GENIUS FORUMS

What a thoughtful post, Diebert!

I especially like the closing question.

Jamesh wrote:

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.

They probably just stick to the basics, because if people do grok these basics properly then they should be able to think for themselves. I don’t think they enjoy (ahh another emotion) having to respond on this forum with a lot of thought to questions that are repeated from time to time. Wolf, Dave Toast and maybe David Hodges have gone on to think for themselves. I still have question marks about you, Sue and Rhett – there is far too much earnestness and extremeness in what you post, for me, a nihilist, to take that much notice of what you say.

Do you mean that those who completely understand the basics about the non-existence of things, don't accept these basics completely, and therefore still experience degrees of fear and happiness, owing to their attachment to things, like having what they express (about the basics) understood ?

Or do you mean that it is impossible for one person to lead another all the way to enlightenment, because any intellectual process is unique ?

You are a nihilist, Jamesh? I thought nihilism doesn't exist.

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

Are you describing just me or both of us?

I get the impression that the QRS never really listen. It is like we non-enlightened have nothing to offer them, and I don’t think that is true.

Because enlightenment liberates one from feeling better or worse than anything else, or the belief that some things are essentially real and valuable, it's very easy to pay acute and uncloudable attention to absolutely everything that appears. By nature, the enlightened mind can pay far more attention to things, than an unenlightened one can. It wants and needs for nothing.

Jamesh wrote:

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

Maybe, something makes me think they’d still get involved in arguments, even without a desire to promote the reality truths they see.

An enlightened mind doesn't have desire to promote truth, but just does so, from having no desire left to avoid it.

kjones wrote:

Jamesh wrote: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?

This is worded a bit like I think they are more incorrect than correct, which is not really the case. Incomplete rather than complete is the way I’d put it.

In your opinion, what is the essential truth that has not been discussed on this forum?

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.

My disappointment with the completeness of their philosophies does lead me to take immediate interest in new similar philosophies that come up, yes (like that Actual Freedom site that Dan posted a few months ago for instance).

As for your sarcasm in pointing to some dud religion, well then you clearly know little of me.

It wasn't sarcasm. I was mocking you a little, but really, it was a direct response to what you stated you wanted (indirectly). I suggested it because you didn't like "practiced, rote stuff". That seemed to indicate that you think philosophy is about something exciting, rather than finding ultimate truth. All religions are about something exciting.

One of my objections to the QRS is precisely what you are pointing to here – imo they have a kind of romantic love of rational mysticism – as shown by professing enlightenment and being in love with people like Kierkegaard, and all the eastern gurus like Nagarjuna who carry on about emptiness without actually saying anything and who often say things that conflict with other things they’ve said.

Is this what you see as their incompleteness: an inability to follow through with rational conclusions about Truth, and being hung up on the exciting part? Sounds like you're projecting your own situation on them, which could be quite misleading.

Also, if a person claims to be enlightened, it doesn't necessarily mean they are in love with rational mysticism. It may be an honest response to a question, "Are you enlightened?" It also may not.

As for "being in love with Kierkegaard": It is far more useful to deeply honour any one who has an incredibly strong mind that continues to have faith in what it has reasoned to be absolutely true, despite being confronted with 100% resistance. That is a measure of one's own potential. Sure, it speaks of an attachment, but if there is any irrational tendencies in oneself, the most logical way to solve it, is through attachment to rationality - and exemplars of such.

Incidentally, it can be useful to say things that contradict with earlier statements, if the correspondent is getting too attached to particular ideas, and not looking at their meaning. For instance, Kierkegaard often expressed a loathing of philosophy, and promoted the religious mentality, yet Hakuin often expressed a loathing of religious fanatics, and often expressed support for intense intellectual investigation (philosophy).

Another example: Kevin has cast malicious slurs on love in the "Manual of Love" and mocked it with poetry in "The Lovebase", and yet often used Sri Ramakrishna's descriptions of love. He is using one word to describe two different ideas. But there's often lots of contextual information to discern the differences.

kjones wrote:

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

Kelly: Rejecting what, exactly?

The facade of achievement, of superiority over other humans, I guess. What Pye said here: “That something that one thinks they can/will become is the problem entirely, for all.”

Am I thus hypocritical when I said “Sadly, I have finally decided for certain that I am philosophically superior to them”.

You misunderstood Pye. She was speaking of the delusional attachment to something, believing it to be Reality. This is not what enlightenment is about, by definition.

So, in effect, you're rejecting a false definition of enlightenment, believing that you're rejecting a true one.

Yes :) I think I said that because I was cranky about inconsistencies I feel in David’s responses to Victor on this thread. I’d also had a few drinks.
http://p088.ezboard.com/fponderersguild ... 1448.topic

I know I’m not philosophically superior in toto, I lack experience and display far too much immaturity, too much aggression, but in some areas I do find them lacking.

David:
“If a person doesn't despise everything that women stand for”
I'm not sure that I see the problem.

At TPG you recently said: “Since a Buddha has broken down the illusion of things existing, he is no longer capable of perceiving a threat in anything. This is because he perceives that nothing fundamentally exists, not even his own self. Thus, the whole basis for experiencing emotion vanishes. The process of generating emotion inside his brain is permanently disabled. From now on, it is literally impossible for him to experience an emotion of any kind. He is in Nirvana.”

To despise requires emotion. To despise everything about some other thing requires a LOT of emotion. To use words like “He is in Nirvana” requires emotional attachment to some ideal and the use of emotions to even sense Nirvana day-to-day.

Your conclusion is based on a false definition. That is, that a Buddha, who is in Nirvana, is the same one who despises all that women stand for.

David meant that a person who doesn't see how foolish, pathetic, and childish the feminine mind is, has no hope of becoming enlightened. This is because the feminine mind is not capable of valuing individuality, reasoning, self-reliance, personal responsibility and loyalty to truth whilst under stress (endurance). The person who does despise femininity, and does value these masculine attributes, has hope of becoming enlightened. In other words, is not yet enlightened (is not a Buddha), but may well become so.

kjones wrote:What is an example of something women stand for that is compatible with a life of wisdom?

A societal structure that makes others produce resources that you can use.

You've got to be kidding! Women are wise because they drive the demand in societies to produce 1,000,000 different brands of skin-cream?

You have a very odd picture of what kind of resources are useful ! You must have quite a health regime going on there.

David: 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.

Most probably I am asking for the impossible. Values are needed for action, purpose and direction, and valuing truth is needed to steer one towards rationally considered change. Any value does require onesidedness, I agree. I would just like you to make it clearer that any vlaued thing is not the whole truth though, that one should be aware of the limitation of this onesideness, whenever they utilise it for practical reasons.

I'll continue my response, even though you are addressing David.

Valuing truth excludes valuing falsehood, and enables all things to be considered truthfully. This is penultimate to considering the whole truth.

Thus, the one-sided value system is limited only insofar as one is not considering all things falsely. That's what you seem to be asking for.

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

Maybe, I do chuck this same wobbly every 6 months or so :). Clearly I am seeking acknowledge from others for ideas of mine that I have not seen the QRS express. In my head your philosophies do not tie everything together in a sufficiently complete form for me to say “that’s all I need to know”.

You do tie everything together in a sort of two dimensional way, your posts are like the provision of a set of instructions on how an individual can draw reality themselves on a piece of paper, but I want a three dimensional understanding. I want both the inside and outside of reality or the yin and yang of reality together with an unbiased combination of the two, to be encompassed all in the one mental picture. I think your value leanings towards Yang distorts this three dimensional picture in some fashion, albeit that I cannot disagree that valuing those yang attributes that are philosophically positive is needed for progression. It is this non-distorted perfection that I’m after, and to get it I think one has to delve more deeply into truths like Everything is Caused, to separate and understand its yin and yang components and then to recombine them into a new conceptual “Everything is Caused”, that has a trivalent meaning.

Those philosophical systems I’ve seen elsewhere on the web that do offer views on non-duality (the combination of the two yin and yang poles) tend to be too wishy washy, too irrationally spiritual, too inclined to Mind/Matter dualism. They don’t appear to pay equal enough critical attention to the inside and outside components of reality, and make things one dimensional rather than three dimensional.

I predict you’ll just think l’m crapping on, but I don’t think so – I think this is a reason certain people continue to argue with you, even where they accept your core teachings.

I think this is summed up by the previous quote above, where you preferred a value system that was not one-sided (absolute truthfulness), ie. that allowed another option to "either/or", namely, "indecisive".

Is this correct?

The only other option I could think of, is that this third dimension is your personal responsibility, ie. experience, rather than the intellectual process. However, these processes are inseparable.

And anyway, this is still the two options only: either this (absolute truthfulness), or this (not absolute truthfulness).

Leyla Shen wrote:Kelly, you wrote the following (and I'm keeping it to the very last two of your posts, for now):

Pye: 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.

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

Kelly: 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.

(Then I tried to point out that my assumption was that Pye was referring to women becoming physical men -- emphasised in bold above -- which was all but entirely ignored as a significant part of this particular conversation. Kind of like me saying, "Yes, I know what a cat is, but I'm referring to dogs, here.")

Kelly, in her last post to me: I'll try, in a third post, to clarify what I said in the last two. All three have the same meaning, namely, that the enlightened person uses their genetically-derived equipment to be capable of mutating out of an unenlightened understanding. But I don't expect you to accept that.

Wot? An enlightened person (that is, a person who has already achieved enlightenment) uses their masculinity (“in this task,” being enlightenment itself, I thought) to mutate out of an unenlightened understanding?

Yes, you're right. I must have lost my train of thought, there.

It should have read,

"......the unenlightened person uses the most appropriate of their genetically-derived equipment to be capable of mutating out of an unenlightened understanding."

propellerbeanie wrote:

kjones wrote:

Pye wrote:Woman is not okay as she is. Her condition is deplorable, and as all things determined and caused, her condition is what she becomes; it is her limiters.

No, if she were 100% isolated, and existed inherently, then she would be incapable of mutating. As it is, she is free to break the mold.

Break your mold.

It is happening, slowly.

propellerbeanie wrote:

kjones wrote:You have never experienced any female who is less capable than any male of reaching the highest levels of reason.

This is equivalent to claiming to be perfect, Pye.

I'll go along with this. No wonder men used to worship women as God. The very thing that makes her rich makes me feel poor.

Used to? Apart from yourself, and several others here, it would seem very much a current fashion.

propellerbeanie wrote:

kjones wrote:

Pye wrote:They are restricted conditions (for all) and hence for women in particular, make for some ridiculous compensatory strivings for excellence in ridiculous and restricted fields.

Do you mean that a woman's deplorable conditions (what constitutes femininity) urge her to make the same egotistical mistakes?

This is like saying biology is fate. But so is nationality. Being defeated in a conquered country brings out some strange behavior, does it not? How about being considered second rate on the basis of having more brains than brawn? Ethic is character, and character is fate.

No, nothing is fated, incapable of change. Similarly, whatever genetically-derived equipment one has inherited, including race, (not the title of that race, ie. nationality, as a title can apply to individuals of any racial background - and thus, also the status of that title, e.g. "colonial"), intellectual ability, character, and conscience, are also not impervious to change.

propellerbeanie wrote:

kjones wrote:

Pye wrote:I could easily argue the fundamental aggressiveness of women;

Did you know women, far more than men, go for the terror-inducing, and extremely violent videos? Doesn't that say something about an instinctively criminal nature?

Aggressivness and violence are human social traits.

But far more women than men go for these videos. To me, this says that women's aggressiveness is more instinctively criminal, because it isn't expressed openly. How aggressiveness and violence are expressed says much about the character of a person.

propellerbeanie wrote:

kjones wrote:

Pye wrote:....and then as well argue a fundamental and immense "passivity" in males overall; a giving-over, if not to women for love and care, then god;

Yes, most males are childish, playing 12-year-old computer games for hours and hours. But is this really a sign of passivity, or of going for the symbolic realm of most power?

Can you imagine an army of women? I'd rather try to hurd a million chickens as tell half as many women to Charge.

Not surprising, really. The image that comes to mind is a berserking riot. For an army of women to be soldiers means that they have to be extremely well-trained to accept authority, that has ordered them to put their own lives at risk. This requires that the individual consciously apprise the situation, and be self-reliantly organised, as well as to temper any instinctive destructivity. I cannot think of any all-woman army, simply because the category just doesn't tweak.

This doesn't mean that women are more powerful. Several million locusts can wreak great havoc on crops, but far greater havoc can be wreaked by just one consciously scheming human.

propellerbeanie wrote:

Pye wrote:this perfectly enlightened buddha [is] entirely [feminine, because feminine is] the great passivity of understanding, the great effortless comfort of knowing and mergence; this passive-expansive universe taking-within or merging without. The inward journey in itself, the attention to flow in all things

You know me better than my mirror! Especially the Buddhaha part.

forgive my disrespect. pb

Why did you disagree with Pye's description ?

Kelly,

It should have read,

"......the unenlightened person uses the most appropriate of their genetically-derived equipment to be capable of mutating out of an unenlightened understanding."

OK. But, for clarity’s sake, is this the idea you cannot see me accepting? I am very interested in exactly what idea it is that you think I would not accept. This is another one which I do not accept as it is stated and I shall give you my reason:

“Unenlightened person” appears to me to be too broad a category, since both masculine- and feminine-minded people can be grouped into it. So, in the case of the feminine-minded (male or female), all this statement tells me is that the most “appropriate” of their genetically-derived equipment will be those of the feminine, thus rendering that particular group of unenlightened persons, unenlightened.

I think it would be more accurate for you to say that the unenlightened, masculine-minded individual uses the most appropriate…etc. Or, are you intentionally indicating that the feminine can be useful/appropriate in some instances with regard to enlightenment?

Alternatively, you may be indicating more that every individual is capable (no matter how slight) of mutating out of an unenlightened understanding, since the 100% feminine-minded individual is hypothetical only, by using reason (most appropriate, genetically-derived quality) -- in which case, I would agree (without going into what the odds of it actually happening are -- but, with time and wisdom, perhaps…).

Kelly writes:

I've edited your quote below, but it means the same:

Quote:
this perfectly enlightened buddha [is] entirely [feminine, because feminine is] the great passivity of understanding, the great effortless comfort of knowing and mergence; this passive-expansive universe taking-within or merging without. The inward journey in itself, the attention to flow in all things

Thanks to this [unacceptable] reversal of expression, Kelly, I get now that it is two fronts upon which I object to the mas/fem delineations presented here. I get now that one category is created for all qualities that do not pertain to enlightenment (feminine) and the other category is created for all things conducive to enlightenment (masculine). 1. These delineations are not parallel to the classical tao-sense of yin-yang as I know them; and 2. I object to the use of the sub-classifications of human qualities in any case.

I add as well that all human qualities are potential and actual to all humans in more or less degrees, and that the largest number dis-inclined to enlightenment; to any efforts of consciousness in either gender is equivalent. I also add that those qualities classically (sub)delineated in the Tao (into mas/fem) are for knowing when, and so things like passivity; inwardness; flowing; etc. take their place in the way of things. Here, on the Genius Forum, "femininity," I get now, is basically a synonym for "unconscious." I would object to that characterization, too.

then Kelly:

This is how I'd break down your post:

You say you value "putting forth as many possible conditions conducive to the highest levels of reason" but you don't see an emphasis on masculinity as other than "a waste of time to subdivide into categories so amenably irritant to ego, pro and con."

Now when you say "an emphasis on masculinity," I understand you as saying an emphasis on "consciousness." It's a "stupid pet trick," as they say.

K: You have never experienced any female who is less capable than any male of reaching the highest levels of reason.

I have not said "any" for either gender, as if to imply the ready-at-hand nature of enlightenment to all. By the same token, why isn't this possible through the thinnest of tissue, as universally available to all, as the Buddha outright states? I am not the creator of the paradox of how very close is that which seems so far away to most of us all.

And too, I told only the simplest observation from the limited context in which I see these things; in the narrow confines of university classrooms where philosophy is presented, to understand, and then to challenge, and the use of reason is the only available tool, and writing about it (extensively) with words (and speaking it) the only available expression -- why in all this - albeit narrow as it is - have I found absolutely no evidence to support the notion that males are more readily inclined and/or capable of abstract reasoning than females? In every case, there is simply equivalency of rareness for either gender to excel, and where excellence is apparent, no striking statistic to present; no misbalanced ratio.

Yes, they go on their ways, to the land of 100 face creams, and another thousand conditions into which far louder and more suffocatingly immediate values are presented to each gender: males bending heavily under the notion of their future value resting only in monetary potency; females bending heavily under the notion of their ever-present value resting only in their sexual/service value to the rest of humanity.

Do you mean that a woman's deplorable conditions (what constitutes femininity) urge her to make the same egotistical mistakes?

I think a woman's deplorable conditions constitute her humanity, and that men suffer under the same conditions, so that consciousness-raising in general is at its same historical low-point as it has always been and that this has probably never changed. It has probably never changed because societal base-values have never changed in the subject(men)/object(women) dynamic. The entertaining of these sub-categories here is just one of endless examples of its entrenched, enculturated persistence.

K: I think it's a wake-up call. If one looks honestly at what humans are capable of, and realises that one is inseparable from this, then it means one is capable of being influenced.

"Look[ing] honestly at what humans are capable of" is the most challenging phrase of all here, Kelly, because I have my suspicions that mas/fem tautology does not -- in spite of how 'brave' it thinks it is -- enable this fullest honesty to happen. And if you realize this inseparability from all-humanity, then why work so hard to insist on fundamental divisions?

K: Why do you distinguish men as overall being passive, yet not say that women are exactly the same?

I did not distinguish men as "overall being passive" but suggested that fractals for any human qualities can be projected for any gender in any situation. It's a perfect point for how useless this all becomes. We will not be able to say anything about either gender with any alacrity.

I'm at a loss how to understand your conclusion, that you see, statistically, both females and males to be equally weak, yet both having exactly the same manifestations of reaching the highest levels of reason.

I'm okay enough with this characterization, Kelly, but my brow's not particularly wrinkled over it as "illogical" or contradictory. It is true in my experience that both males and females are generally not suited to any sort of highly conscious or contemplative life (due to 'weakness,' or whatever). It is also true that I believe the Buddha when he suggests that there is nothing entirely special about his knowledge and that each human mind suffering in its isolation also has the keys to its own release.


.

Leyla Shen wrote:

It should have read,

"......the unenlightened person uses the most appropriate of their genetically-derived equipment to be capable of mutating out of an unenlightened understanding."

“Unenlightened person” appears to me to be too broad a category, since both masculine- and feminine-minded people can be grouped into it. So, in the case of the feminine-minded (male or female), all this statement tells me is that the most “appropriate” of their genetically-derived equipment will be those of the feminine, thus rendering that particular group of unenlightened persons, unenlightened.

I think it would be more accurate for you to say that the unenlightened, masculine-minded individual uses the most appropriate…etc. Or, are you intentionally indicating that the feminine can be useful/appropriate in some instances with regard to enlightenment?

Alternatively, you may be indicating more that every individual is capable (no matter how slight) of mutating out of an unenlightened understanding, since the 100% feminine-minded individual is hypothetical only, by using reason (most appropriate, genetically-derived quality) -- in which case, I would agree (without going into what the odds of it actually happening are -- but, with time and wisdom,perhaps…).

Of course, only one who knows he is unenlightened is aware that he knows it. Therefore, he also knows what is the most appropriate equipment to know truth from falsehood.

Learning is logic, applied to different things. Philosophy is a branch of learning that looks at the tree, rather than a branch. But it also looks at itself as a branch.

.

Jamesh wrote:As for your sarcasm in pointing to some dud religion, well then you clearly know little of me.

I've given this a little more thought. Would it be true to say, Dan said a year ago that he'd seen jack development in you, in all the time he'd known you?

I assumed you'd left the forum because of that. What have you been up to in the past year?

Kelly: I'll answer the easy question and leave your previous response to me to later.

I've never left the forum. In the previous forum I was jimhaz. I've been spending more time at TPG than here, mostly mucking around for entertainment.

I keep coming back here whenever something pops up of interest (usually when there is a new poster), or whenever I'm feeling more philosophically minded than normal.

And just one thing from the previous post
You are a nihilist, Jamesh? I thought nihilism doesn't exist.

I think Dan may have said that. Don’t recall the context. I do recall though that I didn’t know what he was meaning in saying this.

To me nihilism is the state in which ones understands much about the nature of reality, but does not have a significant emotional attachment to truth. Without an attachment to seeking more and more truth, then one is left rudderless, heading in whatever direction nature takes one, without having any purpose other than a desire to be entertained [entertainment=happiness in the here and now].

As far as I am concerned there is only so much ultimate truth one can learn, as IMO ultimate truth is limited to matters pertaining to the physical realm, the abstract processes of nature - and the rest is mere detail. For example these debates over masculine and feminine are mere unimportant detail to me – it is only important to point out the traits required for a person to be open enough to an understanding of nature. With an understanding of reality, including the reality of competing patterns of power, all human values, including those of yourself and the QRS in relation to truth and enlightenment, and all the other rights and wrongs of human endeavour, become merely values relating to particular egos, and thus cannot be considered as having objective value.

Nihilism may be a temporary mental existence – its effects on how a person relates to others in day to day matters may cause unhappiness, which in turn may cause a desire for an “Escape To Purpose” and the only rational purpose that a nihilist could have, where the truth makes normal human happiness’s untenable, is more of truth.

Thanks for your honesty.

So, (Jim?) nihilism is a particular ego. It seems that this ego, that still needs to be entertained, needs to understand Reality more deeply. Valuing truth and rationality, rather than purposelessness, can help it do this, and thereby lose the desire to be fed by others.

Would you agree with this?

.

Pye,

I'm quite afraid of the direction this interaction is taking. I cannot claim to have any justifiable opinion of knowing which individuals have reached perfect enlightenment. It's really on my shoulders to state quite firmly that having so little experience, as I do, of enlightenment, it would be astonishing to proclaim particular individuals as certainly enlightened!

Also, I'm personally not addressing my delusions in the proper manner, so while I consider your reply important, I'm probably not going to respond for a while.

This discussion is akin to two trainee abseilers - who aren't of the Sherpa race - arguing over the relative merits of various Olympic-gold-medallist mountaineers (even disregarding gender!), discussing which one had best conquered (unknown) crevices, knife-ridges, and Ice Falls of various mothers in the Himalayas without oxygen, sherpa guides, ascent teams, or adequate food.

So, being aware of that astonishing and preposterous pride, natural to one of my level, I have to warn you that I might make such personages (and their qualities) up! Another warning, is that I have had adequate insight to know what kinds of qualities lead to these imposter postures, and which don't.

We both value truth, it seems. But how much?




On another matter, I wish we had hypertext-hypertext. Every branching away from an original post in a thread would show a link (sub-thread). When that sub-thread went back to the main thread, but then branched off again in its original direction
(responses to), it would show a link to the previous sub-tree thread, but appear as a new section in it, somewhat like a new growing season's "second year branch".

Sounds confusing, but just shows how the burgeoning creation of different branches, that appear in time as sequential, are actually not.

This is a way of introducing how I'm going to organise the replies. Where they obviously return to a particular point ("original" post), the quote breaks - or that might be where it warrants a reply.

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

D: Traditionally, the term "masculinity" has refered to the bundle of psychological traits found most often in men. As we all know, men are generally physically stronger, more aggressive, more single-minded, more attached to logic, more
solution-orientated, and more anti-social. Women, on the other hand, tend to be more passive, more nurturing, more attached to feelings and relationships, more sensual, more childlike and more able to find happiness in the moment. These are generalizations, of course, but most men and women seem to fit neatly into their respective gender categories.

P: There is no use in any of this to me.

K: 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.

P: Woman is not okay as she is. Her condition is deplorable, and as all things determined and caused, her condition is what she becomes; it is her limiters.

K: No, if she were 100% isolated, and existed inherently, then she would be incapable of mutating. As it is, she is free to break the mold.

-

P: They are restricted conditions (for all) and hence for women in particular, make for some ridiculous compensatory strivings for excellence in ridiculous and restricted fields.

K: Do you mean that a woman's deplorable conditions (what constitutes femininity) urge her to make the same egotistical mistakes [edit: and not to improve]?

P: I think a woman's deplorable conditions constitute her humanity, and that men suffer under the same conditions, so that consciousness-raising in general is at its same historical low-point as it has always been and that this has probably never changed. It has probably never changed because societal base-values have never changed in the subject(men)/object(women) dynamic. The entertaining of these sub-categories here is just one of endless examples of its entrenched, enculturated persistence.

-

P: I would want to speak to the qualities themselves, in every case, for everyone to register awareness. Why sink to the penury of mere statisticians? :)

K: I think it's a wake-up call. If one looks honestly at what humans are capable of, and realises that one is inseparable from this, then it means one is capable of being influenced. I certainly don't care if it is mistaken as power-mongering when I say "I want to kill all evil". I know it is the very opposite, since there is absolutely no power to be gained in killing all evil.

P: "Look[ing] honestly at what humans are capable of" is the most challenging phrase of all here, Kelly, because I have my suspicions that mas/fem tautology does not -- in spite of how 'brave' it thinks it is -- enable this fullest honesty to happen. And if you realize this inseparability from all-humanity, then why work so hard to insist on fundamental divisions?

You're saying: people are generally not enlightened probably because they emphasise gender categories, and that they'd have far less difficulty recognising the all-encompassing, egoless, indivisible nature of Reality, if they didn't use fundamental divisions. (?)

This is ok for someone who intellectually divides Reality up into truth and falsehood, and knows that Reality is truly empty of any form. Otherwise they'd think things like, "There is no division between truth and falsehood, so this statement is neither what it is or what it isn't. It isn't what it is. It isn't what it isn't. It's...um....um....Oh, fuck...I don't know, I give up."

Thus, I insist on truth. I definitely divide truth from falsehood, logic from illogic, intellectual strength from spineless conformity, etc. Such divisions allow me to perceive what is logically true, to believe that it is ever-reliable, and then --- maybe! --- to have the guts to abandon delusional interference. Then and only then can I realise God.

P: I don't know how all the neurosis and neurotic thinking surrounding females and femininity can be mistaken for anything other than similar human impulses to some sort of excellence, some kind of value, forced into object-shapes.

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

P: This can be accomplished better than leaping over, too. This can be conscious work that directs and expects the qualities themselves. I value truth, and courage and wisdom, I value fluid intelligence. These things can be spoken of by everyone;
it's that simple. Everyone can see more or less where everyone else is coming from in their awareness. The "categories" become different; the templates don't have to block the view.

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

P: That way exactly. Putting forth as many possible conditions conducive to the highest levels of reason.

K: You say you value "putting forth as many possible conditions conducive to the highest levels of reason" but you don't see an emphasis on masculinity as other than "a waste of time to subdivide into categories so amenably irritant to ego, pro and con."

P: Now when you say "an emphasis on masculinity," I understand you as saying an emphasis on "consciousness." It's a "stupid pet trick," as they say.

I think you mentioned to David that masculinity was a myth. I interpreted that as an objection to an emphasis on masculinity, as a particular something. So, I was interested to know what kinds of "categories" or reason-conducive conditions you'd suggest, you know, useful stimulants for greater rationality, and why you'd suggest that any irritation to egotism is definitely not useful?

P: I could say defensively for days what I know is demonstrated through years teaching, that males and females can be equally encouraged to abstract thinking; where they fall off either edge is equivalent numerically for either gender....

K: You have never experienced any female who is less capable than any male of reaching the highest levels of reason. This is equivalent to claiming to be perfect, Pye.

P: I have not said "any" for either gender, as if to imply the ready-at-hand nature of enlightenment to all. By the same token, why isn't this possible through the thinnest of tissue, as universally available to all, as the Buddha outright states? I am not the creator of the paradox of how very close is that which seems so far away to most of us all.

Allow me to clarify this. Your hypothesis is:

1. The highest levels of reason are the same as "falling off the upper edge" of abstract thinking, which you say is equivalent numerically for either gender. That is, you have experienced females and males displaying the highest levels of reason, ie. enlightenment.

2. Therefore, you have no doubt of your own enlightenment.



To be sure, in the university classroom where you are teaching philosophy, you must definitely be teaching about enlightenment, and have experienced at least two students, a male and a female, both having nothing that distinguish them in terms of gender, having the same enlightened understanding that you do. Correct?

As you say:

P: And too, I told only the simplest observation from the limited context in which I see these things; in the narrow confines of university classrooms where philosophy is presented, to understand, and then to challenge, and the use of reason is the only available tool, and writing about it (extensively) with words (and speaking it) the only available expression -- why in all this - albeit narrow as it is - have I found absolutely no evidence to support the notion that males are more readily inclined and/or capable of abstract reasoning than females? In every case, there is simply equivalency of rareness for either gender to excel, and where excellence is apparent, no striking statistic to present; no misbalanced ratio.

D: What is an example of something women stand for that is compatible with a life of wisdom?

J: A societal structure that makes others produce resources that you can use.

K: You've got to be kidding! Women are wise because they drive the demand in societies to produce 1,000,000 different brands of skin-cream? You have a very odd picture of what kind of resources are useful ! You must have quite a health regime going on there.

P: Yes, they go on their ways, to the land of 100 face creams, and another thousand conditions into which far louder and more suffocatingly immediate values are presented to each gender: males bending heavily under the notion of their future value
resting only in monetary potency; females bending heavily under the notion of their ever-present value resting only in their sexual/service value to the rest of humanity.

I thought you didn't use gender assignations, because they didn't have any basis in reality. Have you changed your mind?

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

D: Traditionally, the term "masculinity" has refered to the bundle of psychological traits found most often in men. As we all know, men are generally physically stronger, more aggressive, more single-minded, more attached to logic, more solution-orientated, and more anti-social. Women, on the other hand, tend to be more passive, more nurturing, more attached to feelings and relationships, more sensual, more childlike and more able to find happiness in the moment. These are generalizations, of course, but most men and women seem to fit neatly into their respective gender categories.

P: There is no use in any of this to me. I could easily argue the fundamental aggressiveness of women;

K: Did you know women, far more than men, go for the terror-inducing, and extremely violent videos? Doesn't that say something about an instinctively criminal nature?

-

P:.....their lesser attachments to feelings and relationships (in their fluid changing of them);

K: Most love poetry has been written by men. Is this a neurotic, deplorable condition, one of those ego-irritating expressions of valuing something over something else?

-

P:.....their extremely sharp logic;

K: Do you mean acute, as in "going straight to the core of the matter", rather than "hurtful and vindictive"?

-

P:.....and then as well argue a fundamental and immense "passivity" in males overall; a giving-over, if not to women for love and care, then god; a fundamental weakness and fear at the core of it too.

K: Yes, most males are childish, playing 12-year-old computer games for hours and hours. But is this really a sign of passivity, or of going for the symbolic realm of most power?

Why do you distinguish men as overall being passive, yet not say that women are exactly the same? Wouldn't this fit your hypothesis more accurately?

P: I did not distinguish men as "overall being passive" but suggested that fractals for any human qualities can be projected for any gender in any situation. It's a perfect point for how useless this all becomes. We will not be able to say anything about either gender with any alacrity.

Well, look at your quote. You did say "a fundamental and immense passivity in males overall". Did you mean a fraction of all males, was overall passive, and that the rest were overall aggressive?

I'm not sure what you're saying here: that you can make up what you like, or you're not allowed to lie?

K: I'm at a loss how to understand your conclusion, that you see, statistically, both females and males to be equally weak, yet both having exactly the same manifestations of reaching the highest levels of reason.

P: I'm okay enough with this characterization, Kelly, but my brow's not particularly wrinkled over it as "illogical" or contradictory. It is true in my experience that both males and females are generally not suited to any sort of highly conscious or contemplative life (due to 'weakness,' or whatever). It is also true that I believe the Buddha when he suggests that there is nothing entirely special about his knowledge and that each human mind suffering in its isolation also has the keys to its own release.

Pye,

I think we've got to the crux now.

I agree it's unhelpful to make gender assignments when they're out of touch with reality.

My concern is where a mistaken equation is made between human, as in "the human birth only is capable of enlightenment", and human, as in "being biologically a human (homo sapiens)".

The problem is, not every homo sapiens is a "human birth", but is far more often an animal birth, craving ghost birth, or warring spirit birth. These non-capable births, we can categorise as "all the unique individuals who are less conscious and less capable of enlightenment, than all the unique individuals who are more conscious and more capable of enlightenment, in comparison to the absolute category of 'enlightened individual' (truly what it is, regardless of the existence of 'unenlightened individual')."

The gender assignation of feminine to describe the non-human-births, and masculine to describe the human births, is simply reflecting the reality of any unique individuals that have made up the species of homo sapiens, in comparison to the absolute category of enlightened. Masculine and feminine are not absolutist terms, meaning "they are never not relative".

We could easily call all non-human births simply that, or unenlightened. In fact, that's ultimately what we're doing.

But, that doesn't address the intellectual hang-ups that are preventing enlightenment. Titles can address the major psychological attachments typical for homo sapiens. In any particular individual who has deep aversions and delusions, what they love can become their title. Since the love of women and femininity is characteristic of this era, and probably of most, we could call any individual feminine, by default. There's so much more femininity praised in the media, and indeed among people, than masculinity: men are virtually always portrayed as women's supporters, rescuers, adorers, chasers, spectators, heroes, etc.

This is far more useful to that individual, than to call them zombie, moron, unconscious, musclehead, insane, hoon, gaiaist, druggo, stupefact, nymphomaniac, wanker, waffler, ivory-tower-dweller, terrorist, word-weaver, daddy, mummy, baby, etc. - just because this love is so deep. It's the symbol of all those other things.

Also, it's not useful to ignore what most unique individuals that make up the biological human species, these days, are attached to, or to pretend that what has emerged has always been around. This also ignores the absolute category of enlightened.

Most people would laugh off the title "unconscious", because they're evidently experiencing something. So it's not a useful title for the beginner. But they wouldn't laugh off the title "mindless slut", because most people are instinctively uneasy about the emotional frenzy of sexual arousal. The social taboo on sex isn't just a narrow-minded, Victorian tradition, and nor is the emphasis on rationality. These two aspects go hand-in-hand in the emergence of homo sapiens.

Since homo sapiens is descending into mindless slut animalism, in which the overwhelming majority are giving away logical values for (?) happy immediacy, it pays to examine the slut. Comparing men and women is quite revealing. I've compared homosexuals with heterosexuals, but there's not a hell of a lot of difference.

Women in heterosexual communities are encouraged to find a good man, be a mother, learn how to keep her man around, and be a supportive member of a community. In homosexual communities, women are encouraged to find a good woman, have children if desired, become well-educated and culturally experienced (to keep a woman interested), and become a supportive member of a community. Men in heterosexual communities are encouraged to be very hard-working, find a fairly well-paid job, an interesting hobby, a decent woman, and help her with child-rearing. In homosexual communities, men are encouraged to find well-paid work, a good-looking and fairly honest man, keep fit and be well-educated and culturally experienced (to keep any man around), and maybe consider adopting a child (but that's fairly rare). So far, all are fairly identical in their sluttish behaviour. But when they have to compete for the best prospect, the ones who become extremely subtle, highly cunning, and virtually bereft of openly sluttish behaviour, are the women. The men go gung-ho, and are openly creative, although they still civilise any openly sluttish behaviour. To me, this says that the ones who are naturally mindless sluts are the women, because they cannot trust themselves to let themselves go. The men seem to be able to ride it.

(For my comments on homosexuality, I'm going off my experience of studying at a uni campus in Darlinghurst for four years (the most gay suburb of Australia), and living in Newtown, Marrickville, Dulwich Hill, and Clovelly for almost three years (the most lesbo suburbs of Australia, excepting Petersham, also in Sydney), as well as hanging around in bisexual communities, and identifying as bisexual.)

So, if we see that the most instinctively slut-prone mentality belongs to biological women, that surely points to biological men as more likely not to be so sluttish. This indicates that less psychic reliance on sexuality is a trait that belongs to biological males, and so, in turn, that they're less inclined to find its inducements into unconsciousness so "natural".

The ones who are more capable of challenging this delusion have more chance at becoming enlightened. We could speak of them having more appropriate genetically-derived equipment.

I may be completely mistaken, and be living in a part of earth that is upside-down, inside-out, and in all ways topsy-turvy. But I don't think so.

D: a perfectly enlightened Buddha is entirely without femininity

P: This is false. I am still curious as to which buddha-words or buddha-teachings you form your idea of this perfectly enlightened buddha entirely without the great passivity of understanding, the great effortless comfort of knowing and mergence; this passive-expansive universe taking-within or merging without. The inward journey in itself, the attention to flow in all things -- these sorts of qualities and yearnings that can be cast either way. It's a waste of time to subdivide into categories so amenably irritant to ego, pro and con.

K: I've edited your [Pye's] quote below, but it means the same:

"this perfectly enlightened buddha [is] entirely [feminine, because feminine is] the great passivity of understanding, the great effortless comfort of knowing and mergence; this passive-expansive universe taking-within or merging without. The inward journey in itself, the attention to flow in all things"

P: Thanks to this [unacceptable] reversal of expression....

I inferred your meaning was that the Buddha is entirely feminine. Now I infer you mean that the Buddha is entirely without any gender attributes, right?

P: These gender assignations do nothing to advance the qualities desired in any case.

K: But how can the qualities be advanced, if all humans are the same, having manifested the highest levels of reason, and all equally weak?

P: Kelly, I get now that it is two fronts upon which I object to the mas/fem delineations presented here. I get now that one category is created for all qualities that do not pertain to enlightenment (feminine) and the other category is created for
all things conducive to enlightenment (masculine). 1. These delineations are not parallel to the classical tao-sense of yin-yang as I know them;

You prefer not to use gender assignations, because you cannot see any basis for them in reality, yet go on using them. If the entire yin-yang tradition is absolutely out of touch with reality, why refer to it at all?

....and 2. I object to the use of the sub-classifications of human qualities in any case.

Of all the people you know, what is the biological sex of those who, in your opinion, are enlightened?

Can you describe their qualities (don't worry about sub-classifications, just the non-sub ones) ?

I add as well that all human qualities are potential and actual to all humans in more or less degrees, and that the largest number dis-inclined to enlightenment; to any efforts of consciousness in either gender is equivalent. I also add that those qualities classically (sub)delineated in the Tao (into mas/fem) are for knowing when, and so things like passivity; inwardness; flowing; etc. take their place in the way of things. Here, on the Genius Forum, "femininity," I get now, is basically a synonym for "unconscious." I would object to that characterization, too.

Can you name those individuals whose efforts culminated in enlightenment, or very high degrees of consciousness, in your opinion ?

Why do you think that masculine and feminine attributes are "for knowing when"? To be on the safe side, I'll say I have no idea what you're talking about.

.