GENIUS FORUMS

MKFaizi wrote:Perhaps, you are projecting your own bitterness on me.

I recommend that you give up the amateur psychology.

Perhaps I am. I'm not too proud to admit it.

Give up the psychology in favor of what, then? I thought I had a grasp of the subject, but clearly you think otherwise, and of course I will take on board what you say as true and allow it to obliterate my sense of self, I am, after all, a stupid worm not worth stepping over.

kjones:

To be free from error. Now, I'll ask again: tell me how you think Reality works, so I can see whether this innocent bliss of yours has any real value. Or was your question your answer?

Yes the answer was in my question. I am going on a trip and will be away from the internet for awhile but I will leave you with some of my thoughts.

It depends on what you mean by "Reality works". Its function is expansion - meta and micro, inward and outward, ever willing to transcend previous experience and being.

A koan for you Miss Jones;
Are you one with the nature of two?

Leyla: Whose responsibility are we when God is creating our irrational, unconscious decisions and purposes?

Kelly: God is still responsible, but naturally there's no consciousness of this.

Agreed.

Leyla: The fundamental difference between this God and His purpose as you have described above and the Christian God is what, exactly, Kelly?

Kelly: Really only one: one's absolute, the other's not. One has real purpose, having no purpose whatsoever, the other has no purpose, having a purpose - to "love and save the lost".

OK.

Leyla: All you have done is made Satan a cross-dresser and multiplied him by the number of Earth's population.

Kelly: Satan is ignorance and hatred of truth in all its guises, so Satan is a cross-dresser, much flaunted in the masses. Why do you call these ideas religious, or political?

By definition, they are religious -- but I think stipulating the absolute nature of God without all the fluff and fairy floss makes a difference. The reason I call it political is because I see this whole man-woman thing bandied about exactly like a party-line rather than in its philosophical context. The first time I have seen anything resembling a definition of femininity and masculinity from you has been in response to James’ recent post.

Do you write entirely for your own benefit, for the benefit of those who currently hold exactly the same definitions as you, or for the benefit of persons who may not yet have even considered your exact definitions?

Kelly wrote:

I am not talking about men and women, but about the character that nurtures wisdom. Masculinity is thus defined to lift one's eyes to a further horizon not often viewed these days. It is, and has always been, known by a few unusual males. This type is at one of the two extreme ends of masculine achievement, the one opposite to criminality.

I'd rewrite your synonym lists this way:

Masculinity: adulthood (and yet childhood also), aggression, boldness, compassion, consciousness, courage, cunning, daring, delicacy, determination, firmness, forcefulness, foresight, fortitude, genius, gentleness, hardihood, honor, imagination, individuality, innocence, integrity, intelligence, kindness, mettle, nobility, potency, rationality, resoluteness, self-reliance, simplicity, spirit, sturdiness, tenacity, valor, virility, vision

Femininity: addictiveness, animalism, docility, slavishness, extravagance, flowieness, hysteria, immediacy, indecisiveness, irresponsibility, irrationality, irritability, jealousy, passivity, poor memory, submissiveness, temperamentalism, unconsciousness, unreliability, vagueness, weakness

Given this list characteristics for the two categories, I can tell you of many instances where I have seen women engaged in aggression, cunning, delicacy, determination, innocence, intelligence, kindness and simplicity, for example.

I have no issue with calling men feminine when it comes clearly detailed with definitions as above. But it is not quite the same to say that most men are feminine with the potential for masculine thought, as opposed to women who do not have that potential (I assume you take the same position on this as Sue) without clearly stipulating your meaning of femininity and masculinity fully at the same time -- as it is to say that most of the Earth’s population is largely unconscious of its unconscious, emotional drives.

That, to me, is how it becomes political in nature.

Weininger was complete. The entire context of his thoughts is laid out in his book. He far from took the issue lightly and gave it everything he had.

For that, I respect him.

I understand you intend to undertake a journey of similar magnitude. You genuinely have my best wishes in that direction. God willing, you will bring some new insights, rather than merely a repetition of what has already been well detailed.

Jamesh wrote:

I don't like placing values on masculinity and femininity. In my opinion the definitions are biased and shouldn't really be used that much in discussion of philosophical issues relating to the ultimate.

By not “placing values on masculinity and femininity”; you are doing just that – placing your values upon them.

Also, what better place to discuss those two pillars, than where they can truly and thoroughly be understood?

I am not talking of some political correctness issue, but I am against the emotional picture they paint as concepts. I find they are too heavily biased towards the positive and it produces an inflated viewpoint of masculinity. It does not include the characteristics of males that causes destruction and harm, so it is not a true description of the whole range of masculine traits.

Masculinity is productive, causing both: devil and saint, destruction and creativity, as well as everything in between. This is why masculinity is such an asset. For without it, we’d not have the culture we have today, and philosophy would never have developed.

Just look at the list of masculinity synonyms: adulthood, boldness, bravery, chivalry, courage, daring, determination, firmness, forcefulness, fortitude, gallantry, hardihood, honor, machismo, manfulness, manliness, masculinity, mettle, nobility, potency, resoluteness, resolution, self-reliance, spirit, sturdiness, tenacity, valor, virility.

Femininity synonyms: delicacy, docility, effeminateness, feminality, femineity, feminineness, gentleness, kindness, muliebrity, softness, womanhood, womanliness

Which world of thought would you prefer to live in Jamesh – the world of “honor” and “courage”, or the world of “docility” and “gentleness”?

Some bias is warranted due to masculinity being an active, controlling, changing force but that is like glorifying evolution because it leads to advances in life forms. It ignores the fact that masculinity must have something to mold for it to have any such value, which immediately makes both sides of equal value.

The glorification of evolution, due to the presence of masculinity – ah, if only it were so.

Instead, we have the glorification of the feminine, and the denigration of evolution.

In emotional terms I have come to the conclusion that men are more emotional than women, but that’s another story.

Men aren’t more emotional than women, but they do feel things more deeply and strongly than them.

Sue

Leyla Shen:

I have no issue with calling men feminine when it comes clearly detailed with definitions as above. But it is not quite the same to say that most men are feminine with the potential for masculine thought, as opposed to women who do not have that potential (I assume you take the same position on this as Sue) without clearly stipulating your meaning of femininity and masculinity fully at the same time -- as it is to say that most of the Earth’s population is largely unconscious of its unconscious, emotional drives.

Masculinity, as viewed philosophically, equals the ‘conscious’ – only because it has the potential to understand Truth.

Femininity, again viewed philosophically, equals the ‘unconscious’ – because it hasn’t any potential to understand Truth.

So Truth is the reference point for both cases.

The masculine refers to two positions; 1) the spiritual man, and 2) males with the potential to become spiritual men.

The feminine refers to both males and females who do not possess the potential to become spiritual men. That is to say: any masculinity they may possess isn’t anyway near enough to power their minds into this arena.

From these definitions, I understand why both women and men on this forum get so very upset by the idea that their chance of becoming a ‘man of wisdom’ is highly unlikely - since they are too feminine. (Well, that can be the only reason they get upset, isn’t it?)

Kelly wrote:

Given my usage of "man", virtually all biological humans are heavily into womanhood. This means that regardless of one's biological sex, having a philosophically male character exacts a huge toll on anyone. It is impossible to be simultaneously of a philosophically male and female character.

I am not yet a man, but just slightly more male than most people. This is really nothing, however, and far from enough.

So being born female doesn’t totally exclude you from spirituality, but it does place upon you difficulties that, having been born male, you may not have had to endure.

What makes this whole issue even more interesting, is the fact that, (and I’ve said this many times before) there is no evidence that a biological female ever became a great philosopher, and yet, Kelly (and perhaps others) have made philosophy their particular interest – this surely is an unusual time we live in.

Sue

From these definitions, I understand why both women and men on this forum get so very upset by the idea that their chance of becoming a ‘man of wisdom’ is highly unlikely - since they are too feminine. (Well, that can be the only reason they get upset, isn’t it?)

Like I said earlier, as long as those definitions are fully clear to the people you are speaking to every time you refer to the "spiritual man" (ie, either a male or female with said masculine qualities).

Or, am I still missing something?

We (David and I) have had a discussion about this before. Bottom line for me is, I call myself a woman because I am a biological female. Course, I don't HAVE to, but I'm not sure I understand why it has to be completely redefined since this in itself is bound to cause confusion without your definitions being a. specified, and; b. accepted in context.

Know what I mean?

So being born female doesn’t totally exclude you from spirituality, but it does place upon you difficulties that, having been born male, you may not have had to endure.

This I completely agree with.

From these definitions, I understand why both women and men on this forum get so very upset by the idea that their chance of becoming a ‘man of wisdom’ is highly unlikely - since they are too feminine. (Well, that can be the only reason they get upset, isn’t it?)

Looking at this line of reasoning further, do you mean to imply that if anyone has ever or ever gets upset their chance of becoming a "man of wisdom" is highly unlikely since this in and of itself means they are too feminine?

Is a cold-blooded serial killer upset?

Do you think that Kevin, David and Dan have never been upset? Do they ever get upset now over anything?

Why do people on this forum take the man/woman difference in contrast with wisdom so seriously?
All people have the potential.
Wisdom is the realization of the mysterious incomprehensibility of all things,whoever the designer.
Everyone who has the potential to feel,has the potential to come in contact with wisdom.

I don't know why,but there is a spook going around on this forum that in order to come in contact with reality one must penetrate high doses of rationalism.
I assure anyone that this is complete bullshit,because it is through the senses we come closest.

to summorize:
-To feel and to understand are an equality.
-nothing is more costly than principles : because their maintainance depend on ourselves.
-a mystic is someone who experiences more of himself than he can articulate.

everybody who can comprehend the message of the soul,has nothing to worry to begin with.He must only entirely love himself.What is simple has no duality.

bert wrote:Why do people on this forum take the man/woman difference in contrast with wisdom so seriously?
All people have the potential.

People have different potentials. A rock has potential too, so it doesn't really mean anything to say that things merely have potential.

Wisdom is the realization of the mysterious incomprehensibility of all things,whoever the designer.

Before I can agree or disagree with you, you'll need to explain what you mean by "mysterious", "incomprehensibile", and "designer".

It seem that you are assuming there is a person/being who designs things.

Everyone who has the potential to feel, has the potential to come in contact with wisdom.

A rock doesn't currently have potential to feel, so far as we know, but it has potential to develop this ability. So it too has potential to come into contact with wisdom.

I don't know why,but there is a spook going around on this forum that in order to come in contact with reality one must penetrate high doses of rationalism.
I assure anyone that this is complete bullshit,because it is through the senses we come closest.

If you haven't arrived at this conclusion through reason (ie, rationality), then it is essentially worthless. If you have only "sensed" this conclusion of yours, then it needs a lot more work.

-To feel and to understand are an equality.

It is possible to feel but not understand. Similarly, it is possible to have an intuition of something, without having an understanding.

-nothing is more costly than principles : because their maintainance depend on ourselves.

Ultimately, principles come from God (the Infinite), so in a wise person they come effortlessly.

-a mystic is someone who experiences more of himself than he can articulate.

A sage is a person who can articulate anything. But it takes a sage to understand what he is saying.

everybody who can comprehend the message of the soul,has nothing to worry to begin with.He must only entirely love himself.

Define what you mean by "love".

People have different potentials. A rock has potential too, so it doesn't really mean anything to say that things merely have potential.

It means that it has potential - don't look further.
And everybody can forget that.
what I say is something that I think of;the other does not know what I know yet,therefore one communicates,merely to to "spread himself around".

Quote:
Wisdom is the realization of the mysterious incomprehensibility of all things,whoever the designer.


Before I can agree or disagree with you, you'll need to explain what you mean by "mysterious", "incomprehensibile", and "designer".

It seem that you are assuming there is a person/being who designs things.

mysterious:something we know of but can not grasp.
incomprehensibility:something that is impossible to speak of rigorously
designer:something/one who designs - It does not matter what/who caused the wisdom to your attention.

Quote:
Everyone who has the potential to feel, has the potential to come in contact with wisdom.


A rock doesn't currently have potential to feel, so far as we know, but it has potential to develop this ability. So it too has potential to come into contact with wisdom.

with feeling I refer to 'the sense(s)' that is/are able to give mutual reflection between contrasting things that is in his range of detection.(something like that).I don't have the proper knowledge in how far a rock has feeling.

Quote:
I don't know why,but there is a spook going around on this forum that in order to come in contact with reality one must penetrate high doses of rationalism.
I assure anyone that this is complete bullshit,because it is through the senses we come closest.


If you haven't arrived at this conclusion through reason (ie, rationality), then it is essentially worthless. If you have only "sensed" this conclusion of yours, then it needs a lot more work.

Why is it essentially worthless?
How come,it needs more work?
need more info here...

Quote:
-To feel and to understand are an equality.


It is possible to feel but not understand. Similarly, it is possible to have an intuition of something, without having an understanding.

yes,I agree,well said.the 'and' in my quote takes care of it.

Quote:
-nothing is more costly than principles : because their maintainance depend on ourselves.


Ultimately, principles come from God (the Infinite), so in a wise person they come effortlessly.

Our meanings differ.But I understand you.

Quote:
-a mystic is someone who experiences more of himself than he can articulate.


A sage is a person who can articulate anything. But it takes a sage to understand what he is saying.

Yes,a sage is somewhat like a mentor,agree?
A sage indulges in mystery to,but he only becomes a mystic when he can not articulate it.He can not be a mystic when he is a sage.As a sage he can compel such foundings,not more.

Quote:
everybody who can comprehend the message of the soul,has nothing to worry to begin with.He must only entirely love himself.


Define what you mean by "love".

copulation.

Kevin: A sage is a person who can articulate anything. But it takes a sage to understand what he is saying.

bert: Yes,a sage is somewhat like a mentor,agree?

Only one (a sage) who can equally articulate anything understands one (a sage) who can articulate anything.

The question is, how do you determine the potential of those who are not yet sages.

bert: everybody who can comprehend the message of the soul,has nothing to worry to begin with.He must only entirely love himself.

Kevin: Define what you mean by "love".

bert: copulation.

Is this some sort of weird metaphor or are you alluding to a form of masturbation hitherto undemonstrated?

Self-knowledge can only come from within.

Fire melts everything, including metal.

A lie + V = Alive

Bert,

what do you mean by a "spook" ?

are you reffering to unknown, and that he is actually a sceptre?

Kelly: It is impossible not to create illusions, dualistically. It just so happens God can know itself through the logical constructions of dualism, and illusion clearly known for what it is.

Leyla: What on earth is the meaning of this?

Kelly: Sue unpacked it:

"We discriminate between things because it's natural for our discriminating-minds to do so. Then, when we have an understanding of cause and effect, we come to see that things can't be separated from each other and that all things are really one. From this 'one', we realise that all things have come; so that we then understand that finite and infinite are also one."

But, Kelly-Suuuuue, in referring to a “one,“ you refer to a causal matrix of which an individual can become conscious of. I do not subscribe to the idea that such a thing is any different to any other thing -- please refer to the current discussion between Matt and I on the Spotlight thread.

Sue wrote:

Yes, it really is a comedy of errors the way we wish to consider ourselves separate from the rest of the universe. We only have the appearance of separateness because of circumstances. Take away our oxygen and gravity, our society and loved ones, our intellect and willfulness – then we are left looking not much like ‘ourselves’ at all. So, if we depend on all this to be ourselves, then we can’t be separate, or special, or different, or unique – well, we can’t be less than the Universe itself, can we?

“We” also cannot be conscious -- or unconscious -- for what is there to be conscious or unconscious of?

The Universe is part of the construction, is it not?

bert wrote:mysterious:something we know of but can not grasp.

I think you are creating this mystery so that you won't have the burden of knowing something.

incomprehensibility:something that is impossible to speak of rigorously

Give me an example of something you can't speak of rigorously.

designer:something/one who designs - It does not matter what/who caused the wisdom to your attention.

You still seem to be assuming an intelligent designer. That seems very irrational to me.

If you haven't arrived at this conclusion through reason (ie, rationality), then it is essentially worthless. If you have only "sensed" this conclusion of yours, then it needs a lot more work.

Why is it essentially worthless?
How come,it needs more work?
need more info here...

Reason is the only tool there is to test the truth of our thoughts.

Merely feeling that something is true doesn't get you anywhere. A deluded person will feel that his delusions are true.

A sage indulges in mystery to, but he only becomes a mystic when he can not articulate it. He can not be a mystic when he is a sage. As a sage he can compel such foundings,not more.

I don't believe in this "mystery" of yours. There are things that cannot be known - but I wouldn't call that a mystery. It is no more mysterious than your hand in front of your face.

I think it is only a "mystery" when you want it to remain at a distance, and when you want to get pleasure out of it.

He must only entirely love himself.

Kevin wrote:Define what you mean by "love".

copulation.

I would like to hear your explanation of "love" in the spiritual context. Love of what? And why?

Leyla Shen wrote:

Kevin: A sage is a person who can articulate anything. But it takes a sage to understand what he is saying.

bert: Yes,a sage is somewhat like a mentor,agree?

Only one (a sage) who can equally articulate anything understands one (a sage) who can articulate anything.

The question is, how do you determine the potential of those who are not yet sages.

bert: everybody who can comprehend the message of the soul,has nothing to worry to begin with.He must only entirely love himself.

Kevin: Define what you mean by "love".

bert: copulation.

Is this some sort of weird metaphor or are you alluding to a form of masturbation hitherto undemonstrated?

only sages who have the same understanding of a metaphorisation understand each other - to the others:communicationnoise between the compellers.

copulation:
it is a (weird) metaphor.
look at it abstractfull

prince wrote:Bert,

what do you mean by a "spook" ?

are you reffering to unknown, and that he is actually a sceptre?

:)
no.
'Unspoken agreement that worries to be plausible' would better suffice.

bert wrote:
mysterious:something we know of but can not grasp.


I think you are creating this mystery so that you won't have the burden of knowing something.

One can think much things.Ideas you conceive are their own possibillity.

Quote:
incomprehensibility:something that is impossible to speak of rigorously


Give me an example of something you can't speak of rigorously.

What is Truth?
All mystery.
How can the banks of a river meet?

Quote:
designer:something/one who designs - It does not matter what/who caused the wisdom to your attention.


You still seem to be assuming an intelligent designer. That seems very irrational to me.

Man...What is your problem?You think things where I give no assumption about.
I just noticed that it doesn't matter where this wisdom comes from,the fact that you conceived it proves its palpability.

Reason is the only tool there is to test the truth of our thoughts.

Merely feeling that something is true doesn't get you anywhere. A deluded person will feel that his delusions are true.

Then you have tested whether your thoughts are true.What has this to do with reality?
You can not rationalise the unclarifiable.

Man his delusions are part of reality!

I don't believe in this "mystery" of yours. There are things that cannot be known - but I wouldn't call that a mystery. It is no more mysterious than your hand in front of your face.

I think it is only a "mystery" when you want it to remain at a distance, and when you want to get pleasure out of it.

You are obsessed of truth-finding.
Believe me or not,my teacher was a super-rational.And I do not relate the rational to unworthiness.You must use it where it has its value.

I would like to hear your explanation of "love" in the spiritual context. Love of what? And why?

love for your Self.To be in love with your Self.to become the living truth.(I don't know how many people here are familiar with the idea of the monotheistic 'God'.)

bert wrote: . . . my teacher was . . .

Your words sound very scripted to me.

There are hundreds of millions of Indians who say exactly the same things that you do, yet not a single one of them has achieved wisdom, or even seeks it.

ksolway wrote:

bert wrote: . . . my teacher was . . .

Your words sound very scripted to me.

There are hundreds of millions of Indians who say exactly the same things that you do, yet not a single one of them has achieved wisdom, or even seeks it.

tsssss...
What shall I say...?Excuse me for using common sense,but it is the root of my learning.
I hope it has clarified some things for you.

Leyla Shen wrote:

Like I said earlier, as long as those definitions are fully clear to the people you are speaking to every time you refer to the "spiritual man" (ie, either a male or female with said masculine qualities).

“Those definitions” are clear to anyone who values Truth. For anyone interested in understanding the masculine and feminine, “those definitions” can be useful. Anyone wanting to stay put in their own hazy mind-set, would be advised to ignore them.

And again: there is no such thing as a female “spiritual man”.

Or, am I still missing something?

It depends on how important this issue is to you personally.

We (David and I) have had a discussion about this before. Bottom line for me is, I call myself a woman because I am a biological female. Course, I don't HAVE to, but I'm not sure I understand why it has to be completely redefined since this in itself is bound to cause confusion without your definitions being a. specified, and; b. accepted in context.
Know what I mean?

From this, I understand your frustration with being told over and over again that a woman can never become a true genius; especially since you have a particular interest in philosophy. But there is nothing I can do to change that reality, so you either; accept it, and work to discover its consequences - or keep rejecting it, with no change to the person you are.

Jesus said, “And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me”.

Sue

I wrote:

So being born female doesn’t totally exclude you from spirituality, but it does place upon you difficulties that, having been born male, you may not have had to endure.

Leyla wrote:

This I completely agree with.

So, are you also agreeing with the fact that masculinity is essential to spirituality; and that without it, you can not develop the necessary skills required to do philosophy?


Sue

I can't believe you people are driveling on. What saliva.

I think you might want to communicate privately. This thread is dead.

Faizi

Leyla wrote:

Looking at this line of reasoning further, do you mean to imply that if anyone has ever or ever gets upset their chance of becoming a "man of wisdom" is highly unlikely since this in and of itself means they are too feminine?

No, I was only joking. The emotions expressed on this forum have no connection to Truth what-so-ever.

Is a cold-blooded serial killer upset?

I suppose killing people’s happy cuddly illusions is the same thing as being a cold-blooded serial killer – and therefore, nothing to get upset about.

Do you think that Kevin, David and Dan have never been upset? Do they ever get upset now over anything?

Is it possible to know the Infinite and also be an emotional twit?

Sue