiritually. Is it that you have no interest in developing spiritually that makes you ignore this about him, or is it that you believe his “unflattering view of women” is just a phase he’s going through of which he’ll one day grow out of? Or is it that his philosophy appears in someway macho, and therefore is part of his “manliness” – a quality you find attracting?"

You have so internalized this first assertion, but you could very well be wrong. And you could be very wrong.

The second assertion is also quite possibly false. But of course the whole platform you are establishing is built on a silly ground, insofar as Shah described qualities she admired, and located them in a person. You make this into something it isn't.

In terms of a 'phase being gone through', from my perspective I would most certainly hope so. One is entitled to one's faith. Any philosophy that calls so...evangelically...for a complete break with the female of the species is pretty much doomed from the start. Any people that get so invested in a mental trip that they'd create a thread to expose someone's possible faltering on the path of chastity and woman-aversion, most likely have some pretty serious problems.

Ok, addressing the original context of Sue's "investigation":

Shahrazad wrote:The same way I do now: I assess his intelligence, sense of humor, self-esteem, confidence, manliness, values, compassion, just to name a few things. Just for you to get a rough idea: I don't need a man in my life right now, but if I ever decided to let one in, it would be a man like Dan Rowden. He has the qualities I value.

I hadn't actually read this before, but it's clear enough that what Shah is saying she would accept is a flawed Dan Rowden. That's pretty understandable - my flaws are hellishly cute. However, since I have every intention of working my way past them, I will, of necessity, at some point cease to exhibit a couple of those listed traits and therefore cease to be a person that fits Shah's set of criteria.

Now, Sue, while we're on the path of this kind of analysis - why do you think the women in your social circle value or desire your company? I know you're a kick-arse socialite, but is that it in a nutshell?

Sue,

Why would I discuss this with Dan only in private?

Because Dan doesn’t like drama very much, and neither does David Quinn. I mean, the Brothel was closed for being too worldly. And all you wanted to ask Dan was a simple personal question. Do the rest of the posters really want to know the answer?

You bought it up in your post, which makes it public property. And why would you think that your admiration of him needed to be discussed in private?

I’m ok with that, but is that what you really want to know about? I don’t think so.

Dan’s work makes clear that the feminine must be constantly fought against if one is to develop spiritually. Is it that you have no interest in developing spiritually that makes you ignore this about him, or is it that you believe his “unflattering view of women” is just a phase he’s going through of which he’ll one day grow out of? Or is it that his philosophy appears in someway macho, and therefore is part of his “manliness” – a quality you find attracting?

No to all three questions.

Well David, you're definitely not on Shah's list of eligible bachelors.

So now that that is settled, am I off the hook with you?

But Dan, when did your ideal of Buddhahood become about having a sense of humour and being emotional?

Nobody said it was. But I see no reason why a Buddha cannot have either. Of course, I'm open to the idea that David is right.

The fact that a man doesn't perfectly fit a woman's idea of her dream man doesn't really worry her, for from the moment she has him, she begins to overhaul him to suit her.

This does not apply to me at all. If I can’t accept the way a man is right now, he’s not for me. I don’t try to change people into something they are not. And I would expect him to have the same consideration with me.


Dan,

Well, maybe only those with some political knowledge - he's been dead 20 years.

You’ve never been too good at math. We’re having a memorial of the 27th anniversary at the end of this month. And do keep in mind, he's only dead in the physical sense. As long as his ideas and influence are still alive, he has immortality in my book. "A missile cannot be made that can destroy an ideal". You have two guesses regarding who said that.

-

Shah writes:

"You may also understand something else: that I do not choose the qualities I admire / like. If I did, I would choose to admire assholes, that way I would have millions to choose from, if I ever wanted to have a love affair or something."

I think I understand. I think too we have our 'muses', our Beatrices if you will. There is a woman I see when I go to a certain restaurant to eat breakfast (I am in the states right now). She has such an upright, virtuous demeaner. She reminds me of a line from a Dylan song where he remebers a love from his youth who 'wanted a whole man, not just a half' (Sweetheart like you). She seems like she actually has some real values, something she holds to, something that she can't be swayed from. I realized that I have not in months and months and maybe years and years felt that I had contact with a woman of this calibre. But then I also thought that it could be projection: If I am seeing this, it is most likely I am aspiring toward those values.

There was a time when one's muse, one's ideal, was a source of life-long inspiration, but in the mass-culture era everyone seems so...fallen.

Shahrazad wrote:

Well David, you're definitely not on Shah's list of eligible bachelors.

So now that that is settled, am I off the hook with you?

My flawed sense of humour found that pretty funny.

Dan wrote:

Sue: But Shah appears to see it as not an important part of who you are.

I think that's mostly because what she experiences of me is a compartmentalised thing of itself. We focus on the things that we value the most and neglect those we don't, don't we?

That's true. Even when something is continuously shoved in front of your face, most people have strong enough fortresses to be able to ignore it. But they are more difficult to ignore when a truth finds its way through those fortresses and cuts deeply into the core. Then people truly suffer.

David: What about Shar's numerous statements that she has no real interest on philosophy, that she finds the ideal of Buddhahood boring, and that she hates ambitious men? By rights, she should be perceiving you as a boring, hateful slob!

I am quite sure that if she was to experience a more regular level of interaction with me, she would indeed find me a boring slob. Most people do, for obvious reasons. Hateful - not so sure about that. She already knows what I think and doesn't find it hateful, or "QSR" philosophy generally. Oh, perhaps with the exception of your expressed willingness to slaughter babies and old folk :)

Yes, the idea of slaughtering babies and old folk usually brings out quite a bit of protesting. Why it does is because it is unthinkable to be that cold hearted. But, of course, that is exactly what truth is - cold hearted. Your work mostly has that cold hearted edge to it, but obviously not cold hearted enough to pierce through Shah's fortress. But it may be that nothing ever will.

Now, Sue, while we're on the path of this kind of analysis - why do you think the women in your social circle value or desire your company? I know you're a kick-arse socialite, but is that it in a nutshell?

My women friends just think I'm mad - which makes life easy for all concerned. My men friends consider me a strange fruit, being either tart or sweet with each consecutive bite.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:My men friends consider me a strange fruit, being either tart or sweet with each consecutive bite.

First she complains about Sher and Dan, visualizing some kind of spousal relationship, then she goes on about her men friends nibbling on her... Maybe it's true what they say about women getting extra horny when they hit 50...

It is more than just your men friends who consider you a bit fruity.

Sue,

Your friends must be mad to desire the company of a person they think of as mad. 'Tis a strange world. But then, you knew that.

Dan Rowden wrote:

Shahrazad wrote:

Well David, you're definitely not on Shah's list of eligible bachelors.

So now that that is settled, am I off the hook with you?

My flawed sense of humour found that pretty funny.

Thereby flattering Shah's feminine perspective .....

-

David, so maybe Dan should stop showing us his flawed side, such that the feminine-minded like me do not like him? If most people don't like him, will that motivate him to reach perfection quicker?

I don't think that's your motivation though, is it.