GENIUS FORUMS

Everything all animals and plants do is for the purpose of passing their genes on to the next generation. Everything.

Now are human beings so different to all other animals?

I think not.

Someone might think that they play sport because they enjoy playing sport, but from the biological point of view they are putting their health and skills on display for the opposite sex, and keeping in trim for the purpose of gaining resources and rearing a family. And they are networking to get friends to help with emotional and financial security.

The same can be said for genius. While women can't understand or value genius in itself, what they do understand is that it has potential for procuring many resources - which is good for rearing a family.

The philosophic genius is another matter of course, since he has little chance of procuring resources. He is not marketable.

ksolway wrote:Everything all animals and plants do is for the purpose of passing their genes on to the next generation. Everything.

Now are human beings so different to all other animals?

I think not.

How does a person who chooses to be sterilized in order to prevent having any children fit into that scheme? Where do homosexuals fit in?

Which planet to do you live on? Almost everything that young men do is to impress the chicks and get in their pants. Making money, climbing the social ladder, playing sports, joining a rock band, hooning around in cars - it's all done to attract females and have sex with them. Going off to war is no different.

It's a very strong biological and emotional force. The genetic continuation of the species hinges on it. The whole world revolves around it. Songs are continually sung about it. Books are continually written about it. Movies are continually made about it. Even viagra has been invented so that old people can keep on doing it.

It is not the only force which drives people, but it should never be underestimated.

The problem I have though is that this sex drive is one of the very most primeval attributes of being a human. Sure it is the penultimate driver of any complex life form - the ultimate driver being that which makes a thing try and become infinite in the first place, which is essentially no different in abstract form than whatever underlies gravity - but you have to admit that this sex drive was then the cause of the other masculine attributes.

All those things that you describe as being masculine would not have occurred is such a differentiated manner between the sexes, without masculine competition for the most valued female. I would say that males are the most direct cause of females present mental abilities, because women have to be able to keep up with men, they have to be able to attract men intellectually as well as sexually, while not beating them intellectually (perhaps as this would cause unnecessary competition when the offspring require a long term father). It is also accurate to reverse this, the females ability to be emotional catalysts has always driven men forward in various ways, including the evolution of rationality-valuing-minds and masculine purposefulness.

In folks inclined towards an understanding of reality, those positive masculine attributes like a desire for rationality, take on a more forward role - that’s all there is to it. A few can even almost totally overlay the sex drive, by gradually making the masculine cognitive experience more and more prominent, thus increasing its value while the sex drive loses value. Nothing noble about this. No reason to words things at times like you place blame on women for being women, and denigrate "normal men" because of their desire to compete for women.

I guess I expect the words of an imaginary buddha guru type from you all the time. I keep seeing positive and negative value systems where I expect a more dualistic approach. I expect an enlightened person to be able to tie both sides together, even where you need to teach someone to focus more on the masculine side of the equation, as you are probably just doing on this thread. Alternatively you might be trying to save the world, noticing its permanent trend to feminine ways and delusion - but isn't this desire in reality just the sex drive in a more generalised form, an attempt to procreate future human worlds that knows what you know.

Why do I keep expecting perfection from others, when I know perfection is impossible and I don’t expect it in myself. Silly me.

Edit: This is more the sort of stuff I'm talking about

Here we are fine

If we can't agree on this matter, then it is unlikely we would be able to agree on any matter at all. For the issue of the psychology of the sexes is intimately connected to every sphere of life, including the realm of philosophy and spirituality. That is why it is such an important issue. We can't just sweep it under the carpet and pretend that everything is hunky-dory.

but then we degenerate to this one sided value system, (although the latter part is fine).

I always regard the issue of woman as a kind of acid test. If a person doesn't despise everything that women stand for, and if he doesn't perceive the extreme inferiority of the feminine-minded when it comes to higher pursuits, then it's clear that such a person has no potential to be a genius and no hope of comprehending God.

James,

Why do I keep expecting perfection from others, when I know perfection is impossible and I don’t expect it in myself. Silly me.

Do you mean to imply that there is imperfection but not perfection? Perfection is as possible or impossible as imperfection.

How can there be such a thing as imperfection, but not perfection?

Leyla Shen wrote:James,

Why do I keep expecting perfection from others, when I know perfection is impossible and I don’t expect it in myself. Silly me.

Do you mean to imply that there is imperfection but not perfection? Perfection is as possible or impossible as imperfection.

How can there be such a thing as imperfection, but not perfection?

Of course there is perfection, as an ideal, and measuring the real against the ideal is to place the imperfect beside the perfect. I like the Muslim attitude: Only Allah is perfect. They screw up everything they start, on purpose, so their work is not an imitation of God, and after that, good enough is good enough.

I-Beam wrote:

When you first made this comment about super powers you used the term 'concept', as though the thing did not exist without a concept, or before the concept. I assure you the thing did exist before the concept, and many have taken a turn at that game, including Britain. Actually, the Catholic Church following the eleventh century qualifies as well, wielding much more power for its size than its size justified. And that is the real goal of being a super power. It is to accomplish things without a fight; which is a thing we cannot manage but now must, being up to our elbows in Iraq.

You didn't even read that long post of mine did you. In it, it refutes everything you are saying here. Are you one of those people who just doesn't like admitting when he's wrong. If I was presented with this by someone else my inclination in observing overwhelming evidence contrary to my believe, I would have to say "hey you were right".

And you know humans haven't evolved physically in the last 32,000 years. How did you come by this knowledge? Are you blessed? Socially, We have evolved. But how do you tell this?

I read books written by people who have devoted their entire lives to the study of Anthropology.

But I do enjoy both anthropology and Religion, so stick around and let me smack ya.

I think I am beginning to get you propellerbeanie...you're one of those people that likes to pretend he is "winning" an argument, rather than enjoying the intellectual interchange.

Actually It was Popes handing out blanket pardons for the killing of heathen Muslims during the crusades that sort of gives it away. Israel has been a going proposition for Jews for far longer than the 1940s, and the Puritans, which is the equal, though anachronisticly, of fundamentalist Christianity preceedes the founding of this country in this country.

That statement about past Popes may be true, but that has nothing to do with present day fundalmentalism, the present day view of the modern religions you are describing. Also: I wasn't talking about the idea or formation of Isreal, but the twentieth century fundamentalism that is currently dominating it.

No, at the time I replied to your short posts I did not read your long post. On the other hand, your inclination to stick to a super power definition based on The US, or the USSR, when there have been many, all of which have destroyed themselves by making enemies, and rotting within. Are we really different from the Othman Turks? From the Romans, and from the Greeks? I don't see much difference between us and the British, and think often that we are an extension of Britain, making the same mistakes as them down to supporting Israel, and fighting in Iraq, Pakistan, and Afganistan. And we are in no sense comparable to tribes on either side of a river.

Please do not pull Anthropological rank with me. First, I have a good library near at hand of books I have read on the subject. I am reading one now I'd like to recommend. It is Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, by Smith. I have only had one Anthropology class, but have read it for fun for over thirty years, among other subjects.
Once more. What makes you think people have not evolved, because my understanding is that that process is continuous; and what makes you believe people have evolved socially. I have reason to believe this later event has occured among some, but what is your mile post to that event?

Do you mean to imply that there is imperfection but not perfection?

No.

Perfection is as possible or impossible as imperfection.

Kind of. As your next point points to, it is not really a question of either.

How can there be such a thing as imperfection, but not perfection?

This is just unnecessary logical trickery. I was using the word to relative to my ideal of enlightenment, my ideal of the best that an enlightened mind should consistently display. Rhetorically..Perhaps you were pointing this out to suggest that this is what I'm doing with David's words?

Anyway, the reality would be that neither imperfection or perfection are particularly valid concepts in relation to the Totality. On a holistic level there can be no value judgements of such things.

An observer can only self-define what is sufficiently to their liking to be referred to as perfect. My logic indicates to me that the only perfection possible is that which is infinite, as it can never change what it does, as the infinite must be self-causing. Anything in between could be referred to as imperfect, because it is subject to change. At the same time anything that is caused cannot be imperfect, because it cannot be other than what it is at any particular time.

ksolway wrote:Everything all animals and plants do is for the purpose of passing their genes on to the next generation. Everything.

For completeness sake, their genes might also be a group property. For example many creatures will easily risk their own lives protecting the ones that carry most of their genes, like relatives, tribes, race, nation and so on.

In some cases, like beaching whales, some random interference is determining behavior with no seeming purpose at all. I think nature contains actually quite a few behaviors that have no purpose at all but if it endangers procreation it normally dies off rather quickly, over generations. At least, it used to do that...

Well, James, I’m not sure that we’re entirely on the same page, but let’s see how we go.

You, as an observer, observe that neither imperfection or perfection are particularly valid concepts in relation to the Totality and further state that accordingly there can be no value judgements of things as perfect or imperfect. So:

What does the infinite do?

1. The infinite causes itself and is thus infinite.
2. Therefore, the self-causing nature of the infinite is not subject to change.
3. Therefore, perfection is unchanging self-causation.

“Anything ‘in between’ could be referred to as imperfect because it is subject to change.”

4. All finite things are imperfect since they are subject to change.

Therefore, this statement is false:

James: At the same time anything that is caused cannot be imperfect, because it cannot be other than what it is at any particular time.

For a thing to be what it is at any particular time is for that thing to be finite; that is, subject to change.

If logic indicates that the only perfection possible is that which is infinite (that which can never change), then how do we get to the idea that those things which do change can also be considered perfect (or “not imperfect”) -- since they cannot be other than what they are at any given time -- without contradicting this basic assumption of perfection?

Jason wrote:

ksolway wrote:Everything all animals and plants do is for the purpose of passing their genes on to the next generation. Everything.

Now are human beings so different to all other animals?

I think not.

How does a person who chooses to be sterilized in order to prevent having any children fit into that scheme? Where do homosexuals fit in?

In the case of worker ants, which make-up the majority of an ant colony, they are all sterile, yet their whole lives are serving the purpose of passing on their genetic code to the next generation (through the queen).

Homosexuals, on average, pay more tax than heterosexuals, since they earn more money.

Therefore, this statement is false:

Quote:
James: At the same time anything that is caused cannot be imperfect, because it cannot be other than what it is at any particular time.

For a thing to be what it is at any particular time is for that thing to be finite; that is, subject to change.

If logic indicates that the only perfection possible is that which is infinite (that which can never change), then how do we get to the idea that those things which do change can also be considered perfect (or “not imperfect”) -- since they cannot be other than what they are at any given time -- without contradicting this basic assumption of perfection?

I am well aware of the conflict, it is the same conflict apparent in anything that one thinks is an absolute definition of reality. That is why I used the phrase “could be referred to” in this sentence - “Anything ‘in between’ could be referred to as imperfect because it is subject to change.”.

I guess it is the old problem of definition and perspective, the A=A-ness of anything observed requires a combination of something from the observer and something from the thing, making all apearances and thus all definitions subjective. As an observer I am required to make the finite into objective things, A requires a name, a definition. This means my definition of “perfect” can change in relation to what I am observing. In essence this means, I can say finite things are imperfect from one perspective and perfect from another.

From one perspective, namely that of things as being EFFECTS, is they are imperfect because they are subject to change, meaning the rest of the universe can alter them, they have to have something in their nature that is breakable, but from another perspective, namely that of being a PROCESS they are perfect because they are merely the result of the past, they are perfectly formed by the past, what they are is entirely what they are, they are an exact representation of all past causes.

When considered from the process perspective, it becomes kind of a good argument for the non-existence of things, as their perfection points to the interconnectedness and non-self-caused nature of all things. We already know this though, and I just think of things as being instances of “inherent” spatial patterns formed from forces that are infinite (which btw also makes the things themselves perfect, if one deducts the requirement for things to objectively be of a certain static form). The word inherent in that last sentence relates to those essential constituents or characteristics that enable differentiation or the existence of A=A - not to indicating permancy (as the QRS tend to use it).

Really all this points to is that imperfect or perfect are not concepts that should be applied to discussions about the nature of reality (but that wasn’t the context in which I used the term that started this conversation).

Ksolway:Everything all animals and plants do is for the purpose of passing their genes on to the next generation. Everything.

Now are human beings so different to all other animals?

I think not.

Jason: How does a person who chooses to be sterilized in order to prevent having any children fit into that scheme? Where do homosexuals fit in?

Ksolway: In the case of worker ants, which make-up the majority of an ant colony, they are all sterile, yet their whole lives are serving the purpose of passing on their genetic code to the next generation (through the queen).

Riiiiiiiiight. When did I say anything about ants Kevin? My sentence about sterilisation says "person". If I didn't know any better I might assume your reply was evasive.

Ksolway: Homosexuals, on average, pay more tax than heterosexuals, since they earn more money.

I didn't know ants paid taxes, and I was also unaware that the queens pay more taxes on average. Oh shit, we're back to humans now are we? My bad.

I've made posts like the above to David before. They never respond when it gets too difficult.

Ultimately they are as shallow as the rest of us, only a fundamentalist mindset keeps them going.

Sadly, I have finally decided for certain that I am philosophically superior to them. They are just people pretending to be find purpose in being a robot, hence what you will always get back is rote answers, practiced stuff.

Thank god I am not enlightened. The whole concept of enlightenment clearly needs rejection.

Jason wrote:

How does a person who chooses to be sterilized in order to prevent having any children fit into that scheme?

Given that we have evolved the ability to "break" our genetic programming to some extent with the development of the conscious mind, and also that mutations are a relatively frequent occurance in evolution, and that the desire for humans to sterilize themselves is extremely rare, I'm not sure that I see the point of the question.

Where do homosexuals fit in?

Now this is a far more interesting question. The fact that homosexuals consistently make up around 10% of the male population suggests that they had had an important role to play in our evolution as a species. It may well be that male homosexuals have arisen for the primary purpose of stengthening the bond between heterosexual males.

Our evolution as a species depended heavily on the tribe working together as a cohesive unit - or more particularly, on the males bonding together into a team culture. The females would have had little trouble bonding together through their shared passivity, unconsciousness and nurturing roles. Cementing together the wilder, more aggressive males, however, would have been far more problematical.

Our evolution as a species resolved this problem through a variety of different ways. One such way was the emergence of the pair-bond (and its later incarnation - marriage), which helped foster male bonding by ensuring that every male had a female. But another powerful way was the emergence of a homosexual class, which served as a stark contrast to the larger population of heterosexual males.

Nothing brings a community closer together than the presence of a collective enemy. The benefit of having homosexuals within the community is that it enables the heterosexual males to see more clearly just how grateful they are to be red-blooded heterosexuals. Even today, most heterosexual males regard the homosexual as a repulsive, emasculated creature who is barely human. Thus, through the existence of this mechanism, the heterosexual males can all band together and laugh at the poofs and queers, and thereby reaffirm their unity of purpose.

-

(edited for spelling - DQ)

Jamesh wrote:I've made posts like the above to David before. They never respond when it gets too difficult.

The way I see it, David and Kevin typically make long-term responses. Unfortunately, the individual they address is a long way behind, and has usually forgotten the precise information they need, by the time they need it.

Who tries talking to a motormouth who never listens? (oops)

Ultimately they are as shallow as the rest of us, only a fundamentalist mindset keeps them going.

Perhaps it's only because there is "the rest of us" that they talk at all.

Sadly, I have finally decided for certain that I am philosophically superior to them. They are just people pretending to be find purpose in being a robot, hence what you will always get back is rote answers, practiced stuff.

Would the stuff be correct only if it was always different, exciting, contradictory even?

Perhaps you'd find the Soka Gakkai Nichiren Buddhist sect satisfying, Jamesh. If you are devoted to chanting in singsong Japanese, especially when the sun rises in all its glory, you'll always find something different and interesting, because you'll never be troubled to see that it has no meaning.

Thank god I am not enlightened. The whole concept of enlightenment clearly needs rejection.

Rejecting what, exactly?

ksolway wrote:Everything all animals and plants do is for the purpose of passing their genes on to the next generation. Everything.

Now are human beings so different to all other animals?

I think not.

<snip>

The philosophic genius is another matter of course, since he has little chance of procuring resources. He is not marketable.

Only to another philosophic genius. Anyone else would imagine some use for him.

James wrote:

I guess I expect the words of an imaginary buddha guru type from you all the time. I keep seeing positive and negative value systems where I expect a more dualistic approach. I expect an enlightened person to be able to tie both sides together, even where you need to teach someone to focus more on the masculine side of the equation, as you are probably just doing on this thread. Alternatively you might be trying to save the world, noticing its permanent trend to feminine ways and delusion - but isn't this desire in reality just the sex drive in a more generalised form, an attempt to procreate future human worlds that knows what you know.

Yes, it's a form of procreation. However, given that we are constantly generating consequences with every action we perform, we are all engaged in procreation in every single moment of the day, whether we like it not. The sage merely ensures that his procreation is the wisest possible.

Edit: This is more the sort of stuff I'm talking about:

If we can't agree on this matter, then it is unlikely we would be able to agree on any matter at all. For the issue of the psychology of the sexes is intimately connected to every sphere of life, including the realm of philosophy and spirituality. That is why it is such an important issue. We can't just sweep it under the carpet and pretend that everything is hunky-dory.

but then we degenerate to this one sided value system, (although the latter part is fine).

I always regard the issue of woman as a kind of acid test. If a person doesn't despise everything that women stand for, and if he doesn't perceive the extreme inferiority of the feminine-minded when it comes to higher pursuits, then it's clear that such a person has no potential to be a genius and no hope of comprehending God.

I'm not sure that I see the problem. What is an example of something women stand for that is compatible with a life of wisdom?

In addition, how can the valuing of truth, or indeed of anything at all, lead to anything other than a one-sided value system? You're asking for the impossible, James.

(Or perhaps you're just asking for a response).

-

DavidQuinn000 wrote:(...) It may well be that male homosexuals have arisen for the primary purpose of strengthening the bond between heterosexual males.

It seems way more obvious to me that homosexuality itself has as primary purpose to strengthen the bonds between people of the same sex, when the circumstances call for it. And 'strengthening bonds' is just part of the total group dynamic; release and decrease of anxieties and tensions that could endanger the health of the group and its members.

Nothing brings a community closer together than the presence of a collective enemy. The benefit of having homosexuals within the community is that it enables the heterosexual males to see more clearly just how grateful they are to be red-blooded heterosexuals.

Quite far fetched. There's normally no lack of external enemies, really. The lonely 'omega' function as seen in wolf packs provides the function you suggest but can hardly be compared with how homosexuality functions in animal behavior. The hostility that seems to arise often against homosexuality seems to rise out of an almost religious overvaluing of heterosexuality (man-woman relation, classical marriage, 'divine unity' etc) than anything else.

Diebert wrote:

DQ: It may well be that male homosexuals have arisen for the primary purpose of strengthening the bond between heterosexual males.

BvR: It seems way more obvious to me that homosexuality itself has as primary purpose to strengthen the bonds between people of the same sex, when the circumstances call for it.

Your point here is unclear. Can you expand on it?

And 'strengthening bonds' is just part of the total group dynamic; release and decrease of anxieties and tensions that could endanger the health of the group and its members.

This doesn't explain why homosexuals consistently comprise 10% of the population, in cultures all around the world. This release of tension could just as easily be achieved without the existence of homosexuals, with the added bonus that the entire population is passing on its genes.

DQ: Nothing brings a community closer together than the presence of a collective enemy. The benefit of having homosexuals within the community is that it enables the heterosexual males to see more clearly just how grateful they are to be red-blooded heterosexuals.

DvR: Quite far fetched. There's normally no lack of external enemies, really.

Yes, but these enemies are not present all the time. There would have been plenty of slow periods in which the tribe could relax and socialize, and it is during these times that the cohesiveness among males would have helped been maintained by the presence of homosexuals. Indeed, one can go to any male social club nowadays and witness the strong heterosexual bonding which goes on - a bonding that implictly and explicitly defines itself in contrast with homosexuality.

The important aim during these downtimes is to minimize squabbling among the males and fracturing the group.

The lonely 'omega' function as seen in wolf packs provides the function you suggest but can hardly be compared with how homosexuality functions in animal behavior.

Such comparisons are often invalid. Our evolution as a species is unqiue in many ways.

The hostility that seems to arise often against homosexuality seems to rise out of an almost religious overvaluing of heterosexuality (man-woman relation, classical marriage, 'divine unity' etc) than anything else.

And, in turn, the almost religious overvaluing of heterosexuality arises out of the hostility towards homosexuality. Exactly my point.

-

David writes (of men):

They have almost single-handedly created civilization all by themselves

Then you must be rather unhappy with them, et al, particularly if the chief feature to civilization is its "feminized" qualities -- all, I've previously maintained, coming from concentric efforts to establish and maintain sexual/serving access to women from familial to world-wide spheres. This guilded cage would have to be "masculinity's" doing.

And Masculinity -- the replacement myth -- needs taken down just as assiduously and readily as the myth of Woman. This misty-eyed 'men-of-old' talk is grossly unfitting, if not retrograde to the hell-realms of ego.

Elsewhere has been written the 'nothingness' of women -- their fickle, indecisive and substanceless nature that is incapable of being anything but what it takes on, and what it takes on to please. Here also are the extreme examples of this -- women so believing this that they assume they will have to become men in order to become something, so fickle and so easily led as to bear this out. That something that one thinks they can/will become is the problem entirely, for all.

You cannot escape one cage by shuttling everyone over into another one. "Masculinity" is a myth. It has to go, too.

.

Jamesh: Alternatively you might be trying to save the world, noticing its permanent trend to feminine ways and delusion - but isn't this desire in reality just the sex drive in a more generalised form, an attempt to procreate future human worlds that knows what you know.

David:Yes, it's a form of procreation. However, given that we are constantly generating consequences with every action we perform, we are all engaged in procreation in every single moment of the day, whether we like it not. The sage merely ensures that his procreation is the wisest possible.

David, one of your main teachings is cause and effect. If you accept that from every cause, innumerable effects spread out into the universe, then how can you know what actions will lead to the wisest possible effects? It's like the chaos theory and butterfly effect: maybe your supposedy wise posts on this board will somehow cause(through a huge number of cascading effects) the total snuffing out of all wisdom 1000 years from now. Whereas if you didn't post, in 1000 years time wisdom would reign supreme for all of humanity.

Pye wrote:You cannot escape one cage by shuttling everyone over into another one. "Masculinity" is a myth. It has to go, too.

Have you heard of the story of the woman, who did a solo journey across the Australian outback, in a 4WD? She was on the Gibb River Road, that is notorious for its corrugations. The dirt roadside is littered with broken-down cars, fallen to pieces because of the jarring.

In the back of her 4WD was several jerry cans of petrol, and other essential equipment needed to complete the journey.

She didn't realise it, but the petrol containers, which she'd picked up at Kununurra, were all faulty around the seal. So, she was leaking petrol all the way.

With patient and careful driving, the ute lasted the trip. Hooray! She made it to the end of the road. But by the time she got there, she realised she had no petrol. Only then.




.

.


Among my blessings, I count:

- being single

- being ugly

- being sterile


Three mega human worries, vanished. It's quite remarkable how quickly sexual desires go, when one is sexually disempowered. Highly recommended.

Sexual sterilisation is not unrelated to the procreative urge. It is a version of celibacy. It's for one who longs to divert the mind from the distracting desire for sexual propagation, and towards the creation of something of greater value.

Granted, it is a boost to the ego. It is entertaining to mock fatalism.

On the plus side, it adds resoluteness and reasoning to most appearances of sexual desire. This branches out to other instinctive delusions.

A bit like a vaccination.


.

Pye wrote:

Elsewhere has been written the 'nothingness' of women -- their fickle, indecisive and substanceless nature that is incapable of being anything but what it takes on, and what it takes on to please. Here also are the extreme examples of this -- women so believing this that they assume they will have to become men in order to become something, so fickle and so easily led as to bear this out.

That’s been, fundamentally, the reason for my objection. But I think the point is, in the event that women do respond in this manner, nothing has been lost. They are no less wise than they were before. And the same goes for misogynists who will most certainly misunderstand it -- the kind that think their penises alone make them superior.

Given this, one may think that such discussions only exacerbate an already intolerable condition between the sexes.

It is not for them, apparently, that this forum exists. It is for those who wish to see beyond their own physicality into the quality of their soul (or thought), if they can.

That something that one thinks they can/will become is the problem entirely, for all.

Only for the neurotic. Personally, I think it’s more a matter of looking at what one is.

You cannot escape one cage by shuttling everyone over into another one. "Masculinity" is a myth. It has to go, too.

What would you put in its place, given the status quo?

How would you go about the challenge of making men and women both more conducive to the highest levels of reason?

You do not strike me as a indiscriminate nihilist, so I would imagine that you have given this idea some thought.

Pye wrote:Elsewhere has been written the 'nothingness' of women -- their fickle, indecisive and substanceless nature that is incapable of being anything but what it takes on, and what it takes on to please. Here also are the extreme examples of this -- women so believing this that they assume they will have to become men in order to become something, so fickle and so easily led as to bear this out.

Everyone is reincarnating at every moment. We all make choices about what to do next.

Pye's reincarnation, above, is choice to maintain the belief that a woman is okay as she is, and doesn't have to make any fundamental changes. She doesn't really have to do anything, so is free to change her mind at whim. If she finds she can't do anything, then she decides that purpose she set for herself is at fault. This mentality is far more fickle and indecisive, and lacking any substance.

Leyla wrote:But I think the point is, in the event that women do respond in this manner, nothing has been lost. They are no less wise than they were before.

On the contrary, a woman who sees her God-given equipment as meagre in comparison to her task, and responds to the situation by relying on God's grace to opt for different equipment, is certainly unwise in a womanly sense. She has lost herself.

I think this worries you, Leyla, and Pye. What could you be if you don't have the fallback position of "I'm acceptable just as I am" ?

And the same goes for misogynists who will most certainly misunderstand it -- the kind that think their penises alone make them superior.

These kinds of creatures are of the same ilk as the fundamentalism woman, who *instinctively* believe they have a mandate from heaven to rule over women.

The true misogynist doesn't believe it, but makes a conscious choice.

Given this, one may think that such discussions only exacerbate an already intolerable condition between the sexes.

It's only intolerable to the confused. It ought to be clarified.

It is not for them, apparently, that this forum exists. It is for those who wish to see beyond their own physicality into the quality of their soul (or thought), if they can.

Hormones, among other things, create the soul / conscience. As I've written elsewhere, conscience is consciousness of consciousness.

Pye wrote:That something that one thinks they can/will become is the problem entirely, for all.

Leyla wrote: Only for the neurotic. Personally, I think it’s more a matter of looking at what one is.

It's all very well to say this, Pye, but it really needs to be followed through. If a person can't see that they keep wanting to defend themselves, they'll never break through to give enlightenment a decent go.

"Masculinity" is a myth. It has to go, too.

How would you go about the challenge of making men and women both more conducive to the highest levels of reason?

A feminine mind will always rely on femininity (removing all the stones one needs to strike one's heel against) to solve her problems.




.