GENIUS FORUMS

DavidQuinn000 wrote: He could, actually. Truthful words which convey the highest wisdom cannot be generated by chance - at least not on a sustained basis. Thus, the very existence of truthful words automatically implies the existence of an enlightened mind.

Utterly False. First of all, no one is saying anything is by "chance". Secondly, either you are trying to decieve intentionally or you just haven't thought enough. Tsk tsk David...

The words can be repeated by a robot, a computer, a person or a parrot. Thus mere truthful-words do not imply that the robot or person or parrot are enlightened...


The external words a person or a parrot express can not tell you their true internal thought processes with certainty...

That may well be. But the words that were left behind in their names indicate that whoever authored them were enlightened people of a very highly calibre.

Indeed, perhaps the authors were women. Women with big-breasts and nice hips. GASP!
You don't know.

Judging by their words, they were definitely great thinkers who perceived the world with purity and wisdom.

You evidently haven't read any of their work, otherwise you wouldn't be describing their writing as "pretty". "Terrifying" would be a far more pertinent adjective.

Terrifying, hmm sounds impressive but doesn't apply to them.

I wouldn't be surprised if women were dictating to them what to write.

We can certainly make informed judgments based on what we know what men and women are like. Just as we can determine that there is unlikely to be many trees on the surface of the moon, due to its inhospitable environment, we can also conclude that there is unlikely to be many towering thinkers from the world of womanhood, given the pygmy-like nature of the average woman's mind.

Men tend to achieve much so much more in the realm of genius, science, philosophy and wisdom because their identity as individuals is intimately connected to their achievments. Women don't really have to strive for anything too seriously because they already receive everything they need simply from being a woman. Like pampered creatures, everything is handed to them on a platter. All they have to do is flutter their eyes, or flash their tits.

It is an entirely different situation for men. For them, succeeding and achieving is a matter of life and death. To succeed is everything; to fail is to be a non-entity. Because of this, he pours so much more of himself into his tasks and thus achieves so much more than women do.

-

I'm sorry, I thought we were concerned about absolute Truth, and Reality, not some assumptions and ideas you use in order to inflate your deluded male-ego...

Am I on the right forum?

Quote:
Ramakrishna, kierkegard, neitzsche, weininger might have written pretty things, but you can't state for certain that they lived virtuously and percieved the world with wisdom and thus be labelled "great"...

Judging by their words, they were definitely great thinkers who perceived the world with purity and wisdom.

You evidently haven't read any of their work, otherwise you wouldn't be describing their writing as "pretty". "Terrifying" would be a far more pertinent adjective.

Yes all that may be true. They percieved the world with purity and wisdom. But hades point is still valid. You have no way of knowing if they had truly reached enlightenment. That is something that happens internally. So making the claim that more men than women have reached enlightenment seems false, because honestly you have no way of knowing.

And to something else David said about mythilogical gods...

That may well be. But the words that were left behind in their names indicate that whoever authored them were enlightened people of a very highly calibre.

Yeah and who knows....maybe they were women.

It's just a general observation about the fact that the more one searches for great women, the harder they are to find. In the beginning one assumes that there are some, since women are, after all, human. But when the leading contenders can be dismissed after a moment's consideration, and one is then left to fossick about in the leftovers for the faintest glimmers of achievement of any kind, the whole exercise becomes a very disappointing one indeed.

A general observation....that's pretty weak dude. So they are harder to find, so is enlightenment. Search harder. Your laziness is also not a valid reason.

"dismissed after a moment's consideration" Alot of people do this with the works of great men. Does this mean the subject was not worthy, or maybe it was the person reading it?

one is then left to fossick about in the leftovers for the faintest glimmers of achievement of any kind, the whole exercise becomes a very disappointing one indeed

This literary drivel seems like the kind of thing you would expect from a Harvard english teacher. Your egotism comes screaming out of this sentence "like the Pheonix coming out of the egg". I put that in quotes to emphasize how silly that sounds. That isn't deep at all, it's just trying to sound deep. A person who seeks enlightenment does not abandon his ego, but he does not need it to justify himself, his thoughts, or his conclusions.

Hey 'dude', are you blind or something?
Why are the best sportsmen men?
The best bowlers, golfers, billiardists, cooks even.
Why do they, the best, almost always have balls?
It's a very long list.....

Lennyrizzo wrote:Hey 'dude', are you blind or something?
Why are the best sportsmen men?
The best bowlers, golfers, billiardists, cooks even.
Why do they, the best, almost always have balls?
It's a very long list.....

I don't think sportmanship even enters the realm of what we are talking about in this thread Lenny. What we are talking about is women's minds. What you are talking about is physicality...an entirely different subject altogether.

Hades wrote:

DQ: Truthful words which convey the highest wisdom cannot be generated by chance - at least not on a sustained basis. Thus, the very existence of truthful words automatically implies the existence of an enlightened mind.

H: Utterly False. First of all, no one is saying anything is by "chance". Secondly, either you are trying to decieve intentionally or you just haven't thought enough. Tsk tsk David...

The words can be repeated by a robot, a computer, a person or a parrot. Thus mere truthful-words do not imply that the robot or person or parrot are enlightened...

Even if these words are repeated, they still would have been originally authored by a conscious being of some kind, and that conscious being was necessarily enlightened.

The external words a person or a parrot express can not tell you their true internal thought processes with certainty...

Again, truthful words that convery the highest wisdom cannot arise by chance. Thus, it is absolutely certain that whenever truthful words exist, they were initially generated by an enlightened mind.

It is also very easy for an enlightened person to distinguish between a true expert of wisdom and the parrot who tries to echo this expertise. Unbeknownst to him, the parrot always gives away thousands of little tattle-tell signs.

DQ: That may well be. But the words that were left behind in their names indicate that whoever authored them were enlightened people of a very highly calibre.

H: Indeed, perhaps the authors were women. Women with big-breasts and nice hips. GASP!
You don't know.

Maybe the authors were big, hairy dogs. Who knows? However, given what we know of dogs, it is very unlikely.

The sheer amount of masculinity which is required to reach the highest wisdom makes it almost impossible for a women to attain it. I won't say it is absolutely impossible, for there is always a chance that a truly extraordinary woman can arise. However, because women have so many genetic and social disadvantages, it is very much an uphill battle for them.

DQ: You evidently haven't read any of their work, otherwise you wouldn't be describing their writing as "pretty". "Terrifying" would be a far more pertinent adjective.

H: Terrifying, hmm sounds impressive but doesn't apply to them.

Why make a remark like that, Hades, when it is clear that you are completely ignorant of their work?

DQ: We can certainly make informed judgments based on what we know what men and women are like. Just as we can determine that there is unlikely to be many trees on the surface of the moon, due to its inhospitable environment, we can also conclude that there is unlikely to be many towering thinkers from the world of womanhood, given the pygmy-like nature of the average woman's mind.

Men tend to achieve much so much more in the realm of genius, science, philosophy and wisdom because their identity as individuals is intimately connected to their achievments. Women don't really have to strive for anything too seriously because they already receive everything they need simply from being a woman. Like pampered creatures, everything is handed to them on a platter. All they have to do is flutter their eyes, or flash their tits.

It is an entirely different situation for men. For them, succeeding and achieving is a matter of life and death. To succeed is everything; to fail is to be a non-entity. Because of this, he pours so much more of himself into his tasks and thus achieves so much more than women do.

H: I'm sorry, I thought we were concerned about absolute Truth, and Reality, not some assumptions and ideas you use in order to inflate your deluded male-ego...

Am I on the right forum?

The evidence for what I say is everywhere. One can see it in business, sport, politics, music, art, science, philosophy and spirituality. Men do all these thing so much better. They have almost single-handedly created civilization all by themselves, while women have been little more than passive travellers going along for the ride.

I don't know how anybody could possibly dispute this. It is like disputing that the sky is blue. One would have to be completely pussy-whipped and brainwashed by the feminists to find issue with it.

Now what was it you said about women being the most marvelous creatures in the world ......?

-

DavidQuinn000 wrote: Even if these words are repeated, they still would have been originally authored by a conscious being of some kind, and that conscious being was necessarily enlightened.

Irrelevant, and false.

1. Its irrelevant because the issue is about who specifically the original author is. Man or woman? You can't know.
And we care about true knowledge, not conjectures and faith and probabilities. Mmmkay?

2. Its false because a computer word generator could come up with "enlightened" propositions if it ran long enough....

Or a thousand monkeys banging away at type-writers...etc

It is also very easy for an enlightened person to distinguish between a true expert of wisdom and the parrot who tries to echo this expertise. Unbeknownst to him, the parrot always gives away thousands of little tattle-tell signs.

We were talking about historical people.
So you can tell when someone is a wise person, eventhough its impossible for you to know if they actually existed or not...

And in real life, face to face, you still can't tell. You don't know if the person is a hypocrite, a liar, a mindless zombie that can't be enlightened. Etc....

Maybe the authors were big, hairy dogs. Who knows? However, given what we know of dogs, it is very unlikely.

Exactly. This is the point. You can not say with certainty who the authors were. Even if you could you still can not say with certainty if the authors lived by their wise-words or were complete hypocrites, liars and con-artists.

Or if they were Men or Women. This is the main topic and you admit you don't know. So thats that.

Why make a remark like that, Hades, when it is clear that you are completely ignorant of their work?

You can't know if I am familiar with them or not.
Stop making assumptions and try to talk truthfully.

The evidence for what I say is everywhere. One can see it in business, sport, politics, music, art, science, philosophy and spirituality. Men do all these thing so much better. They have almost single-handedly created civilization all by themselves, while women have been little more than passive travellers going along for the ride.

So now great people are defined by their politics, buisness sense and musical talent? What next? Who can jump the highest and piss the furthest? Please.

I thought we were equating Greatness to Wisdom/Enlightenment...
Oh I see, this is an attempt at dodging the main argument.

Lets see what you came up with next...

I don't know how anybody could possibly dispute this. It is like disputing that the sky is blue. One would have to be completely pussy-whipped and brainwashed by the feminists to find issue with it.

Now what was it you said about women being the most marvelous creatures in the world ......?

-

The sky changes color from time to time.
Maybe if you weren't so dogmatic and penis-whipped you could appreciate all its colors.

I think both men and women are marvelous in their own ways.
The problem is when someone sees the greatness in one but not the other.



Anways, I'm not gonna bother replying on this forum. Its become rather dull and unproductive.

Hades,

DQ: Even if these words are repeated, they still would have been originally authored by a conscious being of some kind, and that conscious being was necessarily enlightened.

H: Irrelevant, and false.

Its irrelevant because the issue is about who specifically the conscious being is. Man or woman? You can't know. And we care about true knowledge, not conjectures and faith. Mmmkay?

There have been several issues intertwined in this thread, one of them being how one can judge whether another person's enlightenment is authentic.

Its false because a computer word generator could come up with "enlightened" propositions if it ran long enough....

And it's possible that a group of monkeys could one day type a line from Shakespeare if they banged away on their typewriters long enough. That's true. But to consistently speak in an enlightened manner with no slip up at all ..... the chances of this happening by random chance are so infinitestimal that we can dismiss it out of hand.

DQ: It is also very easy for an enlightened person to distinguish between a true expert of wisdom and the parrot who tries to echo this expertise. Unbeknownst to him, the parrot always gives away thousands of little tattle-tell signs.

H: So you can tell when someone is a wise person, eventhough its impossible for you to know if they actually existed or not...

Thats a very cute belief :)

The very existence of the truthful words demonstrates the existence of the wise person, just as the very existence of fire demonstrates the existence of flammable materials.

It doesn't matter if this wise person is called Jesus, Buddha, Hakuin, Joe Bloggs, Joan Bloggs, or Snoopy. The fact is, a wise being did necessarily exist in order for those wise words to be generated.

DQ: Maybe the authors were big, hairy dogs. Who knows? However, given what we know of dogs, it is very unlikely.

H: Exactly. This is the point. You can not say with certainty who the authors were. You can not say with certainty if the authors lived by their wise-words or were complete hypocrites, liars and con-artists.

That's true. However, I can say for certain, by examining their words, their their understanding was enlightened and authentic. So right away, we can say that they must have had a high degree of virtue and purity, just to attain this understanding.

DQ: Why make a remark like that, Hades, when it is clear that you are completely ignorant of their work?

H: You can't know if I am familiar with them or not.
Stop making assumptions and try to talk truthfully.

Come on, Hades, stop the game-playing. You haven't read their work. You know it and I know it.

DQ: The evidence for what I say is everywhere. One can see it in business, sport, politics, music, art, science, philosophy and spirituality. Men do all these thing so much better. They have almost single-handedly created civilization all by themselves, while women have been little more than passive travellers going along for the ride.

H: So now great people are defined by their politics, buisness sense and musical talent? What next? Who can jump the highest and piss the furthest? Please.

I thought we were equating Greatness to Wisdom/Enlightenment...
Oh I see, this is an attempt at dodging the main argument.

Given that wisdom is a very difficult and lofty thing to attain, that it constitutes an endeavour requiring a tremendous amount of courage and rational ability, the issue of people's talents and psychologies is critical. Enlightenment cannot be achieved by doing nothing. It can only be achieved with hard work by extremely talented people.

This is why males have such an advantage. Just as Mount Everest is only the tallest mountain on earth by virtue of the fact that it arises out of the already tall mountain range of the Himalayas, so too the male genius is only an advanced human being because of the advancements already present in male psychology. Female psychology lacks most of the advances present in male psychology, and so females wishing to become geniuses are at a severe disadvantage. They are like a bundle of dirt at sea-level trying to reach the heights of Mount Everest.

Having said that, some females are more masculine than others, so it's not a completely hopeless situation.

I think both men and women are marvelous in their own ways. The problem is when someone sees the greatness in one but not the other.

No, that's not the issue. The issue, as always, is one of confusing identities.

The insect world is marvelous in its own right, containing much beauty and greatness. But this doesn't mean that insects are capable of reading and writing, thinking logically, becoming enlightened, or things like that. It's possible to appreciate the marvels of the insect world without projecting all sorts of fantastical qualities onto them.

All things have their limitations. Men can't give birth to babies; women can't give birth to wise thought. It's alright, Hades, to admit that women can't do everything.

Anways, I'm not gonna bother replying on this forum. Its become rather dull and unproductive.

I'm sure you'll be back.


-

I-Beam wrote:

Lennyrizzo wrote:
Hey 'dude', are you blind or something?
Why are the best sportsmen men?
The best bowlers, golfers, billiardists, cooks even.
Why do they, the best, almost always have balls?
It's a very long list.....

I don't think sportmanship even enters the realm of what we are talking about in this thread Lenny. What we are talking about is women's minds. What you are talking about is physicality...an entirely different subject altogether.

No, I-Beam, it is not “an entirely different subject altogether” – since the superiority of man's mind is evident in nearly every aspect of life.

Being the best at anything requires dedication and single-mindedness; both these exist in the mind of man. To add to this, he is constantly being propelled outwards away from his own petty concerns and trivialities, towards goals that do not necessarily give him any immediate pleasure or satisfaction. Because of this, he is able to stay focused on his goal until satisfied that he has reached his highest potential.

Woman’s life is very different – as her whole life is spent in immediacy. There, in that unconscious realm, where everyone is “equal” and no thing is more important than she is herself; she happily spends her days lost in petty concerns and trivialities.

* * *

Because woman is unconscious and lacks an internal life, it is unfair to judge her against man – they are far too different – sort of like making a legless person (woman) participate in a race against an Olympic gold medalist runner (man).

Women can’t help but be what they are – so it is silly to even take any notice of them - but that is exactly what a lot of men do. Not only do they hang onto women’s arms, but also on every word they say. Men in droves are soaking up the muck women spew forth as if it were the 'Nectar of Life'. This poisonous muck seeps into men’s minds and eats away at their inner life; slowly destroying both, until there is nothing left except a lifeless shell – called woman.


Sue

Kelly wrote:

Recently, I've met several women who claim to be interested in philosophy, the Buddha, the holy yoga of understanding emptiness, and the non-existence of the self. But each continually slips away at every hard question. It is as if they are so terrified of the conscience, they cannot imagine being capable of its examination. That would be honest enough, if only they would admit it!

Hades wrote:

The best you can do is assume or hope there were more great men than women, but you can't certainly know.

Hades, are you one of the "women" Kelly has recently met up with?

Let me see if I can translate your sentence above - what you’re really saying is that you have a sort of wishy-washy sweet dreamy swirly type thing swimming around you which has come out as some sort of 'protest', but which sadly lacks any direction or goal.

It really is quite comical – just because women are walking around the planet, you want to include them as having the potential to become Great Philosophers –- for no other reason than the fact they are here, you will give them equal status with men.

How about you have another shot at it – perhaps first you’d like to explain how things operate in your universe – you know, how everyone is equal?

Sue

sue hindmarsh wrote:

I-Beam wrote:

Lennyrizzo wrote:
Hey 'dude', are you blind or something?
Why are the best sportsmen men?
The best bowlers, golfers, billiardists, cooks even.
Why do they, the best, almost always have balls?
It's a very long list.....

I don't think sportmanship even enters the realm of what we are talking about in this thread Lenny. What we are talking about is women's minds. What you are talking about is physicality...an entirely different subject altogether.

No, I-Beam, it is not “an entirely different subject altogether” – since the superiority of man's mind is evident in nearly every aspect of life.

Then why does Margaret Court and Martina Navratalova have the highest win percentages of any athlete? You remember what happened when Billy Riggs played Billy Jean King don't you. She beat him.

Being the best at anything requires dedication and single-mindedness; both these exist in the mind of man. To add to this, he is constantly being propelled outwards away from his own petty concerns and trivialities, towards goals that do not necessarily give him any immediate pleasure or satisfaction. Because of this, he is able to stay focused on his goal until satisfied that he has reached his highest potential.

Babe Ruth was the best home-run hitter of his day. He was also an alcoholic, a womanizer, and a racist. Mozart was an incredible pool player, in addition to being a brilliant composer. He thought his interest in pool made him a better pool player. And let's not forget Michealangelo, I doubt you could say he was "single-minded", the guy had numerous projects going all the time.

Woman’s life is very different – as her whole life is spent in immediacy. There, in that unconscious realm, where everyone is “equal” and no thing is more important than she is herself; she happily spends her days lost in petty concerns and trivialities.

* * *

Because woman is unconscious and lacks an internal life, it is unfair to judge her against man – they are far too different – sort of like making a legless person (woman) participate in a race against an Olympic gold medalist runner (man).

Women can’t help but be what they are – so it is silly to even take any notice of them - but that is exactly what a lot of men do. Not only do they hang onto women’s arms, but also on every word they say. Men in droves are soaking up the muck women spew forth as if it were the 'Nectar of Life'. This poisonous muck seeps into men’s minds and eats away at their inner life; slowly destroying both, until there is nothing left except a lifeless shell – called woman.

Can we just say that it is a strange coincidence then, that you are a women? Maybe it would be best if I just ignored what you said then? I think you are creating a contradiction you can't get around. Had this statement come from a man though I still would have found it equally ridiculous.

Hey you don't need to sign your post...your name shows right up next to it.

I-Beam wrote:]

How do you know great female sages and philosophers exist, but don't think anyone can rightly claim to be a sage or philosopher?

I don't remember saying this at all.

You're right, my apology. My question ought to have been, how can you be sure any female who expresses philosophical wisdom is herself enlightened?

Wouldn't you have to compare your own understanding, and how you'd express that, with what she has expressed, and then make an inference about whether those two expressions are equal in meaning? And on top of that, wouldn't you have to examine her as a teacher, who has automatically taken on the responsibility of moving out of self-interest into becoming the Buddha in all directions? With this definitional equipment, wouldn't you be using the same qualifications you'd use on yourself, to determine your truthfulness?

What I don't see in any female philosopher I've examined, is (i) enlightened understanding AND (ii) living up to that understanding.

ksolway wrote: There are many great men that can be listed, including the Buddha, Nagarjuna, Hakuin, Ramakrishna, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Weininger. On a more worldly level we can list people like Einstein and Darwin. The number of men that can be listed is countless by comparison to the number of women.

Are you sure, because this sounds like an assumption to me. I'm afraid you would actually have to take the time to tally this up for me to accept this statement.

About a year ago, I was writing a book called Sexuality and Individuality. The crux of its thesis was that individuality was intrinsic to the path to enlightenment, and sexuality was not. I defined sexual-mindedness as thoroughly egotistical (wanting something to complete the sexed self), and individuality as the awareness of the whole and eternal self. I then had to look at individuals in terms of the two sexes (using the notion that any individual is mostly manly or mostly womanly in character), to see whether both were equally individualistic or sexually-minded, or whether there were differences.

Instead of trying to prove a hypothesis that all sexual types were feminine and all individualistic types were men, or vice versa, I decided to examine human history, to see what the sexual types brought forth.

Granted, there were some major fires that burnt up the major storehouses of written works. There could have been many individuals who have left no trace, because of wars, being hermitic, censorship, or some communicating disability. Yet the fact that these "invisible individuals" have left nothing meant they had no lasting influence over sexual roles. So I could discount them.

I had access to several university libraries, and professors of philosophy, history, and religion, as well as the internet. In my study, I found hundreds of men known as sages, philosophers, intellectual leaders, wise ones, and religious leaders. About a third of that number was the number of women. I wasn't so concerned about this inequality, as I was more interested in the quality of whatever writings I could find.

I examined the list using the qualifications that defined an enlightened person (admittedly imperfect, but still quite close to the truth - since from this point in my development, I can admit sufficient insight), and was quickly able to cut the number of philosophers down. These were grossly unenlightened, more interested in mathematics, science, mystical experiences, and politics. The overwhelming majority of the females were feminist philosophers, and only interested in talking up women rather than being friends of wisdom. But there were also, like the men, those interested more in mathematics, science, mystical experiences, politics, and also - what is seemly behaviour for a female.

These were all put in the sexually-minded list.

The list was then (from memory) roughly 100 male thinkers and philosophers, and roughly 3-5 women who seemed to be somewhat more inclined to value reason above feminist pursuits. I was pretty lenient, and would probably not include so many now.

Anyway, I was immediately so disgusted, that I gave up the endeavour. It was a huge shock, and more of a challenge than I had been expecting.

Over the past few weeks, I've been thinking about how to encourage people to jump the social picket fence. I've decided I must write a clear account of how utterly at odds women are to wisdom. So I will probably be revisiting the theme.


K

.

A fairly trivial matter:

About signing a post. It adds a "<p>" at the end, so the next post doesn't immediately cram up against it.

If everyone added some character at the start and end, it would make posts easier to read.

Rhett's posts have these dots, like I've copied in this one.

Otherwise, the posting code would have to be adjusted.

.

I-Beam wrote:

Then why does Margaret Court and Martina Navratalova have the highest win percentages of any athlete? You remember what happened when Billy Riggs played Billy Jean King don't you. She beat him.

Women do not gain anything more from being the ‘top’ in their field, because all women are created equal. Men, on the other hand, are not created equal, and therefore are compelled to compete with each other to create a life for themselves.

Babe Ruth was the best home-run hitter of his day. He was also an alcoholic, a womanizer, and a racist. Mozart was an incredible pool player, in addition to being a brilliant composer. He thought his interest in pool made him a better pool player. And let's not forget Michealangelo, I doubt you could say he was "single-minded", the guy had numerous projects going all the time.

All men carry the seed of masculinity in them - the homeless bum on the street, the pedophile, the lawyer, the husband and father, the King, the comedian – all have the potential for greatness. But most; such as Ruth, Mozart and Michelangelo, will be satisfied with winning and losing the small battles of everyday life. A rare few men may take their precious lives and make a bid for true greatness.

I wrote:
Because woman is unconscious and lacks an internal life, it is unfair to judge her against man – they are far too different – sort of like making a legless person (woman) participate in a race against an Olympic gold medalist runner (man).

Women can’t help but be what they are – so it is silly to even take any notice of them - but that is exactly what a lot of men do. Not only do they hang onto women’s arms, but also on every word they say. Men in droves are soaking up the muck women spew forth as if it were the 'Nectar of Life'. This poisonous muck seeps into men’s minds and eats away at their inner life; slowly destroying both, until there is nothing left except a lifeless shell – called woman.

Can we just say that it is a strange coincidence then, that you are a women? Maybe it would be best if I just ignored what you said then? I think you are creating a contradiction you can't get around. Had this statement come from a man though I still would have found it equally ridiculous.

Hey you don't need to sign your post...your name shows right up next to it.

“Can we just say” – what, are there two I-Beam’s sitting there; or are you channeling someone else; or are you speaking as the Queen does – describing yourself as the Royal ‘We’?;)

“Ignore” all you want – this is an open forum, with many people either reading or writing to it – one of them might find my thoughts interesting and useful.

--

When a man thinks something is ‘ridiculous’, you know he is commenting on how far away that something is from Reality.

When a woman says something is ‘ridiculous’, it is meaningless – she could equally have said the something was fascinating, or sad, or brilliant, or cuddly, or incorrect - it doesn’t matter what she says: she hasn’t a mind, so all you’re getting is air.

--

Sue

[laughs!!]

Women do not gain anything more from being the ‘top’ in their field, because all women are created equal.

Now that’s an absolute gem, Sue!

And so true.

Not sure from which perspective I appreciate it most.

Bloody oath.

Then why does Margaret Court and Martina Navratalova have the highest win percentages of any athlete?

Look who they were playing.

You're right, my apology. My question ought to have been, how can you be sure any female who expresses philosophical wisdom is herself enlightened?

I can't...nor do I think it is possible to say the opposite. This is my whole arguement with the idea that women are less capable of achieving enlightenment. I think that is something that happens to an individual, and the individual along. I think it would be futile if an enlightened person were to try and rationally prove to people that he had been enlightened. Also the reverse...to dispute that the person in question had not been enlightened by an observer.

What I don't see in any female philosopher I've examined, is (i) enlightened understanding AND (ii) living up to that understanding.

I bolded what to me are the critical words. I'm not saying that you have not made an honest attempt to find the truth, only that as individuals with limited time, there is only so much we can learn and be exposed to. I would also like to point out, that enlightened people might not be so concerned with whether the world had remembered them or not. It is possible that the majority of people who have achieved enlightenment are not talked about at all.

“Ignore” all you want – this is an open forum, with many people either reading or writing to it – one of them might find my thoughts interesting and useful.

Sue I find your thoughts interesting and useful in the sense that they make me think, otherwise why would I be here? I'm not a person who gets off on trying to simply belittle people or put them down. But nothing that any of you (not "you" like a royal entourage, but "you" like the regular posters and administrators of this board) have said in this thread, has even remotely made me change my oppinion on women, and I bet it would be safe to say that I have not done the same for any of you.
Maybe at least we (you and I and the other posters on the board) will simply have to disagree. Irreconcilable diffences on the matter. I'm not sure how much energy I am willing to devote to this thread, but there are plenty of other things we can discuss.

Fair enough.

Sue

I-Beam wrote:

Sue I find your thoughts interesting and useful in the sense that they make me think, otherwise why would I be here? I'm not a person who gets off on trying to simply belittle people or put them down. But nothing that any of you (not "you" like a royal entourage, but "you" like the regular posters and administrators of this board) have said in this thread, has even remotely made me change my oppinion on women, and I bet it would be safe to say that I have not done the same for any of you.
Maybe at least we (you and I and the other posters on the board) will simply have to disagree. Irreconcilable diffences on the matter.

If we can't agree on this matter, then it is unlikely we would be able to agree on any matter at all. For the issue of the psychology of the sexes is intimately connected to every sphere of life, including the realm of philosophy and spirituality. That is why it is such an important issue. We can't just sweep it under the carpet and pretend that everything is hunky-dory.

I always regard the issue of woman as a kind of acid test. If a person doesn't despise everything that women stand for, and if he doesn't perceive the extreme inferiority of the feminine-minded when it comes to higher pursuits, then it's clear that such a person has no potential to be a genius and no hope of comprehending God.

This doesn't mean, of course, that anyone who despises women automatically has the potential to be a genius. Far from it. But it does mean that if one doesn't despise them, then straight away, one has no hope at all.

-

I-Beam wrote:

You're right, my apology. My question ought to have been, how can you be sure any female who expresses philosophical wisdom is herself enlightened?

I can't...nor do I think it is possible to say the opposite.

I'd like to explore this further.

Are you saying, "No one, regardless of whether they are male or female, can know for certain if another person is fully enlightened." ?

Are you also saying, "No one, regardless of sex, can know for certain what constitutes the character of an enlightened person." ?

Are you also saying, "It is impossible to judge accurately, at any instant of its appearance, the character of any individual." ?

Wouldn't it be fair to say that one judges every appearance, whether they're thoughts that are identifying lines of reasoning, called "mine" or those called "not-mine" ?

I assume that any experience of the consciousness of any thought can reasonably be called "mine", simply because thoughts appear frequently in association with appearances of a particular consistent biological organism, and these are in agreeance with what is expressed by that organism. That is, I would call consciousness of thoughts that are "not-mine" those that are utterly unrelated to the history of this particular ongoing biological organism (in my case, called Kelly Jones).

Since I can judge what is mine, and what is not-mine, based on the relationship to this (my) individual's history, therefore, I can also judge all thoughts that appear in relation to any individual, and know it for what it is.

I can never know the individual who has caused the thought, simply because there is no individual that appears, apart from the thought. If some thought is inaccurate, I can judge it on its own terms.

It's easy to see when "my understanding" is utterly in contradiction with "not-my understanding" that they can be labelled two different individuals. But if the two expressions of understanding are the same, then they're the same individual. I could justifiably associate "my understanding" with appearances of a consistent biological organism that is called "something other than Kelly Jones". It's only because that organism doesn't appear very frequently, compared to the one I call Kelly Jones, that I call it "not-me". If a different organism was always appearing, in association with "my thoughts", then I would associate "my thoughts" with that organism.

So, in fact, one could say, it is impossible to be certain that one is a consistent biological organism. It's only a likelihood. I could wake up tomorrow morning with feelers and a caripace, and then I'd know for sure that a cockroach could be enlightened. I only say it's unlikely because I haven't experienced that - and I think it's really really unlikely this will happen.

But it is possible to be certain that whatever thoughts are expressed are known to be what they are. So, since I've experienced what women are and what men are, since they both appear in "me", I can know for certain how these relate to enlightenment - as long as I am enlightened.

I think it would be futile if an enlightened person were to try and rationally prove to people that he had been enlightened.

It's futile because it is an uncertain proposition. "I must prove that the same thoughts are associated with all biological organisms" can't ever be achieved for certain, only because it states that all possible things can be experienced simultaneously. This is logically impossible because it states that the totality of all things that is absolute, is finite (a single appearance).

However, it is possible and not futile to know that enlightenment is a certainty. Until then, "enlightenment" is subject to doubt.

Also the reverse...to dispute that the person in question had not been enlightened by an observer.

Is the meaning of this sentence, "It is futile to dispute whether or not the enlightenment of a enlightened person is projected onto them" ?

If so, wouldn't it also have to be futile to judge any thing, for fear it was "only a projection" ?

kjones wrote:What I don't see in any female philosopher I've examined, is (i) enlightened understanding AND (ii) living up to that understanding.

I bolded what to me are the critical words. I'm not saying that you have not made an honest attempt to find the truth, only that as individuals with limited time, there is only so much we can learn and be exposed to.

Are you saying that to become enlightened is never a certain proposition, so that it is impossible to know for sure whether anyone is enlightened ?

I don't see why the same criteria can't be applied to all people, regardless of whether that person is me or not.

I would also like to point out, that enlightened people might not be so concerned with whether the world had remembered them or not. It is possible that the majority of people who have achieved enlightenment are not talked about at all.

Given the current situation of humanity, it is impossible that there was a time in which all were enlightened - a situation that might mean there were no need for the enlightening education. Even in a scenario in which all members are fully enlightened, there would still be education of the young.

In the scenario of a reasonably large population of enlightened individuals, their values and behaviour would necessarily have an effect on other groups, such that they would always leave traces. Plus they'd leave educational "traces" such as social rules, simply to organise the larger body. And those rules would leave traces.

In the scenario of very few enlightened individuals, these individuals, simply out of how they've developed to be so truthful, would go on in the same way. These couldn't help but express their thoughts truthfully. This would necessarily leave traces. Even if wisdom-phobic totalitarian regimes threatened their lives, were they to speak out, they'd find ways to leave the most hardy seeds possible.

Although all the literature we have is subject to chance, nevertheless, they were initially designed by these particular individuals, who considered the best way to reach far into history. They deliberately chose to have long lives. So, we can only go on the individuals who have left writings, or traces of some shape.

So it's actually impossible that an enlightened individual would leave no trace at all. Permitting truthlessness to persist wouldn't be logical. Of course, it's uncertain whether the outcomes of this individual's actions in the world do grow up to bear the expected fruit.

I think human society is what it is today because the seeds of the past were too tender, and unable to cope with frosts, birds, hard soil, and the weeds of the jungle.

So, for what reason would a female ever choose to be silent, if she were fully enlightened, knowing the feminine nature fully, and certain of its disadvantage to humanity? If she were ever-silent for fear that it might over-power her and distort her expressions, she'd be succumbing to it.

nothing that any of you... have said in this thread, has even remotely made me change my opinion on women,

I doubt that, I don't judge you to be so impervious to Truth, She tends to sneak in past you even while you think and hope not, though it is clear you have a colossal attachment to not becoming aquainted with her.
That at bottom is everyones problem not just your own -- It's not that we don't have what it takes to understand it, but that fear forbids us to be willing.

kjones wrote:

Women are instinctive rather than thinkers, Lenny. It's not a level of consciousness that has conscience. Instinct can't know itself, it's spontaneous flow. Conscience is consciousness of consciousness.

In doing her damnedest to save the world, or destroy some supposedly evil threat, she's not aware of how relative values are. She can't judge overall, and reflect on the relationship of this thing she loves most, or hates most, to everything else.

It's only because she's doing it, that it's right and good. That's the instinct of the ego. In being aware of damaging people's reputations, and wreaking havoc, there might occasionally be a concern over it. But this concern is about, "What consequences will arise that will harm me?"

A woman's twinges of conscience are not, "This ought not to be done, relative to all its consequences weighed against the most valuable of values." They are: "This ought not to be done, because I can't handle the consequences."

Yikes! There you're describing one terribly self-centered creature, you are. Is it all as bad as that!
Have you ever been the unlucky victim of these monsters?

I suppose I could have been fooled, but seems to me that many women do indeed contribute to our little project here on Earth, take it seriously and give of themselves, their time money and effort, to help make a better world for all creatures.

Whatever the matter, we can't escape the reality that women are the way they are because men demand it, what choice do they have? It is men that make women, women, who are far more blameless. It is men, men's attitudes that need major adjustment, after which women's would too.
If there is something about women we don't like, understand why it is necessary to balance that which we demand in women.

If we're going to slam anyone, best if we start with the boys.

Lenny,

I'm not slamming anyone. I'm telling it how it is. If one is masculine enough to see the value of being an uncompromisingly truthful, gentle and upright model, then that one kills off all traces of womanliness.

It's about the discovery of courage.

The list was then (from memory) roughly 100 male thinkers and philosophers, and roughly 3-5 women who seemed to be somewhat more inclined to value reason above feminist pursuits. I was pretty lenient, and would probably not include so many now.

May we see that list Kelly?

Anyway, I was immediately so disgusted, that I gave up the endeavour. It was a huge shock, and more of a challenge than I had been expecting.

Why disgusted?

Over the past few weeks, I've been thinking about how to encourage people to jump the social picket fence. I've decided I must write a clear account of how utterly at odds women are to wisdom. So I will probably be revisiting the theme.

So you're a book writer. Any published titles?