GENIUS FORUMS

Hello

I was wondering about Weininger's hypothesis that (and I'm paraphrasing) to the extent that a man and woman are attracted to one another, they comprise a complete ideal man and woman. How is it then, that if most men are predominantly feminine and most women are predominantly feminine that this can be? To the people that take Weininger seriously, was this a poor experimental idea? Did Weininger have a different concept of the masculine and feminine? It would seem that if Weininger's hypothesis were true and sexual selection had its way then we would have an equal amount of masculinity and femininity but according to the predominant theory of this forum that isn't the case.

I am also thinking about which way is best for a psychologist to approach the method of inquiry to understand human nature. Weininger seemed virulently opposed to the empiricists approach to start with particulars and try to build solely from that. Is it necessary to postulate an ego to understand humans? What are the pieces of the ego?

Abram[/list]

Your motivation is less than pure. Who do you think you are trying to fool?

Who do you think you are trying to fool?


This coming from a guy who calls himself "prince".

You can't even get past labels, dummy.

Abram wrote:How is it then, that if most men are predominantly feminine and most women are predominantly feminine that this can be?

While men are predominantly feminine (unconscious), they still feel themselves to be too conscious. So they seek women in an attempt to make themselves more unconscious, and thus "balanced".

By contrast, women, being almost entirely feminine, seek an element of consciousness (the masculine), which acts like a pinch of seasoning to add life to a bland meal.

To the people that take Weininger seriously, was this a poor experimental idea?

I think it was productive, since it stimulates thought.

It would seem that if Weininger's hypothesis were true and sexual selection had its way then we would have an equal amount of masculinity and femininity but according to the predominant theory of this forum that isn't the case.

I see what you mean. You are saying that a perfect balance would be 50% masculinity and 50% femininity. That is certainly what Weininger argued, but I think he did that more for simplicity's sake than anything else.

It would be more complicated to argue that we felt "balanced" when our minds were, say, 95% feminine and only 5% masculine.

The fact is, when a person is only 5% conscious, this component appears so much larger than it really is, because of its scarcity and shock value. Just like 5% pepper in a meal can make the meal feel dominated by pepper, even though the quantity of pepper is in fact only small by proportion.

Is it necessary to postulate an ego to understand humans? What are the pieces of the ego?

Since virtually all of human behavior is generated or modified by the ego, I think it certainly helps: the "ego" being the false idea of self that people have of themselves, as opposed to the "ego" of psychoanalysis, which is more accurately defined as simply "the I".

The ego, the false "I", is composed of delusion - or false ideas about the nature of the self and of existence. It perceives inherent existence in things. For example, a Christian who gives birth to a child who has a severe birth defect and suffers terribly, is often tormented by the question as to why their God would allow such a terrible thing to happen. Without the delusions that compose the ego, such torment would never arise.

Western psychology ignores the ego, so it ends up only dealing with symptoms rather than causes.

Why do you think that emotion is an indication of a belief in a inherent existence of a thing or event? It seems that emotion is a type of expression of how someone or something wants the world to be. The actual wanting isn't a belief in an inherent existence, so what is left is to posit that the wanting is based on such a belief. But, the belief in an intrinsic existence seems mute, the person doesn't care one way or the other they just want the world to be a certain way.

But getting back to Weininger's theory...

So, lets say we shift the percentages but still keep the core idea. The theory seems to posit conscious (assuming your definitions are the same) at the center of attraction between the sexes. As Weininger pointed out these affairs are quite complex. One needs to take into account social status, proximity, physical appearance etc. But it seems to me that men can and do produce much less threatening ways than being conscious to "spice up" a woman's world. Artists, for example, have the capacity to open up deeper level emotions in women, intellectuals entertain women with their display of knowledge, and comedians do the same with their wit. How is consciousness per se an attractive quality? It certainly takes a certain level of conscious to perform these roles, but success largely depends on talent and drive. Do you find it the case that heightened levels of talent, drive, and passion are functions of heightened consciousness?

A distinct personality which stems from a sort of individualistic state I could see as being dependent on a heightened consciousness of self. And it seems apparent that women like men with strong/distinct personalities. But do you think that this would be any more a major factor than the other attractive traits?

For men, women represent a holiday from consciousness. Men have sufficient a masculine component to their consciousness such that - egotistically - consciousness is a burden. This is the primary reason that men, although predominantly feminine in their own psychological makeup, are attracted to women.

Consciousness is a terrible double-edged sword for men. Whilst the seeming spontaniety and freedom of the feminine is attractive to them, when they more fully engage it - usually through the vehicle of proximity to a woman - their masculine side rebels against it and they feel the hard edge of shame's dagger.

Philosophically speaking: thank God for shame.


Dan Rowden

Abram wrote:Why do you think that emotion is an indication of a belief in a inherent existence of a thing or event? It seems that emotion is a type of expression of how someone or something wants the world to be. The actual wanting isn't a belief in an inherent existence, so what is left is to posit that the wanting is based on such a belief. But, the belief in an intrinsic existence seems mute, the person doesn't care one way or the other they just want the world to be a certain way.

Let's divide the field of emotions into positive and negative, coinciding with like and dislike, love and hate, comfort and fear, the feeling of gain and the feeling of loss and lacking.

Emotion is a reaction to how the self and the world are (mistakenly) perceived to be. Emotional "wanting" is itself emotional desire, and is thus also based on a mistaken perception of the world.

The person divides the world up into "self" and "not-self" and wants both to be a certain way, and to meet certain expectations. But in reality neither can be other than what what they really are - which is what they are caused to be. Failure to realize this truth leads to emotion.

The false expections (emotional desires) stem from the person mistakenly dividing the world up into "self" and "not-self", as though they were separate things, and also expecting elements of "not-self" to be a certain way, other than what they really are - fleeting existences changing with the winds of causation, and snuffed-out as easily as a candle flame.

But it seems to me that men can and do produce much less threatening ways than being conscious to "spice up" a woman's world. Artists, for example, have the capacity to open up deeper level emotions in women, intellectuals entertain women with their display of knowledge, and comedians do the same with their wit. How is consciousness per se an attractive quality?

All of these things you mention - art, humour, wit, thought, creativity, along with things like arrogance, stability, material wealth, and open physical and psychological domination - are indicators of a degree of consciousness. Women are attracted to these things, because without them their lives would be very drab indeed - quite apart from the more biological reasons that without these qualitites women probably wouldn't be able to continue to survive in this world, or have the material or psychological ability to properly raise children.

With consciousness comes the idea of value, and value gives us a buzz. As Weiniinger says, women depend on men for virtually all their values.

Do you find it the case that heightened levels of talent, drive, and passion are functions of heightened consciousness?

Yes, since these things require memory, and a goal-directed way of thinking. They require valueing. These things are the basic elements of consciousness.

Sexual passion requires no memory or consciousness, but a passion for something like truth requires a high degree of memory and consciousness.

A passion for music requires little or no consciousness, but a passion for composing music can require a good deal of consciousness. Weininger argues quite convincingly that there are no female composers of any note - or artists for that matter - and certainly not philosophers.

A distinct personality which stems from a sort of individualistic state I could see as being dependent on a heightened consciousness of self.

Yes, this is the "character" that Weininger talks about. Genius is essentially character. The "character" is the fellow who is not swept along by the tides of fashion, but follows his own compass.

And it seems apparent that women like men with strong/distinct personalities. But do you think that this would be any more a major factor than the other attractive traits?

Consciousness is a major attraction for women (up to a point!), but physical wealth or at least financial prospects are also a major one from a biological point of view, since it is expensive to rear children.

But women are repulsed by men who have too much consciousness, just as they would be repulsed by a meal that had more than a modicum of hot peppers. Men with too much consciousness cannot be controlled by women.

Dan Rowden,

Yes, I see what you mean. Men are ashamed because they don't respect what controls them. The psychology is similar or synonymous to that of an addict. Hence you have the phenomenon of the male pervert who mixes the sexual act with shame and humiliation and the reoccurring theme of the man fleeing the scene of a sexual act and boys who think that sex and dating are gross and of course the song: R-E-S-P-E-C-T.

Kevin Solway wrote:

The person divides the world up into "self" and "not-self" and wants both to be a certain way, and to meet certain expectations. But in reality neither can be other than what what they really are - which is what they are caused to be. Failure to realize this truth leads to emotion.

Say I have some kind of emotional attachment towards impressing someone. I put in the work and actually end up impressing them. I steered reality to meet my emotional wants. So the underlying belief that reality could be a certain way was actually true. How would the emotions in this hypothetical be delusional?

Or say I see a wall that is white but I want it to be black. I go ahead and paint it black. The underlying position of my wanting - that reality could be different than it was at a particular moment is justified.


Kevin Solway wrote:

The false expections (emotional desires) stem from the person mistakenly dividing the world up into "self" and "not-self", as though they were separate things, and also expecting elements of "not-self" to be a certain way, other than what they really are - fleeting existences changing with the winds of causation, and snuffed-out as easily as a candle flame.

But if the ego really believed that it was truly separate from “non-self” then fear would never arise because nothing could touch or influence the self. In other words, if the ego really thought that it was completely disconnected from the rest of reality then what would naturally follow would be a sense of invulnerability. This isn’t the case.

Abram wrote:Say I have some kind of emotional attachment towards impressing someone. I put in the work and actually end up impressing them. I steered reality to meet my emotional wants. So the underlying belief that reality could be a certain way was actually true. How would the emotions in this hypothetical be delusional?

The delusion lies in the original emotional attachment - the emotional feeling of lacking or loss that would be felt if the other person wasn't impressed, and also the feeling of joy at the thought that the other person might be impressed, and thus approve of you.

The reason being that you are what you are regardless of what anybody else thinks of you. So it is a delusion to think that another person's opinion should have any bearing on how you feel about yourself. Nature has made you a certain way, and what other people think should not change your feelings. That which Nature has made you has nothing at all to do with you, so you should not rejoice in any good fortune, nor sorrow over misfortune.

Moving on from that basic, serious delusion, it is also a delusion to think that other people's approval really means anything, since they will approve and disapprove just as Nature determines they must. In any case, Nature may have determined that there is nobody on earth qualified to properly approve of you, which would leave you in a real mess if you felt the need for approval.

For these reasons, approval is meaningless, and to want approval to really mean something, means wanting reality - both ourselves, and all else - to be other than it really is.

Or say I see a wall that is white but I want it to be black. I go ahead and paint it black. The underlying position of my wanting - that reality could be different than it was at a particular moment is justified.

Nature has already decided whether the wall will become black, or remain white, or immediately crumble to dust in a bomb blast.

It might make sense to "want" to paint the wall black, to achieve some goal, but to have an emotional investment in the wall becoming black doesn't make any sense, since that would be pitting yourself against Nature, and making unnecessary and unfounded expectations.

But if the ego really believed that it was truly separate from “non-self” then fear would never arise because nothing could touch or influence the self.

If people truly understood what "self" and "non-self" really were (which would involve understanding their proper connection), then they would be able to make the clean split you suggest, and would thus be beyond fear.

But the split between "self" and "non-self" that people make is a deluded split. They do not know their self, nor the non-self, nor the connection between them, but create these things in their dream-like, confused imagination. Things naturally do not make sense in such an imagination, and is filled with all kinds of hellish things.

It is not that deluded people need to connect their "self" and "non-self", dissolving the divide between them, because both of these things, in their case, are illusions they have created.

By contrast, the true individual "I", which is only a thought, is invulnerable.

And then there's the whole "I", which is identical with the Totality, and is again invulnerable.

Kevin,

(ahem)

The realization of the distinction between self and non-self leads to the realization of the "I", which in turn, leads back to self and non-self: leading to the realization of the larger "I".

Yeah?

sevens wrote:The realization of the distinction between self and non-self leads to the realization of the "I", which in turn, leads back to self and non-self: leading to the realization of the larger "I".

Yeah, it doesn't sound too simple. That's why they have all those koans in Zen Buddhism, to try to cut through all that stuff.

The problem with those psychologists I suppose is that they NEED to be prolific.
With the consequence that they spread so much dogmas that Psychology has become the best seller.
It once was(and is) with religion and with science the same.

Psychology,when taken to seriously ,kills common sense.
The door of reality needs to be closed first to make these bloody categorieworkers work.

They do not convince me.It should be taken with small doses.

Consequently,I can't take the intent of this topic seriously.

Kevin Solway wrote

The delusion lies in the original emotional attachment - the emotional feeling of lacking or loss that would be felt if the other person wasn't impressed, and also the feeling of joy at the thought that the other person might be impressed, and thus approve of you.

But look, what specifically about expectations that underlie emotion is delusional. If I walk into my apartment and I find that my computer is gone, that would invoke the emotion of anger. That anger, you would say, is delusional because I had a false expectation of reality. If however, I go to flip the light switch on and the light doesn’t turn on – I don’t have any emotional response, I just change the bulb. Why do you think that the non-emotional expectation is not delusional while the emotional expectation is? There both expectations, they both make assumptions about reality. Or why is non-emotional wanting possibly non-delusional, but emotional wanting necessarily delusional? Both are aimed at changing reality and hence don't "like" some aspect of reality.

The reason being that you are what you are regardless of what anybody else thinks of you. So it is a delusion to think that another person's opinion should have any bearing on how you feel about yourself. Nature has made you a certain way, and what other people think should not change your feelings. That which Nature has made you has nothing at all to do with you, so you should not rejoice in any good fortune, nor sorrow over misfortune.

But other people perception’s of you do influence your lot in life – regardless of whether you are emotionally attached to those perceptions - and hence this affects some of the properties and roles that comprise oneself.

And by the way, how can a valuing be delusional? The underlying belief structure may be delusional but the actual valuing can't be delusional nor enlightened. Not even the valuing of delusion itself can be delusional – values are just preferences. I take it that if a value arises because of some deluded state then you would consider that a deluded value (a deluded “should”) but you don’t actually mean (?) that the valuing in itself is delusional, it's just a product of delusional thinking (or not thinking for that matter).

Nature has already decided whether the wall will become black, or remain white, or immediately crumble to dust in a bomb blast.

It might make sense to "want" to paint the wall black, to achieve some goal, but to have an emotional investment in the wall becoming black doesn't make any sense, since that would be pitting yourself against Nature, and making unnecessary and unfounded expectations.

When you talk about Nature I assume you mean the Infinite. Nature then is, for lack of a better word, “outside” of time. It’s changeless, timeless. So then Nature doesn’t “decide” anything nor is it that which you can pit yourself against. From an experiential perspective it is nothing. So then what are you talking about? To say that Nature has already done something is to place it in time – as if it did something before some time. If this is just your way of talking about it that’s fine I just want to be clear on what you mean.

The rest is interesting but I think I'll chew on it for a while longer.

Abram, you are manna from heaven. You are articulating in detail why humans suffer so much via delusion.

It serves as a cautionary tale, and as fodder for the philosophical mind.

Abram wrote:What specifically about expectations that underlie emotion is delusional. If I walk into my apartment and I find that my computer is gone, that would invoke the emotion of anger. That anger, you would say, is delusional because I had a false expectation of reality.

Yes.

If however, I go to flip the light switch on and the light doesn’t turn on – I don’t have any emotional response

If there is truly no emotional response in this scenario, and no suppression of an emotional response, then it can mean either that there is no emotional attachment to the light working (unlikely), or that the emotional response was not triggered, due to the particular circumstances.

Some people would be very upset in such a situation, especially if they had gone through ten new light bulbs in the last few days, or if the last time they changed a light bulb they broke their leg falling from a chair, or if they urgently needed electric light as a matter of life and death.

I might be emotionally attached to food, but withholding food from me immediately after I have eaten a full meal will probably not trigger an emotional response in me. The circumstances aren't right.

Why do you think that the non-emotional expectation is not delusional while the emotional expectation is?

A non-delusional expectation will be free from emotion.

For example, when I turn on the light, I might expect it to work some or even most of the time, but I would realize that Nature may have "decided", against my preference, that my electric light will never work ever again.

In this situation, no matter what the circumstances, no matter whose life is endagered, no emotion will be generated, since I willingly accept whatever Nature has dictated.

So, in summary, the deluded person gets upset, or rejoices, or is sometimes indifferent with what Nature has "decided" (caused). This is the essence of emotional life. By contrast the wise person evenly accepts whatever Nature dishes out, even though he might not get what he would prefer.

There both expectations, they both make assumptions about reality. Or why is non-emotional wanting possibly non-delusional, but emotional wanting necessarily delusional? Both are aimed at changing reality and hence don't "like" some aspect of reality.

When the wise person wants something, it is like a whim. It is like playing a game of chess with the goal of winning, but not having any emotional investment in the result. Whatever happens is the will of Nature.

But other people perception’s of you do influence your lot in life – regardless of whether you are emotionally attached to those perceptions - and hence this affects some of the properties and roles that comprise oneself.

Certainly, being deluded can bring many emotional and material rewards. It is the driving engine behind most of human psychology.

And by the way, how can a valuing be delusional? The underlying belief structure may be delusional but the actual valuing can't be delusional nor enlightened.

There's nothing inherently wrong in valuing. It is natural to value one thing over another, and there's nothing we can do about it. For example, any thinking person would value a million dollars more highly than one dollar, when it comes to buying capacity. But the deluded person piles all sorts of unnecessary and deluded baggage on top of this basic valuing, which results in all his problems. For example, he might equate having one dollar to being a failure in the eyes of others, and would feel miserable, and he might equate having a million dollars with being a success in the eyes of others, and would feel good.

Not even the valuing of delusion itself can be delusional – values are just preferences.

By definition any thinking that comes from delusion is delusional.

A person who is non-delusional would not value (choose) delusion, since it is in their nature to be truthful.

Thus only a deluded person values delusion.

I take it that if a value arises because of some deluded state then you would consider that a deluded value (a deluded “should”) but you don’t actually mean (?) that the valuing in itself is delusional, it's just a product of delusional thinking (or not thinking for that matter).

Yes.

It might make sense to "want" to paint the wall black, to achieve some goal, but to have an emotional investment in the wall becoming black doesn't make any sense, since that would be pitting yourself against Nature, and making unnecessary and unfounded expectations.

When you talk about Nature I assume you mean the Infinite. Nature then is, for lack of a better word, “outside” of time. It’s changeless, timeless. So then Nature doesn’t “decide” anything nor is it that which you can pit yourself against.

Yes. Nature just "is". So saying that "Nature decides what will happen each moment" really means that Nature will be what it is, no matter what. You can think of cause and effect as the body of Nature. Thus in that one body, everything is decided.

From an experiential perspective it is nothing. So then what are you talking about? To say that Nature has already done something is to place it in time – as if it did something before some time. If this is just your way of talking about it that’s fine I just want to be clear on what you mean.

It's just a way of talking about it.

"Sex and Character'' - book for many future's searchers of truth.

I haven't seen anyone make a good case for Weininger's untested claims. Maybe a few new posters can?

"Sex and character" forces me to discuss, though my English do not allow me to make this.
I absolutely agree that the woman is a secondary being in the sense of the mental power. Of course , she must protect children and family( and attracts a partner) by her great emotions and different feelings, which are a vital power of life. But this power creates a special emotional atmosphere, where the man can take his own inspiration and support, because his will and reason oblige him to control all emotions for intellectual work.

And I want to remind an old quotation of Eliphas Levy , I don't know how to translate right from Russian to English, but perhaps it sounds so:

"The Man as Love in his essence, aspires to the Woman because in the beginning ( or the origin, or the source) of her Love he sees a gleam reflection of his own essence, then he rises over this Love up to her Wisdom, which he begins to love with all completeness of his true Love.

The Woman as Wisdom in her essence, aspires to the Man because in the source of his Wisdom she sees a gleam reflection of her own essence and then rises over his Wisdom up to his essence, to his Love, and begins to live in her Wisdom, illuminated by his Love.

The essence of the MAN is LOVE, his image is WISDOM.
The essence of the WOMAN is WISDOM, her image is LOVE."

Zarina wrote: The essence of the MAN is LOVE, his image is WISDOM.
The essence of the WOMAN is WISDOM, her image is LOVE."

Zarina, it might be more clear to phrase it like this:

The essence of Man is bound but in the act always widening
The essence of Woman is wideness but in the act always binding

Not if they both know magick...

There's no ka in magic.

It is no magic, it is a law of universe ( only whilst the mystic law), Weininger have approached as nobody to right relationship: "man-woman","male -female", this is fundamental law for our spiritual growth.
I have discovered many dark spots in my personality due to his deep thoughts,I am his debtor forever).
Only now there are some women which ready to work in such direction, I'm one of them.

When a man and the woman are ready for mutual love, and if they are equal in their physical, emotional, intellectual and moral level of development, they capable to bear not only children but great ideas and events which will live in many centuries.
Such pairs as Napoleon and Josefine, Pericle and Aspasia, Caesar and Cleopatra, some artists and writers :Exupery and his women, Beethoven and his beloveds( even if this love was not mutual), the great idea that appears as a chef-de' ouvre in the art or acts of great man ... is transcendent thing, it was born by powerful energy of united souls of two being.

The spirit and the matter are always together in the creative acts, the spirit without matter - nothing, and the matter without will, reason and spirit is simply chaos.