GENIUS FORUMS

Jason,

Ma'am, put your ha....I mean claws, where I can see them! Step away from the sage!

You're going to talk like that to a woman with claws? Just get out of my way.

-

Iolaus wrote:Says AJ

I submit to you that no one on this whole forum (I say this sincerely) seems ever to express any appreciating for the things of which this life is composed

Not so!

I have defended life, and railed many times against the anti-life stance by the wise and rational inner lunatic fringe here.

Not so! from me, too. I express appreciation for life in just about every post. Open your eyes, Alex!

Ah, but Alex cannot see anything else here than disconnected, 'heady' people, floating in their mental space, not in touch with their body, scents, feelings, poetry - like some blunt instruments not capable of getting the finer tastes of life.

And I keep on asking him: why do you think you keep on seeing them everywhere? Isn't it because we always desire to see the very thing we're missing? This desire can cause one to miss it in the other when they're not signaling similar desires in the same affirmative fashion, like missing a secret handshake or wink drug addicts might exchange. Message boards likely only fuel this type of projection, which of course will always have its elements of truth in particular cases, almost by accident, a statistical "see i was right all along" type of victory.

We crave the earth and connection the most where the earth, the reality of it is furthest away. And there the mirror imaging starts giving us satisfaction, pacifying the craving.

But that was only good enough when we were much younger.

It doesn't suprise me that so many women post or that they are attracted to Dan and others. I've found that it's not necessarily the content of a man's perspective that's so important to a woman, but the strength of conviction he has in it. It's not what he believes, but that he believes. So even if the philosophy is "you're dumb", there is still plenty of wiggle room for attraction so long as the frame is kept strong.

As for footholds, a man simply talking with a woman is enough to make sparks, regardless of intention. My personal tendency is not to speak much, but to vibe sexual masculinity even from a half block away and watch the sexual feminine blossom. This vibe intensifies the closer we are to skin contact.

It's fun to play around with nature like this. My body buzzes with dopamine or whatever it may be, and I get ego boosted. But the problem I've had is that the buzz does not last forever, and the boost is entirely hollow. Most often I have far too little in common with these women to have any kind of meaningful conversation, and I've almostly completely lost the ability to bullshit.

It's a silly habit and really only wastes my time. For most of the day my eyes are more or less "turned off", as they tend to look to my mind instead, until of course a beautiful woman walks by. I have so many "refined categories" for my preferences of this aesthetic, much like music. How I might not get swept away with either in the future still remains to be seen.

David's comment on women taking man's humor as flattery is very interesting. I'll have to think more about this.

skipair,

It's not what he believes, but that he believes. So even if the philosophy is "you're dumb", there is still plenty of wiggle room for attraction so long as the frame is kept strong.

If this were so, I could just find myself a religious freak (and there are millions), and be impressed by the strength of his beliefs, however off-the-wall they might seem to me.

-

"If this were so, I could just find myself a religious freak (and there are millions), and be impressed by the strength of his beliefs, however off-the-wall they might seem to me."

Which in a way, in a way, is exactly what Dan et al is...

Dan, Dave and Kevin belong to a branch of Christianity.

Alex Jacob wrote:Dan, Dave and Kevin belong to a branch of Christianity.

Why Christianity, and not Daoism, Buddhism, or rationalism?

David Quinn wrote:

Shahrazad wrote:David,

I wouldn't call this a rational judgment as such (most of your points are disputable), more an echoing of standard thinking in a tired era.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Only you are capable of rational judgments, and anything I say must by default be standard thinking.
-

I didn't say that. I said that the reasoning you offered was standard. In my experience, it is very widespread.

-

Sorry that I'm getting to this so late, but I've been busy.

In my experience, it is not too widespread. I get chided all the time by my family for having a sense of humor. They hate it when I make light of serious situations or well-established, unflattering facts. They have no idea why I do it.

Most people may find it disrespectful to make a joke during a funeral, for example. I would only have a problem if the joke was disrespectful in itself.

So much for your hypothesis that I am echoing the standards of my peers, though I note that you denied having implied it.

And here is why my judgment is rational, since you said it wasn't (as such). It is completely consistent with my philosophy of life and it helps me achieve my goals. I give a flying fuck if it happens to be considered standard or not.

-

Ouch! Have you seen David's beard? That's gotta be prickly!

Perhaps there is someplace else she could sit.

Diebert,

"Ah, but Alex cannot see anything else here than disconnected, 'heady' people, floating in their mental space, not in touch with their body, scents, feelings, poetry - like some blunt instruments not capable of getting the finer tastes of life."

As you well know---and of course you also know exactly why---I take issue with the TBs of the GF forum. I would write out their names but I don't really have to. They never, ever talk about any of the things you mention above, and whenever any of those things are mentioned it is 'poetry' and 'aesthetics'. You know this Diebert.

"We crave the earth and connection the most where the earth, the reality of it is furthest away. And there the mirror imaging starts giving us satisfaction, pacifying the craving."

And this is one of the reasons, perhaps, that such 'disconnected philosophies' arise, and what they feed off: disconnect from 'authentic life'.

Iolaus,

I assume you know that when I say 'this list!' and 'this place!' and 'everyone here!' I am referring only to some.
_________________________________________________________

Beingof1: If you know me, where do you know me from? I don't know anyone whose father and grandfather were faith-healers. I didn't ever sic Yolanda on you did I?

Alex,

Which in a way, in a way, is exactly what Dan et al is...

I don't find Dan's philosophy off-the-wall, although I can probably live without some aspects of it, such as the celibacy. For some unknown reason, I'm not totally comfortable with that.

-

Alex (again),

---I take issue with the TBs of the GF forum.

Top Bullies? Please clarify.

Beingof1: . . . I didn't ever sic Yolanda on you did I?

Do you ever sic her on yourself?

-

Hi Trevor, it is always good to see you, I hope to read more of your writing...

"Why Christianity, and not Taoism, Buddhism, or rationalism?"

Well, because their context was Christian, their parents for example. One of them wrote how dissatisfied he was with his father's faith and how little it availed him. Kevin wrote how his parents seemed so dull and stupid, but somewhere else I read about his dissatisfaction with their religious connection. If you were to ask my opinion, you can't just all on the sudden change religious affiliations. We are very strongly, and essentially, a Christian culture. Dan, David and Kevin (and perhaps Sue and Ryan) seem still to be so very much operating within their Christian context, even if they don't see the roots, even if they are not aware of them.

It falls to them to deal with the failures of their parents, and to discover a 'real' religious connection: authentic life.

Only a Taoist can be a Taoist. Taoism is a way of life for some men who lived up in the hills in China, right? That was then, now is now. We can be charmed by those ideas, we can even emulate them and like Gary Snider go off and live among the pines, get ourselves a crinkly oriental-like smile, write oriental-influenced poems, put on different clothes, but that is all overlay, it is all postmodernism in operation, it is also post-war radicalism, an (attempted) escape from our own context.

They are though rationalists, but Christian rationalists. Just look at the parts of Jesus of Nazareth's doctrines they relate to, explain and defend. It is like a sort of Christian scientism or 'rationalism'.

TB means 'true believer' a more-or-less common term.

I don't need to sic Yolanda on myself because I am completely healed. When she comes we usually sit and meditate, or paint watercolors, or I help her with her language studies, or we cook some food.

You say (again)...did you ask me something and I spaced it out?

Alex,

I don't need to sic Yolanda on myself because I am completely healed. When she comes we usually sit and meditate, or paint watercolors, or I help her with her language studies, or we cook some food.

[ Sher rolls on the floor laughing. ] Good one.

You say (again)...did you ask me something and I spaced it out?

I was referring to the fact that I made two posts in a row addressed to you. The first of which you didn't reply to, btw. I figure it's because we seem to be posting at the same time, and it makes for unsmooth communication.

-

Sher, I think it was Iolaus who referred to you once saying you are Jewish. Is that so? Are you Panamanian?

Alex,

No, but I am 25% Arabic by blood. Culturally, I am 50% Latin and 50% Anglo. I lived in the (southern) USA 15 years. I have been told that what makes me so weird is that I am bi-cultural. I find it a neat advantage, though. I get the feeling that you are bi-cultural too, or maybe even tri-cultural.

-

Alex Jacob wrote:Hi Trevor, it is always good to see you, I hope to read more of your writing...

"Why Christianity, and not Taoism, Buddhism, or rationalism?"

Well, because their context was Christian, their parents for example. One of them wrote how dissatisfied he was with his father's faith and how little it availed him. Kevin wrote how his parents seemed so dull and stupid, but somewhere else I read about his dissatisfaction with their religious connection. If you were to ask my opinion, you can't just all on the sudden change religious affiliations. We are very strongly, and essentially, a Christian culture. Dan, David and Kevin (and perhaps Sue and Ryan) seem still to be so very much operating within their Christian context, even if they don't see the roots, even if they are not aware of them.

"Kevin, Dan and David 'must' be Christians, not because of how they behave, but because my pet sociological theory says so."

Brilliant.

Step outside those theoretical realms, Alex, and actually experience life in the here and now for a change. It is possible to live without the protection of all those conceptual layers. The world really isn't a scary place if you face it directly. It is only your imagination, your timidity, which says that you need all those protective layers.

-

Alex Jacob wrote:We are very strongly, and essentially, a Christian culture.

America is. Australia has more religious variety, and religious freedom from a practical sense. America's laws write about religious freedom, but you are right about the unavoidable pervasiveness of Christianity in America. Kevin, David, and Dan are not under the same pressure of militant Christians as Americans are.

Hi Jim.

You can’t say that Western women don’t have the opportunity to partake in activities of transcendence, can you? True, most don’t because of the way society nurtures them to be immanent creatures to a greater degree than males, or because of their natural lack of the genetic tools that give rise to a desire for transcendence, but the opportunity is still there for the taking.

You are answering for me :) Men also have these opportunities to partake in activities of transcendence, but most of them blow it off, too. And entry for women into these worlds does not smooth-sailing make. The woman who just ran for U.S. president (law-making is the stuff of transcendence) was treated to an unprecedented amount of sexist analysis, from the tasteless to the absurd. And yes, from both men and women.

And I'm not so sure the social conditioning to immanent roles is not just as keenly aimed at males, whose sexual appetites are pandered and propped, and whose social identity is so often tied to his sexual success. Not to mention the patriotic notion of being the good family man; the loyal working stiff.

The part in your quote bolded above, though, I take exception to, on grounds I have repeated here so often. I know from living fact that when the right conditions are set, females are fully capable of handling reasoning both subtle and complex, to every degree as that of males. To be sure, the "laboratory" (classroom) is only 90 minutes, twice a week; and these women emerge immediately into the world at large - a college campus - in tune with its immanence expected. But with the right conditions set; the expectations high; the language laid out; the concepts ready for take-off, there is no way in the world I could possible come away from my experiences with higher thinking and say that women are less capable of it than men. It's the conditions, not the nature of things. And it's just plain rare everywhere.

I reject every brain-study that's come down the pike that sets its cap to explain these fundamental differences between men and women - this determinism set about its own determination. Because every living human becomes its immediate conditions instantly, and it starts even earlier in the womb. I heard a scientific rumor that if you tell the sex of the child to the pregnant mother, she starts producing the corresponding hormone (testosterone/estrogen) in an amount significantly more abundant than women without this knowledge. We are stunningly malleable; infinitely dependent upon our conditions. You cannot study feral children and come away with any other conclusion than this.

People have many many cherished things they think belong to their nature (walking on two's, talking, loving, smiling, sociability, natural modesty, natural superiority, etc.) that make no appearance until the conditions are there to mimic them. And sometimes, if these conditions aren't there at the right time, some of those cherished aspects of humanity never emerge.

Whilst the scientists are creating their paradigm, and the social psychologists are writing their copious best sellers about irreconcilable men and women, I am living on the edge of existence, it's immediate edge, where malleable conditions stand taller in evidence than any brain scan they can show me. Time's a'wasting anyway, while they fiddle around.

For this reason I’d don’t concern myself with women as such, but that which prevents everyone from shifting focus away from the immanent – egotism, religion, non-directed capitalism and a shallow media focusing on producing even more immanent desires.

I am this way, too, but along-with concern for women as such.

When women seek transcendence, they do so via immanent means, through philosophies involving the concept of “love”. It is up to role models like you, who care about such issues, to move them away from false immanent-based philosophies, to philosophies of reality.

I completely grok the role-model mimesis thing, but this is not enough. Any one moved to disgust at the vapidity of present humanity has work to do.

I swear, I have been having this thought lately that humans are subdividing in evolution, and we are living through it, too slow to see; too evident not to notice. There seems a threshold cap on the intelligence of so very many people, and I do not know if conditions alone are responsible for it. I see this threshold sometimes, and think that we must be occupying two different worlds in thought. Perhaps it will be as Nietzsche suggested: Those who may see things more clearly might perish sooner, than those safely lumbering behind.

So where can they buy your book?

not finished.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Alex Jacob wrote:We are very strongly, and essentially, a Christian culture.

America is. Australia has more religious variety, and religious freedom from a practical sense. America's laws write about religious freedom, but you are right about the unavoidable pervasiveness of Christianity in America. Kevin, David, and Dan are not under the same pressure of militant Christians as Americans are.

That's right. Most Australians are either atheistic, agnostic or nominally Christian at best. They are about as interested in Christianity as Americans are in Buddhism.

But even if Australia was militantly Christian, it still wouldn't hinder the possibility of individuals entirely leaving the Christian mentality behind and becoming intellectually and psychologically free.

Alex seems to have no awareness of the power of individual thought and no conception of what it means to uncover truth. It really is quite remarkable to observe, contrasted as it is with all his cleverness, erudition and verbosity.

-

Pye wrote:not finished.

Don't worry, empty-headed idiots everywhere will be lining up for a copy of your poorly-concieved horseshit.

I just won't be one of them.

You're an asshole, prince.

Alex Jacob wrote:

If you know me, where do you know me from? I don't know anyone whose father and grandfather were faith-healers.

This is a very odd answer. I asked if you knew me or I knew you and you answer by asking me where I know you from? Is this a comprehension, truth impairment, or just not paying attention skill to cause the conversation to dissolve into ubsurdity?

I didn't ever sic Yolanda on you did I?

Yes you did - I am beginning to see signs of convoluted absurdity - this is exactly why I asked if we had ever spoke.

I hope a straight answer is within your capicity as this conversation will be very short if you are honesty challenged.

I don't need to sic Yolanda on myself because I am completely healed. When she comes we usually sit and meditate, or paint watercolors, or I help her with her language studies, or we cook some food.

And now you disparage again. Is this how you get your jollys - by prodding others with a cattle prod?

Group hugs everyone.

When you can manage truthfulness let me know. In the meantime, good luck with that emptiness inside. You never know, someone you think is beneath you may be the very one you may have to demonstrate humility with - true Christianity is funny that way.

You never know, someone you think is beneath you may be the very one you may have to demonstrate humility with - true Christianity is funny that way.

But some of us are not even Christians, Being.

I like many of your posts, btw. I hope you stick around.

-