A MAN NEVER ARGUES WITH A BEAUTIFUL WOMAN - OH BUT I INSIST

Kelly Jones · Post by **Kelly Jones** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:43 pm

frank wrote:kelly: You also admit that "femininity" is important to you. Evidently, you value truthfulness more than femininity. Since you wouldn't value femininity, if you thought it was irrational to do so, I'm really interested to know how you define femininity.

frank: My Abstract Meanings are like a 'skin' that is super-imposed over 'what is'...

Unless I realise I am Meaning Making I'll probably begin to 'believe' that my Meaning is 'absolutely true'....I might even start to think I 'know' Ultimate Reality...

The Abstract Concept...Masculinity/Femininity...you'd have to ask if it's there wouldn't you? It's something you read in a book isn't it?

It's made up, for convenience. Here's an illustration of where it is convenient to have the masculinity/femininity distinction:

Your abstract concept of all the abstract meanings that can possibly be created is a logical and absolute definition. It doesn't exclude any abstract meanings at all. So it is an absolute truth.

To make up logical absolute truths requires some intellectual skill. For convenience, I'll call this rationality. It's not irrationality.

By observation, one generalises that since most biological males seem most comfortable with abstract intellectualising, and most biological females are not so comfortable with it, that rationality and masculinity go together, and irrationality and femininity go together.

Other masculine traits also seem to assist in abstract intellectualising, such as suppressing emotions, solitude, inventiveness, frugality, the desire to appear in control/curiosity, and directness.

The idea of Man and Woman are then invented as polar concepts, which don't fit any biological being absolutely, but are convenient abstractions for a thinker.

That's all there is to it.

One has got to be careful with this Act because one will never experience Life in it's fullness as it is...one will only experience the Meaning one 'puts' on to it..

Well, you've already got the absolute truth that the totality of all possible meanings doesn't exclude any meanings. It's a model for understanding Life in its fullness, without disguises.

Namely, the totality of all possible things makes up every thing, the Totality. This includes all realities.

Your statement implies you value knowing what is ultimately real. Already you realise this cannot be a changeable phenomenon, ie. a particular reality. So, only the Totality can be ultimately real.

This highly abstract thought-process of Realisation is masculine, by definition.

.

La Verdad · Post by **La Verdad** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:11 am

Sky:
La Verdad:
Women can succeed in the entrepreneurial and political realms, (although it's much rarer in the latter). This proves woman can be clever and practical, though it doesn't prove she has a soul.

Sky:
but the men who err provide for or are provided for by jenna jameson do

it might make more sense if you thought of what it is the a whore provides and who provides for her solely for what she provides

Yawn. Yes, we all know what a whore provides, and no - this is no more proof a soul, than intercourse with a llama or a goat is proof that they have souls either.

let me help you men are almost exclusively the consumers of what a whore provides

is this a function of their 'souls'

is this putting woman on a pedestal

No, just the opposite - all sex with a woman instrumentalizes and exploits her.

sky · Post by **sky** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:24 am

frank

The Abstract Concept...Masculinity/Femininity...you'd have to ask if it's there wouldn't you? It's something you read in a book isn't it?

Medics have autopsied a billion bodies and never found Masculinity/Femininity...same as a Chakra, never found one...simply Abstract Concepts...the product of a Meaning
Maker...

right i read it in a book (actually many books and further it is implied in the difference between men's and women's magazines or today websites - somehow jemma jameson's website and chanel's don't seem to be saying the same thing about women and it is much more than about the unclothed and the overclothed)

let us take the view of a particular meaning maker carl jung

Anima: The inner feminine side of a man. (See also animus, Eros, Logos and soul-image.)

The anima is both a personal complex and an archetypal image of woman in the male psyche. It is an unconscious factor incarnated anew in every male child, and is responsible for the mechanism of projection. Initially identified with the personal mother, the anima is later experienced not only in other women but as a pervasive influence in a man's life.

Jung distinguished four broad stages of the anima, analogous to levels of the Eros cult described in the late classical period. He personified them as Eve, Helen, Mary and Sophia.

In the first stage, Eve, the anima is indistinguishable from the personal mother. The man cannot function well without a close tie to a woman. In the second stage, personified in the historical figure of Helen of Troy, the anima is a collective and ideal sexual image ("All is dross that is not Helen"-Marlowe). The third stage, Mary, manifests in religious feelings and a capacity for lasting relationships. In the fourth stage, as Sophia (called Wisdom in the Bible), a man's anima functions as a guide to the inner life, mediating to consciousness the contents of the unconscious. She cooperates in the search for meaning and is the creative muse in an artist's life.

Ideally, a man's anima proceeds naturally through these stages as he grows older. In fact, as an archetypal life force, the anima manifests in whatever shape or form is necessary to compensate the dominant conscious attitude.

So long as the anima is unconscious, everything she stands for is projected. Most commonly, because of the initially close tie between the anima and the protective mother-imago, this projection falls on the partner, with predictable results.

so my thought is which feminine meaning is a particular man meaning when he speaks of the feminine

because for me i rate a man and the value of his thinking by which level of anima he is fuctioning at

btw in man and his symbols /jung the whore is mentioned as the first level

whore and mother the same omg

yes once man at his least evolved no longer needs milk he wants his new need attended to which is of course sex

and most men never get past the first level

and these men do disgust me no feigning necessary

so it seems to me it is a question of which feminine is a man referring to when he refers to the feminine

because if it is the final stage sophia or wisdom then weininger would not have written his book would not have comitted suicide and this forum would not exist at least not in its particular format

all those great philosophers in the glorious days of athens including socrates

athens

athena

goddess of wisdom

sky · Post by **sky** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:32 am

now let us not be one sided

Animus: The inner masculine side of a woman. (See also anima, Eros, Logos and soul-image.)

Like the anima in a man, the animus is both a personal complex and an archetypal image.

Jung described four stages of animus development in a woman. He first appears in dreams and fantasy as the embodiment of physical power, an athlete, muscle man or thug. In the second stage, the animus provides her with initiative and the capacity for planned action. He is behind a woman's desire for independence and a career of her own. In the next [third] stage, the animus is the "word," often personified in dreams as a professor or clergyman. In the fourth stage, the animus is the incarnation of spiritual meaning. On this highest level, like the anima as Sophia, the animus mediates between a woman's conscious mind and the unconscious. In mythology this aspect of the animus appears as Hermes, messenger of the gods; in dreams he is a helpful guide.

Any of these aspects of the animus can be projected onto a man. As with the projected anima, this can lead to unrealistic expectations and acrimony in relationships

http://spiritualemergency.blogspot.com/ ... nimus.html

sky · Post by **sky** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:47 am

kelly jones

This highly abstract thought-process of Realisation is masculine, by definition.

by definition

whose definition and where is it to be found

sky · Post by **sky** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 2:06 am

la verdad

To paraphrase Goethe: people reveal themselves most intimately in what they consider laughable. And the fact Sky finds killing oneself over a moral dilemma to be absurd - sarcastically, laughably absurd - speaks volumes.
Women have commited suicide over many things, though never morality (with the arguable exception of the rather delusional Ms. Jeanne d'Arc - and she too was driven by the ideas of a masculine individual).
Juliets exist; female Weiningers do not.

hmmm it would speak volumes if sky saw it as a moral dilemma

sky does not see it as a moral dilemma

and if i do not perceive it as a moral dilemma for myself then it is not a moral dilemma for me

you cannot make something a dilemma for me i have to do it myself

sky is straight out not buying for one nano second that as a female she is outside the potential for genius

but sky is willing to listen to all the reasons why those keepers of the 'genius realms' might think so

because one tiny bit of 'real' information from anyone might be helpful to me

my sarcasm was more about the grip that this concept of 'men only' has on the men here

and alluding to the suicide of weininger because after all killing oneself in such a dramatic fashion over anything is it seems to me 'hysterical' which is according to the mode set by weininger is 'feminine'

it brought immediately to mind something i read about women throwing themselves on rudolph valentino's grave

so what are you going to use those superfluous volumes for

and btw if the chances are 0 it means they are infinite as 0 is the symbol for nothing which is the potential for anything and everything

only emptiness has the potential to be filled

millipodium · Post by **millipodium** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 2:22 am

Basically, the argment is this. Women are too emotionally wrapped up in the materialism and status to care much about abstract considerations.

They're nesters.

That's the argument. I don't agree completely, but in my experience, women are more short term thinkers "what have you done for me lately?" and are more concerned with availablility of resources.

sky · Post by **sky** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 4:08 am

Basically, the argment is this. Women are too emotionally wrapped up in the materialism and status to care much about abstract considerations.

They're nesters.

That's the argument. I don't agree completely, but in my experience, women are more short term thinkers "what have you done for me lately?" and are more concerned with availablility of resources.

thank you

so simple without the high blown 'only a man could ever understand' syntax

men want sex

mostly sex with women

women as a result (till about 40 years ago) were by having sex with a man highly likely to have children

women were not inclined to just throw away these children

so they built nests as almost all species do

nests require resources

women either required support from men or the men thought it the right thing to do or both

so both became focused on the needs of the new generation

women in a way more so then men but yet men want money and status to attract women

"women and gold' ramakrishna

so the philosopher sees that playing a part in this disallows the freedom to devote himself fully to philosophy

so for either sex celibacy allows one to follow their philosophical inclinations

one hundred years ago women had little choice

now she increasingly has choices

there is no valid reason that a woman in exploring her options is not going to chose the option of self realization

millipodium · Post by **millipodium** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 5:36 am

sky wrote:
Basically, the argment is this. Women are too emotionally wrapped up in the materialism and status to care much about abstract considerations.

They're nesters.

That's the argument. I don't agree completely, but in my experience, women are more short term thinkers "what have you done for me lately?" and are more concerned with availablility of resources.
thank you

so simple without the high blown 'only a man could ever understand' syntax

men want sex

mostly sex with women

women as a result (till about 40 years ago) were by having sex with a man highly likely to have children

women were not inclined to just throw away these children

so they built nests as almost all species do

nests require resources

women either required support from men or the men thought it the right thing to do or both

so both became focused on the needs of the new generation

women in a way more so then men but yet men want money and status to attract women

"women and gold' ramakrishna

so the philosopher sees that playing a part in this disallows the freedom to devote himself fully to philosophy

so for either sex celibacy allows one to follow their philosophical inclinations

one hundred years ago women had little choice

now she increasingly has choices

there is no valid reason that a woman in exploring her options is not going to chose the option of self realization

You ARE a genius! good stuff.

Leyla Shen · Post by **Leyla Shen** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 9:06 am

frank wrote:

These Abstractions tend to get me polarising aspects of the Tao, create dualities...put 'things' into Categories with properties...get me 'charged'...Judgemental, cruel, condemning, hurtful....separated.

Again -- not surprisingly -- you demonstrate a lack of depth and severe logical ineptitude.

So, when you are so categorising in order to have sex and thus reach enlightenment requiring that you separate and judge male and female (for a start), you are being cruel, condemning, hurtful andâ€¦separated. Yes, I agree.

One has got to be careful with this Act because one will never experience Life in it's fullness as it is...one will only experience the Meaning one 'puts' on to it..

Realising the Meanings your Mind makes automatically as it casts about for 'stuff' to attach to...realising the Story that gets created is 'empty and meaningless'..

Realising this that the Mind is a Meaning Making Machine...wham, the realisation 'kicks in' like a Mule...knocks you on your arse...cry, laugh, fall over...the enormity of it all staggers you...

What's 'going in' is frikkin' hilarious...no doubt about it.

And that is the sum of your enlightened wisdom.

Extraordinary.

Are you experiencing Life in its fullness or only the meaning you â€œputâ€ on to it?

.

Leyla Shen · Post by **Leyla Shen** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 9:13 am

Kelly: This highly abstract thought-process of Realisation is masculine, by definition.

sky: by definition

whose definition and where is it to be found

Remember the rest of Kelly's post preceding the single sentence you quoted?

The definition is right there.

Do you think you can muster a logical argument against it? Perhaps take another look and see if you can replace the term "masculinity" with "femininity" and still have it make sense.

.

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 2:38 pm

Frank wrote:

My Abstract Meanings are like a 'skin' that is super-imposed over 'what is'...

Unless I realise I am Meaning Making I'll probably begin to 'believe' that my Meaning is 'absolutely true'....I might even start to think I 'know' Ultimate Reality...

You're confusing two separate issues here. We can can know that our minds create all meaning in the world (this is an obvious truth) and, at the same time, we can know Ultimate Reality. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Indeed, a part of knowing Ultimate Reality is knowing the way in which one's mind creates all meaning. But it is only a small part. You are wrong in assuming that's all there is.

The Abstract Concept...Masculinity/Femininity...you'd have to ask if it's there wouldn't you? It's something you read in a book isn't it?

Medics have autopsied a billion bodies and never found Masculinity/Femininity...same as a Chakra, never found one...simply Abstract Concepts...the product of a Meaning
Maker...

Medics have never found "love" in bodies either, but this doesn't mean that love doesn't exist.

As with love, masculinity and femininity are categories which can be used to describe certain forms of human behaviour. They are useful.

What happens when I 'grab' these Abstract Concepts and make them Solid with my Mind...make them Real by thinking them so?

If you mean abstract concepts like "Empty and Meaningless", "Meaning-Making", "Scripts", "Cults", etc, then I would agree with you. There are many people who get hung up on these concepts and believe them to be Real.

Realising this that the Mind is a Meaning Making Machine...wham, the realisation 'kicks in' like a Mule...knocks you on your arse...cry, laugh, fall over...the enormity of it all staggers you...

A piddly insight. Kindergarten stuff. You should be ashamed that this is the sum total of your understanding of things.

-

Kelly Jones · Post by **Kelly Jones** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 3:22 pm

sky wrote:Kelly: This highly abstract thought-process of Realisation is masculine, by definition.

sky: by definition

whose definition and where is it to be found

Mine.

The location of my thoughts is at 278-499706y-2:130050 (x,y,z coordinates), using a geochronological space-time map. But I'm afraid they're quite difficult to find unless you have a missing dissatisfied biro.

.

frank · Post by **frank** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 3:29 pm

kelly:

It's made up, for convenience....(masculinity/femininity)

Yeah, it's Meaning Making.

Unfortunately these terms get people into confusion in such a way that you get people on here writing that a Woman is incapable of realising her Nature and achieving enlightenment.

All Beings are capable of Realising the Nature, achieving enlightenment.

You, yourself Kelly..a Woman...has put together the necessary understanding of how the Mind/Self operates in the World haven't you?

david:
We can can know that our minds create all meaning in the world (this is an obvious truth) and, at the same time, we can know Ultimate Reality.

'enlightenment' means freedom from suffering.
it doesn't mean knowing 'ultimate reality'.

'enlightenment' is I make it mean what I make it mean and if I make it too solid (attachment) in a world of impermanence then when it slips away I suffer.

'enlightenment' is a state of mind achievable by a human amidst a raft of other possible states of mind...
It's relative.

It's not that big a deal...how big a deal do you think it is?

frank

sky · Post by **sky** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 3:54 pm

frank

Unfortunately these terms get people into confusion in such a way that you get people on here writing that a Woman is incapable of realising her Nature and achieving enlightenment.

yes it seems to be said a lot

it seems that some people are very attached to this concept

why are they so attached to this concept i wonder

Kelly Jones · Post by **Kelly Jones** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 4:16 pm

frank wrote:these terms get people into confusion in such a way that you get people on here writing that a Woman is incapable of realising her Nature and achieving enlightenment.

All Beings are capable of Realising the Nature, achieving enlightenment.

You, yourself Kelly..a Woman...has put together the necessary understanding of how the Mind/Self operates in the World haven't you?

Remember my definition explained that Woman represents irrationality, typically manifested by biological females. Thus, a biological female with the intellectual and psychological masculine traits that I described above, is largely Man.

I'm roughly 18% Man, 82% Woman, at present. After psychotherapy is completed, I'll be about 25% Man, 75% Woman.

.

sky · Post by **sky** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 4:48 pm

leyla shen

Remember the rest of Kelly's post preceding the single sentence you quoted?

The definition is right there.

Do you think you can muster a logical argument against it? Perhaps take another look and see if you can replace the term "masculinity" with "femininity" and still have it make sense.

'still have it make sense' it makes no sense as it is

what is really being attempted to postulate here

that all men are prime numbers and all women are not

Jason · Post by **Jason** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 4:48 pm

Kelly Jones wrote:I'm roughly 18% Man, 82% Woman, at present.

Is that by mass or by volume?

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 4:51 pm

Frank wrote:

DQ: We can can know that our minds create all meaning in the world (this is an obvious truth) and, at the same time, we can know Ultimate Reality.

f: 'enlightenment' means freedom from suffering.
it doesn't mean knowing 'ultimate reality'.

'enlightenment' is I make it mean what I make it mean and if I make it too solid (attachment) in a world of impermanence then when it slips away I suffer.

If we want to say that enlightenment is "freedom from suffering", then we would have to conclude that stones and corpses are enlightened, which would be silly. I'd rather define it more intelligently to mean "full understanding of Reality and freedom from all delusion".

Ideally, the fact that a person might suffer because he is unable to maintain his enlightenment indefinitely should spur him to pursue his development more vigorously and strive for complete, uninterupted enlightement. The last thing he should do is water down his conception of enlightenment just to avoid future suffering.

'enlightenment' is a state of mind achievable by a human amidst a raft of other possible states of mind...
It's relative.

You're not saying anything, frank.

It's not that big a deal...how big a deal do you think it is?

Well, given that it is primarily delusion which is swamping our world with violence and environmental destruction, and putting our entire planet at risk, I would say that it is quite significant.

But you just keep giggling at the spectacle of it all going down the gurgler, there's a good chap.

-

Jason · Post by **Jason** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 4:53 pm

DavidQuinn000 wrote:We can can know that our minds create all meaning in the world (this is an obvious truth) and, at the same time, we can know Ultimate Reality.

I'd like to know how you came to the conclusion that our minds create all meaning in the world.

Kelly Jones · Post by **Kelly Jones** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 5:08 pm

Jason wrote:
Kelly Jones wrote:I'm roughly 18% Man, 82% Woman, at present.
Is that by mass or by volume?

I'll get back to you after I've graduated from a university physics bridging course in January. :)

Sorry, let the thread continue.....

frank · Post by **frank** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 5:34 pm

sky:

yes it seems to be said a lot

it seems that some people are very attached to this concept

why are they so attached to this concept i wonder

Need to control Women...a fully realised Woman takes no shit...no match for most men...
I've seen Men quail, run and hide countless times..dissolve into blubbering messes...can't handle it, set out to 'minimise' her...
You've seen it haven't you...anybody?
It's hilarious.
Power and Control thang.
Deluded.

kelly:

Remember my definition explained that Woman represents irrationality, typically manifested by biological females. Thus, a biological female with the intellectual and psychological masculine traits that I described above, is largely Man.

Yeah, it's made up for convenience like you said...Whose convenience?

david:

Well, given that it is primarily delusion which is swamping our world with violence and environmental destruction, and putting our entire planet at risk, I would say that it is quite significant.

If it's your Meaning to 'fix it'...go ahead.

frank

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 6:09 pm

Jason,

DQ: We can can know that our minds create all meaning in the world (this is an obvious truth) and, at the same time, we can know Ultimate Reality.

J: I'd like to know how you came to the conclusion that our minds create all meaning in the world.

How else can it be created?

-

Jason · Post by **Jason** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 6:54 pm

DavidQuinn000 wrote:
DQ: We can can know that our minds create all meaning in the world (this is an obvious truth) and, at the same time, we can know Ultimate Reality.

J: I'd like to know how you came to the conclusion that our minds create all meaning in the world.

DQ: How else can it be created?

-

It'd be nice if you would answer my original question. I'll answer yours: one theoretical scenario is that meaning is "embedded" in the external world.

Leyla Shen · Post by **Leyla Shen** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:35 pm

A couple of questions, sky:

sky wrote:

'still have it make sense' it makes no sense as it is

what is really being attempted to postulate here

that all men are prime numbers and all women are not

yes it [a woman is incapable of enlightenment] seems to be said a lot

it seems that some people are very attached to this concept

why are they so attached to this concept i wonder

Kelly wrote:

It's made up, for convenience. Here's an illustration of where it is convenient to have the masculinity/femininity distinction:

Your abstract concept of all the abstract meanings that can possibly be created is a logical and absolute definition. It doesn't exclude any abstract meanings at all. So it is an absolute truth.

To make up logical absolute truths requires some intellectual skill. For convenience, I'll call this rationality. It's not irrationality.

By observation, one generalises that since most biological males seem most comfortable with abstract intellectualising, and most biological females are not so comfortable with it, that rationality and masculinity go together, and irrationality and femininity go together.

Other masculine traits also seem to assist in abstract intellectualising, such as suppressing emotions, solitude, inventiveness, frugality, the desire to appear in control/curiosity, and directness.

The idea of Man and Woman are then invented as polar concepts, which don't fit any biological being absolutely, but are convenient abstractions for a thinker.

What abstractions do you think fit biological females and males absolutely and are convenient (useful) abstractions for a thinker and why, sky?

In fact, what use do you have for abstractions, period?

[Edit: bold emphasis]

.

GENIUS FORUMS

A MAN NEVER ARGUES WITH A BEAUTIFUL WOMAN - OH BUT I INSIST

THE ABCs OF ABSTRACTION