GENIUS FORUMS

Leyla to Nick:

Would you mind detailing this "significant consciousness" -- how it might manifest; what, exactly, you mean by it. Do you mean wisdom? From there, I plan to contemplate how it is that "mostly women get the short end of the stick." And, from there, how it is that you (qualitatively and quantitatively) differentiate the manifestations "men making poor use of any consciousness" and "unconscious females."

Nick replied, in quotes:

When I said significant consciousness I meant consciousness capable of a more in depth understand of reality and the world around us. I would in fact describe this as wisdom, or a spiritual understanding of God.

1. Significant consciousness is wisdom.

The reasoning behind me thinking women get the short end of the stick would be their lack of original ideals compared to that of men, through out history.

2. The “short end of the stick” is represented by a lack of original ideals (ideas?), which women solely possess. [Q. What are your original ideals (ideas?)?]

Ideals such as politics, religion, science. sports and other things that have shaped humanity.

3. Politics, religion, science, sports “and other things" [??? Sex? Masturbation? Rape? Murder? Grooming? Intellectualising? Love? Taking a shit? Picking your nose? Fart jokes? Getting drunk?] comprise original ideals (ideas?).

Now although some of these things can be very useful at maintaining the lives and structures of humanity, they don't necessarily promote wisdom or a higher understanding of reality.

4. The original ideals (ideas?) do not represent wisdom. [Hence, 2 and 3 are false.]

Which would in turn explain that although these things were originaly a man's domain, women are in fact capable of stepping in and carrying out the duties required, explaining my reasoning behind men not making good use of their consciousness.

5. Therefore, there really is no difference between men and women..

Blimey, need I go on? Indeed, I do. It will have to wait for a bit though…

.

OK, your bit's up, Nick.

Me to Nick:

Does the fact that no more than a relatively minute amount of biological males throughout the whole of history could be said to have been enlightened somehow prove beyond doubt that all biological males possess consciousness and are merely "making poor use of it"?

Nick, again in quotes:

Does it not?

No. And, within this discussion alone, I think I have clearly demonstrated why.

I think the fact of the matter is most men are too attached to power and pleasures of the flesh. Basically things that satisfy their egos. They will do anything to block out reality for fear of their evil ways being exposed. Where on the other hand, for women, pleasures of the flesh and happiness are all they know, making them innocent of any wrong doing.

So, even though there is no such thing as an absolute male or an absolute female, we’re going to continue to prop up these two mutually exclusive categories in order to propagate “masculine wisdom” despite the fact that many men are actually women. (Makes complete womanly sense to me!) Otherwise, we would certainly have a wise (conscious) society, according to this philosophy, would we not?

An indicator of this is that generally, when men are confronted with Truth that might expose them they become irate and fearful. Where women on the other hand remain rather stable because they don't see themselves as having anything to be exposed as evil or ignorant. They are essentially, in their own minds, enlightened.

I see. So, you have never seen an irate or fearful woman? What planet are you on? I told my sister she was evil, once (consequent to much detail, of course). She fell apart, as did the rest of the family (though several were simply in shock), and literally, physically hid from me for the next couple of months. Now, I don’t necessarily advocate this behaviour, it was not ideally conducive to wisdom -- but, I do state it to serve a relevant point.

.

So did you convince your sister that she is evil? Or was she more convinced by the idea that you hate her?

Matt Gregory wrote:So did you convince your sister that she is evil? Or was she more convinced by the idea that you hate her?

That's what I was going to say.

Leyla, your sister might have fallen apart because she met with your disapproval, more than anything else. Her concern for truth, and being exposed, may have been secondary or non-existent.

Yeah, calling a friend or relative "evil" is different from calling a stranger evil.

ksolway wrote:

Matt Gregory wrote:So did you convince your sister that she is evil? Or was she more convinced by the idea that you hate her?

That's what I was going to say.

Leyla, your sister might have fallen apart because she met with your disapproval, more than anything else. Her concern for truth, and being exposed, may have been secondary or non-existent.

Exactly, she was mad because her sister of all people said she was evil. Nothing suprising at all about that.

Leyla Shen wrote:I see. So, you have never seen an irate or fearful woman? What planet are you on? I told my sister she was evil, once (consequent to much detail, of course). She fell apart, as did the rest of the family (though several were simply in shock), and literally, physically hid from me for the next couple of months. Now, I don’t necessarily advocate this behaviour, it was not ideally conducive to wisdom -- but, I do state it to serve a relevant point.

Where would you get the idea I have never seen an irate woman? I think everyone on this planet has seen that. But to see a woman become irate over their being exposed by truth, well I am certain that had nothing to do with these women becoming upset.

Leyla Shen wrote:3. Politics, religion, science, sports “and other things" [??? Sex? Masturbation? Rape? Murder? Grooming? Intellectualising? Love? Taking a shit? Picking your nose? Fart jokes? Getting drunk?] comprise original ideals (ideas?).

Ideals are ideals, some useful for higher thinking, some not. Woman can't come up with original ideals regardless of what they are used for.

Leyla Shen wrote:4. The original ideals (ideas?) do not represent wisdom. [Hence, 2 and 3 are false.

I already said that the majority of men don't use their potential for wisdom, rather they just satisfy their egos.

As for your questioning of my original ideals, I have many, such as most people are overwhelmingly insane, selfish, and egotistical when I compare them to myself.

Nick wrote:

I think the fact of the matter is most men are too attached to power and pleasures of the flesh. Basically things that satisfy their egos. They will do anything to block out reality for fear of their evil ways being exposed. Where on the other hand, for women, pleasures of the flesh and happiness are all they know, making them innocent of any wrong doing. An indicator of this is that generally, when men are confronted with Truth that might expose them they become irate and fearful. Where women on the other hand remain rather stable because they don't see themselves as having anything to be exposed as evil or ignorant. They are essentially, in their own minds, enlightened.

Yes, possessing a mind that is changeable and yielding, Woman can easily believe that her thoughts are both rational and logical - just because they’re ‘her thoughts’. The fact that these thoughts are often unconnected, usually contradictory, and always underpinned by her emotions, doesn’t disturb her in the least. She can “remain rather stable” because by not possessing an inner life, she can never know the nature of her mind. With no way to reflect upon her thinking, all she is left to do is react to stimuli as it arises. This, as you say - makes woman “innocent of any wrong doing”.

–
Sue

Leyla wrote:

Sue: Because women, children and other animals are basically unconscious, their mental faculties: such as memory and discrimination, are barely formed. This makes their experience of the world a very fluid one – which is worlds apart from the world conscious beings experience. And galaxies apart from the world highly conscious philosophers experience.

Rubbish. “Basically” unconscious?

It is not men who set the example of what higher consciousness is capable of, but nature that facilitates any such example and its effect/s to whatever degrees in men, women or children.

There is no such thing as an absolute man -- or woman.

I tire of this superficial “Woman” rhetoric when rendered at the expense of Truth.

Could you demonstrate clearly what “rhetoric” you consider I’m indulging in, and how it is “at the expense of Truth”?

-
Sue

Kevin wrote:

Leyla, your sister might have fallen apart because she met with your disapproval, more than anything else. Her concern for truth, and being exposed, may have been secondary or non-existent.

Certainly, her falling apart at that very moment might have been because she met with disapproval (danger). Probably had something to do with making sure she gained the approval (sympathy/support) of other members of my family, too; you know, survival instinct. However, when I say she hid from me, I meant it literally. For instance, I drove up the driveway one day and she stood sideways beside her partner on exactly the right angle to disappear from my view.

I don’t see hiding as the consequence of anything other than recognition of exposure to something dangerous; fear. Now, if you know that a predator is dangerous, you know you must hide/escape.

When a rational/reasoning individual identifies a source of danger (“exposure”), the response is not one of fear or becoming irate. That is what supposedly distinguishes “man” from “woman,” is it not?

Again, from Nick (Sue's most recent cheerleader), I requote:

I think the fact of the matter is most men are too attached to power and pleasures of the flesh. Basically things that satisfy their egos. They will do anything to block out reality for fear of their evil ways being exposed. Where on the other hand, for women, pleasures of the flesh and happiness are all they know, making them innocent of any wrong doing.

An indicator of this is that generally, when men are confronted with Truth that might expose them they become irate and fearful. Where women on the other hand remain rather stable because they don't see themselves as having anything to be exposed as evil or ignorant. They are essentially, in their own minds, enlightened.

.

Funny, Sue, you never picked up on this one:

Nick wrote:

They are essentially, in their own minds, enlightened.

What mind?

.

Leyla,

Not only did I "pick up" on it, I wrote a whole paragraph on the subject:

Yes, possessing a mind that is changeable and yielding, Woman can easily believe that her thoughts are both rational and logical - just because they’re ‘her thoughts’. etc.

Woman has 'a mind' - and all women share it.

-
Sue

Sue, you wrote:

Not only did I "pick up" on it, [snip]

No, “you didn’t.” Otherwise, you’d have called Nick out on it. But, instead, (at best) you glossed over it at the very expense of your own philosophy.

Woman has 'a mind' - and all women share it.

Yes, they do.

Nick wrote:

As for your questioning of my original ideals, I have many, such as most people are overwhelmingly insane, selfish, and egotistical when I compare them to myself.

Well, what do you know -- I share the same “original ideal.” Spooky.

.

sue hindmarsh wrote:She can “remain rather stable” because by not possessing an inner life, she can never know the nature of her mind. With no way to reflect upon her thinking, all she is left to do is react to stimuli as it arises.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "women possess no inner life". Do you mean that they can't remember what they've just thought, or that they can't perceive their thoughts or something? That doesn't make sense to me.

sue hindmarsh wrote:Nick wrote:

I think the fact of the matter is most men are too attached to power and pleasures of the flesh. Basically things that satisfy their egos. They will do anything to block out reality for fear of their evil ways being exposed. Where on the other hand, for women, pleasures of the flesh and happiness are all they know, making them innocent of any wrong doing. An indicator of this is that generally, when men are confronted with Truth that might expose them they become irate and fearful. Where women on the other hand remain rather stable because they don't see themselves as having anything to be exposed as evil or ignorant. They are essentially, in their own minds, enlightened.

Yes, possessing a mind that is changeable and yielding, Woman can easily believe that her thoughts are both rational and logical - just because they’re ‘her thoughts’. The fact that these thoughts are often unconnected, usually contradictory, and always underpinned by her emotions, doesn’t disturb her in the least. She can “remain rather stable” because by not possessing an inner life, she can never know the nature of her mind. With no way to reflect upon her thinking, all she is left to do is react to stimuli as it arises. This, as you say - makes woman “innocent of any wrong doing”.

–
Sue

Also, to take it a step further. Women might actually agree with someone when confronted with wisdom because they think it sounds powerful. All the while they don't realize they are going against everything they stand for by being in agreeance with wisdom. If they were capable of understand true wisdom they could see how it would destroy everything they love, cherish, and live for.

For instance if I were to go up to any man on the street and say; you are no more valuable than the ground you stand on because all is equal in God's eyes, I can be almost certain there would be a huge debate that follows. Where If I was to go up to a woman and say the same thing, she might say something like; "that was beautiful", and be on her way thinking I was a poet of some sort trying to impress her. Not realizing what I have just said undermines her existence.

Or they both might dismiss me as a raving lunatic, but if there were to be dialogue it would happen the way I described it.

Leyla Shen wrote:Funny, Sue, you never picked up on this one:

Nick wrote:

They are essentially, in their own minds, enlightened.

What mind?

.

Describing women as being enlightened in their own mind is saying they believe their view and knowledge of the world is of the utmost importance. They think this way because they are not capable of thinking outside the box. Something which requires masculine characteristics. Saying that, in no way has anything to do with considering them enlightened in the sense that it is discussed on this board.

Leyla Shen wrote:

Sue: Not only did I "pick up" on it, [snip]

No, “you didn’t.” Otherwise, you’d have called Nick out on it. But, instead, (at best) you glossed over it at the very expense of your own philosophy.

You don’t explain your reasons for thinking the above, but I think you’re alluding to the truth that things do not exist inherently and that therefore ‘mind’ also has no inherent existence. This is correct, but it is also true that causally things do exist.

It is not enough to say that everything is Nature, and then sit back and live your life, yet still not understand anything that is going on around you – that is the coward’s way. Woman and man are both at the mercy of causality, but obviously have different causes that create their differences. Understanding these differences assists in understanding the ego’s deep attachment to the feminine, the rarity of masculinity, and the general psychological workings of Society.

So, there was nothing for me to call Nick “out on”, because he dealt with the question of Woman philosophically.

Sue: Woman has 'a mind' - and all women share it.

Yes, they do.

Yes, worse still, that 'mind' is constantly getting new recruits to swell her ranks. Everyday, more and more males discard what remained of their masculinity in favour of disappearing into the emotional one dimensional blur that constitutes woman’s mind.

The rate of this desertion by males could mean that in a thousand years or less, civilization as we know it will be completely lost, and in its place the purely animal race of the Feminine will be operating on a level equal to the Yahoos spoken of in Gulliver's Travels:

The Yahoos…a species of animals utterly incapable of amendment by precepts or examples…

Hell will then reign supreme.

-
Sue

Sue,

So, there was nothing for me to call Nick “out on”, because he dealt with the question of Woman philosophically.

Rubbish. You broke into a discussion in which I was directly addressing Nick’s reasoning. Since you like to come to his rescue, why don’t you tell me what Nick meant when he spoke of “original ideals” and the contradictions I was addressing in his earlier post? Why is it, Sue, that when your Woman is in question, contradictions in reasoning are suddenly ignored -- I think that’s very womanly, indeed.

What about the observance of those contradictions was not philosophical?

Why do I refer to your philosophy as rhetoric, at times? I reckon what you are now calling philosophy is more like religion. Not because of the content itself, but because of your incapacity to manifest your understanding in any other way.

Unable to facilitate the truth in “Woman” any other way than with Woman rhetoric -- the trusty steed upon which you quickly whisk empty-headed fair maidens off their feet and out of danger like a knight in shining armour into the glory of a "masculine" sunset -- does no more than encourage followers: the herd outside of the herd.

I have a natural aversion to this.

Any man should.

If woman is 100% emotion driven, is not an individual's demonstrable capacity to effectively reason toward truth within any and every context the benchmark of truth?

That takes quite a bit more than Woman rhetoric, in my view.

.

And...

Hell will then reign supreme.

...whilst I understand what you are getting at here, really all this does is remind me of the Jehovah's Witnesses that come knocking at my door, two-by-two.

.

Leyla Shen wrote:Rubbish. You broke into a discussion in which I was directly addressing Nick’s reasoning. Since you like to come to his rescue, why don’t you tell me what Nick meant when he spoke of “original ideals” and the contradictions I was addressing in his earlier post? Why is it, Sue, that when your Woman is in question, contradictions in reasoning are suddenly ignored -- I think that’s very womanly, indeed.

Show me exactly where Sue "came to my rescue". All you did was butt into mine and Sue's conversation by making claims that she was looking past some of my comments that supposedly undermine her ideals, simply because we were in an overall agreeance. The fact of the matter is you were interpreting what I was saying in an unphilosophical way, as Sue already pointed out to you. Not to mention I have spoon fed you the meaning of my words since you couldn't understand the philosophy of it on your own. All you're doing is blowing a bunch of hot air around.

Nick wrote:

Also, to take it a step further. Women might actually agree with someone when confronted with wisdom because they think it sounds powerful. All the while they don't realize they are going against everything they stand for by being in agreeance with wisdom. If they were capable of understand true wisdom they could see how it would destroy everything they love, cherish, and live for.

Never to truly suffer for Truth could be considered a blessing placed upon Woman. She’s able to spend eternity neither in hell, nor heaven.

For instance if I were to go up to any man on the street and say; you are no more valuable than the ground you stand on because all is equal in God's eyes, I can be almost certain there would be a huge debate that follows. Where If I was to go up to a woman and say the same thing, she might say something like; "that was beautiful", and be on her way thinking I was a poet of some sort trying to impress her. Not realizing what I have just said undermines her existence.

Or they both might dismiss me as a raving lunatic, but if there were to be dialogue it would happen the way I described it.

Yes, a man ignorant of God’s blessings would most likely take offense at being told that his life was no more valuable than the dirt under his feet. But he does so for good reason - his life is all he has. Woman, on the other hand, can afford to respond in any number of ways. She has at her beck and call hundreds of lives – none of them her own of course, since she doesn’t possess ‘a life’ – she’s got husbands, children, boyfriends, sisters, brothers, parents, neighbours, work mates, fictional characters, celebrities, religious leaders, teachers, girlfriends, etc. Her response will depend on whom she last spoke to, what magazine or book she recently read, what TV show she last saw, or which of those above mentioned people has the most dominate influence upon her at present.

-
Sue

Matt Gregory wrote:

Sue: She can “remain rather stable” because by not possessing an inner life, she can never know the nature of her mind. With no way to reflect upon her thinking, all she is left to do is react to stimuli as it arises.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "women possess no inner life". Do you mean that they can't remember what they've just thought, or that they can't perceive their thoughts or something? That doesn't make sense to me.

No, she has enough memory, and enough perception to do the most complicated mathematics and physics, fly jet fighters, invent great and useful things to help mankind, run countries, and become CEO’s of major companies – (which just goes to show how shallow these disciplines and activities really are) – but not enough to be able to see into the nature of her being. Without this, she can never know Ultimate Reality.

-
Sue

Well, Nick, you're absolutely right. One of us is cockeyed and since you are in such obvious agreement with Sue, it must be me.

Sue wrote:

No, she has enough memory, and enough perception to do the most complicated mathematics and physics, fly jet fighters, invent great and useful things to help mankind, run countries, and become CEO’s of major companies – (which just goes to show how shallow these disciplines and activities really are) – but not enough to be able to see into the nature of her being. Without this, she can never know Ultimate Reality.

Shallow, now? Yet, these things are the very things held up as distinguishing men's potential from women's -- of course, only when it suits the genii of the forum!

Independence of thought, my arse.

.

Leyla wrote:

Sue: No, she has enough memory, and enough perception to do the most complicated mathematics and physics, fly jet fighters, invent great and useful things to help mankind, run countries, and become CEO’s of major companies – (which just goes to show how shallow these disciplines and activities really are) – but not enough to be able to see into the nature of her being. Without this, she can never know Ultimate Reality.

Shallow, now? Yet, these things are the very things held up as distinguishing men's potential from women's -- of course, only when it suits the genii of the forum!

Man’s motivation for entering those disciplines and activities differs greatly from Woman’s, for he possesses an inner life, and she doesn’t. His inner world is where he formulates an existence for himself. Woman has no need of this inner world because she is born fully formed into life as ‘Woman’. It isn’t necessary for her to scratch out a life like man does – she instead is carried through life upon the constantly changing wave of circumstances especially created for her by him. So when a man flies a jet fighter, invents something, or rules a country, his life depends on him doing these things, whereas for woman, they are just more things for her to use to travel through life.

Possessing an inner life means that he possess philosophical potential. Being able to look inside your self and discern and judge the world accordingly is what sets man apart from woman. That most men waste their time flying jet fighters, doing mathematics and becoming CEO’s instead of becoming philosophers, is downright disgraceful - for they are wasting that potential.

Independence of thought, my arse.

“Independence of thought” does exist in man to varying degrees. Because men have to compete with each other for a place in the world, they have evolved to be able to act independently to ensure they maximize their potential. This means that it is part of their nature to step out into the unknown to scout for new possibilities for themselves. Some men are far better at doing this than others. But all males possess the seed for this potential.

-
Sue

Sue,

So, man’s motivation and the very reason for his possessing an inner life -- comprising his very life -- is inextricably tied to the existence of Woman. He formulates such an inner life from first having been cast out of Her (mother) and maintains one for the very same reason.

The difference between you and I, Sue, is that it’s the last thing I would call independent. In fact, its quite insidiously parasitic. And it does not surprise me in the least that -- on getting even an inkling of it -- men feel unconsciously compelled to throw themselves at a woman’s feet in some twisted plea for forgiveness.

Naturally, such men have no choice but to hate her.

.