GENIUS FORUMS

unwise wrote:

Mr. Quinn said: You display a disturbing need to constantly surround yourself with supernatural phenomena. Is your everyday life so uninteresting that you have to spice it up with these half-baked exotic entities?

In my own case, I arrived at the knowledge of the illusory nature of life and death via my brain engaging in reasoning and making mental connections. In other words, via simple mundane thought.

unwise: Do you not know that the world a person sees is a reflection of their own subconscious? The world is infinitely mysterious, wonderful, surprising, terrible, unknowable.....a frightened person will see ghosts, a highly devoted person will see god, a sad individual with low self esteem will have bad luck; selfish people will have bad relationships etc. A dried-up old scientist like Stephen Hawking supposes that there is nothing new to discover.....but he had to take that back. If the world is not wonderful to you, perhaps you've been staring at your belly button too long.

I don't know about you, but, for me, the truths discoverd by mundane thought are truly wonderful.

A Zen dialogue:

Student: Is there anything in the world more marvellous than the forces of Nature?

Master: There is - the power of comprehending those natural forces.

Such an attitude will lead to blindness in your next life. Do you stare at the wall with half-closed and crossed eyes? No wonder the world bores you and you seek escape.

The world of delusion certainly bores me and I am glad that I have escaped it.

I find your position rather ironic. That you have to continually spice up your world with supernatural contrivances indicates to me that your normal perception of the world is mundane and wonder-less. You are tacitly admitting that your ordinary experiences of the world are insufficient and lacking.

The truly enlightened person doesn't have to call upon exotic forms - such as gods, other dimensions, pure consciousness, synchronicty, etc - as evidence that he is enlightened. He sees the magic of Reality in all things, even in the most trivial and mundane.

As far as discovering the nature of reality with mundane thought.....this is evidence that you have not experienced pure consciousness that is prior to mentation. You do not have the full comprehensive view of the enlightened man, but you have read a lot about it.

What you call "pure consciousness" is a misunderstanding of certain kinds of altered states that you've undoubtedly had. It is a common mistake made by beginners in the spiritual path.

There is really no such thing as "pure consciousness", since every kind of consciousness necessarily involves an object of consciousness of some kind. Even the oceanic consciousness praised by Hinduists involves an object of consciousness - namely, the perception that existence is oceanic. It can't be escaped. A soon as there is consciousness, there is automatically an object of consciousness. The two always go together.

The truly enlightened person is able to discern the nature of Reality in all type of consciousnesses. He doesn't rely on contrived forms of consciousnesses, such as "pure consciousness", or indeed any kind of altered state of consciousness at all. He sees the concept of "pure consciousness" for the rubbish that it is.

I find it ironic that you criticise me for being in revolt against Nature, when in reality your every belief smacks of escapism. Your hatred of Nature (the ordinary, mundane world) must be extreme for you to want to keep immersing yourself in the supernatural all the time.

DQ: You missed my point. You could easily be hallucinating the belief that everything is a dream, when in fact the world is real. How have you established that the world really is a dream? Or is it something you simply take on blind faith?

U: I've already explained that the world is dream because it has obvious psychological connections to the observer and also because it appears and disappears in sleep.

These are just as easily explained by ordinary science. For example, the reason why we have a psychological affinity with the world is because we have evolved, over millions of years, to adapt to the world and be in close connection to it.

And the reason why our own perceptual world disappears each night is simply because we lose consciousness in deep sleep during this time, while the rest of the world continues to push on.

In other words, the evidence you have presented thus far is incredibly weak, even non-existent. So let me ask you again, do you have any real evidence that the world is a dream? I am talking about proper evidence that cannot accounted for by some other means.

DQ: One of the biggest attachments people have is the attachment to woman and feminine.

U: I would say the greatest attachment that people naturally have is the attachment to the ego and brain - assuming that they are in control of everything and can comprehend everything and become anything.

I would love it if that were really people's biggest attachment. Imagine if everyone really did have the arrogance and the balls to seek enlightenment with their own minds - what a world that would be!

Sadly, hardly anyone is attached to this. Instead, the biggest attachment for most people is approval from the cowd and personal reputation - which, in turn, is intimately connected to woman. Most people would happily suffer the most terrible of physical torments if it means retaining the approval of woman and the crowd. It literally governs everything they do.

Calling yourself 'heroic men' while begging for food is very odd to me.

Well, as you know, the enlightened life is a paradoxical one.

DQ: And frank calling what I do my "form" doesn't mean anything either, as he has already admitted. Everyone lives in accordance with their form. It cannot be helped. So to criticize a person for doing this is like criticizing them for breathing.

U: Yes, we understand that you are projecting your form. But that's all it is - YOUR form. Nothing wrong with it, it's just that we are not accepting YOUR form, and you take this as an insult.

I value truth above all else and you reject this as being too extreme. Yes, I understand this.

DQ: No, you're definitely being duplicitious. If you truly believed that everything is perfect, you have no basis for laughing at people, or being condescending toward them, or being critical of anything at all.

U: You don't seem to be capable of appreciating paradox.

Ha!

The enlightened lives in paradox all the time.

Ha!

This is how it is - the world is fine, but at the same time it requires me to fight against ego glorification. You are like a computer which is starting to over heat and smoke because you cannot comprehend my meaning.

There is a world of difference between paradox and hypocrisy/duplicity/self-contradiction.

You can't criticize someone for speaking against an aspect of Nature (such as femininity) and accuse them of being in revolt against Nature, and then turn around and palm off your own criticisms as being perfectly FINE and RIGHT and in tune with Nature. That isn't you being enlightened and paradoxical. That is you being hypocritical and duplicitious.

DQ: If a person were to claim that a particular piece of music was "perfect", you would expect him to celebrate every note of it with sheer joy. You wouldn't expect him to laugh condescendingly at some sections and being critical of other sections. It would indicate that he didn't really think it was perfect at all.

U: But the 'perfect' of Nature is not quite like this. It is NECESSARY for there to be sour notes. There is a whole bunch of absurdity to Nature. This is all perfect.

Agreed, it is perfectly possible to be aware that Nature is wholly perfect and yet be critical of the sour notes, such as women, femininity and ignorance in general.

-

I think: you wrote a beautiful piece of overanalysis. I just pasted that line (from an 18-year old piece of mail) because something you said reminded me of it, and it made me chuckle...mooke.

The chuckle is a beautiful thing...rippling up from the belly...the absurdity of meaning, of the human condition that's making meaning...

There is no attack on women. The attack is within one's self, on one's own attachments, and one's own delusions. Men's ideas about women tend to be romantic (quixotic, irrational).

The terms used by QRS are Man/Woman and as we go along we learn that the 'true' distinction of QRS Philosophy is not that but rather 'attachment'...
It's a War on attachment!
Can Dan step up to the plate and correct these definitional failures please..

I think it's clear that 'Lust' is caused in Men and that Woman is the Object of the 'Lust'...does the War on Woman treat the postulated disease...Lust.

I find it funny that the dedicated Buddhist sits on his cushion and 'peers imaginatively' into the nostrils of the mental image of a woman...and imagines her mucus...and peers imaginitively into her bowel and looks at her poo poo and wee wee...

I find it funny that the Christian lashes his bloodied back with a birch twig....intoning....'I must not think lustful thoughts'...'I must not think lustful thoughts...'

If it's agreed that the 'War' is on attachments...then we can leave the terms...Man..Woman...behind...and employ the term attachments...One of the questions we can ask is 'Why is there a War?.

We can go even further into truthfulness and discover that the perceived problem is really about our 'Instinctual programming' which is the cause of our grasping (Buddhist term) for attachment.

Commentators mention that the 3 Major Instincts are:

Social Instinct....Herding.
Sex Instinct....Breeding.
Financial Instinct...developing material wealth.

QRS makes war on these things doesn't it?

QRS is actually a War on Instinctual Programming is it not?

The sardonic Greeks saw it as 'we are the playthings of the Gods'...

QRS is basically saying 'we are caused' and then tries to undo what was caused...QRS is trying to be powerful about the powerlessness one feels when one has reached a minor state of enlightenment and 'knows' that we are 'driven' by causes outside of us...

QRS is trying to get into the driver's seat...this would constitute rebellion wouldn't it?

frank (who thinks it's a patently absurd situation for Human Being to be 'driven'...and not know why...but nevertheless joins in the general fun of dreaming up possible meanings to explain it...with a miserly few primitive tools...is it any wonder frank collapses into mirth).

frank,

I think your use of words such as “design” -- unconscious in the sense that you haven’t really given them much thought -- say much about your philosophy. To couple this with the idea of a “willing” Nature that causes men and women to be who/what they are for the propagation of the race is to imply “intelligent design.” Of course, whether you know it or not, such can only be considered “intelligent design” when your whole “philosophy” is based on the premise of a God on the order of Yahweh (creationism) slightly modified to include the consideration of aspects of evolution to free your position from the stigma attached to biblical language. The basic ideas of your argument, as I see you express them, are really no different.

You say yours is wisdom in the recognition of the “will” of Nature (in the form of instinct, or whatever): yet another anthropomorphising of causality and no more accurate, in fact, than the God of monotheism. He is aware of himself as a specific, integral part of the whole. You, on the other hand, when your ideas are undiluted, oppose this consciousness on the basis that we are all pawns in the grand game of chess by a willing “Nature” and why, indeed, would one question it save by the ways of Nature herself? And that’s where you stop.

The way reality is carved up on the subject by the owners of the forum is in such a way that is also telling of their values: the will to consciousness ("origin" notwithstanding).

I see only the will of self (or lack of it) in humans and, short of the necessity of having to call myself a God on that basis, do not impose such a will on Nature.

Since when has woman ever been the wrong target for the man who loves her?

frank wrote:

frank (who thinks it's a patently absurd situation for Human Being to be 'driven'...and not know why...but nevertheless joins in the general fun of dreaming up possible meanings to explain it...with a miserly few primitive tools...is it any wonder frank collapses into mirth).

No.

Why is there war? Why, Ares of course.

Mr. Quinn said: I find it ironic that you criticize me for being in revolt against Nature, when in reality your every belief smacks of escapism. Your hatred of Nature (the ordinary, mundane world) must be extreme for you to want to keep immersing yourself in the supernatural all the time.

Mr. Quinn, you misunderstand me. I do not see gods or aliens or ghosts in my life. And, I do not seek them out, neither am I interested in it. I lead a very mundane existence. All I am saying is that others do in fact see and experience these things which only show that they are experiencing their own unique existence. The mundane world is quite amazing enough for me and I resist none of it and play within it which is why I was incarnated. I found that basking in pure existence as god becomes boring after a while.

The truly enlightened person is able to discern the nature of Reality in all type of consciousness. He doesn't rely on contrived forms of consciousness, such as "pure consciousness", or indeed any kind of altered state of consciousness at all. He sees the concept of "pure consciousness" for the rubbish that it i

This could be a problem in semantics. I do not know what others mean by 'pure consciousness.' I have my own definition. I live in the field of pure consciousness all the time now that I discovered it. I will call it 'transcendental aloneness.' That describes it quite well. The object of consciousness in 'transcendental aloneness' is 'I-am-ness' or BEING only. There are no other beings in the universe from this view, no thoughts, no time, no space, no knowledge, no person, no history, no other reality. All other forms of so-called reality are absorbed into a joke. I am in samadhi at all times. I am in it right now. This is my own definition of 'pure consciousness.' I've never even read it anywhere else as I have described it.

Agreed, it is perfectly possible to be aware that Nature is wholly perfect and yet be critical of the sour notes, such as women, femininity and ignorance in general.

Not a bad comeback. It is perfectly fine to bitch. And, it is perfectly fine to bitch about weak womanly characteristics - which I agree with for the most part. The distinction is this: I bitch about your forum, but at the same time realize your forum is necessary for many people. You can bitch about the womanly nature, as long as you realize that it is necessary and is part of the perfect world. It sustains the world on a certain level which is necessary. The person qualified for enlightenment has already dropped the womanly nature long ago. I disagree that engagement in mundane life and sexuality is womanly, however. I think your focus on hindrances is off center. I would call the manly, heroic nature necessary for enlightenment is simply a need and craving for truth running in the background at all times. In my case, this craving was like a deep unbearable pain. - The pain of the vampire who has been on the earth too long. I did not retreat, retire or stop living. I faced the pain in everyday, normal life. If something led to my own awakening, it was simply this. As Shankara said, "To the wise man, all life appears as pain." This, of course, is the view PRIOR to enlightenment, but not after.

frank,

QRS is actually a War on Instinctual Programming is it not?

In essence, it's a war on deluded thoughts and habits.

Your worship of the God of Instinct is misplaced. We are flexible and adaptable enough as a species to bypass our "instinctual programming". That is what makes us unique. To deny this is to deny what we are as a species.

For example, we can go against our programmed instinct to continue living and commit suicide or engage in hunger strikes. Or we can join a monastry and defy our programmed instinct to copulate. Or we can ignore our instinct for violence and lead a more restrained life of pacifism.

Simply being passive in the face of our animal instincts is a cop-out and denies the instincts of higher consciousness.

The sardonic Greeks saw it as 'we are the playthings of the Gods'...

David Quinn sees this as "theatrical artifice and delusion".

QRS is basically saying 'we are caused' and then tries to undo what was caused...QRS is trying to be powerful about the powerlessness one feels when one has reached a minor state of enlightenment and 'knows' that we are 'driven' by causes outside of us...

QRS is trying to get into the driver's seat...this would constitute rebellion wouldn't it?

Cancer also has its causes, but that doesn't mean we have to sit around passively and accept its existence. I regard the attachment to women, family and femininity, and indeed to anything at all in this world, apart from what promotes consciousness of Truth, as a spiritual cancer.

If it's agreed that the 'War' is on attachments...then we can leave the terms...Man..Woman...behind...and employ the term attachments...One of the questions we can ask is 'Why is there a War?.

All life is war. In everything that we do, our values are constantly clashing with all other opposing values. You, for example, frank, are currently at war with my philosophy and values, just as I am at war with your beliefs and values. It can't be escaped.

So what we should be concentrating on is not trying to do the impossible and stop being at war with things, but rather we should try to wage the wisest war possible - i.e. against all deep-rooted ignorance. And that is what I do.

-

I don't worship 'instinctual programming'....I'm just noting that it's a target for eradication by QRS.

I think the basic premise of QRS is:

'A Murder has been Committed'

which then proceeds to:

We have collared the culprit!

And the Culprit is:

Woman...unconciousness...attachment...instinct.

QRS doing Poirot...hehehe

Ya' get the joke lads?

It's a scream!

frank

Cancer may have causes, but it may not. What would you say are the proven causes? If we knew the real cause of cancer, would we not have a cure? Why does the cause always elude us? You can't even definitively say smoking causes cancer - my father smoked since he was 11 and never contracted cancer - even by age 80.

But anyway, cancer is an aspect of nature that CAN be modified. We can straighten our teeth, wear deodorant, irrigate a barren field - all for greater comfort. But our SUBCONSCIOUS IMPULSES for survival of the species and the individual is a different matter. - Not to be compared to cancer. Read accounts of sailors cast adrift in small boats with their friends. It takes about three weeks before you want to bash your best friend's brains in and suck his bones for moisture. You can only temporarily gain an upper hand on your self preservation - and only under certain conditions.

The fact that you look upon women as reeking sacks filled with wee wee and poo poo already shows signs of mental breakdown and stress as one desperately tries to deal with the imperative for orgasm. It is already the signs of a desperate sailor under duress, having macabre visions. You call this hallucination 'truth.' Your seeing pee pee and poo poo when you see a beautiful girl is what you call 'the vision of the sage.' I feel a belly laugh coming.....

The fact that Nature seeks to preserve the individual and the species does not mean it is made this way by god - or that it is a form of 'intelligent design' that is evidence of a creator. It just IS. Your efforts to subdue what is greater than you is a distraction itself - the biggest distraction - and a waste of energy.

Getting enlightened has a feature to it that involves asking do things like 'adjectives' exist...

We agree on an appearance OK?...but then we load a description on to it...we superimpose a 'meaning' on to it...we actually alter the appearance so that it is distorted...the Isness of the appearance becomes something else...

Beautiful Girls....Bad Girls.

Beautiful and Bad are not in fact Girls...Beautiful and Bad are something else that is not the Girls...Beautiful and Bad are projections and it's our projections that require a Method of Inquiry...Beautiful and Bad are not things that require to be 'trumped' about as Truth...



Chuang Tze and Lao Tzu wanted us to arrive at this distinction and proffered the advice that 'abstract speculation' has us prone to making delusory observations...or take very great care in the art of 'abstract speculation'...

It's not Girl we 'attach' to....it's our projection on 'Girl' that is our 'attachment'....

Withdrawing projections brings us freedom from attachment.

We are basically Meaning Making Machines...(yes I know I've just described US...put Meaning on US...projected on to US....made 'abstract speculation' about US....)

frank (hoisted on his own petard) hehe

'Enlightenment' as I know it and define it is so utterly stripped of 'adjectives' and 'projections' that the entire universe falls into a vast non-reality and all that is left is consciousness turned onto itself alone as 'I am.' Everything outside of this is a game, and play it as you will. At least have some fun. As a matter of fact, god gets tired of enlightenment and likes to play the fool now and then.

As a matter of fact, god gets tired of enlightenment and likes to play the fool now and then.

I presume you are referring to yourself here, your ego.
It is true that egowise we are all our own gods.

Cancer may have causes, but it may not.

This would be the dumbest comment I've heard for a year or two.

Cancer may have causes, but it may not.

This would be the dumbest comment I've heard for a year or two

If you saw a yellow balloon in a dream, can you find out what caused it or where it was made?

You probably don't know this yet, but if you looked very deeply into any fact here in your 'real' world, you will find that reality and hard facts start eluding you. Stephen Hawking can look as hard as he wants, but he will have to keep changing his ideas. He can make his guesses for the next billion years, and there will be no final answers. If you look at the brain for the next billion years, you will not solve how it works, there will be new surprises. If you study a chair with an electron microscope, it will begin to disappear. The chair is not really there.

It is a dream, man.

'Enlightenment' as I know it and define it is so utterly stripped of 'adjectives' and 'projections' that the entire universe falls into a vast non-reality and all that is left is consciousness turned onto itself alone as 'I am.' Everything outside of this is a game, and play it as you will. At least have some fun. As a matter of fact, god gets tired of enlightenment and likes to play the fool now and then.

Good Stuff unwise!

And the Male projection of Woman as the Leaky Vessel requires Transcendance...
Woman as abject.
She who monthly 'leaks' blood without falling ill.
She who is 'externally pleasing' but hollow inside...with insatiable appetites that will destroy a Man's security.
She as 'the jar' that contains all the evil within.

She, who leaks from the body and if not carefully guarded, Her insatiable appetites will deplete material well-being from a man, either by demanding his seed and then wasting it, or demanding food and money and depleting a man’s estate.
She who is not truly Human.

And what will hubristic Man do with this leaky, unpredictable pariah?

Seal her up ensuring there is no leakage! hehe

Man, 'clinging' to the central idea that He is Subject and She is Object...

That the Male Gaze is the dominant one.

Poo Poo

frank

unwise wrote:

U: Cancer may have causes, but it may not.

JH: This would be the dumbest comment I've heard for a year or two

If you saw a yellow balloon in a dream, can you find out what caused it or where it was made?

At the very least, one of its causes would be the dreaming mind. So straight away, the truth that the balloon has causes is proven.

You probably don't know this yet, but if you looked very deeply into any fact here in your 'real' world, you will find that reality and hard facts start eluding you. Stephen Hawking can look as hard as he wants, but he will have to keep changing his ideas. He can make his guesses for the next billion years, and there will be no final answers. If you look at the brain for the next billion years, you will not solve how it works, there will be new surprises. If you study a chair with an electron microscope, it will begin to disappear. The chair is not really there.

It is a dream, man.

There is no logical connection between what you write in the paragraph above and the conclusion that "it is a dream".

For example, the fact that scientists, like Hawking, will never reach final truth and will always be changing their ideas as new evidence comes to light is simply due to the limitations of science itself. It has nothing to do with the hypothesis that the world is a dream. Science will alway be limited because its theories are dependent upon what is perceived through the senses, and what is perceived through the senses will always be limited and uncertain.

Secondly, the chair doesn't really disappear when you look through an electron microscope. The chair is still there, but your attention is simply not on it, that's all. All you are proving is that you are not stepping back and looking at the chair during that moment.

As usual, your thinking on these issues is incredibly naive. I know you think you're the bees knees and everything, but really, the quality of your thought is extremely poor. You really need to do a crash course in basic reasoning. Frank should do the same. As it stands, the pair of you are like kindergarten kids in the playground who naively imagine they are performing adult work.

To repeat, the great philosophical truths of life can never change or be overturned, no matter what kind of evidence is brought to bear in the future. Even in a billion years time, they will be true. Go to any dimension in the Universe and they will remain true. They are absolutely true everywhere.

Examples of these great truths include:

All things are caused,
Nothing really begins or ends.
All things lack inherent existence.
The self is an illusion.
Nature (the totality of all there is) is without form
Nature is beyond life and death.

And so on.

-

frank wrote:

I don't worship 'instinctual programming'....I'm just noting that it's a target for eradication by QRS.

I think the basic premise of QRS is:

'A Murder has been Committed'

which then proceeds to:

We have collared the culprit!

And the Culprit is:

Woman...unconciousness...attachment...instinct.

QRS doing Poirot...hehehe

This is probably the first intelligent thing you've said on this forum. You've hit it on the head. Ignorance is a problem to be solved.

-

frank wrote:

Good Stuff unwise!

And the Male projection of Woman as the Leaky Vessel requires Transcendance...
Woman as abject.
She who monthly 'leaks' blood without falling ill.
She who is 'externally pleasing' but hollow inside...with insatiable appetites that will destroy a Man's security.
She as 'the jar' that contains all the evil within.

She, who leaks from the body and if not carefully guarded, Her insatiable appetites will deplete material well-being from a man, either by demanding his seed and then wasting it, or demanding food and money and depleting a man’s estate.
She who is not truly Human.

And what will hubristic Man do with this leaky, unpredictable pariah?

Seal her up ensuring there is no leakage! hehe

Man, 'clinging' to the central idea that He is Subject and She is Object...

That the Male Gaze is the dominant one.

I don't know, frank. You seem to be babbling. In fact, many of your posts nowadays are little more than babble.

Look at the situation this way:

Imagine that you live in a society in which everyone is obsessed with dogs. Everyone grows up yearning for a nice dog and strives to spend their entire lives working in careers to ensure that the dog they own is comfortable and happy. Thousands of songs are written about dogs and the joys and sorrow of loving them; thousands of books and movies are solely about human and dog relationships. Society's laws are tailored towards the special protection of the dog; religious morals place the dog firmly in the centre of their concerns. People fall into deep grief, sometimes even kill themselves, whenever their dogs run off. It's all dogs, dogs, dogs, and little else.

You would probably think, with perfect justification, that such a society is completely mad.

This is more or less my situation in the world today. Whenever I try to tell people that there far more important and interesting things to pursue than dogs, I am immediately told that I am a hater of dogs.

When I reply that I don't hate dogs, that dogs are fine for what they are, but they are not terribly important, and that in fact the obessessive attachment to dogs is extremely unhealthy and forms a major hindrance to becoming rational and wise, I am told that I am simply projecting negative qualities onto dogs.

From my perspective, I am attempting to correct a major distorting influence in the world today. But from the dog lovers' perspective, I am being negative, projecting, biased, unbalanced, extreme, etc.

But such is the clash which always occurs between truth and attachments.

-

All things are caused,
Nothing really begins or ends.
All things lack inherent existence.
The self is an illusion.
Nature (the totality of all there is) is without form
Nature is beyond life and death.

I'ts nice to have this list. I've been wanting this list for a while. It's odd that I do not have much trouble with this list - but have some different interpretations of it. I'll make a couple quick comments about it and come back to it later when I have time:

All things are caused,

--yes, this is also called karma. And, as long as you see that the cause of everything is psychological in the mind of the observer, than you have it.

Nothing really begins or ends.

--yes, in reality, there are no 'things' and there is no time.

All things lack inherent existence.

--I say this all the time, except that the dream itself has existence. Or Prakriti and Purusha have existence.

The self is an illusion.

--as people understand themselves, yes. But Purusha (consciousness turned inward) could be said to be nothing BUT Self. And, this exists.

Nature (the totality of all there is) is without form

--OK, but it takes on the appearance of form because it is dream.

Nature is beyond life and death.

--nature is the apparent dream state. What is behind the appearances is beyond life and death, yes.

David Quinn wrote:

One of the biggest attachments people have is the attachment to woman and femininity. These attachments go to the very core of our society and help undermine humanity's will to Truth. So it is perfectly justified to speak against these attachments. In fact, a sage would be abrogating his responsibilities not to.

DHodges wrote:

This is probably the single most misunderstood thing, and yet the most often discussed thing, here.

There is no attack on women. The attack is within one's self, on one's own attachments, and one's own delusions. Men's ideas about women tend to be romantic (quixotic, irrational).

But discussing it seems to provoke a near-instinctual need to protect the womenfolk.

Dave (H), with the subject title of, “Circle the wagons! Protect the women and children!” you have captured the absurdity of most men’s lives.

No wonder women haven’t any respect for men, and only hang out with them for money and to get help with the kids. Respect men? How could they? Men are quite capable of creating whole civilizations, yet still need women to wash their dirty undies, cook their meals, find their car keys and the TV remote, and basically give focus and direction to their whole lives. Yep, a lot to respect there!

And no wonder men’s ideas about women are “romantic”: men had to build woman up into Goddess status to gloss over the fact that his relationship with her is essentially that of mother fucker.

Sue

Mr. Quinn said: Imagine that you live in a society in which everyone is obsessed with dogs. Everyone grows up yearning for a nice dog and strives to spend their entire lives working in careers to ensure that the dog they own is comfortable and happy. Thousands of songs are written about dogs and the joys and sorrow of loving them; thousands of books and movies are solely about human and dog relationships. Society's laws are tailored towards the special protection of the dog; religious morals place the dog firmly in the centre of their concerns. People fall into deep grief, sometimes even kill themselves, whenever their dogs run off. It's all dogs, dogs, dogs, and little else.

You would probably think, with perfect justification, that such a society is completely mad.

Can dogs bear our children and provide the necessary foundation for the continuation of our very species? I thought you were the logic guy.

Men are quite capable of creating whole civilizations,

Men are capable of creating whole civilizations without women bearing children? The mirth continues......talk about a flaw in thought. The bare rock foundation of breeding and the fact of orgasmic motivation puts men and women in the necessary situation of dealing with each other. You all reduce this to the remote control, some makeup and sorting the laundry. Astonishing, really. Did you all have a shit bag for a mother?

Unwise,

The development of civilization is evidence of man’s ability to be more than just a procreator. He was able to develop areas of thought and industry: such as the establishment of the first universities where mathematics, science and philosophy had their beginnings. This potential is still evident today, but most men have grown lazy and comfortable in their womanly ways and rarely use it. The few men who are working to their potential are those dedicated to discovering the Truth. These men treat all females with the respect they deserve: neither using them to satisfy their emotional needs, nor their physical desires.

In today’s world, there is no need for men and women to couple as they have done in the past, because men have made it very easy for women to get along without them. For example, women don’t need a penis to come anywhere near them to get pregnant – frozen sperm is cheap and plentiful. Neither do they need husbands to protect them, as they have civil institutions, police and military forces for that. And since women have been allowed into most work places, and get paid close to the male wage, they can support themselves, pay for child care and provide for their old age. For emotional support, women have each other. For physical pleasure, she can take care of it herself, or pick up a fuck when she feels the need.

Men have created a world where they can become totally redundant, allowing themselves the necessary time and freedom to develop their true potential. All they need do is cast aside their whimpish ways, and learn to stand alone - without the support of women.

Sue

Sue wrote:

In Woman there is no conscious discriminating and defining: instead the past, the present and the future magically swirl into one, causing her to always appear spontaneous and free. There is no memory, so there is no real thought.

Sschaula wrote:

This is very fantastic sounding. I am quite sure women have a memory, albeit not a consciously thinking one. The fact that a memory is there, though, is good evidence that it could be grown into a consciously thinking one. You have to admit that it's possible.

If not, then why not? What causes women to be so incapable?

The little memory women have, has developed to be used in her life as a Woman. As I’ve pointed out before, Woman is a very self-contained environment where all women are able to enjoy an unhindered existence operating as a single entity.

Men, on the other hand, develop as separate individuals and compete with each other for limited resources. Therefore, they learn to rely on memory to help them devise strategies, discriminate, reason and evaluate so as to be able to survive in their hostile environment.

So, the bottom line is: men need memory and women don’t.

Sue

sue hindmarsh wrote:No wonder women haven’t any respect for men, and only hang out with them for money and to get help with the kids. Respect men? How could they? Men are quite capable of creating whole civilizations, yet still need women to wash their dirty undies, cook their meals, find their car keys and the TV remote, and basically give focus and direction to their whole lives. Yep, a lot to respect there!

Since my woman moved out, I find I have a whole lot more free time. With a woman around, there is always drama. Things are never at rest; there's always some sort of story going on; some plot developing. There's always something that needs to be reacted to.

People do love a good story.

I don't worship 'instinctual programming'....I'm just noting that it's a target for eradication by QRS.

I think the basic premise of QRS is:

'A Murder has been Committed'

which then proceeds to:

We have collared the culprit!

And the Culprit is:

Woman...unconciousness...attachment...instinct.

QRS doing Poirot...hehehe

This is probably the first intelligent thing you've said on this forum. You've hit it on the head. Ignorance is a problem to be solved.

Ah good you're getting the hang of it!

So you now have an Act.

'I know about Ignorance. I will 'fix it'...'

You have carved a role out for yourself to enter into Life's little drama...

This Act you are doing is called.....being clever...

It's similar to Sue's...

Hers is 'I know about co-dependancy...marraige is wrong'..

being clever.

An Act is a way to get by...and more...it's meant to impress.

fills in time.

frank

Dave Hodges wrote:

Since my woman moved out, I find I have a whole lot more free time. With a woman around, there is always drama. Things are never at rest; there's always some sort of story going on; some plot developing. There's always something that needs to be reacted to.

People do love a good story.

Yes, there is always a thousand things that seemingly have to be done when you're living with a woman - most of which wouldn't even occur to you when you are living alone. Women certainly know how to manufacture an endless supply of unnecessary work for their men.

When a woman sees her man staring into space in deep thought, she sees only an idler who should be doing something more useful with his time.

-

frank wrote:

DQ: Ignorance is a problem to be solved.

f: Ah good you're getting the hang of it!

So you now have an Act.

'I know about Ignorance. I will 'fix it'...'

You have carved a role out for yourself to enter into Life's little drama...

This Act you are doing is called.....being clever...

It's similar to Sue's...

Hers is 'I know about co-dependancy...marraige is wrong'..

being clever.

An Act is a way to get by...and more...it's meant to impress.

fills in time.

Nietzsche once wrote, with great insight, in Zarathustra:

"To the pure all things are pure" - thus say the people.
But I say unto you: "To the swine all things are swinish!"

For anyone who loves Truth and desperately desires to become enlightened, the problem of ignorance is a burning personal issue which simply has to be resolved. It has nothing to do wth being clever or impressing other people. It is something which is borne out of a deep inner need.

I know in my own case that I hated being ignorant and uncertain in my own mind. I hated that the idea that my mind could be misleading me with deluded thoughts. And when I heard that other people in the past had claimed to have become enlightened and fully understood the nature of Reality, I knew that I just had to have this. I couldn't stand the idea of being locked out of this supreme understanding. And so I searched for this enlightenment for many years with great intensity.

This is the sort of attitude you need if you want to become enlightened. You need to seek the Truth with the same intensity as a drowning man seeks air. And just as the desire to impress people with cleverness is the last thing on a drowning man's mind, so too the genuine seeker of enlightenment never gives that kind of thing a single thought.

-