GENIUS FORUMS

Kelly wrote:

Generally men can survive without women, if they're pushed to.

By women?

Sue

Marsha wrote about Kelly:

She could probably go over fairly well on Oprah.

Kelly on Oprah?

Only if Kelly represents the lowest of the low, that is; worships woman, outcasts masculinity, wallows in the emotions, and deigns ‘dignity’ an old-fashioned curiosity.

Sue

Kelly on Oprah?

I can imagine it now.

Kelly and Oprah are sitting together on the couch.

Oprah asks Kelly her opening question, “Kelly, tell us about your fascination with philosophy?”

Kelly replies, “Well Oprah, it is very simple really. I value Truth over all other things.”

Oprah asks, “But of course Kelly, everyone has their own truth, don’t they? So your truth can’t be anymore special than anyone else’s – can it?”

Kelly replies, “There can only be one Truth…

And that would be the end of the 'Kelly show'.

Sue

You forgot to include all the booing and hissing from the female audience. That would probably eat up 50% of the show.

-

sue hindmarsh wrote:Kelly wrote:

Yes, I did mean that feminine traits continue largely because those with just enough masculine qualities, ie. the imagination to see that change is required, are afraid of losing their security blanket, ie. feminine belief that one inherently deserves to be comfortable.

Are you saying – possessing a degree of masculinity doesn’t make you free from the feminine, if anything, it highlights it, thereby making it easier to address?

I wasn't actually referring to that, but thanks for pointing it out.

Kelly wrote:

Generally men can survive without women, if they're pushed to.

By women?

Maybe that's the only thing that really motivates a man to go it alone --- extreme disgust at women, and at men when women are around.

For instance, last night, I listened for hours to a band of baby-boomer caravaners as night fell. The male voices eventually petered out, and the women went on and on, making hardly any sense at all. They really sounded like monkeys hooting and barking. It gave me bad dreams.

Another example is how I struggle to stay focussed when arriving at a town, to get food and water. Towns seem calculated to exacerbate the want for comfort and company. Monkey farms.


Kelly

Marsha Faizi wrote:Whatever ya'll want to do is cool, I reckon, but I do draw a line with killing babies. Just not into the whole Pol Pot scene. I don't think that killing babies or other things is a hallmark of enlightenment.

I do not believe that a Buddha could pull a child apart limb from limb -- or an adult. I think someone who is philosophically enlightened would realize that there would be a price of some kind to pay for such horror.

Murder is not enlighthened detachment. It is attachment to horror.

The Ten Commandments have a lot to answer for. The so-called divine law "Thou shalt not murder" is in itself murdering the ability to decide for oneself how one ought to behave. It is similar to the Australian government's new anti-terrorism laws on sedition, in that such laws are created to keep herds from attacking other herds. An intelligent, wise individual would understand why these laws are created and evaluate their worth.

There is plenty of legal murder happening every moment. Everyday, I pass countless babies torn to pieces, littering the roads. I witness thousands of little children thrown on the rubbish dump of insanity, placed there by stupid parents. And how many baby Buddhas are being torn limb from limb, because people who might know a little bit better, blind them to Nature.

Kelly actually wrote this:

I'd say it would be difficult. Since I've never tried, this would have to be my best guess. I'd say he'd imagine penetrating the miniscule vagina of a baby girl, using the image of a penis thrusting in and out of a blood-engorged, mucus-coated vagina, and effortlessly know that all these experiences are illusory. Something like that.

All experiences are not illusory. Any psycho can convince himself that such an act is illusory but the act is not illusory for his victim.

Anyone pretending What's happening is not happening, is insane. That's not what I meant.

Deliberately inflicting intense physical pain -- especially on an unwilling or much smaller and weaker being -- is not an act consistent with philosophical enlightenment. It is an act consistent with criminality.

The path to enlightenment might involve inflicting intense physical pain, deliberately, on oneself.

As David mentioned earlier, the effect desired by murdering or fucking a baby might be achieved through reasoning, and be more effective.

You mentioned "philosophical enlightenment" several times. Can you explain what this is?

I do think it is a good idea for you to work further on your Truth Paper, Kelly. Funny that you think that that is more important work than writing here. Not much wonder in that. You will face no opposition.

Writing the articles more clearly avoids repeating things over and over, or trying to fill in gaps haphazardly.



Kelly

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:

So, at first you thought them worthy enough to accept their information; but now you think their usefulness has come to an end? I assumed that this was the case, though I could be wrong, after reading your recent posts; which spelt out your dissatisfaction with the three of them. But if you really do consider them as dysfunctional as you make them out to be, why would you take anything they said seriously?

What I actually wrote was that no, I did not believe them at first when they said that enlightenment requires years of hard work. Later, I came to know the truth of that.

I do not believe I expressed dissastisfaction with QSR. In addition to saying that they are each good writers, I also wrote that they are each good thinkers.

I cannot see how I have made out any of them to be dysfunctional.

I know you find them:
very intelligent and good writers
But that isn’t all there is to them – is it? They seem to be more interested in Genius, than in becoming "intelligent" and "good writers".

I think each of them are naturally good writers. I don't think that they need to be working on becoming good writers. You left out the fact that I said each of them are good thinkers.

Beyond that, though I have respect for each of them, I do not worship them as small gods nor do consider them to be perfect human beings whom I must strive to emulate.

David Quinn writes in the introduction to this forum:
Quote:
Being exceptionally good at some particular task does not automatically make one a genius.

And I happen to agree with that. I did not say anything about anyone being a genius because he is good at a particular task -- writing for instance.

He continues by describing how:
Quote:
Genius is a function of one's relationship with Ultimate Reality and thus is a function of consciousness. The more one is conscious of the true nature of Reality, the more one is a genius. By this definition, people like Jesus, the Buddha, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Weininger, and Socrates were geniuses to greater or lesser degree.

I think the key words here are "to more or lesser degree." I certainly agree that each of the men mentioned were geniuses but none were perfect or infallible. None of them are above rapproach or criticism -- I cannot speak about Buddha because I have never been interested in Buddhism. All that I know of Buddha is what I have gleaned from this forum.

I think Jesus made mistakes. Could I have done better? Of course not. But I sure would not have died on a cross or anything else.

Socrates was enamoured of women. Nietzsche was sometimes romantic and too self infatuated -- though he was humorous in that vein at times. Kierkegaard strikes me as the closest to any sort of philosophical perfection.

So it sounds as if he really thinks those other guys, like; Socrates, Jesus and Weininger, are philosophers of great value. It also implies that he has been influenced by them to some degree.

Does it follow, then, that I -- or anyone -- must be similarly influenced in order to move toward philosophical enlightenment? Must I -- or anyone -- be in complete agreement with David Quinn in order to move toward enlightenment?

I never thought that was the case. Must I believe that Kierkegaard and Jesus and Nietzsche and Weininger are of such merit because David Quinn believes them to be so?

I have never been very interested in Jesus. I prefer Nietzsche to Jesus. I know that David has studied Jesus rather extensively. But I am rather sick of him. Everywhere you go, it's "Jesus! Jesus! Jesus!" I realize that he ain't the stinking religion but, intentionally or not, he is the focal point of the bullshit. I loathe Christianity. It's in my face every frickin' day.

Thank God, I do work with one atheist now. Refreshing. Atheists can get on your nerves, too, I realize but in a sea of Christians, one atheist looks pretty good.

From the Bible, I like Abraham better. More masculine a figure. Not all the talk about lambs and getting bathed in the blood of the lamb and all that crap. No Jesus. Just God and Abraham.

Jesus doesn't seem to impress you much:
Quote:
… Jesus put his pants on one leg at a time just like the rest of us. Jesus had to eat. Jesus had to pee. Jesus died. Jesus made some big mistakes -- he trusted. He had great faith. He was a performer -- "dance, monkey boy, dance!" I feel great pity for Jesus because his image has been so besmirched, his own goddamned fault for being such a patsy for God.

So? Is it a sin to think such things?

Nor Weininger:
Quote:
Weininger was very feminine.

Well, he was feminine. That does not preclude him from being a great thinker. He was a great thinker. But I do not believe someone can know the feminine as well as Weininger without also knowing the feminine within himself.

Actually, you have made it rather clear that all of those chaps, including QSR, are all riddled with femininity:
Quote:
Nothing gets rid of the femininity -- not just in a woman but in a man -- even in David Quinn or Kevin Solway or Dan Rowden or Nietzsche or Kierkegaard or the rest -- Jesus and so on.

I don't think that I said that they are riddled with femininity. But I do recognize that feminine traits exist in all humans. I don't think it is possible to eradicate the feminine from one's self unless one recognizes that. I think QSR has always recognized that.

I have come to be more aware of that myself over the past year or two and I think it is an important realization for one who strives to become more philosophically aware. I don't believe you can just hard-sell yourself for years and years and package yourself in a (mentally) masculine package that is not much more than cosmetics or clown make up.

I think that I know about that because I am a masculine woman and I have always been a masculine woman and my daughter is Masculine Woman, Jr. I think a masculine woman is in a somewhat unique position because she has more feminine traits than a man. Yet., she has much more masculine traits than most women. This sets forth a battle in oneself -- more so than feminine traits in a man who does not have the same need to defend his masculinity. He is a man, after all. He is expected to be masculine. A woman is expected to be feminine -- by others and by herself. When one has a mind that is more masculine than feminine despite one's gender, there is a conflict. I think that a masculine woman has to get to the point that the conflict is all right. You work and strive for the masculine but you do not have to fight the feminine. You can just let it die of its own accord.

The more one strives toward enlightenment, the easier the feminine dies.

This is a difficult subject and I do not think that I am expressing it well so any comments are certainly welcome.

Surely, you and Kelly and Lela must have some thoughts. It is an interesting topic.

Yet Solway and Quinn wrote the Cow Te Ching, Life and Death magazine, as well as separate detailed works as to the nature of Woman. All these works were written to undermine the feminine, not promote it. And I’m not sure how any of those works could be written, if those guys were stuck in the feminine, as you propose.

I am well aware of what they have written. I read all of that in 1997. I did not say that I think that they are stuck in the feminine. I said that they certainly still have feminine traits. I could be wrong but I do not think any of the three would deny that.

Quinn, Solway and Rowden, are also very big on enlightenment, and have written wads about it. They have also included in their separate works, as well as in posts on this forum, the works of Nietzsche, Weininger, Kierkegaard and Jesus. They all say, in various ways, that enlightenment is an important concept.

Again, though I respect QSR, I really do not give a damn whether they think enlightenment is important or not. I did not say that I do not think enlightenment is important. I said that it is not special -- not some special title or proof of superiority. It is not some crown that one receives.

Your approach to enlightenment is quite pointed:
Quote:
No, I do not think enlightenment is anything special.

I addressed that above.

I’m not suggesting that enlightenment is a prize etc, but it must be something pretty special, for those men to make it their life’s work.

I could not care less whether those men or any men have made it their life's work.

You tell us that your own enlightenment came about:
Quote:
… in terms of having worked hard with results over several years

But that you still have:
Quote:
many years to go and much work to do.

What is wrong with that?

But if enlightenment isn’t really anything special, and the philosophers that bang on about it are really just ratty women, why would you still consider it a worthy goal?

I never said that enlightenment is not important in terms of one's development. I said that it is not special. I never said that the philosophers writing here or other philosophers are just ratty women. Nothing even close to that.

Also, your involvement on the forum is considerable, yet you: Quote: Ultimately…don't give a flying fuck -- whatever -- what Kelly thinks or does or what Lela thinks or does or what David Quinn thinks or does or what whoever thinks or does.

Well, ultimately, I don't.

What is it that you do give “a flying fuck” about Marsha – I am truly interested to know?

I care about enlightenment. I care about knowledge. I care about authenticity. I loathe fakery. I care about investigation. I care about thought -- critical thought.

Faizi

I wrote:

What is it that you do give “a flying fuck” about Marsha – I am truly interested to know?

Marsha wrote:

I care about enlightenment. I care about knowledge. I care about authenticity. I loathe fakery. I care about investigation. I care about thought -- critical thought.

Thank you, Marsha, for your thoughtful reply.

Shall we go once more unto the breach, dear friend.

Sue

Marsha wrote:

I have come to be more aware of that myself over the past year or two and I think it is an important realization for one who strives to become more philosophically aware. I don't believe you can just hard-sell yourself for years and years and package yourself in a (mentally) masculine package that is not much more than cosmetics or clown make up.

Without an inner life, toughened by reason and a nail-hard resolve to live by Truth alone; femininity quickly finds nesting places to call her own.

Sue

Marsha wrote:

I think that I know about that because I am a masculine woman and I have always been a masculine woman and my daughter is Masculine Woman, Jr. I think a masculine woman is in a somewhat unique position because she has more feminine traits than a man. Yet., she has much more masculine traits than most women. This sets forth a battle in oneself -- more so than feminine traits in a man who does not have the same need to defend his masculinity. He is a man, after all. He is expected to be masculine. A woman is expected to be feminine -- by others and by herself. When one has a mind that is more masculine than feminine despite one's gender, there is a conflict. I think that a masculine woman has to get to the point that the conflict is all right. You work and strive for the masculine but you do not have to fight the feminine. You can just let it die of its own accord.

I’m still trying to figure out what a masculine woman is?

From television, newspapers, movies, music, magazines and the woman next door, I gather that women are becoming more masculine at the same rate that men are becoming more feminine. I see evidence everywhere of men becoming more feminine, but I’m not sure what I should be looking out for to find masculine women.

With each passing decade, we witness another generation of men, carelessly casting their male heritage aside - in order to slide effortlessly into the feminine homogeneity. Seemly, it then becomes the job of women to take up the slack - of which I am told, they do with great ease.

In the process of becoming totally feminine, men would have to lose all consciousness, that is; all their ideas, their beliefs, their dignity, and their individuality. So, when women talk about becoming masculine, are they talking about becoming conscious? Is male consciousness now a larger part of the woman’s world? Are more women giving up their past ways to not only “take up the slack”, but now, empowered by this new driving force, and with missionary zeal - are they also working hard to pull men into shape – by encouraging them back onto the path of masculinity?

Are they?

Sue

Many women I know claim to be masculine or "a guy" or something to that effect. Coincidentally perhaps, they're usually the ones who wear the skimpiest clothing.

So, when women talk about becoming masculine, are they talking about becoming conscious?

No. They are talking about becoming more outwardly aggressive -- characteristically, a masculine emotion -- usually as women.

In other words, not changing at all. The superficially masculine characteristics are purely coquetry, to mock men. The facade says, "I'm doing better than you ever did."

Perhaps men fall for bravado, because the dazzle and spectacle of bluff and appearance rely on company. Someone is looking and listening. But when there's plain old silent, unknown, unattractive, sweat and struggle, the call to solitary effort is more obvious.

Sue and Marsha point out that when such feminine traits (dishonesty, self-centredness, lack of personal responsibility) are recognised in oneself, there's a higher degree of masculinity, because this recognition demands openness with oneself.

I disagree with Marsha that this indicates femininity. Rather it is reduced, such that anyone who brands the truth as what it is, is not markedly feminine. It's a logical consequence of that courage that comes with being open to oneself. So, I'd view as highly masculine the ability to recognise feminity.


Kelly

Actually, I think Kelly would go over pretty well on the Oprah show. Yes, there would be the expected hissing and booing. I think she would be invited back for encore performances to the point that Oprah and her audience would start to see her as a mascot of sorts -- kind of like a little lovable Teddy bear.

Faizi

Good lord. I thought I made myself somewhat reasonably plain.

When I speak of a masculine woman, I am not speaking of female welders or soldiers or business women stomping around doing whatever CEO job. Neither was I speaking of cute girls who wear bikinis while wrestling alligators or whatnot; cute girls with wicked tongues to lash men flirtatiously.

Somewhere in this thread, someone said -- think it was Sue -- something to the effect "could there be a female sage" when trumping Kelly's achievements.

I do not believe that Kelly could have come as far if she was as feminine as most females. I don't believe that Sue Hindmarsh could have the insight that she does if she was as feminine as most females.

A masculine woman is a female who has more masculine traits than feminine, despite her biological gender. It is someone who is masculine despite her gender. This does not mean that she necessarily dresses like a man or dresses like a woman. As I said previously, a woman who dresses herself up in masculine garb -- not just pants but artificial aggression -- is as clownish in that make-up as she is clownish in lipstick and rouge.

In my years on the forum and the list before that, this has been discussed many times so it is somewhat surprising to me that it now seems like a foreign subject.

The very reason that I ever came to Genius was because of the Minefield website that extols masculinity. I stumbled upon it during a web search back in 1997. Somewhat of a "Eureka" moment. I thought, "This is me. This is how I think."

Of course, I was far more feminine than I knew. I have learned much since then and I am grateful for that -- not because anyone gave it to me. I worked for it.

Faizi

Kelly wrote:

I disagree with Marsha that this indicates femininity

I re-read what I wrote and I do not see where I ever wrote that realization of the masculine or what you called openness with oneself indicates femininity -- or anything of that sort.

Faizi

Are more women giving up their past ways to not only “take up the slack”, but now, empowered by this new driving force, and with missionary zeal - are they also working hard to pull men into shape – by encouraging them back onto the path of masculinity?

Of course not. I cannot imagine how you got that out of anything that I wrote. By my definition, a masculine woman is somewhat rare. Very few females are interested in philosophy in a serious way nor are females ordinarily interested in helping men become more masculine.

I stayed off this thread for a few days for the very reason that too many assumptions were being made. After a few days, I decided to give it another go.

But it seems that the whole thing is going backward, rather than forward.

Disappointing.

I expected a better discussion.

Faizi

MKFaizi wrote:I do not see where I ever wrote that realization of the masculine or what you called openness with oneself indicates femininity -- or anything of that sort.

I think I'm going to have to give in! I'm getting nowhere with my writing, so I obviously have to deal with the loose ends here.

When you described a very masculine thinker like Weininger as "feminine", you actually meant "masculine"? As in these quotes you made earlier:

Nothing gets rid of the femininity -- not just in a woman but in a man -- even in David Quinn or Kevin Solway or Dan Rowden or Nietzsche or Kierkegaard or the rest -- Jesus and so on. Weininger was very feminine......

Well, he was feminine. That does not preclude him from being a great thinker. He was a great thinker. But I do not believe someone can know the feminine as well as Weininger without also knowing the feminine within himself.......

I don't think that I said that they are riddled with femininity. But I do recognize that feminine traits exist in all humans. I don't think it is possible to eradicate the feminine from one's self unless one recognizes that......

MKFaizi wrote:Actually, I think Kelly would go over pretty well on the Oprah show. Yes, there would be the expected hissing and booing. I think she would be invited back for encore performances to the point that Oprah and her audience would start to see her as a mascot of sorts -- kind of like a little lovable Teddy bear.

Such quick mindless sheep responses usually come when there's a blatant, almost slogan-like cue.

Oprah doesn't interest me for a few reasons. First, I am terrified of my ego getting squirrelly, and becoming flippant and arrogant. I'd much prefer to take my time, so I'd probably make quite a boring interviewee.

Second, I like to investigate, to do the interviewing. But Oprah and audiences are one-dimensional.


Kelly

Hi kjones:

I think I'm going to have to give in! I'm getting nowhere with my writing, so I obviously have to deal with the loose ends here.

You are trying to squeeze into a preconceived idea of what enlightenment is. I admire your conviction and willpower but this can also hamstring you.

All of your ideas of what enlightenment must be like must perish. Surrender to what is in your heart and your mind will quickly follow suite. The heart will only remain constant in its desire for innocent bliss. It is the projection of belief that creates emotional attachment in the mind.

If the fire of your desire is purified by and through ruthless honesty and absolute humility - the mind becomes the processor and slave of the heart(will and intent). The logic follows the intent as your heart already understands with perfect clarity.

It is the mind that must catch up to the soul, so to speak.

Marsha wrote about the "masculine woman":

This is a difficult subject and I do not think that I am expressing it well so any comments are certainly welcome.

Surely, you and Kelly and Lela must have some thoughts. It is an interesting topic.

The topic is a very interesting one, but only because masculinity is so vital for the survival of wisdom. Only men can become philosophers, therefore, any discussion which inspires a male to take up this great task - is worth the effort.

Sue

Beingof1 wrote to Kelly:

All of your ideas of what enlightenment must be like must perish. Surrender to what is in your heart and your mind will quickly follow suite. The heart will only remain constant in its desire for innocent bliss. It is the projection of belief that creates emotional attachment in the mind.

I think you'll have to work harder Beingof1, in your effort to help Kelly. Having read her work, I'd say your advice may well fall on deaf ears. She is a lost soul; with a heart full of hatred and intolerance for all falsehoods, and a mind focused on discriminating against all those who worship bliss.

But I'm sure that won't dissuade you from trying again.

Sue

Kelly Jones wrote:

Perhaps men fall for bravado, because the dazzle and spectacle of bluff and appearance rely on company. Someone is looking and listening. But when there's plain old silent, unknown, unattractive, sweat and struggle, the call to solitary effort is more obvious.

Sue and Marsha point out that when such feminine traits (dishonesty, self-centredness, lack of personal responsibility) are recognised in oneself, there's a higher degree of masculinity, because this recognition demands openness with oneself.

Men fall for bravado because they are women.

Who else but a woman would mistake it as such?

If I assume that -- given the above classification of feminine traits -- responsibility is a masculine trait, I can only conlcude that men are just as delusional as women.

If it is true that there is no such thing as free will -- no such thing as an "I" that is not at the beck and call of cause and effect -- then there is no such thing as personal responsibility.

Leyla Shen:

Men fall for bravado because they are women.

Who else but a woman would mistake it as such?

Men may fall for bravado, because they don’t want to appear womanly; and if that is correct, it then means that they kind of know they are – womanly.

If I assume that -- given the above classification of feminine traits -- responsibility is a masculine trait, I can only conlcude that men are just as delusional as women.

Male responsibility, as expressed in the world, is a strange mix of ‘self promotion’ and ‘working for the common good’. They need to be able to believe that they can fix any thing, any time, any place. This makes most of them into control freaks, which then makes them cry foul when confronted with the statement below.

If it is true that there is no such thing as free will -- no such thing as an "I" that is not at the beck and call of cause and effect -- then there is no such thing as personal responsibility.

Or – because there is no such thing as free will, and no such thing as an “I” - one’s personal responsibility is even greater than ever before.

Top, on the personal responsibility list, is resting easy in the knowledge that Perfection doesn’t need fixing.

Sue

You mean, responding to cause and effect with reason and not emotion. I’m not sure I truly appreciate the need for such koans as you have written above. I don’t see a need to throw A=A out of the window. But, that’s just me -- the culmination of various causes and effects.

Will could only be defined as a reasoned recognition of and response to causality, as opposed to an emotional reaction to it. Accordingly, I see “personal responsibility” as one and the same thing. And idealism in this context? Well, the determination and dedication to bringing about a fully reasoning society. One which not only reasons out emotion, but the nature and application of it, as well.

There may not be anything to fix, but it appears that there is something to idealise, and there is -- even in this -- an assigned point from which that ideal emanates.

From where do ideals and reason come if not from the perception of the mechanics of emotion? Not a single thing can be done without it -- not even the channelled pursuit of an ideal.

To separate them so diametrcially is to once again cloak reality in dualism.

So, where's the delusion?