GENIUS FORUMS

sschaula wrote:Aren't we all that way?

No. I don't believe so.

Scott wrote:

Is what Nick suggested of me correct, that I'm projecting my characteristics onto others? I don't think so. Other people who don't like me might think so, but I'd say that's just them projecting their hatred mixed with their ignorance onto an ass-umption about who I am.

Why are you so concerned with people liking or hating you Scott?

What is this emotional reaction happening within you? Look at it, study it and see it for what it is. It seems like an emotional defense mechanism.

By projecting the idea that others hate you, are you merely projecting onto others what you’re ego fears the most?

You are afraid of being disliked and hated, but I can honestly say as many others in here will say that we feel nothing for you at all, and ironically that is the highest intelligence another being can have.

You are guilty of emotional defensives/fears and you react by projecting them onto others.

When you are emotional or in contradiction most of us simply point it out. There is no hatred or dislike at all.

It is common courtesy, as I expect the same treatment from others when I am in contradiction.

Scott, you need to learn how to take criticism without the emotional defense mechanisms because they are essentially still part of your ego and they are essentially holding you back because they prevent you from accepting error and changing your perspective accordingly.

CP,

Why are you so concerned with people liking or hating you Scott?

I don't care either way. For a long time I've accepted the fact that a lot of people may hate who I appear to be to them.

I'm pointing out a truth...people become argumentative with me here just because of what I've said in the past...because of who I am.

You're doing it right now. If I had treated you like you were the smartest person alive, and like a good friend, I'm sure you'd be acting much differently.

What is this emotional reaction happening within you? Look at it, study it and see it for what it is. It seems like an emotional defense mechanism.

Pointing out the truth? A defense mechanism would be trying to avoid it, out of fear of being disliked.

The truth is that I annoy some people here, at least on an unconscious level. What does that say about those people, when they get annoyed?

They are unconscious.

My posting the truth of the matter will hopefully bring it to the conscious level.

You are afraid of being disliked and hated, but I can honestly say as many others in here will say that we feel nothing for you at all, and ironically that is the highest intelligence another being can have.

Don't delude yourself. You react a certain way to me. If I would've treated you differently, you'd react in a different way.

You can dumb yourself down to "feel nothing", but on a deeper level you're still going to be playing the emotional game. And it will be controlling your every move.

You are guilty of emotional defensives/fears and you react by projecting them onto others.

I disagree. I'm simply stating the obvious truth. Being honest.

When you are emotional or in contradiction most of us simply point it out. There is no hatred or dislike at all.

"Most of us?" What is this, a support group? You think I'm here for that? Do you feel like part of the herd?

There is a bit of hatred in you, CP, for me. Recognize it.

It is common courtesy, as I expect the same treatment from others when I am in contradiction.

I've tried telling you when you've been in contradiction, but it seems like it hasn't clicked for you yet. Reread my posts. What I've said still applies.

Scott, you need to learn how to take criticism without the emotional defense mechanisms because they are essentially still part of your ego and they are essentially holding you back because they prevent you from accepting error and changing your perspective accordingly.

First of all, I don't need to do anything. I'm not here for help. My life is fine.

Secondly...where have I been wrong? What error is there for me to accept? If there is one, then there's nothing stopping me from accepting it, because I'm an honest person.

But there isn't one!

My ego can accept logical truth...despite how I feel about it. Show me something sensible, and I'll agree with it. Give me this bullshit that you've been giving me, and of course I will disagree.

We are all functioning from emotional defense mechanisms. Some try to hide it. No one is above it. They are the sole reason why anyone posts here in the first place. They are why David reacted the way he did when I posted my accusation about him being attracted to sky. He may have a non-emotional tone about the way he did it, but I guarantee he felt something. His ego felt a little prick, and he couldn't just sit there and let it happen.

It's why I post in reaction to what you're saying. Me saying that everyone doesn't react isn't me projecting my delusions onto others...it's just the way it is. Be honest about it.

Perhaps this is too scary a thought for you, prostitute?

Perhaps philosophy is easier when it's deluded?

Scott wrote:

There is a bit of hatred in you, CP, for me. Recognize it.

There really isn’t Scott, I find our exchanges rather humorous/insightful, but I don’t know how you feel towards my bombardment of one-liner insults towards you, perhaps you are projecting your inward state onto others again?

Because when you insult me I find the whole thing rather comical.

Moreover if someone has an accurate psychoanalysis of my behavior, I’ll admit defeat.

There is very little structure there to feel offended anymore. I’m not saying I’m completely free from all emotional reactions, but that is the trajectory/path that I am on.

Scott wrote:

We are all functioning from emotional defense mechanisms.

These are the types of conclusions you shouldn’t be coming to, as long as you think this way you will never realize the severity of your past defenses, you will never see them for what they were.

You come to strong false conclusions in order to block out the truth of past behavior.

There are degrees of emotional defense mechanisms, which are related to the degree of ego and therefore the ongoing goal should be to approach a state of mind which has less and less emotional reaction.

There are philosophers that attend this messageboard who have very little emotional reaction to whatever observations are flung in their direction, and I suspect that they have not come to similar conclusions as you.

These types of conclusions stop all psychological growth, see it and correct it.

Nick wrote:

sue hindmarsh wrote:Bof1 wrote:

Not Me: Men need to become fully masculine to escape the pain of being an incomplete woman. Only then will men have no sexual/emotional need of women.

Sue: Of course, you need not worry about escaping any “pain”, as you’ve made very clear through your posts that your mind is too far gone into the feminine.

-

Sue

I honestly think he doesn't see how he contradicts himself, he's simply too unconscious to realize it. Or as you put it, "his mind is too fare gone into the feminine".

I honestly see you quoting something I was supposed to have said and it was not me that said it. Before you decide that someone else is in contradiction, a suggestion; try actually quoting what they say.


Matt Gregory:

No, Sue is definitely in the right on this one. Your true colors are really coming out, BeingOf1. Why don't you bang that 24 year old hottie that's after you? It doesn't get any better than that...she would probably do all the work.

How did you come to this conclusion?

Oh; from what floats around in your mind.

It is astounding - the projections that is.

I can't imagine fucking an enlightened being of any kind. That's the ultimate in gross.

This I agree with. The very thought is repulsive as I would never 'fuck' anyone.

Of course you will probably not ask questions - will you just project images from your mind and assume that it is me?

Copulo ergo sum.


Of course in Alabama they say "I chew tobacco therefore I am."

It is the ones that avoid asking questions that are projecting and hiding, they just make assumptions.

Ask questions or use examples instead of making suppositions and understanding can surface.

CP,

All I can say is that I think you're full of it. This should probably be the end of our discussion here...you can add something more if you like, but I don't see it going anywhere.

Well, I just think if your lust for life is preventing further spiritual development, it can be useful to take a break to gain some perspective on the situation. I think you're in denial about being stuck in a state of enjoying things. I was just thinking the woman might be convenient. I was kind of joking about banging her, but just hanging out with her would be enough like banging her, I'm sure. You don't have to touch a woman to have sex with her. There's no denying that that was a sexual situation that you described earlier.

millipodium wrote:Actually I think the fact of needing a woman to reproduce, guarantees only materially responsible men mate. A woman's judgement keeps us from overrunning our resources, naturally. It's a good design. You're just bitter.

In the past things like rape and arranged marriages ensured that a wide spectrum of men were able to reproduce. But today women alone are more likely to decide who gets to breed and who doesn't. I don't think that's a very wise situation to be in, since women have no idea what they're doing.

ksolway wrote:

millipodium wrote:Actually I think the fact of needing a woman to reproduce, guarantees only materially responsible men mate. A woman's judgement keeps us from overrunning our resources, naturally. It's a good design. You're just bitter.

In the past things like rape and arranged marriages ensured that a wide spectrum of men were able to reproduce. But today women alone are more likely to decide who gets to breed and who doesn't. I don't think that's a very wise situation to be in, since women have no idea what they're doing.

I think it's more deranged and sick to be excited about reproduction in a lab.

cosmic_prostitute wrote:

Such a life is less harmful than the ordinary life, provided one is strongly conscious inbetween times. But I strive for perfection.

But with this "conscious I” that is striving for perfection, are there limitations on the body itself in terms of what the "conscious I” has the power to override?

Certainly, but where those limitations are are not firmly established.

If one is aware of the lies after the sexual interlude, then that is a good thing, but those few delusions will continue to have an effect for long after, through the workings of cause and effect. They are like a small seed that can spring up and grown into something much more, perhaps in another person.

Can you give an example of this?

Let's say that, in a state of sexual arousal, you imagine that a woman is valuable because she approves of you. Now this is of course a delusion - a delusion which may pass in short order. However, there will be a tendency for the delusion to arise again, perhaps the next time someone who looks similar approves of you. That person may see the desire in your eyes, and the delusion is thereby transferred to that other person, like a disease.

Are you referring to the series of ‘thoughts’ that surface in the mind after the sexual act itself?

Yes. To use a Buddhist analogy, there is an intermediate state between lives, a "bardo" state, during which time one's future rebirth is determined. The state of sexual excitement, just like the dream state, is such a "bardo" state. Each moment determines the next.

My genes can't force my brain to indulge in deluded thoughts if my habitual deluded brain pathways have all dried up through dis-use.

But what role has the genes played in the initial formation of these habitual deluded brain pathways?

They have helped establish them, certainly.

The problem is that once a pathway has been established and the body is rewarded chemically from the release then it is very difficult to break because the very genes that started the process and working hard to guarantee it continues.

Yes, it's hard to break, but not impossible.

But what affect does a conscious rational mind have on the DNA itself? Can the presence of the conscious mind within the body actually cause macro evolutionary changes to the behavior of the DNA molecules themselves?

The conscious mind interacts with the DNA to produce results.

For example, our DNA might be pushing us to rape a woman, but our conscious mind says no.

but once rationality is running through the brain then does this presence of rationality tweak and make changes to the actual organism?

Every cause has an effect of some sort.

I’m suggesting that sexual desires/delusions are controlled by hormonal activity. The hormones are manufactured by the DNA and sent as a surge to the brain, when this happens one is completely helpless, it is like trying to stop a freight train.

If a person is addicted to nicotine it can feel like there is no stopping it. But the person is not completely helpless.

Sex would be a much stronger addiction than nicotine.

Some individuals have more active genes than others in relationship to hormone production. The individuals that have the most active genes will the ones who are the lewdest.

Agreed.

I have had friends who work in the sex industry. They do their work quite naturally, as if they were not made for anything else.

You will notice that after one eats, sometimes the biological urge is intense, this is because the excess energy from the food is used by the DNA for hormone production, and the DNA sends the hormones to the brain resulting in the strong biological urge.

That sounds reasonable. It is also known that in springtime humans are especially frisky.

One can feel the of hormones being delivered to the brain as a surge. Hormones are also released from the skin making the body smell different to the female. There is a series of hormonal reactions that all occur together.

This is all true. But there is still not the imperative to run with it. One is being pushed in a particular direction, but one need not go.

sschaula wrote:When I was a young kid, I saw a naked woman and got an erection. There was nothing delusional about it...it was physiological.

You may have had the delusion that the woman was somehow uncovered or vulnerable, or that you were seeing something that you weren't supposed to see.

If the response was purely hardwired then men would be getting erections all the time, and men in nudist colonies would be walking around with erections.

Sure, a person may become wiser and see a woman for what she is, but I don't think that will make the person feel less attraction to her. It hasn't been the case, in my case.

I know what you are saying. It is certainly not a rare occurance that I am attracted to a woman. But the more I am able to see their soul, the less sexual attraction there is. Or perhaps I should say, the less protracted the sexual attraction is, and consequently the less power it has.

The soul wants freedom, but sex is well and truly bogged-down in the world.

When I see a person's soul, I don't want to tie it down and enchain it . . . so to speak . . . even if the girl wants to be tied.

millipodium wrote:

I think it's more deranged and sick to be excited about reproduction in a lab.

You’re living in a fairy tale, naturally, where you think it‘s about excitement. But, this is not about excitement -- it’s about wisdom.

I think you should immediately go and get pregnant and see what it’s like to push out a human baby from a small hole between your legs; feel your bones move apart to accommodate it. Morning sickness, post-partum depression, juvenile delinquency, crime, war, love, marriage, divorce, and the list goes on.

(Of course, it's much easier to dilute all of this down to Western guilt propaganda without a single deep thought for the women and children involved.)

Naturally, men like you have dedicated -- and continue to dedicate -- their lifetimes to ensure that child delivery is painless; to ensure they are as well-prepared for any medical emergencies that may arise to decrease mortality rates -- for both woman and child. And for what? Three minutes worth of physical pleasure connected with blowing your load every day?

Yeah, that’s a less deranged and sick vision of health and wisdom. But, it is exciting…

.

Matt Gregory wrote:Well, I just think if your lust for life is preventing further spiritual development, it can be useful to take a break to gain some perspective on the situation. I think you're in denial about being stuck in a state of enjoying things. I was just thinking the woman might be convenient. I was kind of joking about banging her, but just hanging out with her would be enough like banging her, I'm sure. You don't have to touch a woman to have sex with her. There's no denying that that was a sexual situation that you described earlier.

Look; there is so much misunderstanding about this issue, it is what drives Hollywood to the bank.

Most all of sex is perverted because it has to do with power and self worship. It has nothing to do with getting a woody or the female experience of the 'quivers'.

It becomes something ugly when men look at a woman like an ice cream cone, they want to corrupt the woman and get turned on by that idea. To take something away from the woman and use it for power.

Women are not so nearly motivated by the act, they idealize the image or soul of a man and use this image to gain power of being worshipped as some kind of goddess. It is used to gain control.

After being corrupted by the man the woman ends up despising the man and punishes him for his not meeting the idealized image.

If I get a woody it cannot make me do anything as I am not the slave of my body. I am not mastered by the body, it cannot make me flirt, chase, or date. It is just simply another experience that I have. I do not 'need' it, I already have such a high buzz going on it would only involve me in drama.

Who cares that I find a woman attractive? I don`t, do you?

They are delicate creatures and look down on men with good reason. Men are supposed to lead and instaead become a churlish slave of their sick addictions.

Grow up for God`s sake and realize your body is the servant and not the master.

BTW - stop punishing others for what someone else did, that is childish.

Kevin wrote:

I know what you are saying. It is certainly not a rare occurance that I am attracted to a woman. But the more I am able to see their soul, the less sexual attraction there is. Or perhaps I should say, the less protracted the sexual attraction is, and consequently the less power it has.

I've found that, as I develop, women turn more and more into babies. Becoming turned on by them gets more difficult because it starts to resemble the most extreme form of child abuse. Only when I am in a very coarse frame of mind (and thus more baby-like myself) do they seem desirable.

-

David,

Would you answer a few questions about the factors in your decision to help Sue in philosophy?

My motivation is primarily out of seeking causes to rebirth my self into a more resilient and rational form, and secondly from feeling overcooked about my heavy karma.

Obviously Sue was more intelligent and honest than all the women you'd met to date. However, you shouldered the responsibility of helping Sue, far more in time and effort than you have done for any abused baby, regardless of whether the guilt was directly your own or not. What was going on there?

I mightn't currently be able to cope with a 100% truthful answer, but this is what a future birth will appreciate most.

Your answer might also help types like Rhett in his earlier reincarnation, whose naivete about the feminine mind made it very difficult for the protege's attachments to be deconstructed.


Kelly

Does it take more balls to have a love affair or to play computer games?

Kevin,

I said:

When I was a young kid, I saw a naked woman and got an erection. There was nothing delusional about it...it was physiological.

You said:

You may have had the delusion that the woman was somehow uncovered or vulnerable, or that you were seeing something that you weren't supposed to see.

I do remember hiding the fact that it happened from my family, who were also in the room (it was a naked woman on a tv commercial), by shifting in my seat. I think this was mostly due to it being something new that I never experienced happening with other people. It wasn't a built up delusion, yet...like a fetish where I got excited if I wasn't supposed to be doing it.

The woman didn't look vulnerable. She just looked naked. She was probably 25-30 - a supermodel type. It just looked beautiful, and that was all there was to it. Nothing mental about it. My whole body responded.

If the response was purely hardwired then men would be getting erections all the time, and men in nudist colonies would be walking around with erections.

Maybe it's not just about seeing exposed skin, but about seeing beauty in the female. So maybe it only happens with a select few people, at select times. Perhaps if a person sees too many beautiful women, they get used to it?

Sure, you can build up a desire (delusion), then get an erection with pretty much anyone. Sometimes it's hard to do that, like with a really really unattractive person...but I am saying that when a man sees an appealing female, he is supposed to get an erection. Without being deluded.

It's all about opposites attracting. From the atomic level (covalent and ionic bonds) up to the human sexual experience, all things are accomplished by this. It's in my opinion that we're designed for reproduction.

I mean, no wonder it's so hard to become celibate, in action as well as in thought. Anyone who does so has learned to completely ignore the way they're designed. Their mind truly must be pure, and really must become the forerunner of all things.

I know what you are saying. It is certainly not a rare occurance that I am attracted to a woman. But the more I am able to see their soul, the less sexual attraction there is. Or perhaps I should say, the less protracted the sexual attraction is, and consequently the less power it has.

This sounds like built up delusions, instead of wise insights. Which would explain the impotence.

The soul wants freedom, but sex is well and truly bogged-down in the world.

When I see a person's soul, I don't want to tie it down and enchain it . . . so to speak . . . even if the girl wants to be tied.

Is this wisdom, or morality?

David Quinn wrote:

I've found that, as I develop, women turn more and more into babies. Becoming turned on by them gets more difficult because it starts to resemble the most extreme form of child abuse. Only when I am in a very coarse frame of mind (and thus more baby-like myself) do they seem desirable.

I’ve had a few experiences like that, just as I was about to have sex with the women, they appear as immature little infants and I end up calling the whole thing off. Once I awkwardly put my clothes back on and just sat in a state of bemusement for ten minutes while the girl kept probing to figure out what was wrong.

I suspected that man is evolving to state of very little sexual desire, but to be completely free from all sexual desire?

That will cause serious implications for the species.

DavidQuinn000 wrote:

I've found that, as I develop, women turn more and more into babies. Becoming turned on by them gets more difficult because it starts to resemble the most extreme form of child abuse.

A month or so ago I was apprehended by the police in Uptown Waterloo and taken to Grand River Hospital. During this incident, Constable Jim Nelson of the Third Division of the Waterloo Regional Police Service read my notebook, wherein I had written "I am a pedophile." This seemed to upset him and he questioned me about it. I explained to him that all men are pedophiles and he shook his head and said "That's not true." I told him it was because they are attracted to childish features, generally - in both boys and girls. "Generally." he repeated.

But since women have the minds of children is not anyone who finds them attractive a pedophile?

There's difference. Women have lived long enough to understand what's going on with sex. Children haven't.

sschaula wrote:There's difference. Women have lived long enough to understand what's going on with sex. Children haven't.

Adult women might understand more than young children, but not a lot more.

Last night I was watching a documentary about women who were hardcore sex workers (extreme abuse, etc). They had no idea why they did what they did.

One quote I remember from one woman: "Women will keep providing pornography, without knowing why."

DavidQuinn000 wrote:I've found that, as I develop, women turn more and more into babies.

Some Barry White song titles:

"Baby"

"I'm Gonna Love You Just A Little More, Baby"

"Baby We Got To Try To Get It Together"

"Can't Get Enough Of Your Love, Babe "

"Playing Your Game, Baby"

"Didn't We Make It Happen Baby"

Scott wrote:

There's difference. Women have lived long enough to understand what's going on with sex. Children haven't.

Scott, what I have come to realize is that it is the man’s will that molds the females will.

I remember I was dating this girl a long time ago and after we were dating for some time one thing lead to another and next thing you know things are getting sexual, but I was startled by what she started doing to me. First of all, she slammed my head off the back of the car seat, and then she dug her nails into my back drawing blood, then she pushed me away really hard and then when she went for my pants I was seriously terrified, I told her to get off me and I drove her home.

It turns out all or her previous boyfriends had got her accustomed/conditioned to sadistic/aggressive games that were completely foreign/alien/frightening to me, but she assumed that was what all men wanted because that was all she “knew”

What women ‘know’ is determined by the male force, not the other way around.

It is the male force/will that molds the world. The female is quite harmless unless he is influenced by a man that isnt so harmless then she’s just plain dangerous.

God, just thinking about that girl still gives me the heebie jeebies…

Kevin,

Adult women might understand more than young children, but not a lot more.

Last night I was watching a documentary about women who were hardcore sex workers (extreme abuse, etc). They had no idea why they did what they did.

One quote I remember from one woman: "Women will keep providing pornography, without knowing why."

I agree with what you've said here. We must ask this though: do men know "why"? It seems that adult men and women are on the same level of innocence, or "childishness". It's not as if men are the only sexual creatures...women have sexual urges too. And it's not as if most adults of either sex fully comprehend what they're doing. The implications of the act. Most adults have sex without thinking of it...that's why the divorce rate is so high.

That being said, adult women don't have the minds of children. You are absolutely correct when you say they "might understand more than young children, but not a lot more." We should also say the same for our own gender.

Now...linking a woman's mind to the mind of a child should not happen. As adults, we learn to deal with the things we've grown up with...to accept them as the way things are. Both men and women grow up with sex, and feelings we have about it, and we have to deal with it and eventually accept it. But a child hasn't dealt with it yet. To impose an adult's conceptions about sex onto a blank slate causes harm. Just look at anyone who's been sexually abused as a child...they turn out differently than a child raised without that.

Having sex with a fully grown woman doesn't cause such horrible things to happen to her mind.