GENIUS FORUMS

Rhett,

Matt: I don't agree with your definition of 'mind'. I would only consider it to contain what we're conscious of, and we're not fully conscious of our egos because if we were, our egos would disappear.

Rhett: So you think things exist beyond consciousness? How could that be so?

Matt: Well, possibilities exist. We could become conscious of things presently beyond consciousness in the future. The Big Bang existed x billion years ago because we are conscious of it today.

Rhett: The future has no existence at the present time, so it cannot rightly be said to exist beyond current consciousness.

Matt: That doesn't make any sense.

Rhett: It does Matt. The future is yet to manifest. To talk about it is to talk about that which has no existence.

Matt: But the property of not having yet manifested is what gives the future its existence in the first place. If the future were manifest, it would cease being the future and become the present.

Rhett: The future only has existence as a hypothesis or prediction occurring in the present. As such the future is as much the present as anything else.

Time has no inherent existence. It's only by our definitions that time exists, so if you want the future to be part of the present, that's fine, but I'm talking about things within the future no matter where you consider it to exist. To seem to want to annihilate the future, but I fail to see the point of destroying a perfectly useful concept.

Rhett: In so much as a Big Bang exists in any given consciousness, a Big Bang exists in that given consciousness. Its that simple. To conceive of some kind of 'Ultimate Big Bang' residing beyond consciousness is to entertain an error of logic, as any Big Bang that could possibly be conceived of would necessarily occur within consciousness, or to be more correct, as consciousness itself.

Matt: I agree there is no Big Bang beyond consciousness, but there is Reality beyond consciousness and this is what the Big Bang is created from in our consciousness.

Rhett: For me Reality is that which has form, Reality occurs as consciousness. Pretty much everyone else thinks of it this way too. If Reality were to be beyond consciousness, no-one could ever be conscious of it, and of course would never know anything whatsoever about it.

Matt: For me Reality is everything: consciousness, beyond consciousness, formlessness, form, everything.

Rhett: Okay, so you see that there are no lingering articles, no thing that in any way acts as a pillar?

Just make your point without all the fanfare, please. This is getting tiring.

Rhett: For me Big Bangs are created from unconsciousness. If they were as you say to be created from consciousness, then they would have to go to unconsciousness, and then they wouldn't be seen.

Matt: I would say everything, including the Big Bang, is created from both consciousness and things that are not consciousness.

Rhett: Ultimately, nothing can truly be said about the source of anything, including of course a Big Bang, because any thing is just what it is and can't be looked around so to speak.

Then that ends that particular train of thought, doesn't it.

Rhett: There is necessarily consciousness of any egotism present in any given moment, otherwise it would not exist.

Matt: No, that's not right. You can't make things disappear by not thinking about them. That's like Merged Void material there.

Rhett: If something is no longer appearing then it seems only sensible to say that it has disappeared.

To put that a slightly different way; if you are thinking something, then it is appearing, . . . and whenever there is a transition to thinking something else, that previous thing has disappeared and has no existence.

Matt: I'm familiar with that idea, but it's not particularly useful in this situation. I mean, you do want to eliminate your ego, don't you? It's a practical matter that needs to be dealt with in practical terms. Trying to destroy a physical object with mental concepts just doesn't work.

Rhett: Trying to destroy anything that by your definition one is not conscious of, is definitely not practical, and will not work.

Matt: We are partly conscious of it and work with that to discover more and more of it and become conscious of it.

Rhett: Not really. Egotism occurs as consciousness and can't occur otherwise. It is worked with, and keeps arising, and keeps fading away, and eventually, not a scrap more may arise.

So what do you think causes egotism and what causes it to fade away?

Rhett: The ego not only resides as the body seen and imagined, and even then, the body seen need not be destroyed for egotism to be destroyed.

Matt: I don't equate the ego with the body. I think it's valid to think of the ego as a part of the body, though.

Rhett: Do you mean you think of the ego as a part of the body in the same way, as say, the liver, or an ear?

A part of the body like intelligence or love or something. A modification of the body can alter it. Thinking or learning alters the brain, which is part of the body. The body can alter the brain in various ways.

Rhett: To illustrate using the above example, there was consciousness of the thought of an inherently existent self climbing a mountain, and consciousness of the depression felt. However, being conscious of the ego does not mean it is understood, or there is any effort to eradicate it.

Matt: What's the difference between being conscious of something and understanding it?

Rhett: To use the aforementioned example;

Being conscious of egotism means experiencing false abstractions and depression.

Understanding egotism means that it doesn't happen.

Matt: How would you express that as a universal principle, without using any example? I'm still not clear on it.

Rhett: Consciousness of egotism is the experience of emotions and false abstractions.

Understanding of egotism means that these don't happen.

Matt: I meant without the example of egotism: what is the difference between being conscious of something and understanding it?

Rhett: Okay. My use of the word consciousness pertains to that which occurs.

My use of the word understanding pertains to a particular set of occurences; those that accurately present causality and non-causality.


Understanding of egotism arises as accurate portrayals of ignorance, these being causative of egotism no longer arising.

Alright.

.

Leyla Shen wrote:Rhett: Consciousness of egotism is the experience of emotions and false abstractions.

Leyla: Then, when we define masculinity as consciousness we see that what is in fact generally held as femininity, is not in fact femininity at all.

When we talk of consciousness, it is the experience or sense of a thing as opposed to the understanding of it. Thus, the female either (1) exists and is therefore quite conscious of truth since truth exists, but she does not understand it; or (2) she is a false abstraction.


Leyla: You say, elsewhere:

Rhett: As i see it there is no existence in the feminine. The feminine is unconsciousness. Unconsciousness is thus never known. There is only the lack of consciousness.

Leyla: These two ideas are contradictory. There can be no motion without consciousness (as you describe it above) of some type of stimuli.

The female exists only in so much as she has some consciousness, and yes, in that consciousness truths may occur but they are unlikely to be understood.

As for false abstractions, these occur a lot in males and females. In particular, males falsely abstract consciousness similar to their own upon females.

- - -

Absolute femininity is absolute unconsciousness. This can be seen, when, for example, a woman is asleep, though sometimes women can seem asleep even when they are standing or moving around or even talking.

Absolute masculinity is completely undeluded consciousness. This could be seen if a perfect sage were to arise.

States in between involve consciousness but not understanding of egotism, i.e. emotions and false abstractions.


.

.

Matt Gregory wrote:Matt: I don't agree with your definition of 'mind'. I would only consider it to contain what we're conscious of, and we're not fully conscious of our egos because if we were, our egos would disappear.

Rhett: So you think things exist beyond consciousness? How could that be so?

Matt: Well, possibilities exist. We could become conscious of things presently beyond consciousness in the future. The Big Bang existed x billion years ago because we are conscious of it today.

Rhett: The future has no existence at the present time, so it cannot rightly be said to exist beyond current consciousness.

Matt: That doesn't make any sense.

Rhett: It does Matt. The future is yet to manifest. To talk about it is to talk about that which has no existence.

Matt: But the property of not having yet manifested is what gives the future its existence in the first place. If the future were manifest, it would cease being the future and become the present.

Rhett: The future only has existence as a hypothesis or prediction occurring in the present. As such the future is as much the present as anything else.

Matt: Time has no inherent existence. It's only by our definitions that time exists, so if you want the future to be part of the present, that's fine, but I'm talking about things within the future no matter where you consider it to exist. To seem to want to annihilate the future, but I fail to see the point of destroying a perfectly useful concept.

It's not a matter of destroying the concept 'future', its a matter of destroying all delusion in respect to it.

Since you now agree that the future does not exist beyond consciousness, you may wish to turn your mind once again to my statement that no things at all exist beyond consciousness.

Rhett: In so much as a Big Bang exists in any given consciousness, a Big Bang exists in that given consciousness. Its that simple. To conceive of some kind of 'Ultimate Big Bang' residing beyond consciousness is to entertain an error of logic, as any Big Bang that could possibly be conceived of would necessarily occur within consciousness, or to be more correct, as consciousness itself.

Matt: I agree there is no Big Bang beyond consciousness, but there is Reality beyond consciousness and this is what the Big Bang is created from in our consciousness.

Rhett: For me Reality is that which has form, Reality occurs as consciousness. Pretty much everyone else thinks of it this way too. If Reality were to be beyond consciousness, no-one could ever be conscious of it, and of course would never know anything whatsoever about it.

Matt: For me Reality is everything: consciousness, beyond consciousness, formlessness, form, everything.

Rhett: Okay, so you see that there are no lingering articles, no thing that in any way acts as a pillar?

Matt: Just make your point without all the fanfare, please. This is getting tiring.

I see that i made a clear point absent of any fanfare, and that you have avoided my point via fanfare.

Rhett: For me Big Bangs are created from unconsciousness. If they were as you say to be created from consciousness, then they would have to go to unconsciousness, and then they wouldn't be seen.

Matt: I would say everything, including the Big Bang, is created from both consciousness and things that are not consciousness.

Rhett: Ultimately, nothing can truly be said about the source of anything, including of course a Big Bang, because any thing is just what it is and can't be looked around so to speak.

Matt: Then that ends that particular train of thought, doesn't it.

Only for someone that is perfectly enlightened.

Rhett: There is necessarily consciousness of any egotism present in any given moment, otherwise it would not exist.

Matt: No, that's not right. You can't make things disappear by not thinking about them. That's like Merged Void material there.

Rhett: If something is no longer appearing then it seems only sensible to say that it has disappeared.

To put that a slightly different way; if you are thinking something, then it is appearing, . . . and whenever there is a transition to thinking something else, that previous thing has disappeared and has no existence.

Matt: I'm familiar with that idea, but it's not particularly useful in this situation. I mean, you do want to eliminate your ego, don't you? It's a practical matter that needs to be dealt with in practical terms. Trying to destroy a physical object with mental concepts just doesn't work.

Rhett: Trying to destroy anything that by your definition one is not conscious of, is definitely not practical, and will not work.

Matt: We are partly conscious of it and work with that to discover more and more of it and become conscious of it.

Rhett: Not really. Egotism occurs as consciousness and can't occur otherwise. It is worked with, and keeps arising, and keeps fading away, and eventually, not a scrap more may arise.

Matt: So what do you think causes egotism and what causes it to fade away?

Nature has nurtured egotism, and Nature has, at times, driven it away.

Rhett: The ego not only resides as the body seen and imagined, and even then, the body seen need not be destroyed for egotism to be destroyed.

Matt: I don't equate the ego with the body. I think it's valid to think of the ego as a part of the body, though.

Rhett: Do you mean you think of the ego as a part of the body in the same way, as say, the liver, or an ear?

Matt: A part of the body like intelligence or love or something. A modification of the body can alter it. Thinking or learning alters the brain, which is part of the body. The body can alter the brain in various ways.

My mind naturally replaced your use of the word body with Nature. A part of Nature like intelligence or love or something. A modification of Nature can alter it. Thinking or learning alters the brain, which is part of Nature. Nature can alter the brain in various ways.


.

Rhett Hamilton wrote:

This can be seen, when, for example, a woman is asleep, though sometimes women can seem asleep even when they are standing or moving around or even talking.

I think this is a false abstraction and lacks understanding of egotism.

The true abstraction for absolute unconsciousness would have to be represented by a dead body if you are going to absolutely tie the idea into biology at all. In any sleeping body, there is still response to stimuli, observable in motion (recalling here that your definition of consciousness is the experience or sense of things).

How would a dead male body be any more conscious than a dead female body -- by the degree of consciousness lost?

.

.

Leyla Shen wrote:Rhett: This can be seen, when, for example, a woman is asleep, though sometimes women can seem asleep even when they are standing or moving around or even talking.

Leyla: I think this is a false abstraction and lacks understanding of egotism.

The true abstraction for absolute unconsciousness would have to be represented by a dead body if you are going to absolutely tie the idea into biology at all. In any sleeping body, there is still response to stimuli, observable in motion (recalling here that your definition of consciousness is the experience or sense of things).

How would a dead male body be any more conscious than a dead female body -- by the degree of consciousness lost?

Unless the sleeping body is having a dream, it fully lacks consciousness, by definition. It is fully unconscious, like a rock.

Similarly, any response to stimuli does not occur for them if they are, as we say, asleep, and not having a dream.

All i am doing is making a distinction about what is happenning. A scientists may probe and test, and get some kind of response, but everything that occurs for him is his consciousness, not the patients. So any distinctions he makes are necessarily about a consciousness conceived by him to exist outside of his own, that nevertheless exists as his own.

A dead male body would be equally as unconscious as a dead female body, but the death would have been greater.


.

Rhett Hamilton wrote:

Unless the sleeping body is having a dream, it fully lacks consciousness, by definition. It is fully unconscious, like a rock.

Similarly, any response to stimuli does not occur for them if they are, as we say, asleep, and not having a dream.

All i am doing is making a distinction about what is happenning.

Yes, I know you are. My problem occurs with your attempt to objectively qualify consciousness since your distinctions revolve around abstracting absolute qualities from useful scientific categories of male and female which can never be absolute in any objective sense.

To me, it’s like saying the proof that a memory is true is not in inferring its existence but in literally going back in time to find its occurrence. Of course, this is impossible.

The category of female is useful to me, for example, because if I were to need surgical treatment for an ovarian problem, I would hate for the surgeon to think me a man and aim to remedy prostate cancer. Now, back to woman -- the bells and whistles, tinsel and glamour, makeup and “matrimony” -- I think pinning the notion of the “feminsation of society” down to a matter of hormones whilst brushing off the fact as culturally incidental that many, many men are actually women despite their testicles is duplicitous; especially in light of what you say below. They don't fight for the protection of the bells and whistles, tinsel and glamour, makeup and matrimony outside of their own consciousness -- they want it for themselves in every way that a female may represent it for them.

A scientists may probe and test, and get some kind of response, but everything that occurs for him is his consciousness, not the patients. So any distinctions he makes are necessarily about a consciousness conceived by him to exist outside of his own, that nevertheless exists as his own.

As any distinctions of unconsciousness that he makes would necessarily be about an unconsciousness conceived by him to exist outside of his own consciousness, that nevertheless exists as his own.

I don't think you’ve actually made a philosophically useful point here.

A dead male body would be equally as unconscious as a dead female body, but the death would have been greater.

Naturally and necessarily occurring in the consciousness making such a distinction, and as his own death.

[Edit: general editing and emphasis]

.

.

Leyla Shen wrote:My problem occurs with your attempt to objectively qualify consciousness since your distinctions revolve around abstracting absolute qualities from useful scientific categories of male and female which can never be absolute in any objective sense.

Lets go back in time. Say you are the first person to think on these matters. You see a female behaving in a manner that is typical of other females. You want to point this out, so you say "she is behaving in a manner that is typical of other females". You then decide you want to do this more regularly, so you create a shorthand term. Now, when a female is behaving in a manner that is typical of other females, you say she is being "feminine".

Then, you notice males sometimes behaving in a manner that is typical of females, so you decide to apply your shorthand term to this as well.

To me, it’s like saying the proof that a memory is true is not in inferring its existence but in literally going back in time to find its occurrence. Of course, this is impossible.

The appearance in the present of that which is deemed a "memory" is certain, but as to whether it holds similarity to a previous occurrence is uncertain.

The category of female is useful to me, for example, because if I were to need surgical treatment for an ovarian problem, I would hate for the surgeon to think me a man and aim to remedy prostate cancer.

Yes, the term 'female' is undeniably of worth, even for those poor souls that think the borders of the category are inherent in nature.

Now, back to woman -- the bells and whistles, tinsel and glamour, makeup and “matrimony” -- I think pinning the notion of the “feminsation of society” down to a matter of hormones whilst brushing off the fact as culturally incidental that many, many men are actually women despite their testicles is duplicitous; especially in light of what you say below. They don't fight for the protection of the bells and whistles, tinsel and glamour, makeup and matrimony outside of their own consciousness -- they want it for themselves in every way that a female may represent it for them.

I haven't expressed the view that the feminisation of society is occurring as a result of hormones, perhaps someone else said that.

It is one thing for a male to wish for femininity to exist in mind, but another thing altogether for him to wish to actually become feminine. Yes, one can lead to the other in some measure, but even then, male desire for woman in mind is for it to be temporary, he otherwise spends much time at work, or the pub, or on the footy field, etc.

Rhett: A scientists may probe and test, and get some kind of response, but everything that occurs for him is his consciousness, not the patients. So any distinctions he makes are necessarily about a consciousness conceived by him to exist outside of his own, that nevertheless exists as his own.

Leyla: As any distinctions of unconsciousness that he makes would necessarily be about an unconsciousness conceived by him to exist outside of his own consciousness, that nevertheless exists as his own.

I don't think you’ve actually made a philosophically useful point here.

On the contrary, it is very useful. When all the evidence of femininity is put together, it points directly to a lacking with respect to consciousness.

Rhett: A dead male body would be equally as unconscious as a dead female body, but the death would have been greater.

Leyla: Naturally and necessarily occurring in the consciousness making such a distinction, and as his own death.

A death within consciousness is typically considered in respect to the cessation of the functions of a thing. The thing continues on, but it's functions have ceased.

A death of consciousness itself occurs when consciousness ceases, i.e. when things no longer arise.


.

Rhett wrote:

Rhett: Conversely, for a man that has a notion of emptiness to work with and does so skillfully, learning about womanliness is deadly in a satisfying kind of way.

Sue: I’m not sure what you mean by “satisfying”?

For someone focused upon ego death, learning about womanliness and the effect it has is very satisfying.

So what you’re getting at is that knowing causality, and therefore having “a notion of emptiness” you feel “satisfied” that you are using your “notion” to pierce through illusions. My query is: what else would you do with it?

Rhett: Womanliness exists as the desire to secure the ego in another thing, or to obliterate the ego through obliterating consciousness. Manliness exists as wisdom.

Sue: First up “womanliness”, which I take you to mean the ‘feminine’, doesn’t “desire” or will anything. ‘She’, that exists in both males and females, is at the mercy of consciousness. Only consciousness desires and wills her towards attachments and unconsciousness, or away from them.

I think you're trying to go too far with this Sue, but let's see what we can do.

The desires i spoke of exist in mind, expressed by women and men, so whilst i spoke of the desires as womanly, i did so acknowledging them as being conscious via a mind.

Yes, I see what you mean here. The feminine, in its pure form, is the opposite to the purely masculine mind. If a male or female possesses a mind that is more feminine than masculine, they would “desire” themselves more into the feminine than toward the masculine.

Sue: Secondly - "manliness", or masculinity "exists as wisdom", is a meaningless statement. Masculinity is often known for its irrationality due to it being weaked and polluted by the feminine. In a more developed and pure form it can drive an individual towards wisdom - but this is extremely rare.

When i related manliness to wisdom i was talking about the essential characteristic of man, in its purest form.

Manliness could otherwise be related to thinking, but what good is thinking if wisdom is not arrived at? Not much, hence my use only of the term wisdom.

Yes, I also see what you mean here. So depending on the degree of masculinity a person has, they are either closer to wisdom or further away from it. If you have a large portion of your mind that is masculine, you then have the potential to become more masculine if you so “desire” it.

Sue: Most men’s minds are under the sway of the world as much as any woman is.

I disagree with your statement that "Most men’s minds are under the sway of the world as much as any woman is". In my experience males always have at least some sense of individuality and purpose, whereas women rarely do.

The problem is that even though many men may have a sense of individuality and purpose, most of them have it because of their desire to attract females, and not to use those attributes to understand truth. Many females are attracted to males who appear purposeful and knowledgeable about their own weaknesses and strengths, as they feel that these males are better able to provide and care for them. Of course, if a male has these attributes and directs them to living according to the Truth, no female would even look twice at him.

Rhett: Loving women and fearing women shows key differences in mentality. If a man fears women it could be because he is attached to control, honesty, helping people, and the like, more so than he is to her.

Sue: Being attached to “control”, “honesty” and “helping people” because of an attachment to “fearing women” isn’t what I’d call a very wise way to go about things. Instead - a strong attachment to Truth washes all those gross attachments away.

You've misread my comment, i said "If a man fears women it could be because he is attached to control, honesty, helping people, and the like, more so than he is to her". This means i am suggesting the example man's fear of women is a result of him being attached to control, honesty, etc, not the cause as you say. I agree with you that the example i offered is not of a wise person. I was not offering an analysis of a wise person.

What sort of man spends his time “attached to control, honesty, helping people, and the like”? How is he different from the man who loves women?

Sue: So, I'm not sure what you mean by "greatness", because when you consider the Great Men who have been: Hakuin, Diogingnese, Kierkegaard, Jesus, etc, you see a motley bunch of blokes that most people wouldn’t go out of their way to spit upon. The same goes for the Great Men of today: Quinn, Rowden and Solway – “dole-bludging misogynistic scum-bags” is the way most people would describe them. Why do you think these guys are thought of like this? Do you think they need to ‘lift’ their act to get more status, and in that way attract more interest in their ideas and works?

I personally attribute varying levels of greatness, or status, or you might simply say value, upon the teachings of wise men. Others may hold opposing views.

In some circles equal concern ought be placed on the practice of seeing removal from society and society's disapproval as badges of honour.

Could you give some examples of the sort of behaviour you’d consider worthy of a “badge of honour”?

It could be argued that Siddartha was the greatest of wise men, possibly having spurred the creation of by far the greatest number of wise works and civilised societies.

Are you saying that you consider the Buddhist religion, and say, Chinese society, ‘wise’ in some ways?

May we not toss the next Siddartha into a far away cave, or restricted avenue of society, without damn good reason.

What do you mean by this line – “the next Siddartha”? And – “restricted avenue of society”?

Rhett: If one knew the feminine through and through, would that not be complete knowledge, in which case there would be no femininity left? That is the way i would see it. In that case feminine related tools would no longer be employed for one's personal development.

Sue: To begin to attack her, you first need to know her. Know her well, and the less chance of you fooling yourself that you are clear of her. Delusions are slippery, and they run deep – start chipping away at them first with a pick axe, then move in the bulldozer.

That is good general advice. It would sit better in front of what i wrote.

Knowing the feminine isn’t the same as having completely disposed of her. Using your knowledge of causality to begin to recognize her in your own mind is the first step to getting to know her, and then applying consistent effort to shake yourself free from her can take many lifetimes.

Tell me Sue, how do you think people would react to the physical presence of a fully-male female?

I think you are asking how people would respond to a fully enlightened female. Well, since I’ve never discovered anyone – male or female – that has become fully-enlightened, I’d have to make an educated guess based on my knowledge of how wisdom is usually received, and say that they’d be mostly ignored.

Sue: There’s always more to be said about the feminine. Man’s mind is often so full of her, he often doesn’t know where he begins and she ends.

Rhett: As i see it there is no existence in the feminine. The feminine is unconsciousness. Unconsciousness is thus never known. There is only the lack of consciousness.

Sue: Will you walk into my parlour? said the spider to the fly.
Tis the prettiest little parlour that ever you did spy,
The way into my parlour is up a winding stair,
And I've a many curious things to shew when you are there.

Oh no, no, said the little Fly, to ask me is in vain,
For who goes up your winding stair, can ne'er come down again.

Alas, the fly is captured by the spider, because it dazzles the little fly into submission. Yes, a cautionary tale to be taken very seriously indeed.

Do you ever still relate to the spider Sue?

If I have a little Spider in me, than so be it – that’s God’s business. I just keep plodding along looking into what is true and what is false – that’s the best I can do.

-
Sue

Rhett,

My answer to your last question is a bit lame, so I'll write another one.

Rhett: Do you ever still relate to the spider Sue?

I reckon that I'm maybe 30-40% feminine (spider) and 60-70% masculine (fly). But it is hard to say for sure, because my standards for masculinity are pretty high. Some days I feel it is an even tug of war and my mind is dull and distracted, other days I'm as sharp as a tack and firing on all cylinders.

But I'm correct to say that whether I'm masculine or feminine is God's business - as I can't control in any way the causes that bring me into existence. I just have to have faith in God's blessings - that's all I can do.

-
Sue

The point is that you exist in my consciousness, notwithstanding the fact that neither you, nor I, nor my cunt exist inherently. That means that whatever you are or any qualities you may possess exist in my consciousness and vice versa. You are caused to be whatever you are by the causes which cause me to be whatever I am.

Which also means that you, among other things, are a cunt.

Or, do you claim inherent existence, Rhett?

.

For a minute there, Leyla, I thought you were directing your above post to me, but then I realized that it’s for Rhett’s pleasure. But I'll just butt in here and say that I find it interesting that you once again try to wipe all the differences between the sexes away by calling the Totality down to smite them. The problem with this line of attack is that those differences, which are causally brought into being, are also part of the Totality. Therefore, they do exist (through their causes), which means they can be analyzed and understood.

-
Sue

Sue,

But I'll just butt in here and say that I find it interesting that you once again try to wipe all the differences between the sexes away by calling the Totality down to smite them.

I have done no such thing. Your problem is that you are attached to a single lexicon.

.

Leyla,

Then why bring up causality?

notwithstanding the fact that neither you, nor I, nor my cunt exist inherently.

What's this got to do with the question of consciousness?

-
Sue

Why don't you have another look at my last post in relation to Rhett's preceding it.

If you still see nothing relevant, then -- bad luck.

I am not interested in pandering to your demands, Sue. No matter how masculine you think they are.

.

.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Rhett: Womanliness exists as the desire to secure the ego in another thing, or to obliterate the ego through obliterating consciousness. Manliness exists as wisdom.

Sue: First up “womanliness”, which I take you to mean the ‘feminine’, doesn’t “desire” or will anything. ‘She’, that exists in both males and females, is at the mercy of consciousness. Only consciousness desires and wills her towards attachments and unconsciousness, or away from them.

Rhett: I think you're trying to go too far with this Sue, but let's see what we can do.

The desires i spoke of exist in mind, expressed by women and men, so whilst i spoke of the desires as womanly, i did so acknowledging them as being conscious via a mind.

Sue: Yes, I see what you mean here. The feminine, in its pure form, is the opposite to the purely masculine mind. If a male or female possesses a mind that is more feminine than masculine, they would “desire” themselves more into the feminine than toward the masculine.

No, you've missed my point, so i'll flesh it out. I was saying that, in so much as femininity is related to unconsciousness (and unconsciousness only), femininity only exists as an observation. It is not beheld by femininity itself. Just as we commonly see women incapable of reflecting on their behaviourisms, thus repeating them over and over.





- - -

[Feminine behaviourisms (observed) are typically expressive of the desire to secure the ego in another thing - to affirm and give it life in that thing, or to reduce or obliterate the ego through reducing or obliterating consciousness. An example of the former is the way women desire marriage and all than man does for her, which affirms and gives life to her ego. The desire for sex, while tying in with this, is also expressive of the latter desire, the way feminine forces desire the reduction or obliteration of the ego through reducing or obliterating consciousness during sex.]

Sue: Secondly - "manliness", or masculinity "exists as wisdom", is a meaningless statement. Masculinity is often known for its irrationality due to it being weaked and polluted by the feminine. In a more developed and pure form it can drive an individual towards wisdom - but this is extremely rare.

Rhett: When i related manliness to wisdom i was talking about the essential characteristic of man, in its purest form. Manliness could otherwise be related to thinking, but what good is thinking if wisdom is not arrived at? Not much, hence my use only of the term wisdom.

Sue: Yes, I also see what you mean here. So depending on the degree of masculinity a person has, they are either closer to wisdom or further away from it. If you have a large portion of your mind that is masculine, you then have the potential to become more masculine if you so “desire” it.

I think everyone has the potential to be more masculine, though that would be hard to say for someone that was only born with a brain stem, for example.

Sue: Most men’s minds are under the sway of the world as much as any woman is.

Rhett: I disagree with your statement that "Most men’s minds are under the sway of the world as much as any woman is". In my experience males always have at least some sense of individuality and purpose, whereas women rarely do.

Sue: The problem is that even though many men may have a sense of individuality and purpose, most of them have it because of their desire to attract females, and not to use those attributes to understand truth. Many females are attracted to males who appear purposeful and knowledgeable about their own weaknesses and strengths, as they feel that these males are better able to provide and care for them. Of course, if a male has these attributes and directs them to living according to the Truth, no female would even look twice at him.

To acknowledge that many males sense of individuality and purpose is aimed at attracting women, is of course to acknowledge that they do actually have a sense of individuality and purpose. So we've established that.

I don't go so far as you go on to say though, as there are few men that would be content to simply have a supermodel as a girlfriend. They would still have other desires, she could not possibly fulfill even the most small-minded of men for much of the day.

I do however agree with your point in so much as most men work in an effort to secure their ego, and do not make gains towards Truth.

Rhett: Loving women and fearing women shows key differences in mentality. If a man fears women it could be because he is attached to control, honesty, helping people, and the like, more so than he is to her.

Sue: Being attached to “control”, “honesty” and “helping people” because of an attachment to “fearing women” isn’t what I’d call a very wise way to go about things. Instead - a strong attachment to Truth washes all those gross attachments away.

Rhett: You've misread my comment, i said "If a man fears women it could be because he is attached to control, honesty, helping people, and the like, more so than he is to her". This means i am suggesting the example man's fear of women is a result of him being attached to control, honesty, etc, not the cause as you say. I agree with you that the example i offered is not of a wise person. I was not offering an analysis of a wise person.

Sue: What sort of man spends his time “attached to control, honesty, helping people, and the like”? How is he different from the man who loves women?

The sort of male that is attached to control, honesty, and helping people rather than harming them, could be the sort of male that has a healthy ego, that likes to be mindful, and that sees most others as incredibly lesser, and therefore missing out on what he has. Such a man would be very different to a man that loves women.

Sue: So, I'm not sure what you mean by "greatness", because when you consider the Great Men who have been: Hakuin, Diogingnese, Kierkegaard, Jesus, etc, you see a motley bunch of blokes that most people wouldn’t go out of their way to spit upon. The same goes for the Great Men of today: Quinn, Rowden and Solway – “dole-bludging misogynistic scum-bags” is the way most people would describe them. Why do you think these guys are thought of like this? Do you think they need to ‘lift’ their act to get more status, and in that way attract more interest in their ideas and works?

Rhett: I personally attribute varying levels of greatness, or status, or you might simply say value, upon the teachings of wise men. Others may hold opposing views.

In some circles equal concern ought be placed on the practice of seeing removal from society and society's disapproval as badges of honour.

Sue: Could you give some examples of the sort of behaviour you’d consider worthy of a “badge of honour”?

In so much as a person conducts himself wisely, behaving in a manner that generates wisdom, in my mind he deserves the badge of wisdom.

Rhett: It could be argued that Siddartha was the greatest of wise men, possibly having spurred the creation of by far the greatest number of wise works and civilised societies.

Sue: Are you saying that you consider the Buddhist religion, and say, Chinese society, ‘wise’ in some ways?

Civilisation is a step towards enlightenment, so i speak for it. Enlightenment finds it harder to spring from lesser, more desperate forms of living. Buddhist religion has a kernel of wisdom contained within its scriptures, so i also speak for that kernel.

Rhett: May we not toss the next Siddartha into a far away cave, or restricted avenue of society, without damn good reason.

Sue: What do you mean by this line – “the next Siddartha”? And – “restricted avenue of society”?

Without saying too much about Siddartha himself, more what he possibly represents, i mean the next person that is capable of undiminished enlightenment, of reaching to all corners of the mind in a manner that shifts them towards truth rather than falsity, in a way that is loved.

Rhett: Tell me Sue, how do you think people would react to the physical presence of a fully-male female?

Sue: I think you are asking how people would respond to a fully enlightened female. Well, since I’ve never discovered anyone – male or female – that has become fully-enlightened, I’d have to make an educated guess based on my knowledge of how wisdom is usually received, and say that they’d be mostly ignored.

But good wisdom cannot be ignored! Good wisdom reaches into the very pore of thought, leaving no room for escape. The fully enlightened would instantaneously deliver poison to wherever it is needed. For this to be expressed via a female body would be a stark contrast to what is commonly experienced.

We have seen that women lack the masculinity required to bring their issues into focus. Men can do this for them, and lay it out, but might they just be constructing a straw man?


.

.

Leyla Shen wrote:The point is that you exist in my consciousness, notwithstanding the fact that neither you, nor I, nor my cunt exist inherently. That means that whatever you are or any qualities you may possess exist in my consciousness and vice versa. You are caused to be whatever you are by the causes which cause me to be whatever I am.

Which also means that you, among other things, are a cunt.

Or, do you claim inherent existence, Rhett?

I'm only a cunt when a cunt presents itself. If i were to look at a porno magazine centrefold, then i would be a big cunt.

I've extended my personal definition to point out that each and every thing is no greater or lesser, or more important or less important, or more indicative or less indicative, or more connected or less connected, or more symbolic or less symbolic, than any other.

.