GENIUS FORUMS

mikiel wrote: Cosmic Consciousness delegates response-ability to individuals rather than micro-managing absolutely everything from "central control."

Since all is one there is no question of delegation or otherwise. So called consciousness say in humans is an artifact of cause and effect, how can free will exist?

maestro wrote:

mikiel wrote: Cosmic Consciousness delegates response-ability to individuals rather than micro-managing absolutely everything from "central control."

Since all is one there is no question of delegation or otherwise. So called consciousness say in humans is an artifact of cause and effect, how can free will exist?

"So called consciousness"? Besides all manifest phenomena (the realm of cause and effect) Who is aware? Who is conscious *of* all the "artifacts of cause and effect?"
The whole point of meditation is to Just Be this consciousness Who is not only aware of the artifacts, but is the Awareness.
This is the nature of the transcendence of which I spoke in which free will actually operates. If you've never experienced Consciousness Itself (transcending its usual "objects", the "artifacts" of which youe speak,) then you must deny its existence as "so called."
Yet you affirm that "all is one." This One is Universal Consciousness, "Kosmos", and Its "body" is the cosmos.

mikiel

maestro wrote:

Carl G wrote:You apparently have already forgotten your Ouspensky.

It seems that was how it was destined. The Ouspensky project of creating a permanent self is doomed to failure.

I think you mean your Ouspensky project. Sorry to hear it.

Carl: the creation of a permanent self is not logical, if something is not logical it is doomed to failure.

mikiel wrote:
"So called consciousness"? Besides all manifest phenomena (the realm of cause and effect) Who is aware? Who is conscious *of* all the "artifacts of cause and effect?"
The whole point of meditation is to Just Be this consciousness Who is not only aware of the artifacts, but is the Awareness.
This is the nature of the transcendence of which I spoke in which free will actually operates. If you've never experienced Consciousness Itself (transcending its usual "objects", the "artifacts" of which youe speak,) then you must deny its existence as "so called."
Yet you affirm that "all is one." This One is Universal Consciousness, "Kosmos", and Its "body" is the cosmos.

Consciousness is nothing more than cause and effect, for example a digital camera hooked to a computer, can be aware of its environment. Consciousness is nothing more than a much more complex version of this setup.


I agree with universal consciousness statement, but this is not what you think. For example even a rock is conscious as it changes with its environment, thus in a way sensing its environment.

Mikiel, I thought it might help if you saw one of the Power Animals I recently contacted on a 'shamanic voyage' down to the very bowels and forgotten chambers of my own 'reality'. This dude said he was completely willing to help in your reconstruction (yay!), and first off he said he's gonna catch all the rodents and vermin that are psychically infesting your substructure...

For the next 2 weeks you are going to feel a strange itching-scratching on the insides of your rib-cage that will at times feel a little maddening. Know that it is part of the process and it will pass soon.

Caracal.

maestro wrote:Carl: the creation of a permanent self is not logical, if something is not logical it is doomed to failure.

How would you determine that? Oh right, because All is One and there is no self. I find that pretty lame. In one sense you are right, of course, but right here and now, on the ground and where the rubber meets the road, there is a self. I am experiencing mine. I am working with it. I am working with the body -- yes, body -- that houses it. For all intents and purposes the All is One thinking is fine, it's fine as background info, and that perspective certainly can help guide one's actions, however, I cannot pay the bills with it, and by that I do not mean only physically, but spiritually. My information -- and a good deal of it does come from Gurdjieff - tells me there is a lot more hay that can be made in life than simply accepting what is.

Since all is one there is no question of delegation or otherwise. So called consciousness say in humans is an artifact of cause and effect, how can free will exist?

Here you make sweeping statements a la Kevin et al, supposedly based on logic. As I have said before logic is a valuable tool, but it is not the only fucking tool in the toolbox. There are questions, my friend. It isn't so cut and dried and you and QRS would have it.

Carl G wrote: How would you determine that? Oh right, because All is One and there is no self. I find that pretty lame. In one sense you are right, of course, but right here and now, on the ground and where the rubber meets the road, there is a self. I am experiencing mine. I am working with it. I am working with the body -- yes, body -- that houses it. For all intents and purposes the All is One thinking is fine, it's fine as background info, and that perspective certainly can help guide one's actions, however, I cannot pay the bills with it, and by that I do not mean only physically, but spiritually. My information -- and a good deal of it does come from Gurdjieff - tells me there is a lot more hay that can be made in life than simply accepting what is.

Indeed the sense of self and the fitting in with society is still part of the same causal process. Gurdjieff is a part of the same causal process, he has taught me many things, but the creation of an independent self cannot happen. The body/mind is a complex chemical soup which is affected by so much. In any case if it is destined to happen it will happen surely.

Carl G wrote: Here you make sweeping statements a la Kevin et al, supposedly based on logic. As I have said before logic is a valuable tool, but it is not the only fucking tool in the toolbox. There are questions, my friend. It isn't so cut and dried and you and QRS would have it.

I agree we could all be wrong, but still the all made us do this, there is no other way.

That causality entails determinism is true (in this we cannot be wrong), and even if consciousness were something outside of the physical universe, we can combine these two together to form the All, in which causality would reign supreme.

Well said! Way to toe the company line, maestro.

I believe the company line is femininity vs masculinity.

maestro wrote:I agree we could all be wrong, but still the all made us do this, there is no other way.

That causality entails determinism is true (in this we cannot be wrong), and even if consciousness were something outside of the physical universe, we can combine these two together to form the All, in which causality would reign supreme.

How's this? Why would causality rule something outside of causality? Is causality something that exists outside the physical universe? In other words, is there time outside of time?

divine focus wrote: How's this? Why would causality rule something outside of causality? Is causality something that exists outside the physical universe? In other words, is there time outside of time?

maestro wrote:I agree we could all be wrong, but still the all made us do this, there is no other way.

That causality entails determinism is true (in this we cannot be wrong), and even if consciousness were something outside of the physical universe, we can combine these two together to form the All, in which causality would reign supreme.

How's this? Why would causality rule something outside of causality? Is causality something that exists outside the physical universe? In other words, is there time outside of time?

According to my definition a closed system follows causality since its evolution in time is self determined.

If you argue that consciousness is outside of the universe, then I will simply form a bigger universe by including these two, in one set so that nothing is outside this universe and it is closed.

Now this universe is again causal.

maestro wrote:Since all is one there is no question of delegation or otherwise. So called consciousness say in humans is an artifact of cause and effect, how can free will exist?

All is one. But one what? You are missing the the very real fact of delegation, from the Ultimate Source delegating everything but its Personhood and Authority and Ultimate Power downward into Creation, both spiritual and material. You cannot deny the existence of cells in the human body, for instance, by saying they are all part of one. One what? One human body. Likewise, you cannot dismiss the existence of a single human will, low on the totem pole though it may be. Too often we are fooled by the appearance of separateness. Meditation helps us redress this imbalance and realize our "connectedness" with the whole. But by surrendering our will to the whole, what we are really doing is cleansing ourselves, relieving ourselves of all the false attachments our wills gather unto us like lint. The All then strips our wills of these delusions and returns it to us in its pure, delegated form. By willingly relinquishing the gift given to us, we paradoxically receive it back purified. There really is no paradox when you comprehend what the All is, and of what it consists. Our wills reside within our divine spark, with our personhood, granted to us by the ultimate authority of the Universal Father. Our wills are divine in essence, and become corrupted by contact with the material vestures that are our bodies and their needs and desires. Corruption is a negative word - some of it is as natural dust gathering under a couch. Devotion and surrender refreshes us and renews us and helps us rediscover the purpose for which we are here, even if fully comprehending that purpose might forever elude us. It suffices to know we have one, and consciously yielding our wills when they are compromised is the gift of the Creator to his children. Sophistries, cynicism, and even philosophy can't deprive the least of us of this divine gift of love.

Alex,

My latest line of thinking is to propose that women would never, ever have created or be able to create all that man's culture has created. Almost the whole world as we know it is a man's creation---it is a pretty challenging and sobering thought.

I, too, had that insight 6 or so years ago. It happened shortly before I came to this forum, and when I related it, you can imagine, that David had high hopes for me (which didn't pan out). I'm still trying to figure out what to make of it.

For me, it had little element of thought, and was not sparked by a book or dialog. I was with my husband, we went on a ferry on the outer banks of North Carolina, and had our vehicle with us. I stood on the deck of the ferry to enjoy watching it dock and noted the perfect order of the streets, and the lights, and the docking of the ferry, and the many male hands that pulled it off, the machinery, the precision, the way our cars would merge with the street, the incredible interlocking works. Shortly before that I had gone to the hardware store to buy something he needed, and the man in the store explained something to me about the categorization in the tools - I don't remember if it was a sizing thing or what but it was so logical and well done, and I had not known of its existence. My little world just works, you know, I turn my key and the car starts, that sort of thing. Suddenly as the ferry docked I had a kind of realization of the magnitude of all this, and that women had little to do with it, and as you say, most likely, never would.

The above might sound like I'm a typical helpless woman, but I am less so than average. I can and have changed a flat tire!

Women in the Islamic world are sequestered in harems, but what have they invented? Left to their own devices, what have they invented? If women, the little dears, wanted nothing more than to play around with math concepts as they hang out in their women's world, then they would get a reputation for such, and, I think, would be tolerated. But they don't care.

I believe that hippy-dippy culture has completely muddied the idea of what it is to be a man, and what men turn into are sort of womanish men, and the women into mannish women. I've seen it and been through it, and am opposed to it categorically.

I'd like to hear more about your impressions on this.

.I think that some perhaps significant portion of feminist discourse (I have read alot of it) has actually steered us wrong, and we have to get out from under it, and redefine both ourselves and women. It is a very difficult territory to move through because all these issues are contentious, painful issues.

I agree and I am not sure if you are aware that in many ways the philosophy here is in total support of feminism, even the most extreme, butch type. Which I find particularly hateful toward women. I.e., hateful because they hold out the (false and futile) hope/carrot that perhaps through extreme feminism women can somehow evolve real quick into men and be real people.

In what way do you think women have way to much power?

Oh, and you seem a bit frustrated with Carl's remote persona, but what about this:

Carl G wrote:How would you determine that? Oh right, because All is One and there is no self. I find that pretty lame. In one sense you are right, of course, but right here and now, on the ground and where the rubber meets the road, there is a self. I am experiencing mine. I am working with it. I am working with the body -- yes, body -- that houses it. For all intents and purposes the All is One thinking is fine, it's fine as background info, and that perspective certainly can help guide one's actions, however, I cannot pay the bills with it, and by that I do not mean only physically, but spiritually. My information -- and a good deal of it does come from Gurdjieff - tells me there is a lot more hay that can be made in life than simply accepting what is.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mikiel,

Your response duly noted to my links. I was not really expecting an in-depth discussion of BB theory, but your interest level made me think you might like to be aware of some really pretty good arguments to the contrary, and I was right.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Alright now, this is to Maestro and anyone else who subscribes to the no-self doctrine. As I was reading the 3rd (and worst) book of Jed Mckenna the other day I think I see a contradiction. As he says and as I myself figured out, the only think we can know for sure is that we exist, because we have subjective awareness. All else is unverifiable. We can call it the I AM.

The only thing! I exist. And yet, I don't really exist because I am no one. How does that line up?

I'm glad that you asked those questions, Anna. I was going to PM you and ask for some commentary on what I have written about women recently. To be truthful some of what I think is disturbing to me, and I don't know how to organize what I think correctly. These days---I think this is true---all discourses, all information, all outlooks, all groups of opinions---have been made so tendentious and complex, so spin-laden, that a person can hardly get clear about anything at all. Especially when monetary interests are at stake, in our corporate media culture (but in all culture in fact, since all culture these days circles around corporate-driven and directed culture) there are powerful interests that will fight tooth and nail to make something be true, to enforce truth. But of course we know this so well since we are so well versed in double-, triple- and quadruple-think, and yet even as we operate in different levels and shift between them constantly, sometimes we don't state the bottom-line truth out loud, and that 'truth' is that so many discourses and narratives, driven by interest, are simply bullshit!. Everyone is lying to us, all the time, and we are swimming in a soup of lies, and we lie to ourselves. It is all very weird. It is very hard for an 'authentic person' to function without dysfunction in this atmosphere of nuttiness.

One has to be very, very careful forming opinions, obviously, because one could easily 'fall back' into a non-useful sexism. In a way that is an attractive route and I am sure that many men have or could slip into that. (I have asked myself if my ideas are sexist or not). But the thinking man's approach must be different. The starting point for the QRS is that they don't want anything to do with women and so their platform is strangely analogous to the feminist, often lesbian, separatists of the 60s and 70s. This is of course the first error or the point that invalidates their platform. All they say is that 'women need to become more masculine', and yet I repeat an idea that comes from the Chinese wisdom-culture: that a man must really be a man, and a woman must really be a woman. This same 'wisdom' (if it is wisdom and not just pre-medieval regressiveness) also says that 'a woman's place is within and a man's place is without', and that it is imperative for the life of the family (the base-unit of a nation) that a woman 'attend to the sacrificial fires'. My conservatism---and it is in a certain very real sense classic conservatism---sees in these expression some elements of truth. It is in the nature of things that each person fulfill their station in life. But it also in the nature of things, in the West, to overturn conventions, to push at the frontiers, to challenge accepted notions. Since I am a product of that, what in the hell am I doing finding value in antiquated recommendations? (And I don't take these recommendations as literal, but more as suggestions or as general truths. And I know that any conservative idea such as these needs to be defined thoroughly and carefully, and I don't have the time right now in this post).

Freud spoke of this thing he called 'penis envy' but i read an essay by a woman Freudian who reversed it and proposed that it is men who have 'womb-envy'. It is pretty alarming and of course has been since human time began: that women produce living beings and gain a unity, a relatedness with another being that men never know and can't enjoy. Women get this sense of unity, and men are forever on the outside in so many ways. I was thinking today that, as compensation, the children of men's brains are all this crazy invented stuff that makes up our world. And we have extended 'gestation' beyond 9 months to 9 years, or 20 years, or 50 years.

Briefly, hippy-dippy culture took into itself a whole vast group of idealisms and it tried to enforce these idealisms when, if anything, it's a long and hard road to change anything about human culture. Sixties culture needs to be sifted through because so many idealistic narratives operate in it. And all that stuff is what comprises PC-think, and PC-think is the bane of 'free-thought'. We may not really be able to express 'free thought' in a corporate-dominated and driven world culture, but at least we can entertain these ideas internally.

This conversation, for me, is so vast and so alarming that I don't even know how to have it.

I am very interested in stuff that is being written about marketing to women, and I feel it is this marketing culture (as an offshoot of PR and social propaganda) that can really show us what in fact we are dealing with. There are forces molding women and what the definition of women is, that are vastly beyond our control. I include the following video just because it is sort of stupidly frightening and extremely debasing to those who made it, but they do not at all see it that way. 3iying-1 3iying-2

3iying webpage

Let the games begin!

Iolaus wrote:
Alright now, this is to Maestro and anyone else who subscribes to the no-self doctrine. As I was reading the 3rd (and worst) book of Jed Mckenna the other day I think I see a contradiction. As he says and as I myself figured out, the only think we can know for sure is that we exist, because we have subjective awareness. All else is unverifiable. We can call it the I AM.

The only thing! I exist. And yet, I don't really exist because I am no one. How does that line up?

The only thing that is happening is perception is occurring and not that I exist. Perception is nothing mysterious but simply cause and effect for example iron rusts in the presence of humidity thus it can be said to perceive humidity.

maestro wrote:The only thing that is happening is perception is occurring and not that I exist. Perception is nothing mysterious but simply cause and effect for example iron rusts in the presence of humidity thus it can be said to perceive humidity.

I wonder why you keep making this point.

A person does not rust in the presence of humidity. Therefore, it can be said that a person does not perceive humidity.

Why is it that iron perceives humidity when a person does not?

Perception is not mysterious. What is mysterious is continually trying to deny the existence of the ego to the extent of ascribing sense perceptions to a element. Was it you, maestro, that said a DSLR is conscious of its environment?

brokenhead wrote: I wonder why you keep making this point.

A person does not rust in the presence of humidity. Therefore, it can be said that a person does not perceive humidity.

Why is it that iron perceives humidity when a person does not?

Perception is not mysterious. What is mysterious is continually trying to deny the existence of the ego to the extent of ascribing sense perceptions to a element. Was it you, maestro, that said a DSLR is conscious of its environment?

My point is consciousness is nothing more than than sensing and reacting to the environment, a camera and a computer can do that too.

Maestro wrote:

My point is consciousness is nothing more than than sensing and reacting to the environment, a camera and a computer can do that too.

You persist in ignoring my point that consciousness transcends the objects it is aware of. (of which... etc, for the grammar police.))

I know this from over 13,000 hrs of transcendental consciousness in meditation.
I must presume you also deny the longstanding Eastern experience of nirvana and samadhi. Your "logic," as shared with another here recently, goes like this: "I am ignorant of this whole realm of experience; therefore it can not be real."

You might benefit also from studying Franklin Merrell-Wolff's masterpiece on enlightenment through the Western Path of Knowledge (embracing western philosophy and logic), "The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object."

mikiel

mikiel wrote: You persist in ignoring my point that consciousness transcends the objects it is aware of. (of which... etc, for the grammar police.))

Indeed and the camera does not sense its own ccd array it senses other stuff.

mikiel wrote:I must presume you also deny the longstanding Eastern experience of nirvana and samadhi. Your "logic," as shared with another here recently, goes like this: "I am ignorant of this whole realm of experience; therefore it can not be real."

I think nirvana is the realization of the oneness of the universe, of no separation etc.

maestro wrote:My point is consciousness is nothing more than than sensing and reacting to the environment, a camera and a computer can do that too.

I see that it's your point. How can you possibly be serious about it? Why would anyone want to believe such a thing?

maestro,
You and the crew who run this show are welcome to your belief that humans are essentially nothing more than robots.
I happen to *know* better, in the universal sense of gnosis. "Kosmos" is "cosmos *and* its consciousness.
The true Nature and Identity of enlightened humans is knowing we are local manifestations of both Creator Consciousness and It's local "body parts."
mikiel

brokenhead wrote: I see that it's your point. How can you possibly be serious about it? Why would anyone want to believe such a thing?

Why not, what else is there to it? Remember that it is said in Hinduism that everything is conscious. I am explaining why it is so, everything in the universe responds to stimulus, only varies in degree.

mikiel wrote: You and the crew who run this show are welcome to your belief that humans are essentially nothing more than robots.
I happen to *know* better, in the universal sense of gnosis. "Kosmos" is "cosmos *and* its consciousness.

That cosmos is conscious follows flawlessly from my definition of consciousness. May I remind you that you have not even defined consciousness, keep in mind that the consciousness of a man and a worm are very different so that your definition should be broad enough.

Alex,

To be truthful some of what I think is disturbing to me, and I don't know how to organize what I think correctly.

Yup.

These days---I think this is true---all discourses, all information, all outlooks, all groups of opinions---have been made so tendentious and complex, so spin-laden, that a person can hardly get clear about anything at all.

Aaron Russo claims to have befriended one of the heads of the Rockefeller clan, who admitted to him that the feminist movement in America was funded by the Rockefellers for their own nefarious purposes. It sounds too crazy at first to be true, but reading a little about it, I would say there was some evidence. Some of our big name feminists and magazines got major league funding. We're into conspiracy theory here, but I have come to think more and more, that anyone who dismisses conspiracy theories is naive and lazy.

At any rate, it seems there are a few movers and shakers, I won't say thinkers, who have vast influence and sway the masses who all swing upon their pendulums.

Especially when monetary interests are at stake, in our corporate media culture (but in all culture in fact, since all culture these days circles around corporate-driven and directed culture) there are powerful interests that will fight tooth and nail to make something be true, to enforce truth.

Well, a monetary interest that comes to mind is that the entire result of feminism has increased the control of the corporate elite over the American people, delivered the minds of the children to them, weakened the family and doubled the wage earning tax payers.

But of course we know this so well since we are so well versed in double-, triple- and quadruple-think, and yet even as we operate in different levels and shift between them constantly, sometimes we don't state the bottom-line truth out loud, and that 'truth' is that so many discourses and narratives, driven by interest, are simply bullshit!. Everyone is lying to us, all the time, and we are swimming in a soup of lies, and we lie to ourselves. It is all very weird. It is very hard for an 'authentic person' to function without dysfunction in this atmosphere of nuttiness.

Preach it, brother!

One has to be very, very careful forming opinions, obviously, because one could easily 'fall back' into a non-useful sexism.

Yes, very careful indeed.

All they say is that 'women need to become more masculine',

They want women to become men as literally as possible, and want to make the human race nonviable, i.e., dependent upon artificial technologies for such things as artificial wombs and the like. To me this is not only rather tellingly hateful toward life (and woman is, archetypally speaking, always the representative of the life principal: Zoe = life, Eve "the mother of the living.") And this is the very sort of unwise hubris that science often engages in, over and over using new technology toys and only later finding out that nature was far, far more complex than they had thought. Their silly ideas would cause everything from cancer to emotional disturbance.

and yet I repeat an idea that comes from the Chinese wisdom-culture: that a man must really be a man, and a woman must really be a woman. This same 'wisdom' (if it is wisdom and not just pre-medieval regressiveness) also says that 'a woman's place is within and a man's place is without', and that it is imperative for the life of the family (the base-unit of a nation) that a woman 'attend to the sacrificial fires'.

But keep in mind that we have the yin-yang symbol which in this case means a woman must have a little core of masculine thought and a man the same of feminine sensibility, or they both will be stilted and lacking well roundedness.

It is precisely the idea that a woman is more within that stumps me. There is much evidence, even brain research on the brains of children, which prove this to be more or less the case. Yet at the same time men are more penetrative, more of a straight line boring through. what if they use their own inwardness differently, getting more mileage out of it? At the same time, perhaps women do not need to approach all problems in the same way as a man, using somewhat different steps, utilizing a bigger array of data.

But without going into the spiritual depths, just life in a general way, I think this is true, that men are interested in and think about, and are hardwired as such, for the outside world. Really, these things are obvious and used to be taken for granted, but were unfortunately mixed with a lot of meanness and exclusion and male insecurity and disrespect. We threw out the true with the untrue.

Men are bored by the details that are needed to raise children, and women are grateful for but strained to deal with figuring out solutions to real world problems. It's a bit of a puzzle that women are without question more complex than men in every way, and yet it does not result in the invention of the microscope.

Well, no one is tending the sacrificial fires now, and I think it is a raw deal for them, and more so for children. I cannot think of any human right that means more to me than the fundamental right to not be ripped away from my tiny baby or toddler - or to work myself to exhaustion up until delivery - but that is the glorious state of affairs we have now. It is the rare American woman who can actually breastfeed. Virtually no one at this boy-child forum considers such a thing as of importance, yet to me it just screams of a prison society, a poor unfortunate stress ridden and exploited society. If a woman cannot peacefully bond with and breast feed her child, she is a poor woman indeed. I imagine slaves could be in that situation.
And I think that women and their role have never been less respected than now. At the same time, womens gratitude to men has never been lower because they have lost sight of the fact that men make their lives easier, maybe even possible.
Families in which you have two material providers and no fire-tenders are stressed, busy, and distracted. Weak.

But it also in the nature of things, in the West, to overturn conventions, to push at the frontiers, to challenge accepted notions. Since I am a product of that, what in the hell am I doing finding value in antiquated recommendations?

Well, perhaps it is because we should do it carefully, with much forethought, some common sense, real discourse and not slogans and an emotion/propaganda driven sense of urgency.

Freud spoke of this thing he called 'penis envy' but i read an essay by a woman Freudian who reversed it and proposed that it is men who have 'womb-envy'. It is pretty alarming and of course has been since human time began: that women produce living beings and gain a unity, a relatedness with another being that men never know and can't enjoy. Women get this sense of unity, and men are forever on the outside in so many ways. I was thinking today that, as compensation, the children of men's brains are all this crazy invented stuff that makes up our world. And we have extended 'gestation' beyond 9 months to 9 years, or 20 years, or 50 years.

I think most girls never give a thought to being boys. I never have wanted to be saddled with a penis itself, but as a girl I strongly wished to have been a boy. I don't know if that qualifies. But it was odd, because I also had childhood sweethearts and when one of my daughters said that surely I had gone through a phase of doubting whether I wanted to have children, and I told her, no, not for one day since the age of 5 had I for one moment doubted I wanted children.

Briefly, hippy-dippy culture took

But there is also the back to the land, breastfeeding, natural childbirth, whole natural foods aspect that is suspicious of corporate medicine.

This conversation, for me, is so vast and so alarming that I don't even know how to have it.

But I have longed to have it, and I think you are the first person I've met capable of having it.

I am very interested in stuff that is being written about marketing to women, and I feel it is this marketing culture (as an offshoot of PR and social propaganda) that can really show us what in fact we are dealing with. There are forces molding women and what the definition of women is, that are vastly beyond our control. I include the following video just because it is sort of stupidly frightening and extremely debasing to those who made it, but they do not at all see it that way.

Well, some of it was just common sense info about how a woman shopper thinks, what her aesthetic is, and its complexity. Have you noticed, though, that society hasn't decided whether to deny differences between the genders, or as in this case, to openly admit them? Some might say, that women want to have their cake and eat it, too. To demand total equality except when it isn't convenient after all. I say, women don't know what the fuck they want.

I'd like to see a feminism that is about enhancing womanhood, not aping manhood. And I'd like to figure out what, if any, talents a woman's different brain might give her. Male talents are easy to spot. But it is in the nature of masculinity that it is open and visible and definable, and the feminine is inscrutable and difficult to pin down. I think one area of difference might be in the area of sex itself - that women's brains, under conditions of extreme sexual pleasure enter a spiritual state due to communication with the higher centers which does not occur in men. That men are capable of being 'animals' during sex, and women, never.

While ego is the main impediment to spiritual progress, I think that men's and women's ego-buttons are different, and that there is a vast literature written by and for men to combat it that women try to fit into with poorer results.