GENIUS FORUMS

Kelley,

I'm no fan of Mother Theresa, never was. And you are right that the nuns may not have had a direct desire to alleviate suffering, but rather were a step removed from it by doing it out of a sense of duty to some principle, such as expanding Catholicism in a heathen land.

This is also a problem with religion, certainly Christianity. People are confused by the idea that they should or shouldn't do something because "God said so" or they think that morality is an arbitrary thing made up by God, who could have chosen different rules at his whim, and don't understand the fundamental nature of them. They are dependent upon written dogma and need not make the crucial progress toward maturity and responsibility.

The reason why there are no lone female serial killers, is because feminine psychology is dead-set against the deep disconnection from others that it requires.

So, in the end, you agree with me once again. The female psychology is so strong that almost no woman can become the type of serial killer that a man can, even though they can be murderous. And yet, this is not a demerit against women as you seem to think. Women, because they are better at seeing entity, are less able to disconnect themselves.

As to mocking women for killing the vulnerable, most men do also. They usually kill women, and we had one here in the states who killed a lot of boys, but they were adolescents, still weaker than he.
And, too, I would not say that women have the 'need for connection' preventing them from disengaging from society, but rather they probably simply lack the strength, the testosterone, that men have. Testosterone is the aggression hormone.

Mentally ill women are far more isolated than mentally ill men.

In fact, I don't know that there is such a thing as a love for babies. Instead, I believe it is a kind of profiteering on the vulnerability of a baby; a sense of being powerful and alive when able to dominate.

Absurd, silly, wrong, disturbed...
I hope one day you will tire of this hell. It's the fist step to escape.

I just realised - Mother Teresa fits in the Wikipedia's list of female serial killers. She let countless people die from illnesses she refused to treat properly.

Big smile!

*************************

It cannot have come into being in time. Yes. I do not know if the word forever even applies.
I also doubt whether there must at all times be a manifest universe - with stars and all that - but the cause of them is timeless.

What reasons do you have for entertaining this doubt?

Because I think it is the nature of material things to not last forever, and nature contains many cycles. You also said that there could have been a series of Big Bangs. I happen not to think Big Bang is the correct scenario, but that isn't really important. The process of matter generation may be cyclic in nature, dissolve, and then resume.

Of course, when I say 'material' things, I do not really differentiate a nonmaterial reality. I think it is probably all material, even that tiny subrealm we are slowly coming to know. Perhaps even consciousness. But stuff like planets and stars probably have life cycles, and so would a universe.

dejavu wrote:David:

The problem with the idea of the Totality being self-caused is that it creates the impression that the Totality is up against a disintegrating force of some kind and has to battle in each moment to sustain its existence. Such a force, in opposition to the Totality, cannot exist, by definition.

Regardless of any impression that may be created in ones mind as to the nature of infinity, the universe causes itself.

It depends on what you mean by this. If you mean it in a loose sense, as a way of negating the idea that the universe is caused by something else, then I can go along with that.

On the other hand, what does it really mean to say that a timeless entity like the universe is engaged in the act of causation? Being timeless means that there can never be any "before" the universe, nor any "after" as well. So the very idea of it having to keep perpetuating itself is meaningless.

The entire universe, from its beginningless past to its endless future, can be thought of a singular momentary event.

dejavu wrote:

This is just another way of saying that the Totality doesn't really have a self to begin with, there being no "other" to act as a contrast. So the idea of a self-caused Totality doesn't really mean anything.

This amounts to saying: "The universe is all there is, therefore it isn't, as there is nothing by which it may be contrasted."

That infinity has no 'other' is insufficient reason to deny its inherent existence. We may not understand how infinity causes itself, but the fact is inferred in all our conceptions of it.

The word infinity better describes the universe than the word totality.

It just depends on what we mean by these terms. Infinity has a common mathematical meaning, which could be confusing for those who try to link the mathematical meaning with the concrete reality we all dwell in. I prefer to use the word "the infinite" for this reason.

Pointing out that the infinite cannot have a self isn't to deny the infinite's reality. Rather, it acknowledges that the infinite exists in a way that is fundamentally different to how normal things exist.

-

Iolaus wrote:

Iolaus: It cannot have come into being in time. Yes. I do not know if the word forever even applies. I also doubt whether there must at all times be a manifest universe - with stars and all that - but the cause of them is timeless.

David: What reasons do you have for entertaining this doubt?

Because I think it is the nature of material things to not last forever, and nature contains many cycles. You also said that there could have been a series of Big Bangs. I happen not to think Big Bang is the correct scenario, but that isn't really important. The process of matter generation may be cyclic in nature, dissolve, and then resume.

Of course, when I say 'material' things, I do not really differentiate a nonmaterial reality. I think it is probably all material, even that tiny subrealm we are slowly coming to know. Perhaps even consciousness. But stuff like planets and stars probably have life cycles, and so would a universe.

Your writing is confusing me here. When you say "a universe", do you mean the manifested universe itself, or a phenomenon within the manifested universe?

It is undoubtedly true that some things within the manifested universe occur in cycles (maybe even universes too), but there are also many things which don't, so that doesn't help us much. You also state that you affirm that there is only one reality, a material reality. Are you saying, then, that this material reality is the same as the manifested universe or not? Does the material reality have a starting point?

-

Anna wrote:And, too, I would not say that women have the 'need for connection' preventing them from disengaging from society, but rather they probably simply lack the strength, the testosterone, that men have. Testosterone is the aggression hormone.

The main weapon used by nurses and mothers to kill their victims was poison.

And, as Nick Treklis pointed out so intelligently, if physical strength and aggression are the main source of male domination and independence, then the tigers and elephants would be ruling the biosphere.

So physical weakness is not the main reason why women are so dependent and incapable of disconnecting from others or disengaging from society. It is more to do with psychological weakness: submissiveness, timidity, lacking in imagination, mental obsession with irrelevant details and consequent poor mental focus, hypersensitivity to discomfort, and the like.

For women, connection with others is very deeply set into their 'programming'. They have the 'copy others' learning down pat. Women are naturally disposed to learn only what most other people are doing.

Not to be anecdotal, but do you live alone? Not have a social life? Use a telephone less than once a month? Think of yourself as a loner? Prefer not to let others share in details of your everyday existence? Have a worldview that roughly none you meet can understand? Never hug people? Prefer to say nothing ?

Mentally ill women are far more isolated than mentally ill men.

That could mean that social isolation makes the average women mentally ill, whilst men are relatively used to it.


KJ

Kelly Jones wrote:And, as Nick Treklis pointed out so intelligently, if physical strength and aggression are the main source of male domination and independence, then the tigers and elephants would be ruling the biosphere.

So physical weakness is not the main reason why women are so dependent and incapable of disconnecting from others or disengaging from society.

If tigers and elephants had equivalent intelligence to humans they might rule the world due to their superior physical strength.

David,

Your writing is confusing me here. When you say "a universe", do you mean the manifested universe itself, or a phenomenon within the manifested universe?

It is undoubtedly true that some things within the manifested universe occur in cycles (maybe even universes too), but there are also many things which don't, so that doesn't help us much. You also state that you affirm that there is only one reality, a material reality. Are you saying, then, that this material reality is the same as the manifested universe or not? Does the material reality have a starting point?

I mean the manifested universe, in this case.
I think that there is an unbroken continuum from the most subtle to the most heavy in the totality of reality. We call the more visible aspects 'the material world.' But it's all one world. Within that subtle realm, however, lies the power to generate a manifest universe, i.e., cause a Big Bang or generate matter. So stars and galaxies might arise and dissolve over the course of many billions or trillions of years.

It's not that the material reality has a starting point per se, but there are in nature discrete jumps as well as unbroken chains of causation. Like an electron jumping from shell to shell. In this way, the material reality that we call such, things like atoms, might have a starting point as part of a cycle. But what gives rise to them does not.

Kelly,

And, as Nick Treklis pointed out so intelligently, if physical strength and aggression are the main source of male domination and independence, then the tigers and elephants would be ruling the biosphere.

This is so incredibly silly I am not going to respond to it, which is a good thing because I have run out of time.

Jason wrote:If tigers and elephants had equivalent intelligence to humans they might rule the world due to their superior physical strength.

As Douglas Adams jokingly suggested, the Earth is run by highly intelligent white mice. So there's nothing stopping women, is there? Oh, I forgot, women already do run Earth. Or run amok anyway.

Iolaus,

Any thoughts on why Nancy Cotterill filled her list of Big Wheels with men, barring one female example? Because only 12% of people using wheelchairs are female?

Jason wrote:If tigers and elephants had equivalent intelligence to humans they might rule the world due to their superior physical strength.

Don't underestimate the importance of having an opposable thumb.

Kelly Jones wrote:Iolaus,

Any thoughts on why Nancy Cotterill filled her list of Big Wheels with men, barring one female example? Because only 12% of people using wheelchairs are female?

Visit the nursing (old-folks) homes, the ratio is 4-1 women in wheelchairs.

Now, I can't say I've visited any in Tasmania, but I'm (my family) are back in North Dakota for a few weeks ... and the 4-1 ratio holds true here (as in California) in the nursing homes anyway.

Part of the reason(s) may be that men die off sooner and that women bear the children with all those variables such as how many children each woman bears and whether they were raised as farm girls, city slickers etc. The different anatomies of the sexes etc.

My mom (who bore four children and two miscarriages at seven months) is now in a wheelchair and has been since late 2003. And now, we have our favorite Flying Nun, Sally Field, pushing Boniva, the bone-loss that most women suffer from for whatever reason unknown to a mere mortal man, like me. The girlfriend of 40 years, bore our seven children with no miscarriages, she's healthy, fit, and within seven pounds of her first child. We had a late one when we were aged-45 and had our first when we were aged-16...

My dad, died at age-78 and spent the last year of his life confined to a wheelchair. Hip replacement from 1971 technology, he was born/raised a farmboy, and raised around horses so that was the mode of farmwork, a lot of walking behind horses, riding the early tractors with their metal seats (with no springs) that bumped on his hips, back, kidneys. Ditto for Ford's Model A's, Model T's lack of suspension, springs etc. The downside that hastened his demise was the doctors placing him on all those meds, that "modern medicine is good for" :-(

Some doctor prescribed (early 2004) my mom some Ativan, then Ambien, eventually Wellbutrin, finally Celexa for a few months and now, her mind is in orbit, and can't remember much of her past.
All of this, supposedly, for depression...

Had I been family Power-of-Attorney, there wouldda been no psycho drugs for her. My idiot oldest brother (the one with a masters degree in English), allowed her on it, didn't tell the rest of the siblings (he himself has been having cerebral brainstrokes, too) because my idiot sister, a registered nurse, both (IQ in the mid 90s) brainwashed into the worldly system of doing things were for the most part, unconscious.

Fortunately for the girlfriend and I, we have the financial resources to care for my mom in our home. Living off the State, she'd be a total zombie in some nursing home in North Dakota, eating the shittiest "food" known to man.

Good thing Dr. Mengele (Ryan) isn't in control, mom would've been 6-deep years ago.



PS - pardon the grammar lapses...


.

Ryan: If we can agree that the traits of the feminine ego are less conducive to consciousness than the masculine ego is

yes, if only . . . . the entire we-speak of the forum is drenched in this masculine ego. The entire philosophy is dependent upon this masculine ego.

Ryan: it's not just about the "sexualized viewing lens", it's about eliminating its underlying causes. Namely the ego, both feminine and masculine.

Yes, a good way to do this is holding one above the other. jesus h. christ.

Well, hopefully my clarifications on this particular merit will help you gain a respect for it so you can be in accord with all of this forum's merits. : )

I have little respect for the irrational, most particularly when it's used to combat the irrational.

Ryan, you have been well and truly assimilated. No genius in that. Just flat-out conditioning.

Kelly: Pye to Nick wrote: I think the "Woman" philosophy pretty much undermines itself, Nick, which is, at least, in part what I'm pointing out here. It is very simple to talk about degrees of consciousness/unconsciousness in the human being, rather than demonstrating a piss-poor use of A=A - especially one so heavily-laden with the self-same sexual hooks one puts forth as a matter to transcend.

Kelly: I have already explained in this thread why this is a false idea.

You've done nothing but demonstrate the same slop-over between a quality (consciousness) and people (women) so neatly and fatally embedded in the we-speak of the forum.

I rejected your idea of disassociation from the feminine, calling this inferior to transcendence of it, but I'd offer you your same advice in return. It is impossible for you to disassociate yourself from the feminine, as most of your writing and ideas on this forum hold witness to. You seem unable to take one, solid philosophical step without it. And don't be confusing this with fighting against such a thing . . . .

But then, we're each and everyone at different stages of the upward movement of consciousness. I grant your efforts and yours. At some point, you will have to deal with your self-identification with men qua men. It is something this self-same "weakened female-ego" you are terrified-of does all the time: hand itself over to men, glassy-eyed and all.

Pye wrote:

If we can agree that the traits of the feminine ego are less conducive to consciousness than the masculine ego is

yes, if only . . . . the entire we-speak of the forum is drenched in this masculine ego. The entire philosophy is dependent upon this masculine ego.

"In order for there to be wise men, there must first be men". - Kevin Solway

Pye wrote:

it's not just about the "sexualized viewing lens", it's about eliminating its underlying causes. Namely the ego, both feminine and masculine.

Yes, a good way to do this is holding one above the other. jesus h. christ.

In the beginning of one's spiritual path yes, but eventually all aspects of the ego must be eliminated if enlightenment is to be attained. Your unwillingness to recognize that the feminine ego is flat out incapable of getting one off on the right foot as far as spirituality is concerned can only lead me to believe you are insecure about your own feminine nature and the last thing you want to do is shine a negative light on it.

Pye wrote:

Well, hopefully my clarifications on this particular merit will help you gain a respect for it so you can be in accord with all of this forum's merits. : )

I have little respect for the irrational, most particularly when it's used to combat the irrational.

Nick, you have been well and truly assimilated. No genius in that. Just flat-out conditioning.

It seems like you just don't want to get your feelings hurt over people critisizing the feminine ego for it's inadequacy in achieving anything of spiritual or philosophical significance in comparison to the masculine ego. All we have to do is look at the statistics that are over-whelmingly in the favor of men when it comes to substantial philosophical achievements and we can reasonably conclude that a man's ego contains certain aspects to it that a woman's lacks which are conducive to higher consciousness; so why not refer to these as masculine traits? This isn't a hard of a pill to swallow if one is truly honest. Don't tell me you subsrcibe to that "everyone is equal" mantra that is so prevelant in today's "don't hurt my feelings" society. I doubt you would get upset if I said dogs are less likely to achieve enlightenment than men. So what's the big deal?

PS - You mistook my name for Ryan so I edited your posts to show that you were actually addressing me.

PS - You mistook my name for Ryan so I edited your posts to show that you were actually addressing me.

Apologies, Nick, and ta for the text correction. It's hard to tell all the we-speakers apart ;)

"


When all the world recognizes beauty as beauty, this in itself is ugliness.
When all the world recognizes good as good, this in itself is evil . . . .


"

Nick: Don't tell me you subsrcibe to that "everyone is equal" mantra that is so prevelant in today's "don't hurt my feelings" society.

I utterly do not subscribe to such a thing except emphatically on the level of opportunity. The rest is about human excellence. It's all about the highest, the most excellence that can come from unfettered opportunity.

In this, and perhaps this alone, I relate to platonics: That every lump of human protoplasm be tossed into the largest possible sea of knowledge; so that it, too, can find its float level - free to sink of its will, or rise the highest it possibly can . . . .

no, no, it is all about individual distinction.

.

Pye,

Apologies, Nick, and ta for the text correction. It's hard to tell all the we-speakers apart ;)

Good to know, that I am not the only one who cannot tell Ryan and Nick apart.

It's a well-known fact that women typically live longer than men, Tomas. So it's highly likely that there are more elderly women in wheelchairs than elderly men. This quote...:

females required more assistance in old age - 21% of women aged 65 years and over reported a need for assistance compared with 15% of men in the same age group. This reflects the fact that older men are more likely to experience acute illnesses followed by a short period of ill health before death, whereas older women are more likely to have a longer period of chronic ill health before death.

.. is strictly about people who need assistance (disabled, old age, or chronic ill-health). Link.

That gets us back where we started. High-achievers who are physically handicapped, and under 65 years of age, are mostly male. In other words, physical strength is not necessary to endure isolation and disconnection from others.

I think it should be obvious to the discerning individual where this discussion on psychology has been headed.

The feminine person seeks connection with others because there is not enough consciousness (memory, reason) to realise the foolishness of the idea. So it is utterly dependent on the thinking of others, and needy of attention for survival.


KJ

Aren't you seeking connection through thought at this very moment?

Can a fingertip touch itself?

Can an eye see itself?

Can a thought connect with itself?

Thoughts, eyes and vision, fingertips and touch, aren't really thoughts, eyes and vision, fingertips and touch. They just are what they are.

Kelly,

Any thoughts on why Nancy Cotterill filled her list of Big Wheels with men, barring one female example? Because only 12% of people using wheelchairs are female?

As usual, I've no idea what you're driving at. Or at least, I can't see where it's going to support your position, whatever that is, since you go back and forth.

Well, I'll spell it out for you Anna.

If men were caused to hold dominion over women, purely because of having greater physical strength and aggression, then elephants, lions, bears, alligators, rhinos, gorillas, hippos, bullocks, horses, etc. etc. - that have even greater physical strength, and aggression when fighting than men - would hold dominion over men. But they do not.

If men were caused to hold dominion over women, purely because of having greater physical strength and aggression, then there would be no gender inequity among high-achievers who are also physically-handicapped or pacific in disposition. But there is.

Draw the conclusion. Or deny it.

Here's a little hint:

—Rationality = Doesn't need others to solve its problems.—

—Enlightenment relies on reasoning things through alone.—

—Females rely on others to clarify their own thinking.—

—Females are not nature-gifted in the enlightenment stakes.—

Kelly Jones wrote:Draw the conclusion. Or deny it.

Here's a little hint:

—Rationality = Doesn't need others to solve its problems.—

—Enlightenment relies on reasoning things through alone.—

—Females rely on others to clarify their own thinking.—

—Females are not nature-gifted in the enlightenment stakes.—

Not only do females rely on others to clarify their thinking, but they have to be right, that is, they have to believe that they are the ones who have come up with the clear thinking.

Kelly,

If men were caused to hold dominion over women, purely because of having greater physical strength and aggression, then elephants, lions, bears, alligators, rhinos, gorillas, hippos, bullocks, horses, etc. etc. - that have even greater physical strength, and aggression when fighting than men - would hold dominion over men. But they do not.

If men were caused to hold dominion over women, purely because of having greater physical strength and aggression, then there would be no gender inequity among high-achievers who are also physically-handicapped or pacific in disposition. But there is.

I never said that it is pure physical strength, it is also the brain and its interests and motivations. And yes, the aggression, the ability to maintain aggression is also part of it.

But the bit about the animals, again, is so silly I will not bother to refute it.
A physically handicapped man is still a man in attitude and motivation. That they continue to achieve in the same ways they do when not handicapped, is no surprise. Again, you have supported my position.

A physically handicapped man is still a man in attitude and motivation.

Hello! Looks like you're pointing to psychology here.

There's a wonderful conclusion to draw here, if you dare to reach it. Physically handicapped women are not high-achievers, and they're still women in their attitudes and motivations.

.....Women aren't high-achievers.

High-achievers have a specific psychology. And it is closer to the average fella's attitudes and motivations than the gal's.

But it was me who argued that, and you who said the psychology is malleable. Not that I deny it's somewhat malleable and various, but on the whole, the differences in performance originate in the brain. You call is psychology. I call it physiology.