GENIUS FORUMS

Or, maybe to be friend.

My post was deadly serious, no joke! Woman has been thoroughly debunked here. Her mystery is gone, finished, a signpost. Not that I expect the debates on woman to stop, or that I even wish for it to stop, but let us not lose sight of the goal gentlemen -- recognition of Reality as inherently Void.

Having done that, everything is yours, and so is nothing. No preference of form exists, thus your preference of form is representative of Reality, as everything at the core is Void. Technically this is all a contradiction, but not for the man of Void. He knows the truth of "your preference" existing only as a phrase of words.

Now with all that said, I reiterate that this is no joke! Even now, I seed many future lives that shall experience form beyond man and woman. You're not safe either, your own future lives will have to contend with my future lives! Form against form, this is the nature of things. Competition? Perhaps, but ultimately the wise know such concepts imply a competitor and thus falsehood and not to be clung to.

For all the great philosophy of the individuals Quinn and Solway and all the flak they evoke, they are not the final word or end goal. What they offer is nothing more than a poison filled husk to be eaten and then thrown away. You must still contend with the entire Universe afterwords! But at least now you are well armed. I'm released from the great prison of history, a prison only real as much as it is recalled and re-experienced. Quinn's and Solway's words have been great catalysts in all this but what a mediocre payment of gratitude if all I can show for it is to spit out verbatim what they've already said. Nay, I must demonstrate the Void in action as myself. So what are my two cents regarding Quinn and Solway for the opinion pot? Void.

Or to put it another way, with especial relevance for our Australian brethren:

"...but let us not lose sight of the gaol gentlemen---recognition of Reality as inherently Void."

xerox wrote:Husbands make good androids. Get one of those. They're infinitaly re-programmable and come with the legacy of an inhereted type of coding that any feminine-minded individual can forever tweak. Just be careful that all that tweaking doesnt breake the thing. Or get it crashing regularly.

Husbands make excellent worker bees and society values their pollen gathering, hive making, reproductive efforts.

If you go about it correctly, you can bleed his testorone poison from him and he wont have any 'roids left in him. Ah well, there's always male HRT, although its a bit expensive.

Good luck making shapes out of the fog.

Yes, this is a far more pertinent issue. Most men are androids already, programmed to do whatever women want them to do. The real issue is, how do we replace andriods with men?

-

Alex Jacob wrote:David wrote:

"Can you imagine anything more misogynistic? I can't."

More accurately his comments are not misogynist since misogyny is really a sort of hattred or contempt of women, isn't it?

The views he expressed are more hedonistic insofar as he seems to relate to a woman as something that provides pleasure, variation, fulfilment.

That's true, but it is the hedonism of a prison warden who enjoys controlling people and confining them to their cells.

The flipside to this form of hedonism is indeed a hatred of women, not for what they are now, but for what they could become. It is a battering and murdering of the fearless sage in woman.

When an adult deliberately harms the development of a child for the sake of his own pleasure, it is regarded as a henious crime. And rightly so. Yet it is little different to how most men treat women today.

-

David Quinn wrote:Yes, this is a far more pertinent issue. Most men are androids already, programmed to do whatever women want them to do. The real issue is, how do we replace andriods with men?

Clearly the current method is sufficient, no? After all, wisdom has survived and made it this far. I for one have no desire to replace every man and woman with "wise sages," such a thing could only be a cookie cutter based strategy and produce inauthentic individuals. Besides, there must be noise for the signal to stand out. Now, if you simply mean men as a thinking creature, not neccessarily enlightened beings, then I again revert to the my previous question. Is not the current method sufficient? That is, to act and speak in accordance with reason, let the actions ripple through space-time, and infect whoever they infect without concern for the outcome. Concern over this or that individual, or all individuals especially, becoming men and thus wise, however "great" an idea it seems, could be a cover for very subtle delusions.

I am confident in the statement that stereotypes rule this forum (as propagated by the founders), not only regarding gender differences but on the generic question, "What is enlightenment."

One true example is worth a thousand vague generalizations on the subject.

I'll stick my neck out here and testify (truth as I know it) that I know three enlightened women in Eugene alone, which does not, of course include Gangaji or other well known spiritual teachers of worldwide fame.
My wife, tho not "fully enlightened" (as she is humble enough to admit) recognizes my awakening and teaching... my life as a whole as one who has recieved this greatest gift (not a personal achievement, but personal surrender of illusory 'separate identity'.)

She, as I have said before, is wise and loving. She is extremely independent, as am I, and our marriage is one of two "self-realized"* individuals (ref: Abe Maslow) each with a full life, overflowing into each other... not looking for completion in each other.

(Self realization, as per Maslow is a step short of Awakening into "conscious unity" with God... gnosis. She has not yet experienced total surrender of the illusion of "self.")

Let each speak his/her Truth on this subject. The tongue-in-cheek satire prevailing in this thread is only confusing the issue and sabotoging clear communication on gender vis-a-vis wisdom/enlightenment... which is one of the primary stated foci of this forum.

David writes:

"That's true, but it is the hedonism of a prison warden who enjoys controlling people and confining them to their cells. The flipside to this form of hedonism is indeed a hatred of women, not for what they are now, but for what they could become. It is a battering and murdering of the fearless sage in woman. When an adult deliberately harms the development of a child for the sake of his own pleasure, it is regarded as a henious crime. And rightly so. Yet it is little different to how most men treat women today."

And:

"Most men are androids already, programmed to do whatever women want them to do. The real issue is, how do we replace andriods with men?"

In the first paragraph we have a man perpetrating a crime of control on a prisoner, that is to say, inflicing his hedonistic animus on her, which you see as a form of 'hatred of women' (are you ever going to read The Kreutzer Sonata by Tolstoi?) Man is then responsible for 'battering and murdering' the 'fearless sage' in women?

But in the second, it is men who are victims of women, who are programmed into androids, and the issue becomes how men shall again become real men? I think this is the first time I have heard such advocacy of the position of women from you. Is this a new development? I mean, is your philosophy growing, changing?

And if you don't mind, would you kindly offer your thoughts on the content of this poem which, I think you will agree, is quite powerful. (I thought Pye and Elizabeth would like it also, in fact I though many here would like it).

mikiel wrote:I am confident in the statement that stereotypes rule this forum (as propagated by the founders), not only regarding gender differences but on the generic question, "What is enlightenment."

One true example is worth a thousand vague generalizations on the subject.

Very well. Enlightenment is a bird pooping mid-flight, incidentally landing in my mouth.

mikiel wrote: My wife, tho not "fully enlightened" (as she is humble enough to admit) recognizes my awakening and teaching... my life as a whole as one who has recieved this greatest gift (not a personal achievement, but personal surrender of illusory 'separate identity'.)

She, as I have said before, is wise and loving. She is extremely independent, as am I, and our marriage is one of two "self-realized"* individuals (ref: Abe Maslow) each with a full life, overflowing into each other... not looking for completion in each other.

If your own enlightenment was after you got married then I am suspicious of your claim. If it was before then I am even more suspicious of the claim. Tell me, what use does marriage have to an enlightened individual? Standard feel-good answers are suspect, after all, answers of that type are indistinguishable as that coming from a normal individual. If you cannot provide enlightened answers to this question then what use is the marriage to the subject of enlightenment? Why even bother tying in the reality of your marriage to your attainment or reflections of the Supreme Sate at all? It's all very suspect.

Furthermore, your words reveal an action to come and defend your particular situation, and the legitimacy of certain females claiming enlightenment, against the perceived "forces" of this forum and its "founders." An action that I think is quite incongruent with someone who has died the Great Death. Furthermore, you paint what are really just the administrators of this forum as members in an officially recognized philosophical group, which baffles me. Their words have time and again proven incompatibility with such concepts. Frankly, it's impressive they've dealt with the nonsense this long and haven't 'retired.' Your shadow fencing with the three-headed QRS monster is once again suspect.

Just kidding, it's really like this. The Truth is hidden behind The Gate of Enlightenment which is guarded by the vicious three-headed QRS monster -- The Cerberus of Logic. The carnage of countless past foolish men and women, especially women, lay strewn about at its feet, torn to pieces. Take heed and good luck!

Alex Jacob wrote:David writes:

"That's true, but it is the hedonism of a prison warden who enjoys controlling people and confining them to their cells. The flipside to this form of hedonism is indeed a hatred of women, not for what they are now, but for what they could become. It is a battering and murdering of the fearless sage in woman. When an adult deliberately harms the development of a child for the sake of his own pleasure, it is regarded as a henious crime. And rightly so. Yet it is little different to how most men treat women today."

And:

"Most men are androids already, programmed to do whatever women want them to do. The real issue is, how do we replace andriods with men?"

In the first paragraph we have a man perpetrating a crime of control on a prisoner, that is to say, inflicing his hedonistic animus on her, which you see as a form of 'hatred of women' (are you ever going to read The Kreutzer Sonata by Tolstoi?) Man is then responsible for 'battering and murdering' the 'fearless sage' in women?

But in the second, it is men who are victims of women, who are programmed into androids, and the issue becomes how men shall again become real men? I think this is the first time I have heard such advocacy of the position of women from you. Is this a new development? I mean, is your philosophy growing, changing?

First of all, let me commend you for trying to make a logical point. It makes for a refreshing change.

My basic thinking on the man/woman issue hasn't changed. Inherent in the whole "attack upon women" approach is the affirmation that most men are pussy-whipped fools or programmed androids for allowing their minds to be so utterly shaped and limited by women. It always has been.

Men have the inner capacity to escape their android status if they so choose, but most don't because, among other things, they are so spellbound by the charms of women that they can't imagine or begin to contemplate a life without them. And those who can imagine it are easily overwhelmed with fear at the thought of what leaving woman behind entails.

At the moment, a kind of symbiotic relationship exists between the sexes. Women enjoy living in their cells and happily use their charms to pursuade their male guards to look after them properly. Men, in turn, are happy enough to remain as guards provided they continue getting the benefits in the form of sex and praise.

Importantly, men are the ones who are going to have to change first, otherwise the situation will never change. They are the ones in the dominant position and possess the greater mental strength. This is where I come in, by trying to gain men's attention and point them to the greater world outside.

And if you don't mind, would you kindly offer your thoughts on the content of this poem which, I think you will agree, is quite powerful. (I thought Pye and Elizabeth would like it also, in fact I though many here would like it).

My computer can't run audio or video files at the moment, and thus I can't access youtube clips. Do you have a written translation handy?

-

Thanks for showing lyrical interest, you logical fellow. You can find the words in a post in the Call to Debate thread. But it is really worth it to hear her read the poem. She is the best reader of poems of any poet I know of.

Were you aware of this pun? 'Women enjoy living in their cells'. It wasn't intentional but if it were, it was clever.

Alex Jacob wrote:Thanks for showing lyrical interest, you logical fellow. You can find the words in a post in the Call to Debate thread. But it is really worth it to hear her read the poem. She is the best reader of poems of any poet I know of.

I'll try and listen to her reading it at some stage, but just from reading it my thoughts are ......

Semi-interesting, although it tells me nothing I didn't already know. Her anger at the situation is the most palpable thing. But as with all poets, her anger seems misdirected. It looks like more a cry for attention than a resolution to do something constructive about it. In other words, underneath the defiant complaint is a woman affirming the virtues of being passive, and from that perspective she seems little different to the married people she satirizes.

But it is better than nothing, I guess.

Were you aware of this pun? 'Women enjoy living in their cells'. It wasn't intentional but if it were, it was clever.

It was unintentional, but yes, I suppose it is an interesting pun - although the alternative meaning is far more damning of women than what I have said.

-

On a similar theme:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiJ_V9e07io

Lyrics

Poetry is what people write when they don't want to know what they are thinking.

Kevin Solway wrote: Poetry is what people write when they don't want to know what they are thinking.

I'm wondering what makes you say this? How exactly does writing poems help one to deny what one's thinking?

Yes, this is a far more pertinent issue. Most men are androids already, programmed to do whatever women want them to do. The real issue is, how do we replace andriods with men?

Now this statement has value, even in MY inferior opinion; it ties in nicely with my own estimate of "alleged Humanity", illustrating the difference between Man and an ape wearing a skin-suit.

I will most definitely NOT subscribe to Quinn's apparent "I shall grow until I am ALL and then I am NOTHING" bag, because I still believe we all have our part to play -- but for the sake of alleviation I WILL admit that maybe, just maybe a kajillion-dagillion years from now when whatever we become looks back I'll be thought a grand example of a fool.

Returning to the matter at hand, HOW does one reach Men and Women, the ones with the actual capacity to be more? How does one turn men into Men and women into Women?

(Please, I've already stated my disagreement and I'll bet it's been hashed ten thousand times; let's not waste further.)

Kevin, I cringed to hear that poor woman singing her pathetic song. You mentioned that you study humankind like someone studying a bacterial infestation in a Petri dish. Now I understand. That woman 'singing' was like the squawking of a bacterium, but Sylvia Plath is like the singing of a songbird, with melody, meaning, rhythm and power. They are both living entities but they are not at all of the same order.

David writes:

"Semi-interesting, although it tells me nothing I didn't already know. Her anger at the situation is the most palpable thing. But as with all poets, her anger seems misdirected. It looks like more a cry for attention than a resolution to do something constructive about it. In other words, underneath the defiant complaint is a woman affirming the virtues of being passive, and from that perspective she seems little different to the married people she satirizes."

You are not the arbiter, you are just some dope riding his bicycle around some province of Australia. You really do not count. Her poem has had infinitely more influence than you will ever have on women's attitudes, and what they have done with the meaning of the poem is again far outside of your range. I suppose that for you art must be a manifesto, it must have an evangelical commitment, and like some pudgy Church Father from a pulpit you imperiously decide its virtue or lack of it, but you only make a fool of yourself in the process, and indicate how utterly diconnected you are from the human world.

Carl G wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote: Poetry is what people write when they don't want to know what they are thinking.

I'm wondering what makes you say this? How exactly does writing poems help one to deny what one's thinking?

Like music, it's a form of distraction and deflection. It deflects thought into something harmless, and before it becomes actual thought.

Poetry is a funneling of henids into a bucket before they rise into the light of consciousness, and before they grow sharp edges.

Kevin, poetry can be a conscious activity. If you have a clear thought and message, writing it with meter, rhyme, and rhythm is nothing more than a slight formal restraint. It becomes as much of a straight-jacket as needing to add a period to the end of a sentence, or a comma to seperate the subordinate clause.

The problem with poetry is the poor thinking of most who write it -- since so many people who can barely write prose think they are magically qualified to write a poem because they just fell in love or broke up with their girlfriend -- not the medium itself. I'm sure if you decided to take one of your thoughts and make it AABB with an iambic beat and forty beats per measure (ten syllables per line), you'd find you'd create a strong poem without all the jibber-jabber that you find in the average poem.

Something to nibble on.

Aesop Rock - Big Bang
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vtklwuj0rM&NR=1

I'm ghost-writing a few songs for a friend, and well... Genius Forum came to mind, so I "borrowed nobly":


Pig

You know better, but I'll make you a list:
I see tits, you see udders; you're sexist
I love a good conversation with chicks,
But you'd rather bathe in the river Styx
A good woman completes me: yin and yang
It is not two half-wits, half on half's wang
But two adults making a larger whole
Her virtues and mine aiming to a goal
You believe manly virtues are better
That's misogyny right to the letter
I'll support her wherever her mind leads
Because such compassion is all she needs
When you say a woman should be a man
That's base and hateful: you misunderstand
That she needs to do what she needs to do
And changing her values is not virtue
Because men are men, women are women,
People are people: respect difference
Women aren't better when they act like men
They have much to teach us right to the end

You don't deserve this shit, but here, here ya go anyway...
________________________________________________

"Poetry is a funneling
of henids
into a bucket
before they rise
in the light
of consciousness,
and before
they grow
sharp edges."

[I made one ever-so-slight modification: I turned the second 'into' into 'in']

I just got back from a travel down the road, to see what I could see...

In my mind's eye I was roadside, being kinda pompous and arrogant. In waking reality, out in front of my car, a toy poodle darts! - yapping and grinning. Yeah, yeah. Then I spotted an old couple working together - knowing their roles, etc - picking up some trash from the side of the road. Then I read this.

All part of the Infinite flow.

Defense of any action or thing is suspect.

If you must defend and sing the praises of poetry at least mention someone who had the inkling of genius spirit in him, William Blake.

Great things are done when men and mountains meet;
This is not done by jostling in the street.

* Great Things Are Done

kissaki:
Did you just say that you are suspicious of defense-in-general, without supplying any reason whatsoever? I think you did.

Your vague hand-waving has not convinced me that there's anything wrong with formatted writing. Be more specific.