GENIUS FORUMS

1otherS wrote:
Do you expect an "Enlightened Sage" to actually relate sexually to a kid who hasn't even fully developed his/her reproductive organs? Who doesn't even understand what they are for?

.

No, of course wouldnt expect but apparently it happen we have first hand knowledge that Socrates tapped a few little ones in his day, if Mr Quinn says it it must be true right, any way where did i write "enlightened sage" nowhere quote is about regualar-joe the "pervert", also size children were said to be sexually active then cant apply to kids who dont know what their dicks are for!
pay attention ok bud
M

mansman wrote:How do you know McKenna did not actualize perversions?

I don't. He chooses not to reveal anything about his personal life. For all I know, he could be a mild-mannered bank clerk who dreams about fictitious spiritual encounters on the side.

How do you know so much about sexual perverts?
Better yet WHY the pedos interest you.
If you once victim or have feelings to victimize, would be interesting discussion.

It's all part of understanding human psychology. I haven't been a victim of pedophelia.

Also devils advocate might say: Many children are sexually active, if they say ok to some so-called pervert adult who cares for them like a concerned lover would then where is the damage, and why is the damage worse than some child partner would give? who uses them without love and care due to immaturity.

Most pedophiles do say that, and some actually believe it. You're right that we've had several people in the past come onto the forum and espouse such things.

Here is an example featuring a fellow called Philip Wild who was on the forum a few years ago: Sex and the Sage.

-

mansman wrote:

David Quinn wrote:I think he is using his philosophic knowledge to indulge in his true love - namely, subjecting others to his sexual/pedophiliac perversions.

Osho, the leader of the orange people, did much the same. The strong streak of impurity in him usurped whatever purity he did posses and utilized for its own uglier agenda.

By keeping it as philosophical as possible, he can mask the true state of affairs and assuage the guilt that is invariably associated with perversion. Keeping it in the realm of fiction can also help assuage the guilt.

-

Dude, you're afraid and disgusted of touching people...Who has the issues now?

I'm not sure what you are talking about here. Are you certain you've got the right person?

-

Jason wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:The universe, reality, whatever, has no purpose or meaning by definition. Such concepts aren't applicable. Meaning and purpose are artifacts of consciousness. We bring them into the world.

I realize that this might seem like nit-picking but I do take issue with the common pronouncement that the universe has no purpose or meaning. Consciousness can include meaning and purpose, and consciousness is a part of the universe, hence the universe does indeed have purpose and meaning.

That's not nit-picking so much as, well, I'm not sure what it is. Irrelevant maybe? Consciousness is not the universe, therefore what you just said is false. Saying that the universe contains things is not the same as saying what the universe is. In short, my point is that purpose and meaning are relative things.

1otherS wrote:Also devils advocate might say: Many children are sexually active, if they say ok to some so-called pervert adult who cares for them like a concerned lover would then where is the damage, and why is the damage worse than some child partner would give? who uses them without love and care due to immaturity.


I actually read that argument on this site, just goes to show how mature this place really is.
Do you expect an "Enlightened Sage" to actually relate sexually to a kid who hasn't even fully developed his/her reproductive organs? Who doesn't even understand what they are for?

You know what I really can't grasp? Why the QRS has the gall to pass value-judgments on 'average folks' when shit like the aforementioned gets eaten up around here.

I'm afraid I don't get your point. And can you you supply the actual content of that quote, please? A few years ago we had a bunch of "fucking kids is perfectly fine" types and engaged in considerable debate with them, the best of which can be found here:

Sex and the Sage

[edit: ah, Dave already posted the link. What the hell.]

rebecca702 wrote:Has anybody here seen "Million Dollar Baby"? It's about a female boxer. I think it's interesting in the beginning when she's in the gym trying to get Clint Eastwood to be her trainer. He says, "I don't train women," and repeatedly tells her other trainers would be happy to take her on. But she doesn't give up and then he finally agrees and says, "but I don't train women." And they're like "OK"... a metaphor for the philosophical quest?

Interesting. Before I answer, why do you think he chooses not to train women?

Dan Rowden wrote:

rebecca702 wrote:Has anybody here seen "Million Dollar Baby"? It's about a female boxer. I think it's interesting in the beginning when she's in the gym trying to get Clint Eastwood to be her trainer. He says, "I don't train women," and repeatedly tells her other trainers would be happy to take her on. But she doesn't give up and then he finally agrees and says, "but I don't train women." And they're like "OK"... a metaphor for the philosophical quest?

Interesting. Before I answer, why do you think he chooses not to train women?

Hmm. Well, that can be interpreted many ways. In the actual story, I think the reason is that he's dealing with some hugely emotional regret due to something about his long-lost daughter, which is never made very clear. It seems he's been tortured for many years by his emotions (going to mass every single day, etc) - and I suppose having close contact with women brings it all back.

But maybe you don't mean the actual character in that story. I suppose without knowing anything about his history, he'd choose to not train women because none of them had proven themselves worthy. Essentially, none of them had been bullheaded and tough enough to break through the barrier. They'd all given up too quickly and settled for something less.

So I'm not sure which way you meant it. But I definitely think it shows that he has utterly refused to treat her one iota differently than he would a male. Maybe females in the past have worn him down or demanded special treatment. He's sick of it, as he should be. She knows what sacrifices she has to make. She's leaving certain things behind to embark on this challenge. She's very single-minded and sticks to her guns, and also doesn't cling to him and rely on him. She has her own vision... and she's okay with being treated as a man, and being in every way like a man, in order to attain it.

He's not willing to train someone who's going to simply invest in him (the parasite-mind thing), and think he's going to make everything okay. Do the thinking for her, make decisions for her, etc. Abdicate power to him. Maybe that's what happened to him. Somebody did that, and turned over their personal responsibility to him, and then something went wrong, and he forever feels guilty about it. And will never let that happen again.

I am assuming you've seen the movie in question. So what do you think?

David Quinn wrote:

mansman wrote:

David Quinn wrote:I think he is using his philosophic knowledge to indulge in his true love - namely, subjecting others to his sexual/pedophiliac perversions.

Osho, the leader of the orange people, did much the same. The strong streak of impurity in him usurped whatever purity he did posses and utilized for its own uglier agenda.

By keeping it as philosophical as possible, he can mask the true state of affairs and assuage the guilt that is invariably associated with perversion. Keeping it in the realm of fiction can also help assuage the guilt.

-

Dude, you're afraid and disgusted of touching people...Who has the issues now?

I'm not sure what you are talking about here. Are you certain you've got the right person?

-

-You've expressed aversion of all social interactions before. You said something like: "people hugging you...are foistering their needs and insecurities upon you." and "Even though I have been diagnosed with a Schizoid Personality Disorder (as part of a process I went through to acquire a government pension)" This proves you getting diagnosed with a personality-disorder. You of course don't accept this assesment but play along anyway just so you can leech off .

-You also have a very elitist attitude surrounding your writings.
e.g. Completely dismissing Kant and Wittgenstein without even offering detailed examples of why you disagree with their views.

-You've complained about your experience with dole-support. You actually lamented about the doleworker asking you what steps you had taken to find proper work.

-You support multiple philosophers who happen to claim women are spiritually-intellectually inferior.

These 4 examples already prove you have serious issues getting along with people of the opposite sex or different persuasions. They also prove you can't seem to find solutions that work in the actual world or with real-life people...rendering your authority as a self-proclaimed sage non-existant.

David Quinn wrote:

rebecca702 wrote:

David Quinn wrote:The key thing is stop being sexual oneself. That is, ceasing the mad urge to look outwards and use others for completion, to crave their approval, to want to hypnotize and dominate them. In other words, by learning how to be self-contained.

So to translate this to the female, to stop wanting to be hypnotized and dominated?

That's right, stop looking to others to save you. It is harder for females because they are far more structured towards finding their happiness and security in relationships. It is harder for them to be self-contained. They have to begin trusting their own minds, which is foreign to them.

But there is no real reason why they cannot achieve this. Recent studies have shown that the chemistry in the brain changes when one's behaviour changes. The brain can become more "masculine" - i.e. improvements in testosterone levels, spacial reasoning, compartmentalization, assertiveness, etc - when one indulges in masculine behaviour. The same with the other direction. It is quite flexible in that regard.

We have yet to see what limits there are, if any, for females going in that direction. There have been so few pioneers.

-

Two female pioneers from my own country: Catherine Verfaille and Christine Van Broekhoven.
Look up their work: two women who are more rational and openminded than you could ever hope to be.

What have either of them got to do with what is being discussed? They are both molecular biologists, scientists; what is the relevance of that? Women have been doing science for a long time.

1otherS wrote:

David Quinn wrote:

mansman wrote:Dude, you're afraid and disgusted of touching people...Who has the issues now?

I'm not sure what you are talking about here. Are you certain you've got the right person?

-You've expressed aversion of all social interactions before. You said something like: "people hugging you...are foistering their needs and insecurities upon you." and "Even though I have been diagnosed with a Schizoid Personality Disorder (as part of a process I went through to acquire a government pension)" This proves you getting diagnosed with a personality-disorder. You of course don't accept this assesment but play along anyway just so you can leech off .

-You also have a very elitist attitude surrounding your writings.
e.g. Completely dismissing Kant and Wittgenstein without even offering detailed examples of why you disagree with their views.

-You've complained about your experience with dole-support. You actually lamented about the doleworker asking you what steps you had taken to find proper work.

-You support multiple philosophers who happen to claim women are spiritually-intellectually inferior.

These 4 examples already prove you have serious issues getting along with people of the opposite sex or different persuasions. They also prove you can't seem to find solutions that work in the actual world or with real-life people...rendering your authority as a self-proclaimed sage non-existant.

Where does all this hostility come from? It seems to have come out of the blue.

Where is your sense of humour?

-

...
These 4 examples already prove you have serious issues getting along with people of the opposite sex or different persuasions. They also prove you can't seem to find solutions that work in the actual world or with real-life people...rendering your authority as a self-proclaimed sage non-existant.[/quote]
Where does all this hostility come from? It seems to have come out of the blue.

Where is your sense of humour?

-[/quote]
I'm just collecting your philosophical positions and telling you why they are flawed. Now if all those things you confessed about yourself are all jest..then we can steer this discussion in an entirely different direction.

Dan Rowden wrote:What have either of them got to do with what is being discussed? They are both molecular biologists, scientists; what is the relevance of that? Women have been doing science for a long time.

David Quinn was talking about women becoming more masculine.

The relevance of my post? These 2 examples show women actually taking the lead in research(=manly) and advancing the idea of Enlightenment instead of just endlessly pontificating about it on a webforum. A webforum which was not created by meditating in a forest-cave but actual science.
How would you pass the time if it weren't for people like these?

Dan wrote:Mine is simply the propagation of wisdom.

Is that why you no-longer respond to my posts? Dan, is it true that logic can be used to sustain delusion in people?

Dan Rowden wrote:I'm afraid I don't get your point. And can you you supply the actual content of that quote, please? A few years ago we had a bunch of "fucking kids is perfectly fine" types and engaged in considerable debate with them, the best of which can be found here:

Sex and the Sage

Here's an interview that I found very interesting(it takes a while to really get going):
Self-described pedophile Lindsay Ashford discusses pedophilia(YouTube)

Bump for relevance:

-David Quinn was talking about women becoming more masculine.

The relevance of my post? These 2 examples show women actually taking the lead in research(=manly) and advancing the idea of Enlightenment instead of just endlessly pontificating about it on a webforum. A webforum which was not created by meditating in a forest-cave but actual science.
How would you pass the time if it weren't for people like these?

-Dan, is it true that logic can be used to sustain delusion in people?

The heat is on, Dan! Are you ready to dance?

1otherS wrote:

Where does all this hostility come from? It seems to have come out of the blue.

Where is your sense of humour?

I'm just collecting your philosophical positions and telling you why they are flawed. Now if all those things you confessed about yourself are all jest..then we can steer this discussion in an entirely different direction.

Everything I say and do is jest. It's an enterprise I take very seriously.

David Quinn was talking about women becoming more masculine.

The relevance of my post? These 2 examples show women actually taking the lead in research(=manly) and advancing the idea of Enlightenment instead of just endlessly pontificating about it on a webforum.

Science isn't about advancing enlightenment. It has nothing to say on the nature of reality or what's involved in the spiritual path. You're confusing different activities here.

It is good that women are doing science (it is better than watching TV and knitting), but as far as I know, there has never been a female genius in science. There has been no female equivalent of an Einstein or a Darwin.

And if ever there was a female genius in science, one would have to question why they were devoting their time to science and not to the infinitely more important task of eliminating delusion and becoming wise.

A webforum which was not created by meditating in a forest-cave but actual science.

How would you pass the time if it weren't for people like these?

How did Buddha or Lao Tzu pass the time without modern science?

-

David Quinn wrote: It is good that women are doing science (it is better than watching TV and knitting), but as far as I know, there has never been a female genius in science. There has been no female equivalent of an Einstein or a Darwin.

This is unusual and I have noticed it myself. I've given it some thought and I think that at least until 50 years ago, it was not generally acceptable for women to participate in the sciences. And women who did do scientific research were not taken seriously and ignored. Still, when you think of science people, Einstein, Newton and Darwin come up pretty immediately. I can only think of two major women scientists immediately: Marie Curie and Jane Goodall. The physicist Lisa Randall is also supposed to be a prominent figure in new physics, but I don't follow that science as closely.

DQ,

And if ever there was a female genius in science, one would have to question why they were devoting their time to science and not to the infinitely more important task of eliminating delusion and becoming wise.

But the question would not arise if the genius was male?

And why is "eliminating delusion and becoming wise" more important than any other endeavor? It seems to me that the only reason you can give is that you like this task.

1otherS wrote:Bump for relevance:

-David Quinn was talking about women becoming more masculine.

The relevance of my post? These 2 examples show women actually taking the lead in research(=manly) and advancing the idea of Enlightenment instead of just endlessly pontificating about it on a webforum. A webforum which was not created by meditating in a forest-cave but actual science.
How would you pass the time if it weren't for people like these?

-Dan, is it true that logic can be used to sustain delusion in people?

The heat is on, Dan! Are you ready to dance?

Firstly, could you take 10 minutes to learn to use the quote tags properly? As to Mystex's question: of course it's true. Logic employed from unsound premises can be used to support anything, in the sense that formal "validity" does not require truth.

Cognition wrote:

David Quinn wrote: It is good that women are doing science (it is better than watching TV and knitting), but as far as I know, there has never been a female genius in science. There has been no female equivalent of an Einstein or a Darwin.

This is unusual and I have noticed it myself. I've given it some thought and I think that at least until 50 years ago, it was not generally acceptable for women to participate in the sciences. And women who did do scientific research were not taken seriously and ignored. Still, when you think of science people, Einstein, Newton and Darwin come up pretty immediately. I can only think of two major women scientists immediately: Marie Curie and Jane Goodall. The physicist Lisa Randall is also supposed to be a prominent figure in new physics, but I don't follow that science as closely.

The list of women who did pre-21st century science is bigger than people think. Wikipedia has a [no doubt] non-exhaustive list on this page:

List of pre-21st-century female scientists

It's pretty interesting reading, actually.

Dan Rowden wrote:Firstly, could you take 10 minutes to learn to use the quote tags properly?

Hup! Derogatory attitude. Would you please desist from shaming 1otherS.

rebecca702 wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:

rebecca702 wrote:Has anybody here seen "Million Dollar Baby"? It's about a female boxer. I think it's interesting in the beginning when she's in the gym trying to get Clint Eastwood to be her trainer. He says, "I don't train women," and repeatedly tells her other trainers would be happy to take her on. But she doesn't give up and then he finally agrees and says, "but I don't train women." And they're like "OK"... a metaphor for the philosophical quest?

Interesting. Before I answer, why do you think he chooses not to train women?

Hmm. Well, that can be interpreted many ways. In the actual story, I think the reason is that he's dealing with some hugely emotional regret due to something about his long-lost daughter, which is never made very clear. It seems he's been tortured for many years by his emotions (going to mass every single day, etc) - and I suppose having close contact with women brings it all back. [...]

I am assuming you've seen the movie in question. So what do you think?

Yes, I have seen it. The part of your post I left here is the one that is, in my view, the best interpretation. In short, his attitude is one of protection of women. Given that, I think its metaphorical usefulness for the philosophical quest is limited. Not engaging feminine types in philosophical discussion, for example, is not about protecting them from harm as much as it's about not wasting valuable time and energy.

Truth is, a really feminine person cannot be harmed by philosophy at all, anymore than if you swear at a person in a language they can't understand.

Carl G wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:Firstly, could you take 10 minutes to learn to use the quote tags properly?

Hup! Derogatory attitude. Would you please desist from shaming 1otherS.

Are you trying to shame me, Carl? Lookin' to get banned are ya, pal?

Shahrazad wrote:

DQ,

And if ever there was a female genius in science, one would have to question why they were devoting their time to science and not to the infinitely more important task of eliminating delusion and becoming wise.

But the question would not arise if the genius was male?

If you look to our discussion of Einstein you'll know the obvious answer to that question. From the Genius News discussion of same:

D.Q: I seriously don't believe that truth was important to Einstein. If it was, he would have renounced physics and become enlightened. A genius staying within the realm of physics is like a fully-grown adult staying within the realm of lego.

And why is "eliminating delusion and becoming wise" more important than any other endeavor? It seems to me that the only reason you can give is that you like this task.

How does anyone know the answer to the question of what is or is not more or less important without wisdom? By guessing?