GENIUS FORUMS

David Quinn wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote: My flawed sense of humour found that pretty funny.

Thereby flattering Shah's feminine perspective .....

-

I am now releasing my humour acknowledgment hounds. Be aware, they have an acute sense of smell and bite real hard. Unfortunately for me they don't discriminate.

Shahrazad wrote:David, so maybe Dan should stop showing us his flawed side, such that the feminine-minded like me do not like him? If most people don't like him, will that motivate him to reach perfection quicker?

I don't think that's the precise theory in play here. I don't especially care about not being liked so it wouldn't motivate me to do anything, particularly. I'd be a fully fledged Buddha by now if it did. I think he simply means that it's wrong of me to do anything at all that might validate or encourage the feminine mindedness in people. I don't really disagree, except to passingly note that it's impossible to achieve that 100%.

In other words, Dan may be pushing himself towards spiritual buddhahood , but he can't help it if he's a big studly hunk o' man around the physical 'hood.

Dan,

Iolaus wrote:So how old are you and Dan?
What the fuck is that question about?

It's just the sort of question any good yenta wants to know.

Shahrazad wrote:The same way I do now: I assess his intelligence, sense of humor, self-esteem, confidence, manliness, values, compassion, just to name a few things. Just for you to get a rough idea: I don't need a man in my life right now, but if I ever decided to let one in, it would be a man like Dan Rowden. He has the qualities I value.

Dan wrote: I hadn't actually read this before, but it's clear enough that what Shah is saying she would accept is a flawed Dan Rowden. That's pretty understandable - my flaws are hellishly cute. However, since I have every intention of working my way past them, I will, of necessity, at some point cease to exhibit a couple of those listed traits and therefore cease to be a person that fits Shah's set of criteria.

Well, Shah, would you still like him without the compassion and humor? No doubt those are the ones destined for the chopping block. But you could always put a couple of beers into him...

It occurs to me that both David and Kevin have been treated to trips to America. I wonder if it would be better for Dan to go to Panama or Sher to visit Australia?

I have no interest in travel, and the related experiences of others have thus far not caused me to feel differently.

Dan wrote:

Your friends must be mad to desire the company of a person they think of as mad. 'Tis a strange world. But then, you knew that.

Yes, I surely do. Of course, the women naturally see me as 'mad' because I don't fit completely into any category they are familiar with - so 'mad' is sufficiently vague enough to allow us to have a coffee, and go see a movie. But the men are more interesting. Men find me mostly "strange" because their eyes tell them they have a matronly middle-aged woman in front of them, but their minds are made confused by the stuff I am talking about as it sounds all a bit too rationally consistent. That's the sweet and tart I wrote of.

It is basically the same here at GF. Most women haven't a clue what I'm doing here - but whatever it is, they hope I stop. And most men, sort of respect the work I do, but still find it difficult to take me seriously because of the fact that I am a 'woman'. I understand why they are this way, as it is a very primordial sense that men have, not being able to take anything women do seriously. Men have to take each other seriously for their own survival. So for men to take a woman seriously, they would be acknowledging that she were more man than woman - and that would be a very rare thing.

Not really, Sue.

In the Western economic system, a man (who is likely a woman to some degree) will take another man or woman equally seriously. There is a presumed "fairness" equation in the interactions, you scratch my back, I scratch yours, a childish recipricol type of relationship.

The sex of the person is secondary to the promise they represent, of a crude agreed-upon moral code.

The same dynamic can be seen in this thread, Shah see's qualities in Dan which would indicate that type of "fair" conduct in human interaction. Doe's she really know Dan?

A true philosopher stands alone, he exists not for the world, but in spite of it.

Anna,

Well, Shah, would you still like him without the compassion and humor? No doubt those are the ones destined for the chopping block.

I could imagine tolerating lack of humor, but that is not likely. It is even more unlikely that I would go for a man with no compassion. For my interest to exist, he would have to treat me as if he cares, and be convincing. Once this care is gone, there's not much left to hold on to.

But you could always put a couple of beers into him...

You think beer will be one of the last attachments to go? Even if so, beer can bring out his true nature, but it will not bring out something that is not there.

I wonder if it would be better for Dan to go to Panama or Sher to visit Australia?

I would guess neither, as we already know what Dan's view of relationships is -- he's not interested.

And why is everybody assuming that we are interested in meeting in person? Nothing has been said to that effect.

-

You said it all in between the lines you silly girl.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Dan wrote:

Your friends must be mad to desire the company of a person they think of as mad. 'Tis a strange world. But then, you knew that.

Yes, I surely do. Of course, the women naturally see me as 'mad' because I don't fit completely into any category they are familiar with - so 'mad' is sufficiently vague enough to allow us to have a coffee, and go see a movie.

Well, there's eccentric mad and threatening mad. I presume you stay within the bounds of the former, which makes you at least entertaining to them.

But the men are more interesting. Men find me mostly "strange" because their eyes tell them they have a matronly middle-aged woman in front of them, but their minds are made confused by the stuff I am talking about as it sounds all a bit too rationally consistent. That's the sweet and tart I wrote of.

Well, yes, I can see that. The "matron" is an ideal/model/archetype that men relate to because being an ideal of their own construction and valuation, they can be comfortable in feeling somewhat submissive to it (same psychology in operation with God concepts). But the person representing this archetype/ideal must at least do a decent job of reflecting its characteristics to make them comfortable. Being consistently rational in one's views probably breaks a few "rules" of that ideal. Hence, automatic discomfort.

It is basically the same here at GF. Most women haven't a clue what I'm doing here - but whatever it is, they hope I stop. And most men, sort of respect the work I do, but still find it difficult to take me seriously because of the fact that I am a 'woman'.

It's not easy to fully get past idealised, archetype structures.

I understand why they are this way, as it is a very primordial sense that men have, not being able to take anything women do seriously. Men have to take each other seriously for their own survival. So for men to take a woman seriously, they would be acknowledging that she were more man than woman - and that would be a very rare thing.

Yes, or compartmentalise the more masculine facets she displays.

And the administration here scrubbed Samhadi and Ernest Seeker?

Absolutely unbelievable.

OMG inconcievable....the most empathic on this earth would weep at such a notion and yet the most discerning AI would not blink a wink.



So unfair to those who quite frankly are of the minds that require development and understanding not destruction.

Tell that to G-dub

Beingof1 wrote:And the administration here scrubbed Samhadi and Ernest Seeker?

Absolutely unbelievable.

I know, I know. It was futile. They were far too dirty.

-

Dan wrote:

Sue: women naturally see me as 'mad'

Well, there's eccentric mad and threatening mad.

Mostly “eccentric”, but there are occasions when they actually take notice of me, and become threatened by my ideas about things. Then they tell me to, “Stop it. You’re hurting my head”.

I presume you stay within the bounds of the former, which makes you at least entertaining to them.

There is absolutely no need for a woman to think about anything at all. She can say and do anything and no matter what the consequences, she always comes out the winner. But there is one thing she cannot do – one thing that I tend to do – and that is to not do or say anything at all. Within a few moments, all eyes turn upon you, and you are asked to comment on this or that. When you don’t oblige, the anger in the room rises to the point of hysteria. It is quite fascinating to observe, but not something that you wish to experience often.

Sue: Men find me mostly "strange"…they have a matronly middle-aged woman in front of them…talking too rationally

Well, yes, I can see that. The "matron" is an ideal/model/archetype that men relate to because being an ideal of their own construction and valuation, they can be comfortable in feeling somewhat submissive to it (same psychology in operation with God concepts). But the person representing this archetype/ideal must at least do a decent job of reflecting its characteristics to make them comfortable. Being consistently rational in one's views probably breaks a few "rules" of that ideal. Hence, automatic discomfort.

Being middle aged and not very feminine looking, makes me invisible to most men. When someone does take notice of me, they often take me to be a male. But as soon as they hear my voice, I see that they have become aware of their mistake, and they move on very swiftly. No wonder women try desperately to hold back the aging process – they are all too aware of what it means to grow old and invisible.

The few men I talk with are mostly relations, and a couple of husbands belonging to my friends. For example, my 28 year old nephew, who I see about once a year, describes me as “great value”, but adds that he’d never let his girlfriend anywhere near me because she’d “flip entirely out”.

Sue: here at GF…most men, sort of respect the work I do, but still find it difficult to take me seriously because of the fact that I am a 'woman'.

It's not easy to fully get past idealised, archetype structures.

Yes, the feminine is a demanding mistress. Even if her hold appears loose, the moment you stray too far from her, she quickly snaps you back.

Sue: Men have to take each other seriously for their own survival. So for men to take a woman seriously, they would be acknowledging that she were more man than woman - and that would be a very rare thing.

Yes, or compartmentalise the more masculine facets she displays.

There is that, for “compartmentalising” is also a masculine trait. But when it came to something like philosophy, compartmentalising is out of the question. As Kierkegaard wrote:

My life comes out all one colour.

Prince,

You said it all in between the lines you silly girl.

You, and the other between-line-readers, are reading things that I did not say. You read what want to read.

Not that I blame you.

Dan has been a very good friend to me. I guess being a good friend is another one of his numerous flaws, the ones that he described as very cute.


-

Iolaus wrote:It occurs to me that both David and Kevin have been treated to trips to America.

When did David go to America? What for?

An older woman with a strange fixation on men and maleness, who talks to you like she knows intimate things about your own self, who is more concerned for your masculinity than she is for her own self, her femaleness, who extols you, who gives pep-talks to 'be more manly'. Yet whose entire discourse is borrowed, overlaid on her own self, and stems directly from men who are actively and acutely incapable of relations with women. Oh now there is an odd bird.

Bound to cause a little tongue-wagging that's for sure...

So many people appear on these pages with strange layers of complexity. Good and desirable qualities and ideas are interwoven---rather perversely---with distorted ideas, exaggerated ideas. It moves in a direction that is blatantly absurd (in the French sense), but every last detail of the strange play they MUST take completely seriously. Ideas become very possessive masters, and the possessed, puppets.

You have to hang back, you have to carefully sort through things. It is a very, very delicate work.

Here Alex offeres the incisive truth that bites through the lies and appears on the forum stage like a spaceship come to take you home to Zion!

All aboard!

Sher,

You think beer will be one of the last attachments to go? Even if so, beer can bring out his true nature, but it will not bring out something that is not there.

But I suspect that humor and compassion are his true nature.

And the administration here scrubbed Samhadi and Ernest Seeker?

I found it shocking.

I have no interest in travel,

"And even though the next country is so close
that people can hear its roosters crowing and its dogs barking,
they are content to die of old age
without ever having seen it.

So, Shah must go to Australia then.

What's this nonsense of being uninterested. Even Kevin is not entirely uninterested.

Dan Rowden wrote:Ok, addressing the original context of Sue's "investigation":

Shahrazad wrote:The same way I do now: I assess his intelligence, sense of humor, self-esteem, confidence, manliness, values, compassion, just to name a few things. Just for you to get a rough idea: I don't need a man in my life right now, but if I ever decided to let one in, it would be a man like Dan Rowden. He has the qualities I value.

I hadn't actually read this before, but it's clear enough that what Shah is saying she would accept is a flawed Dan Rowden.

Which ones in the list would you see as flaw then, Dan? They're almost all related to power and as such naturally attractive; the way things work. The two standing out are humor and compassion. Now compassion can mean many things and in this case I'd give it the benefit of the doubt and see it as the default behavior that comes with awareness. It's a trait of the powerful too; to have mercy.

So the humor element remains. It's the most common named trait by females actually when describing a fit - someone who can make them laugh. Males hardly name it when asked. Is it a fitness indicator, so good health makes one generate good spirit - a quick mind finding interesting associations? Or does it only take strength to see as well generate funniness.

Or does humor show the ability to create social bonds and therefore a valuable trait (power and status wise)? Humor might be important in dealing with rivals in current society, the ability to shame others with wit - outwit them. Humor is then seen as ultimately an aggressive move which can be practiced with a lot of play, like kittens practicing for a later hunt.

In many cases you'll the find it's the woman who is most of the time the audience, the one who appreciates the joke and the male who is generating the humor. The appreciation could be a form of encouragement and affirmation of desired behavior, like similar encouragements during various mating rituals.

Some more material about this can be found here: The role of creativity and humor in human mate selection

Bottom line of this post is simple: Sher was listing common indicators of fitness for a mate in this day and age. Not a fully conscious selection probably: some of it is based on just feeling 'good', that is so often: doing what nature pushes inside you to do. Indicators of a mate demonstrating capabilities to navigate society and gain power without too many risks attached and thus including some control indicators too [hooks, insurances at least], like some markers showing sensitivity or loyalty, although she didn't name these specifically. Perhaps it's implied in the values and compassion.

Dan, why would you describe as flaws abilities that are so well suited to gain power ? Even a thinker needs to gain power, over himself mostly, to advance anywhere. So how can he prevent becoming more intelligent, compassionate, manly and deeply humorous while getting there? It just comes with the territory. Wisdom is just one specific application of power.

Bird,

But I suspect that humor and compassion are his true nature.

I strongly suspect so too, but David and Sue don't think so, and Dan has sided with the latter two in this disagreement. I'm going along with it at this point, in the sense of not arguing against it.


Diebert,

I agree with you that the qualities I like are mainly about power. I started admiring powerful men before I was five years old, so you might think of it as my nature (not nurture). And as you implied, that power has to be balanced with softer qualities like love, loyalty and compassion. Without the latter, a man like General Torrijos (the ultimate man ideal from my perspective), becomes Hitler.

And yes, I was raised around very powerful men.

Nobody has mentioned intelligence yet, and that is a very important quality for an intelligent woman. A powerful man with no intelligence gets no points from me. Think Dubya Bush and Ronald Reagan -- I want to puke every time I see a picture of them.

All,

Can I be brutally honest with you? I don't see Dan giving up his power qualities any time soon. Without them, he would be feminine, and he's not striving for femininity.

-

Alex,

An older woman with a strange fixation on men and maleness, who talks to you like she knows intimate things about your own self, who is more concerned for your masculinity than she is for her own self, her femaleness, who extols you, who gives pep-talks to 'be more manly'.

Who are you calling an older woman? Get a grip. Sue is older than me, and she calls herself middle-aged.

Yet whose entire discourse is borrowed, overlaid on her own self, and stems directly from men who are actively and acutely incapable of relations with women.

Can you explain what you mean by borrowed discourse?

Oh now there is an odd bird.

I'm glad you find me odd.

-

Shah,

I was responding to Sue speaking about herself, the way men and women relate to her. How could you have thought I was talking about you?

Alex,

You weren't? Oh. Sorry, my bad.

How could you have thought I was talking about you?

It sounded that way, as if you were talking about me with respect to Dan. Not sure why.

You know, it wouldn't be a bad idea for you to specify who you are addressing. I find your posts ambiguous at times.

-

Diebert,

They're almost all related to power and as such naturally attractive; the way things work. The two standing out are humor and compassion. Now compassion can mean many things and in this case I'd give it the benefit of the doubt and see it as the default behavior that comes with awareness. It's a trait of the powerful too; to have mercy.

Yes, to expand – another function of humor in mate selection is so that women can feel that her man is superior to her, because if a man can constantly get one up on her in a silly non-serious way, then it reaffirms to her that he is worthy of her devotion.

That is the interesting thing about humor – it reaffirms to her that she possesses a winner that is able to pleasure her, and by constantly outwitting her in a non-threatening silly way, he is able to make her feel that she is in the submissive role. And ironically, the submissive worship role is how she feels powerful, she must feel like she is serving something higher. Women need to feel as if their man is king, and a witty man tricks her psychology perfectly, and allows her to believe in this fantasy.

A woman can only sacrifice herself to a man if she believes that her man is her superior. If she finds herself in a position where she feels smarter, and is able to outwit him and overpower him easily, than that is when the nagging starts because she doesn’t want to be in a position higher than he is. She wants the delusion to believe he is king, so that she can have the delusion to believe she is queen.

Women often want their men to be spectacle’s of attention, as it reaffirms to her that she possesses something special, and if that man cannot obtain positive attention from the masses, then many women will adapt and settle for negative attention. That is why women will often settle for the clown that acts a fool and depreciates himself in public, as this man usually lacks the aggressiveness in his character to outwit other males or females in her presence. It is all a power game, the whole spectacle, and it is all done to impress women.

Alex Jacob wrote:An older woman with a strange fixation on men and maleness, who talks to you like she knows intimate things about your own self, who is more concerned for your masculinity than she is for her own self, her femaleness, who extols you, who gives pep-talks to 'be more manly'. Yet whose entire discourse is borrowed, overlaid on her own self, and stems directly from men who are actively and acutely incapable of relations with women. Oh now there is an odd bird.

Bound to cause a little tongue-wagging that's for sure...

So many people appear on these pages with strange layers of complexity. Good and desirable qualities and ideas are interwoven---rather perversely---with distorted ideas, exaggerated ideas. It moves in a direction that is blatantly absurd (in the French sense), but every last detail of the strange play they MUST take completely seriously. Ideas become very possessive masters, and the possessed, puppets.

Your mind is so locked into soap-opera mode that I doubt your capacity to look at anything without distortion, without projecting all sorts of plots and conspiracies.

It is the inevitable consequence of an intelligent man who distrusts his own mind so much that he no longer believes that anyone is capable of thinking for themselves. Everyone is reduced to being a puppet in an imagined play.

Alex: How could you have thought I was talking about you?

Shah: It sounded that way, as if you were talking about me with respect to Dan. Not sure why.

You know, it wouldn't be a bad idea for you to specify who you are addressing. I find your posts ambiguous at times.

Yeah, I've noticed that he hardly addresses me directly or by name, even when he is clearly focusing on my discourse. It's as though he cannot look at people in the eye when he starts disparaging them.

-