Female Genius

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Animus
Posts: 1351
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:31 pm

Re: Female Genius

Post by Animus »

dejavu wrote:Kid, what are you going to do with these observations? I see blame! Look from a little further back. How do you explain that Carmel knows David isn't a bad guy? How do you explain Kungas openness? Why is Pye sometimes a Juggernaut, and I but a peanut in comparison? Why is Jeannie Dans sister? ;D

Women know the paradox in their person. That genius defines itself, as life. Nothing is settled----is this disturbing? Why do women know everything there is to know about comfort, and also how to make it seem the most appealing thing to our senses? Circe can hold men to the end. Women may laugh at me for calling their genius beauty, but then...I love to hear their laughter! It reminds me of things forbidden out of unfounded fears. Blissful things that need only themselves, but would love anything more all the same. You see, I know that they best celebrate the best in 'man', and I don't care who thinks they have a reason to contest this knowledge.
This is bullshit Dejavu, have you ever been with a woman? They are not "blissful things that need only themselves". I know not one woman who has survived longer than 6 months on their own. Most of them cling to men, any men, just to feel safe and approved of. Quite honestly, if its any man or no man, I think the majority of them would take any man, even Paul Reuben.

They don't celebrate the 'best' in man, they drag man down into the pits of hyper-reactive emotionalism. I'm not in the habit of blaming people, its more of an objective analysis. But how feminine of you to suggest that all of my motives stem from a lack of love and that if I was only content in my soul I'd obviously see that women are God's finest creation, so fine in-fact that they are innately perfect.

I live with a woman, a woman who is brighter and less ego-centric than any other woman I know, but she still can't stop lying and chasing after self-annihilation. She's heard all of this philosophy, read this board, read Alan Watts, watched most of Dan's videos, and read parts of Quinn's Expose. All she can do in response, is what the women here seem to be doing; complain about being a victim. At most she will say; I know I am not perfect, but the world conspires to make me imperfect. Or; I know I did something wrong, but I've been wronged before. Her version of taking responsibility is to first suggest she is responsible and then to pass that off to an external cause, usually whatever man she is dating. So that, her man is always made responsible for her, and not she for herself. And yet, she simply cannot see that this is the case, she says: I take responsibility, but you don't recognize it. Her defenses are always the same formula; take responsibility, then pass it off to someone else. I have no defense, if I cannot communicate effectively with others its because I've over or under estimated their abilities.
dejavu wrote:So is all this just a cry for love? That you are prepared to see genius in woman? Well, what are you waiting for?! lol
A woman who displays genius, a woman who demonstrates an insight into the depth of her own psychology. A woman who can take criticism. A woman who doesn't need to be part of something to feel important. A woman who can see rape and murder through the eyes of the perpetrator. A woman who checks her facts before getting hot about them. A woman who is wise to the causes of domestic violence and doesn't just slap the victim label on herself. A woman who is self-reliant and complete in and of herself. I've not met a single one. Perhaps KellyJones comes closest, but I only know her through this board and her youtube channel.
User avatar
Alex T. Jacob
Posts: 413
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:04 am

Re: Female Genius

Post by Alex T. Jacob »

Pye wrote: "As a person of sense and experience, I don't recognize an utter lack of depth here, or with "them." I would not be here, if that were the case. The difference between yourself and myself vis-a-vis this forum, Alex, is that I'm focusing on what's being written here and you're focusing on why [you think] it's being said. This reminds me of the eternally recurring young student who will find out a few things about, say, Nietzsche's life, and then come tell me he wrote what he wrote because he was raised by religious women, or he wrote what he wrote in Oedipal conflict with his [absent] pastor-dad; or he wrote what he wrote because he could not get a woman to love him; or he wrote what he wrote because he was going mad . . . . I help them out, tell them we can look into his potty training experiences if they like, but not one whit of this will help us understand what he's saying, thinking. Why is indeed an interesting question. What is a better one. Prevents: the smug dismissal of think-work in favor of psyched-out conclusionism."
  • I'm happy that you qualify and distinguish your views, whatever they are. You certainly don't have to see things my way.
  • I would, however, suggest in the most polite of terms that you too, in your way, write from a reduced perspective. Or, you start from a reduced perspective and build on that. It is inevitable I suppose: we can only work from what we have, from what we've been exposed to. In that sense you fit right in here. In my view, we need to include and consider many other points of view and many other possibilties, and refrain from relying on one set.
  • What is written and why it is written, in my view, are inseperable. In fact, to know what induces us to do anything is possibly the more interesting question or area of focus. In an academic setting, I suppose, one isn't allowed that luxury, and one would have to focus exclusively on commenting on what is written: the words that appear on the page.
  • Nietzsche arose in a context, and can be understood contextually. It is almost a simple observation that he is an 'outcome' of a long line of 'transmissions' of ideas. There is a danger, of course, in taking just one element ('raised by religious women', or an Oedipal issue, etc.) is that one begins from a reduction, from a reduced platform. The greater the familiarity with the context, and the vast group of different ideas and influences that Nietzsche was exposed to (including the Oedipal, or the influence of religious women), the better someone would be able to understand what Nietzsche places on the page.
  • In this way I would repeat again that, in relation to these conversations that occur on these pages, we must dig deeper into ourselves, into the context that has informed us, and into many other ideas and perspectives that are 'out there', floating around.
  • In summation: both what and why are necessary questions.
"Myself, I don't do 'evil.' You have it better later on with both sexes being 'screwed' by nature, if it has to be put this way. Man feels his circumstances just as keenly. He is also behind a certain 8-ball and doing his own compensating."
  • I'm sure there are many things you don't 'do'. Dworkin, and numerous feminists, do indeed 'do' evil, as do many, many thinkers and even those who think they are free of the (religious and doctrinal) tinge in the word. Obviously, you would not accept the terms under which I might examine, psychologically, Dworkin's location of an 'evil' that oppresses her gender, but that does not mean that it is not real, considerable or conversable.
  • It is true that both sexes are 'screwed' by nature. But they have been screwed in quite different ways, which was my point. Women are a womb-receptor-breeder that animal-men pursue, grab, hold down and fuck. They receive the fucking and they bear the children. And, what is more, their role, the one given to them by Mother Nature has only been modified as a result of man's ingenuity and, if you will, 'good-heartedness'. If there were a breakdown in culture/civilization, women would likely intantaneously return/be returned to their traditional 'position'.
  • Thank god, God and 'God' for culture, eh? (Which was and still is my point).
  • The construct that is 'man's intellect', and in which we would locate 'male genius' (a category I accept BTW, with qualifications), and which has enabled all that we now value and privelage to arise, is predominantly a male creation. (But I am repeating myself). There is not a better-than value judgment placed here. It is just a fact. Women's intelligence functions differently and in other categories/fields.
  • In summation: Man feels his circumstances and as a result does extraordinary things, pushes on the question in astounding and impressive ways. "Trickster/Coyote makes the world".
  • A good question to ask is, independently of men (it is an impossible question of course) what would women have created on their own? (I did ask this question in a post to you that you never did answer. You had gotten very busy I think you said).
  • Alex truly thinks you're wonderful. Alex is just 6-13% more wonderful. Plus, he has a penis.
I can't go on. I'll go on.
Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: Female Genius

Post by Pye »

Alex: In an academic setting, I suppose, one isn't allowed that luxury, and one would have to focus exclusively on commenting on what is written: the words that appear on the page.
This isn't the reason I'm advocating what I'm advocating. Believe me, academia leaves plenty of room for these kinds of contextual approaches and bio-guesses. I speak from having witnessed the quality of the results in all kinds of settings. Why never reaches the level of intellectual rigor that what does.

And by the way, I pay a handsome price for teaching in circumstances where what is 'allowed' and 'not allowed' in the academy cannot touch or bind me. The cost of the adjunct's independent status is extracted in every possible way, from penalizingly low pay, no benefits, no inclusionary 'status' in the academy, no vote in departmental policies and affairs . . . . good heavens, everything from back seats in the conference room to a parking place so far out in bumfuck, I might as well walk the whole 9 miles. I eat this independence for breakfast. It's the breakfast of champions :)
Alex: What is written and why it is written, in my view, are inseperable.
This sounds so right, Alex, but if it were true, we would not be able to find our asses with both hands when confronted with any text at any time. Without what, everything each of us wrote would sound like complete gibberish to one another. And if they are inseparable, in your contextual estimation, then perhaps you have talents for the what that can at least equal the amount of why-ing that you do. Would like to see you work against your own nature in this; join the conversation about the what. :)
Alex: Alex truly thinks you're wonderful. Alex is just 6-13% more wonderful. Plus, he has a penis.
And Pye has enough of a sense of humor to get you here, you pissing contestant you . . . .
Animus
Posts: 1351
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:31 pm

Re: Female Genius

Post by Animus »

This idea that men care more about their ideas than life itself has to be out in left field.

When it comes to the ridiculous rantings and egotistical attachments of my friends, no I don't really put that much importance on them. They only become a serious concern of mine when they lead the individual toward suicide. To stop them from suiciding I will say what they need to hear.

Yet on the other hand, I can barely think or speak of Socrates execution, Tank Man or the current state of humanity without breaking into tears. In these instances, my tears are uncontrollable, and non-consuming. That may not make sense, but the simply flow out of me without my being really attached to them. It is partially because I offer up no resistence to them.

When it comes to something that affects me or my situation I don't care quite as much. Someone breaks my playstation 3, oh well, someone sets my apartment on fire and burns all my possessions to ash, not such a big deal. I get into a car accident, that's life. But the fact that humanity itself is going to hell in a handbasket, that does jar me a bit. And I know that it is the result of disidentification with the core ego and reidentification with the totality of being, or the fact of being.

By contrast, my roommate, and anyone else I've come into physical contact with (man or woman) is wrapped up in egotistical attachment, they are not moved by the execution of Socrates or the man who stopped a column of tanks in Tiananmen Square. Rather, they are moved by the prospects of advancing their careers, or the stagnancy of their financial and romantic lives.

I've seen women in tears too, but usually because of something done to them and their inhereted victim complex. It almost never has anything to do with altruism. Woman's love which is so often touted as the highest principle of humanity is nothing of the sort, it is egotistical attachment.
User avatar
Alex T. Jacob
Posts: 413
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:04 am

Re: Female Genius

Post by Alex T. Jacob »

La Rochefoucauld.

Pye writes: "This sounds so right, Alex, but if it were true, we would not be able to find our asses with both hands when confronted with any text at any time. Without what, everything each of us wrote would sound like complete gibberish to one another. And if they are inseparable, in your contextual estimation, then perhaps you have talents for the what that can at least equal the amount of why-ing that you do. Would like to see you work against your own nature in this; join the conversation about the what."
  • Alex, with tremendous self-effacing humility, and a bow, will consider your recommendation.
  • If I can become teacher's pet...
  • (Except when it comes to responding to Diebert).
  • I bring forth La Rochefoucauld because, I think, he is one who plunges into an inner dimension of man that man doesn't want to look at. Didn't La Rochefoucauld have a big influence on Nietzsche, and isn't Nietzsche distinguished by the fact that he plunged 'psychology'? Isn't the 'meaning' of Nietzsche that we have to become both philologists as well as psychologists?
I can't go on. I'll go on.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5740
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Female Genius

Post by Dan Rowden »

Your capacity to kills pales in comparison to your capacity to bore, which is, frankly, peerless.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5740
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Female Genius

Post by Dan Rowden »

Your desire/need to be loved, which oozes out of your every post, is precisely what makes you so boring.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: Female Genius

Post by Kunga »

Dan Rowden wrote:Your desire/need to be loved, which oozes out of your every post, is precisely what makes you so boring.

are you bored a lot Dan ?

what excites you ?

seriously.


i bet Dejavu is surrounded by georgeous women whenever he is out & about....he oozes of LOVE !

Wouldn't you love to be loved Dan ?????????

i wish i still had eggs. lol
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5740
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Female Genius

Post by Dan Rowden »

dejavu wrote:You must admit it's infinitely better than desire to love, no? lol
I think they're pretty much the same thing.
We'll both be hated for dragging this 'discussion' down to 'chat' if we're not careful.
So? How will that make things different than what's usual for this place nowadays?
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5740
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Female Genius

Post by Dan Rowden »

Kunga wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:Your desire/need to be loved, which oozes out of your every post, is precisely what makes you so boring.
are you bored a lot Dan ?
Boring people bore me. Sadly, there's a lot of boring people in the world :)
what excites you ?
I don't get excited. Well, ok, a really cold beer on a hot day..... but....
seriously.
Seriously.
i bet Dejavu is surrounded by georgeous women whenever he is out & about....he oozes of LOVE !
He oozes smug self-satisfaction and smarminess. You know, the sort of stuff stupid women - and children - just love.
Wouldn't you love to be loved Dan ?????????
No. I have far too much character for such a desire.
i wish i still had eggs. lol
Why?
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5740
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Female Genius

Post by Dan Rowden »

dejavu wrote:
Dan: Your desire/need to be loved, which oozes out of your every post, is precisely what makes you so boring.

dejavu: You must admit it's infinitely better than desire to love, no? lol

Dan: I think they're pretty much the same thing.
You think? For the sake of holyfuck Dan, you make them sound as though they're just opposite extremes on an overall scale of impotence!
They're both 100% egotistical.
Well, since we're both prisoners of the times, it could save us getting stuck in the gut you know? Free passage and all that. Have you considered that we could be banned by David, or even Kevin? What would we do? Is your friendship in blood?
Kevin ban someone? Hahaha. Kevin doesn't do any admin stuff - other than fix PHP issues.
Animus
Posts: 1351
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:31 pm

Re: Female Genius

Post by Animus »

dejavu wrote: Something extremely wicked in me can't wait for her to read this :D
That would definitely be something extremely wicked in you. I've said as much to her and she basically hates me for it, I can't talk to her anymore without her throwing something at me or suffering a mental breakdown. And that makes me sad, primarily for the reason that I said it in vain, it was a futile attempt at unraveling her ego, because I was convinced that if any woman could transcend her ego, she could, and I was wrong, very wrong.
Animus
Posts: 1351
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:31 pm

Re: Female Genius

Post by Animus »

dejavu wrote:

LOL If men can be dragged, let'em be dragged I say. You're onto something there about being content enough to find the finest. But I am a bringer of hope Animus, and if you read me again, you will see I actually think your motives stem from love. That won't however stop me from calling you a dork, you dork.
There is nothing stopping you from being immature? Maybe its all those women dragging you down lol.

dejavu: So is all this just a cry for love? That you are prepared to see genius in woman? Well, what are you waiting for?! lol


Animus: A woman who displays genius, a woman who demonstrates an insight into the depth of her own psychology. A woman who can take criticism. A woman who doesn't need to be part of something to feel important. A woman who can see rape and murder through the eyes of the perpetrator. A woman who checks her facts before getting hot about them. A woman who is wise to the causes of domestic violence and doesn't just slap the victim label on herself. A woman who is self-reliant and complete in and of herself. I've not met a single one. Perhaps KellyJones comes closest, but I only know her through this board and her youtube channel.
I can promise to put in a good word for you with Kelly, hell I'll even throw in a condom, but I am not (yet) a miracle-worker.

One of the main (if not the main) reason I'm such a dab hand in pissing competitions is I can't see murder through the eyes of a perpetrator. It's a bit weak of me I suppose, but I definitely have the capacity to kill. lol
Yea, no. I've had my share of sex and I'm not going there anymore.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5740
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Female Genius

Post by Dan Rowden »

dejavu wrote:
He oozes smug self-satisfaction and smarminess. You know, the sort of stuff stupid women - and children - just love.
Guilty for satisfaction, but smarminess Dan? lol I've heard how you talk to your sister. I never had a sister.
Yes, you are incredibly smarmy, and you don't even get why/how. And I treat my sister, in this place, as I would any other person, which is exactly how it ought to be. You, on the other hand, delight in your egotistical manipulations. I find that sort of thing quite repugnant. But then, we obviously have very different values and sensibilities.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5740
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Female Genius

Post by Dan Rowden »

To treat an individual differently is to behave in a repugnant way to everyone else. Surely you understand that.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: Female Genius

Post by Kunga »

Dan Rowden wrote:egotistical manipulations
i think we're ALL guilty of that sometimes.
Dan Rowden wrote:Boring people bore me. Sadly, there's a lot of boring people in the world :)
:) (i know you include me in that category)

i don't need excitement to be happy & content. i love peacefulness. i love people. i love love.
just as much as i want to know the fuckin truth about everything. :)
Dan Rowden wrote:I don't get excited. Well, ok, a really cold beer on a hot day..... but....
yes...it's the only time i LOVE beer....at least we have something in common...
i miss being exciting by being with someone....this place is as exciting as it gets with me (being around people)
Dan Rowden wrote:He oozes smug self-satisfaction and smarminess. You know, the sort of stuff stupid women - and children - just love.
i don't pick up on that at all......seems to me you guys that pick on Dejavu are a little jealous acually....because he is a free man...not locked in a dungeon doomed to a dull death drooling enlightenment...
Dan Rowden wrote:No. I have far too much character for such a desire.

Have you lost your ability to give love also ?
Kunga wrote:i wish i still had eggs. lol
Dan Rowden wrote: Why?

i miss being passionate and in-love.
it must have something to do with pro-creation
as my feelings have died in that department.
Animus
Posts: 1351
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:31 pm

Re: Female Genius

Post by Animus »

There is a fundamental difference to me between being "in love" in a whimsical manner and being "in love" in a more discerning manner. I can love people but dislike their biases and ignorance. If you love truth, then you can't make concessions to love that is not based in truth. Truth always boils down to the same unconditional love, but I don't conceive of it as being a love of ignorance or prejudice. Maybe it ought to be, perhaps I should embrace ignorance, but I fall prey to abandoning truth in the process. A lot of people get passionate about things I really wish they wouldn't get passionate about.

In regard to women, I find that their incessant desire to feel loved drives them to do outrageous things when they don't acquire it. Women's desire for love, is simply that, a desire for love. They want to consume someone else's love, they aren't satisfied with just loving and being done with it. What do they love? It seems to me that they love consuming the physical and mental attention of other people. When they are loving they are also doing so in order to bring attention to themselves in a bid to feel loved. The playing field when it comes to this kind of "Love" with women is very shaky. As a man you have to fit into a very small niche where the woman feels no insecurity about you, where she feels that she has your total undivided soul. Men for their part simply adapt an illusion that the woman really owns their soul, but in order to do so they must unwittingly give up their soul. This happens for exactly the reasons that "QRS" suggest it does. Women feel a lacking for love and man basically likes to desecrate innocence. The woman isn't really innocent though, she just gets offended at the idea that she isn't. She either gets outwardly aggressive, or she recoils into a cold-funk and dwells in self-pity, both of which are an attempt to reign in the man's thinking. The man's thinking has no defense against this reality of women but to abort. So men abandon their thinking in order to satisfy their innate desire for women. They are perhaps thinking creatures in many other respects, but when it comes to their women, they will find themselves slaves to the woman's emotions.

You don't actually have to look very far to see that emotions can ruin a lot of truth and bring about a lot of suffering. That has to be the most obvious thing to a thinking person. Anyway, people in general, and that includes women, don't love certain classes of other people. You more than likely don't love a serial killer like Ted Bundy the same way you love a little kitten or 5 year old girl. You probably don't love them as much as you love your neighbors or any non-violent human anywhere on the planet. It is probable that one would get frustrated and worked up over the idea of Ted Bundy. It is very hard to love this man, it is way easier to hate him. And that is what most people do. Yet it is an observation that men are more likely to think two or three times before jumping on the hate bandwagon. Women seem far more likely to dive in ready for the kill. Social condemnation is their gig, society is their gig. And that brings about a lot of problems I think, a lot of maladjustment in youth. Because youth are then put in a position of being either a crook or a straight. If they are straight they are okay, and women love them, but if they are slightly crooked they are condemned to further crookedness. So society in its ignorance, guided by strong passions, molds people like Ted Bundy into existence. By splitting its passions into a dualistic view, wherein love and hate exist in polarity. If your love is contingent on something in particular then you've already adhered to the duality. But if you love whatever happens unconditionally, then you're love isn't a consumption and you don't complain about not having it. You transcend the duality, you can love Ted Bundy because you can realize that ignorance and society at large share the problem. Serial killers are just indicators of maladjustment within society. If you think about it, in that perspective they are more deserving of your love. If you want love in order to fulfill your ego, you wind up loving things that are a plus for you or that relate to you in some pleasurable way. But if you love unconditionally, you wind up loving everything including Ted Bundy.

To love Ted Bundy doesn't mean that you have anything to do with him directly. You don't have to buy him flowers or send him any letters. It just means when you think about him you don't hate him, you love him. Can you still hate what he has done? Some would say you can't and that you should love even his crimes. I disagree and think that you can indeed disapprove of the "crimes". I think manipulating others' natural autonomy covertly is a crime. But that is just what we all do when we aren't spending too much time thinking about what we do, and when we are desperately trying to feel loved.

Just my two cents
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5740
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Female Genius

Post by Dan Rowden »

No, I'm wondering why I tolerate you.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Female Genius

Post by jupiviv »

Kunga wrote:i miss being passionate and in-love.
it must have something to do with pro-creation
as my feelings have died in that department.

If you miss a feeling, then it hasn't died yet. Your feelings simply can't find the right conditions to bloom.

I know that almost all of my feelings have died. I think it's because I understand them to the fullest extent. Once you understand what things really are, you can see them as being separate from yourself, and thus any projection of yourself onto them(which is what emotions are) becomes impossible. I've found this to be the case with every woman I've met(including my mother). Women are very charming and lovable at a distance, but when I start engaging them at an intellectual level, I feel like I'm talking to empty space.
Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: Female Genius

Post by Pye »

Something I've noticed here from time to time regarding the basis of many of these critiques of women is how they [women] have failed you (rhetorical) or how they have gotten on your nerves, or how they have not delivered what you want from them, don't act as you wish they would, etc. etc. as though there are great needs and expectations personally yours that are not being met. And, of course, since these are not met or satisfied, one is inclined to wholesale rejection.

Now, a lot of women certainly are unaware of themselves, act irrational, etc. and I know I'm not rightly one who who rides the egolessness express, but I have definitely wondered why such a charge has not been leveled against the nature of some of these complaints. It seems that many of these critiques are filled with this personal disappointment - from the angle of women's use-value to you - whether or not they are delivering what you want, what you need, what you expect of them, what you want them to be . . . and if they fail any of these, you dis-value on these bases, rather than any sagely understanding of letting-be the is.

Neither would I suggest the possibility of escaping these value judgments, but I do find it interesting that those who frequently put forth the notion of egolessness as the holy grail are often the ones who do the most complaining based upon their disappointed selves and their unmet needs. Someone will have to show me how this is not a matter of ego and attachment - even and especially at the point you think you are the most disattached. Methinks it's too much of a protest, curious in this way. And far from any notion of the great, disattached sage who would not trouble with rejection/affirmation of anything in the world in the first place.
User avatar
Alex T. Jacob
Posts: 413
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:04 am

Re: Female Genius

Post by Alex T. Jacob »

  • It seems, Pye, that if you are asking a question, it is a question that can only be answered 'psychologically'.
I can't go on. I'll go on.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Female Genius

Post by Cory Duchesne »

I think his point was that when you try to engage with them in an egoless (highly abstract) manner, it doesn't work, and you are left prone to getting pulled down into their egotism.

Egolessness still involves interaction, exchange of words and ideas, and with some people, the interaction gets reduced down to something narcissistic and petty.

You need to beware of these people, their prerogative is a will to power, and in their case, such a will to power is merely an exacerbation of their own narcissism which they want you to subordinate yourself to, and thus become egotistical like them. Everyone is trying to make you like them.
Animus
Posts: 1351
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:31 pm

Re: Female Genius

Post by Animus »

You know; part of having an ego is projecting ego onto others.

Its difficult here because we are in the business of breaking down each others egos, but we ought to be very careful with what motives we attribute to other people. At least, put some thought into it.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Female Genius

Post by jupiviv »

Pye wrote:....sagely understanding of letting-be the is.

Making value judgements and having expectations can also be "letting-be the is", as nothing can ever be other than what it appears to be.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Female Genius

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Kunga wrote:...seems to me you guys that pick on Dejavu are a little jealous acually....because he is a free man...not locked in a dungeon doomed to a dull death drooling enlightenment...
Fair enough, although it's a suspicious statement considering your earlier description of the men you so selflessly care for, all being locked to stupid tv shows, videos games and porn. Or perhaps you see in him something similar !-)
Locked