GENIUS FORUMS

Ryan, where was that list from?

David Quinn wrote:I am curious to know why, given that the appearance of Kevin and Ryan's behaviour is an expression of pure undistorted reality, why you are objecting to it?

Simple: that piece of pure undistorted reality is irritating me. The irritation is itself an appearance/expression of pure undistorted reality too.

Dhodges,

Ryan, where was that list from?

I was on my hotmail account, and there was a banner to some dating site that advertised something like, “learn all the ways to impress women” or something like that, and I clicked on it, and it eventually provided me with some surveys. There was another one there too that explained how to flirt around with women on the Internet successfully, it was very interesting as well. Actually, I saved that one too in a word document, here it is:

Women’s Top Ten Favorite Ways to Have Someone Flirt with Them:

1. Talks about things she likes or dislikes, making comments and showing interest
2. Displays concern for her, her feelings and well-being
3. Shares jokes or amusing anecdotes with her
4. Compliments her on her screen name, attitude, personality and appearance
5. Sends her special/cute email messages
6. Makes an effort to contact her in some form most every day
7. Sends instant messages when she and you are online at the same time
8. Discusses seriously the traits she desires in a partner
9. Shows her your daring or mischievous side
10. Emails her greeting cards, gifts, pictures songs or fun attachments

awww, isn't that sweet, its like having a daughter that you can have sex with. Hmm, is it just me or does this seem like an awful load of tedious work just to get some sex? That's a full time job for Christ sakes!

Dejavu,

This thread is pathetic.

What is sad is how you dismiss it so easily despite its potential to convey so much truth. You're mind blocks out whatever truth could be understood in favor of your own emotional attachments. I suppose at some point, you'll have to ask yourself whether or not you are actually interested in spiritual thought.

Jason,

The irritation is itself an appearance/expression of pure undistorted reality too.

No Jason, this thread wouldn’t bother you if you could see the importance of what we are doing here.

Uh, still too concerned with status, man.

(It is possible to interact with a female for reasons other than those. You know, like a gentleman with class, _ _ _ _ _ )

Jason wrote:

David Quinn wrote:I am curious to know why, given that the appearance of Kevin and Ryan's behaviour is an expression of pure undistorted reality, why you are objecting to it?

Simple: that piece of pure undistorted reality is irritating me. The irritation is itself an appearance/expression of pure undistorted reality too.

So you don't see an anomaly between what your head tells you - namely, that the situation is an expression of pure, undistorted reality - and what your emotions are forcing you to think - namely, that the situation is impure and distorted and needs urgent addressing?

What I pick up from this, and it tallies with what I have picked up from you for a long time now, is that you are unwilling to follow the consequences of the realization that everything is pure, undistorted reality - such as, for example, that everything is your true nature, and that to be irritated by your true nature is irrational.

Even more to the point, to one who knows his true nature, such irritation is unthinkable.

-

Think Hakuin never got irrate?

Ha.

If he did, it would have been during his less conscious moments. But I don't get any sense of his being irritated in his writings.

-

Yeah, wrong context there.

Kevin Solway wrote:
Let's examine some of those "least favorite topics":



2. Other dates

I'm not sure what this means, but I assume it means the affairs of other people.

But the affairs of other people are important.

6. Celebrities

This one must be a mistake, since women's magazines are full of gossip about celebrities. Are there any men at all who watch "Entertainment tonight"? I doubt it.

Whats that?
"Entertainment Tonite" ?
No, sorry friend, I dont know it.
But Yes.
Yes I know of 1 man who must watch it.
Do you know who I mean?
:)

Ok, I dont think is a mistake in survey, context probably specific to young partners, boy and girl communicating. Here, no, she not want to talk with him about celebrities and their other dates, like the guy she had blew last nite, not a good idea. Also YES love to read celeb mags, holywood etc, but all that is she is taking inside her, absorbing, fantasizing, very personal, nothing the boy cares about, more important nothing she care to enlighten him also about, 4 then he see her in new unbecoming light. She too smart for that.
Capishe?

David Quinn wrote:If he did, it would have been during his less conscious moments. But I don't get any sense of his being irritated in his writings.

-

Are you so gullible?
Dont you know people, even yourself, not respond others when down, irritated?
Why make bad impression?
Why make others doubt your word because of your weakness?
You know!
If very upset angry person then yes cannot control and screwup.
But if he had mood swings, time when he beat the dog or the wife, who can know, no one.
All we see is the best behavior, he look like superman, people believe him, later after believe they may even agree.
Mission accomplished!
Be honest, You.

David Quinn wrote:So you don't see an anomaly between what your head tells you - namely, that the situation is an expression of pure, undistorted reality - and what your emotions are forcing you to think - namely, that the situation is impure and distorted and needs urgent addressing?

What I pick up from this, and it tallies with what I have picked up from you for a long time now, is that you are unwilling to follow the consequences of the realization that everything is pure, undistorted reality - such as, for example, that everything is your true nature, and that to be irritated by your true nature is irrational.

Even more to the point, to one who knows his true nature, such irritation is unthinkable.

Everything is pure undistorted reality David. You said it yourself. Thus, my experiencing a situation as being irritating is a perfect expression of pure undistorted reality. My desire to change things is a perfect expression of pure undistorted reality.

That you can't see this is evidence of a massive blind spot and defensiveness on your part. It's staring you in the face but you refuse to acknowledge it. You continue to believe that emotions and ego are impure distorted reality, despite the fact that absolutely everything is pure undistorted reality.

Steve's Facebook Fortune Cookie

To respect everyone is dangerous, and leads to false pride. To truly show respect, one should first banish contempt, and replace it with a continued distinction.

Steven Coyle wrote:Steve's Facebook Fortune Cookie

To respect everyone is dangerous, and leads to false pride. To truly show respect, one should first banish contempt, and replace it with a continued distinction.

Well, that settles it. I'm not eating in this restaurant again.

Steven Coyle wrote:Steve's Facebook Fortune Cookie

To respect everyone is dangerous, and leads to false pride. To truly show respect, one should first banish contempt, and replace it with a continued distinction.

Steven, you reminded me of my all-time favorite fortune cookie. It read:

Strike while the iron is

But to address the thread's topic, I think that "survey" must not be genuine. Because the list of things that women least prefer to talk about does not contain the Three Stooges.

If you want to know what women prefer to talk about, you must first ask yourself, with whom? You? The things women are interested in are evident by the covers of any number of magazines published with women as a target audience. To find out what a particular woman might like to talk about, you could either ask her or find out which magazines she reads. If they concentrate on hair, makeup, and nails, chances are she is her own favorite topic.

Jason wrote:

David Quinn wrote:So you don't see an anomaly between what your head tells you - namely, that the situation is an expression of pure, undistorted reality - and what your emotions are forcing you to think - namely, that the situation is impure and distorted and needs urgent addressing?

What I pick up from this, and it tallies with what I have picked up from you for a long time now, is that you are unwilling to follow the consequences of the realization that everything is pure, undistorted reality - such as, for example, that everything is your true nature, and that to be irritated by your true nature is irrational.

Even more to the point, to one who knows his true nature, such irritation is unthinkable.

Everything is pure undistorted reality David. You said it yourself. Thus, my experiencing a situation as being irritating is a perfect expression of pure undistorted reality. My desire to change things is a perfect expression of pure undistorted reality.

That you can't see this is evidence of a massive blind spot and defensiveness on your part. It's staring you in the face but you refuse to acknowledge it. You continue to believe that emotions and ego are impure distorted reality, despite the fact that absolutely everything is pure undistorted reality.

You don't see that there is a certain madness in getting irritated over one pure expression of reality, but not another?

It would be like someone lying in a field and lazily watching the clouds changing and evolving, and then suddenly, out of nowhere, becoming irritated or angry because one of the clouds happens to momentarily form a certain shape. That would be insane, don't you think?

-

My answer is independent meaning individual and original

I cannot allow myself to be grouped as a whole, nonesense to that!

The ten top things women prefer to talk about is what I would dismiss in a second.

They do nothing but pacify a low-than average intellect, like giving a candy pop to a kid.

Let's talk about consciousness and where it is located, I remember a time when Genius-l was active. It was interesting, educating, entertaining, challenging, and serious, then apparently I was the cause of it closing. Thanks alot Dan, I haven't forgotten that!

I realize this topic has probably been exhausted, but not from my end.

...

David Quinn wrote:

Jason wrote:Everything is pure undistorted reality David. You said it yourself. Thus, my experiencing a situation as being irritating is a perfect expression of pure undistorted reality. My desire to change things is a perfect expression of pure undistorted reality.

That you can't see this is evidence of a massive blind spot and defensiveness on your part. It's staring you in the face but you refuse to acknowledge it. You continue to believe that emotions and ego are impure distorted reality, despite the fact that absolutely everything is pure undistorted reality.

You don't see that there is a certain madness in getting irritated over one pure expression of reality, but not another?

No I don't. I have certain preferences and so I react in a variety of ways depending on the situation at hand; that can include becoming irritated. Just because something is a pure expression of reality doesn't mean that it will align with my preferences(which themselves are pure expressions of reality.)

It would be like someone lying in a field and lazily watching the clouds changing and evolving, and then suddenly, out of nowhere, becoming irritated or angry because one of the clouds happens to momentarily form a certain shape. That would be insane, don't you think?

I think that's a flawed and self-serving analogy. What you've done is imagine a person who has exceedingly unusual preferences and values; and thus from a mundane perspective a person who is irritated by particular cloud shapes might be called "insane." But that is neither here nor there as concerns the deeply philosophical perspective from which we have been discussing these matters. It just gives you an easy opportunity to pull out the "insane" claim and to try to make irrelevant associations between completely different perspectives.

Jason wrote:

David Quinn wrote:You don't see that there is a certain madness in getting irritated over one pure expression of reality, but not another?

No I don't. I have certain preferences and so I react in a variety of ways depending on the situation at hand; that can include becoming irritated. Just because something is a pure expression of reality doesn't mean that it will align with my preferences(which themselves are pure expressions of reality.)

Do you ever question and challenge your preferences - such as, why you have the sorts of preferences you do, or why even continue having any preferences at all?

Given that preferences invariably lead to things like irritation, anger, fear, misery, etc, is it really worthwhile to continue manufacturing one's own suffering like this?

And given that experiencing the highest wisdom can only occur when one goes beyond preferences and thereby breaking the spell of appearances, is it worthwhile to keep manufacturing one's own ignorance like this?

Jason wrote:

It would be like someone lying in a field and lazily watching the clouds changing and evolving, and then suddenly, out of nowhere, becoming irritated or angry because one of the clouds happens to momentarily form a certain shape. That would be insane, don't you think?

I think that's a flawed and self-serving analogy. What you've done is imagine a person who has exceedingly unusual preferences and values; and thus from a mundane perspective a person who is irritated by particular cloud shapes might be called "insane." But that is neither here nor there as concerns the deeply philosophical perspective from which we have been discussing these matters. It just gives you an easy opportunity to pull out the "insane" claim and to try to make irrelevant associations between completely different perspectives.

No, it's a judgment made from the same perspective, but it is a perspective that recognizes not only that each appearance is pure reality, but also that each appearance is part of one's true nature and lacks inherent existence and worth. It is this latter bit which creates the difference between us.

-

David Quinn wrote:

Jason wrote:No I don't. I have certain preferences and so I react in a variety of ways depending on the situation at hand; that can include becoming irritated. Just because something is a pure expression of reality doesn't mean that it will align with my preferences(which themselves are pure expressions of reality.)

Do you ever question and challenge your preferences - such as, why you have the sorts of preferences you do, or why even continue having any preferences at all?

Given that preferences invariably lead to things like irritation, anger, fear, misery, etc, is it really worthwhile to continue manufacturing one's own suffering like this?

This really has nothing to do with what we have been discussing, namely, the nature of reality. You are making appeals based on the desire to eliminate suffering. It just tends to confirm my suspicions that eliminating suffering(and therefore preference and emotion) was always a very important motivator and final goal for you and your philosophy. Unfortunately I think that doomed your philosophy. Thankfully, my motivations and goal were, and are, more pure.

David Quinn wrote:And given that experiencing the highest wisdom can only occur when one goes beyond preferences and thereby breaking the spell of appearances, is it worthwhile to keep manufacturing one's own ignorance like this?

There is no such dichotomy, I understand the nature of reality and I have preferences and emotions. Preferences and emotions are pure and perfect expressions of reality.

David Quinn wrote:

Jason wrote:

David Quinn wrote:It would be like someone lying in a field and lazily watching the clouds changing and evolving, and then suddenly, out of nowhere, becoming irritated or angry because one of the clouds happens to momentarily form a certain shape. That would be insane, don't you think?

I think that's a flawed and self-serving analogy. What you've done is imagine a person who has exceedingly unusual preferences and values; and thus from a mundane perspective a person who is irritated by particular cloud shapes might be called "insane." But that is neither here nor there as concerns the deeply philosophical perspective from which we have been discussing these matters. It just gives you an easy opportunity to pull out the "insane" claim and to try to make irrelevant associations between completely different perspectives.

No, it's a judgment made from the same perspective, but it is a perspective that recognizes not only that each appearance is pure reality, but also that each appearance is part of one's true nature and lacks inherent existence and worth. It is this latter bit which creates the difference between us.

Actually, I don't claim that things have inherent worth or existence. All I claim is that a thing simply has the worth or existence that it does at any particular moment. No more, no less. Things just as they are.

Jason,

You don’t see David’s point. Irritation implies a will that expects things to be other than what they are in an emotionally sense. Preferences are not a problem, but preferences that are laced in gross emotions are, such a mind illustrates an egotistical revolt against the causal world.

Basically, you’re ego has probably gone quite accustomed to certain types of intellectual stimulation, while you have grown very bored, irritated and jaded by the absolute truth commonly expressed on GF, and your ego is repelling against it. You are expecting things to conform to your own pleasurable intellectual tastes.

In my opinion, you still haven’t sunken deeply into the void of causality, as preferences laced in gross emotion illustrate a mind that still hasn’t gone all the way as far as pure and undistorted reality is concerned.

brokenhead wrote:But to address the thread's topic, I think that "survey" must not be genuine. Because the list of things that women least prefer to talk about does not contain the Three Stooges.

Wherein I gaze wistfully upon the Three Stooges poster hanging above my desk and sigh.

To find out what a particular woman might like to talk about, you could either ask her or find out which magazines she reads. If they concentrate on hair, makeup, and nails, chances are she is her own favorite topic.

I concur (tentatively) with the former, but disagree with you on the latter.

To ask a woman, directly, what her interests are is rather dicey. I've known far too many socially awkward or shy women who, upon being talked to in such a direct manner (assuming that this is a stranger), freeze up and automatically spout out what she thinks the other wants to hear or, more likely, "Oh, you know, whatever.". I don't believe that this is due to stupidity, but again, a lack of social graces.

As for magazines, that is difficult as well. Most of my male friends read magazines that cater to gamers; this doesn't make them obsessive WoW players.

Personally, my favorite magazine is Cosmo. Fashion, makeup, nails, etc, is focused on greatly in this magazine, but I by no means focus solely upon myself. As an adult, I have an obligation to make myself look presentable rather than like an unkempt slob. This is true for both genders.

An amusing side note: That "interesting survey" can be found upon finishing a quiz on OkCupid. Credible sources!

804 wrote:Wherein I gaze wistfully upon the Three Stooges poster hanging above my desk and sigh.

Gazing wistfully at posters of the Three Stooges is part of brokenhead's private mating ritual.

You may be 804, but you are a 10 in my book.

To ask a woman, directly, what her interests are is rather dicey. I've known far too many socially awkward or shy women who, upon being talked to in such a direct manner (assuming that this is a stranger), freeze up and automatically spout out what she thinks the other wants to hear or, more likely, "Oh, you know, whatever.". I don't believe that this is due to stupidity, but again, a lack of social graces.

Plus, I meant "find out by talking to her," but I thought that was understood.