GENIUS FORUMS

brokenhead wrote:

Kevin, on women, wrote:They still don't know what they are doing.

And men do?

In my estimation the average man is about 90% feminine (unconscious). And to the degree that a person is feminine they don't know what they are doing.

brokenhead wrote:

Where did you see me say anything about men and women being "equal"?

In the way you talk about women being physicians and CEO's like men, when you bring up Oprah's stereotypes and compare their flip side to Kevin, and when you say there is competence and incompetence in both sexes, etc. - these things suggest a sense of equality and fairness.

You can't possibly know what my concept of a woman is because you are not me.

If you're focused on equality and fairness you won't see that men and women have different animal natures.

The last thing I need is a goddamn lecture on the fundamental differences between men and women.

I disagree, but I'll shut up soon and if you wanna duke it out again sometimes I'll be around.

It all comes down to one thing, doesn't it, skipair? And that is which women you know.

That would be a different topic. I am talking about the difference between male and female animal natures. There is a common thread running through one, and a different one through the other. We speak different languages.

I don't assume women can't compete in an intellectual capacity just because they can't piss standing up.

Yeah, but how cool would it be if they could. :)

If you're focused on equality and fairness you won't see that men and women have different animal natures.

Dude! We're supposed to be geniuses, remember? We can walk and chew gum at the same time! This statement is absolutely preposterous, skipair. Who doesn't "see" the different animal natures between the genders and know what it entails? Why must you fixate on the reproductive apparatuses? They aren't going anywhere! They'll still be there tomorrow! "If you try to treat them fairly, you'll forget they have tits and clits." I have spent the better part of my adult life trying to ignore the tits and clits! Can't we all just get along? Yes, women are tied to their animal natures. And no one is going to convince me that men aren't so tied, as well.

How do you know that women and men are tied to their animal natures?

Dan Rowden wrote:How do you know that women and men are tied to their animal natures?

Because we're animals. We eat, we shit, we fuck, we sleep, we bleed when we are cut.

brokenhead wrote:Who doesn't "see" the different animal natures between the genders and know what it entails?

I don't think people see the extent of it.

Why must you fixate on the reproductive apparatuses?

It's not just that, it's also how the sexes necessarily operate on different planes, like male and female penguins on the south pole. Both are animals that have to eat, sleep, breathe, etc., but as with penguins, human men and women are still programmed to interact with reality in different ways.

Yes, women are tied to their animal natures. And no one is going to convince me that men aren't so tied, as well.

Of course not. Men are simply tied to a different animal nature. His drives and interpretations of reality are a bit different.

brokenhead wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:How do you know that women and men are tied to their animal natures?

Because we're animals. We eat, we shit, we fuck, we sleep, we bleed when we are cut.

Oh, right. Sorry, I thought you might be referring to something relevant and interesting ;)

What if you don't fuck anymore?

Leyla Shen wrote:What if you don't fuck anymore?

Is that a hypothetical?

Dan Rowden wrote:

brokenhead wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:How do you know that women and men are tied to their animal natures?

Because we're animals. We eat, we shit, we fuck, we sleep, we bleed when we are cut.

Oh, right. Sorry, I thought you might be referring to something relevant and interesting ;)

Well, you should know me better than that by now.

Leyla Shen wrote:What if you don't fuck anymore?

Hey - have you been reading my mail?

This thread is hilarious.

ALL by definition cannot change, and it cannot flow for this requires change.

ALL can be perceived as flowing if you are a part of ALL, but this escapes QRS.

The error of QRS is that QRS describes, but does not understand.

That the All cannot change goes without saying. That is why we often refer to it as timeless, permanent, beyond life and death, etc.

-

Kevin Solway wrote:

Steven wrote:What flow exists in the Totality of All? The one you think you see?

It is what you see and what you do not see.

David Quinn wrote: I think Kevin was refering to the flow which makes up the All.

David Quinn wrote:That the All cannot change goes without saying. That is why we often refer to it as timeless, permanent, beyond life and death, etc.

The unchanging nature of ALL might go without saying, but the implication that ALL already is ALL seems to have escaped you both in your jump into a debate into the masculine or feminine nature of the motion your perceive in existence.

ALL is not devoid of implication upon the facets of existence from which it draws its nature, nor is existence unshaped and distinct from its Total Form. ALL does not sit distinct and seperate from the Forms and Relationships of existence from which existence itself as a whole finds it validity and means of Being.

ALL Form and ALL Relationship are bound by the nature of their Totality while the Totality of Existence is bound only by its necessity. There are no mechanisms of choice, no engines of motion, and no place for change within the Totality of ALL Existant Things for such things are neither required nor are they consistent with a Totality that derives its Being from necessity and no other thing.

You think flow and motion and change and despite the fact you think on the nature of ALL you take this prior thought at face value. What I see now cannot reach an unchanged mind. The Totality of ALL cannot choose, cannot move, and requires ALL. We however require only relationship to ALL, and we relate to ALL, and through this relationship we validate our possibility and form our whole which is the fundament to existence, both of us and of ALL.

We are nothing more than an instance of existence that must relate to ALL; that is forced to witness the conclusion of cognition in what we conclude is a direction, and that forms the validity for our existence only through Being Whole. Every instance of you must live every other instance without changing, for this is the fundamental nature of the Totality of ALL. That is what you, my dear QRS, have missed.

Steven wrote:There are no mechanisms of choice, no engines of motion, and no place for change within the Totality of ALL Existant Things for such things are neither required nor are they consistent with a Totality that derives its Being from necessity and no other thing.

Nonetheless, this is how we experience life as human beings. We experience it in terms of change and motion and traveling into the future. Being able to integrate these realities with the unchanging reality of the ALL is part and parcel of developing wisdom.

Just as one shouldn't deny the unchanging reality of the ALL, one also shouldn't deny the reality of change and motion.

-

Or as Chuang Tzu says: "He who knows the part which the Heavenly in him plays, and knows also that which the Human in him ought to play, has reached the perfection of knowledge."

-

David Quinn wrote:

Steven wrote:There are no mechanisms of choice, no engines of motion, and no place for change within the Totality of ALL Existant Things for such things are neither required nor are they consistent with a Totality that derives its Being from necessity and no other thing.

Nonetheless, this is how we experience life as human beings. We experience it in terms of change and motion and traveling into the future. Being able to integrate these realities with the unchanging reality of the ALL is part and parcel of developing wisdom.

Just as one shouldn't deny the unchanging reality of the ALL, one also shouldn't deny the reality of change and motion.

-

As perceived by humans.

Indeed.

It is still an undeniable reality, though.

-

David Quinn wrote:Indeed.

It is still an undeniable reality, though.

-

No, it is an undeniable conclusion formed from the apparent perceptions of the subject.

A subject that can only form conclusions after data has passed from the sensory organs to the brain, or form conclusions from what it remembers it has already experienced.

You need to understand not only that there is a bias, but the implications of this bias.

Manipulating reality to turn your mind into the Totality is one step away from religion, two from the madhouse, and none from redicule.

Attempting to mould a philosophy around your perceptions instead of vice versa is zero steps from ignorance.

Steven wrote:

David Quinn wrote:Indeed.

It is still an undeniable reality, though.

No, it is an undeniable conclusion formed from the apparent perceptions of the subject.

A subject that can only form conclusions after data has passed from the sensory organs to the brain, or form conclusions from what it remembers it has already experienced.

All of which relies on the reality of change.

You need to understand not only that there is a bias, but the implications of this bias.

Bias cannot enter when it comes to recognizing truths which transcend the details of what is observed with the senses - such as the reality of change.

-

David Quinn wrote: All of which relies on the reality of change.

The reality of change is only something you think you see.

David Quinn wrote:

You need to understand not only that there is a bias, but the implications of this bias.

Bias cannot enter when it comes to recognizing truths which transcend the details of what is observed with the senses - such as the reality of change.

-

You might transcend the senses but you fail to transcend the brain.

Steven wrote:

David Quinn wrote: All of which relies on the reality of change.

The reality of change is only something you think you see.

Thoughts have the capacity to express the truth.

Steven wrote:

David Quinn wrote:

You need to understand not only that there is a bias, but the implications of this bias.

Bias cannot enter when it comes to recognizing truths which transcend the details of what is observed with the senses - such as the reality of change.

You might transcend the senses but you fail to transcend the brain.

The very process of transcending relies on the reality of change.

-

Steven wrote:

David Quinn wrote: All of which relies on the reality of change.

The reality of change is only something you think you see.

Only in the unenlightened person. The enlightened ones, see' everything beyond temporal change. All is one, All is all and is seen simultaneously with their birth and death.

David Quinn wrote:

Steven wrote:

David Quinn wrote: All of which relies on the reality of change.

The reality of change is only something you think you see.

Thoughts have the capacity to express the truth.

You consistantly fail to understand that there is no thought that is not a creation of the mind.

Steven wrote: You need to understand not only that there is a bias, but the implications of this bias.

David Quinn wrote:Bias cannot enter when it comes to recognizing truths which transcend the details of what is observed with the senses - such as the reality of change.

Steven wrote: You might transcend the senses but you fail to transcend the brain.

David Quinn wrote:The very process of transcending relies on the reality of change.

First of all the Bias I was talking about is that irrespective of all other points to this discussion awareness must inevitably perceive a single direction of time. To be aware one must conclude upon conceptions that are ultimately premised upon sense data. Thus irrespective of the true nature of time, awareness can only exist within a mind containing that relationship of conclusion upon conception of sense data.

This means that "the reality of progressive change" is the inevitable state of conclusion and experience for any awareness, irrespective of backwards, forwards or motionless time.

In order for your awareness to exist it must inevitably think that all entities are moving forward through time. You literally cannot perceive any other direction of time with the human equipment as the process would deconstruct conclusion into sense data.

This gives no direct clues as to the actual nature of time in the Universe, only to explain why it is that we, existing as a set of conclusions, perceive a direction of time.


Second of all while you wax lyrical about transcension and the Totality of All Existant Things you dont seem capable of doing other than describing these by their names. Your fervent adherance to the face value conclusion of motion that is a fundamentally necessary conclusion for any state of awareness to contain shows a serious lack of sincerity.

The Totality of All Existant Things is nothing more than the first accurate philosophical nod to Quantum Mechanics, whether you understand this is not something you have shown; the implications of this philosophical approach to QM is something you have shown to lack comprehension of.

The very first implication is that the categorisation of distinction between entities and the perception of absolute form arises from observation by an involved spectator, meaning that distinction between and perception of absolute entities arises out of the relationship between entities.

The second implication is that all entities are premised upon their total possible forms for the ability to exist in any form, and that any form is absolute only in its relationship both to itself and to all other entities that are possible.

The meaning here is that entities are distinct and seperate only insofar as they allow relationship between each other and the fulfilling of possible forms of existence, where each possible form is premised upon and related to all others for their inherant and collective existence.

The perception of motion and change in an unending instant comes from the fact that a life is the product of all the forms that constitute it, that you are one form producing a total life, and that a total life of all forms is what contitutes you, but you lack the ability to comprehend your relationships to the Totality of All Existant Things for what those relationships are.

Look around you. Everything is already All as it must be, and you are watching it like your form has to, but you cannot comprehend that Everything both forms you and is hidden from you while you yourself form a part of Everything. You are both the final expression of Everything and a single form of what constitutes everything, played out in your own illusionary Universe that belongs to you alone and the Totality in its absolute.

Ofcourse you witness motion. You would not be able to act out a life without it. That does not mean you actually go anywhere, do anything, or that anything anywhere ever actually changes. Always being born, always dying, never being anything other than a single instance while contributing to and consisting of an entire existence.

For once in your life transcend your brain and you might actually see beyond yourself.