GENIUS FORUMS

To the same degree the mind is unenlightened, meaning, deluded, thoughts are directed by Woman's voice.

To the degree one is immersed in the Infinite, and enlightened, one is free.

Kelly: I'm going to ignore you just like I ignore the voice in my head that tells me those things.

Neil wrote: Approximately what percent of biological women do you think fit this category? How many biological men?

Well, it's impossible to know for certain. How many humans have ever existed - 11 billion since 1AD? Say 1 female became enlightened to a fairly high degree. That would make it 99.99999995% of biological women fitting the category. That's a pretty big margin, given that no females have ever given evidence of being virtually free of delusion. There's evidence of maybe 100 or so males reaching the same level. Makes 99.9999991 % of biological men fitting the category.

Also, there's a huge difference between following the voice of Woman mindlessly --- and believing it. Like the difference between a rock and a modern Buddhist.

IF wrote:For instance, when a women (or man) [snip]

OK, this deserves some attention. I have seen several posters to this forum use the term "a women." Never have I seen people who do this say "a men."

What brand of unconscious Freudian slip is this? Do you recognise yourself as someone who uses this term, and if you do, it means you have used it consciously--why?

Edit: OK, here's an example of the phenomenon with women in reverse iteration (in fact, Cory is the main offender with this sort of thing! Which pains me so to point out, because I like him.):

Cory Duchesne wrote:Why are you one of the few woman who realize that this is 'generally' the case?

I think woman read so much for the same reason that I (a male) read so much. It hurts to not be unoccupied with something. There is such a tremendous drive, an urge to consume some sort of product, whether it is a book, drug, drink, television show, film, music. To do nothing, to sit and study oneself is painful. Why is it painful? Because we are lonely.......we are terribly frightened of missing out on life. Or we truly experience ourselves as someone who is missing out on what we assume to be life --- so the pain of that rationalization, that reality, drives us to absorb ourselves in a book. To escape.

The Female Explorer

You'd have to demonstrate this to have it taken seriously, Leyla. I've not been aware of it.

Consciousness is such a pain in the arse, ain't it?

I'm surprised you've never noticed.

Hi-ho, hi-ho, it's off to search I go.....

Information

The following words in your search query were ignored because they are too common words: women a.
You must specify at least one word to search for. Each word must consist of at least 3 characters and must not contain more than 14 characters excluding wildcards.

Well, so much for that venture. Any tips, Kevin? (I did enter the term as "a women" not "women a.")

Nonetheless, I can tell you two posters offhand who have done this: Cory and Ryan.

I shall search their posts for a quote, but I won't be fretting over lack of evidence! I'll just bide my time....

:)

Do I need to find any more to be taken seriously, Dan?

There are 59 pages of partial post quotes to be searched from Cory, alone---and, when it comes to the subject of women, an insufficient search facility...

Leyla,

Google seems less anal about this women:

site:theabsolute.net "ryan rudolph" "a women"

To save you some sleepy time.

Leyla Shen wrote:Nonetheless, I can tell you two posters offhand who have done this: Cory and Ryan.

Oh, I thought you meant posts by posters I actually read.

Kelly,

What is the desired effect, the biggest truth?

The desired effect would probably be to feel in control and happy (or therefore happy). So, even by being irrational the desired effect is reached, which is the delusion - control - and feeling in control makes people happy, fulfilled as if their life has meaning...

So, even by being irrational the desired effect is reached, which is the delusion - control

I wouldn't say that wisdom, the absence of delusion, is lack of control. For instance, it's not chaotic, reckless, and inefficient. But wisdom comes after controlling and steering the mind with reason.

The difference between a control-freak and a rational mindstate is intellectual and experiential connection with Reality.

.

Honestly Kelly. Four spaces between sentences and the redundant full stop two lines after the end of yor post too.

Are you going to grow a white beard next?

I'd like to figure this out:

Kelly,

one might think about the directions and behaviour of women, and see a pattern. One might wonder what is underpinning that pattern.

Me,

when a woman (or man) act in a certain way and get rewarded, even if it's irrational, they'll be more likely to repeat their behavior (or thinking) when a similar causal situation strikes, because it worked by producing desireable effects the first time. Each time they repeat this pattern, it only gets strenghtened...

Kelly,

This is how the pattern is made, but I'm looking for something a bit deeper. Like, what is the world-view of this voice? What is the desired effect, the biggest truth?

Me,

The desired effect would probably be to feel in control and happy (or therefore happy). So, even by being irrational the desired effect is reached, which is the delusion - control - and feeling in control makes people happy, fulfilled as if their life has meaning...

Kelly,

I wouldn't say that wisdom, the absence of delusion, is lack of control. For instance, it's not chaotic, reckless, and inefficient. But wisdom comes after controlling and steering the mind with reason.

Can you please help me figure this out?

I am easily bored. I have to be entertained.
- If she is not kept well-supplied with toys, she says, "Then I will sulk, or take my revenge."

I agree with most of the list, but not this one. Most women I know are happy in conversation, or sit at home, and do very little. Men are the ones that want the toys.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Leyla,

Google seems less anal about this women:

site:theabsolute.net "ryan rudolph" "a women"

To save you some sleepy time.

[laughs]

Wow, that's really quite handy.

Thanks.

Dan Rowden wrote:

Leyla Shen wrote:Nonetheless, I can tell you two posters offhand who have done this: Cory and Ryan.

Oh, I thought you meant posts by posters I actually read.

Alright, I can understand that (particularly when it comes to Ryan). You should know, however, that aside from being an expedient touch-typist, I can also speed-read!

Pincho Paxton wrote:I agree with most of the list, but not this one. Most women I know are happy in conversation, or sit at home, and do very little. Men are the ones that want the toys.

Pincho, are you a foreigner?

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Pincho, are you a foreigner?

Hahaha - what a thing to say on an international community board.

Leyla Shen wrote:

What brand of unconscious Freudian slip is this? Do you recognise yourself as someone who uses this term, and if you do, it means you have used it consciously--why?

Nonetheless, I can tell you two posters offhand who have done this: Cory and Ryan.

Leyla, I think you are reading into this way too much. it could be just an reoccurring spelling error, or we could be subconsciously choosing a word that captures both the singular and plural nature of feminine tendencies. Either way, its no big deal. It seems to me that a common occurrence from certain posters on GF is to over analyze the tedious details in something rather insignificant as a means to discover meaning, when nothing substantial is really there.

Leyla and others like her are like treasure hunters that go searching for gold in garbage heaps.

Hello, Ryan:

Ready to engage, once again?

Leyla, I think you are reading into this way too much. it could be just an reoccurring spelling error, or we could be subconsciously choosing a word that captures both the singular and plural nature of feminine tendencies. Either way, its no big deal. It seems to me that a common occurrence from certain posters on GF is to over analyze the tedious details in something rather insignificant as a means to discover meaning, when nothing substantial is really there.

It might be plenty of things, eh? No big deal. Certainly not as big as Woman, to whom there is certainly nothing substantial.

Leyla and others like her are like treasure hunters that go searching for gold in garbage heaps.

Nonetheless, thanks for that over analysis of tedious detail and the acknowledgment of yourself as a garbage heap. Did you think I didn’t already know? The possibility that there might have been gold there is entirely lost in you. As expected, you have turned up nothing but more unconscious garbage all on your own.

From Cory I have different expectations.

Leyla Shen wrote:

IF wrote:For instance, when a women (or man) [snip]

OK, this deserves some attention. I have seen several posters to this forum use the term "a women." Never have I seen people who do this say "a men."

I think it might just be because, for some reason, typos are more difficult for me to notice in bigger words.

What brand of unconscious Freudian slip is this?

I don't think it has really much to do with Freudian slips, but if it does, maybe unconsciously I see women as non-individuals who only exist in a plural sense, and never in a singular one? [shrug]

Do you recognise yourself as someone who uses this term, and if you do, it means you have used it consciously--why?

Edit: OK, here's an example of the phenomenon with women in reverse iteration (in fact, Cory is the main offender with this sort of thing!

I actually recall catching myself a few times writing women when I should have wrote woman. I think it has something to do with a mild dyslexia that I've noticed in my writing and speaking tendencies. I seem to edit my posts more than most people, and it's always to do with replacing an 'it or does' where there should be an 'is'(and vice versa), replacing a word used in a plural context when it should have been singular, mixing up a past participle with a present, passive with active, mixing up words with rhyming phonetics (e.g., too/to, Right/Write, are/our, here/hear, their/there etc.)

Elizabeth has PM'd more than once, pointing out my errors, always in that delightfully condescending way. :)

One of my biggest blunders was not too long ago when I wrote:

It very well may be that the difference between a Buddha and a Ted Bundy is that the later has a higher neuron count, a smaller or somehow less dominant adrenal gland, an overall lower quantity of hormones in proportion to neurons, etc.

I used 'later' when I should have said 'former'. Now, depressingly, this takes us back to the whole Freudian slip issue - especially considering my old posts where I tried repeatedly to suggest commonalities between the psychopath and the enlightened man. :(

It was actually a couple days later that I managed to catch up on the thread and notice my error. By then probably almost everyone who was going to read it, had read it.

Cory wrote:

Elizabeth has PM'd more than once, pointing out my errors, always in that delightfully condescending way. :)

Hahaha. yes, I’m guilty of the same sort of small errors as well, and one can only do his best to attempt to correct them all. However, It’s a good thing there are lots of women on GF to humbly jump in and pick them out for us... ; )

Kelly Jones wrote:

Neil wrote: Approximately what percent of biological women do you think fit this category? How many biological men?

Well, it's impossible to know for certain. How many humans have ever existed - 11 billion since 1AD? Say 1 female became enlightened to a fairly high degree. That would make it 99.99999995% of biological women fitting the category. That's a pretty big margin, given that no females have ever given evidence of being virtually free of delusion. There's evidence of maybe 100 or so males reaching the same level. Makes 99.9999991 % of biological men fitting the category.

Also, there's a huge difference between following the voice of Woman mindlessly --- and believing it. Like the difference between a rock and a modern Buddhist.

Okay so why do you say "Voice of Woman" rather than "Voice of unenlightened human"? Changing the definition of "Woman" to fit 99.99999% of humans and "Man" to fit 0.000001% of humans is dumb and will only get you mistaken for being sexist.

And I think a large portion of "biological males" don't fit into the description you gave in post 1 so your categorization is flawed anyways.

Leyla wrote: I have seen several posters to this forum use the term "a women." Never have I seen people who do this say "a men."

Something I just realized: I think it has something to do with there being less phonetic distinction between woman and women, compared to man and men. When I'm writing my posts I notice there is a strong tendency for me to write what I sound out phonetically in my head.

Also, I think I'm less inclined to notice a grammatical error when the first few letters are in the right order. If the first few letters are correct, then the meaning of the word will register, and I'll just continue skimming along the page without noticing the error.

Anyways, I'll be sure to pay more heed to my usage of woman/women in future posts.