GENIUS FORUMS

I did not think that this typo had any significance until after it was pointed out it caused a ruckus. Now it is hard to imagine that it does not have significance.

...

xerox: why do you separate yourself from what Kelly said? Do you think it has no relevance to your own psychology?

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

Remember that these statistical differences are in the context of achieving a high level of wisdom. This is extremely difficult to attain. What seems a negligible difference is actually enormous. The average man has the potential to experience nirvana, but he wastes it. He is trained to believe that Woman's commands are his own most noble values. Very rare is the man who uses his potential to query his "own" value system. And of course, the average woman does not have the potential to experience nirvana at all.

What is the potential for wisdom? Individuality. The ability to think.

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

I agree that the majority of men don't express the voice of Woman as loudly and clearly as women do. Women tend to express it immediately and obviously. For men, it's internalised. It's more subtle.

It's there in the form of being grumpy and reserved if he isn't praised, for example. Or in feeling agitated if his wife or boss is on his case. Or lost and despairing when his family won't speak to him, when he is hearing the voice of Woman saying, "You must behave as I want you to, or you will be out in the cold forever". Or in fantasising about the long hair, pair of tits, and flowing movements of his girlfriend, where Woman is saying, "I am the best. Everyone must love me." ?

Can you see how biological males do fit the category ?

Ignis Fatuus wrote:Can you please help me figure this out?

It won't happen overnight. What you need to do is to discover what is ultimately true. It needs to be absolutely unfalsifiable in any way. Then, make it your life.

Keep it simple, so you can remember it.

If I were you, I'd think about the core truth that all things are causes, and lack intrinsic existence. I still use it, as it's an excellent tool.

He's no longer with us, Kelly, just so you know.

xerox wrote: man and woman is the embodiment of people with mommy/daddy issues.

Most males do conceptualise the Infinite in the image of the mother (feminine traits of some kind). But the masculine-minded individual who is enlightened, doesn't, because he knows the Infinite has no particular form, being everything.

Dan Rowden wrote:He's no longer with us, Kelly, just so you know.

Ok, Dan.

...

xerox,

No. Its integral.

I guess I misinterpreted you.

l had never understood why men deify woman as the embodiment of absurdly romantic notions, like woman as the blind dispenser of justice.

An old saying comes to mind. "You have too much time on your hands. Get a girlfriend."

Or: "you need to get laid."

Or: "That's sure to impress the ladies."

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

Well, that’s interesting.

At pre-school age, one of my boys could not distinguish between “she” and “him” so, you’d always get, “Shim did it!”, “Shim” this, “Shim” that.

After Grade 2, I home schooled him for a while and within six months he was reading The Hobbit a couple of hours at a time from not being able to sit still in front of a book for more than about 2 milliseconds. I put him through a phonics program at a time when the approach at school was to use flash cards.

I think the most prominent distinction between woman and women (phonetically that is!) is in the “wo’s.” With the former (at least in my Aussie accent), the “wo” is pronounced as w-oo (as in book) and with the latter it is w-i (short vowel “I,” as in in; I think you could probably get away with not making any distinction between the pronunciations of the second syllable.

Introducing him to etymology and the history of the English language was invaluable, also, since it gave him a structural grasp of the language.

I would pronounce the words the same as you.

In this country at one time there were some hardcore feminists who wanted to remove the syllable 'men' from 'woman' & 'women' so they wrote them 'womyn' & 'wimmin' respectively, preserving the vowel distinction. This seems to have mostly gone out of fashion.

On a complete tangent I notice that some fiction writers will have a character saying 'wimmin' rather than 'women'. This seems to be meant to indicate that the character is low-class or uneducated. I remember wondering about this when I first encountered it as a child, since the two words are pronounced the same (at least in my accent & I think most others).

The only thing I could think of is that the authors are indicating lack of education in the character by demonstrating that he (it's almost always a male character) is thinking of the word spelled the way it sounds rather than properly. Bizarre as this is, I can't think of another reasonable explanation. Unless by some chance these writers just didn't think it through.

Leyla Shen wrote: I think the most prominent distinction between woman and women (phonetically that is!) is in the “wo’s.” With the former (at least in my Aussie accent), the “wo” is pronounced as w-oo (as in book) and with the latter it is w-i (short vowel “I,” as in in; I think you could probably get away with not making any distinction between the pronunciations of the second syllable.

Yeah, the phonetic distinction is the same over here. When I'm speaking, I can't recall ever having a problem knowing when to pronounce Wi-min instead of wo-man.

The part I put in bold there at the end of your sentence I think might have something to do with my sloppiness in my writing too. There isn't much of a phonetic distinction between the second syllables of woman and women, and so I think my left brain kind of just goes on auto-pilot at times, and thus, whether I write woman or women is sometimes perhaps a bit random. In short, I think it's just a lazy habit I acquired over time.

A couple observations:
1) women are surprised when their kind friends turn out to love them.
2) what men see as monsters, women see as caring.

This can be explained easily:
A) women are not rational enough to be virtuous.

Consequently:
I) a woman who appears virtuous is merely apathetic. By projection, she assumes that her virtuous male friends are apathetic.
II) any woman who cares about an object behaves like a monster toward it. Not having virtue, she can only behave selfishly.
III) love is inconceivable to a woman. No wonder the love of wisdom is beyond her!

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:A couple observations:
1) women are surprised when their kind friends turn out to love them.
2) what men see as monsters, women see as caring.

1) Or they act surprised....
2) Never experienced this.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:This can be explained easily:
A) women are not rational enough to be virtuous.

A) Never experienced this.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Consequently:
I) a woman who appears virtuous is merely apathetic. By projection, she assumes that her virtuous male friends are apathetic.
II) any woman who cares about an object behaves like a monster toward it. Not having virtue, she can only behave selfishly.
III) love is inconceivable to a woman. No wonder the love of wisdom is beyond her!

I) That doesn't even make sense.
II) When women behave like monsters towards you Trevor it is not because they care about you.
III) False. Women are always either in love or looking for love.

You need to take a field trip to reality.

Neil, what is it about my writing that causes you to immediately attack whatever I write? You seem overly emotional, and I would appreciate it if this attachment you have to my writing ceased.

Trev, the meaning of your communication is the response you get.

skipair, that's weak. It is ridiculous to blame oneself for one's reception, especially when the only extreme reception comes from one person.

In this case, Neil has a pattern of attacking whatever I say, no matter what it is. Since his reactions to my posts clearly go well beyond the content of my posts, it is evidently his problem, and needs to be resolved by him.

Anything I say to him -- even the most benign advice -- will be ignored. There has been more than one good-natured post I have decided against posting because I knew that he would be incapable of interpreting it correctly, and would choose to attack me rather than heed my words.

Now, when he decides to attack my posts seconds after I post them in an open thread like this one, it is nothing short of malice on his part. I'm not dealing with this bullshit, or taking the blame for it: Neil has an issue he needs to resolve.

Trevor,

There was no malice there. You posted something that I found quite ridiculous. I honestly wonder, if you think that woman show caring by being monsters, if woman have been monsters to you in the past while pretending they cared about you. Perhaps they were trying to get something out of you and you, with your head stuck "beyond this physical/empirical world", too far out of reality, mistook this for caring.

Thus I responded and you immediately took it as some personal attack on you.

Neil,

I honestly wonder, if you think that woman show caring by being monsters, if woman have been monsters to you in the past while pretending they cared about you. Perhaps they were trying to get something out of you and you, with your head stuck "beyond this world", too far out of reality, mistook this for caring.

See? That is ad hominem!

It doesn't even approach the argument, but simply says "oh perhaps there's something wrong with you". Do you even bother to consider what I write?

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Neil,

I honestly wonder, if you think that woman show caring by being monsters, if woman have been monsters to you in the past while pretending they cared about you. Perhaps they were trying to get something out of you and you, with your head stuck "beyond this world", too far out of reality, mistook this for caring.

See? That is ad hominem!

It doesn't even approach the argument, but simply says "oh perhaps there's something wrong with you". Do you even bother to consider what I write?

What is wrong with ad hominem? Your argument and your person are closely related. And this isn't even ad hominem anyways as I am inferring from your argument to your person, not the other way around.

Neil, on second thought, perhaps if you are still composing fallacies, I am giving you too much credit for your actions. I am expecting more insight from you than you have.

Where I got the argument is irrelevant to its truth. If you must know, however, it was through insight into my own behaviour and thought processes that was then applied to others. It was not vengeance against others, but curiousity. One can only understand how women think by analyzing oneself.

So your argument, already irrelevant, falls flat on its face. Even in the best of cases, when used by masterful philosophers, ad hominem arguments rarely work. It is always best to keep the person out of the argument; compose arguments toward the argument, not toward the man who writes it.

Trevor

Neil, on second thought, perhaps if you are still composing fallacies, I am giving you too much credit for your actions. I am expecting more insight from you than you have.

Here is a real example of an ad hominem boys and girls. And when the roles are reversed Trevor has no problem with ad hominems.

Where I got the argument is irrelevant to its truth.

I am noticing a common patter with you guys: you want to take a time slice of everything and just ignore its history. Don't we need to study the history of something to understand it? If we did this we would have avoided metaphysics in the first place and perhaps we could avoid these ridiculous deductions on women.

One can only understand how women think by analyzing oneself.

Are you a woman? If not, is this not a misuse of statistics?

So your argument, already irrelevant, falls flat on its face.

Was it a counterargument or an attempt to explain where your ridiculous argument came from?

Even in the best of cases, when used by masterful philosophers, ad hominem arguments rarely work. It is always best to keep the person out of the argument; compose arguments toward the argument, not toward the man who writes it.

Note that what I said wasn't really an ad hominem in the first place because it inferred from your argument to your person rather than the other way around.

...and the attack starts. At this point, Neil, you should have let your head cool down, and not have responded so quickly. You could have let what I said sink in so you could establish the best possible way to reply. Instead, you are tripping over your shoelaces in an attempt to score a point.

I will disregard your last post, since it follows the very predictable pattern of attacks that I was referring to earlier. It is of no use for me to get worked up over your emotional outbursts.

S: Trev, the meaning of your communication is the response you get.

Trev: skipair, that's weak. It is ridiculous to blame oneself for one's reception, especially when the only extreme reception comes from one person....Since his reactions to my posts clearly go well beyond the content of my posts

Content is where the truth is, but context is what is actually being communicated - the process by which one speaks, or in other words how one speaks. Are you wrapping your words in a present that people will want to open? I don't want to get into a debate about it, the lesson is yours to learn.