GENIUS FORUMS

Unidian wrote:For a group of people who think so little of "woman," certain GF participants certainly do spend a great deal of time talking about her.

It doesn't seem to me to be too much of a mental stretch (particularly for a group of people claiming to be so terribly clever), to comprehend the implications of the above quote.

One method of pursuing an understanding of it might be to watch a rubber duck floating on bath water, after the plug has been removed and a vortex has built up some mojo.

(to Elizabeth)

Pye wrote:It is striking me that you need to be alpha-female amongst the males, and that this is exactly what you recognize as well in Sue, your soulmate in this. Something to think about anyway. The two of you go after exactly the females, the moment they show up, and start your discrediting/patronizing of them before your listening to them. I've seen it again and again from both of you, and in this, I think criticism is warranted, regardless of gender. It always smells of an ego and an agenda.

I publicly apologize for targeting Leah when she first got here. Obviously I was completely wrong about her, and was merely "targeting exactly the females." I had no idea what wonderful philosophical thought Leah would bring to the forum. Obviously I have no concept of predicting what kind of posts a person will write.

edit to add this link to Pye's original post.

and edit again to correct link

Unidian wrote:For a group of people who think so little of "woman," certain GF participants certainly do spend a great deal of time talking about her.

Apart from the obvious ignorance by Unidian of how the 'feminine' has been defined in most discussions here [as the greatest hindrance to consciousness], there's another way to see this.

A genius, the Man, loves to examine, discuss and understand, ultimately penetrating wisdom. Becoming wisdom.

The opposite, the Woo-man, resists examination and understanding of wisdom. Her whole existence is geared toward not getting through to wisdom and block all others around as well. The Woo-man embodies almost literally wisdom in the way she embodies life. Behold Sofia! But she will never know this, not until she becomes Man first and gains self-knowledge. This is the tragedy of ignorance personified.

GEESH! These debates about “Woo-man” and “Man” seem based on anthropomorphic thinking; i.e., ascribing human characteristics to nonhuman things, and do not seem very beneficial, at least to me.

Do no harm,
clyde

clyde wrote:GEESH! These debates about “Woo-man” and “Man” seem based on anthropomorphic thinking; i.e., ascribing human characteristics to nonhuman things, and do not seem very beneficial, at least to me.

Nonhuman things?

Apart from the obvious ignorance by Unidian of how the 'feminine' has been defined in most discussions here [as the greatest hindrance to consciousness],

I'm well-aware of how it is defined here.

I think, and have thought for some time, that using the "feminine/masculine" terminology to describe quality of consciousness (or the lack thereof) is misguided.

I think that QRS and followers would do better to simply talk about consciousness and wisdom without introducing the gender issue. It is their Achilles' heel.

Unidian: if "QRS and followers" were to do that, they would be avoiding an issue essential to wisdom.

The femininization of society (and in particular, spirituality) is a very big problem, and one that causes a great deal of hardship for many aspiring sages. Just as an obsession with a loving God and free will have hurt philosophy, femininity (particularly in an age where it has even become an -ism) often gets in the way of an understanding of Reality.

This last bit goes for Leah as well: if you don't believe it affects you, then ignore it. Diving deep into it will just become a burden. If it was never an issue for you, don't turn it into insincere one. Like Nietzsche proclaiming the death of God, it is not directed at everyone, but those who it is directed at benefit greatly.

Diebert;

Yes, nonhuman things, because as I understand your and others usage of “Man” and “Woo-man” they are concepts or ideals to which you attribute the characteristic of gender.

clyde

clyde wrote:Yes, nonhuman things

There are no such things. Only things where one hasn't spotted yet the complete humanity of.

because as I understand your and others usage of “Man” and “Woo-man” they are concepts or ideals to which you attribute the characteristic of gender.

They are just as much concept as electrical plugs are.

Who among you be rubber ducks!

Oh, I decree, ye non-human things ye be!

Mama's boy's given thine expedience!

A JJJJJ/K.

Unidian wrote:I think that QRS and followers...

lol

Unidian wrote:would do better to simply talk about consciousness and wisdom without introducing the gender issue. It is their Achilles' heel.

The world is enslaved to Woman. Almost everything a man does is directly or indirectly aimed at gaining the acceptance of Woman. While women are constantly trying to gain her acceptance and maintain the appearance of Woman in the flesh. How can one begin to practice good philosophy while Woman is so thoroughly clouding mind? Woman needs to be exposed!

You didn't make much sense here either.

Leah,

It doesn't seem to me to be too much of a mental stretch (particularly for a group of people claiming to be so terribly clever), to comprehend the implications of the above quote.

The pitfalls of women are only explored intensively because she is one of the biggest sensual barriers to a potential male spiritual seeker.

And since this board is visited by many young male seekers who crave less attachment to worldly things like women, then of course a severe and harsh criticism of the female sex is going to be a dominant recurring occurrence.

Intense debate is needed for a young mind to overcome the biological conditioning. You see, by nature human beings are weary of negating earthly things like romantic love, marriage, sentimentality, the sexual appeal of the opposite sex, attachment to the family, the desire for recognition/fame/heroism, and all the rest of it.

If something is a reoccurence, it is an indication that it is one of the larger barriers to transcendence.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

clyde wrote:Yes, nonhuman things

There are no such things. Only things where one hasn't spotted yet the complete humanity of.

Diebert;

Whatever do you mean? Are you positing that all things are human, even concepts and ideals?

Previously you wrote,

But she will never know this, not until she becomes Man first and gains self-knowledge.

Now do you mean that she becomes an actual man or a “Man” and isn’t this “Man” something other than an actual man, an idealized, some might say romanticized concept?

clyde

Unidian: if "QRS and followers" were to do that, they would be avoiding an issue essential to wisdom.

Yep, QRS have been telling me that for years. I don't buy it.

Attaching the label "feminine" to worldly consciousness and "masculine" to abstract consciousness is silly. For one thing, as QRS admit, almost everyone (male and female) has worldly consciousness, and therefore just about everybody is a woman. This strongly suggests that worldly consciousness is a human issue rather than one of gender, which it is.

The trouble here, coarsely put, is that the members of QRS have "pre-wisdom" negative attitudes toward women stemming from various life experiences, as all openly admit in their bios. Women, being pre-judged as evil, were easy and natural scapegoats and symbols for the worldly thinking they discovered all around them when they began investigating philosophy seriously.

Thus, the "woman issue" became ingrained in their thinking and they are now able to reach a new generation of otherwise thoughtful people who happen to be seriously disaffected with women. The most fascinating aspect of it, in my view, is the "anti-woman women" who show up to gleefully denounce their own gender and attempt to participate in "masculine thought." Quite a psychology show there.

As for Nick Treklis, he says "lol" to the suggestion that QRS has followers, then proceeds to offer the following party-line religious diatribe:

The world is enslaved to Woman. Almost everything a man does is directly or indirectly aimed at gaining the acceptance of Woman. While women are constantly trying to gain her acceptance and maintain the appearance of Woman in the flesh. How can one begin to practice good philosophy while Woman is so thoroughly clouding mind? Woman needs to be exposed!

The only question, of course, being whether this was indirectly plagiarized from David Quinn or cut and pasted verbatim.

Unidian,

Attaching the label "feminine" to worldly consciousness and "masculine" to abstract consciousness is silly.

If that's what they were doing, it would be silly. Masculinity is actually attached directly to consciousness as a whole. Since most people are largely unconscious, they are perfectly justified in saying that people are largely feminine.

To say that feminine influence is the result of conscious deliberation is, in my mind, insulting to their entire sex -- and to the value of consciousness. A woman who puts on make-up, or who wears the latest fashions, often has not deliberated upon exactly why she is wearing these styles or this mask. A world of perfectly conscious people (dare I say... Buddhas) would not be encross'd with giant shopping centers filled with clothing stores. Stylistic clothing appeals to the unconscious, to emotions... and to everything that is traditionally associated with "femininity".

A highly conscious female, who plans everything she does and strives only to do things she can completely justify as necessary and valuable, is masculine.

A highly unconscious male is completely swept up by the feminized world, and cares a lot more about unnecessary things. (I would say that an extreme example is the "metrosexual man", but that's not the edge.)

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Unidian,

Attaching the label "feminine" to worldly consciousness and "masculine" to abstract consciousness is silly.

If that's what they were doing, it would be silly. Masculinity is actually attached directly to consciousness as a whole. Since most people are largely unconscious, they are perfectly justified in saying that people are largely feminine.

Now that's silly.

The attachment to masculine V feminine, is really often an attachment to the debates this topic can raise.

The QRS are often idiots in this regard. If they just stated the facts about that limited subset of masculine attributes that are needed to see deeply into the nature of reality, and why feminine characteristics hamper this, and let it go at that, people would not get sidetracked in all the value system arguements. Most of the time though these discussions are just about protecting and promoting ego's built up by people deciding that their own inherent nature is masculine.

If the self has no inherency, why the fuck should the concept of masculinity.

Personally, I see no other way than to think the effect of enlightenment is to make one almost entirely feminine. Come one, get real - what is the net effect of enlightenment? passivity really.

On the path a dominant self-masculinity is essential, but as you get closer and closer to understanding, the more feminine in an active sense, that you become. It is just the perrenial ego problem of taking a single perspective and thinking that that perspective is the only possible one - I'm afraid this is never, ever a correct asssessment of reality.

Ryan;

A few points:

1) You are blaming the object of one’s sexual cravings for one’s sexual cravings which is like blaming a hamburger for your hunger. Be wise.

2) The natural process of aging diminishes one’s sexual craving. Be patient.

3) The barrier to transcendence is our attachment (both attraction and aversion) to passing phenomena. Be free.

clyde

Unidian wrote:As for Nick Treklis, he says "lol" to the suggestion that QRS has followers, then proceeds to offer the following party-line religious diatribe:

Actually I laughed because you refer to the admins of this forum as "QRS", and that they have followers. Now I would like to think that the members of this forum, or anyone else for that matter, follows Truth and not any particular person. Although unfortunately this usually isn't the case.

Unidian wrote:The only question, of course, being whether this was indirectly plagiarized from David Quinn or cut and pasted verbatim.

Truth and knowledge can't be plagorized. It is always there waiting for someone to uncover it. When two people uncover it their responses to the knowledge in question will neccesarily be similiar. Now would you like to address what I've said or not?

clyde,

Now that's silly.

...and that's not an argument. If you bothered to engage what I wrote, I am certain I could offer a convincing defense.

Trevor;

Unidian wrote,

Attaching the label "feminine" to worldly consciousness and "masculine" to abstract consciousness is silly.

You responded,

If that's what they were doing, it would be silly. Masculinity is actually attached directly to consciousness as a whole. Since most people are largely unconscious, they are perfectly justified in saying that people are largely feminine.

This avoided Unidian’s point by changing to another set of terms; i.e., consciousness and unconscious. Let me re-phrase Unidian’s point using your terminology:

Attaching the label "feminine" to unconscious and "masculine" to consciousness is silly.

And to state that most people are unconscious is silly.

Therefore, your response seemed silly to me.

clyde

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Unidian,

Attaching the label "feminine" to worldly consciousness and "masculine" to abstract consciousness is silly.

If that's what they were doing, it would be silly. Masculinity is actually attached directly to consciousness as a whole. Since most people are largely unconscious, they are perfectly justified in saying that people are largely feminine.

Ah. Doesn't this just push the issue back to how "consciousness" is defined? To say that most people are "unconscious" is clearly not consistent with the conventional use of the term. And if the issue revolves around the definition of consciousness, what purpose does the gender-based distinction serve except to smear women by associating them with "unconsciousness" (whatever that is)?

To say that feminine influence is the result of conscious deliberation is, in my mind, insulting to their entire sex -- and to the value of consciousness. A woman who puts on make-up, or who wears the latest fashions, often has not deliberated upon exactly why she is wearing these styles or this mask. A world of perfectly conscious people (dare I say... Buddhas) would not be encross'd with giant shopping centers filled with clothing stores.

Absolutely - but here's where the trouble occurs:

Stylistic clothing appeals to the unconscious, to emotions... and to everything that is traditionally associated with "femininity".

Stylistic clothing, consumerism, celebrity worship, and other such foolishness is associated with ignorance, not "femininity." If 97% of women and 95% of men structure their lives around such concerns, is that 2% difference really proper justification for talking about ignorance in terms of femininity? I think not - and yet, QRSco readily admits that if all women are "unconscious," almost all men are as well.

Aside from its value in gratifying the ego by demonizing women for various psychological reasons, the distinction has little or no actual philosophical value. That's why nobody in the philosophical community but QRS knows who Weininger was, even though he was an exceptionally bright thinker with a ton of potential which sadly went to waste.

A highly conscious female, who plans everything she does and strives only to do things she can completely justify as necessary and valuable, is masculine.

Tell her that and see what happens. Then again, I suspect her response would simply be interpreted as "evidence of lingering femininity." I forgot, you can't argue with religious doctrine.

A highly unconscious male is completely swept up by the feminized world, and cares a lot more about unnecessary things. (I would say that an extreme example is the "metrosexual man", but that's not the edge.)

So what's the deal with me, I wonder? I've been at philosophy for 10 years and counting. I don't care about money, style, clothing, sports, property, status, or any of it. I am aware of my infinite nature, or whatever one wants to call it. And yet here I am, challenging QRS ideas about "the feminine."

"Lingering attachments" will be the answer, I suppose. But feel free to surprise me. :)

I think it's important to recognize how unconscious behavior is detrimental to consciousness; This being the extent of the perceived attachment QRS has to the feminine.

The feminine, being the product of unconsciousness, is easily the most dangerous threat to the mind of a masculine thinker. Because of its predispostion towards psychological degeneration, the feminine goes largely unnoticed; due to the fact that it takes an act of initial faith in reason to even perceive it. Once perceived however, it acts as a juxtapostion to a developing consciousness.

More specifically unconscious behavior breeds unconscious behavior. Within human psychology, as Weininger observed, is a hierarchy of consciousness. The henid stage of thought is where thoughts either advance or dissolve. The feminine resides within this stage of development which leaves the door open for all manner of irrationality and illogic.

Zen Master Slamalamadingdong disagrees.

What do you find disagreeable?