GENIUS FORUMS

Pye wrote:.

Leyla posits:

I think what is actually lacking here is a proper exposition of ego.

I might not have the whole exposition for you, but I can offer its most efficacious definition:
ego = one's sense of self.
Period.

clyde offers:

ego - “the habitual notion of possession”

and this definition, like so many, begins with a moral pejorative embedded in its meaning.

It has only ever been a type of ego put forth in any given enlightenment scheme, and a whole host of other types of egos that are rejected for the process; but in no scheme does one's ego - one's sense of self - go away.

.

Pye;

As I noted in my post, there are different definitions of ego. It has been my experience that the varying definitions often point to different things (other types of egos, if you wish). For that reason, I usually avoid the term.

What attracted me to the definition I quoted were the following:
. habitual – a repeated action
. notion – a thought or concept
. possession – ownership

ego – the repeated thought of “mine”; not a persistently existing thing, but thoughts of a particular nature that arise and pass away which collectively we label "ego"

How is your definition efficacious?

clyde

Laird wrote:

Leyla Shen wrote:Laird wrote:

And how then might I have maintained unassailability?

If pleasure is paramount, you wouldn’t--unless your pleasure is truth. What then?

You might mean, what is truth? Truth is the search for God. There is no such thing as truth. God exists.

Leyla Shen wrote:Are you not making claims for the taking coated in the syrup of temptation, Laird--such as the claim that there is something to be gained from intimacy between a man and a woman--a conception of self through a significant other?

Temptation is desire through a sour lens. Desire is a less noble way of saying will. All things are noble. Sour is in the attitude. God's will is accomplished. [edited to add final sentence]

There is no such thing as truth? Of course truth exists, and it's definitely not the search for "god". WTF is god anyway? I don't believe an ounce of the Abrahamic god, then what else is there, a supreme being? WTF does a supreme being represent? Just some other false creation to cope with the infinite blackness of the universe. God is nothing, he explains nothing adequately, he's a meer finite alien whirling through the infinite blackness of the universe.


From Play it Again Sam:

It restates the negativeness of the universe, the hideous lonely emptiness of existence, nothingness, the predicament of man forced to live in a barren, godless eternity, like a tiny flame flickering in an immense void, with nothing but waste, horror, and degradation, forming a useless bleak straitjacket in a black absurd cosmos.

passthrough wrote:David:

By contrast, a person with feminine consciousness is ignorant simply because of a lack of mental capacity to become wise.

Now all people are a mixture of masculinity and femininity, although not in equal amounts, and so all people have this lack of mental capacity inside them to some extent. So the whole issue turns on whether a person possesses enough masculine consciousness to not only break away from the constant pull of his feminine consciousness, but also to tackle the mental blocks and fears which hinder him.

While I agree with your insight into the battles that ensue within an individual between their masculine and feminine nature, a question that remains in my mind is why the masculine is, by necessity, preferred?

You appreciate Jesus Christ and Buddhism as you have a link replete with sayings attributed to them. So, I have to ask how do you reconcile this strive for wisdom with the virtues of love, being the greatest commandment, and living a virtuous life? Can one be unwise and yet love and live a life of virtue?

In my view, a person has the beginnings of a conscience when he starts valuing truth above all else. And part of the truth about Nature is the lack of boundaries between things, that all things are seamlessly connected to one another. To enter into a love-relationship with another is to ignore the truth of Nature's lack of boundaries, and thus is a show of disrespect to one's conscience.

Is the danger in lack of wisdom being able to fully appreciate what is illusory from reality? Is there not also a danger of becoming so wise that one alienates themselves from those whom they are to love? Do you think that love should be sacrificed in order to gain such wisdom? The definition of love will be a sticky point, to be sure, but it is not a love like an attachment to an object or person but that of a love for human dignity and respect as fellow beings.

With all these things being said, how do you understand the nature of Christ to be?

Hahaha, a sticky subject for the definition of love indeed. The word itself is disgusting and deceiving, how are you capable of loving? Love is the most selfish thing, can selfishness co-exist with love? What is love other than the need to not be alone in this black infinite universe? "Love" is the inevitable consequence of being utterly alone, it is a disease and a falseness, a lie, a delusion. Love is also finite, extremely finite. One day, I hope we can all become androids, and rid ourselves of the uselessness of emotions.

What is human dignity and respect? Why do we not respect animals the way we do to humans? Are you a fan of 'self-esteem'? I hate the very word itself, only because I'm a determinist. If we were free and autonomous 'self-esteem' would make sense, but we aren't, so it's delusional.

Faust13 wrote:There is no such thing as truth? Of course truth exists

Could it be that you are right, and that so am I? That the nature of the splintered One is the equal realisation of all possibilities through the aspects of the positions of consciousness?

Faust13 wrote:and it's definitely not the search for "god". WTF is god anyway? I don't believe an ounce of the Abrahamic god, then what else is there, a supreme being? WTF does a supreme being represent?

To the most accurately that I know how to describe it, paradox. For an exploration of a possible more detailed description, you might be interested in the discussion that Nat and I had in the ongoing thread "Human progress as Stratification of Being", starting here: viewtopic.php?t=3108&postdays=0&postord ... rt=0#46009.

Faust13 wrote:Just some other false creation to cope with the infinite blackness of the universe. God is nothing, he explains nothing adequately, he's a meer finite alien whirling through the infinite blackness of the universe.

How would you feel to consider the possibility that God is instead an infinitely knowable mystery?

Faust13 wrote:From Play it Again Sam:

It restates the negativeness of the universe, the hideous lonely emptiness of existence, nothingness, the predicament of man forced to live in a barren, godless eternity, like a tiny flame flickering in an immense void, with nothing but waste, horror, and degradation, forming a useless bleak straitjacket in a black absurd cosmos.

What if negativity were a choice, and if choice were both real and illusory? Godlessness would also be a choice, made by one of God's aspects. It would then be right to realise that aspect, just as it would not be wrong to realise Godliness. Do you like this way of thinking?

Faust13 wrote:Hahaha, a sticky subject for the definition of love indeed.

You know Faust, every time that I would like David Quinn to answer something about what he writes, you seem to show up instead. Are you his alter-ego?

Faust:

The word itself is disgusting and deceiving, how are you capable of loving?

Personally capable? Love is no more deceiving than the usage of the words "woman" and the "feminine" if one is not cognizant of the definition used in this forum.

Faust:

Love is the most selfish thing, can selfishness co-exist with love?

The definition I gave was not selfish and no, selfishness cannot co-exist with love as defined...it seems one must be self-less or close in order to even know how to give it. I only have a small idea as to what it truly means, and it is indeed a difficult type of love to give.

Faust:

What is love other than the need to not be alone in this black infinite universe?

I disagree, it has nothing to do with need...it is more of a virtue rather than needy or emotionally based.

Faust:

"Love" is the inevitable consequence of being utterly alone, it is a disease and a falseness, a lie, a delusion.

This makes no sense to me. How does the consequence of being alone relate to love? On the contrary, I was attempting to find out how if one's goal in life was wisdom while abandoning other virtues to include love, how one may not alienate himself from that virtue that he should acquire as well?

Faust:

Love is also finite, extremely finite. One day, I hope we can all become androids, and rid ourselves of the uselessness of emotions.

Love is not finite, at least the type I have defined...it is not tied to emotion. It sounds as if you have bouts of emotion that cause discord within you to despise it so. Emotion, as with anything else, should be tempered given neither to excess nor deficit.

Faust:

What is human dignity and respect?

This was something that I had in mind to discuss with David Quinn, he wrote:

Well, I don't believe in self and other. So it kind of breaks down there.

In my view, a person has the beginnings of a conscience when he starts valuing truth above all else. And part of the truth about Nature is the lack of boundaries between things, that all things are seamlessly connected to one another. To enter into a love-relationship with another is to ignore the truth of Nature's lack of boundaries, and thus is a show of disrespect to one's conscience.

If he does not believe in self and other, then whatever exists he is a part thereof. In order to love as Christ taught, by loving your neighbour as yourself, and if he does not believe in self and neighbor then it might follow that he would love universally, which is the type of love I am speaking about.

If this is the case, then he truly loves women, in a universal sense, despite whatever shortcomings and delusions they maintain. Therefore, any criticism on his part related to the nature of the feminine is that of an objective observer…(not that I am supporting his viewpoint, I am attempting to understand his view from his vantage point.)

Faust:

Why do we not respect animals the way we do to humans?

You sure are all over the place here…I think you are generalizing too much. I respect life. But if you are going to go into the rightness or wrongness of eating meat, I will disagree. However, there is no excuse for mistreatment of animals, but it happens as does mistreatment of human beings. You use the word “we” indicating that you are as guilty as others. So, why do you disrespect animals?

Faust:

Are you a fan of 'self-esteem'? I hate the very word itself, only because I'm a determinist. If we were free and autonomous 'self-esteem' would make sense, but we aren't, so it's delusional

This question seems odd, do I value self-esteem…No, it seems a waste of energy. Do I believe in self, yes, although I am not free. It is in being self that we are tied to this deterministic state you speak of but I believe we have the ability to free ourselves through these universal virtues...if I could only understand them better.

Nat,

David,

You don't do humor, do you?

Nearly everything I do and say is humorous, and always performed with a twinkle in my eye. Philosophizing deeply is, by its very nature, a form of humour. It shares with other types of humour the quality of iconoclasm, of suddenly overturning perceptions that were previously thought to be solid and real. The difference with philosophizing deeply is that it tends to cut too close to the bone for most people and, as a consequence, very rarely do they get the joke.

-

Laird,

DQ: But I'm also thinking that you haven't yet put in the time and effort into understanding what are subtle, profound lines of thought.

L: I know why you seek to provoke me. Do you?

DQ: No idea. You tell me.

L: It might be nicer to get there indirectly. What's your first impression of a person who attacks another out of fear of being wrong?

DQ: Do you think I am attacking you?

L: I suggest provocation rather than attack. I'm questioning why you might seek that I attack you.

Eh?

Let me try approaching at it like this: how do you feel when you are charged with being wrong, and do you lash out in fear of its pain?

As for the first question, I feel bored usually. This is because that the person laying the charge usually has no idea of what I am on about, and his thinking skills are usually very primitive and undeveloped. If someone of substance does lay a charge against me, then I feel a bit excited because at last I am getting challenged.

As for the second question, I never lash out in that fashion.

L: Is it disrespectful to oneself to love another?

DQ: Only if you have a conscience.

L: A conscience is respectful of what is right. It is right that love emerges from equal respect for self and other.

DQ: Well, I don't believe in self and other.

L: What is a more useful belief than that of self and of its relationship to the divine?

The realization that there is no self and no divine.

DQ: In my view, a person has the beginnings of a conscience when he starts valuing truth above all else.

L: I would substitute in that sentence honesty for truth.

Those two words are intimately connected, in my view. A person cannot become perfectly honest without knowing truth, and he cannot become perfectly truthful without being honest.

-

Leyla,

DQ: Well, I don't believe in self and other. So it kind of breaks down there.

L: You may not believe in self and other, but you certainly make the distinction (why?):

Self and other are useful fictions, but I don't really believe in them. Dividing a country into states and burrows is also a useful exercise, but that doesn't mean we have to take that extra step and start believing these things are real.

I think what is actually lacking here is a proper exposition of ego.

The ego is that deluded aspect of our minds which is spellbound by the fiction of self. A person without ego is no longer spellbound in this way, although he still continues to make use of the fiction for practical purposes.

-

passthrough,

DQ: By contrast, a person with feminine consciousness is ignorant simply because of a lack of mental capacity to become wise.

Now all people are a mixture of masculinity and femininity, although not in equal amounts, and so all people have this lack of mental capacity inside them to some extent. So the whole issue turns on whether a person possesses enough masculine consciousness to not only break away from the constant pull of his feminine consciousness, but also to tackle the mental blocks and fears which hinder him.

P: While I agree with your insight into the battles that ensue within an individual between their masculine and feminine nature, a question that remains in my mind is why the masculine is, by necessity, preferred?

Because it is the active side of ourselves. It is only through concerted action that anything gets done, whether it is becoming enlightened, climbing Mt Everest, building a bridge, or creating a symphony. The feminine, being directionless and passive, is not only entirely useless to this end, but it exerts a strong pull on our active, masculine sides to such an extent that most people end up channeling whatever masculinity they possess towards the satisfying of their feminine desires and fears.

You appreciate Jesus Christ and Buddhism as you have a link replete with sayings attributed to them. So, I have to ask how do you reconcile this strive for wisdom with the virtues of love, being the greatest commandment, and living a virtuous life? Can one be unwise and yet love and live a life of virtue?

Jesus stated that the greatest commandment is to "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." That is the kind of love he was talking about - an all-consuming devotion to truth. This is something which is very difficult to achieve and utterly beyond the scope of passive, feminine people.

DQ: In my view, a person has the beginnings of a conscience when he starts valuing truth above all else. And part of the truth about Nature is the lack of boundaries between things, that all things are seamlessly connected to one another. To enter into a love-relationship with another is to ignore the truth of Nature's lack of boundaries, and thus is a show of disrespect to one's conscience.

P: Is the danger in lack of wisdom being able to fully appreciate what is illusory from reality?

I'm assuming you meant to say "not" being able to fully appreciate what is illusory from reality. Yes, a person without wisdom cannot properly distinguish between reality and illusion.

Is there not also a danger of becoming so wise that one alienates themselves from those whom they are to love? Do you think that love should be sacrificed in order to gain such wisdom?

I don't think it can be helped, given how low the human race currently is. As soon as a person develops a relationship with truth and starts expressing this relationship in everyday life, he immediately becomes alienated from most other people. This is why Jesus warned his disciples that they can expect to be hated and persecuted because of their devotion to truth, and why in fact he was executed himself.

The definition of love will be a sticky point, to be sure, but it is not a love like an attachment to an object or person but that of a love for human dignity and respect as fellow beings.

A truthful person naturally has respect for all things, and for all people. But his very truthfulness clashes deeply with the false attachments and values that most people have and that is where the alienation and conflict occurs.

With all these things being said, how do you understand the nature of Christ to be?

Well, if we throw out the 80% of the Gospels which falsely tries to deify Jesus into Godhood and accept the rest which paints him as truthful person speaking against humanity's deepest delusions and attachments, then we can say that he was a very courageous man of wisdom.

-

You make complete and perfect sense. I have one other clarification issue:

David Quinn wrote:Jesus stated that the greatest commandment is to "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." That is the kind of love he was talking about - an all-consuming devotion to truth. This is something which is very difficult to achieve and utterly beyond the scope of passive, feminine people.

And to love your neighbor as yourself...there were two. However, even the latter can be as tainted as the type of love with which you speak unfavorably towards depending on one's love of self. In order to love oneself in Christ's fashion, recognition and acceptance of one's flaws seems a necessary, but love in spite of them....this, to me, seems even more difficult a concept to grasp than that of devotion to God. After all God is truth and love, people are not.

Quote:
Is there not also a danger of becoming so wise that one alienates themselves from those whom they are to love? Do you think that love should be sacrificed in order to gain such wisdom?

I don't think it can be helped, given how low the human race currently is. As soon as a person develops a relationship with truth and starts expressing this relationship in everyday life, he immediately becomes alienated from most other people. This is why Jesus warned his disciples that they can expect to be hated and persecuted because of their devotion to truth, and why in fact he was executed himself.

But do you have to sacrifice love? Alienation is one thing but to fail to love despite this "hatred and persecution" is at issue...He loved his Apostles despite knowing what would happen that fateful night. Even if this is part of the deification with which you speak, even if he didn't know beforehand, (and, of course, I base this on the writings and some liberty with contemplation) being so wise, he had to know their weakness at that moment, and despite it all...he loved. Cannot truth and love coexist, at least within you, despite the alienation? Is it most assuredly slow death to oneself? How does one find the fine line between this truth and madness?

Edit: The masculine...?

DQ: But I'm also thinking that you haven't yet put in the time and effort into understanding what are subtle, profound lines of thought.

L: I know why you seek to provoke me. Do you?

DQ: No idea. You tell me.

L: It might be nicer to get there indirectly. What's your first impression of a person who attacks another out of fear of being wrong?

DQ: Do you think I am attacking you?

L: I suggest provocation rather than attack. I'm questioning why you might seek that I attack you.

DQ: Eh?

It's time for me to stop skirting, to cut to the chase. I'm suggesting that there is a part of you that seeks, by implying a lack of profundity in my thought, to provoke in me a fear of being wrong and of the pain that it would cause me. There is in all of us a fear that to be wrong is to be undeserving of love. In stimulating this fear in me that part of you hopes that I will be provoked to make explicit assertions of the lack of profundity of your own thought or to otherwise attack your rightfulness. My weakness and unlovingness in denigrating you would demonstrate to others that your behaviour is more justifiable, and that mine is more base, and that therefore you are more right than me and more deserving of love. What I am slowly realising is that we are all right, we all think profoundly, and we all are equally deserving of love - I say directly to you, that you, David, are deserving of what love I am capable of giving you. So I see the potential trap that others have fallen into, and I suggest to you that, being aware of its possibility as such, it would be more loving of you to avoid setting it in future.

As for the second question, I never lash out in that fashion.

Let us then strive to instill that behaviour in others by not provoking them.

L: Is it disrespectful to oneself to love another?

DQ: Only if you have a conscience.

L: A conscience is respectful of what is right. It is right that love emerges from equal respect for self and other.

DQ: Well, I don't believe in self and other.

L: What is a more useful belief than that of self and of its relationship to the divine?

DQ: The realization that there is no self and no divine.

Which is equivalent to the realisation that divine self is all that there is. We see the same profundity from two perspectives. The union of all perspectives is God.

passthrough wrote:How does one find the fine line between this truth and madness?

There is no line. Truth is madness.

David:

Self and other are useful fictions, but I don't really believe in them. Dividing a country into states and burrows is also a useful exercise, but that doesn't mean we have to take that extra step and start believing these things are real.

I really don't like where I think this is going to go! Alas, I am compelled until death and for reason: what things are real, then--what do you, considering the idea that all things are illusory, go that extra step for?

[Edit punctuation]

clyde, Laird, Pye---replies forthcoming.

David:

The ego is that deluded aspect of our minds which is spellbound by the fiction of self. A person without ego is no longer spellbound in this way, although he still continues to make use of the fiction for practical purposes.

In fact, given the above, I don’t think you’re talking about an “extra step” at all.

Within the current philosophical framework, one can be negatively “spellbound” (repulsed) by the (“fiction of”) self in an insistence that the self does not exist. Such an insistence would be just as deluded as believing any thing exists in a particular (absolute) form. That is all.

[Edit clarity]

Is David's desire and actions to teach others to be like him masculine or feminine?

Under David's philosophy such actions should be divisible into one or the other, not mixture of both. What a crock!

To me the humorous thing about enlightenment is that the so-called enlighted become demonstratably feminine in their relationships with the rest of the world. Peacefulness is feminine.

ps. Pye's definition of ego is correct.

Laird,

Good to have you aboard.

One thing, no need to proclaim each tiny edit. Notice, if you are the last poster in a thread, there will be no on-screen evidence of your tinkering. Only if another post comes after (which is not usually the case with a quick fix just after posting) will the visit be recorded

It makes a person seem vain and anal, and I know you are not that way.

Laird wrote:

passthrough wrote:How does one find the fine line between this truth and madness?

There is no line. Truth is madness.

Can you explain your position?*

Laird:

What I am slowly realising is that we are all right, we all think profoundly, and we all are equally deserving of love - I say directly to you, that you, David, are deserving of what love I am capable of giving you.

If it is true, and if people on this forum have, in some manner, come to this truth...I wonder if there is a direct relationship to the psychological disorders most of have or have been told we have. Is truth truly madness...can we as human beings handle the truth? Is madness or the teetering on the brink of madness better than the world? I know how I would answer, but am curious of yours.

As I am sure that David can answer your reply himself, one of the things that I am trying to find out from him is if truth and love (in the universal sense) and quite likely the love you are willing to give, can exist with truth. If this is true, as I told Faust, David must love all whether or not he believes in a self separate from all other creation...for by saying he does not believe in a separated self that he would either have to hate all of creation or love it all. Therefore, any provocation on his part is that of a teacher...not an egoist.

Further, for him to admit this, which he may or may not do, may have the drawback of loosening his ability to continue teaching others....kind of a tough love sort of thing. If you allow any notion of love into the equation, people begin to get really emotional about it. They want to make it into something it is not. Knowing that if you have never met David, you could not possibly have feelings of brotherly love, the human sort, the connected sort, for him but the type of love that Christ had for others...and most definitely the type of love God has for each one of us - one that is pure and without emotional connectedness. For to attribute God with emotion would be to make him less than perfect. Jesus wept, but not at an emotional level, he wept for mankind who could not accept the truth.

I suppose in all this rambling what I'm trying to say is that you can have friends that you love, but that brings in emotional ties. Jesus' Apostles were his friends for which I am sure he, as a human being, had emotional ties, however, he understood perfect love and knew that they would fail him in the end, but, yet he still loved them. And by that love, the Apostles were able to realign themselves with the truth and continue his mission knowing what type of end may or may not result...as in the case of Peter. This capacity of love is very difficult and one most people find hard to accomodate, but it, to me, is a necessity in order to commit to God in any way, shape or fashion...which is very tough on a person who is still a defined self.

To this end, my only question to him is, in his own mind, can it co-exist with truth. And if so, how does one embrace this wonder and still remain alive or sane...asking, finally, if the masculine had that answer.


*If you have in all this other mayhem, I apologize for being redundant here, but reading other posts does not necessarily make a thread of consciousness for me as does participation in following through a discussion on point with that person and myself.

passthrough wrote:if truth and love (in the universal sense) and quite likely the love you are willing to give, can exist with truth.

Spiritual love and awareness of Truth are same thing. They are not two separate things. This is altogether different to the type of love Laird seems to be offering, and which most people here seem to be offended to have offered to them.

If this is true, as I told Faust, David must love all

Yes, spiritual love is of all. It is understanding of all. Just like the sun shines upon all, the good and the bad, the living and the non-living, indiscriminately, so does the understanding and action of the enlightened soul.

Jesus' Apostles were his friends

They may have simply been like-minded people, or students.

for which I am sure he, as a human being, had emotional ties,

He may have had no emotional ties to them whatsoever. If he loved them perfectly in the spiritual sense, then he would not have had any emotional ties to them, but would have seen them purely.

passthrough: How does one find the fine line between this truth and madness?

Laird: There is no line. Truth is madness.

passthrough: Can you explain your position?*

It could also be expressed as "the search for truth is madness". The more that I explore, the more that I find that my mind cannot comprehend reality, that reality appears to contradict itself. Perhaps madness is being so disconnected from the views of others that we deeply fear being wrong, even whilst we "know" (as much as that is possible) that we are right, and that somehow, that we are all right, and that it is up to each of us to explain to others how they are also right even though they take what appears on the surface to be a contradictory position. My truth is that I should be seeking to unite rather than to divide; it is madness to think that the discord of life could be united. I feel that to better comprehend truth we need a system of logic where A can equal not A. That is madness. Perhaps also truth is realising that at this point in evolution our minds cannot properly grasp reality: that we are by nature "mad".

It is a masculine tendency to explore into the territory of madness, however, to inject a note of optimism: love tempers madness. That is why what I perceive as the nature of femininity is so important: affirmative love ameliorates the fear of being wrong and of going mad.

Laird: What I am slowly realising is that we are all right, we all think profoundly, and we all are equally deserving of love - I say directly to you, that you, David, are deserving of what love I am capable of giving you.

passthrough: Is truth truly madness...can we as human beings handle the truth?

In my current opinion, not without love. I have "gone mad" several times, and been saved by the love of others.

passthrough wrote:Is madness or the teetering on the brink of madness better than the world?

How would you feel to consider that they are the same, that the world itself teeters on the brink of madness but for love? How far away from Hitler's Germany or Mao's totalitarianism are we really ("there but for the grace of God")?

passthrough wrote:Therefore, any provocation on his [David's] part is that of a teacher...not an egoist. [...] Further, for him to admit this, which he may or may not do, may have the drawback of loosening his ability to continue teaching others....kind of a tough love sort of thing.

Yes. I tried to identify a way in which he could be seen as setting a trap; we could also view it that the trap is necessary to aid others in realising the futility of lashing out in fear and anger. Have I been pointing at elephants again?

Carl G wrote:One thing, no need to proclaim each tiny edit.

Thanks for the tip, I will drop that habit except for when there have been follow-ups.

Kevin Solway wrote:Spiritual love and awareness of Truth are same thing. They are not two separate things. This is altogether different to the type of love Laird seems to be offering, and which most people here seem to be offended to have offered to them.

I am open to the likelihood that some of what I say provokes feelings of insult. Please let me know how I can do better. Perhaps I have been too critical of the views of QRS. I resolve to be more conciliatory in keeping with my emerging understanding that you are right anyway. I think that you are right to teach the concepts of infinity, unboundedness and illusion, and that your experience of truth is as profound as you say it is. Perhaps in saying this your response is "I find it insulting that you make that affirmation, it implies that I am not capable of affirming myself." Is that your response?

Laird:

I’m finding it a little difficult to reply to you on the question of women, your stated desire to further understand the masculine and feminine natures and, consequently, the manner in which you posit such an understanding would occur.

Cut to the bear bones, your explication so far is as follows:

1. Women are not purely for men’s use.
2. Women and men are for each other’s progress.
3. It is a woman’s prerogative (officiated by human nature, which is divine) whether or not to assert either one of two natures she possesses; masculine or feminine.
4. This prerogative is part of human nature, which is divine.
5. Thus, this (a woman’s) prerogative is divine.

This was your reply to Pye. I then asked you why the assertion of masculine or feminine nature was a woman’s prerogative---an exclusive right. To that, you replied with the question, “Should a woman not have the same choice afforded men?”

This doesn’t make any sense to me. Again, I ask in different words, why is it necessary to officiate for women by way of prerogative a choice that apparently already exists for men? Why should such a thing exist as an exclusive, special right for women and a pre-existing choice for men? What about “human nature” makes it so, Laird? We stand to learn nothing about masculine and feminine (and, therefore, human) nature if we are not prepared to directly answer these questions---and since we are the ones who pose them, I think that might be a good idea.

So, I seek not to find myself in your reflection (obviously, given the above, that would be certain death!) but to have you reflect instead on your own foundation.

Leyla Shen wrote:Cut to the bear bones, your explication so far is as follows:

1. Women are not purely for men’s use.
2. Women and men are for each other’s progress.
3. It is a woman’s prerogative (officiated by human nature, which is divine) whether or not to assert either one of two natures she possesses; masculine or feminine.
4. This prerogative is part of human nature, which is divine.
5. Thus, this (a woman’s) prerogative is divine.

I can identify with that summary. One clarification: my understanding of the word prerogative lacked the depth of your own understanding; I was using it in a shallow sense to mean simply "right to choose" rather than "exclusive right to determine".

Leyla Shen wrote:I then asked you why the assertion of masculine or feminine nature was a woman’s prerogative---an exclusive right. To that, you replied with the question, “Should a woman not have the same choice afforded men?”

This doesn’t make any sense to me.

Perhaps I was making the hidden assumption that you identified with the views of many in this forum that men are more conscious than women, and therefore the only ones capable/deserving of choice.

Leyla Shen wrote:Why should such a thing exist as an exclusive, special right for women and a pre-existing choice for men?

It seems that my misuse of the word prerogative led you to this understanding of my position. Actually I am suggesting that men and women have equally divine right to choose how they express their natures.

Leyla Shen wrote:So, I seek not to find myself in your reflection (obviously, given the above, that would be certain death!) but to have you reflect instead on your own foundation.

You have come to teach me, rather than to learn from me? I find your boldness of spirit and of expression enlivening. If the answer is yes (and even if it is not), then please explain how looking in a mirror might be fatal.

--
I cling to a rock: that there is no rock to cling to. When I find it I discard my ignorance.

Kevin:

Spiritual love and awareness of Truth are same thing. They are not two separate things.

I am going to take some time to reflect on this one, I would like to resume this issue with you later.

Kevin:

This is altogether different to the type of love Laird seems to be offering, and which most people here seem to be offended to have offered to them.

I am not sure I have been offered such a thing to take offense. What type of love is he offering to those who have seemingly been offended?

P: Jesus' Apostles were his friends

K: They may have simply been like-minded people, or students.

There can be no argument here because all references I could offer would be biblically based which could be a point of contention as to accuracy. However, you say they could have been like-minded people, such as students, and I said they could have been his friends. By your suggestion here, are you implying that enlightened beings cannot have friends or is this just an alternative explanation to what they may have been in relation to him?

P: for which I am sure he, as a human being, had emotional ties,

K: He may have had no emotional ties to them whatsoever. If he loved them perfectly in the spiritual sense, then he would not have had any emotional ties to them, but would have seen them purely.

Good point. I suppose in view of this statement, it mattered not whether they were his friends or just students, his love was still the same type of love and truth does not change. Do you agree with David that Christ was nothing more than a very courageous man of wisdom? You may have stated your position in the past, but I cannot recall.

If a self is not recognized but all is one, then Christ is not individuated either.

The Infinite is a term that refers to the totality of all there is. It is not a mathematical concept, but a philosophical one. It is a concept that embraces everything there can possibly be. There is not a single thing in existence which is not part of the Infinite. It is literally everything, including ourselves. And since there is nothing else beyond the Infinite, it constitutes Ultimate Reality. Sometimes I call it the Tao, at other times I call it God.

There is a distinction then to be drawn with the deification of Jesus Christ versus all things being deified. So is he God or isn’t he? Are you God inasmuch as he? If so, then the distinction David is raising is that Christ should not be deified anymore than any other thing that exists, is this correct? If so, there is still no reason why he cannot be considered God…it’s just that everything else, in David’s estimation, must be considered God as well.

David Quinn wrote:Nat,

Nat: How much "masculinity" do biological females possess, on average?

David: Very little. Enough to be afraid of existing and that's about it.

Nat: Females are afraid of existing? Wow, that must be bothersome. I'll ask PyroSylph about it when she gets up, unless she stays in bed out of sheer fear of existing, that is.

The trouble with discussing these matters with you is that your understanding of human psychology and egotism is not very deep. Just the way you are responding here shows that the mental shutters are already well and truly up. This relates to what I said previously about your fear of investigating these matters properly and possibly discovering uncomfortable truths therein.

Your understanding of human psychology is ... how, shall I put it? ..... very American.

One can see a woman's fear of existing as an individual in the way that she is a slave to fashion, the way she is almost 100% focused on intimacy and relationships, her fear of standing apart from the crowd and being judged negatively, her psychological sameness with respect to nearly all other women, her lack of valuing rational development, her lack of achievement in the realms of genius, and so on.

The forgetting of her self in the arms of another is her highest bliss.

Nat: And, for that matter, why aren't all "butch" lesbians enlightened or well on their way?

David: They aren't very masculine.

Nat: Oh? Maybe you'd like to suggest this to a few of them down at the pub sometime. You might get a different sort of lesson in "masculinity," lol...

I don't consider the macho male to be very masculine either. Instead, I see an awful lot of feminine insecurity inside him.

Nat: A similar argument can be made for "lack of ambition." In many regards, women are very ambitious by nature. Social status and worldly achievement, for example, are areas in which women can be intensely driven. If you'd ever been commanded to "stop screwing around and get a job" by a woman, you'd know this. They can also be ambitious in areas traditionally reserved for men, as the success of women in business and public life shows.

David: This is only ambitious in the sense that hyenas bumping each out of the way in order to reach a piece of meat is ambitious.

Nat: Lovely. Your deep regard and appreciation for the fairer sex shines through once again, as you sit and make such comments by pounding a keyboard like an agitated chimpanzee.

To me at least, women who imitate the male hyenas of our species show a distinct lack of ambition. Instead, I see a large amount of insecurity and blind desperateness driving them.

-

And this insecurity and desperateness seems to be growing daily where I live, and has for years. The result, not what everyone hoped, which is advancement for women consistent with their growing opportunity, no, the result has been to make life even more hellish for her brothers and male associates and husbands and children, resulting in more blame and frustration returned, an ugly recurring escalating cycle.
The idea was to provide the fairer sex with greater, equal opportunity and allow them to catch up. But instead, due to their huge feminine component, and mans ignorance about this, especially the elite of society, women are feeling pressured, overwhelmed, unappreciated, which makes them less available and less a pleasure for their men and nation, causing resentment and consequence, and so on and so on.
So, if women, as i suspect, simply will not ever (w/o medical modification) approach the level of achievement of ordinarily male roles and activities, as has been the case for decades, while men fail to make much philosophical gain on the whole, the future can only be increasingly disasterous for each, as is the case for American society.
There is no solution or hope for these horrible ongoing difficulties within our homes and nation, those resulting from gender discord, which are far far more reaching than meets the eye of most, which reaches into the school and universities and government and out to our dealings with the whole world.
Again, the aim was psychological advancement, an accepting of greater responsibility, the mans share if you will, an equalization more widely for the sexes, a better life for all. But the reality is the experiment is backfiring and has indeed failed and even distant more traditional nations and peoples can see and do their damdest to enlighten us, first by word and then with force, but to no avail.
What is the cure, the fix?
Tell you later.

Leyla,

DQ: Self and other are useful fictions, but I don't really believe in them. Dividing a country into states and burrows is also a useful exercise, but that doesn't mean we have to take that extra step and start believing these things are real.

L: I really don't like where I think this is going to go! Alas, I am compelled until death and for reason: what things are real, then--what do you, considering the idea that all things are illusory, go that extra step for?

Just God. There's only God, nothing else.

-