GENIUS FORUMS

DQ: So the value of using the terms "masculinity" and "femininity" is that they describe different kinds of consciousness and unconsciousness. It's not just a straight one-on-one correlation.

U: Why not use other terms? Seriously, you guys' audience would triple.

DQ: I'm happy enough with the terms, but if you can think of any others, I'm all ears. "Consciousness" and "unconsciousness" aren't accurate enough for my liking, so it would have to be something else.

I think "strength" and "beauty" are a good alternative to "masculinity" and "femininity". I wouldn't get rid of "consciousness" and "unconsciousness", though. There's just no doubt that unconsciousness causes a person to engage in more feminine behavior.

David,

I think the best solution would be to phase "woman" out of existence via genetic technology, selective breeding over successive generations, cultural education, etc. After a few generations, no one would miss her. Most of the wars and violence and foolish behaviour would vanish with her, and the human race could finally start directing its energies to more interesting matters.

Well, needless to say, I disagree. I think that the entire human race should move toward the realization of expanded consciousness through technological and philosophical means. Specifically, I think that we should strive for a day when consciousness itself can be technologically "uploaded" to a more durable, universal medium - such as light, or the background geometry of space.

In such a state, consciousness would be without gender, and need not even experience individuality unless it so chooses. By default, consciousness would be unified.

Yes. The "woman" that women the world over try to embody is as much a cultural fiction as the Christian God, and just as destructive.

I agree. So why not get rid of this fictional "woman" rather than real females? The ideal "man" that so many males try to emulate (John Wayne, Brad Pitt, etc) is also a fiction.

But most people don't want to face up to this, since it is a fiction which provides too much pleasure.

I dunno. I think just as many of us have equal or greater amounts of trouble with the opposite sex. I think that if pleasure were the only criteria for keeping women around, we'd have already gotten rid of them. Ever been to divorce court?

If a vital psychological truth of this world is regarded as meaningless by a particular system of thought, such as Taoism, then what does it tell us about that system?

At the very least, it tells us that it is still being hampered by mental blocks.

Alternatively, it tells us that the "vital psychological truth" in question is false or misconcieved.

In any case, there is a world of difference between the perfectly rational sage who consciously flows along with Nature in full understanding of Her ways, and the irrational, emotional, incoherent feminine mind which cannot maintain any consistency from one moment to the next.

Interesting. Nature is a woman, eh? Perhaps we should selectively breed Nature out of existence along with all the other women.

I'm happy enough with the terms, but if you can think of any others, I'm all ears. "Consciousness" and "unconsciousness" aren't accurate enough for my liking, so it would have to be something else.

"Consciousness" and "unconsciousness" are not good terms with which to discuss the issue of consciousness and unconsciousness? Why not?

Someone whose mind is still spellbound by woman. In other words, the average person.

Any man who has ever been on the outer with women would instantly recognize the addictive symptoms.

What about love? Deluded, I assume.

Do we really need to keep the irrational, incoherent, emotional, changeable, unconscious-of-the-bigger-picture form of consciousness ....? I don't think so.

Yes, we really do. Without the earthy "grounding" provided by women, men would never get anything done. It would be a wonderful world in which everyone would be a high-quality thinker and the average lifespan would be three days, because no one thought it was important to cook dinner.

The beauty of masculine consciousness, when it becomes refined and purified by the exposure to truth and the practice of logical thought, is that it takes the very best of what feminine consciousness has to offer and improves it a million-fold.

Sounds like a religious hymn.

For example, what is instinctive, anxiety-driven intuition in the feminine mind becomes ultra-flexible, highly intelligent, profound insight in the masculine mind.

Oh, I dunno. I'm pretty sure Xanax can help with that, too. Or long-term meditation practice. Or any number of things.

Besides, the feminine mind doesn't need to develop insight because it functions in that realm all the time. A woman is always connected to everything. It's men who have to learn to put aside linear thought and become receptive to insight and intuition. Women are born that way. It saturates everything they do and think.

U: I wonder how great thinkers and philosophers of the future are going to be born without mothers...

DQ: With genetic tools to change the nature of human psychology at hand, I believe we can resolve those sorts of issues.

I don't see having a mother as an "issue" which requires "resolution."

That is true. But that final relinquishment can only occur after all the other relinquishments have been made.

Are you sure?

What about "No Buddha, no teaching, no path?"

This business of relinquishing the ideal of enlightenment while still being attached to women, love, happiness, emotions, etc - all the while believing that this is spirituality - is absurd. It is the very definition of worldliness. And yet this is what is being preached within modern religious circles, particularly in modern Buddhism and Taoism.

I agree. If the idea that it is "spirituality" were relinquished as well, the teaching would be perfect. :)

I personally think women should be human.

I personally think they are.

Funny, it seems there's some 23 day cycle on this forum in which a whole bunch of people starting bitching all at once about the femininity/masculinity terminology.

What many people seem to miss in their bitching is that when 'woman' would disappear, also the 'man' would - at least the man type that revolves around her. Which is what many people have defined as 'man' anyway. While it's more accurate to say women revolve around woman.

So we are left with only human, idealy. Now one could start using human/sub-human or living/dead to replace the confusing gender-based terminology. But it seems there will always be ladies that start protesting too much, whatever contrast would be issued.

Clyde wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: There are no such things. Only things where one hasn't spotted yet the complete humanity of.

Whatever do you mean? Are you positing that all things are human, even concepts and ideals?

Human itself is a deeply engraved concept or ideal. Same with any gender issues. They're open to scrutiny if you can get around taboos and all kinds of denial reflexes.

Clyde wrote: Now do you mean that she becomes an actual man or a “Man” and isn’t this “Man” something other than an actual man, an idealized, some might say romanticized concept?

When she'd disappear, the image of 'man' that most carry with them (your 'actual man') would disappear too. Now there is finally space for human to take place.

This human is called 'Man' rightly because everything that can be discerned in psychology, physiology and history - if not personal experience - suggests this. So it becomes an indispensable tool in this day and age, just language, just stepping stones, to assign gender to create proper contrast - one based on daily experiences so we can directly start applying what is conceived first. See for ourselves.

I think the best solution would be to phase "woman" out of existence via genetic technology, selective breeding over successive generations, cultural education, etc. After a few generations, no one would miss her. Most of the wars and violence and foolish behaviour would vanish with her, and the human race could finally start directing its energies to more interesting matters.

This wouldn’t actually work, your dreaming!, you'd have to bred the masculine hormones out of men. Even the desire for truth is born out of a desire to dominate something, that is the nature of masculinity, hormonally caused. Domination of other men would remain, things would become massively competitive.

Even enlightenment cannot break the truth of the concept of survival of the fittest. No advanced beings will be created that do not have a hierarchical structure. What would actually happen is that some males would become females all over again, why, because being submissive will give them the best chance of survival, and survival in the mind of a human means the most comfortable survival avialble to one's means.

Though there is one option, and that is to regenerate by cloning only those who reach enlightenment. Not a society I would wish to be apart of.

Long term, I think the formation of a race hierocracy not dissimilar to that of an ant colony, is more likely.

But the most likely thing is destruction, because the males that could save the human race, will not necessarily rise to the top. Femininities bounds will restrict them too much. Some of this femininity is not even sex related, but the outcome of technological advancement and the formation of complex structure.

Individuals are gradually gaining more things to be relative to, they are more surrounded by different options and experiences than ever before, all of which needs to be controlled by the individual and the larger society, and this places them in a tighter bind. People may break partly out of this herd shell, but few will go outside of it completely.

Binding is one of the core reasons femininity exists, as it aids survival of the species, at the cost of a few individuals. As a species, particularly now we have nukes, and are not self-reliant for our basic needs, we have to accept this femininity. That will be our path.

Evolution also creates species differentiation. That's why we have countries. Until we are one global race, competition between countries will exist and there will be a requirement for structural femininity, including the same type of femininity as in religion, as it provides cohesion of effort and protection for one's herd.

Even the human race achieved enlightenment, over the long term genetic differentiation resulting in emotional fluctuations would still creep back in, and probably become prized.

DQ: Do we really need to keep the irrational, incoherent, emotional, changeable, unconscious-of-the-bigger-picture form of consciousness ....? I don't think so.

U: Yes, we really do. Without the earthy "grounding" provided by women, men would never get anything done. It would be a wonderful world in which everyone would be a high-quality thinker and the average lifespan would be three days, because no one thought it was important to cook dinner.

Earthy "grounding" = irrational, incoherent, emotional, changeable, unconscious-of-the-bigger-picture form of consciousness = cooking dinner?

Fuuuuuck, of all the things you might've said.

Talk about dripping with misogyny!

By what definition would a high-quality thinker be unable to feed himself?

Wow.

.

Unidian,

DQ: I think the best solution would be to phase "woman" out of existence via genetic technology, selective breeding over successive generations, cultural education, etc. After a few generations, no one would miss her. Most of the wars and violence and foolish behaviour would vanish with her, and the human race could finally start directing its energies to more interesting matters.

U: Well, needless to say, I disagree. I think that the entire human race should move toward the realization of expanded consciousness through technological and philosophical means. Specifically, I think that we should strive for a day when consciousness itself can be technologically "uploaded" to a more durable, universal medium - such as light, or the background geometry of space.

Well, I was thinking more in the short-term. :)

DQ: Yes. The "woman" that women the world over try to embody is as much a cultural fiction as the Christian God, and just as destructive.

U: I agree. So why not get rid of this fictional "woman" rather than real females?

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Phasing "woman" out genetically needn't involve getting rid of females.

The ideal "man" that so many males try to emulate (John Wayne, Brad Pitt, etc) is also a fiction.

That's true. It would be far better if men strove to emulate a Lao Tzu or a Diogenes or a Kierkegaard.

DQ: I'm happy enough with the terms, but if you can think of any others, I'm all ears. "Consciousness" and "unconsciousness" aren't accurate enough for my liking, so it would have to be something else.

U: "Consciousness" and "unconsciousness" are not good terms with which to discuss the issue of consciousness and unconsciousness? Why not?

Because, as I explained earlier in this thread, "unconsciousness" is too broad a term to deal with the varying worldly mentalities out there, such as what is found between the sexes. It creates the misleading idea that all people are unconscious in the same way.

DQ: Someone whose mind is still spellbound by woman. In other words, the average person.

Any man who has ever been on the outer with women would instantly recognize the addictive symptoms.

U: What about love? Deluded, I assume.

That goes without saying. Love is only possible where there is belief in separation. Buddhas are too undivided to love.

DQ: Do we really need to keep the irrational, incoherent, emotional, changeable, unconscious-of-the-bigger-picture form of consciousness ....? I don't think so.

U: Yes, we really do. Without the earthy "grounding" provided by women, men would never get anything done. It would be a wonderful world in which everyone would be a high-quality thinker and the average lifespan would be three days, because no one thought it was important to cook dinner.

Where we would be without Mum?

The beauty of masculine consciousness, when it becomes refined and purified by the exposure to truth and the practice of logical thought, is that it takes the very best of what feminine consciousness has to offer and improves it a million-fold.

For example, what is instinctive, anxiety-driven intuition in the feminine mind becomes ultra-flexible, highly intelligent, profound insight in the masculine mind.

Oh, I dunno. I'm pretty sure Xanax can help with that, too. Or long-term meditation practice. Or any number of things.

All of those things are bereft of the purpose and intelligence that come with having a hunger for ultimate understanding and the willingness to engage in sustained logical reasoning. As a result, the insights are unlikely to be all that penetrative, coherent or clear.

Simply taking Xanax would only give you random insights of a shallow nature, which are what the insights of women are generally like.

Besides, the feminine mind doesn't need to develop insight because it functions in that realm all the time. A woman is always connected to everything. It's men who have to learn to put aside linear thought and become receptive to insight and intuition. Women are born that way. It saturates everything they do and think.

Now who is singing a hymn?

U: Where we differ is on whether women should be women.

DQ: I personally think women should be human.

U: I personally think they are.

That's a very negative attitude to have towards women, I must say.

-

Leyla wrote:

Earthy "grounding" = irrational, incoherent, emotional, changeable, unconscious-of-the-bigger-picture form of consciousness = cooking dinner?

Fuuuuuck, of all the things you might've said.

Talk about dripping with misogyny!

By what definition would a high-quality thinker be unable to feed himself?

Wow.

Couldn't agree more.

-

Leyla Shen wrote:Earthy "grounding" = irrational, incoherent, emotional, changeable, unconscious-of-the-bigger-picture form of consciousness = cooking dinner?

Fuuuuuck, of all the things you might've said.

Talk about dripping with misogyny!

Only from your viewpoint. Some of us appreciate the gender-based differences in human consciousness. Women keep things together because they are "grounded," and I find that valuable. It is not an inferior quality or a lesser contribution. It is necessary to the full human experience.

If you resent your own gender to the point that you would percieve sincere appreciation of its positive qualities as a misogynistic attack (while hanging out at the most openly misogynistic board in the universe), that's really an issue appropriate for a psychologist rather than myself.

By what definition would a high-quality thinker be unable to feed himself?

It's a rhetorical device. Most people will get it.

Wow.

No applause, please. :)

Unidian wrote:

Only from your viewpoint. Some of us appreciate the gender-based differences in human consciousness.

A very healthy, truthful viewpoint, I might add.

I object to females being reduced to an object utilised for cooking your dinner and you tell me I need a psychologist?

The end of the world is indeed nigh!

.

Dave said:

That goes without saying. Love is only possible where there is belief in separation. Buddhas are too undivided to love.

Interesting. I think that genuine love is only possible in light or the recognition of shared identity. Separation has no place in real love, although it may be of great importance in the kind of psuedo-love we see displayed in society all too often.

All of those things are bereft of the purpose and intelligence that come with having a hunger for ultimate understanding and the willingness to engage in sustained logical reasoning. As a result, the insights are unlikely to be all that penetrative, coherent or clear.

Well, not everyone is interested in "ultimate understanding," nor will they ever be. What do you suppose should be done about the masses who are not?

Simply taking Xanax would only give you random insights of a shallow nature, which are what the insights of women are generally like.

I'm not so sure. I think women can have genuine insights, but as a rule, they don't attach the same value or importance to them that certain male "thinker types" do. To the women I know, it's like "Okay, no inherent existence. Big deal." They get it, but they don't see it as important, because such intellectual realizations change little about everyday life.

Women are natural Taoists.

That's a very negative attitude to have towards women, I must say.

To say that women are human is a negative attitude? Only if you view yourself as superhuman, I suppose. Read much Nietzsche?

No need to answer that, I already know. ;)

Leyla Shen wrote:I object to females being reduced to an object utilised for cooking your dinner and you tell me I need a psychologist?

Okay, I'll concede that referring to cooking in this context was a very bad choice of words. But my point stands - women are "connected" while men are "abstract," if we must make really broad, near-meaningless generalizations (and here at GF, we must).

And that difference is a positive thing.

You know what's scary? The readiness and passion with which you jumped on me.

Only from your viewpoint. Some of us appreciate the gender-based differences in human consciousness. Women keep things together because they are "grounded," and I find that valuable. It is not an inferior quality or a lesser contribution. It is necessary to the full human experience.

If you resent your own gender to the point that you would percieve sincere appreciation of its positive qualities as a misogynistic attack (while hanging out at the most openly misogynistic board in the universe), that's really an issue appropriate for a psychologist rather than myself.

Is that rooted in the abstract or connectedness?

[Edit: added emphasis.]

.

There are some things in the wide world of psychology which one doesn't necessarily have to be a rocket scientist to figure out. :)

DQ: So the value of using the terms "masculinity" and "femininity" is that they describe different kinds of consciousness and unconsciousness. It's not just a straight one-on-one correlation.

U: Why not use other terms? Seriously, you guys' audience would triple.

DQ: I'm happy enough with the terms, but if you can think of any others, I'm all ears. "Consciousness" and "unconsciousness" aren't accurate enough for my liking, so it would have to be something else.


U: "Consciousness" and "unconsciousness" are not good terms with which to discuss the issue of consciousness and unconsciousness? Why not?

DQ: Because, as I explained earlier in this thread, "unconsciousness" is too broad a term to deal with the varying worldly mentalities out there, such as what is found between the sexes. It creates the misleading idea that all people are unconscious in the same way.

I personally don't have a problem with you using the word "femininity" to describe what you mean, my disagreement is with using the term "woman" as interchangeable with "femininity." Actually, one step better would be the term "girly" - which society instantly recognizes as different from "girl" - and avoids the barriers of having to introduce a new term, avoids programming the subconcious of less concious men, avoids inciting a defensive attitude in females (and defensivness is not condusive to learning) and even provides motivation for females to change because it psychologically more possible to drop the stuffed animals, temper tantrums, etc. and "just grow up" than to "change genders."

I believe that more instant recognition of what you mean would also increase impact on men, because "womanly men" is too novel to have quite the same automatic wake-up call, as there is already a cultural sneer against "girly men."
.

Unidian wrote:There are some things in the wide world of psychology which one doesn't necessarily have to be a rocket scientist to figure out. :)

Yeah, like a rhetorical question. :)

.

David;

The better term is ignorance, though sometimes delusion is more appropriate. And the opposite is awareness or wisdom.

clyde