GENIUS FORUMS

Bob Michael wrote:

Kelly Jones wrote:It's like Oprah's audience of women clapping and screaming when Oprah announces they all win a prize, like a trip to Australia to be in her audience there. They believe it is good and right to be part of Oprah's group, to be wealthy and pretty, and to be excited and happy. They believe in "positive thinking" and always psyching yourself and others up.

Following is a copy of an e-mail I sent to Oprah Winfrey nearly three years ago.

Dear Oprah,

Over the years I've often wondered to myself just how much real good you could do for humanity if you were to get a good and Godly man in your life, along with your having a radical change of both mind and heart. Contrary to what I see now as the vast majority of your time and efforts serving merely to perpetuate the wall-to-wall foolishness, mediocrity, and darkness in our presently fallen, tired, violent, and love-void world.

Your promoting of the books and the so-called 'teachings' of Eckhart Tolle, I feel very strongly, is also helping to perpetuate rather than heal this worldwide spiritual decay and moral bankrupsy. Having examined at length both Mr. Tolle and his works, I find him to be but another one of the all-too-many latter-day intellectually 'spaced out' new-age type false prophets, who, just beneath all the fancy surface clamor, is simply but a deeply lost and thereby essentially little more than a self-serving and self-promoting charlatan. And most certainly he is not, by any means, a genuinely Godly man who is in the possession of wisdom, love, and a true and proper sense of rightful direction for mankind.

Nevertheless, I remain wishing, hoping, and watching for the Lord's very best to truly spring forth and shine from you someday, Oprah. I do think at the core you are good stuff, so to speak, though unfortunately not yet all that Godly. Nor will you ever really be so until you're under the reigns of a man who's in possession of full and authentically Divine manhood.

Best wishes,

Bob Michael

Mensa says: Well written letter Bob, but Oprah or her goons won't respond other than an acknowledgement they received your letter, but you won't get a genuine response back, unless you're someone great with significance. I wrote several highly intelligent letters only to fall on daft ears, I won't waste another word on such stupidity, and daft is the word I'd use to describe Oprah.

mensa-maniac wrote:The good wholesome intelligent woman relys solely on herself to get what she wants from life. If she needs to go through men to get what she wants, she'll pay for it through her own expense, she doesn't expect to be given free handouts.

I agree, yet in this cold, callous, brutal, dog-eat-dog world we live in this takes a toll on women, often making even the best of them overly tough and unwomanly. So much so that attaining authentic womanhood under any circumstances becomes out of the question for many of them. Time and age also being factors here too.

mensa-maniac wrote:Mensa says: Well written letter Bob, but Oprah or her goons won't respond other than an acknowledgement they received your letter, but you won't get a genuine response back, unless you're someone great with significance. I wrote several highly intelligent letters only to fall on daft ears, I won't waste another word on such stupidity, and daft is the word I'd use to describe Oprah.

This is true, but such activity is really enjoyable and helps me continue to grow along spiritual lines. I could not have written such a letter 10 years ago. I would have lacked the courage and the writing skills to do so. So, along with the fact that my intentions were honorable and hopeful, such actions allow me to keep on feeling mighty-fine about myself and life. Hence I feel it was not a total waste of my time and energy.

Few men there be who dream beyond a human subject matter, or object material vision. Dreams which will carry them in their unconscious and conscious moments to a peak experience beyond a human epiphany of their intellectual knowledge. Dreams which will reveal answers to questions such as: Is a thought finalized as object matter? Or is matter only the subject matter of interpreted thought? Are man's thought interpretations conditional to his thinking and what his mind projects? or is man's independent thinking the reality of object matter, when the subject matter of the contemplated object has no logical reason for existence? Does the subject matter become the object matter for unconditional analysis? Or do men apply conditions upon the object matter by way of thought, which changes the subject matter from object to theories based on outer objective vision, and inner subjective feelings? Finally, does man's sense of thought become conditional upon his judging from his outer objective visions? Or is it man's inner subjective feelings which cement effect and beliefs by allowing the imagination to label images, without knowledge as his ancestors did in times of old?

Everything men have learned and applied to their living has not been in accordance to their asking themselves and answering these questions. All man's trials and tribulations are based in their need to expand their beliefs of a mental and physical domain which will eliminate them just as sure as it does all forms and shapes of matter. All which men believe they possess and have acquired is based on the totality of their human thoughts, beliefs, and actions corresponding to the activity of that which they have interpreted of other men and labeled in lack of understanding or comprehension. They pile on to this lack of understanding more and more of what other have told them in lectures, writings, and actions of demonstrations, and the old knowledge they come to believe is dead. What has been learned is not dead though, for the soul is a storehouse of all human and spiritual knowledge which has ever been, or will be. Man believes he cannot forget those things his soul retains, so there is no transcending of soul, and, therefore, no shedding of the scabs which has blind men from seeing this truth. I've said this to say. "There is a way which seem right unto a man, but the end thereof is the way of death."

Excerpt from the book - "The Illusion Of God" http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/t ... d/11046056

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

Bob Michael wrote:I agree, yet in this cold, callous, brutal, dog-eat-dog world we live in this takes a toll on women, often making even the best of them overly tough and unwomanly. So much so that attaining authentic womanhood under any circumstances becomes out of the question for many of them. Time and age also being factors here too.

Attaining authenticity characterised by gender sounds like attaining authentic treeness, or authentic open-and-closing fistness. Unless there's a relationship to the Infinite, what's the point of it?

When I compare the notion of the True Man (Chuang Tzu), which is related to the Infinite, with the notion of the True Woman, my brain boggles. The latter doesn't speak about that relationship at all. I honestly can't find any spiritual connotations in the term "Woman". What on earth is a True Woman?

Everything that conventionally springs to mind that associates women with truth or spirit is a crock of shit.

- the New Age interpretations of the Taoist symbol or of the primal mother, which are dead wrong;
- Mother Theresa and the sisters of charity are actually ministers of suffering, not in suffering;
- Buddhist nuns like Tenzing Palmo mouthing Buddhist scriptures they haven't a clue about;
- the virgin cults where sexual purity is equated with spiritual purity (Queen Elizabeth I, the Mary cult);
- the illusion of a mother's unconditional love for her own child, or eternal forgiveness is not based on understanding but on annihilating sense of wrong;
- that illusion confirmed as such with a mother's inveterate hatred against anything harming her own child;
- old female Christian charity workers getting offended if you don't accept their "selfless" ministrations;
- witches, fairies, wicca practices, old women's "medicine", homeopathy, and other superstitions;
- female animal psychologists' intuitive animalism doesn't show "in tuneness with nature" but in tuneness with animalism;
- religious devotees' selflessness is the selflessness of submitting to an authority to lose the stresses of individual responsibility;
- women's groups focussing on charity, compassion, protests against injustice, etc. often turn out to be emotion-driven rather than conscious and rational assessments of an issue, but they keep on "nobly fighting" people who are actually solving problems properly;
- a woman's sexual freedom or general spontaneity is actually recklessness, going with emotions, and a lack of consistency (morality);
and so on.

I just can't comprehend an authentic womanhood that has anything to do with wisdom. Sorry. This isn't being callous. It's factual insider knowledge.


.

Pull off the drapery!


.

Kelly Jones wrote:Pull off the drapery!

Who do you like?

Kelly wrote:I just can't comprehend an authentic womanhood that has anything to do with wisdom. Sorry. This isn't being callous. It's factual insider knowledge.

Try creating one! Tearing down is easy. Building up not so much.

You're getting me wrong, cousinbasil. I'm just revealing the actuality behind the illusions, all the lies about women's intimacy with wisdom. I'm not saying that men are a hell of a lot better, but they are certainly not so full of shit as women are.

Should the philosophical reader be embarrassed by the fact that the discussion of the most elevated and ultimate questions seems, as it were, to be pressed into the service of a specific problem of no great dignity, I would share this unpleasant feeling with him. However, I may say that here the specific problem of the opposition of the sexes is the starting point rather than the goal of a more penetrating study. Thus I have derived great profit from the examination of this with regard to the cardinal questions of logic concerning judgments and concepts and their relationship with the axioms of thinking, to the theory of the comic, of love, of beauty and of value, to issues such as solitude and ethics and the connections between the two, and to the phenomenon of genius, the longing for immortality, and Judaism. Naturally such broad discussions in the end also benefit the specific problem, which enters into more and more varied relationships the more the field of investigation increases. And if, in this broader context, the nature of Woman proves to offer little hope for culture, if the final results completely devalue, indeed negate, femininity, they are not intended to destroy anything that is, to disparage anything that has a value in itself. I would be somewhat horrified by my own action if I were really only a destroyer and nothing were left standing! Perhaps the affirmative statements in the book have been orchestrated less forcefully, but those who can hear will nevertheless be able to hear them everywhere.

- Weininger

Kelly Jones wrote:Attaining authenticity characterised by gender sounds like attaining authentic treeness, or authentic open-and-closing fistness. Unless there's a relationship to the Infinite, what's the point of it?

I should have said 'often making even the very best of them (women) overly tough, unwomanly, and overly cerebral and overly talkative.' Which would be to say, along with Paul, that women should be silent in the church. And that truly happy and contented women would of themselves be relatively silent or quiet.

Authentic womanhood and relatedness to the Infinite I see as one and the same thing. And for a woman to be in relationship or in harmony with the Infinite is for her to be co-joined with a man and together live in a down-to-earth and practical manner. Which would include being self-supporting through their own contributions to life. And this would be the very best way of helping others (both m and f) to find such a relationship for themselves. We best teach others by our own living example. And being single or unmarried is not to be a very good example. Or one that's certainly full of limitations.

And I would add here that there's some of Oprah in virtually all women. Though unfortunately the same thing is true of many men. It's simply the nature of the ongoing fallen human condition.

Kelly Jones wrote: Mother Theresa and the sisters of charity are actually ministers of suffering, not in suffering.....

I have a magazine article at home on Mother Theresa which states that some her recently discovered letters reveal that for the last 50 years of her life she lost her conscious contact with God.

I fully understand this and find it quite sad. Sad that there were no real Catholic men anywhere to give her some good and proper direction for her life. Whereby instead the church wound up using her for its own p.r. and self-glory. But such is the depth of the lostness and the darkness of the human species everywhere.

If you can find a truly good wife, she is worth more than precious gems.

Her husband can trust her, and she will richly satisfy his needs. She will not hinder him, but help him all his life.

She finds wool and flax and busily spins it. She buys imported foods, brought by ship from distant ports.

She gets up before dawn to prepare breakfast for her household, and plans the day's work for her servant girls.

She goes out to inspect a field, and buys it; with her own hands she plants a vineyard. She is energetic, a hard worker, and watches for bargains. She works far into the night!

She sews for the poor, and generously gives to the needy. She has no fear of winter for her household, for she has made warm clothes for all of them.

Her husband is well known, for he sits in the council chamber with the other civic leaders.

She is a woman of strength and dignity, and has no fear of old age.

When she speaks, her words are wise, and kindness is the rule for everything she says.

She watches carefully all that goes on throughout her household, and is never lazy.

Her children stand and bless her; so does her husband. He praises her with these words: "There are many fine women in the world, but you are the best of them all."

Charm can be deceptive and beauty doesn't last, but a woman who fears and reverences God shall be greatly praised.

-Proverbs 31 :10-21, 23, 25-30

It is interesting to look into the 'premises' that drive each poster in this thread, and to discover the 'operative ideas'.

Kelly seems to me a bizarre female militant of the 'masculine' and her strategy is, therefor, to essentially shrink and starve her 'female self'. She is militant and 'possessed' by this project because she 'started spiritual life late' and has to hasten toward this notion of the 'Infinite'. I can only imagine what the outcome of such a praxis would be on a social level. Women would go to 'boy-school', shave off their hair, study advanced mathematics and rhetoric and psuedo-neo-Daoist-Weiningerian-Nietzschean-something-or-othersim, their ovaries would shrivel up inside or perhaps never develop at all, and they would be sent out into the world as combative and annoying brats to plague everyone.

Bob is defining a sort of traditional Judeo-Christian position where the woman is a help-mate to a man who does Manly Things, upholds the traditions of masculinity in a Pauline sense. Though his presentation is a little theatrical, the essence of it and especially:

• Actually all women who are not in the reins of a real man add to the mischief of the world. And of course some far more than others. But again, the root of the problem is the lacking of men, real men. Men that are in full, living relationship with themselves and the Infinite.

Is similar to things I have written, and logically because of my own Judaic upbringing, which now is being overlayed into a Judeo-Christian synthesis. In the simplest of terms, I cannot define either men or women apart from each other, and I do certainly believe that 'men need to be men' and define a masculinity as distinct from 'women'. One can only go so far in reengineering either men or women, it seems to me. But 'the world' may indeed have very different ideas.

In this, I agree on some levels with Weininger: if this unrestrained, whimsical, irresponsible and frivolous femaleness is let out of the bag, it will destroy the essentially masculine achievements of 'our culture' . I think in basic terms this is Weininger's position. The so-called 'liberalizing' trends in our culture, especially as regards marriage, family and sexuality, but also market, have dramatically upset the 'old order'. We now live in a time when we can see all the good effects of this liberalism as well as the bad, and the bad is pretty bad. But the good is very good! This is where the issue is hard to sort through. There is always mixed results.

And Jufa wishes us to consider the benefits of 'dreaming beyond a human subject matter', which seems to me, as much as I respect elements of this discourse, a careening off into abstract and impracticable realms. Well, practicable yes, in the silence of one's own self. Preachable too, to those who are inclined toward ever-interiorizing levels of focus.

The peculiar thing for me personally is the 'back-drop' I have: a divided, confused, morally and ethically deviant, unconscious, unanalytical culture that surrounds me (that is to say in Latin America). I can relate to what Animus was saying over on another thread: [paraphrased] I live in a context, I have to relate to people, I have to see them and understand what makes them them.

I was very pleased and sort of touched when last week I took a walk in another direction and ended up at a Catholic church on the edge of the poor district. All the people were gathered there with their children hearing the mass, and the funny and interesting thing was that the priest, with a microphone in his hand, was singing hymns as he was giving out the Eucharist, and the people were singing along. And he had an excellent, almost a crooner's, voice! A bit before the Eucharist is given, and it always seemed to me so respectable and decent, people turn to each other and say hello, and shake hands, and establish a human contact in the context of a divine cerimony, a divine affirmation, and all the parents with such a gusto kiss their kids and bestow this tangible energy of blessing and love on them.

When people lose or abandon the simple traditions that link them to one another, and that have been developed in culture through tremendous hard work and sacrifice (any and every achievement of culture comes at this cost and should never be taken for granted), all these strange doctrines you people preach (as I see things) became destructive forces. Our ideas HAVE to connect back into the human world, our service HAS to manifest in a tangible way in the 'real human world'.

See, the way I think is that predominantly 'you' are all people on the very edge of Modernity. You have suffered all its ravages. It has completely had its way with you, and you live in a strange, void, deathly cultural world. The trends and ideas set in motion at certain points in our cultural life have done their work and, in significant ways, undeniable ways if you ask me, have destroyed relatedness. 'You' ('we' if it makes you more comfortable) hardly relate to each other in 'human terms'. I can imagine, and have witnessed, David and Kelly disparage everything 'human' and their hatred of the 'human' is tangible. It is one of the main drivers of their 'spirituality'. It logically follows of course from the way that social connectedness has broken apart. And as it has broken apart outside of us, so too has it broken us apart: this process of atomization, of the disintegration even of the personality, of schizms, of seapate islands peeling off from a unity of self and there, on one isolated island, is the 'desperate self', doing only what a desperate self can do.

Alex Jacob wrote:In this, I agree on some levels with Weininger: if this unrestrained, whimsical, irresponsible and frivolous femaleness is let out of the bag, it will destroy the essentially masculine achievements of 'our culture'.

Yes, it has been done - and the destruction is almost total. The lights of both men and women are fully out everywhere. It's time for the Trumpet to be sounded.

Alex Jacob wrote:I can imagine, and have witnessed, David and Kelly disparage everything 'human' and their hatred of the 'human' is tangible. It is one of the main drivers of their 'spirituality'.

I think deep-seated resentments are another.

I wouldn't describe my attitude as anger or resentment. It's a kind of light irony, more than anything. Perhaps I experience some sorrow and incredulity, but overall I find it comical.

Perhaps I should express that humour more often, rather than express reasoning simply and directly in my discussions. But there's only so much that face-palming can express.


.

I don't think women are going to accept the Victorian or even fifties-style domestic blanket of silence, Bob. And anyway, the happy contented housewife is not a paradigm I value. Marriage is not the answer. Only consciousness is, and that is what I promote.

Anyway, how would you enforce it? Islamic-style death sentences and floggings? For all our neanderthalic degree of spirituality in this modern era, we still have progressed from the highly superstitious and brutal dark ages, and I hope we don't go back there. The sense of justice from those days was grossly unintelligent. Trial by fire, trial by water, trial by ordeal, compurgation, and the like. No thanks.

Spirit has to exist. It's no good mocking-up a range of rituals and masquerading with pontifical robes and incense.

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind. No dress-ups.


.

Kelly:

I don't think women are going to accept the Victorian or even fifties-style domestic blanket of silence, Bob. And anyway, the happy contented housewife is not a paradigm I value. Marriage is not the answer. Only consciousness is, and that is what I promote.

Anyway, how would you enforce it? Islamic-style death sentences and floggings? For all our neanderthalic degree of spirituality in this modern era, we still have progressed from the highly superstitious and brutal dark ages, and I hope we don't go back there. The sense of justice from those days was grossly unintelligent. Trial by fire, trial by water, trial by ordeal, compurgation, and the like. No thanks.

Bob:

You seem pretty cynical and void of hope, Kelly. I really wonder if you'll ever find balance and contentment in your life? Where there any reasonably happy and contented women in your family? I had a neat grandmother who wasn't perfect, but she was a pretty good, happy, healthy, and lively soul and housewife who made it to 87. And in retrospect she was instrumental in helping to plant the seed of love in me. Which life nearly tore out of me, though it was sufficiently rooted so that it could be reborn and cultivated at a later date. Having spent weekends with her for several years after my grandfather died, when I was 10, I can recall sitting on her front porch with her on some warm, dark summer evenings and feeling the presence of God. I also felt it inside her house on ocassions. I didn't fully understand what was taking place at the time, though I do today. She was indeed a blessing in my life. I sometimes regret not being able to ever tell her so. All I can really do is try to pass it on to others like she did to me.

Kelly:

Spirit has to exist. It's no good mocking-up a range of rituals and masquerading with pontifical robes and incense. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind. No dress-ups.

Bob:

This is so. However, the key word here is "Love." And surely "consciousness" alone, meaning without "Love," is not the answer. When one has Love they have everything, including mental rest and a happy, bright, and cheerful heart. Along with the right direction for one's life ahead.

Cows chewing on cud seem happy and content to me. But they're not wise.

I don't equate wisdom with sadness, but with transcending both happiness and sadness. That only comes with understanding God wholly. And God is formlessness.

My female relatives have been of varying contentedness, some more self-assured and relaxed than others. But they're not all that bright. For instance, my aunt, a minister's wife (he, the minister, is a senior chaplain in the RAAF - Royal Australian Air Force - and received an OAM - order of Australia, or some such thing) believes deeply that she is solving the poverty of Bangladeshi women (or some country like that) by helping to sell their handmade clothes in Australia. When I mentioned that the same kind of greed and selfishness present in developed countries, that creates poverty for others in poor nations, is present in the latter, and is exactly what they aspire to, she was silent. She said, "Oh, that's over my head." She doesn't want to think about the causes for suffering. She can't really understand causation. For her, bandaid patches are enough, since that is all she can comprehend. She's a fabulous seamstress, cook, domestic organiser, and so forth, because she's been taught that such behaviours are the highest morality for a woman. Thus, her solutions are very limited and superficial. She thinks love, and a hug, and a piece of lovingly homemade apple pie with a spoon of homemade fresh full-cream will pay the rent or solve global poverty. She's still very much in the animal realms.


.

Kelly Jones wrote:Cows chewing on cud seem happy and content to me. But they're not wise.

Could it be that you're too wise and void of a genuinely creative outlet for that abundance of wisdom? Could your aunt, in spite of her ways of error, possibly have more contentment and peace of mind in her life than you seem to have? Granted she'll most likely never know the joys of being in the Kingdom of God, but she'll not suffer all that much either, and naturally so, for her 'sins'. Most women think a hug and a kiss and a piece of lovingly made homemade apple pie will make everything all well and good. Which again is why there's a need for real men who can and will put their foot down and keep their woman in line. Starting with the lesson that charity begins at home.

Alex Jacob wrote:It is interesting to look into the 'premises' that drive each poster in this thread, and to discover the 'operative ideas'.

Kelly seems to me a bizarre female militant of the 'masculine' and her strategy is, therefor, to essentially shrink and starve her 'female self'. She is militant and 'possessed' by this project because she 'started spiritual life late' and has to hasten toward this notion of the 'Infinite'. I can only imagine what the outcome of such a praxis would be on a social level. Women would go to 'boy-school', shave off their hair, study advanced mathematics and rhetoric and psuedo-neo-Daoist-Weiningerian-Nietzschean-something-or-othersim, their ovaries would shrivel up inside or perhaps never develop at all, and they would be sent out into the world as combative and annoying brats to plague everyone.

Bob is defining a sort of traditional Judeo-Christian position where the woman is a help-mate to a man who does Manly Things, upholds the traditions of masculinity in a Pauline sense. Though his presentation is a little theatrical, the essence of it and especially:

• Actually all women who are not in the reins of a real man add to the mischief of the world. And of course some far more than others. But again, the root of the problem is the lacking of men, real men. Men that are in full, living relationship with themselves and the Infinite.

Is similar to things I have written, and logically because of my own Judaic upbringing, which now is being overlayed into a Judeo-Christian synthesis. In the simplest of terms, I cannot define either men or women apart from each other, and I do certainly believe that 'men need to be men' and define a masculinity as distinct from 'women'. One can only go so far in reengineering either men or women, it seems to me. But 'the world' may indeed have very different ideas.

In this, I agree on some levels with Weininger: if this unrestrained, whimsical, irresponsible and frivolous femaleness is let out of the bag, it will destroy the essentially masculine achievements of 'our culture' . I think in basic terms this is Weininger's position. The so-called 'liberalizing' trends in our culture, especially as regards marriage, family and sexuality, but also market, have dramatically upset the 'old order'. We now live in a time when we can see all the good effects of this liberalism as well as the bad, and the bad is pretty bad. But the good is very good! This is where the issue is hard to sort through. There is always mixed results.

And Jufa wishes us to consider the benefits of 'dreaming beyond a human subject matter', which seems to me, as much as I respect elements of this discourse, a careening off into abstract and impracticable realms. Well, practicable yes, in the silence of one's own self. Preachable too, to those who are inclined toward ever-interiorizing levels of focus.

The peculiar thing for me personally is the 'back-drop' I have: a divided, confused, morally and ethically deviant, unconscious, unanalytical culture that surrounds me (that is to say in Latin America). I can relate to what Animus was saying over on another thread: [paraphrased] I live in a context, I have to relate to people, I have to see them and understand what makes them them.

I was very pleased and sort of touched when last week I took a walk in another direction and ended up at a Catholic church on the edge of the poor district. All the people were gathered there with their children hearing the mass, and the funny and interesting thing was that the priest, with a microphone in his hand, was singing hymns as he was giving out the Eucharist, and the people were singing along. And he had an excellent, almost a crooner's, voice! A bit before the Eucharist is given, and it always seemed to me so respectable and decent, people turn to each other and say hello, and shake hands, and establish a human contact in the context of a divine cerimony, a divine affirmation, and all the parents with such a gusto kiss their kids and bestow this tangible energy of blessing and love on them.

When people lose or abandon the simple traditions that link them to one another, and that have been developed in culture through tremendous hard work and sacrifice (any and every achievement of culture comes at this cost and should never be taken for granted), all these strange doctrines you people preach (as I see things) became destructive forces. Our ideas HAVE to connect back into the human world, our service HAS to manifest in a tangible way in the 'real human world'.

See, the way I think is that predominantly 'you' are all people on the very edge of Modernity. You have suffered all its ravages. It has completely had its way with you, and you live in a strange, void, deathly cultural world. The trends and ideas set in motion at certain points in our cultural life have done their work and, in significant ways, undeniable ways if you ask me, have destroyed relatedness. 'You' ('we' if it makes you more comfortable) hardly relate to each other in 'human terms'. I can imagine, and have witnessed, David and Kelly disparage everything 'human' and their hatred of the 'human' is tangible. It is one of the main drivers of their 'spirituality'. It logically follows of course from the way that social connectedness has broken apart. And as it has broken apart outside of us, so too has it broken us apart: this process of atomization, of the disintegration even of the personality, of schizms, of seapate islands peeling off from a unity of self and there, on one isolated island, is the 'desperate self', doing only what a desperate self can do.

Mensa says: I've never read any of your posts until just now, I must tell you I appreciate your expression Alex, I clearly see you have definate accuracy with your keen insight into people. When did you realize you had this insight? You know people well!

mensa-maniac wrote:I've never read any of your posts until just now, I must tell you I appreciate your expression Alex, I clearly see you have definate accuracy with your keen insight into people. When did you realize you had this insight? You know people well!

This may be so, but I think he lacks keen insight into himself. Many people can accurately see through others to varying degrees, but rare are they who accurately and thoroughly see through themselves.

Bob Michael wrote:

Kelly Jones wrote:Cows chewing on cud seem happy and content to me. But they're not wise.

Could it be that you're too wise and void of a genuinely creative outlet for that abundance of wisdom?

No one can be "too wise". The wiser the better.

Could your aunt, in spite of her ways of error, possibly have more contentment and peace of mind in her life than you seem to have?

Should we all aspire to be like cows? Ready for the slaughterer?

Granted she'll most likely never know the joys of being in the Kingdom of God, but she'll not suffer all that much either, and naturally so, for her 'sins'.
Most women think a hug and a kiss and a piece of lovingly made homemade apple pie will make everything all well and good. Which again is why there's a need for real men who can and will put their foot down and keep their woman in line. Starting with the lesson that charity begins at home.

Hang on. Can you clarify how she (or what she seems to be) isn't already quite perfectly in line (at least with your views), with her abundance of contentment, Christian charity, domestic skills, and subservience to her husband? I would have thought she was the perfect woman in your eyes.


.

It's quite obvious Kelly, that your wisdom is not capable of either understanding or pegging me. Nor are you an open, honest, and sincere investigator into yourself or Reality.

I'm only going on what you yourself write, Bob. I can't second guess, and I won't play that game, because I know words can be interpreted in many ways. So I take the direct interpretation wherever possible.

You spoke of authentic womenhood with characteristics like, women being subservient to their husbands, being quiet, cheerful, contented, happy, and the like.

I guess the issue here is, we have very different concepts of what wisdom is. You seem to regard the above "authentic womanhood" as an indication of wisdom in women. But I hold the same standard for all. If there are many standards for wisdom, then how can wisdom have anything to do with Ultimate Reality - with the basic essence of existence, which is changeless? So, even if women aren't capable of wisdom, I'm not pretending that what they are capable of, is wisdom.


.