Prince's Evangelical Obsession

[Ryan Rudolph]

Kunga,

Let's imagine all the women died on earth...no more females...in any aspect of nature...all life would die.

Then what ???

Men are crafty enough to adapt to a life without women, whereas women would have a much more difficult time, a man defines himself more based on what he does/acheives, whereas women define themselves based on their partners/family/community.

It is not impossible to think that technology will eventually reach a point where fetuses are harvested outside the human body, robots are programmed to do house duties, and virtual reality satisfies a man's every need. We may be in fact moving in the direction where the sexes do not need each other at all. Men can live without romance and tight emotional bonds, but women, I highly doubt it, large numbers of them would probably become incredibly depressed, and angry towards technology, and the suicide rate for women would probably skyrocket. Whereas many men would probably rejoice for being able to have all their desires met instantly without going through all the emotional hoops and bargaining that women demand. However, that's not to say many men wouldn't also commit suicide, but that's survival of the fittest.

That is the direction I believe we are moving, and its coming fast.

Much of what you said is correct, but I disagree when you fail to admit man's superiority to women when it comes to logic. That is not to say that most men are not without their faults and irrational behaviors. However, men have used the spacial/systematic part of their brains more than women for thousands of years, whereas women have used emotional centers more due to their dominant role with children. This means that women are superior to men in some things, and men are superior to women in some things. Logic, being man's domain, even though only a small number are able to fully master it, that number is still much higher than a woman's track record. So you cannot deny the fact of superiority and inferiority when it comes to certain things, it is a truth that we all must face up to. We do not live in an equal world unfortunately.

[Kunga]

Kunga said:

Let's imagine all the women died on earth...no more females...in any aspect of nature...all life would die.

Then what ???


Ryan said:
Men are crafty enough to adapt to a life without women, whereas women would have a much more difficult time, a man defines himself more based on
what he does/acheives, whereas women define themselves based on their partners/family/community.



Kunga said:
Yeah..the new disaster will be from human flatuance pollution
Man and his ego based drive to achive and become a total narcissist...while woman sacrifices her identiy to nurture and impower her male child.


Ryan said:
It is not impossible to think that technology will eventually reach a point where fetuses are harvested outside the human body, robots are programmed to do house duties, and virtual reality satisfies a man's every need. We may be in fact moving in the direction where the sexes do not need each other at all. Men can live without romance and tight emotional bonds, but women, I highly doubt it, large numbers of them would probably become incredibly depressed, and angry towards technology, and the suicide rate for women would probably skyrocket. Whereas many men would probably rejoice for being able to have all their desires met instantly without going through all the emotional hoops and bargaining that women demand. However, that's not to say many men wouldn't also commit suicide, but that's survival of the fittest.

That is the direction I believe we are moving, and its coming fast.

Kunga said:
The fem/male would emerge to satisfy those that miss women....like a prison society does.....

Men bargin with men if not with women...without women you would loose your crafty barganing skills that' you honed in on to please us....lol

It's natura/normall to have positive & negitive energys for life to exist.

If there were no female energys here there would be no food to eat....you canno't live without female energy.

Enlightenment entails the merging of male/female energy
Unification /integration/Oneness


It would be suicide of the human race to eliminate either sex.
We have always complimented each other.
To have an ALL male existence would be like the Universe turned into a puke bucket.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Kunga,

It would be suicide of the human race to eliminate either sex.
We have always complimented each other.

I don't believe both sexes compliment each other, they make each other weaker for the most part. Each one becomes dependent on things they should do for themselves. Each struggles with insecurity, jealousy, attachment, emotional longing, and addictions to the flesh.

Romance doesn't work, it has become an evolved adaptation used to get children up to the point of maturity. That is its only benefit, but eventually technology should make it possible for children to be raised without a dependence on biological parents, and their incomes. I think eventually the current economic system will be transcended to something much more whole and just.

[Kunga]

you fail to admit man's superiority to women when it comes to logic

Ok...i have no problem recognizing that...so what do you want a medal ? I love men for who they are and that includes their abity to do all the great things they are capable of doing...i love men and appreciate all the wonderful abilites they have. But it behooves me when i see intelligent men being critical of women. How would you like women to evolve ? To be more like men ? I certainly wouldn't want men to be more womanly. I love men that love women. There's something wrong with men that dispise and critisize women (seriously), it's more of a mental illness if you ask me.

I don't believe both sexes compliment each other, they make each other weaker for the most part

What you belive and what has evolved (male and female) contradicts what is natural...like gravity. Even electricity needs
the power of a positive and negative charge to have power. Have you failed in life to have a meaningful and satisfying relationship with the opposite sex ? My experiences with men have been normal....therefore i have no abnormal expectations from men.... i've never been pampered...never had a diamond ring ...don't give a shit about being married...and feel sorry for men that get used and abused and taken to the cleaners when divorced...i would never do that to a man...that's one thing i hate about women...how they expect men to support them and rake them for all they have when they divorce....i do not relate to women in that reguard...not all women are the same...i know we've been using grandious sweeping generalizations throught this dialouge ...but i think a few examples are nessesary now.

Romance

Without a sense of artistic expression this world would be nothing but crude and rude grunts.


Bombs away....


This is a logical man :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef5rXtEqoD0

[Gurrb]

"Without a sense of artistic expression this world would be nothing but crude and rude grunts."

and it's not? man is not superior to woman because man thinks it is superior to woman. the brightest fruit always gets picked first (to die, that is).

[Kunga]

"Without a sense of artistic expression this world would be nothing but crude and rude grunts."

and it's not? man is not superior to woman because man thinks it is superior to woman. the brightest fruit always gets picked first (to die, that is).

Sometimes exagerating is helpful when trying to make a point :)

Men have contibuted greatly in the artistic expression throught human evolution....starting with the cave drawings. As the brain developed altruistic thinking developed...only a intelligent mind can devise philosophic/ religious/spiritual/artistic/romantic expression. Shakespeare, Blake,Piccaso, VanGogh,Michealangelo, DaVinci,Einstein,Plato, Socrates,Hendrix,Buddha,Jesus,Gibran,and the list goes on to infinity.....the brilliant men are like all the stars in the universe...but woman is like the planets....baren or full of life...toxic or rich in nutrients...

No...man is not superior but equal to women ...we evolved together...there must be a logical reason why...and the logical reason lies in physics. (which i know nothing about)LOL...only that man and woman are like the positive and negative ...the ying and yang....Shiva & Shakti.....ebony and ivory...oil and vinegar..yab and yum........


How's my logic been so far ?

LOL

[Kunga]

This question is for Prince:

What would happen to us if the Sun died ?

You say God created us....but without the sun we could not exist.

[Pye]

So, in the main, it reduces to one's fundamental view of whether the universe/human life is intentional or consequential. Prince believes in intent for all phenomena, and he cites its designed-ness as proof.

For the consequentialist view, all phenomena (i.e. existence) is an effect of the phenomenal world itself - a consequence of all other matter; a consequence of itself. Appearance is infinite in this sense; more, in this sense of evermore configurations of appearance (motion). Intention, then, would be a phenomenon consequential to our particular circumstances; a structure built into our view of cause and effect, as forms of life with various degrees of will. Unless you are Schopenhauer, and view the world as wanting itself (or there'd be no world, just as we must want ourselves, or there'd be no selves).

Where is the appreciable difference between existence that wants itself, and the intentional view? And what logic/thinking pathology leads one to place all intention/will into a singular entity, whose existence must necessarily precede existence in order to perform "His" work? We are not that complicated; simple, really, drawing with our anthropomorphic crayons.

Yet we are handicapped with the perceptual capacity of ants on a cosmic dust ball, in a blink, with a high probability of extinction ourselves. Given that we have reasoned a number of thermodynamic laws does not guarantee that local physics will endure. Given that we have reason, we shall also be able to reason thusly that our perceptual equipment and brief appearance in the grand scheme of things is not the aim of the universe, but one of its exceptions, one of its infinite consequences of itself. There would be no reason for us/life, except for its own consequential sake, for the sake of appearance itself.

The perceived designed-ness/intention of all phenomena, then, would not, could not, exist prior to itself. To speak of design is to speak of the thing-itself in the only proper way: the way the thing appears in existence and in view of its relations with all other things (that which it is not). And the way anything appears in existence, appears only as it can appear to the human instrument that measures it.


.

[Gurrb]

is intent a consequence of intent?

[Tomas]

better to drown out than to wade away?

No (but you kinda are on to Carl's motives). It was in reference to what Diebert had said about Carl. Carl isn't capable of swimming out to the deeper water for fear of drowning. He likes wading in the "kiddie pool" where he's comfortable sniping at others he deems less-adroit than himself. There's really no in-depth analytical side to him. He likes to hang onto Diebert's apron strings. At least that's what I gathered about Diebert's comments. "Grumpy, obsessed"... but is at a loss what to do with it really.

I think inside, he's a sad man. Anger, fear, loneliness.

[Carl G]

better to drown out than to wade away?

No (but you kinda are on to Carl's motives). It was in reference to what Diebert had said about Carl. Carl isn't capable of swimming out to the deeper water for fear of drowning. He likes wading in the "kiddie pool" where he's comfortable sniping at others he deems less-adroit than himself. There's really no in-depth analytical side to him. He likes to hang onto Diebert's apron strings. At least that's what I gathered about Diebert's comments. "Grumpy, obsessed"... but is at a loss what to do with it really.

I think inside, he's a sad man. Anger, fear, loneliness.

Oh fuck. Alex Jacob reincarnated. Tomas, your three-bit off-in-left-field psychoanalysis isn't even worth a laugh. Okay, "fear of drowning" is kind of funny.

Maybe it just points out once again the weakness of Internet exchanges as a way to get to know someone. Though I think Tomas knows better and is dramatizing for effect. Tomas, you do know I have limited time and energy for posting, don't you?

And, Tomas, once again, what are you doing on this messageboard besides socializing? I have never once seen you discuss philosophy. Do you have any interest in it at all?

[Steven Coyle]

...

[Tomas]

Better to drown out than to wade away?

Oh, on your reply I've a different revelation to offer:

1). He spams threads over on Worldly Matters. Example: He'll click "views" to give the illusion that his latest, newly-created, thread has a lot of readership. I believe it's Poetry: Biden/Palin. Of all the goofballs he cites, one stands out, Charlie Gibson, probably one of the biggest liberal dunces who ever hosted an evening network news show. Like anybody would understand the Bush Doctrine, (something even GWB hadn't an inkling of). Anyways, Charlie Gibson (whom I have met on 3-4 occasions) applied to 12 separate law schools and turned down by all .. We had an old satellite dish from way back (mid-1980s) and to watch Gibson off the non-live feeds he really came across as a telepromper dullard. Just no decent conversations with off-feed personnel. A couple other threads he trolls (Hodge's Crazy Americans-Guns and Elizabeth's Police) but it shows the lack of depth that Diebert exposed. He sends 20 broken links in a 30-minute span. Hodges had called him on this but that is Carl's lame excuse to send a link that works. So much for drown out.

2). He won't wade away from Genius because he has nowhere to go. His is a non-chalant attitude that had potential but he is a non-commital personality to change even a little. He simply likes wading. He isn't capable of creating a thread with any sort of heavy-weight gravitas. Another oddity was some time back that he commented words to the effect, "people change their signature line and it changes on all their previous posts". Oh boo-hoo. The same occurs when someone changes their avatar...

For me? - His major plus is his curious nature. He has innuendo-based overbearing personality, though. He yaps about bi-polar or are you on Prozac comments to dissuade others from forming any negativity feedback pushed back on him. He's a control freak.

Note: When "the highly-esteemed" Diebert made his comments Carl's response was to alter Diebert's written word then disappear for a while till things cooled down.

In the end though he's just some pixels on a screen :-/

PS - Elizabeth, where art thou? :-)

[Kunga]

Elizabeth is taking a sabbatical :)

[Carl G]

Tomas, get help!

[Jamesh]

A few weeks ago Kunga wrote:

When i was a Christian i was sure i knew God...it was more than a feeling....but i had no concept of what God was....but i belived Jesus was the way, the Truth and The Life.....i can identify with Prince...but now i see things differntly....more like God is everything...The Universe is everything....we are a part of everything and everything is a part of us....all is one...God is not separate...we are "God"....no duality...but speaking this destroys the profundity ...the logic......because no words can really explain it....and i do not know it...only intellectualize it....

This site looks pertinent.

http://www.thechristmind.org/index1.htm

[Kunga]

i have no more desires for religious conversion...

[Gurrb]

my post earlier was simply a play on words of neil young's song. "it's better to burn out than to fade away, hey hey my my" turn this over in terms of drowning and wading, it applies to the same effect. better to die a man than to live a coward.

[Tomas]

Elizabeth is taking a sabbatical :)

See: (Christianity / Protestantism) Sabbatical definition > http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sabbatical