GENIUS FORUMS

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Perhaps women are so enlightened that they don't bother with major philosophical contributions, because to us it is all to obvious to get all that worked up over (so suggests the person with the highest post count on GF).

Funny, I've seen this line spouted before, and quite seriously. But if taken as true, what would it actually say about women? Nothing very positive as far as I can tell. All that enlightenment and no willingness to teach or share it, even with their children.

I'll agree with Nat on one point - this place can certainly be a trip at times.

Dan Rowden wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Kevin - I don't think that this is what you mean to be teaching, but this is what these guys are learning - that if it is a biological female, it is completely incapable of enlightenment. Since people who have been on here for years, like Ryan, are picking up this message, I see harm being done.

Why don't you just straight up tell Ryan right he's incapable of thinking for himself and that he has a guru complex? Those are the implications of your post.

Because Ryan is not the only one, and there are likely to be many more. I thought it more efficient to direct it at one of the guys that these others get complexes over. Besides, he would not have heard it coming from me - because I am just a biological female - and Ryan did clearly state the universal "all" rather than just a generalization. I seem to recall a time when he did say that sort of thing as just a generalization, but he has moved into a universal position now. He now would feel even more justified to dismiss anything I say that disagrees with him just because I am a female. Ryan, and the rest of the guys here, do seem to have enough respect for me to attempt to address things logically and provide a reasonable debate, but to them the bottom line is that I will never understand because I do not have a male physiology.

And they are likely to give other females even less of a chance to express an opinion or observation.

This is more an argument from sentiment and need for respect than a technical or logical point. It may indeed be the case that female genetic inheritance is such that all women without genetic variance are incapable of enlightenment. It's very much an open question. But more importantly, even if this were to be found to be the case, it is a rather moot point as genetics is not the insurmountable barrier we tend to think it to be. I think the podcast we just did will bring this point home more strongly than I could here, so stay tuned.....

S: Unidian, also if you have a convincing argument to both keep a sage-like lifestyle AND a woman at the same time, I would LOVE to hear it.

U: I wouldn't have anything to say about that, because I don't have or aspire to "a sage-like lifestyle." I don't have a job because I hate employment and I have better things to do. I've done a lot of philosophical thinking over the years because I wanted to know what this life and this world is all about, or at least find out why I don't know. I did reasonably well in that regard, but I'm not trying to cultivate some "enlightened sage" pose. I toyed around with that sort of thing for a few years and ultimately found the self-deception and pretentiousness of it untenable.

Thanks for your post explaining your previous tone, I appreciated it.

Nah its chill. The only reason I said anything is that to me you seem sage-like in nature, and regardless of the word all I mean by that is you seem to have a good brain with good ideas. My first post here was a thread trying to bring together women and wisdom in the same life for a man. Most people here didn't buy it, and regardless of what you may or may not call yourself, I simply value your ideas and was just looking for some input.

For the same reason I'm also willing to give you a hard time and rough you up a bit if it seems necessary. I hope you would respect me enough to do the same if you ever see I need it. I talk a lot about the value of seduction skills and the intrinsic superiority of men on the rational plane, but at the same time I might easily find myself jacking off in my room 3x/day, playing that Jennifer Govt. game you posted on another forum, and more or less wasting the day - I'm no james bond out banging chicks and saving the world.

I have 0% belief in anything regarding "sages", but what I really like about you, Kevin, David, and a few other posters here is that you all inspire me to think. Despite the fact I was naturally inclined to thinking, you have brought me to a new level I really didn't think existed (in fact I'm a little ashamed not to have found it on my own). And despite what you may or may not think your role is here, I now find it my duty to follow in the wake of the good example you've set and respectfully propose the idea that you may not have it all figured out when it comes to the ladies. I could be 100% wrong and I promise to print out this post, crumble it up and eat it if I am. But in all my years of study in this regard, I have never, ever, found one person who was actually healthily unattached to his GF without knowing on a very deep level how he was capable of doing that. The alternative is much like what the common man is to a "sage", if you will allow me the term, and the reason for my *quapshhh!!!*, is that in all likelyhood...


...you probably are. Give it a think. Pretend I'm right just for the hell of it. If not I'll try to get your buddy Philo to smack some sense into you. WAKE UP.

Much Respect,
skipair

Nah, I have it pretty well "figured out with regard to the ladies." The difference is that I don't see such knowledge as a reason to justify avoiding them altogether. Relationships are difficult, especially for "thinkers." I know that perhaps better than anyone on this forum, having stuck with a very troubled relationship much longer than most. But male and female are yin and yang. Despite their potential conflicts, they are complementary polarities.

If I were to become single, I would probably not pursue a new relationship for quite a while, if ever. I'm well aware of the potential problems for philosophical types, because I've lived them. At the same time, I don't buy into the self-centered view that what would best suit my own temperament in theory should be applied to an existing situation. There are other considerations at stake, and indeed not all of them are rational in nature. Rationality is simply a tool. Nature itself is beyond rationality or irrationality - it is trans-rational. Thus, while rational considerations are a wonderful tool, they cannot alone dictate the course of our lives, nor can it rationally be shown that they must.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:However, if the earlier linked scientific article is correct in that a Y chromosome is just a damaged X chromosome, and that some mental functioning was encoded on the leg of the X that got lost - it would be more accurate to say that women can understand what it's like to be a man simply by shutting down some of our cognitive functions.

Elizabeth, are you talking about this?

As it turns out, the "Y" chromosome is, in fact, a defective "X" chromosome with one of the legs missing. At first this discovery baffled scientists, but further research has determined that this mysterious missing leg physically manifests itself on the outer body of a male, resulting in what is commonly known as a penis.

Do you really think that article is scientific?

Unidian,

I'm well aware of the potential problems for philosophical types, because I've lived them.

No doubt you've been in all the trenches.

At the same time, I don't buy into the self-centered view that what would best suit my own temperament in theory should be applied to an existing situation. There are other considerations at stake, and indeed not all of them are rational in nature. Rationality is simply a tool. Nature itself is beyond rationality or irrationality - it is trans-rational. Thus, while rational considerations are a wonderful tool, they cannot alone dictate the course of our lives, nor can it rationally be shown that they must.

100% agree. Its totally up to the individual. I wonder, though, what it is you would actually be giving up - if you were to choose to do so. How would the alternative lifestyle be? The chemical love drug is certainly not something someone is required to get over. It has its indescribable high, and its fucking hellish lows, but when all is said and done, ever wonder what the truth behind curtain is? Nothing is actually gained from imbibing other than the woman unconsciously directing your mind to her own ends with absolutly ZERO consideration for your own. Your woman is no different.

Matt Gregory wrote:Do you really think that article is scientific?

Actually it's only as scientific as the claim that women are inferior to men. It's equally as ridiculous to think that women can understand men by shutting down part of their brain as David's idea that he can understand all women by shutting down part of his brain.

Dan Rowden wrote:Funny, I've seen this line spouted before, and quite seriously.

As Dan saw, I'm still playing feminist to bring some balance to the ridiculous claims of some of the guys here.

Tomas wrote:Leyla writes: Still, it works well to lull unsuspecting men into a false sense of superiority and feminine security.

-tomas-
Very well said. Thanks, i like that :-)

This would be a wonderful thread in and of itself.

Deep, eh? Much too advanced for the majority of posters to this board, I reckon. :)

Regards in kind, L

Dan Rowden wrote:

Philophaster wrote:It seems to me that the one thing women generally lack (as far as prerequisites for philosophy go) is a desire for exploration as an end in itself.

Yes, I agree with that. Disposition is every bit as important as aptitude. I think it's incontrovertibly the case that men have a far greater natural disposition for philosophical thinking and "systemisation" in general. The male mind more readily seeks to put everything into a consistent and coherent framework. The quality of that enterprise varies greatly, as we know, but the natural tendency is important for philosophical "success".

I think you said it best that a while back with something along the lines of truth being the completion of consciousness. After all isn't that where consciousness starts? When a mind begins to differentiate between what is true and what is false, for instance, it is true that if I bite into this apple a piece of it will enter my mouth. Or, it's true that when I move my leg forward one after the next, I begin to walk. Consciousness starts off with these small truths, and the more truth a mind learns, the more conscious it becomes, or, the more alive one becomes. What women lack is the strong desire to learn what is true, they are satisfied with a few small truths. Men on the other hand have more of a desire to learn what is true, and understand how things work, it's part of our nature to do so. I think part of it is cultural, but I also think there is a strong genetic pre-disposition involved as well. It probably served women best not to become conscious in our species survival. Honestly, if I had to assume the role of a woman in our species earlier years and even now, I wouldn't even want to be conscious. Pushing babies out of myself, cleaning up their feces, and other disgusting mundane tasks, who would want to be conscious while doing these things?

Actually a lack of consciousness amongst most women probably was necessary for the survival of the species - otherwise women would have realized that there are very few men worthy of mating with, and the species would have died out long before the first sage was ever born.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:However, women don’t have the right physiology to experience the depths of subjective enlightenment, and they don’t even know it, and they have no way of understanding it. The right physiology in terms of brain structure, genetic architecture, and endocrinology is what makes it possible for a small minority of males to experience the deep subjective enlightened state.

So who are these men who have experienced the "depths of subjective enlightenment?" I want names. And have you or anyone else studied these men's "brain structure, genetic architecture, and endocrinology" and found evidence to support a link between their particular physiological characteristics and enlightenment? Cos to me it seems like you're just pulling these ideas out of thin air.

Nick Treklis wrote:Men on the other hand have more of a desire to learn what is true, and understand how things work, it's part of our nature to do so. I think part of it is cultural, but I also think there is a strong genetic pre-disposition involved as well.

Why then are there so many idiot unconscious men, and so few wise conscious ones?

Honestly, if I had to assume the role of a woman in our species earlier years and even now, I wouldn't even want to be conscious. Pushing babies out of myself, cleaning up their feces, and other disgusting mundane tasks, who would want to be conscious while doing these things?

That's an idiot unconscious thing to say. Why wouldn't one wish to be conscious while doing any and every experience? That is the hallmark of consciousness; it is not to be unconscious during "unpleasant things"; that would be advocating delusion and denial and sleep. That's disgusting.

Leyla,

Leyla Shen wrote:

Cory wrote:My point is that by masculinizing females, we won't render them completely undesirably sexually. Perhaps we could - but for the sake of maintaining reproduction, we'll had to lay off a bit. At least at first.

Later, I would think that if we were conscious enough as a species to intentionally masculinize females as much as possible, then the masculine women would end up using artificial insemination to impregnate themselves. But that's really far down the road.

It is not men who would do such a thing, but asexual being.

Ok, but I think it requires a relatively higher than norm degree of masculinization to reach such an asexual state of consciousness. A lot of evidence suggest that a very feminized brain cannot think very abstractly and seems incorrigibly tethered to the more primitive instincts.

Cory: Really, what I'm most optimistic about is parents consciously masculinizing female fetuses, but not so much that they lose the ability to become pregnant.

Leyla: What sort of optimistic consciousness is it that would practice such a thing?

Perhaps the kind that is sufficiently masculine enough?

The masculine is already every part feminine as the feminine is masculine.

Masculinity is comprised of parts; however, each part is either masculine or feminine depending on the view you take of it. For example, if we examine anatomy, we might compare the skin cells to the animal cells, regarding the later as more masculine. The skin cells we should regard as relatively more feminine, given they are more passive, less active, live more densely packed together, less individuated. The animals cells are relatively more masculine, given they are more active, more individuated, less packed together. On the other hand, we can regard the skin cells as relatively more masculine than the bones. And the bones, given their organic features, are more masculine than rocks.

The key concept here is 'relatively more/less'. Humanity can be further masculinized, relatively speaking, and this doesn't mean that the feminine will be extinguished altogether. On the contrary, consciously valuing the masculine might stop our current suicidal trajectory.

These (M & F) are not distinct things, rather they are immutable qualities of the same thing.

Ok, so a human being is comprised of (M & F) qualities, which are immutable.

Why then are there such differences between men and women?

“Masculinity” will never exist without “femininity,” and vice versa.

That's true, but I think it's reasonable to make a distinction between an individual or group that is more feminized compared to an individual or group that is more masculinized.

The problem I have with Woman as a (scientific) hypothesis that impels ideas such as “masculinizing female fetuses” is this: the solution to males' incapacity to reach enlightenment despite possessing "the seed" lies literally in objectifying unconsciousness because a “few good men” have demonstrated a capacity for philosophy. So, I’d like to know definitively, Cory, what are the differences between the brains and testosterone levels of such men and why is it more reasonable and particularly wise to attempt to, scientifically, progress humanity toward enlightenment by manipulating female fetuses rather than male ones?

Eliza wrote:Actually a lack of consciousness amongst most women probably was necessary for the survival of the species - otherwise women would have realized that there are very few men worthy of mating with, and the species would have died out long before the first sage was ever born.

Oh, snap!

Jason wrote:

So who are these men who have experienced the "depths of subjective enlightenment?" I want names. And have you or anyone else studied these men's "brain structure, genetic architecture, and endocrinology" and found evidence to support a link between their particular physiological characteristics and enlightenment? Cos to me it seems like you're just pulling these ideas out of thin air.

I haven't studied genetics or endocrinology as deeply yet, as genetics is still quite unknown anyway, but as of late I have been thinking about the difference between the brain structures between males and females, and what makes the male brain the only suitable candidate to experience the depths of emptiness.

And I'll create a post on this very subject in Genius Forum, if you want to move the discussion there.

Carl G wrote:

Nick Treklis wrote:Men on the other hand have more of a desire to learn what is true, and understand how things work, it's part of our nature to do so. I think part of it is cultural, but I also think there is a strong genetic pre-disposition involved as well.

Why then are there so many idiot unconscious men, and so few wise conscious ones?

They don't take the initiative to uncover a greater number of truths. Possible reasons are mental blocks created for the purpose of preserving their happiness, but my point is that it is in a man's nature to have a greater inclination to uncover truths, (and is better suited for the task as well) not that they are necessarily conscious.

Carl G wrote:

Nick Treklis wrote:Honestly, if I had to assume the role of a woman in our species earlier years and even now, I wouldn't even want to be conscious. Pushing babies out of myself, cleaning up their feces, and other disgusting mundane tasks, who would want to be conscious while doing these things?

That's an idiot unconscious thing to say. Why wouldn't one wish to be conscious while doing any and every experience? That is the hallmark of consciousness; it is not to be unconscious during "unpleasant things"; that would be advocating delusion and denial and sleep. That's disgusting.

Well my scenario isn't realistic in the least. It's like imagining that before you are born someone tells you that you will be forced to assume the role of a woman, doing things like having babies, cleaning their messes. Experiencing the wrath of strong hormones, monthly bleeding, and dealing with the constant attempts of men trying to penetrate you. I couldn't imagine a greater form of torture if you had to endure all those things while conscious. But like I said the scenario is not at all realistic for a few reasons, it's just meant to put things into perspective in relation to how the sexes evolved.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Actually a lack of consciousness amongst most women probably was necessary for the survival of the species

Indeed, but not for the following reason:

- otherwise women would have realized that there are very few men worthy of mating with, and the species would have died out long before the first sage was ever born.

Nah. In them thar good ol' days, women gots no choice in da matter. It be shaddup bitch and clean that sheet!

Guys really knew how to live in those days.

Eliz:

Actually a lack of consciousness amongst most women probably was necessary for the survival of the species

Yep, masculinity really only works when there is a large feminine base for it to act upon, just as we have the herd and a few individuals.

It would do no good to herd numbers if both mums and dads killed children, just as male lions and apes sometimes do.

Btw, I wouldn’t use the term “lack of consciousness” in relation to women [don’t let the QRS bullshit get to you], but rather a lesser ability for abstraction and generalisation, leading to a lesser conscious awareness of the categorisation or compartmentalisation of reality [aka wisdom] – this is what they are less conscious of, not reality itself, as reality itself is the experience of emotions.

Here is an article in relation to what I said above.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/ ... ekey=52315

Extract:
Brain imaging technologies such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) scans demonstrate these differences. The typically "male" brain, for example, devotes much more brain area to spatial skills -- things like mechanical design, manipulation of physical objects, and abstraction. With so much brain area devoted to spatials, male brains usually have less area for word use and word production.

There are a number of other differences, and some of them aren't just structural, but chemical. The male brain usually produces less of two powerful chemicals, serotonin and oxytocin, than the female brain does. Serotonin tends to calm us down, while oxytocin may be related to bonding behaviors.

Picturing the Brain
"If you line up PET scans of 50 male brains and 50 female brains, you'll see more colors lighting up in the female brain because there's about 15% more blood flow, on average, in the female brain," says Gurian. If you show those 100 men and women a picture of someone looking sad, he says, you'll notice that less of the male brain lights up as the men try to figure out the emotion involved. "There's less involvement of the emotive centers and less going on in the hippocampus, where memory storage is."

On the other hand, if the same 100 men and women were asked to do a math or science problem, the PET scan would show, on average, that women used more of their brain to get the answer than the men did. "The male brain tends to be more efficient to lateralize and compartmentalize, which has the advantage of making him more task-focused. The female brain has more [nerve] connections and constantly cross-signals and takes in more, so it tends to see and feel more than the male brain," Gurian says.

...Studying the brains of male and female mice, researchers found 18 genes produced at higher levels in male brains while 36 genes were produced at higher levels in female brains.

Leyla Shen wrote:The problem I have with Woman as a (scientific) hypothesis that impels ideas such as “masculinizing female fetuses” is this: the solution to males' incapacity to reach enlightenment despite possessing "the seed" lies literally in objectifying unconsciousness because a “few good men” have demonstrated a capacity for philosophy.

It seems as if these few good men all have a few things in common; they believe women were an obstacle to attaining consciousness.

So, I’d like to know definitively, Cory, what are the differences between the brains and testosterone levels of such men

I really don't know. I think it's pretty obvious that testosterone is only half the story. Did you check out my thread's LBM and Serial Killers and Selfless Geniuses?

As you can see by the former, gorillas have much higher testosterone, so there's another factor, aside from testosterone, that is equally important.

and why is it more reasonable and particularly wise to attempt to, scientifically, progress humanity toward enlightenment by manipulating female fetuses rather than male ones?

Well, I was emphasizing that we manipulate both genders. If I valued the propagation of wisdom, then it logically follows that I would want my kin to be as receptive to it as possible. And since I value the survival of myself, it's important to leave behind beings who can reproduce.

Jamesh wrote:masculinity really only works when there is a large feminine base for it to act upon

Even if there were no women whatsoever, it would not impact at all on truly masculine (fully conscious) men.

Btw, I wouldn’t use the term “lack of consciousness” in relation to women [don’t let the QRS bullshit get to you], but rather a lesser ability for abstraction and generalisation, leading to a lesser conscious awareness of the categorisation or compartmentalisation of reality [aka wisdom]

That's not what I would call wisdom. While consciousness is certainly able to categorize and compartmentalize, that is a long, long, way from being wisdom. Though categorization is certainly a part of wisdom, wisdom is about understanding and seeing.

reality itself is the experience of emotions.

Hah! You have have been mightily hoodwinked!

So if a person is not experiencing emotions, they are not experiencing reality?

And a cow experiences reality, since it experiences emotions?

reality itself is the experience of emotions.

Hah! You have have been mightily hoodwinked!

What else could it be? To each of us, reality is nothing until experienced.

Computers (to date) do not experience reality, they are just part of our reality. If the brain was just a computer, it would also not experience reality. This is demonstrated by the fact that subconscious "thoughts", rational or otherwise, that are constantly occurring in the subconscious are not experienced. Subconscious thoughts are not in any way emotional. We are only conscious of the outcome of these thoughts, when the subconscious mind creates a thought stream that passes through the frontal lobes and as part of this process gives instructions to the hippocampus/limbic system (or whatever) that induces chemical emotional responses.

There's no doubt that some beings experience emotions.

But if a person is not experiencing emotions, is it the case that they are not experiencing reality?

Also, there is also something about the way that emotions are defined (they are more than just chemicals), that makes them delusional.