Women have no soul?

[Pye]

And, btw, this is what a drunken, indiscriminate worship of causality-totality will net you. Since one has no inherent self, one is a mere cog in a conspiratorial universe. They are not, in themselves, any cause of anything, but product thereof.

To arrive at causality as the absolute, the end of thinking, is to mistake what is only the beginning of it.

[Tomas]

Such emotionalism!

There are special mens groups you could join which could help you. Certain bars you can drink at.
Talk to Tomas. He's walked into a few doors, he might be willing to help you out.

Whoa, there John Wayne. By "doors" I'd thought you would understand this to mean a "gate, an avenue, a side street, a master key" etc.
Otherwise, one is bounded by walls....

[Nick]

Carmel is right on top of Nick's bad faith. If you, Nick, were to come to understand this - become conscious of it - you would be able to tear down the very thing you feel 'manipulated' by. Instead, bad faith causes one to cling to the very bars of their self-created prison.

I don't feel manipulated by anything. I'm actually very much in control of myself around women. What I'm talking about is a simple empirical observation that anyone can attest to, namely that men become mindless, unconscious, feminine tools around women. Why you continue to build these false constructs on top of something as simple as this is indicative of a much deeper ignorance about the nature of the sexes.

[Nick]

And, btw, this is what a drunken, indiscriminate worship of causality-totality will net you. Since one has no inherent self, one is a mere cog in a conspiratorial universe. They are not, in themselves, any cause of anything, but product thereof.

To arrive at causality as the absolute, the end of thinking, is to mistake what is only the beginning of it.

Wow, I thought you had a better grasp of things than this, pye. It's painfully obvious to me now that you really are clueless about what gets talked about here.

[Nick]

Such emotionalism!

There are special mens groups you could join which could help you. Certain bars you can drink at. Talk to Tomas. He's walked into a few doors, he might be willing to help you out.

And why exactly would I need help with my "emotionalism"?

[Carmel]

Nick:
I don't feel manipulated by anything. I'm actually very much in control of myself around women.

Carmel:
If this is so, it's a result of consciousness/rationalism.

Nick:
What I'm talking about is a simple empirical observation that anyone can attest to, namely that men become mindless, unconscious, feminine tools around women.

Carmel:
I wouldn't deny this. I might modify it slightly to read: Some men allow themselves to become "tools" as a result of their own unconsciousness. They own their behavior, whether a woman is present or not is irrelevant. A conscious man would not react this way in the presence of women.

The core issue is consciousness vs. unconsciousness or rationalism vs. emotionalism.

[Leyla Shen]

Come now, look around you; women need a hell of a lot of work! Sure, it's a generality, but arguing that "men do, too" is kind of pathetic.

What's even more pathetic is when a man argues FOR a woman.

[Pye]

Nick: Wow, I thought you had a better grasp of things than this, pye. It's painfully obvious to me now that you really are clueless about what gets talked about here.

Oh now Nick, it's not as bad as all that. You're just a little shaky on the outside of the house :)

So here's what I wrote:

And, btw, this is what a drunken, indiscriminate worship of causality-totality will net you. Since one has no inherent self, one is a mere cog in a conspiratorial universe. They are not, in themselves, any cause of anything, but product thereof.

To arrive at causality as the absolute, the end of thinking, is to mistake what is only the beginning of it.

I'll strip away some of the rhetorical flourish so you can see whether this is at least something of "what gets talked about here." In fact, it's what is getting talked about here right now.

David & Co.'s version of ego/self does not permit any sui generis for the conscious organism, (for haven't we heard innumerable times that one will become enlightened if one is caused to be? You do recognize that as the passive voice, yes?) Because house-thought does not see the condition of the conscious being as much more than part of a mechanistic web - not less, because there is no self - such thinking cannot grasp any self-generating force to individual consciousness. Apparently, such a notion cannot be grasped unless it suddenly means something like 'stepping outside of causality' or worse, taking on god-like proportions of creating something-out-of-nothing.

All this ignores the for-itself nature of every living thing, denies that the human condition can and does involve a portion of self-directed, self-created being. A sui generis that does not perform this feat in a vacuum by any means, i.e. without other conditions and other causes and other dependencies, but it does perform it from itself alone. This is the reason we are able to consciously direct ourselves toward anything, and not that everything else directs us toward something for us: it is the nature of self-consciousness, itself.

When we turn our attention outward, and do all of our looking exclusively at genes, psychologies, "recent studies," science, graphs, charts, statistics, etc. and place the entirety of explanation for ourselves there, we are learning about what is already natural to us: a thing that is, well, natural to us, which by definition ought not to cause us any trouble at all. These things may cause us to be a certain way, but by definition of nature, there isn't a bloody thing we can do about them: they're natural to us. Held closely, this implies that there isn't a bloody thing we (sui generis) can do about attaining consciousness. And that is false.

Attaining consciousness is that part which goes beyond the "natural" - and I mean this strictly in the sense of what we can do nothing about. For what is natural to us, as I said, is that which takes care of itself, has no need of our attention. Attaining consciousness is precisely not this outward turn, but the inward one, where the work & effort takes place at the sui generis level. I imagine you'd have no trouble thinking of David - who you admire - as being a person with a high degree of self-possession. The causality-totality did not cause him to be this way, but his sui generis did. Again, not in a vacuum, but in and with something very real: a self-directing, self-creating self. A for-itself, and I add from itself, to itself.

Nick: I don't feel manipulated by anything. I'm actually very much in control of myself around women. What I'm talking about is a simple empirical observation that anyone can attest to, namely that men become mindless, unconscious, feminine tools around women. Why you continue to build these false constructs on top of something as simple as this is indicative of a much deeper ignorance about the nature of the sexes.

It's about degrees of self-possession, Nick. You must feel very much in a state of self-possession when you can declare yourself un-manipulated by the very things you assume others to be unequivocally - by nature - manipulated by.




(it is back to work for me, heaps of it everywhere, and I've appreciated spending my sick leave here. ta for the dialogue, one and all.)

[Pye]

Leyla: Come now, look around you; women need a hell of a lot of work!

Without fail. That's what I'm busy with in the world, outside of crapping on about it here. How about you? :)

[Carmel]

Leyla Shen:
Come now, look around you; women need a hell of a lot of work! Sure, it's a generality,

Carmel:
Yes, it's a generality. Some women do need alot of work, some don't.

Leyla:
but arguing that "men do, too" is kind of pathetic.

Carmel:
Some men do need alot of work, some don't.

Leyla:
What's even more pathetic is when a man argues FOR a woman.

Carmel:
No, what's more pathetic is making vast sweeping generalizations
about large groups of people based on gender, race etc. It's illogical, intellectually irresponsible, emotionally regressive and spiritually dangerous.

[Nick]

It ticks women off when they are told they don't bring out the best in men. For who could live a moral, civilized, and happy life without them?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

No, what's more pathetic is making vast sweeping generalizations
about large groups of people based on gender, race etc. It's illogical, intellectually irresponsible, emotionally regressive and spiritually dangerous.

Yeah, take that, all the people who are making vast sweeping generalizations out there! We should create a label for them. Would "patho-gens" fit? Oh no, that's already taken.

[Carmel]

Diebert:
We should create a label for them. Would "patho-gens" fit? Oh no, that's already taken.

Carmel:
lol...Diebert! You made a joke...awww, it's kind of cute actually. (wink wink!)

---

dejavu, go easy on him, there's nothing wrong with a little humor to lighten things up on occasion. :)

[Leyla Shen]

Leyla: Come now, look around you; women need a hell of a lot of work!

Without fail. That's what I'm busy with in the world, outside of crapping on about it here. How about you? :)

Did you mean to imply a restriction to women alone?

You see, I am far more embracive than that; I work on men, women and children simulataneously in my misanthropic life! One has little choice when one lives with the dastardly things, on top of having to engage with them elsewhere....... : )

Ah, to sleep! To sleep; perchance to dream. Ay, there's the rub, for in that sleep of death, what dreams may come?

[Leyla Shen]

Leyla Shen:
Come now, look around you; women need a hell of a lot of work! Sure, it's a generality,

Carmel:
Yes, it's a generality. Some women do need alot of work, some don't.

Leyla:
but arguing that "men do, too" is kind of pathetic.

Carmel:
Some men do need alot of work, some don't.

Leyla:
What's even more pathetic is when a man argues FOR a woman.

Carmel:
No, what's more pathetic is making vast sweeping generalizations
about large groups of people based on gender, race etc. It's illogical, intellectually irresponsible, emotionally regressive and spiritually dangerous.Carmel

I so used to sound like this about 10 years ago, here.......... : )

[Carmel]

Leyla:
You see, I am far more embracive than that; I work on men, women and children simulataneously in my misanthropic life!

Carmel:
That's the spirit, Leyla! .. though I'm sorry to hear about your "misanthropic life"...I used to be that way 20 years ago... :)

[drax]

Thanks guys.
Glad our elucidations on this complex issue were able to so quickly provide verity to your own insights.
Bye bye.

Yeah. They were. Mostly because nobody came to an agreement, and then I so quickly perceived that there is no consensus on the matter.

bye!

[drax]

Carmel,

Most men are largely unconscious, and become even more unconscious when they find themselves in the presence of women. This isn't about blaming women, but you are so wrong when you say that women don't cause men to behave a certain way. Again this is not excuse for men, it's just a matter of fact. It's all too obvious to me. Maybe it's harder for you to recognize it because you are a woman, so naturally you wouldn't be able to see how they behave when they aren't around women.

Yeah. I´m a man, and take my word for it, when we are in a common day situation, say between friends with a woman or more of them in the group, men normally tend to act a bit goofy and funny, like some part of their brains got stolen or something. And I´m saying this because I recongnized this trace in myself also.

It´s not an excuse, like Treklis said, but is a "matter of fact", i.e, things happen that way. Men around women in a normal, casual, between friends kinda thing are totally unconscious.

And women know that and take advantage of it.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

there is no consensus on the matter.

I've never seen consensus about anything here at all. Some members imagine one at times though and then start addressing it in opposition. But they certainly didn't catch the gist, i.e. soul.

[Carmel]

drax:
Yeah. I´m a man, and take my word for it, when we are in a common day situation, say between friends with a woman or more of them in the group, men normally tend to act a bit goofy and funny, like some part of their brains got stolen or something.

Carmel:
Yep, many women act this way in the presence of men, also.

drax:
It´s not an excuse, like Treklis said, but is a "matter of fact", i.e, things happen that way. Men around women in a normal, casual, between friends kinda thing are totally unconscious.

Carmel:
This has never been a point of contention for me. If you read my response to him you'll see that I said: "I wouldn't deny this."

drax:
And women know that and take advantage of it.

Carmel:
...indeed, many do. I think some of this behavior is simply a manifestation of being in a state of unconscious, but in other cases, it's quite intentional, though no less "unconscious" than the ordinary ignorant variety.

...but, none of this really gets to the heart or "soul" of the matter, as Diebert pointed out. These are all ancillary issues.