GENIUS FORUMS

Iolaus: What do you recommend I read on the feral topic? Are there any articles on line?

I haven't found anything sane online yet, so I'll reprise my recommendation earlier in this thread:

For anyone who is interested, just this last year, I found one book that comes the closest to the philosophical implications (i.e. wisdom/truth) about the problem of human nature presented by feral children. It is not as deep as I intend to go, but this book finally speaks of this topic in the depth it deserves.
It is titled, interestingly enough, Wolf Children and the Problem of Human Nature - some old work (1972) from a French professor of social-psychiatry.
ISBN#: 0-85345-264-4
edit: author Lucien Malson

It is worth nothing that academia, as academia, is just as resistant to the problem of feral children as many other garden-variety essentialists are. It just seems to stand-on-their-heads too many cherished notions about humanity / been generally dismissed for same.

Iolaus: Maybe they [women] would invent the canoe, maybe they invented agriculture, maybe they invented medicine, but I do not think women have the interest to invent much, especially deep structural things,and may not be capable of creating civilization.

As they say, necessity invents things. Female restriction to one domain (inner/domestic) and male restriction to another (outer/at-large) will bring forth the commensurate necessities and inventions by each of them. Women have had so much influence in creating the structure of family life/child-rearing, it is a wonder that as many men are not interested in influencing/reinventing the inner world as women might be interested in influencing/reinventing the outer one. But conditions define and restrict (or, work for optimum effect, depending).

Here's a grape seed. It will only grow into a vine if it is put into the proper conditions - water, sunshine, trellis support, acidic soil, etc. A little less light, a little more water, a lack of support, etc. - all will affect the realization of this grape seed as a grape vine/fruit. If I don't put it anywhere near its most provocative conditions, it will stay a seed. It is nothing until it meets its conditions.

We grow people in more or less degrees of optimum conditions, too. Seems foolhardy to withhold from any of them any of the conditions that we know influence an optimum result - especially foolhardy, if we withhold on principle alone.

xerox: Anyway, you and l are too much alike to actually have a resonable discussion thats not dripping in projected insecurity, so maybe we might just both hit the 'ignore' button.

Bye-pye.

I'm fine with the dismissal. But flat-out amazed you think you know me so well. Projections, indeed.

Kelly: Anna, although she appears quite a New Age lassie, is more masculine than yourself. She doesn't express herself using academic fal-di-lals. She goes for the essence more. She's a fighter, or rather, her whinging has more fight.

The bolded word is meaningless to me. If you want to say more conscious, more reasonability, etc., then you are on the one hand dismantling Iolaus' (Anna's?) reasoning, and on the other, praising her for it on these garbled grounds. A mere taste of the garbled reasoning to which this mas/fem dichotomy leads many posters here. And there are far more ways to "fight" than the mode to which you've been conditioned to see.

It is at the very least ironic that one assumes the way out of an obsession is to obsess about it. Some of the men here have expressed the most fervent desires to be "free" of their sexual obsessions that get in the way of their higher minds. Apparently the m.o. here is to keep one's focus right where one does not want to be. In some regards, it's simply an excuse to keep talking about sex while wishing fervently not-to-be so driven by it. Only when one becomes sick of their sickness itself can there ever be any hope of getting well. That is the only way I have been able to reason its persistence here - it's your chance to get well and truly sick of your sickness.

As for the "academic fal-di-lals," please see note above to Iolaus concerning the whole thrust of my thinking here. It is so far outside academia as to be threatening to 'them.' If you're unhappy with the way I write, can't do anything for you. Maybe pay attention to my reasoning instead.

Kelly: Fine, you wish to resist the norm. You're unusual for a female.

It's unusual for anyone, period.

Kelly: Can we take it you mean, by transcendance, thinking for yourself, and "transcending the animal realm of blind belief"....?

yes, that's fine enough.

Kelly: if women (of both sexes) . . . [etc.]

nice example of the law of identity. as close to incoherency as you can get and still be standing . . . .

Hi Kelly,

You seem to be saying that biological females generally love babylike things, mostly because of their biology. I am saying that it is mostly because of their psychology. It is not so easy to separate biology from psychology, but I'm doing so for a reason.

I think brain and hormone biology is very important, and not really separable from psychology. Also, because of that, it influences culture as well. So we see the strong influence of culture, but the culture did not arise out of a vacuum. Brain and biology partially drive it.

I am masculine psychologically. I am more satisfied by thinking and depth of character. You are masculine psychologically as well, but less than me because you don't like thinking much at all. You don't tend to push your reasoning, though you persevere in pushing your agenda on others.

I think all the time, many people have remarked about it, and I pursue lines of thought for very long periods of time. As to pushing my agenda, I am generally quite hands off and nonjudgmental of people, but this is a discussion/debate forum. It's what we do here.

We both have female sexed brain and cells - so our primary and secondary sex characters are female. But your tertiary and quaternary sex characters are much more feminine than mine.

You don't know that. Prenatal influences can make a baby boy or girl more or less masculine/feminine. Perhaps you are not aware of this. It's a very interesting line of inquiry, and I am pretty sure it is the answer to at least a percentage of homosexuality. Note, this is not genetic, but congenital.

I recreated my feminine tendencies and made them male. So I cultivate reason, patience, and wisdom, with great care and deep love, like a mother might look after a baby.

Very good. You can do that. But maybe tone down the talk of killing actual babies.

It's possible that my brain is somewhat more male in sex, but I think that is not entirely likely. Also, my testosterone level in 2005 was the same as 75% of other females.

It is indeed true that some females actually have abnormally high levels of testosterone, and it seems the black race has a higher level of testosterone than the white - but that is not the same thing. It was one of the first things they looked at with male homosexuals. They do have normal levels. But their brains were feminised in utero.

I have read your story. Actually, I myself was more of a tomboy, did not really like dolls, and was embarrassed when my girlfriends cooed over babies. I thought they were being silly. But then, I am naturally reserved, and while I love babies a lot, I still don't run up to them and coo like most people do. It almost always takes me longer to get close to people than average, and I treat children and babies like real human beings, with respect. I don't like to invade boundaries but give more subtle cues and invitations.

I would say that so far as I can see, your tendency to take life very seriously is not due to being on the masculine end of the spectrum, in any physical way.

no one is authentically interested in whether I live or die. It has been easy for me to see that the love anyone has for another is only for their own dreams.

Yes, that is a very cynical position! I'm sure there is a lot of truth to it. the whole question of love and altruism is an interesting one.

Are you asking me why I don't believe a baby human being has the same level of consciousness as an adult?

No, I am pointing out that having a natural ability to see the significance of a baby human consciousness is as important as being fascinated by the outer world of things, actually more so.

Interesting. Do you think your sense of self changed because of puberty?

Well I am not quite sure what you mean. A person's sense of self has to evolve, and surely would change as between being a kid and being an adult. But I saw myself no longer able to maintain the sort of tomboy life. I was more restricted, could no longer outrun the boys, and I literally watched my hormones change my emotions. I was a tad horrified, it is true.

By "inner being", and what you earlier referred to as "their ultimate reality", you are referring to personality and character, and not to Ultimate Reality.

I did not say ultimate reality. I said the reality of their inner being. I call it consciousness. I am not an atheist. I believe it is in there and is real. Personality and character are part of it, and very important especially in the case of the human being, but I am speaking of something else. The awareness that living things have, that resides within them. The subjective experiencer, what some are calling the Witness. I can feel it, come very close to it, almost merge with it, in animals. I had a very strong merging with a horse a year ago. The horse was very hot and tired, and I looked deep into its eyes, and we saw one another. I saw its being, and it saw me seeing it. We both knew.

Pye,

Well the feral discussion could be interesting, but I just am not up to speed on it right now.

Pye, I do seem to notice a difference in your writing style from whenever we were both last here. It is very academic, or perhaps it is in some particular style, but I find it pretty inaccessible, compared to before.

It is at the very least ironic that one assumes the way out of an obsession is to obsess about it.

Yes, and the rest of the paragraph.

We grow people in more or less degrees of optimum conditions, too. Seems foolhardy to withhold from any of them any of the conditions that we know influence an optimum result - especially foolhardy, if we withhold on principle alone.

But I've been clear I don't want that.

Pye wrote:

Anna, although she appears quite a New Age lassie, is more masculine than yourself. She doesn't express herself using academic fal-di-lals. She goes for the essence more. She's a fighter, or rather, her whinging has more fight.

The bolded word is meaningless to me. If you want to say more conscious, more reasonability, etc., then you are on the one hand dismantling Iolaus' (Anna's?) reasoning,

Yes, ultimately. But it wouldn't be clear to Anna, because what Anna means by "higher consciousness" appears to be delusional at this stage of the discussion. I am assuming she believes in a soul. We shall see.... I might be wrong, and she is talking about the seeds of rationality instead. But I don't think so.

and on the other, praising her for it on these garbled grounds.

It's only garbled because you don't see that there are different levels of rationality. Also, one's biological sex doesn't set in stone one's psychology. Anna shows stronger evidence of masculine psychology, but it's pretty rudimentary for she isn't anywhere near fully rational. Masculine psychology is necessary to rationality, because the drive and courage to have faith in reason is the seed, and rationality is the fruit.

It is just as you explained:

"Here's a grape seed. It will only grow into a vine if it is put into the proper conditions - water, sunshine, trellis support, acidic soil, etc. A little less light, a little more water, a lack of support, etc. - all will affect the realization of this grape seed as a grape vine/fruit. If I don't put it anywhere near its most provocative conditions, it will stay a seed. It is nothing until it meets its conditions."

And there are far more ways to "fight" than the mode to which you've been conditioned to see.

How many ways are there for a seagull to drop the fish it is carrying? It just drops it.

It's better to keep things simple.

It is at the very least ironic that one assumes the way out of an obsession is to obsess about it. Some of the men here have expressed the most fervent desires to be "free" of their sexual obsessions that get in the way of their higher minds.

It's not really that hard to understand. It is not easy for a drug addict to end an addiction. Being drug-free is a totally foreign state to the addict. Instead of trying the impossible, we make stepping-stones out of the addiction. We focus on making the first step relatively drug-free, yet it's still within our capability. Each step has part of the old man, and part of the new man. Each step he makes takes him further away from the drugs, and requires progressively less of his drug-loving mind.

Only when one becomes sick of their sickness itself can there ever be any hope of getting well. That is the only way I have been able to reason its persistence here - it's your chance to get well and truly sick of your sickness.

Excellent. With this spirit, one can leap across several stepping-stones at a time.

As for the "academic fal-di-lals," please see note above to Iolaus concerning the whole thrust of my thinking here. It is so far outside academia as to be threatening to 'them.' If you're unhappy with the way I write, can't do anything for you. Maybe pay attention to my reasoning instead.

When you can transcend the blind belief of the animal realms that things inherently exist, then your thinking will be outside academia.

Kelly: if women (of both sexes) . . . [etc.]

nice example of the law of identity. as close to incoherency as you can get and still be standing . . . .

Women psychologically, of course.

I think deep down you agree that the majority of biological females have a distinctly different drives and values from biological males. I think deep down you know that some biological males have the same psychology as most biological females; that some females have the same psychology as most males. So in that deep-down part of yourself, you would agree that there are two main sexually-distinct psychologies.

KJ

Iolaus wrote:

You seem to be saying that biological females generally love babylike things, mostly because of their biology. I am saying that it is mostly because of their psychology. It is not so easy to separate biology from psychology, but I'm doing so for a reason.

I think brain and hormone biology is very important, and not really separable from psychology. Also, because of that, it influences culture as well. So we see the strong influence of culture, but the culture did not arise out of a vacuum. Brain and biology partially drive it.

Of course, nothing is inseparable at all. Everything connected to life is biology - even lifeless things.

The reason we should see that the basic genetic makeup of humans (their "biology") doesn't wholly dictate what they do and learn (their "psychology") during their lifetimes, is because it doesn't. I'm over-simplifying here, but I hope you see the point.

you don't like thinking much at all.

I think all the time, many people have remarked about it,

If you think all the time, how do others know? ;-)

We both have female sexed brain and cells - so our primary and secondary sex characters are female. But your tertiary and quaternary sex characters are much more feminine than mine.

You don't know that.

It's the most obvious explanation for your ideas.

Prenatal influences can make a baby boy or girl more or less masculine/feminine. Perhaps you are not aware of this. It's a very interesting line of inquiry, and I am pretty sure it is the answer to at least a percentage of homosexuality. Note, this is not genetic, but congenital.

I'm sure some people's attraction to the same or opposite sex early-on in life is determined by genetics. Others, no, it is determined by psychology. It's like Pye's seed argument: it won't develop unless it's given the right conditions.

Culture grows out of the past, yet all the causes that can make up any instant are unknowable. So while determined, our values and thinking on certain things can alter.

I recreated my feminine tendencies and made them male. So I cultivate reason, patience, and wisdom, with great care and deep love, like a mother might look after a baby.

Very good. You can do that. But maybe tone down the talk of killing actual babies.

I usually talk about preventing birth in the first place. It's the more intelligent option. ;-)

I would say that so far as I can see, your tendency to take life very seriously is not due to being on the masculine end of the spectrum, in any physical way.

Thanks.

Those who are not biologically male, and don't have a male-sexed brain, can have masculine psychology. It is entirely possible to develop greater love of reason, more disciplined thinking, deeper connection to truth, a much stronger resistence to herdly-thinking, and a steady centralised character. So long as one is not already set in one's ways.

no one is authentically interested in whether I live or die. It has been easy for me to see that the love anyone has for another is only for their own dreams.

Yes, that is a very cynical position! I'm sure there is a lot of truth to it. the whole question of love and altruism is an interesting one.

I completely disbelieve women of both sexes when they talk about how much love they have for children, and how much they wish to help the unfortunate. It is totally false. One can see they are driven to it by self-love, which is really self-hatred.

Only one who has no love at all, and no grounding in the false self, can love.

Here the ignorant are confounded.

Are you asking me why I don't believe a baby human being has the same level of consciousness as an adult?

No, I am pointing out that having a natural ability to see the significance of a baby human consciousness is as important as being fascinated by the outer world of things, actually more so.

What is the significance of baby human consciousness?

Interesting. Do you think your sense of self changed because of puberty?

I saw myself no longer able to maintain the sort of tomboy life. I was more restricted, could no longer outrun the boys, and I literally watched my hormones change my emotions. I was a tad horrified, it is true.

I can understand that a person's knowledge of what their body is capable of, would change with puberty, but not their basic sense of self.

I'll amend my idea slightly: The genetic makeup of a person includes their basic psychology, and on that basis their levels of consciousness will grow. But it remains a potential psychology, just a seed remains a seed without additional elements.

By "inner being", and what you earlier referred to as "their ultimate reality", you are referring to personality and character, and not to Ultimate Reality.

I did not say ultimate reality. I said the reality of their inner being. I call it consciousness.

May I remind you....:

They love little living things and babylike things because of their biology and brains, sure, but that is also because their brains are better equipped for them to see the value of these beings, which means that they see the ultimate reality of these beings - that the consciousness inside of them is real as their own.

Anyway, let's move on.

I am not an atheist. I believe it is in there and is real. Personality and character are part of it, and very important especially in the case of the human being, but I am speaking of something else. The awareness that living things have, that resides within them. The subjective experiencer, what some are calling the Witness. I can feel it, come very close to it, almost merge with it, in animals. I had a very strong merging with a horse a year ago. The horse was very hot and tired, and I looked deep into its eyes, and we saw one another. I saw its being, and it saw me seeing it. We both knew.

Yes - animal psychology.

This is basically using empirical evidence and intuitions, but then taking an extra step and personally identifying with the thing, call it the horse - then projecting that identity onto the horse. It's bad science. Yet women get away with it all the time.

There could be some bioenergetic element to the empirical evidence, just like lateral lines in fish. But again, that's empirical evidence.

KJ

If a truthful person gives a lie, it will cause some people to fight harder to find truth, others won't even notice.

Iolaus: Pye, I do seem to notice a difference in your writing style from whenever we were both last here. It is very academic, or perhaps it is in some particular style, but I find it pretty inaccessible, compared to before.

I haven't changed myself; it's the same writing/thinking. Perhaps you missed some prior complaints others have made of it as well. :) Yes, I do often choose words/phrases that are densely packed. I agree I am not an 'easy' read sometimes. I can only hope there is some sense of reward in it for its depth.

Pye wrote: We grow people in more or less degrees of optimum conditions, too. Seems foolhardy to withhold from any of them any of the conditions that we know influence an optimum result - especially foolhardy, if we withhold on principle alone.

Iolaus answered: But I've been clear I don't want that.

Then it is up to us to become more conscious of the ways our beliefs about gender imprint and limit the human (spiritual!) whole. You would want to be questioning yourself about all these beliefs about gender differences that you have internalized and passed onto your children, that's all. Such are invariably limitations; invariably not optimum.

Kelly: It's only garbled because you don't see that there are different levels of rationality.

Oh . . . I don't? It's hard to believe you carry away a notion like this from what I've written here. Consciousness, to more or less degrees . . . etc.

Pye wrote: And there are far more ways to "fight" than the mode to which you've been conditioned to see.
Kelly responded: It's better to keep things simple.

You mean, "fight like a man?" I can receive a message such as this from the television, and acceptance of it will make me equally simple-minded.

Kelly: When you can transcend the blind belief of the animal realms that things inherently exist, then your thinking will be outside academia.

Again, it is difficult for me to see how you have drawn this conclusion from what I've written here. I have no such belief in inherency. And very little belief in its cousin-at-arms, innateness - at least when it comes to human beings and human behavior.

Kelly: I think deep down you agree . . . [etc.]

Right now, Kelly, I'm not sure you've been attentive enough to what I've been reasoning here to trust that you know anything about me deep down.

Kelly: So in that deep-down part of yourself, you would agree that there are two main sexually-distinct psychologies.

Nope. I can find them nowhere in any given gender in such distinction.

As I mentioned before, I will be and always have been fighting on the side of consciousness, for that which is natural to me, I can do nothing about. It is natural / does not trouble us / takes care of itself / cannot be changed. In my own conscious development, I see how little of this belongs to me, but for the eating/shitting things Jason mentioned above - the "animal" things. Even with these, I can not-eat when I'm hungry, and wait until I find a toilet to shit, etc. I am not helpless regarding the configurations they take, even if I must overall attend to them to live, if it's natural for me to want to live. Some humans do not have even this most fundamentally assumed desire.

Perhaps think of me as always always pressing to the side of consciousness in the nature/nurture debate. The nature side - by definition - I would not be able to do a single thing about anyway, if it, too, shall be considered innate. I am alert to this as a dangerous way to think in the same manner I am alert to the dangers of belief in inherency.

The thing IS simple: Human beings are, by nature, mammals. Nothing else. Every other idea we have of ourselves is a matter of humanly conscious determination, right or wrong, to more or less degrees. And this consciousness does not get a kick-start (in other words, meet its conditions) until we have entered those places where humanity begins to direct itself by idea. And it would never need to do this, this human being, if it were not in other human company. This other human company makes us conscious of ourselves.

Humanity itself is a transcendent idea. This means we have every chance to create it more consciously and in greater attunement with our best ideas of ourselves.

Kelly: It's only garbled because you don't see that there are different levels of rationality.

Oh . . . I don't? It's hard to believe you carry away a notion like this from what I've written here. Consciousness, to more or less degrees . . . etc.

Well, let me put it this way. You don't see that most women have a lower level of rationality than most men. I see this kind of mental blockage in those who don't understand the nature of Reality, so in turn, they lack understanding of the ego, and in turn do not recognise just how accurately biological females personify egotism. But with a greater love of reason, there is some degree of enlightenment, and consequently weak connection to the ego.

Kelly: When you can transcend the blind belief of the animal realms that things inherently exist, then your thinking will be outside academia.

it is difficult for me to see how you have drawn this conclusion from what I've written here. I have no such belief in inherency. And very little belief in its cousin-at-arms, innateness - at least when it comes to human beings and human behavior.

Because you believe that your true self is a human being.

Kelly: Well, let me put it this way. You don't see that most women have a lower level of rationality than most men.

Perhaps you are unwilling to see how much this is a matter of less-than optimum conditioning?

Kelly: Because you believe that your true self is a human being.

My "true self" is a matter of transcendent idea; it's my thinking.

And indeed, I cannot exceed the instrumentation (consciousness) that I am.
David is over there on another thread giving me more good quotes to filch:

Consciousness cannot step outside of itself and peek at what lies beyond consciousness.

(have 4 long days of work ahead. will try to keep up again soon.)

Pye wrote:

Kelly: Well, let me put it this way. You don't see that most women have a lower level of rationality than most men.

Perhaps you are unwilling to see how much this is a matter of less-than optimum conditioning?

Mostly genetic conditioning though, the social conditioning is just icing on the cake.

Considering the topic of footholds I suppose the entire human species needs refinement to put every god damned one of us on nearly the same foothold and a nearly uncorruptable human oriented AI to oversee it all.


Nearly. The best Sci-Fi artists and writers could tell you that in a way that would blow your fucking mind let alone the true reality none of us are privy to.


The reality or at least the rumors I have seen tend to mention the fact that the real leaders on this rock do not give a FUCK.


They would just as soon see it all fall into oblivion than out of their council.


So with all the brilliant scientists and philosophers at their side according to what I have observed so far these ultra "rich" aka secure peoples will do concerns their own well being as well as their support networks.


Meaning footholds and technology means shit when it all advances so quickly on our planet that we will come so incredibly close to self destruction as a species that "their" AI driven plans and scenarios will dictate that they will keep everyone else in humanity out of the loop and have the only quantum based solutions at best.



I may have an imagination but do not think for one second that I would make such leaps without a rational explanation.


Hell I would add to simpliflying it all for just a chance that we all had some small part in it all.


I mean fuck all the universe will acommodate anything you could imagine at even a 90's lvl of human tech.


I will honestly say and I have had the spooks sit in their durangos SUV "outside" my doors.



The recent mention of a sighting above a Montana city attracted the attention of a fat ass* { agent who needs to stop snacking on recon missions} durango sittining outside my apartment.


These cunts do exist for gang stalking purposes/intimidation and I will continue to gain evidence or calibers whichever they seem to prefer.


They love my USO PRE COG "IS THAT ONE OF OURS"....funny thing is they lost an AGENT...not me though...idiots to me it shows a lack of electromag- time-space-control....our species it playing catchup.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... &plindex=0



google is a b un ch of homo sexuals...ahead of their time obviously.

just wait these mother fuckers do not hold for nano- or conventional Worm holes....just fucking laugh I dare you.

Pye wrote:

Kelly: Well, let me put it this way. You don't see that most women have a lower level of rationality than most men.

Perhaps you are unwilling to see how much this is a matter of less-than optimum conditioning?

Do you mean:
- You do see that most women have a lower level of rationality than most men?
- You believe that the understanding of this truth is the result of less-than-optimal conditions (ie. you don't see it)?

If you meant the first, then no: what I am doing here should indicate that I do see causes at play.

Kelly: Because you believe that your true self is a human being.

My "true self" is a matter of transcendent idea; it's my thinking.

One's thinking is dependent on the brain and body being full of life, and who knows what else. There can be no transcendance of this dependency.

And indeed, I cannot exceed the instrumentation (consciousness) that I am.

Consciousness is ultimately not separate from what depends on for being.

David is over there on another thread giving me more good quotes to filch:

Consciousness cannot step outside of itself and peek at what lies beyond consciousness.

This doesn't mean consciousness is inseparable, and independent of what lies beyond. In that sense, the true self is that which is present in both parts.

(have 4 long days of work ahead. will try to keep up again soon.)

Nothing will have changed.

Iolaus wrote:Generally, people treat one another badly, and they could not possibly do it unless they fail to see the real inner being. The more one sees it, the less one can perform heinous acts. That is why people are far more likely to hurt strangers and need to downgrade the humanity of their enemies. Assuming in an intellectual way that other creatures or humans have an inner being is not the same as truly experiencing the reality of it. Women respond more readily to the inner being of others.

Iolaus wrote:The awareness that living things have, that resides within them. The subjective experiencer, what some are calling the Witness. I can feel it, come very close to it, almost merge with it, in animals. I had a very strong merging with a horse a year ago. The horse was very hot and tired, and I looked deep into its eyes, and we saw one another. I saw its being, and it saw me seeing it. We both knew.

Iolaus, are you a vegetarian?

Don’t bother about me. Much earlier in the thread, I started a response, but moved on, as have 'youse'. I'm just posting this now cause I like to indicate my views. I prefer to comment rather than discuss. These days I'm not sufficiently motivated to politely respond to others posts.

One one hand, I want to say to Pye, go spend a little time at a daycare and really watch the boys and girls. They're different. And it is simply not true that the parents have already tamed the little beasts away from their natural proclivities. In fact, many liberal parents have tried to do the opposite - give the kids access to both genders of toys, and find themselves quite puzzled that it doesn't work, not even with encouragement.

Yep, I disagree to an extent with what Pye said about that, however, I have definitely noticed that more young women are acting more masculinely, and more men are acting femininely. When I was referring to genetics, I was including the males increased ability to produce testosterone, as well as the fact that sexuality is a spectrum, an inverse Bell curve of degrees of masculine and feminine content. Some females genetically have male-like brains, and this group even includes a particular subset of physically femininely perfect females. Perhaps at Uni, more females who do philosophy, are more genetically masculine than the average female.

I believe testosterone influences the mind to "go and seek" and to try new things - it invokes a decrease in a sense of responsibility or the perceived guilt that prevents one from acting a certain non-accepted way. Males seek to find something they can own, they hunt. Young males may find something that agrees with them, and they gain determination to become very good at that thing, the best at it if possible. Fewer young women are like this, unless they develop a love of competition, which often relates to the family structure - ie dominant father (substitute male child), lots of brothers (sees a lot of competitive action, no choice but to compete). I am not saying women are not competitive, but they compete in the things that are more immanent - sexual attraction, role playing, goodness, making/collecting trinkets or consumables (or essentials in poorer countries).

On the other hand, there are more women playing sport or stretching their physical boundaries and generally and engaging in risks. They tend to have more matter of fact, masculine personalities, so I suspect Pye is right to a degree. Many of the smarter mentally masculine women would learn to hide their masculinity, behind a façade of femininity - femininity offers more rewards. Perhaps significant activity and freedom induce greater residual testosterone levels.

Men have lost their traditional way of being, for a gain of cooperation, which is feminine inducing, but is tolerated because it produces materials things and comforts and other freedoms from constant labour. Women have gained this and more, they are on a roll. In a world where information is king, their memory and multitasking skills are highly suited and thus valued. As they become more masculine, I suspect they will gradually take over, even in the board rooms and politics. Not in my lifetime though, so I don’t care too much. My interest really is the long term queen bee scenario, where the males are the drones. We are not immune from natural disasters however, so that might raise masculinity levels again.

Regardless of whatever scenario, without widespread enlightenment, then the human race is doomed. Take an example of robots for example, if they produce a lack of need for mental toil and effort, then humans will end up mad, as they will cease to have to strive to think rationally.

Funny thing about enlightenment though and I'll use a Kerry Packer quote - "I've been to the other side, and let me tell you son, there's fucking nothing there".

Jason's denial of having role models, even in childhood is odd. Somewhere on this site a few years ago it was pointed out how strongly boys adore role models and have heroes, and this was put forth as evidence of the masculine drive to achieve, which for boys starts by looking at adult male role models. Nor do I agree that men really don't need it - but they definitely have a leg up, and don't need it as much.

Because boys see so many roles models these day with so much visual entertainment about, they probably don't concentrate for long periods on a small number of role models, as would have occurred in years gone past. If one adds the effect of all the different role models together however, then the concept is still valid. Perhaps men are feminising (and fertility rates dropping) in some small part, to the fact there are more female role models. The lack of need in the modern western world for continuous high levels of masculinity is a much greater feminiser, of course.

Anna, although she appears quite a New Age lassie, is more masculine than yourself. She doesn't express herself using academic fal-di-lals. She goes for the essence more. She's a fighter, or rather, her whinging has more fight.

No. Anna remains fixated with some underlying irrational beliefs, she is not close to the plain in which Pye resides. Pye is inventing her own beliefs in the manner of a philosopher - and I beleive quite rationally so - for which precision of terminology is required, so she uses her own language style. It is not academic thinking, but as she has been caused by experience to structure concepts using academic or poetic language, she uses them to express herself, just as you express yourself using the language of the QRS.

Nick: [T]he social conditioning is just icing on the cake.

Feral boys are just as stupid as feral girls. It's far more than "just icing."

Kelly: Do you mean:
- You do see that most women have a lower level of rationality than most men?
- You believe that the understanding of this truth is the result of less-than-optimal conditions (ie. you don't see it)?

These are not mutually exclusive. The latter is the major cause of the former.

Kelly:
1. One's thinking is dependent on the brain and body being full of life, and who knows what else. There can be no transcendance of this dependency.
2. Consciousness is ultimately not separate from what [it] depends on for being.
3. This doesn't mean consciousness is inseparable, and independent of what lies beyond.

Yes to all, except that I can make no comment regarding "what lies beyond."
(You might as well ask me outrightly if I believe in body/mind duality. The answer is clearly no.)

deja vu . . . will always sound familiar.

deja vu: Can it come about that the brightest philosophical endeavour will be simply to love oneself?

Impossible without others. You will need them to love yourself through. Is this what you mean by "celebrating outwardly?" If so, they are equally as "powerful" as you.

deja vu: I envisage being to whom all other being is only an afterthought, though a most pleasurable one!

You envisage shortsightedley.

Which reminds me of Jamesh, awhile back:

Jamesh: When women seek transcendence, they do so via immanent means, through philosophies involving the concept of “love”.

Philosophies of love are not "immanent means." They are also an attempt at transcendence out of the purely immanent considerations with which women are most usually considered, most usually by men. It is no wonder that when many women first turn their minds to thought, they seek to make greater meaning of their experience of mating, by making more out of it than many men's (single-pointed & indiscriminate) interest in them ever intends. Philosophies of love, misguided or otherwise, are a way women try to transcend having little interest taken in them except for how they serve (through "love") the immanent needs of others.


edit: added parenthetical comment.

Jamesh wrote:

Kelly: Anna, although she appears quite a New Age lassie, is more masculine than yourself. She doesn't express herself using academic fal-di-lals. She goes for the essence more. She's a fighter, or rather, her whinging has more fight.

No. Anna remains fixated with some underlying irrational beliefs, she is not close to the plain in which Pye resides.

We don't have enough information to tell. I was playing tactics and experimenting with them. But I still hold by the truth that enlightened understanding is deeper and richer in those whose thought is free and original.

I'm not entirely sure how much Pye values truth. She seems to be struggling over a choice between reputation as an intellectual, and a personal connection with truth. Anna is stagnating terribly, but she's more of a one-off. I could be wrong, of course. I haven't read all that much of Anna's writings recently.

Pye is inventing her own beliefs in the manner of a philosopher - and I beleive quite rationally so - for which precision of terminology is required, so she uses her own language style. It is not academic thinking, but as she has been caused by experience to structure concepts using academic or poetic language, she uses them to express herself, just as you express yourself using the language of the QRS.

It's improved over what it used to be. Her thinking is tightening up, as I'm sure Pye would agree. But she's still a long way from discarding academic thinking altogether.

Pye wrote:

Kelly: Do you mean:
- You do see that most women have a lower level of rationality than most men?
- You believe that the understanding of this truth is the result of less-than-optimal conditions (ie. you don't see it)?

These are not mutually exclusive. The latter is the major cause of the former.

That's an insult to women. In most cases, women are not gullible because they've been told they're gullible, but because they don't think in the first place. Without that lack of centralisation, women would not believe everything you tell them.

1. One's thinking is dependent on the brain and body being full of life, and who knows what else. There can be no transcendance of this dependency.
2. Consciousness is ultimately not separate from what [it] depends on for being.
3. This doesn't mean consciousness is inseparable, and independent of what lies beyond.

Yes to all, except that I can make no comment regarding "what lies beyond." (You might as well ask me outrightly if I believe in body/mind duality. The answer is clearly no.)

I can imagine 'what lies beyond' is able to be divided up infinitely.

So the "true self" includes it. This is what is one's true self is.

Jamesh: When women seek transcendence, they do so via immanent means, through philosophies involving the concept of “love”.

Philosophies of love are not "immanent means." They are also an attempt at transcendence out of the purely immanent considerations with which women are most usually considered, most usually by men.

This sounds as though you believe women will only transcend their irrationality once men consider women differently to how they do now. This sounds about right for women - even when they want to become centralised, they want someone else to tell them they are!

Pye wrote:Philosophies of love, misguided or otherwise, are a way women try to transcend having little interest taken in them except for how they serve (through "love") the immanent needs of others.

The masculinising process is mostly about taking an apparently selfish interest in oneself. But it only appears selfish.

It looks that way because women (those with feminine psychology) are terrified of living without connection to others. In truth, it is forming an 'I' (memory, consciousness, logic).

It looks like an apparently obsessive interest in one's own mind, but in truth, it's what Kierkegaard calls inwardness, and the most powerful route towards rationality.

KJ

Thanks for that dejavu. It stimulated deep understanding of the great service a poodle-thinker does for others like yourself. The poodle-thinker believes with deep conviction in their animal feelings, which gives them an aura of great power and confidence. To the common and ordinary male, who is confused, uncertain, unhappy, and forgetful, the poodle-thinker provides stability, groundedness, and a feeling of safety --- of transcendant love.

dejavu wrote:Philosophy in general is how we prefer to express what in us is beyond service to others. Only in self-command may one exceed oneself in such service. The happiest human there necessarily becomes a target of the philosophical and unphilosophical alike. It should never be confused that every being seeks its own power. The more common a kind of being is, the more prospective power it has over a higher, rarer type.

The little man thus happily muses on the rare and mysterious sniff-abilities of his little, fluffy, loyal and totally servile poodle on a leash. Once he found its eyes stupidly vacant, and was irritated by having to walk the dog everyday. But after a while, he grew to like the routine. He now sees in those vacant eyes the depth of the profoundest emotions, and in his unchanging routine a most gratifying feeling of blessed cosiness.

KJ

You don't seem to value reason, truthfulness, or bringing your own delusions and those of others to the surface to be corrected. I do not know what you expect to achieve at this forum, but it isn't looking good.

Kelly,

Yes, ultimately. But it wouldn't be clear to Anna, because what Anna means by "higher consciousness" appears to be delusional at this stage of the discussion. I am assuming she believes in a soul. We shall see.... I might be wrong, and she is talking about the seeds of rationality instead. But I don't think so.

You disappoint me here. I have a keen awareness of speaking of what one does not know. It is fine to feel that there is no rational likelihood of soul, but you do not know that, and you speak smugly. It is silly to suppose that the possibility of soul impinges upon rationality/logic, which so far as I can tell, is inviolable.

The reason we should see that the basic genetic makeup of humans (their "biology") doesn't wholly dictate what they do and learn (their "psychology") during their lifetimes, is because it doesn't. I'm over-simplifying here, but I hope you see the point.

You may be somewhat right - but when a person bucks their own makeup, what seed led to it? And you, disbelieving in soul and its evolution, would have less basis for answering that than I might.

I'm sure some people's attraction to the same or opposite sex early-on in life is determined by genetics. Others, no, it is determined by psychology. It's like Pye's seed argument: it won't develop unless it's given the right conditions.

I think you have missed a point I was making, and it is an important one. I said, the influences upon having a masculine or feminine brain that I referred to are congenital and NOT genetic. In many cases the attraction to the same sex is determined before birth due to hormonal influences that turn the brain development to the opposite sex. With inadequate testosterone, a male embryo's brain will lack the masculinization process that should take place.

This means that a particular embryo can be masculinized or feminized, despite their genetic endowment, by environmental conditions in the womb. It is also possible that it can continue in early childhood or babyhood, by exposure to soy based formula, for example, which is full of plant based estrogens.

If you think all the time, how do others know? ;-)

Because conversations with me strike them that way, showing what is on my mind, and that my mind is very actively working on various questions.

Those who are not biologically male, and don't have a male-sexed brain, can have masculine psychology. It is entirely possible to develop greater love of reason, more disciplined thinking, deeper connection to truth, a much stronger resistence to herdly-thinking, and a steady centralised character. So long as one is not already set in one's ways.

I agree, nor do I see any reason why such an attitude is incompatible with motherhood.

I completely disbelieve women of both sexes when they talk about how much love they have for children, and how much they wish to help the unfortunate. It is totally false. One can see they are driven to it by self-love, which is really self-hatred.

In my opinion, it is an unpleasant and futile labyrinth to use disgust and judgementalism toward others as a fulcrum for supposing one's own advancement. That people do not generally possess the true form of love, which is unconditional, is correct, nonetheless, there is no reason to disbelieve people who say they love children.

It is unavoidable, in a way, being driven by self-love, because self is all that exists, and there is really only one self. The problem of course, is that the ego is like a membrane, cutting one off from true awareness of this. But we do experience this in a dim way, When people get a good feeling from an altruistic act, this is because someone else's gain is one's own gain, someone else's relief from danger is one's own relief from danger - because there is only one of us.

Only one who has no love at all, and no grounding in the false self, can love.

Tell me about this love.

What is the significance of baby human consciousness?

What an odd question. You believe, if I am correct, that consciousness develops through evolution and was not present in the universe till then. So the highest consciousness that you know of, is human consciousness. And while it is certainly very useful to have a focus on the outer world (as you say boys do) so that we may better utilize and understand it, we are nonetheless talking of unconscious matter. A baby is not unconscious matter.

You praise the boy human as naturally teetering on the edge of enlightenment, yet you disparage his baby self. How does that make sense?

If we indeed live in the arid and tragic universe of QRS, then each human consciousness is a precious oasis that burns out all too quickly.

I can understand that a person's knowledge of what their body is capable of, would change with puberty, but not their basic sense of self.

Oh, I see what you mean. Yes, I agree.

Anna:I had a very strong merging with a horse a year ago. The horse was very hot and tired, and I looked deep into its eyes, and we saw one another. I saw its being, and it saw me seeing it. We both knew.

Kelly: Yes - animal psychology.

This is basically using empirical evidence and intuitions, but then taking an extra step and personally identifying with the thing, call it the horse - then projecting that identity onto the horse. It's bad science. Yet women get away with it all the time.

Oh, sigh. Listen to me, Kelly, without the filter of superiority (which hides a desperate bid to overcome feeling inferior) and the 19th century styled materialism.

The basis of solipsism, and one of the supposedly irrefutable truths of philosophy, is that each subjective consciousness cannot know if any others are real. All we know, is I Am. Not much else.

But what if that is not true? The only way to know it isn't true is to experience the other consciousness FROM INSIDE OF IT. This has tremendous implications. No, women don't do this all the time, but I believe they come closer to it, or seem to.

Most people don't do it at all. And I never experienced it but once until a couple of years ago. I now cultivate it.

This is why all love is self love, and why there is nothing wrong with that at all, in fact it leads to the very true love you speak of -- but only to the degree that the person overcomes the identification with their own personal ego as the only real self in the universe.

How is it this forum promotes the idea that all things are connected yet refute it at the same time?

Because you believe that your true self is a human being.

Maybe Pye doesn't. I don't. On the other hand, if all your consciousness and awareness consists of is chemical reactions in a meat brain, then I would say that your true self is a human being.

Pye,

Then it is up to us to become more conscious of the ways our beliefs about gender imprint and limit the human (spiritual!) whole. You would want to be questioning yourself about all these beliefs about gender differences that you have internalized and passed onto your children, that's all. Such are invariably limitations; invariably not optimum.

You accuse me of having internalized beliefs and agenda, but fail to see your own. As for me, I was raised by the strangest two people in America, and had almost complete freedom - physical, mental, spiritual. No trips laid upon me, not the blink of an eye at my tomboyishness. My opinions on gender sprang from reading and watching life 'on the ground' as Alex says.

I'm not against any of this freedom, this examination, and I do believe that for at least some people, they can leave mundane responses and roles in the dust. What I object to is the pretense that men and women do not have a foundational difference that starts in the brain and the hormones, and always the overt or subtle message that women are just not OK as they are.
They can be men, they can they can!! Damnit they can!

Why must they. Why aren't women good enough?

Jason,

Iolaus, are you a vegetarian?

Oh, I suppose I know where this is going. You would think, when I write with such love about animals, that I should be vegetarian. I have considered it on and off, and lived that way for about a year at a time, thrice.

However, I have come to the conclusion, and I think pretty solidly, that human beings are not meant to be vegetarians, and compromise their health when they do so.

If a person is a vegetarian because they think it is wrong to kill animals, then they have made a moral decision that all predator animals are immoral, and that nature is fundamentally flawed. It can be difficult not to come to this position, and it is what the gnostics thought.

What is interesting in anthropology, is that hunter-gather tribes are never vegetarian, and have a tremendous respect for the animal world, and do not like to make slaves of animals. And the terrible cruelty to animals, and lack of respect for them as sentient beings, tends to come with agriculture, which makes of the animal an object who's entire life is forfeit. Even there, though, an animal can live quite a nice life, and even with some positive tradeoff benefits such as protection by the shepherd from wolves.

A clean, quick kill is one thing, and in fact the predator prey relationship is a close and dynamic one that keeps life in balance.

What modern agriculture has done, though, is a tragedy of horrendous proportions and I can quickly become upset if I ponder it. Consider many thousands of mares, living a life in which they spend 7 months of every year standing immobile in a stall with a catheter inserted to drain their urine and steal the hormone that modern medicine said would save women but which has proved to be killing them, kept a little thirsty so the urine will concentrate, and then let out to pasture to foal, wherein the foal is taken from them almost immediately for dogmeat or for more of the same treatment. And imagine this intelligent mare has been through this routine for a few years. They are not stupid. They know what is coming. Imagine how she feels helpless and dispirited as she is led back to another 7 months of mild torture (constant discomfort and boredom) and imagine how she feel giving birth - the terrible fear and terrible hope that she might escape the baby stealers who will take the foal that she loves?

I buy only meat from humanely treated cattle, preferably pastured. I buy milk, butter and cheese only from pastured cows, and only eggs from free range hens.

Yet this food used to be standard.

And all this endless torment of millions upon millions of lovely, sentient mammals, sows confined so that they cannot turn, lying on metal bars - in a society with humane laws for pet animals! But not livestock.

Also, there are certain animals I think we should not eat, just as we are not cannibals, such as horses, dogs, dolphins. Animals of high understanding and close relationship to us, and who have all rendered great service, and even self-sacrificial service.

Iolaus,

I said, the influences upon having a masculine or feminine brain that I referred to are congenital and NOT genetic. In many cases the attraction to the same sex is determined before birth due to hormonal influences that turn the brain development to the opposite sex. With inadequate testosterone, a male embryo's brain will lack the masculinization process that should take place.

I agree with this. The masculinization of the brain occurs in the uterus, and depends on a lot of factors. The brain of a baby who has the XY chromosome pair is supposed to undergo a masculinization process, but there are times when this doesn't happen, due to the lack of the right conditions inside the mother. The default human brain chemistry is female.

-

Anna wrote:It is fine to feel that there is no rational likelihood of soul, but you do not know that, and you speak smugly. It is silly to suppose that the possibility of soul impinges upon rationality/logic, which so far as I can tell, is inviolable.

It depends what you mean by soul. If you mean by "soul" something uncaused, then I do know it is impossible.

when a person bucks their own makeup, what seed led to it?

They are likely to be caused to value thinking over a fatalistic attitude to their biological makeup.

Anna wrote:

I'm sure some people's attraction to the same or opposite sex early-on in life is determined by genetics. Others, no, it is determined by psychology. It's like Pye's seed argument: it won't develop unless it's given the right conditions.

With inadequate testosterone, a male embryo's brain will lack the masculinization process that should take place. This means that a particular embryo can be masculinized or feminized, despite their genetic endowment, by environmental conditions in the womb.

Reducing masculinity or femininity to only the first two sex characters contradicts the evidence that has been around for more than a hundred years.

If you think all the time, how do others know? ;-)

Because conversations with me strike them that way, showing what is on my mind, and that my mind is very actively working on various questions.

Hmmmm.......

Those who are not biologically male, and don't have a male-sexed brain, can have masculine psychology. It is entirely possible to develop greater love of reason, more disciplined thinking, deeper connection to truth, a much stronger resistence to herdly-thinking, and a steady centralised character. So long as one is not already set in one's ways.

I agree, nor do I see any reason why such an attitude is incompatible with motherhood.

Having babies isn't incompatible with those traits, per se. But there's roughly nil evidence so far to say they are compatible.

Thinking takes a huge amount of one's time, energy, and concentration. A thinker's life is basically idle. They simply cannot have lots of chores, a social diary, schedules, projects, or entertaining distractions. Anything that regularly interferes with the thinker's fishing, intently watching and guiding thoughts over time to deeper understanding, is anathema. Having to look after children, who are very demanding on one's time, makes it extremely difficult to make enough time for thinking.

Now, let's discuss the distinction between animal and human consciousness:

I completely disbelieve women of both sexes when they talk about how much love they have for children, and how much they wish to help the unfortunate. It is totally false. One can see they are driven to it by self-love, which is really self-hatred.

In my opinion, it is an unpleasant and futile labyrinth to use disgust and judgementalism toward others as a fulcrum for supposing one's own advancement.

By definition, a woman is an unenlightened person. She is someone with feminine psychology. So it is true by definition that a woman of either sex is driven by self-love (meaning, hatred of the true self). There is no disgust or emotional judgment involved in recognising this situation.

That people do not generally possess the true form of love, which is unconditional, is correct, nonetheless, there is no reason to disbelieve people who say they love children.

This confirms that people who say they really love children, are usually lying.

It is unavoidable, in a way, being driven by self-love, because self is all that exists, and there is really only one self.

The self of the unenlightened is not the self of the enlightened.

The problem of course, is that the ego is like a membrane, cutting one off from true awareness of this. But we do experience this in a dim way, When people get a good feeling from an altruistic act, this is because someone else's gain is one's own gain, someone else's relief from danger is one's own relief from danger - because there is only one of us.

Expanding one's notion of self could be a helpful idea if it were wise, but it's invariably contaminated by belief that things inherently exist - which is what drives so-called altruistic acts in the first place.

Only one who has no love at all, and no grounding in the false self, can love.

Tell me about this love.

When a person doesn't love the false self, having reasoned that things don't inherently exist, then they are liberated to experience everything as themselves, literally.

There is no emotion in this love, because there is no desire, because there is nothing to desire.

What is the significance of baby human consciousness?

What an odd question. You believe, if I am correct, that consciousness develops through evolution and was not present in the universe till then. So the highest consciousness that you know of, is human consciousness.

You're talking about the animal type consciousness, which is sensation-driven, emotional, vague, and henidic. Not human consciousness, which loves reason, and has ideals. Also, human consciousness is focussed on truth.

Higher consciousness, as I define it, is logic, and human consciousness is the penultimate stage to logic.

You praise the boy human as naturally teetering on the edge of enlightenment, yet you disparage his baby self. How does that make sense?

I don't disparage babies. I am just distinguishing between animal and human consciousness.

Anna:I had a very strong merging with a horse a year ago. The horse was very hot and tired, and I looked deep into its eyes, and we saw one another. I saw its being, and it saw me seeing it. We both knew.

Kelly: Yes - animal psychology.

This is basically using empirical evidence and intuitions, but then taking an extra step and personally identifying with the thing, call it the horse - then projecting that identity onto the horse. It's bad science. Yet women get away with it all the time.

Oh, sigh. Listen to me, Kelly, without the filter of superiority (which hides a desperate bid to overcome feeling inferior) and the 19th century styled materialism.

More animal psychology. You're doing an excellent job of illustrating animal consciousness to others here, Anna.

The basis of solipsism, and one of the supposedly irrefutable truths of philosophy, is that each subjective consciousness cannot know if any others are real. All we know, is I Am. Not much else. But what if that is not true? The only way to know it isn't true is to experience the other consciousness FROM INSIDE OF IT. This has tremendous implications. No, women don't do this all the time, but I believe they come closer to it, or seem to.

You've got to be joking. My apologies to Jamesh and Pye. Yes, a poodle could do better than that.

Solipsism is not an irrefutable truth of philosophy, it's false. It states that there is only one's own subjective consciousness, not that others possibly exist. Reasoning that things are caused by what they are not, is how solipsism is refuted. It is not refuted by more empirical evidence, which necessarily occurs within one's own subjective consciousness.

How is it this forum promotes the idea that all things are connected yet refute it at the same time?

The ego is based on the belief in the false self, holds to a falsity "that things intrinsically exist". By its nature, it desires connection with other things beyond itself.

But the wise person realises he is already, and has always been, connected, so that desire never arises.

Anna to Pye wrote:What I object to is the pretense that men and women do not have a foundational difference that starts in the brain and the hormones, and always the overt or subtle message that women are just not OK as they are. They can be men, they can they can!! Damnit they can! Why must they. Why aren't women good enough?

There is an obvious biological difference between men and women. That is not the level that philosophy is interested in. Philosophy is interested in quality of thought and in psychology (values, drives). Thinking and psychology can be corrected, unlike genetics or cogenital factors. Therefore whoever has poor reasoning, and irrational values, can also be corrected.


KJ

Alex Jacob wrote:Kenneth Wuest Titles

Which work of Wuest are you referring to? And have you yet forgiven me? ;-) (If you uncheck '1973' you will see all his various books. If you choose least expensive editions it will show you the cheapest versions. The $1.00 a book booksellers usually charge $4-6 for shipping so they make a little more and that is how they survive. They are called 'penny-booksellers'.

[This has been a public service announcement from Alex Jacob, perfidious Jew, and who yet loves y'all with Judeo-Christian love, Love, 'love' and luv].

Don't you ever pull a stunt like that again or you will be required to go to an all womens Jewish retreat. :)


His New Testament is one of the best. He does indulge (about 2-3% of the text) in his theology.