GENIUS FORUMS

BTW Elizabeth, I've been told by new-agers that my oldest daughter is an indigo child. I just read their alleged characteristics in the wikipedia article, and they fit her only in part. For example, she can't read minds. Too bad, that would've been cool.

http://projectcamelot.org/index.html

The material being discussed at this site bears a remarkable similarity to something I was just reading about Edgar Cayce. Apparently, the way Cayce saw his own abilities was that he was acting somehow as a mediator between a person in need of some physical therapy, for example, and other people who could offer it whom he may not even ever have met. He was in this manner to describe medications and treatments but only when he discovered a need in a third person for them. I believe the AMA backed his being permitted to prescribe. He could not explain how he would come upon the information, except that is was need-driven.

I got an old copy of Chariots of the Gods, and Von Daniken spent a good deal of ink on Cayce.

I don't know what to think about the explanation of Cayce that he requiured two things: A lack of information in one direction, and a suplus in another, and he could get in between the two things and by trance, remove himself from the process and then almost have the information transferred to him by osmosis.

brokenhead wrote:

Elizabeth--What is the reason behind the term "Indigo?"

Click on that Wiki link in her post.

Indigo is supposedly the color of the aura of those kids.

Carl G wrote:brokenhead wrote:

Elizabeth--What is the reason behind the term "Indigo?"

Click on that Wiki link in her post.

Indigo is supposedly the color of the aura of those kids.

Thanks Carl.

The Wikki link is rather skeptical - sounding.

Agreed. I've been aware of the Indigo Child concept for at least a dozen years, but I have yet to discern validity in it. Not that I haven't met some special-seeming young people. Stands to reason that every age has them, though. I'm not aware of evidence showing that there are an especially high number of them now.

My neighbor has an indigo dog. Won't listen to authority, barking all the time, incredibly hyperactive, won't sit still.

And what an aura!

Kevin Solway wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:As for James Randi's million - not everyone knows about that

If they can read people's minds you would think they'd know about it! :-)

Just because a person can read someone's mind doesn't mean they'd want to sort through all that mess. As messy as most people's minds are, I don't know how most of them can read their own minds...

Reading body language, I become bisexual (2), hermapherditic. I then scope a mind. Furthermore, I can even become cat like and shift shape in order to converse with others...

Although I tend to be a pessimist in general, I see no credible evidence that humanity is actually close to extinction. I think a lot of us are deeply biased by our desire for a more reasonable world - but reasonableness is not necessarily required for survival. There are animal species which have existed successfully far longer than human beings.

I guess one might argue that "reasonableness" has become necessary to our survival given the growth in our ability to alter the environment.

Dan Rowden wrote:I guess one might argue that "reasonableness" has become necessary to our survival given the growth in our ability to alter the environment.

Yikes. If so, we may indeed be doomed.

Speaking of doomed, just finished reading The Manipulated Man by Esther Vilar...

"As a result of 'love,' man is able to hide his cowardly self-deception behind a smoke screen of sentiment. He is able to make himself believe that his senseless enslavement to woman and her hostages is more than an act of honor, it has a higher purpose. He is entirely happy in his role as a slave and has arrived at the goal he has so long desired. Since woman gains nothing but one advantage after another from the situation as it stands today, things will never change. The system forces her to be corrupt, but no one is going to worry about that. Since one can expect nothing from a woman but love, it will remain the currency for any need she might have. Man, her slave, will continue to use his energies only according to his conditioning and never to his own advantage. He will achieve greater goals, and the more he achieves, the farther women will become alienated from him. The more he tries to ingratiate himself with her, the more demanding she will become; the more he desires her, the less she will find him desirable; the more comforts he provides for her, the more indolent, stupid, and inhuman she will become--and man will grow lonelier as a result.

"Only woman can break the vicious circle of man's manipulation and exploitation--but she will not do it. There is absolutely no compelling reason why she should. It is useless to appeal to her feelings, for she is callous and knows no pity. And so the world will go on, sinking deeper and deeper into this morass of kitsch, barbarism, and inanity called femininity. And man, that wonderful dreamer, will never awaken from his dream."

The book was published in 1971, and I daresay some of her predictions are coming true. Reading this book confirmed many of my suspicions about women, and in general their tyranny over men.

Another quote: "If men would only stop for a moment in their headlong creativity and think, they could easily tear the masks off these creatures with their tinkling bracelets, frilly blouses, and gold-leather sandals. Surely it would take them only a couple of days, considering their own intelligence, imagination, and determination, to construct a machine, a kind of human female robot to take the place of woman. For there is nothing original in her--neither inside nor out--which could not be replaced. Why are men so afraid to face the truth?"

Ouch. Because they like being enslaved, that's why.

We all love our chains.

It's so goddamn depressing.

For pity's sake, Rebecca, you didn't take that book to heart, did you? Granted, it was entertainingly, cleverly and persuasively written, but it was irredeemably biased, simplistic and agenda-driven - as I recall, rarely if at all did it consider any evidence that might lead to a contrary point of view. As far as I'm concerned it was a stunt, and what truth there is in it is sullied by its one-sidedness. But hey, I'm getting the impression that you're slowly coming around to the QRS perspective on femininity, so maybe you like puerile one-sidedness.

You've read the whole book?

Yes.

Where'd you find it?

I prefer not to answer that question. I hope that you don't mind, because it doesn't seem to be particularly relevant anyway.

Geez, paranoia acting up? I was asking because I've never read it and other than Amazon, wouldn't know where to find it.

Yeah, man, the cops are like fuckin' everywhere. They're closing in. There's a white van parked outside my fuckin' house. It's only a matter of fuckin' time. I can't say more than that, the fuckin' agency has the wires tapped.

Anyway, I wouldn't know where to find it either - Amazon's probably a good bet.

guest_of_logic wrote:...you didn't take that book to heart, did you?

I found a lot of truth in it. I saw a lot of myself in it. So yes, I did take it to heart.

...it was irredeemably biased, simplistic and agenda-driven...

What was her agenda?

...what truth there is in it is sullied by its one-sidedness.

She did generalize a lot, but had to in order to make her argument. If you read the whole thing constantly looking for exceptions to her rule, of course you'll miss her point. Some women are better actresses than others. Some men entertain wishful thinking more than others.

In what way was it a stunt? Do you mean she meant it to be provocative and nothing else?

I thought she made some excellent points. She finally shed some light on exactly why the Women's Liberation movement started in the U.S., why it targeted exactly the wrong enemy, and how it actually helps men remain enslaved.

I read it at the library, the original version, but Kevin posted an interesting forward she wrote to the reissue a few years ago. http://www.theabsolute.net/misogyny/vilar.html#quotes

By the way,

guest_of_logic wrote:...I'm getting the impression that you're slowly coming around to the QRS perspective on femininity...

Thanks! I'll take that as a compliment.

Dan Rowden wrote:Geez, paranoia acting up? I was asking because I've never read it and other than Amazon, wouldn't know where to find it.

I've got it on a CD, which Kevin made at one time. If you can't track it down, I'll pass it onto you when I see you next.

Reading those quotes reminded me of what a unique and courageous woman Esther Vilar was. She suffered social ostracism because of that work, but never backed down from it. She puts most male thinkers to shame.

-

I want to first make it clear that I read the book over a year ago, and that I don't currently have a copy, so I'm going off memory here. If my memory fails me, then I'm open to correction.

rebecca702 wrote:I saw a lot of myself in it.

Darling, and I've already bought the ring... nevermind, I'll just cancel the credit card transaction and return it.

rebecca702 wrote:What was her agenda?

Agendas can run deep, and I wouldn't claim to know her "ultimate" agenda, in terms of what psychological reasons she has for pursuing her more superficial agenda, but in my observation her more superficial agenda is to paint women in as poor a light as possible (effectively as lazy, whoring, deceitful leeches), and men in as positive a light as possible (which is a bit limited given that she ascribes some blame to men for letting women get away with their "manipulation").

rebecca702 wrote:She did generalize a lot, but had to in order to make her argument. If you read the whole thing constantly looking for exceptions to her rule, of course you'll miss her point. Some women are better actresses than others. Some men entertain wishful thinking more than others.

Yeah, and many women, and many relationships, just aren't like that at all. I know plenty of relationships where both partners work and share all responsibilities relatively equally. I know of relationships where the woman has higher earning power than the man, and uses it. There is even on this very forum a poster who is a stay-at-home dad whilst his partner presumably supports him. I seem to recall that Esther acknowledged (some of) these points, and made some attempt to reconcile them with her generalisations, but I can't remember how she did so, nor how compelling I found it.

rebecca702 wrote:In what way was it a stunt? Do you mean she meant it to be provocative and nothing else?

Yeah, pretty much. I mean, I'm sure that she believed (or deluded herself into thinking) to some extent that she was "telling it as it is", but I strongly suspect that a large part of her was thinking to herself "Ha! Just think of the rucus that this is going to cause! Those traditional feminists are going to absolutely spit chips!" And if she wasn't, then she's not particularly insightful anyway.

rebecca702 wrote:I thought she made some excellent points.

Like most books and ideas, it has some truth in it, sure. As I said earlier, though, that truth is sullied by the bias.

rebecca702 wrote:She finally shed some light on exactly why the Women's Liberation movement started in the U.S., why it targeted exactly the wrong enemy, and how it actually helps men remain enslaved.

I don't quite recall what she said about Women's Lib, but I seem to recall that after reflecting on it I decided that it suffered from the same problem as the rest of the book: that whilst it contained some truth, it was excessively one-sided.

As for whether men are any more enslaved than women, it's a matter of perspective. Sure, there are some men who are sacrificing themselves for women who are only with them because of the material comforts that those men provide. On the other hand, there are some women who can't seem to escape from relationships where they are abused. Are either of these groups really "enslaved"? They're both free to make different decisions - choose a woman whose love isn't predicated on material rewards in the first case, or choose a man whose love doesn't entail violence in the second (or remain single in either case). I can't remember how relevant this is to the book, though. I seem to recall that she acknowledges that what she sees as man's enslavement is voluntary.

rebecca702 wrote:I read it at the library, the original version, but Kevin posted an interesting forward she wrote to the reissue a few years ago. http://www.theabsolute.net/misogyny/vilar.html#quotes

OK, well, I don't feel like responding to that forward right now. Matter of fact, I prefer to devote my attention to other threads (not just here, but on other forums that I inhabit), so I might not respond further in this one - I just wanted to put in my two cent's worth. You will probably get the last word, if you even feel like responding knowing that my interest in continuing the discussion is lack-lustre at best. I'll at least keep on following the thread, so I'll read any response(s) that you might make.

rebecca702 wrote:By the way,

guest_of_logic wrote:...I'm getting the impression that you're slowly coming around to the QRS perspective on femininity...

Thanks! I'll take that as a compliment.

Haha, knock yourself out mate. As your buddies QRS will affirm, wilful attachment to deliberate self-delusions (such as recasting a disapproving observation as a compliment) is a pernicious habit to break, but it sure is comforting. :-)

Guest,

It's obvious that you didn't read it very deeply, because you don't really care (I can't figure why you read it in the first place)... and you obviously have much better things to do.

Rebecca

David,

Reading those quotes reminded me of what a unique and courageous woman Esther Vilar was.

She died?