GENIUS FORUMS

The following is taken from Kevin's book

To the woman in my audience: cause and effect is most definitely not real.

To the men in my audience: cause and effect is most definitely not real.

It's funny, in all my time on this board, I've seen very little effort made by the moderators to make it clear why cause and effect is not real.

I will try to make it clear, why cause and effect is not real.

1) There are ones thoughts and feelings, and then there are the electrical and chemical movements of ones neurology.

Do the electrical and chemical movements of ones neurology CAUSE ones thoughts and feelings?

No, they are one.

2) There is one coin. On one side there is heads, on the other side there is tails.

Does heads CAUSE tails?

No, they are one.

Double check that quote from Kevin's book - it's not quite accurate to what he said.

Here it is:

Man/Woman


To the women in my audience: cause and effect is most definitely real.


To the men in my audience: cause and effect is most definitely not real.

Hi Cory,

I generally agree, but, as to the other side of the coin:

"The great path has no gates
Thousands of roads enter it.
When one passes through this gateless gate,
He walks freely between heaven and earth.

"Controlled or not controlled?
The same dice shows two faces.
Not controlled or controlled?
Both are a grievous error."

Some "koans" lived by Mumon, though the meaning is rather easy to ascertain. Although easily discerned, difficult to put into practice.

This maybe a generalization (keep that in mind),

One thing I noticed about the feminine spirit is that it wants everything to be explainable; the feminine doesn’t like mystery or the possibility of eternal unknowing.

The other day in university class we were discussing the repetitive emergence of fairies in many of Shakespeare’s plays. And what is interesting is that the fairies were always immortal in each play, they existed in their world and this world simultaneously and they were able to interfere with the activities of human beings.

Now typically, I was known to the others as the ‘logical one’ in the group and the other five females had grown accustomed to my predictability. But suddenly I felt a little mischievous, I felt like interfering with the activities of the human beings a bit.

The male fellow sitting next to me was quite inquisitive, but a little dull. So I posed my question to him instinctively instead of addressing any of the females. I said “you know what is strange is that if one studies the history of many civilizations, the emergence of fairies as a metaphysical figure emerges over and over in societies that were completely divided by vast oceans. I find it strange that these figures emerged in the art of so many societies without any direct communication - very odd.

The male in my group became almost child-like and he was quite enthralled by the mystery of what I was saying - maybe a little too much.

However what was interesting is how the females reacted – they seemed disgusted in how I had ventured away from my predicable logical nature. One of the females quickly spoke up in an irritated smug fashion, she said “well there’s nothing odd about that, civilizations have also had a history of believing in similar types of gods, but science has already disproved all of that” The other females seemed relieved by her outburst.

However my child-like male friend seemed rather displeased with their callous answer. I stared at him and noticed that he wasn’t going to let the females have the last word. He muttered underneath his breath: “still seems kinda strange to me”

I like that part of the masculine spirit, the part of the masculine spirit that remains child-like and refuses to dismiss existence as completely explainable. We posses that quality of being as young boys, but we lose it as we search and erroneously believe in answers.

This reminds me of this bit from Sex and Character:

Judaism in the broadest sense is that movement in science which regards science above all as a means to the end of ruling out anything transcendent. The Aryan percieves the striving to understand and explain everything as a devaluation of the world, because he feels that it is precisely the unfathomable that gives existence it's value. The Jew has no respect for mysteries, because he does not sense any anywhere. His aspiration is to make the world seem as flat and commonplace as possible, not in order to secure through clarity the eternal rights of the eternally dark, but in order to make the universe drearily obvious and to remove anything that obstructs the free movement of his elbows even in matters of the mind. Anti-philosophical (not aphilosophical) science is basically Jewish.

There is nothing illogical about noting that separated cultures did a parallel developments as far as beliefs about faeries (and angels, which are the same thing).

She, however was incorrect about science disproving the existance of God. Actually, the more advanced the science, the more the scientists become convinced that there must be some kind of intelligence that designed all of this.

I propose that you were still being logical, and she was uninformed.

Greg Shantz wrote:This reminds me of this bit from Sex and Character:

Judaism in the broadest sense is that movement in science which regards science above all as a means to the end of ruling out anything transcendent. The Aryan percieves the striving to understand and explain everything as a devaluation of the world, because he feels that it is precisely the unfathomable that gives existence it's value. The Jew has no respect for mysteries, because he does not sense any anywhere. His aspiration is to make the world seem as flat and commonplace as possible, not in order to secure through clarity the eternal rights of the eternally dark, but in order to make the universe drearily obvious and to remove anything that obstructs the free movement of his elbows even in matters of the mind. Anti-philosophical (not aphilosophical) science is basically Jewish.

Just because some anti-Semite wants to remain uninformed does not make understanding a bad thing.

Hey Greg,

That bit from Sex and Character was quite potent.

Judaism in the broadest sense is that movement in science which regards science above all as a means to the end of ruling out anything transcendent.

That was clear enough.


But this....

The Aryan percieves the striving to understand and explain everything as a devaluation of the world, because he feels that it is precisely the unfathomable that gives existence it's value.

So I guess, according to Weiniger, Quinn and Solway are suffering from a case of Jewishness?

The Jew [Quinn and/or Solway] has no respect for mysteries, because he does not sense any anywhere. His aspiration is to make the world seem as flat and commonplace as possible, not in order to secure through clarity the eternal rights of the eternally dark, but in order to make the universe drearily obvious and to remove anything that obstructs the free movement of his elbows even in matters of the mind. Anti-philosophical (not aphilosophical) science is basically Jewish.

Weinigers perspective of the Jew, was exactly my impression of Quinn and Solway when I first came on this board.

Yet, then again, I found, and still find something about Quinn and Solway that is sometimes quite alluring. As writers they hold ones attention.

Quinn! Solway! - - quit your coy peeping and come out of hiding from behind them bushes. Come huddle round the fire with us.

Tell us some stories....

Cory Duchesne wrote:

The Jew [Quinn and/or Solway] has no respect for mysteries, because he does not sense any anywhere. His aspiration is to make the world seem as flat and commonplace as possible, not in order to secure through clarity the eternal rights of the eternally dark, but in order to make the universe drearily obvious and to remove anything that obstructs the free movement of his elbows even in matters of the mind. Anti-philosophical (not aphilosophical) science is basically Jewish.

Weinigers perspective of the Jew, was exactly my impression of Quinn and Solway when I first came on this board.

Yet, then again, I found, and still find something about Quinn and Solway that is sometimes quite alluring. As writers they hold ones attention.

The highlighted part of the paragraph taken from sex and character, which describes the "non-Jewish reasoning" for destroying mystery might have some relation with enlightenment and uncovering the Truth. While the latter reason or "Jewish reasoning" Weininger gives for seeking to destroy mystery, relates to one wanting to give their ego all the necessary space required to experience as much pleasure as possible with the fewest amount of negative ramifications as possible.

Nick Treklis wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote:

The Jew [Quinn and/or Solway] has no respect for mysteries, because he does not sense any anywhere. His aspiration is to make the world seem as flat and commonplace as possible, not in order to secure through clarity the eternal rights of the eternally dark, but in order to make the universe drearily obvious and to remove anything that obstructs the free movement of his elbows even in matters of the mind. Anti-philosophical (not aphilosophical) science is basically Jewish.

Weinigers perspective of the Jew, was exactly my impression of Quinn and Solway when I first came on this board.

Yet, then again, I found, and still find something about Quinn and Solway that is sometimes quite alluring. As writers they hold ones attention.

The highlighted part of the paragraph taken from sex and character, which describes the "non-Jewish reasoning" for destroying mystery might have some relation with enlightenment and uncovering the Truth. While the latter reason or "Jewish reasoning" Weininger gives for seeking to destroy mystery, relates to one wanting to give their ego all the necessary space required to experience as much pleasure as possible with the fewest amount of negative ramifications as possible.

The predominant Jewish attitude is one that is caught up in the delusion of separation - explaining the need to explain everything, without consciousness of a sense of wonder.

Jesus was the antithesis of the Jewish tradition, as he sought infuse mystery and reality into a new paradigm. His disciples too were the exception to Otto's hypothesis.

Otto's observation is still contaminated by his own reflection. He was trying to separate from his own theory, which communicates to me, that his theory is still generalized.

Ryan wrote:

One thing I noticed about the feminine spirit is that it wants everything to be explainable; the feminine doesn’t like mystery or the possibility of eternal unknowing.

There are oodles of very feminine Wiccans and New Agers who absolutely wallow in mystery and the possibility of eternal unknowing. They love fairies and that sort of thing, mostly in a dreamy fantasy way.

But most women are not even interested in wanting "everything to be explainable." Women generally don't even want to consider such matters as "everything". They want material things, and to have their emotions taken care of (expressed and resolved).

They do not even want material things explained, like how money works, and the simpliest mechanics of the car.

So where is the truth in your statement?

Greg wrote:

From Sex and Character: The Jew has no respect for mysteries, because he does not sense any anywhere. His aspiration is to make the world seem as flat and commonplace as possible, not in order to secure through clarity the eternal rights of the eternally dark, but in order to make the universe drearily obvious and to remove anything that obstructs the free movement of his elbows even in matters of the mind. Anti-philosophical (not aphilosophical) science is basically Jewish.

A trenchant observation, and sad, but true.

Carl G wrote:Ryan wrote:

One thing I noticed about the feminine spirit is that it wants everything to be explainable; the feminine doesn’t like mystery or the possibility of eternal unknowing.

There are oodles of very feminine Wiccans and New Agers who absolutely wallow in mystery and the possibility of eternal unknowing. They love fairies and that sort of thing, mostly in a dreamy fantasy way.

But most women are not even interested in wanting "everything to be explainable." Women generally don't even want to consider such matters as "everything". They want material things, and to have their emotions taken care of (expressed and resolved).

They do not even want material things explained, like how money works, and the simpliest mechanics of the car.

So where is the truth in your statement?

That is a more traditional viewpoint of gender differences. I understand that, as generalizations, the younger generations of females are far more reason-orientated than the older generations of females were, especially when they were younger.

I wonder if as women become more rational, men become more irrational - or men just appear more irrational (relativly speaking).

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
That is a more traditional viewpoint of gender differences. I understand that, as generalizations, the younger generations of females are far more reason-orientated than the older generations of females were, especially when they were younger.

I wonder if as women become more rational, men become more irrational - or men just appear more irrational (relativly speaking).

Women becoming more rational? That's news! The twenty-somethings I work with are basically airheads, driven by hormones / emotions. Not interested in mental things at all. And we work in an office enviornment where mental is important. I think a big reason they are hired (and tolerated) is because of their emotionality and hot looks. It attracts the customers. It's rather sick, but a sign of the times. Men are to blame.

The young women I encounter elsewhere reflect the same shallowness, in general. I think it is possible to be feminine and professional and mental all at the same time, but this is usually evident in older, more mature ladies. Still, usually this does not come without some toning down of the feminine, and a noticeable increase of the masculine.

Carl wrote:

But most women are not even interested in wanting "everything to be explainable." Women generally don't even want to consider such matters as "everything". They want material things, and to have their emotions taken care of (expressed and resolved).

I have met lots of women at university that are intellectually capable of coming to oversimplified conclusions as a means to explain everything.

Carl wrote:

They do not even want material things explained, like how money works, and the simpliest mechanics of the car.

One of the world’s richest is a Chinese woman who owns her own paper manufacturing business. I think she is worth over 1.8 billion US.

Cal wrote:

So where is the truth in your statement?

Your statements are the same as mine; incomplete generalizations that do not capture the whole.

It's my experience today's chicks simply dismiss anything rational as "male" or "white". They've been provided a coating of rationality over their essentially emotional nature, making them very dangerous indeed.

RE: Judaism, it's basically of thin veneer of religiousity over a racist, and elitist outlook.

The highlighted part of the paragraph taken from sex and character, which describes the "non-Jewish reasoning" for destroying mystery might have some relation with enlightenment and uncovering the Truth. While the latter reason or "Jewish reasoning" Weininger gives for seeking to destroy mystery, relates to one wanting to give their ego all the necessary space required to experience as much pleasure as possible with the fewest amount of negative ramifications as possible

I'll admit, I did read over that part you had bolded and thus misunderstood the paragraph. Thanks Nick