GENIUS FORUMS

Lennyrizzo wrote:

Most women are incredibly cunning creatures, although their cunning is more of an instinctive quality, rather than the result of conscious scheming.

To these women, intellectual progress, or becoming wiser, has to do with becoming more conscious in this respect. Women who think much of themselves think less about the women who remain mostly instinctually cunning. They regard one as smart when maximum consciousness commands their cunning natures. Hard to believe, but much of what they consider intelligence is just about this.

Thoughts?

Yes, that's true. I've met many women who openly and comfortably admit that women are liars, cunning, aggressive, emotional, manipulative, etc. I've never met a woman who admitted it without a sense of glee. There's no use of consciousness to turn this cunning onto itself.

Women love to bring out the weapons, into the open, in this apparently friendly way. With this disguise of harmless honesty, they can do the most damage, because they've claimed "irresponsibility rights".

I'm curious to see how I-Beam describes his philosophical interactions with women. Was it a purely romantic interchange, or did any woman actually broach deadly serious and personal debate? Did the women climb up a mountain to stand on top, or did they tunnel down, taking the mountain onto their shoulders?


K

Andrew Cohen holds the view that he doesn't have to be respectful towards other people. This clashes wth your own view, for which you have proceeded to snarl at him.

It's chock full of irony, this one.

Um...no it's not. As you just stated he is baised towards other people. I think if you look up the page, or maybe it was in another thread, I defined open-minded verbatim from the dictionary. Then explained how my friend Cindy befriended a Neo-Nazi. "free of prejudice or bias"

There is alot of irony here, but's it's not in my statements.

If snarling at someone that all their views are unmemorable and that they are an idiot who needs to get laid isn't an expression of hate, then I don't want to be around you when you do start becoming hateful!

*lol* Touche...I think you are right about this. Not that I have the wrong oppinion about the guy, but in my approach to how I dismissed him. I should have stuck to the logic and left the clever insults in The Brothel. I can't really say I hate the guy, I've never met him. But I can certainly say I can't stand what I have seen of his "philosophy" so far.

I'm curious to see how I-Beam describes his philosophical interactions with women. Was it a purely romantic interchange, or did any woman actually broach deadly serious and personal debate? Did the women climb up a mountain to stand on top, or did they tunnel down, taking the mountain onto their shoulders?

As David was saying earlier, he's met all kinds of women. I would say the same. But I would not say that their reactions were all the same.

I have had purely romantic interchanges, deadly serious and personal debate, and everything in between. Some climbed up to the top of the mountain and wanted to see more. Some climbed down, and couldn't dig deep enough. But I could say the same thing about men, except for the romantic interchange part. To say that one gender of our entire race is the same it quite astonishing to me. I have met devious cunning men, and spiritually healthy women, with no majority on either side. Maybe you people have had different experiences, but they don't jive with mine. But that doesn't mean I think your experiences are wrong, only your conclusions. Because if you are honest, I think you would admit that your own experiences do not always provide complete truth.

You're still missing the point. There are all kinds of dogs with different characters - some are obedient and quiet, others are aggressive and noisy; some are mischevious and happy, others are broken-spirited and timid; some are disciplined and alert, others are scatter-brained and lazy, and so on. But even though the dog population possesses all this variety, much like the human population, it still remains the truth that dogs cannot read or write, reason abstractly, build inventions, or become enlightened about the nature of Reality. The mere existence of the variety doesn't expand their inherent limitations in any way.

Similarly, although women come in all shapes and sizes - ranging from the intellectual and honest, to the dreamy and artistic, to the catty and dishonest - they still have their limitations when it comes to higher pursuits. This is why there has never been a female sage, let alone a female scientific genius, or a female founder of a major religion.

-

DavidQuinn000 wrote:You're still missing the point. There are all kinds of dogs with different characters - some are obedient and quiet, others are aggressive and noisy; some are mischevious and happy, others are broken-spirited and timid; some are disciplined and alert, others are scatter-brained and lazy, and so on. But even though the dog population possesses all this variety, much like the human population, it still remains the truth that dogs cannot read or write, reason abstractly, build inventions, or become enlightened about the nature of Reality. The mere existence of the variety doesn't expand their inherent limitations in any way.

Similarly, although women come in all shapes and sizes - ranging from the intellectual and honest, to the dreamy and artistic, to the catty and dishonest - they still have their limitations when it comes to higher pursuits. This is why there has never been a female sage, let alone a female scientific genius, or a female founder of a major religion. -

You did a good job at explaining the heart of the matter and asking me what my oppinion is. Never been a female Sage? Are you familiar with Sappho? I wouldn't call it a major religion, but Ayn Rand's philosophy is one that continues to grow among young people all the time.

But here's a greater list if you haven't heard of any of them:

Annette Baier
Sally Haslanger
Louise Antony
Linda Martin Alcoff
Elizabeth Anderson
Michele Moody-Adams
Claudia Card
Seyla Benhabib
Sabina Lovibond
Iris Marion Young
Lorraine Code
Miranda Fricker
Naomi Scheman
Rae Langton
Barbara Herman
Gisela Striker

Also think about ancient times and Ancient societies. Who was allowed to go to school, who was allowed time for philosophy. In your example about the dog you made a good point there when you said that dogs don't even have the ability to read or write. Yet throughout history when women were put in the roles of solidier,czar, writer, and philospher I would most certainly say not only did and do they have the ability, but they preformed as well as their male counterparts.

The composer Chopin's lover actually wrote under a male's name (George Sands) thinking that the societies of the eighteenth century would not take writing seriously coming from a women.

I think you could have endless debate over whether women have been held down by men, fearful that given the chance women might actually preform better than men in some areas, or its counter-argument that men have ruled societies because women were incapable of it. Both of these arguments for me involved so many variables and assumptions that I don't know how anyone could come to an honest conclusion based on fact, logic or reason. Now I know many of you on the board are going to disagree with this, and present many arguments to the contrary. I could probably go to some feminist website where all men are stupid and evil and be presented with the opposite view. However- I feel that these oppinions and arguments (besides being completely exasperating) have nothing to do with "ultimate enlightenment" and the more time you waste upon them traps you further into the man-made constructs of society, and further away from the greater truths of the universe that surround us!

M101 : It's fairly well known that more men than women have become spiritually awakened throughout history...but the reasons behind this are rarely addressed openly by high profile spiritual teachers...

Ridiculous.
You have no way of knowing if any man or womans claim of "enlightenment" is authentic.

Excellent point hades!!

And a much more concise way of saying it than that long winded paragraph I wrote.

hades wrote:

M101 : It's fairly well known that more men than women have become spiritually awakened throughout history...but the reasons behind this are rarely addressed openly by high profile spiritual teachers...

Ridiculous.
You have no way of knowing if any man or womans claim of "enlightenment" is authentic.

Can you expand on this? Are you saying that the particular person you are replying to cannot know if a claim of enlightenment is authentic, or are you saying that nobody can? And why?

I-Beam wrote:But here's a greater list if you haven't heard of any of them:

Annette Baier
Sally Haslanger
Louise Antony
Linda Martin Alcoff
Elizabeth Anderson
Michele Moody-Adams
Claudia Card
Seyla Benhabib
Sabina Lovibond
Iris Marion Young
Lorraine Code
Miranda Fricker
Naomi Scheman
Rae Langton
Barbara Herman
Gisela Striker

The more people try to list great women, the more it proves that there aren't any.

Yes, that's true. I've met many women who openly and comfortably admit that women are liars, cunning, aggressive, emotional, manipulative, etc. I've never met a woman who admitted it without a sense of glee. There's no use of consciousness to turn this cunning onto itself.

Women love to bring out the weapons, into the open, in this apparently friendly way. With this disguise of harmless honesty, they can do the most damage, because they've claimed "irresponsibility rights".

Interesting.
Do they see it that way, do they think they are doing damage? And this doesn't trouble their conscience?
Or do they think, because of some superiority, that their way is best for all concerned, or at least best for themselves and their interests while reasonably good for others?
And then this justifies the method, any lying and manipulation that she deems necessary.

ksolway wrote: Ridiculous.
You have no way of knowing if any man or womans claim of "enlightenment" is authentic.

Can you expand on this? Are you saying that the particular person you are replying to cannot know if a claim of enlightenment is authentic, or are you saying that nobody can? And why?

Both. The person and anyone else.
Enlightenment is an internal condition.
Refer to the problem of solipsism.

Even if it were well defined, and easily observable - like chicken pox. The observer could still not make an absolute diagnoses about someones "enlightened" condition.

ksolway wrote:

The more people try to list great women, the more it proves that there aren't any.

Likewise for men.

ksolway wrote:

I-Beam wrote:But here's a greater list if you haven't heard of any of them:

Annette Baier
Sally Haslanger
Louise Antony
Linda Martin Alcoff
Elizabeth Anderson
Michele Moody-Adams
Claudia Card
Seyla Benhabib
Sabina Lovibond
Iris Marion Young
Lorraine Code
Miranda Fricker
Naomi Scheman
Rae Langton
Barbara Herman
Gisela Striker

The more people try to list great women, the more it proves that there aren't any.

Care to explain the logic that accompanies this statement? It's understandable if you haven't heard of any of them being a misogynist, but don't use your ignorance about a topic as a reasonable expanation for dismissing them.

I-Beam wrote:Care to explain the logic that accompanies this statement?

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.

hades wrote:Even if it were well defined, and easily observable - like chicken pox. The observer could still not make an absolute diagnoses about someones "enlightened" condition.

Ok, ultimately we can't be sure that other people even exist, let alone whether they are enlightened.

But just as we can judge whether someone is qualified to be, say, a surgeon, we can also judge whether someone is enlightened. Of course, the person doing the judging needs to be qualified.

hades wrote:

ksolway wrote: The more people try to list great women, the more it proves that there aren't any.

Likewise for men.

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.

I-Beam,

Annette Baier
Sally Haslanger
Louise Antony
Linda Martin Alcoff
Elizabeth Anderson
Michele Moody-Adams
Claudia Card
Seyla Benhabib
Sabina Lovibond
Iris Marion Young
Lorraine Code
Miranda Fricker
Naomi Scheman
Rae Langton
Barbara Herman
Gisela Striker

I did a search on the first four on your list, only to discover that they all came from academic philosophy - I therefore didn't bother with the rest.

Are you seriously trying to pass those academic airheads off as Great Philosophers?

...but don't use your ignorance about a topic as a reasonable expanation for dismissing them.

It is you that must give an “explanation” - what makes you think they are “great”?

Sue

I doubt the common man on the street could tell you who Dali, Kant, or Buckminister Fueller are...but this has nothing to do with greatness. I think you are confusing it with popularity.

And I would definitely say they are all great. Among philosophers, Kant is often considered the greatest. Yet how many people would you say know about him?

If it wasn't for Plato, no one might know about Socrates.

I-Beam,

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

Are you defending someone?


.

But just as we can judge whether someone is qualified to be, say, a surgeon, we can also judge whether someone is enlightened. Of course, the person doing the judging needs to be qualified.

You can judge a surgeon by the actions he preforms. For someone who is enlightened, the transformation take place in his mind. I dont' think you can observe this.

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.

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.

Lennyrizzo wrote:Do they see it that way, do they think they are doing damage? And this doesn't trouble their conscience?

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."

Or do they think, because of some superiority, that their way is best for all concerned, or at least best for themselves and their interests while reasonably good for others?
And then this justifies the method, any lying and manipulation that she deems necessary.

This is why a woman must first become a man, before even considering the spiritual path. Anything a female tries, with this self-protective habit, will be doomed to fail. It goes deep enough for every conscious being, but for those who never look at themselves (and are only self-love) it is inherent.

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!


K

ksolway wrote:

hades wrote:

ksolway wrote: The more people try to list great women, the more it proves that there aren't any.

Likewise for men.

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.

Buddha and hakuin and nagarjuna could have simply been myths - creations of random thinkers; ideals they wished existed but couldn't live up to.

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"...

I'm not even gonna bother with einstein or darwin....

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

Hades wrote:

H: You have no way of knowing if any man or womans claim of "enlightenment" is authentic.

Kevin Solway: Can you expand on this? Are you saying that the particular person you are replying to cannot know if a claim of enlightenment is authentic, or are you saying that nobody can? And why?

H: Both. The person and anyone else.
Enlightenment is an internal condition.
Refer to the problem of solipsism.

Even if it were well defined, and easily observable - like chicken pox. The observer could still not make an absolute diagnoses about someones "enlightened" condition.

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.

Buddha and hakuin and nagarjuna could have simply been myths - creations of random thinkers; ideals they wished existed but couldn't live up to.

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.

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.

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

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.

-