GENIUS FORUMS

David, I misread your post as well. You should be clear the first time, expressing unambiguously that you do not yourself hold the commonly held belief that a virtuous woman and a virtuous man should have different virtues. Going back to clarify your position when challenged is probably a fallacy.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:David, I misread your post as well. You should be clear the first time, expressing unambiguously that you do not yourself hold the commonly held belief that a virtuous woman and a virtuous man should have different virtues. Going back to clarify your position when challenged is probably a fallacy.

You didn't misread anything, Trevor. He said what he meant and a couple of posts later is trying to deny it. He is lying.

brokenhead wrote:

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:David, I misread your post as well. You should be clear the first time, expressing unambiguously that you do not yourself hold the commonly held belief that a virtuous woman and a virtuous man should have different virtues. Going back to clarify your position when challenged is probably a fallacy.

You didn't misread anything, Trevor. He said what he meant and a couple of posts later is trying to deny it. He is lying.

I think you're starting to lose the plot, brokenhead. I don't have any reason to lie.

Have a reread of the thread, think about where I am coming from, and then re-evaluate those comments of mine.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:David, I misread your post as well. You should be clear the first time, expressing unambiguously that you do not yourself hold the commonly held belief that a virtuous woman and a virtuous man should have different virtues. Going back to clarify your position when challenged is probably a fallacy.

I'm not sure I could have expressed myself any clearer. As outlined by Urban, a "good woman" is a pleasing ornament, a bit of entertainment, a filling of a lesser man's incompletion. By no stretch of the imagination is a man ever considered "good" under such circumstances.

For me personally, I would like to see women either becoming "good men" - that is, fearless sages - or else cease to exist altogether. In other words, I would like them to become something other the glittery rattles that they are, keeping the human race in baby-mode.

-

brokenhead wrote:

David Quinn wrote:
There is a world of difference between a good man and a good woman. A good man is a fearless sage driving civilization forwards. A good woman is pretty much how you described her - a pleasing ornament, a bit of entertainment, a temporary filler of lesser men's incompletion.

Dan won't say it, but I'll just bet that It's misogynistic statements like this that makes him bristle when a GF member says "QRS this" or "QRS that." To the extent that you are serious about this statement, David, is the extent to which you lose my understanding. A good woman is an ornament. A bit of entertainment. A temporary something-or-other.

You miss a lot, don't you.

I was summarizing Urban's views of women - which are fairly standard views and, of course, deeply misogynistic in nature. They are obviously not my views.

The last thing the average man wants a woman to be is a fearless sage.

Hmm... now that there is surely an interesting "summary" of my views of women. Methinks the goad possibly more important than the goal but hey, I'm just a newbie.

Would the part where I mentioned "... no 'good men' or 'good women,' only 'good people'..." have been lost in there somewhere? Or, as seems more likely just now, merely ignored? I mention the physical aspect and all the rest just fell right by the wayside -- or was bluntly forced off the road into the ditch, bashed in the head with an axe, rolled into a pre-dug pit and covered over.

I'll definitely step up to bat and admit I used to waste time on misogyny. As a casualty of Feminism when it began to take a real stride I resented the absolute hell out of women for the lies they told me (defining "lie" by hearing one thing touted while observing quite another). For years I was that guy who was driven nigh to inoperability by my frustrations with women. Further, I'll admit heartily that I was bothered more by women than by men when it came to interaction.

Then I met a couple of good women, women who acted in a consistently logical manner. After that I stopped to take a good look around at the number of men beating their collective heads against random walls, performing acts of insipidity, acting with callous nature at times when brutality was certainly not the best key to a conundrum. It wasn't a passing moment of utter clarity, it was years and years of watching men make fools and jerks of themselves -- sometimes over women, sometimes over things which made NO sense to me, which is to say even LESS sense than women (as a reason).

Given time I realized that my worrying about women's foibles not only made me blind to male foibles but was as destructive as the very thing I railed against.

Mayhap the differences between the sexes is a necessary "evil"; but until such time as we've all become nicely parthenogenetic the world IS what it IS and we have to learn to operate within its parameters.

It would seem that my ability to do so makes me a "lesser man" because I am not "complete" within myself.

The good side to the view that a couple is merely a pairing of half-wits is that it at least increases the chance a person with such a view is less likely to successfully reproduce, non? Then again surely such a superior MAN (necessary caps; I'd embolden it but the font would still be incapable of encompassing all that HE is) would be perfectly capable of enlisting a female host for his progeny, assuming he willingly bestowed his seed into a host incapable of more than inferiority and spiritual madness, rather like the mating of MAN and ape. Certainly she would best be eliminated post-partum now that we have the chemistry available for replacement formulae since eliminating her would be the most logical means of removing her detrimental influence.

Wow, how did I not see it before? Women should stay home and make babies; preferably man-child! We talk to them because we pity them, we HOPE they'll get better someday against all odds; like the illusion of economic recovery (it might be happening... but it really isn't).

That was probably too gross a "summary", right? I must have glossed over some pretty key points so I should stop now before I hurt myself tripping over crossed wires. Don't worry, guys, I'll be okay just as soon as I learn to stop paying attention to ALL the words and just start picking out the ones which support my stance. It's the noob in me but time is a cure-all.

*waving hands*
"I'm okay, I'm okay -- don't mind me!"

Hi, Urban. Welcome to the forum. You'll get used to our good hosts' telling you what you really think.

DQ wrote:I'm not sure I could have expressed myself any clearer. As outlined by Urban, a "good woman" is a pleasing ornament, a bit of entertainment, a filling of a lesser man's incompletion. By no stretch of the imagination is a man ever considered "good" under such circumstances.

Once again, David, these were your words, they weren't in quotes:

David Quinn: What is a couple? A witty alliance between two half-wits.

Urban Sasquatch: In my estimate there's no such thing as "good men" or "good women"; there's only "good people". Maybe I'm an idealist, eh?

DQ: There is a world of difference between a good man and a good woman. A good man is a fearless sage driving civilization forwards. A good woman is pretty much how you described her - a pleasing ornament, a bit of entertainment, a temporary filler of lesser men's incompletion.

Just how are you summarizing Urban's views? He has a handful of posts, in which he clearly shows a balanced, even view of the genders. He even goes as far as to be modestly self-effacing by referring to himself as an idealist. Then you go on to call a good woman - not Woman, not any old woman, but a good woman - an ornament, entertainment, and a temporary filler. Two posts later you have the gall to claim you were just paraphrasing the newcomer.

DQ wrote:I think you're starting to lose the plot, brokenhead. I don't have any reason to lie.

That's rich. It's like that bad old TV infomercial where the pasty, toupe-wearing president of the company does his own spot, and at the end of the spiel says "I'm the president of the company! Would I lie to you?"

Yeah, David, what possible motivation could you have?

For me personally, I would like to see women either becoming "good men" - that is, fearless sages - or else cease to exist altogether. In other words, I would like them to become something other the glittery rattles that they are, keeping the human race in baby-mode.

Now that's more like it. That's honest. Glittery rattles. I remember being in an Emergency Room, and being attending by glittery rattles who were physicians. My own mother was a dermatological surgeon, and believe me, there was never anything very glittery about her. I am pretty sure she had no desire to keep the human race in baby-mode, because she didn't have the patience to have her own children in baby-mode. If I recall correctly, when she managed to scrape a meal together, our call to dinner was "Just eat it and shut up."

No, I think I have the plot just fine. You have little use for women, and it doesn't take much prodding for that to come out.

Brokenhead,

Now that's more like it. That's honest. Glittery rattles. I remember being in an Emergency Room, and being attending by glittery rattles who were physicians. My own mother was a dermatological surgeon, and believe me, there was never anything very glittery about her. I am pretty sure she had no desire to keep the human race in baby-mode, because she didn't have the patience to have her own children in baby-mode. If I recall correctly, when she managed to scrape a meal together, our call to dinner was "Just eat it and shut up."

No, I think I have the plot just fine. You have little use for women, and it doesn't take much prodding for that to come out.

Brokenhead, I still don’t think you quite get it…

your mother’s talent in the medical field maybe impressive in its own right, but we are talking about something totally different, we are talking about going beyond ego, going beyond emotion, and achieving enlightenment. What skill one succeeds at is very small in comparison to the goal of enlightenment, which most women and men have no regard for at all. Most are too ambitious to stop for two seconds to even question their lives. Their too busy racing towards becoming surgeons, and what not…

Women and men both have enough ambition to succeed at some skill in the economy, but that is not what is on trial here. What is on trial is humanities total disregard for rationality. And generally speaking, the behavior of women illustrates perfectly how sexual security, ego-attention, and mate selection reins more supreme than anything else in this world. And those forces ultimately drive ambition that you so passionately value.

The role of ‘woman’ has been to incite as much desire as possible into the spirit of ‘man’. And this inculcation of desire has lead man off his path, his path to sanity, calm and achieving a stable rock foundation that he can stand on. That is the whole purpose of his existence – to straighten his own mind out. Perfectly some skill in the economy is only secondary, and should come after wisdom, and never before.

If I recall correctly, when she managed to scrape a meal together, our call to dinner was "Just eat it and shut up."

your mother doesn't sound very wise to me, she sounds very impatient, emotional, and quick to return to a comfortable habit of material success. Her behavior is crude, and typical of many brute men, not of a sage. She sounds like an imbalanced woman with a few characteristics of an imbalanced man. We are talking about having "Sagehood" here, not the common brute masculinity that society has come to falsely believe as tough and strong.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Brokenhead, I still don’t think you quite get it…

Well, I disagree. But I'm sure you'll enlighten me.

What skill one succeeds at is very small in comparison to the goal of enlightenment, which most women and men have no regard for at all. Most are too ambitious to stop for two seconds to even question their lives. Their too busy racing towards becoming surgeons, and what not…

What not, indeed! But I agree with what you are saying here.

And those forces ultimately drive ambition that you so passionately value.

You'll note that I never said I was a surgeon.

The role of ‘woman’ has been to incite as much desire as possible into the spirit of ‘man’. And this inculcation of desire has lead man off his path, his path to sanity, calm and achieving a stable rock foundation that he can stand on. That is the whole purpose of his existence – to straighten his own mind out. Perfectly some skill in the economy is only secondary, and should come after wisdom, and never before.

But you are quite mistaken here, Ryan. Wisdom takes time - not empty time, but time filled with a variety of experiences. Perfecting a skill which is in demand by the economy is one of the ways you can gainfully fill your time and acquire experiences. Life is, after all, rather short.

your mother doesn't sound very wise to me, she sounds very impatient, emotional, and quick to return to a comfortable habit of material success. Her behavior is crude, and typical of many brute men, not of a sage. She sounds like an imbalanced woman with a few characteristics of an imbalanced man. We are talking about having "Sagehood" here, not the common brute masculinity that society has come to falsely believe as tough and strong.

My mother is not very wise. I wouldn't call it "brute masculinity" that she has, but rather a stubbornness that she is always right, that society has come falsely to believe as tough and/or strong. I was merely pointing out that she, for one, is not "glittery," as David put it, yet I do think of her as a good woman, and certainly one who has been productive in society.

brokenhead wrote: Once again, David, these were your words, they weren't in quotes:

Urban Sasquatch: In my estimate there's no such thing as "good men" or "good women"; there's only "good people". Maybe I'm an idealist, eh?

DQ: There is a world of difference between a good man and a good woman. A good man is a fearless sage driving civilization forwards. A good woman is pretty much how you described her - a pleasing ornament, a bit of entertainment, a temporary filler of lesser men's incompletion.

Just how are you summarizing Urban's views? He has a handful of posts, in which he clearly shows a balanced, even view of the genders.

Let's look at the passage that I noticed:

Urban wrote:I cannot imagine a world without women. Actually I can, but it's boring and lacks certain qualities which I enjoy.

I enjoy conversation with women whom I find both educated and reasonable. There aren't a lot of them but before anyone takes offense to that, please allow me to say that there aren't many MEN I believe to hold those qualities either.

I enjoy people with different perspectives -- and coincidentally, many of them are women.

I enjoy a lovely set of boobs and a fine derriere; I've yet to find those on a man or a mannequin, and as many men as I may have found "handsome" in my life, there's yet to be one who makes me wish to kiss him simply by looking tasty enough.

I enjoy the variety women bring into my life.

Most importantly, I've enjoyed the few fine women I've known in my life because they bring a completeness to me, one which may not be found in books, literature, learning, wandering or general experience. Those women have adorned my life with both Eros and Agape on more than one occasion.

Now, to break it down:

Urban wrote: I cannot imagine a world without women. Actually I can, but it's boring and lacks certain qualities which I enjoy.

Woman considered as entertainment.

Urban wrote:I enjoy conversation with women whom I find both educated and reasonable. There aren't a lot of them but before anyone takes offense to that, please allow me to say that there aren't many MEN I believe to hold those qualities either.

Woman considered, again, as entertainment.

Urban wrote:I enjoy a lovely set of boobs and a fine derriere; I've yet to find those on a man or a mannequin, and as many men as I may have found "handsome" in my life, there's yet to be one who makes me wish to kiss him simply by looking tasty enough.

Woman considered as a pleasing ornament.

Urban wrote:I enjoy the variety women bring into my life.

Woman considered, yet again, as entertainment.

Urban wrote: Most importantly, I've enjoyed the few fine women I've known in my life because they bring a completeness to me, one which may not be found in books, literature, learning, wandering or general experience. Those women have adorned my life with both Eros and Agape on more than one occasion.

Woman considered as filling a completion role for man.

Can you imagine anything more misogynistic? I can't.

brokenhead wrote:

For me personally, I would like to see women either becoming "good men" - that is, fearless sages - or else cease to exist altogether. In other words, I would like them to become something other the glittery rattles that they are, keeping the human race in baby-mode.

Now that's more like it. That's honest. Glittery rattles. I remember being in an Emergency Room, and being attending by glittery rattles who were physicians. My own mother was a dermatological surgeon, and believe me, there was never anything very glittery about her. I am pretty sure she had no desire to keep the human race in baby-mode, because she didn't have the patience to have her own children in baby-mode. If I recall correctly, when she managed to scrape a meal together, our call to dinner was "Just eat it and shut up."

I consider you to be a fellow who is in baby-mode, so I'm not surprised to see you rushing over chivalrously to miss the point.

-

Urban Sasquatch wrote:I must have glossed over some pretty key points so I should stop now before I hurt myself tripping over crossed wires. Don't worry, guys, I'll be okay just as soon as I learn to stop paying attention to ALL the words and just start picking out the ones which support my stance.

Are you sure that's what happened? How could you be sure?

(In this post, I asked as many questions as you did in your entire page-long rant.)

Urban Sasquatch wrote:It would seem that my ability to do so makes me a "lesser man" because I am not "complete" within myself.

You are a lesser man than the whole of humanity, as I am a lesser woman than the whole of humanity. The whole of humanity is also lesser than the Whole of Everything - Ultimate Reality (i.e. - what I refer to as God).

To my mind, any coupling just links a couple of the pieces of the puzzle together. There are still a whole lot of pieces that need to be linked before we get the Whole picture, if you get my meaning.

David wrote:

"Can you imagine anything more misogynistic? I can't."

More accurately his comments are not misogynist since misogyny is really a sort of hattred or contempt of women, isn't it?

The views he expressed are more hedonistic insofar as he seems to relate to a woman as something that provides pleasure, variation, fulfilment.

Indeed, I've got it:

If we had some eggs we could have ham and eggs if we had some ham.

Think of it as a koan; when you get it, really GET it (no, not like you think you get it right now, but really get it) a whole lot of stuff is going to open up before you. I'm offering you a kind of epiphany here, folks.


Trevor, it may seem sagacious to suggest that a man of true thought needs few words but it would seem words are all too necessary herein. And sometimes few words add up to nothing more than the old "fastest gun in the West" routine.

When I say that a world without women is boring and lacks certain qualities which I enjoy, clearly I am looking at women solely as entertainment because I suggested only that my world would be boring without them, or that I would not enjoy said world as much.

Back at DLI we had items on some of our tests, "True, False and Not Addressed". They were exercises in linguistic logic, forcing us to drop our assumptions -- a lesson I seem to have failed at miserably!

Mr. Quinn was, sadly, FORCED to conclude that my sentiments toward women were horribly misogynistic because I didn't use enough words. I should have gone on to describe not only the existence of aforementioned joys, but to list those in every possible variation, from listing the women who have given me food for thought during conversations and thus added to my learning and the essence of my world experience all the way to extensive detailing of which kinds of breasts I prefer on a physical mate. I should have itemized the specifics of past conversations, to include events leading up to them which made them pertinent in my personal journey (henceforth deemed "a life wasted").

Mr. Quinn had NO CHOICE save to believe that entertainment was my sole gain when I said I enjoyed the company of women -- no choice. To assume that I meant anything other than amusement on my part (quite possibly sinister) would be that worst of evils, assumption. To read more into the statement and approach it without need for dissection down to the molecular level would have been grossest error on the part of the superior man, who would never say upon receiving clarification of a point "It's okay, I know what you mean." HOW could he possibly know what I meant since I probably meant things in the worst possible way?

When I said I enjoyed conversations with women whom I found both educated and reasonable, Mr. Quinn had, once more, no choice in the matter save to believe that I viewed women solely as entertainment -- because I didn't use enough words.

There may, indeed, be too few words it would seem.

When I suggested that I enjoy the physical pleasures of women I wrongfully assumed (there's that awful word is again) that people would understand the inherent "as well" in the remark; I didn't realize I was subscribing to that which is basest in Man (not Woman because she's already base in nature) by suggesting that sex was to be enjoyed -- and here I thought I was getting the hang of this "growing up" thing because I like sex with my wife (read "the other half of my idiocy") or make jokes like "Why is the most childish aspect of our culture labeled 'adult reading'?"

I didn't know -- and it took this forum to teach me -- that I was actually professing my hatred for women, my view of them as inferior creatures when compared to myself. I should remove myself from such expressions of misogyny, mayhap by rereading Mr. Quinn's humorous discourse on a philosopher's views of Wife or further perusing the Not-for-the-fainthearted (wow, isn't that an "I dare you" statement?) treatise on the TRUE nature of women. Then, perhaps then, I might eschew my misogyny once and for all.

More words, Trevor, more; because I am apparently ineffective in the realm of communication and must clarify each point, each statement by pre-dissecting it in order to get my initial point through at all.

There's a good word for pre-chewed food: Pap.

There could be more, but why? I am a worm. I know that now. Would someone please offer me a boot to lick? (Sorry, demonstrating my base hedonism once more... I'll do better, I promise.)

And yes, Elizabeth, I've long realized that compared to all humanity I am a lesser man; I mistakenly thought this might be obvious given my FIRST post in this thread, certainly thought it would be obvious in my second post, specifically in the part where I questioned the need to hoard knowledge and experience rather than share it, when I suggested (yet failed to clarify) that such a life might lack further purpose. IF I get your meaning? Good Heavens, you were kidding, right?

David Quinn wrote:I'm not sure I could have expressed myself any clearer. As outlined by Urban, a "good woman" is a pleasing ornament, a bit of entertainment, a filling of a lesser man's incompletion. By no stretch of the imagination is a man ever considered "good" under such circumstances.

Adding something like "so you're saying..." or "in other words...?" can go a long way. I know it's against your M.O. to give someone much of an opportunity to defend himself, but it's more important that he understands what his views amount to than him simply being told what his views amount to. If he disagrees -- and in this case, it was pretty easy to see that Urban Sasquatch would disagree -- the line-by-line clarification won't fall on deaf ears.

Urban Sasquatch wrote:Trevor, it may seem sagacious to suggest that a man of true thought needs few words but it would seem words are all too necessary herein.

I wouldn't have chosen this quote by Thales, among all the thousands of quotes I could have chosen, if I did not think that it was extremely important to grasp. If you think clearly, you need fewer words. It is a constant reminder to myself and others that simple, direct thought is what birthed philosophy.

When I say that a world without women is boring and lacks certain qualities which I enjoy, clearly I am looking at women solely as entertainment because I suggested only that my world would be boring without them, or that I would not enjoy said world as much.

A person who uses sarcasm when he is in the wrong may accidentally speak the truth.

Mr. Quinn was, sadly, FORCED to conclude that my sentiments toward women were horribly misogynistic because I didn't use enough words.

The "because" does not fit David's M.O. at all. Do you have a second hypothesis?

I should have itemized the specifics of past conversations, to include events leading up to them which made them pertinent in my personal journey (henceforth deemed "a life wasted").

Unnecessary. How you abstracted your encounters into generalizations says just as much about how you think as does a word-for-word transcription of your conversation.

HOW could he possibly know what I meant since I probably meant things in the worst possible way?

You have a very negative attitude toward what is common. There are worse things than looking at a woman and talking about TB&A. You don't look at women and see a piece of fat and skin basted in oils and powder, glowing like a cud-chewing cow under the approval of men who talk about TB&A. You don't see a freakish abomination sustained in a pointless, will-less life by the self-deceit of men. And you don't think that that lifestyle of hers is the polar opposite of philosophy, and that her entire lifestyle, with its shoes and dresses, needs to be utterly wiped off the face of the planet so that reason can raise its ugly head. You don't look at women and say, in total seriousness, "this world would be a lot better if women thought like men, and men didn't try to think like women."

When I said I enjoyed conversations with women whom I found both educated and reasonable, Mr. Quinn had, once more, no choice in the matter save to believe that I viewed women solely as entertainment -- because I didn't use enough words.

Maybe you revealed too much, and should have used fewer words instead?

More words, Trevor, more; because I am apparently ineffective in the realm of communication and must clarify each point, each statement by pre-dissecting it in order to get my initial point through at all.

Keep dissecting until the thought is so clear in your head that you don't need to use a page to say one thing.

Elizabeth wrote:You are a lesser man than the whole of humanity, as I am a lesser woman than the whole of humanity. The whole of humanity is also lesser than the Whole of Everything - Ultimate Reality (i.e. - what I refer to as God).

This is foggy thinking, Elizabeth.

Something can be completed only if it has a part of itself that is removed. It is whole and complete when its removed parts are fit together.

So,

If the whole is defined to be a man with all his limbs intact, and a leg is amputated, then he is incomplete in himself until his leg is replaced.
If the whole is defined to be humanity with all its human members intact, and a man is missing, then humanity is incomplete until the man returns.
If the whole is defined to be everything, then it is incomplete unless everything is present in it.

Notice that all the parts of these 'complete wholes' are 'complete wholes' in themselves.

To my mind, any coupling just links a couple of the pieces of the puzzle together. There are still a whole lot of pieces that need to be linked before we get the Whole picture, if you get my meaning.

If the whole is defined to be a sexual coupling with two persons, and one person is missing, then the sexual coupling is incomplete.

But this is totally different to saying,

One person feels emotional dissatisfied, and emotionally incomplete in himself. He regards his whole self to arise on being coupled sexually and emotionally with a second person. If the second person is missing, then his emotional satisfaction is unable to arise at all.

It is not the man himself who is incomplete, since he is very much a complete and whole man. It is that he believes he is complete when he is emotionally satisfied in himself, and that this is owing to possessing another person added to himself. Foolish, since two complete wholes add to make another complete whole; yet the complete whole that is the man is not the same as the complete whole that is his emotional satisfaction. Yet he believes they are the same.

The thing is, he himself created the emotional dissatisfaction, and he himself created the dissatisfaction - the other person had no say or effect on the matter at all.

Foggy thinking abounds!

Elizabeth wrote:

"You are a lesser man than the whole of humanity, as I am a lesser woman than the whole of humanity. The whole of humanity is also lesser than the Whole of Everything - Ultimate Reality (i.e. - what I refer to as God)."

Wtf does it even mean to be a lesser man or woman than the whole of humanity? Is humanity a man or a woman? Is there any significance to the idea that one person is not as large as the whole? In what context are we even speaking of such comparisons? You wrote that in response to Urban's remark that "It would seem that my ability to do so makes me a "lesser man" because I am not "complete" within myself." What does humanity or "the Whole of Everything" have to do with the psychology of self-completion as tool for removing the addiction to co-dependent relationships?

Kelly responded with:

If the whole is defined to be a man with all his limbs intact, and a leg is amputated, then he is incomplete in himself until his leg is replaced.
If the whole is defined to be humanity with all its human members intact, and a man is missing, then humanity is incomplete until the man returns.
If the whole is defined to be everything, then it is incomplete unless everything is present in it.
If the whole is defined to be a sexual coupling with two persons, and one person is missing, then the sexual coupling is incomplete.

Limbs amputated, human members intact, incomplete sexual couplings, I'd say we've definitely been detoured to Tangent City!

And:

It is not the man himself who is incomplete, since he is very much a complete and whole man.

But doesn't act it, due to self-denial, and the baggage of various childhood issues, etc?

It is that he believes he is complete when he is emotionally satisfied in himself, and that this is owing to possessing another person added to himself.

What? This is two contradictory statements in one sentence. First he is satisfied in himself, and then he satisfied because he is completed by another person?

Foolish, since two complete wholes add to make another complete whole;

Practically speaking -- in action -- only if both people have done the work of self-completion on the psychological level. Otherwise their intrinsic wholeness will never surface, and only their co-dependent pathologies will interact, i.e. two half persons making one sort of whole person and then vying for control of the one.

yet the complete whole that is the man is not the same as the complete whole that is his emotional satisfaction.Yet he believes they are the same.

This verbiage may be clear to you, but not to me.

The thing is, he himself created the emotional dissatisfaction, and he himself created the dissatisfaction - the other person had no say or effect on the matter at all.

I never thought I would see you write that a person created his own situation. I thought you were in that "caused" camp.

...

Carl G wrote:

It is that he believes he is complete when he is emotionally satisfied in himself, and that this is owing to possessing another person added to himself.

What? This is two contradictory statements in one sentence. First he is satisfied in himself, and then he satisfied because he is completed by another person?

He imagines he is complete only when he is bonding with someone. He (already a whole and perfectly complete thing, but one who doesn't know it) believes he is only a whole and perfectly complete thing when there's another just like himself, who wishes to bond with him.

His own thoughts are responsible for this deluded state, in the sense that no one else's thoughts are. But he did not cause his present thoughts. Prior thoughts made them.

*sigh* I believe I'll have one more go at this -- to clear my head if nothing else.

I am not a man who believes in absolutes -- or it is possible that I am merely incapable of conceptualizing any absolute without a mental sub-note of "Yeah, but what IF...?"

I am a man who views men and women as essentially different than Men and Women. To clarify that I will say only that I observe/detect a difference 'twixt a Man/Woman and an alleged man or woman who is really nothing more than an ape walking around in a skin-suit.

I do hold (and no, I'm really not going to waste time spinning possible conjectures) that both the Male and Female essence hold good and bad aspects within themselves, a yin/yang, each with their merits and deficiencies; I further hold that to label Man inherently noble and superior while Woman is inherently base and vile is downright silly. We all have our part to play.

I enjoy this tangible, physical world around me -- even against the railings of those who want to suggest that "What if none of this is real?" ISN'T adequately countered by the retort "Well, what if it IS?" To that end I enjoy kissing women (or, in my case, woman) and that great set of boobs -- call it misogyny (in which case you're missing one major point) or call it hedonism (though that smacks of an addiction), or just call it one aspect of good old People. I'm not slave to it (although I'm sure someone here will inform me that I AM in fact a slave and merely don't realize it), at least not all the time (sure, sure, a partial slave is still a slave -- let's just get that one out of the way now, shall we?).

The suggested aspiration of this forum, the one basically summed up as "self-mastery" is all well and good as a goal, and one that I admire; however, to slam anyone's external experiences as "*sniff*... inferior..." is just as silly as telling me All we are is dust in the wind and then pretending you've just delivered something of great value. Nope, all you've offered me is either teen angst or your point of view.

It could be food for thought or it could be the need for a slap upside the head.

I hope to perpetually better myself, through experience, through exchange, meeting new people and visiting new places, provoking thought within myself AND in others, because last I checked I am not the only being here.

(What do you mean by 'here'? What do you mean by 'I'? What do I mean by 'mean'? Wait, this is giving me a headache in my eye! Really, come on, folks... Fun is fun with the newbie but the need to explain the obvious has gotten old; okay, okay, I took some of the bait, let's get back to business.)

To that end...

Trevor,

Call me an infant or simply call me an under-educated brute, but at least you said something in your last post directed at me, several somethings which I may respect as cogent thought.

I will say this: You are correct in your sentiment (or belief) and thus your use of the quote "A mindful man needs few words".

Given adequate education, erudition, vocabulary and, perhaps most importantly, TIME, a man may find he needs fewer words to adequately express himself.

Lacking alien technology or science fiction substances such as plascrete or transparent aluminum which would have enabled them to build skyscrapers and delicate, feathery aeries, the Romans built Rome with big, chunky blocks and mortar, lots and lots of mortar. It doesn't mean we shouldn't keep shooting for plascrete or transparent aluminum or the stars and intergalactic civilization, it just means they used the tools they had AND it doesn't diminish the magnificence of what they accomplished. If an architect visits Italy and all he can see are the mistakes and corrections he would make, he's really missing something vital.

Further, while a good, clear thought, shaved and trimmed until it's as clear as the ring of a crystal bell LIKELY requires little to express it, and because YOU may be capable of it (which I admire more than you may realize), to suggest that a mindful man needs few words CAN say the very thing it says, or it CAN be a mouthed mantra which still adds up to nothing more than my suggested "fastest gun in the West" routine.

In the mouth of a Zen master "Because the post was tired" carries layers of meaning; in the mouth of a novice it's psychobabble and horribly misleading.

My question: Given my own limitations in expression and the limited time in debate during what is clearly a hazing ritual, as long as I understand that the clear mind needs few words, shouldn't I still just go with the flow and use what I have NOW, just as someday, better equipped, I'll use what I have in a future NOW?

My second hypothesis on Mr. Quinn's view of my statements as misogynistic: The aforementioned hazing ritual; simple goading of the new guy, pick at him, see what he's made of.

My third hypothesis on same: Projection, plain and simple. I know Mr. Quinn is not a "simple" man, but sometimes things still boil down to an essence. We may call an ape a bandicoot or a lampshade, we still mean the hairy thing that throws its poo. Giving me the chemical breakdown of wine doesn't change the taste on the tongue.


Mr Quinn,

Hmm... no. Mayhap you're merely goading, but that would be assumption on my part. No, I have to say there's the occasion when something hidden to others is perceived and then there's the occasion where we play at being a superior being and simply twist words to suit our own ends. If you wanted to establish a pecking order then hell, it's already your forum, even pathetic, li'l ol' me knows that.

My question: How is it possible to REVEL in the transcendence of the Ego?

Carl G,

If our goal is to dissect a frog there is no use in dissecting said frog until we have separated every possible strand from every possible attachment IF in the end we declare "Why, there was never a frog at all, only this pile of goo!"

My question: IS there actually a spoon? (No, I mean to ask exactly that and it's not sarcastic.)


Kelly Jones,

He imagines he is complete only when he is bonding with someone. He (already a whole and perfectly complete thing, but one who doesn't know it) believes he is only a whole and perfectly complete thing when there's another just like himself, who wishes to bond with him.

His own thoughts are responsible for this deluded state, in the sense that no one else's thoughts are. But he did not cause his present thoughts. Prior thoughts made them.

By golly, that almost makes sense to my deluded, womanly way of thinking -- almost.

My question: Since there IS an ego BUT it's wise to be able to transcend it, mightn't it also be wise to wonder whether there might just be a valid use for said ego? Might that not take care of our need for awareness of the Inside and the Outside? (The possible answer might not be as ego-tistical as one would think.)


And finally:

Android husbands might work for women, but will never work for Women, just as a world without women (or Women) would never work for a Man. That womanless world MIGHT work for a man (read "skin-suit") who hated women because he refused to take the stick out of his ass and bend a bit (while claiming said stick made him taller and therefore a better specimen), and it might -- at least until he grew up a bit -- work for a teenager who still pretended that he was above a bit of onanism because his sexual prowess dictated a lack of need for said activity. (If I need to outline the irony and wisdom inherent in the teenager-example, Carl, either suck it up and forget it or pull your nose out of the damned book and go outside, take a look around.)

Thus, when all is said and done, Alleged Humanity needs some serious paring until we get down through the layers of nonsense to Real Humanity.

Also, androids would be cool just because.

I'm done now, this went way beyond silly a long time ago.

(Yes, Trevor, it was a lot of words, but I had a good time.)

[Enters the room, sweeping a heavy crimson cloak swiftly across her face, dagger sheathed against her forearm. Inhales...]

A welcome tune for the "newbie," Urban Sasquatch.

David Quinn wrote: For me personally, I would like to see women either becoming "good men" - that is, fearless sages - or else cease to exist altogether. In other words, I would like them to become something other the glittery rattles that they are, keeping the human race in baby-mode.

As for boundaries, Quinn - what boundaries are there between a man and a woman? Between a Mother and a son? The son, including th son's penis, was once inside his mother's vagina - during the birth process. Could your understanding that all boundaries are only imaginary have come from your mother violating what would have been normally considered healthy boundaries between a mother and son as individual human beings - but a mother's curiosity about how the male anatomy grows may have stepped across the boundaries of respect for you as a person? Is this where your hatred of Woman comes form David?

Although she may have told you she was just checking to make sure eveything was growing properly, or maybe checking to make sure it was functioning properly - as her duty as a mother - that would have been a lie if it was against your wishes for your personal boundary - wouldn't you agree?

Urban Sasquatch wrote:I am not a man who believes in absolutes -- or it is possible that I am merely incapable of conceptualizing any absolute without a mental sub-note of "Yeah, but what IF...?"

Asking "what if" will break down when you deal with an absolute. It only works on empirical facts and theories, where it is useful. It is absurd (as in, meaningless) if you ask "what if what is, is not?" or "what if I am not having experiences?"

hold good and bad aspects within themselves, a yin/yang, each with their merits and deficiencies; I further hold that to label Man inherently noble and superior while Woman is inherently base and vile is downright silly. We all have our part to play.

I don't think anyone has claimed that there is anything inherent in the differences between the sexes. What makes male values superior is a result of the environment. Women are short-changed in the values department. A virtuous woman is a good piece of property, a loyal pet, utterly devoted to husband and children, constantly trying to keep herself pretty and presentable. These are not values that are conducive to philosophic thought in herself or others, and a female should not consider these virtues.

There is no call to confuse this with yin/yang. It is closer to slave/Aristotle.

I enjoy this tangible, physical world around me -- even against the railings of those who want to suggest that "What if none of this is real?" ISN'T adequately countered by the retort "Well, what if it IS?"

That's why absolutes are stressed here: whether or not you are experiencing a true world, it is undeniable that you are experiencing something.

The suggested aspiration of this forum, the one basically summed up as "self-mastery" is all well and good as a goal, and one that I admire; however, to slam anyone's external experiences as "*sniff*... inferior..." is just as silly as telling me All we are is dust in the wind and then pretending you've just delivered something of great value. Nope, all you've offered me is either teen angst or your point of view.

The inferiority is qualified: female virtues are poor for philosophy. If they are good for something else, you can justify that, but it would be foolish to think that any set of values is good for everything. Mine are terrible for music appreciation. I don't think music is worth much, in relation to truth. I would not expect someone with my values to spend the time to become a masterful musician.

Anyone who thinks that everyone should be a philosopher is going to believe that womanly virtues are in the way.

My question: Given my own limitations in expression and the limited time in debate during what is clearly a hazing ritual, as long as I understand that the clear mind needs few words, shouldn't I still just go with the flow and use what I have NOW, just as someday, better equipped, I'll use what I have in a future NOW?

Definitely: don't use tools you don't have. I chose the quote because it's a good thing to remind people of, not a rule that everyone should follow mindlessly.

My second hypothesis on Mr. Quinn's view of my statements as misogynistic: The aforementioned hazing ritual; simple goading of the new guy, pick at him, see what he's made of.

My third hypothesis on same: Projection, plain and simple. I know Mr. Quinn is not a "simple" man, but sometimes things still boil down to an essence. We may call an ape a bandicoot or a lampshade, we still mean the hairy thing that throws its poo. Giving me the chemical breakdown of wine doesn't change the taste on the tongue.

Of the three, the second is closest to what I know of David. His motive is probably a bit less sinister, though. If he's able to pick a tonne of things you don't agree with out of your posts, you could stand to be a bit more clear.

Rather than adding words, delete sentences that could be misinterpreted as saying what you don't mean. Avoid the ones where someone can easily pull the "worst possible meaning" out of it. With the amount of sentences you write, it shouldn't hurt to delete a few. I generally delete at least half of the sentences I write to this forum.

Leyla wishes to be a female Jack the Ripper?

To be a genius?

Uh...

Urban Sasq wrote,

Carl G,

If our goal is to dissect a frog there is no use in dissecting said frog until we have separated every possible strand from every possible attachment IF in the end we declare "Why, there was never a frog at all, only this pile of goo!"

My question: IS there actually a spoon? (No, I mean to ask exactly that and it's not sarcastic.)

and,

...and it might -- at least until he grew up a bit -- work for a teenager who still pretended that he was above a bit of onanism because his sexual prowess dictated a lack of need for said activity. (If I need to outline the irony and wisdom inherent in the teenager-example, Carl, either suck it up and forget it or pull your nose out of the damned book and go outside, take a look around.)

Dude, I am pretty sure I don't know what you are talking about.

Golly, it occurs to me that we do not even know whether or not Elizabeth was serious in her opening post, about android men replacing biological ones. I took it as metaphor from the start and as satire on the equally incredible and practically unworkable idea of David Quinn's, to which she compared it, that of obviating the need and desire for biological women.

I sure haven't anticipated the bizarre string of opinions put forth in response. It's kind of entertaining, to be sure, but lacks any groundedness in reality. That is to say, this thread seems to be becoming a repository for people's darkest thoughts about the genders, willy nilly and not in any coherent fashion. I think it is perhaps due to the lack of specificity in the first post -- not saying this was a bad thing! -- giving this thread an air of science fiction and ushering strange lacks of both communication and clear point-making, compared to most of other gender threads we have seen here.