GENIUS FORUMS

DQ wrote:

In contrast, women think about sex nearly all the time. Not in the obvious, pornographic sense that men think about it, but in the indirect feminine sense of constantly thinking about clothes, hair, shopping catalogues, men, relationships, interior decorating, etc. In fact, no matter what a woman does or thinks about, it is nearly always down in the context of her own relationship as a woman with the rest of the universe. It is always sexual in nature.

Wasn't the sentiment that men are expected to be the wage-earners expressed on another thread as also the measure of manhood that women supposedly thought? Wouldn't that make any noble endeavor of a man subject to the same criticism as "feminine" aesthetics?

Cory: They focus on the fact that man employs his masculinity to preserve a less conscious state, a state of masculinity that is enslaved to food, sex and family.

Alyosha: Notice you said “a state of masculinity” was that a mistake on your part? Whether it was intentional or not I agree with you.

No it wasnt a mistake, I said it that way intentionally to make that point that one can be masculine (calculative, single-minded, abstract) yet that very masculinity is a slave to the prefrences of the most unmasculine of women and of children.

Men are slaves to their desires regardless of gender. You are arbitrarily attaching a gender to the state of desire/muse/obsession and this is totally unwarranted. By this same logic you could say that men are slaves to money and therefore the object of desire (money) is the root of the negative attribute. The money is not the cause of the slavery the obsessive desire is the cause of the slavery. Instead of “feminine” attributes why not just say “monetary” attributes. Or Masculine vs. Monetary psychology. Flawed logic.

Money is incredibly sensual Alyosha. Sensuality is femininty. His rationality is enslaved to not only the sensuality of money, but also to the sensuality of all that money can buy. And nothing attracts woman like the smell of money and all the luxerious things that money can buy.

Sensuality is feminine. This man who is obsessed with money needs to work on his logic more, the sensuality that he is comforted by is holding him back.

Alyosha wrote:

Being addicted to women is not “feminine”. Men are slaves to their desires regardless of gender. You are arbitrarily attaching a gender to the state of desire/muse/obsession and this is totally unwarranted.

You are not being honest in your own psychology. That is why it all seems arbitrary to you. You don't want to see the relevant connections inside yourself.

What men desire most from a woman is the opportunity to enter into a safe, dream-like atmosphere, as a welcome relief from the cold, dog-eat-dog world that he normally inhabits. In essence, it is a desire for the womb and the pleasures of unconsciousness.

Why is this feminine? Because it embodies the core desire to shed all of one's individuality as an existing entity and to disappear altogether.

And why is this feminine? Because this desire governs nearly all behaviour displayed by women - e.g. their overwhelming desire to be in relationships and groups (to cease being an existing individual), their desire to follow the fashions and be sexually attractive (i.e not be exposed and judged harshly as an individual) , their constant desire to physically hug and touch other people (to merge into them), their desire to foster social harmony and fairness above all else (so as to avoid conflict and the risk of being judged harshly), their desire to stay immersed in sensuality and immediacy (to stay safely esconsed in the world of animal humanity), their desire to avoid clarity in their thinking and having definite thoughts about anything (so as to avoid creating conflict), and so on.

This sort of behaviour also governs male behaviour to a large extent, but nowhere near to the degree that it governs female behaviour. There are more higher peaks in men which rise above the ocean of femininity.

-

Elizabeth,

DQ: In contrast, women think about sex nearly all the time. Not in the obvious, pornographic sense that men think about it, but in the indirect feminine sense of constantly thinking about clothes, hair, shopping catalogues, men, relationships, interior decorating, etc. In fact, no matter what a woman does or thinks about, it is nearly always down in the context of her own relationship as a woman with the rest of the universe. It is always sexual in nature.

EI: Wasn't the sentiment that men are expected to be the wage-earners expressed on another thread as also the measure of manhood that women supposedly thought? Wouldn't that make any noble endeavor of a man subject to the same criticism as "feminine" aesthetics?

It would depend on his motivations and the level of success (in his noble pursuits).

For example, if a man engages in philosophy primarily to become more alluring to women (and a lot of men do), then that would be classed as feminine behaviour. It would also mean that his chances of becoming enlightened and wise are slim.

However, if, over time, his interest in wisdom takes seed and begins to flourish, and the motivation to appear alluring to women begins to wane, then we could say he is becoming more masculine. His masculine desire to conquer obstacles is being sublimated from vanity issues and a craving for unconsciousness to a geniune desire to overcome ignorance and become wise. The feminine aspects are being shed.

The same also applies to women, of course. If their desire for wisdom starts to move away from being a desire to be attractive to a particular kind of man or to be safely part of a group-environment, then they too are starting to become more masculine.

-

David,

that was great post, very insightful and all.

However, my only point is that if one takes masculinity to its furthest reaches, then one realizes that Mans fixation on woman is a metaphor for enlightenment.

For example, you said:

Why is this feminine?

Because it embodies the core desire to shed all of one's individuality as an existing entity and to disappear altogether.

Isnt this the final stage of enlightenment? Breaking down the self and realizing you don't exist, and thus having your individuality merge into the all?

And isnt there also 'flowing with the tao, obedience to truth, and submission to truth?

All feminine, no?

And then there is also 'feeling and intuition'

You said the sage has great feelings and sensations?

Are not sensations and feelings unconscious?

And are not me and my feelings 'one'?

Therefore, I am both conscious and I am unconscious.


So David, I'm so much invalidating your knowledge - - but there is obviously value in 'feminine' characteristcs such as feeling, intuition, flowing, submission, obedience and even unconsciousness as along as you push masculinity to its maximum capacity.

It is time for me to leave so I must put this conversation on hold (and I was just on the verge of reaching an understanding).

Why is this feminine? Because it embodies the core desire to shed all of one's individuality as an existing entity and to disappear altogether.

How is this different than shedding your ego? Maybe unenlightened men do this simply to transcend their restraining ego for a brief period of time and experience an eternal sensation of relief (or enter the womb as you say). The womb is a profoundly significant state of spirituality. It is a time when you are both human and in touch with the eternal. Everyone wants to enter this state permanently, but the closest we will ever come is through death, the second closest we will ever come is through enlightenment, and the third closest we come is through intercourse with a woman. If you can enter a state similar the womb but with heightened consciousness then I dare say you have reached enlightenment.

Adam wrote:

but the closest we will ever come is through death, the second closest we will ever come is through enlightenment, and the third closest we come is through intercourse with a woman. If you can enter a state similar the womb but with heightened consciousness then I dare say you have reached enlightenment.

So are you saying that an enlightened man who is having sex with a woman is even more enlightened than he would be if he were dead?

Cory,

Ok David

First off,

Do you see passivity, submission, obedience, unconsciousness, and sensuality all as feminine traits?

If by "passivity" you mean aimlessness, not having any purpose or initiative, content to be floating in the slipstream of others, etc - then yes, it is a feminine trait.

If, on the other hand, you mean the unshakable equilibrium that comes with attaining supreme understanding and transcending all egotism, fear and duality, then no, it isn't a feminine trait.

The same principle applies to the other traits you mention.

-

.............

Alyosha, are you serious? Maybe you didnt mean for your last post to come off as literal as it sounds.

Keep in mind David, unlike Alyosha 'seems' to be saying, I am saying that man fixation and relationship to woman is merely a metaphor representing the mature mans relationship to truth.

I am in no way saying that being dead, or blowing ones load, or being in the womb is a literal equivilant to the all of what goes into being an elightened individual.

Alyosha wrote:

DQ: Why is this feminine? Because it embodies the core desire to shed all of one's individuality as an existing entity and to disappear altogether.

A: How is this different than shedding your ego? Maybe unenlightened men do this simply to transcend their restraining ego for a brief period of time and experience an eternal sensation of relief (or enter the womb as you say). The womb is a profoundly significant state of spirituality. It is a time when you are both human and in touch with the eternal. Everyone wants to enter this state permanently, but the closest we will ever come is through death, the second closest we will ever come is through enlightenment, and the third closest we come is through intercourse with a woman. If you can enter a state similar the womb but with heightened consciousness then I dare say you have reached enlightenment.

Yes, there are two basic ways to escape normal adult consciousness (with all of its fears and confusions):

Either by retrogessing back in the direction of childhood, the womb, the animal kingdom, dead matter etc - that is, towards the Great Unconscious. Or by heightening one's intelligence, rationality and awareness to such an extent that one can perceive the illusory nature of all things and revel in the sheer freedom of Nature.

In a sense, this latter path can make one seem more child-like, direct and intuitive - after all, one is completely escaping normal adulthood. But it is a different kind of child-likeness to what people normally imagine. It is a child-likeness coupled with supreme understanding and wisdom. It is a child-likeness characterized by purity, rather than innocence.

As Kierkegaard said, faith is spontaneity after reflection, not before it.

-

Cory,

DQ: Why is this feminine? Because it embodies the core desire to shed all of one's individuality as an existing entity and to disappear altogether.

Cory: Isnt this the final stage of enlightenment? Breaking down the self and realizing you don't exist, and thus having your individuality merge into the all?

If it is done consciously and rationality, then it is a masculine activity.

If it is done by trying to forget everything and forcibly immerse oneself into immediacy, then it is feminine.

And isnt there also 'flowing with the tao, obedience to truth, and submission to truth?

Ditto.

Keep in mind David, unlike Alyosha 'seems' to be saying, I am saying that man fixation and relationship to woman is merely a metaphor representing the mature mans relationship to truth.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Kierkegaard used to talk about how women represented idealism in the world and that men can be inspired by them to pursue truth, but only if they remain remain single. He spoke about this in the Banquet:

As I have said, it is through woman that ideality is born into the world and -- what were man without her! There is many a man who has become a genius through a woman, many a one a hero, many a one a poet, many a one even a saint; but he did not become a genius through the woman he married, for through her he only became a privy councillor; he did not become a hero through the woman he married, for through her he only became a general; he did not become a poet through the woman he married, for through her he only became a father; he did not become a saint through the woman he married, for he did not marry, and would have married but one -- the one whom he did not marry; just as the others became a genius, became a hero, became a poet through the help of the woman they did not marry .......

It is only by a negative relation to her that man is rendered productive in his ideal endeavors. In this sense she is inspiring; but to say that she is inspiring, without qualifying one's statement, is to be guilty of a paralogism which one must be a woman to overlook. Or has anyone ever heard of any man having become a poet through his wife? So long as man does not possess her she inspires him.

- From The Banquet

Is this what you're getting at?

-

Cory Duchesne wrote:I am in no way saying that being dead, or blowing ones load, or being in the womb is a literal equivilant to the all of what goes into being an elightened individual.

He didn't say they were equivilent, he said:

the closest we will ever come is through death, the second closest we will ever come is through enlightenment, and the third closest we come is through intercourse with a woman.

so he's saying that being alive and enlightened is the second best thing to being dead, but I also think he's saying that enlightened people who are having sex are doing better than dead people. Although necrophilia is possible I don't think the corpse is the person, so although people can have sex with dead bodies, dead people can't have sex - so he can't have meant that dead enlightened people having sex is a cumulative peak of enlightenment.

He could have meant that enlightend people who have sex are as enlightened as dead people, or he could have meant that enlightened people having sex are better off than if they were dead, so that's why I asked for a clarification.

*********
edited for spelling

David,

I'm a little surprised that you didn't agree that enlightened people having sex are as good as dead.

No, I don't think what kierkguaard is saying is what I'm getting at.

I do think its obvious that woman inspire men to work hard at certain talents, but ulimately (as far as I can tell) she merely inspires men to become appealing to her.

Therefore, whatever man achieves through being inspired by her is not very truthful.

What a man achieves when he sees woman as a danger is a different story though. But in that case he isnt inspired by her, but rather he is made melancholic by the truth of her.

But anyways David, listen here;

Mans relationship to woman is generally a fixation, an obsession, he sees her as an oasis in a desert, he sees her as beautiful and he also finds she isnt logical, she is unrational, amoral.

Don't you see how this fixation on woman is metaphorical for an aspirants fixation upon truth?

The aspirants relationship to truth is generally a fixation, an obsession, he sees truth as an oasis, he sees it as beautful, and he also finds that truth in itself isnt logical, it is unrational, amoral.

I find this funny. All the more indication that my logic is sound.

Cory: Isnt this the final stage of enlightenment? Breaking down the self and realizing you don't exist, and thus having your individuality merge into the all?

David: If it is done consciously and rationality, then it is a masculine activity.

Yes, it is a very masculine activity, but there are also feminine implications as well.

Dont you admit that one must at times be receptive, submissive and obedient to truth, rather than controlling and commanding of it?

You know, listen and watch that which is involuntary, rather than be willful and speak?

In other words, you can't decide what the truth is, you have to be submissive to it, obedient to it, receptive.

The masculine is important in that, it is neccesary to penetrate into information, experiment, manipulate, to be ruthless and unemotional. However, all this masculine activity leads only to a moment of passive receptiveness to the results. So you see, you must go back and forth.

There is only this proccess of refinement. One is refined by both the masculine and feminine. The difference is sophistication, subtley and quality.

One begins very vulgar and crude. Ones masculinity and feminity are both crude in the begining. But as ones masculinity becomes more refined, ones femininty becomes more refined and subtle as well.

One must know the masculine, but keep the feminine.

For instance, despite one can percieve quite ruthlessly, one must (to a certain degree) retain ones gentleness and patience with others.

Cory Duchesne wrote:kevin wrote:

So you could say that everything appears equally beautiful -

whether it be a pile of rotting bodies, or a beautiful rainbow or sunset. But then the term "beautiful" doesn't really mean anything. Things are just as they are.

Doesnt this imply that the sage is indifferent to what happens to him, indifferent to what he experiences?

Emotionally, he is indifferent, since he is beyond emotions.

Intellectually, he work towards his goals.

the sage still experience foul smells, bad music, or poor art . . . which you could call "ugliness" . . . but his reaction to them is not emotional.

But are the sensations he experiences from bad smells, music and art 'different' from the sensations he experiences from good art, good smells, sunset, meditation?

Yes. He experiences a foul smell as foul, and a sweet smell as sweet.

Are you saying the sage is indifferent to what experiences he has?

If food smells "off" then he probably won't eat it. But if it smells "good" then he will eat it. So, in this sense, he's not indifferent.

Or is he lead by what 'feels' and appears most great to him?

During his development the sage became emotionally attached to truth. He valued truth in an egotistical way. It was a way his ego became empowered and escaped suffering.

But after he became wise the delusion of emotional attachment disappeared. However, the pure cause-and-effect momentum to work for truth and consciousness continues, in the same way that the seed of an oak tree grows into an oak tree.

So he is guided by the purpose he developed in his former life, rather than by what happens from moment to moment.

Regarding femininity and unconsciousness:

Everything is at the mercy of cause and effect, including the sage.

If an airliner plunges out of the sky and lands on top of a sage, he is the passive recipient of God's will.

This scenario reflects the Yin, or the passive, unconscious aspect of reality.

But the eyes of the sage are open to this aspect of reality. He is conscious of the unconscious.

By contrast, the earth, and rocks, and women, have their eyes shut to everything. They are unconscious to both the Yin and the Yang.

I considered ignoring the "and women" comment as I imagine your reply would have been a reordering of the importance of semantics to justify why you left out "most" and I didn't want another round of "exactly how many women: most, many, or just the ones you notice" but I have decided instead to snub the remark because I value truth too much to entirely let that go.

Kevin wrote:

During his development the sage became emotionally attached to truth. He valued truth in an egotistical way. It was a way his ego become empowered and escaped suffering. But after he became wise the delusion of emotional attachment disappeared.

Do you believe that wisdom removes the emotional attachment to truth, or that the extinguishment of the emotional attachment to truth is the final step to wisdom?

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Do you believe that wisdom removes the emotional attachment to truth

It prevents all emotional attachments by preventing the fuel that gives rise to them.

or that the extinguishment of the emotional attachment to truth is the final step to wisdom?

It is one of the final attachments to fall. So long as a person has any ego at all, the ego will attach to just about anything to some degree.

KS wrote:

It prevents all emotional attachments by preventing the fuel that gives rise to them.

Exactly what is the fuel?

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Exactly what is the fuel?

See separate thread "The fuel of emotions"

Cory: Doesnt this imply that the sage is indifferent to what happens to him, indifferent to what he experiences?

Kevin: Emotionally, he is indifferent, since he is beyond emotions.

Intellectually, he work towards his goals.

Why does he bother working intellectually? Surely its because he's motivated to feel great release from his fears and conflict, to feel great depth and magnimity.

No?

Keep in mind that much of what I'm probing into is related to something that David said near the begining of this thread:

That logic can get you to rome, but once you get to rome (via rigorous intellectual work) logic can't be used to justify the manifold magnificence of the experience.

Is it this sensual experience, this experience of deep feeling and release that the sage works intellectually for?

And not only does he work to achieve it, but he of course then works to maintain it.

Is he ever indifferent? When is he indifferent?

And why else would he work if it was not for feeling great, healthy and strong?

Cory: But are the sensations he experiences from bad smells, music and art 'different' from the sensations he experiences from good art, good smells, sunset, meditation?

Kevin: Yes. He experiences a foul smell as foul, and a sweet smell as sweet.

And is the experience of Rome (of truth) sweet? and is the experience of delusion foul?

You see, I am suggesting that feeling is primary, and the intellect is simply employed to align the organism with the greatest sensations and to avoid bad sensations and feelings.

Cory: Are you saying the sage is indifferent to what experiences he has?

Kevin: If food smells "off" then he probably won't eat it. But if it smells "good" then he will eat it. So, in this sense, he's not indifferent.

In what sense is he ever indifferent?

Is the sage lead by what 'feels' and appears most great to him?

Kevin: During his development the sage became emotionally attached to truth. He valued truth in an egotistical way. It was a way his ego became empowered and escaped suffering.

So in the begining, there was no sense of indifference, he was/is motivated by sheer preference for particular experiences.

But after he became wise the delusion of emotional attachment disappeared.

Yeah but doesnt he still prefer a particular sort of experience, sensation and feeling? For instance, if he decided to start having sex again, he would regress, no? Therefore, he still has preferences, he still prefers particular sensations and feelings, except the ones he now prefers do not involve having his intellect controlled by vulgar emotional whims - --

Instead his intellect is now controlled by and is at the mercy to something more sophisticated, subtle and vast.....he is now controlled by and is at the mercy to the great feelings and sensations that are the inevitiable outcome of being truthful,

no?

The mediocre man employs his intellect only to achieve and maintain the release he experiences from woman.

The great man employs his intellect only to achieve and maintain the release he experiences from truth.

Kevin: The sage is guided by the purpose he developed in his former life, rather than by what happens from moment to moment.

To be guided by what happens from moment to moment.....are you saying that this is only how the mediocre man functions?

I would think Kevin that the sage is guided 'in part' by the sense of purpose he developed in this former life, but he also is guided by what happens from moment to moment - you know, looking for opportunities and making good use of whatever happens to come along....

I'm looking foward to your reply

Cory Duchesne wrote:

KS wrote:Emotionally, he is indifferent, since he is beyond emotions.

Intellectually, he work towards his goals.

Why does he bother working intellectually?

For the same reason that a computer functions - because it is programmed to do so. The sage is like a robot.

Why does a tree grow?

Surely its because he's motivated to feel great release from his fears and conflict, to feel great depth and magnimity.

No?

No, since he is already a sage he is already beyond fear and emotional conflict. They do not arise in him, so he has no need to be released from them.

Keep in mind that much of what I'm probing into is related to something that David said near the begining of this thread:

That logic can get you to rome, but once you get to rome (via rigorous intellectual work) logic can't be used to justify the manifold magnificence of the experience.

I think David is just saying something like, "You can take a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." For example, I might reason, logically, that I would be happier if I moved to a sunnier climate. But that may not be enough in itself to make me move, because of other factors. For example, I might have a short memory.

Is it this sensual experience, this experience of deep feeling and release that the sage works intellectually for?

He did search for it earlier in his development, when his ego still had strength and wanted release, but now his purpose is on autopilot, running purely on momentum, like when you set something moving in frictionless space and it keeps going forever.

And not only does he work to achieve it, but he of course then works to maintain it.

Having enlightened himself he then sets about enlightening others. "Other people" are of course an extension of himself, so he hasn't really changed his behaviour.

Is he ever indifferent? When is he indifferent?

He is indifferent, say, to praise or blame.

He works singlemindedly towards the achievement of his goals, but he is indifferent towards whether he achieves them or not. Like a computer or a robot.

And why else would he work if it was not for feeling great, healthy and strong?

Answered above. He works because he is programmed to work, like a computer, or a seed that is programmed to grow into a tree.

Yes. He experiences a foul smell as foul, and a sweet smell as sweet.

And is the experience of Rome (of truth) sweet?

Before he was a sage the experience was sweet. But as a sage the experience is just of reality.

and is the experience of delusion foul?

Being a perfect sage (for argument's sake), he doesn't experience delusion, but he observes delusion in others. He observes it in the same even manner he would observe anything else in the world, reflecting like a mirror.

You see, I am suggesting that feeling is primary, and the intellect is simply employed to align the organism with the greatest sensations and to avoid bad sensations and feelings.

It is natural for us to try and avoid pain, if that is what you mean.

During his development the sage became emotionally attached to truth. He valued truth in an egotistical way. It was a way his ego became empowered and escaped suffering.

So in the begining, there was no sense of indifference, he was/is motivated by sheer preference for particular experiences.

Before he became wise he saw disturbing things, so he wasn't indifferent to them. But when he became wise he realized that disturbing things are illusory, and he ceased to experience them. That is, he is indifferent to what does not exist.

But after he became wise the delusion of emotional attachment disappeared.

Yeah but doesnt he still prefer a particular sort of experience, sensation and feeling?

Once he is enlightened he only has the experience of enlightenment.

Of course, he might feel hungry, in which case he eats. Or he might feel tired, in which case he sleeps, etc.

Emotional turmoil for a sage is not an issue. He is calmly clinical in all situations.

For instance, if he decided to start having sex again, he would regress, no?

No. Let's say our sage was one of only a few males on the planet, and the survival of the human race depended on him impregnating females. He might decide that, with the help of viagra, he can contribute to the survival of the human race.

For an aspiring sage, however, this could be a real problem.

.....he is now controlled by and is at the mercy to the great feelings and sensations that are the inevitiable outcome of being truthful,

no?

Not really.

Imagine how the Universe feels. That's how the sage feels.

An aspiring sage, however, periodically feels great bliss, when his ego is bathed, or injected, with the manna from heaven.

The mediocre man employs his intellect only to achieve and maintain the release he experiences from woman.

The great man employs his intellect only to achieve and maintain the release he experiences from truth.

Yes. And the great man sets himself up to become a sage.

Kevin: The sage is guided by the purpose he developed in his former life, rather than by what happens from moment to moment.

To be guided by what happens from moment to moment.....are you saying that this is only how the mediocre man functions?

Yes. A "man of the senses" is controlled by his senses. He is controlled by food, and by sex, etc. He has no purpose or direction (this is of course "femininity", again).

A great man is guided by his internal compass, like an airline pilot who still knows clearly where he is going despite being in thick cloud. He has a bigger picture than what he sees through the windscreen.

Kevin wrote:

Let's say our sage was one of only a few males on the planet, and the survival of the human race depended on him impregnating females. He might decide that, with the help of viagra, he can contribute to the survival of the human race.

Using economy of words, that translates to:
"Sagacity Causes Impotence"

Not really a selling point there, Kev.

Cory: Keep in mind that much of what I'm probing into is related to something that David said near the begining of this thread: That logic can get you to rome, but once you get to rome (via rigorous intellectual work) logic can't be used to justify the manifold magnificence of the experience.

Kevin: I think David is just saying something like, "You can take a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

No, I’m quite sure he is not. He is saying that truth is un-rational and to be aware of it is a great sensation and feeling.

Here is a verbatim of our exchange:

Cory: What role does feeling and sensation have with this ultimate experience of God?

David: Sensation and feeling has everything to do with it, for these elements are the very stuff of experience itself. There is no emotional overlay, however. The ultimate experience of God is something which is beyond the emotions to grasp, and infinitely greater than them.

Cory: are you and Solway advocating the deactivation of ALL feeling and sensation?

Quinn: No, only those feelings and sensations which spring from deluded thinking. What the sage experiences is pure, in that the sensations and feelings he experiences are undistorted by irrational thinking and projected delusions. He doesn't place any value on these sensations or feelings. He lets them come and go as they please. He never tries to freeze them and make a home in them.

He seems to basically be saying: ‘feelings and sensations have everything to do with how the sage behaves, they are with him always’

It seems to me that logic is just a program that helps the individual reach a physical state where sensation and feeling are at their greatest, richest, and most profound and hence thought is at its greatest, richest and most profound.

The sage is basically logic prioritizing itself around feeling and sensing the truth.

Hey Quinn, a commentary from you right about now would be nice.