GENIUS FORUMS

Fuck him!

mystex wrote:Fuck him!

Can you elaborate just a little bit more on that?

mystex wrote:

rebecca702 wrote:That strikes me as pure gibberish. Who's to judge what is sane and insane? Certainly not me, and certainly not some outside authority, some objective perspective. Only hindsight.

lol

If you disagree, at least tell me why! Otherwise your posts are meaningless.

Rebecca wrote:

Can you elaborate just a little bit more on that?

If you disagree, at least tell me why!

Good luck. The party in question was admittedly drunk during his last round of posting, and on another thread begged to be banned.

Yes, as a general rule, you can safely ignore this poster. If he could manage to control his behaviour a little more, he wouldn't get banned to much.

Actually, he's capable of making good and substantial posts, when he is not going through one of his psychotic episodes. He did say he was going to get Dan to ban him at the end of the year, but there's still over a week left before that time comes.

rebecca702 wrote:

David Quinn wrote:No amount of justification on McKenna's part can hide the sleazy nature of his ego, his rampant self-indulgences and the disrespect he displays towards others, particularly females. If he tries to palm this off as being the universe's doing, then I have even less respect for him.

So are you saying here that he's trying to use the ends to justify the means? Being immoral to show that the universe is amoral? Just trying to shake people up and be some kind of supa-dupa anti-guru while being just an inverted perversion, stuck in the same paradigm?

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.

-

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?

David Quinn wrote:

rebecca702 wrote:

David Quinn wrote:No amount of justification on McKenna's part can hide the sleazy nature of his ego, his rampant self-indulgences and the disrespect he displays towards others, particularly females. If he tries to palm this off as being the universe's doing, then I have even less respect for him.

So are you saying here that he's trying to use the ends to justify the means? Being immoral to show that the universe is amoral? Just trying to shake people up and be some kind of supa-dupa anti-guru while being just an inverted perversion, stuck in the same paradigm?

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.

-

Yikes.

Jed does make a comment about Osho, somewhere in the 1st book I believe, about how he is "in awe of his mind."

So... do you not see this motive of Jed's at all in a fatherly light? Is it really so sexual? Maybe it is domineering in a different way. He mentions that when doing the practice of spiritual autolysis (writing to try to state what is ultimately true as a way of hacking through your delusions) it might help to write as if for an earlier version of yourself, or for an imaginary future child. Maybe what he has is a time travel obsession. Maybe his fantasy is to write these books for the earlier version of himself, in which case this perversion would be masterbatory, not pedophiliac.

rebecca702 wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:It's no wonder he likes young women. He is one!

Ha ha, I never thought of that. Maybe that is why I resonated so much with him. Damn!

I was actually half joking, but there is a poetic, feminine air that he brings to his rhetoric that doesn't sit that well with me. Given his own claim that the first book is a self-contained, stand alone opus, I'd have expected a little more nitty-gritty and less pretty-pretty. There's too much of an appeal to aesthetic sensibilities for me.

Whenever he comes off as sleazy or solipsistic, I sort of see it as him trying to demonstrate to the rest of us that the universe has no agenda...you know, this floaty feeling of freedom that I imagine "wise" people feel.

Wisdom is non-attachment, that's all. It really isn't anything else. I'm suspecting McKenna has a fairly good grasp of the technical aspects of wisdom - non-duality, the false ego construct etc, but that his grasp of psychology, including his own, is wanting. He can see the obvious and gross in people, but not the subtle.

You see Jed as without a sense of purpose (other than writing these books) - but what do you mean by "purpose"? For example, in your mind does the universe have a "purpose"? Does life? What is YOUR purpose?

He expresses, himself, a sense of confusion about this issue. He speaks like a person in the throes of nihilism rather than wisdom. Wisdom is not nihilism. Purpose is a natural part of discriminative consciousness, whether wise or not. Purpose is a natural, innate function of consciousness. It's just that the wise person has a conscious purpose (i.e. he knows what it is) and is not attached to that purpose. Mine is simply the propagation of wisdom. It's the most natural expression of who and what I am. I have no altruistic feelings towards people. I don't really care about them or their suffering, other than in the context of that stated purpose, which just happens to require consciousness and therefore human survival and betterment.

After spending time at the CSS (Center for Sacred Sciences) I was getting the notion that the very idea that my life had to have meaning and purpose was what was keeping me from seeing reality. So now I suppose I have a knee-jerk reaction to any idea of purpose, meaning... I guess that is a very feminine view, along the lines of the "everything-is-hunky-dory" outlook. Any thoughts on this?

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. Our lives don't have meaning; our lives bring meaning. Do you know what I mean?

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?

Yes! Or, to first recognise that this is actually happening.

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.

-

David said,

The brain can become more "masculine" - i.e. improvements in testosterone levels . . .

Higher testosterone levels are accompanied by higher libidos, and I would not want that for myself.

Dan,

I have no altruistic feelings towards people. I don't really care about them or their suffering, other than in the context of that stated purpose, which just happens to require consciousness and therefore human survival and betterment.

I don't know how you can say this. If it is true, then you are an incredibly good actor.

Shahrazad wrote:Dan,

I have no altruistic feelings towards people. I don't really care about them or their suffering, other than in the context of that stated purpose, which just happens to require consciousness and therefore human survival and betterment.

I don't know how you can say this. If it is true, then you are an incredibly good actor.

I'm talking at a species level. I don't care much for humanity, as a species. I will give individuals the level of concern I think they warrant.

Oh, that is very different. I also don't care for the human species to survive. As much suffering as there is, we're probably better off going extinct.

rebecca702 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.

Yikes.

Jed does make a comment about Osho, somewhere in the 1st book I believe, about how he is "in awe of his mind."

That makes sense. There is a resemblance between them, although Osho seemed to have more character in that he actualized his perversions in real life.

So... do you not see this motive of Jed's at all in a fatherly light?

Not really, no. There is still far too much of the "kid" in him. He is still too focused on his own fun to consider much else.

He has some insight, but his attempts to be a teacher are premature, given the large impurities which still exist in his ego.

Is it really so sexual?

I think so. He employs basic hypnotic techniques which are more commonly associated with a seducer. It may well be the case that he has no interest in consumating the liasons he has with the girls he talks with, or forming a relationship with them, but the underlying seducer's psychology is there.

Maybe it is domineering in a different way. He mentions that when doing the practice of spiritual autolysis (writing to try to state what is ultimately true as a way of hacking through your delusions) it might help to write as if for an earlier version of yourself, or for an imaginary future child. Maybe what he has is a time travel obsession. Maybe his fantasy is to write these books for the earlier version of himself, in which case this perversion would be masterbatory, not pedophiliac.

Well, pedophiles often think in the same way. When they molest children, they often believe that their interactions are pure in that they reflect the kinds of innocent sexual feelings they themselves experienced as kids.

-

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.

David Quinn wrote: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.

I've noticed in myself a correlation between intense physical activity, especially aerobic types like running, and a virilizing of my behaviour and psychology. I tend to become more assertive, aggressive, dominant and confident. Competitive sport seems to do it too.

David Quinn wrote:

David Quinn wrote:

rebecca702 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.

Yikes.

Jed does make a comment about Osho, somewhere in the 1st book I believe, about how he is "in awe of his mind."

That makes sense. There is a resemblance between them, although Osho seemed to have more character in that he actualized his perversions in real life.

So... do you not see this motive of Jed's at all in a fatherly light?

Not really, no. There is still far too much of the "kid" in him. He is still too focused on his own fun to consider much else.

He has some insight, but his attempts to be a teacher are premature, given the large impurities which still exist in his ego.

Is it really so sexual?

I think so. He employs basic hypnotic techniques which are more commonly associated with a seducer. It may well be the case that he has no interest in consumating the liasons he has with the girls he talks with, or forming a relationship with them, but the underlying seducer's psychology is there.

Maybe it is domineering in a different way. He mentions that when doing the practice of spiritual autolysis (writing to try to state what is ultimately true as a way of hacking through your delusions) it might help to write as if for an earlier version of yourself, or for an imaginary future child. Maybe what he has is a time travel obsession. Maybe his fantasy is to write these books for the earlier version of himself, in which case this perversion would be masterbatory, not pedophiliac.

Well, pedophiles often think in the same way. When they molest children, they often believe that their interactions are pure in that they reflect the kinds of innocent sexual feelings they themselves experienced as kids.

-

How do you know McKenna did not actualize perversions?
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.

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.

David Quinn wrote:

rebecca702 wrote:

David Quinn wrote:No amount of justification on McKenna's part can hide the sleazy nature of his ego, his rampant self-indulgences and the disrespect he displays towards others, particularly females. If he tries to palm this off as being the universe's doing, then I have even less respect for him.

So are you saying here that he's trying to use the ends to justify the means? Being immoral to show that the universe is amoral? Just trying to shake people up and be some kind of supa-dupa anti-guru while being just an inverted perversion, stuck in the same paradigm?

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?

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.

Hi David,

Just to let you know the quote headings got reversed on your last post between you and I. It should read:

David Quinn wrote:

rebecca702 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.

Yikes.

Jed does make a comment about Osho, somewhere in the 1st book I believe, about how he is "in awe of his mind."

[I've changed it around. Thanks for letting me know - DQ]

Jason wrote:

David Quinn wrote: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.

I've noticed in myself a correlation between intense physical activity, especially aerobic types like running, and a virilizing of my behaviour and psychology. I tend to become more assertive, aggressive, dominant and confident. Competitive sport seems to do it too.

That's interesting.

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?

David Quinn wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:

McKenna: The main benefit most spiritually inclined people can derive from having a clear understanding of what it really means to be truth-realized is not so they can achieve it, but so they can dispense with it and reset their spiritual sights on something worthier than enlightenment, which is literally, the biggest nothing of all time.

This makes me think McKenna actually doesn't know what enlightenment is and has never attained it. No-one that has would characterise it as nothing.

It's his ego speaking. For some reason, he has allowed his ego to encase enlightenment and hold it up as some sort of distasteful exhibit.

It's difficult to fathom how a clever, insightful guy like him can make such a serious error. Or at the very least, be victim to such a serious lapse of memory.

-

Maybe the error is yours, as well as the transcriber, ever think of that.
Maybe the biggest nothing of all time is the "something worthier than enlightenment".
Ever consider that?
M

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?

He means wont train anyone who ACTS like a typical woman, you know shying from pain and risk give up early. Telling her she got to behave like real man would to kep him as trainer.
Wants her commitment, wants her to feel shitty about going back on her word, so she wont and stays with it.
Basic dont want to waste his time and money on a looser.

end

but dont you wish theyd give Clint a few testosterone shots before he does another movie?
just not the same as his old self, poor guy.

"dont ya, Punk!"