The Woman's World

[Animus]

Animus (or whatever your name is),

My legal name is Ryan Shirk, but I have no attachment to it ;)

[/quote]

I think the best thing you could do for her is to stop interacting with her. You're really just pandering to her ego, and letting her use you.

The reason I say this is, as long as you keep interacting with her, she'll use your attentions, your life, your affirmation of her existence, to feed her desire for intimacy with you. Whatever kind of relationship it is, will be a sublimated eroticism. If she has any seeds of potential for enlightenment, your personal engagement, whether vis-a-vis or virtual, will be constantly suffocating those seeds owing to her deeply-instilled egotism.

But it's really your call. If you really think she has potential - and I'm not saying she has - and if you can see that your involvement with her doesn't get in the way of your own cause - then use her emotional attachment to your intellect and character as a carrot, and withdraw. Stay clear away from her, and see if she has the ability to propel herself forward by her own steam. If she can't, there's no loss. If she can, then there are many positive outcomes.

It reminds me a little of what happened with my interactions with Rhett Hamilton, about 8 years ago now. I had a lot of respect for Rhett's self-awareness, and dogged prioritisation of truthfulness. But I couldn't see where he was headed with it, as it didn't fit anywhere. He was the proverbial madman dancing on the horizon, not forcibly breaking down any walls, but not stifling his opinions either. I was interested in living as wholistically-ethically and self-reliantly as possible, but I couldn't make the immediate jump to philosophy. About 11 months after we met, I made up my mind to push onwards with my career in ecological architecture and habitat design. So I left the sharehouse (there were five housemates), moved interstate for an internship and to start graduate studies in architecture, and also started to delve within. At the end of the three-month internship, I was more than ready. It provided the necessary contrast and solitude - in a new city, among strange people - to work out my own path. I basically destroyed my "vita ante acte", as if my life to that point was meaningless. But of course, without Rhett quietly and firmly withdrawing - almost completely - from all interactions, I probably wouldn't have made the leap.

Again, I'm not saying your acquaintance has the capacity to go it alone, but unless you let her do it alone, we'll never know.

She will probably do everything she can to renew the relationship, when you break it. It's worth being careful.


...

Well, I haven't given you the full story, there is a sense in which she is my own thread back to my own family. I've found myself having to interact with my own family in ways which I probably wouldn't otherwise. Beside her I'm quite the recluse and I feel like living with her has caused me to grow quite a lot in the right direction. There have been some side-effects, some violent outbursts and such, she has tentative plans to move out when she is transferred to another city. She decided that we couldn't live together, she said she couldn't look at my face without filling with hate. But that was a week or so ago and things change pretty quickly. When she said all that I remained calm and suggested it was in her head and had nothing to do with my actual face. But admittedly, I pushed buttons I shouldn't have, I'm realizing that realizing the full truth means accepting some obscure truths like people would kill you before being forcibly enlightened.

[Kelly Jones]

the infinitif is either present or past tense. The past form of the infinitif verb in French is formed with either one of two verbs - être (to be) or avoir (to have). Which means that the infinitif verb formed with avoir will always be neutral (which equates to masculine and singular in French), whereas the the infinitif verb formed with être will either be masculine or feminine, singular or plural, depending on the subject(s) it's referring to. I could give you some examples if you want.

That's true, it's the same in Italian. But when the infinitive is used, it never takes a subject. It's completely abstract and displaced from all contexts. To have had (past infinitive of avoir), or to have been (past infinitive of être, since there's no "to was been" or "to be was" or "to be stated" in English) don't refer to anyone or anything. Even though they are referring abstractly to the past, it's to the quality of being completed but which is not applied. The quality of being finished and past remains an incomplete possibility that fits in no time. It's an infinitive, a bit like the quality of "two o'clock". What two o'clock? Which two o'clock? Every and all two o'clocks.

The imperative form that uses the same infinitive form is the imperative, so it's not relevant. Not sure if that happens in French.


...

[Kelly Jones]

she said she couldn't look at my face without filling with hate

That means she is deeply attached to you, and, unless she expressed regret and responsibility for her feelings almost simultaneously, it means she also knows that you're attached to her. That's a bad sign, really.

I remember you were talking about this relationship some time ago (last year?). In my view, you've left it a bit too late.

It also concerns me that you believe living with her improves your confidence. Matt Gregory said that about his new lover, and he vanished from the scene sometime afterwards. We corresponded a bit at the time, but I think he felt too strong a desire to be able to think it out. He would have always had his ego gnawing at him, feeling starved and resentful. Such a bright beginning, but now dust. Who knows, he might get back on track some day, but a lot of time will have been wasted. He might even have children to look after now, creating further karma, and possible temptations for self-sabotage.


...

[Robert]

The imperative form that uses the same infinitive form is the imperative, so it's not relevant. Not sure if that happens in French.

In French, the past imperative form follows the same logic, the auxiliary verbs are être and avoir, and follow the same rules of conjugation (but the auxiliary verb takes the present subjunctive form). The present imperative takes the present indicative verb form.

[Kelly Jones]

"Have it done! Have been it!" Such a strange way to express oneself, as if it ought to have been done or ought to have existed, before one had ordered it to be or be done. But where is the subjunctive sense in the past imperative? That would have to be something like "May it have been done!" or "Should it have been!"

The subjunctive is also infinite in mood, the possibility of a moment never made finite. Would it be? May it be? Should it be? Were it this, then that ...

There is genius in the person who invented tenses, and particularly in the person who invented the subjunctive tense. So much of our tenses are actually tinged with the subjunctive.


...

[Animus]

she said she couldn't look at my face without filling with hate

That means she is deeply attached to you, and, unless she expressed regret and responsibility for her feelings almost simultaneously, it means she also knows that you're attached to her. That's a bad sign, really.

I remember you were talking about this relationship some time ago (last year?). In my view, you've left it a bit too late.

It also concerns me that you believe living with her improves your confidence. Matt Gregory said that about his new lover, and he vanished from the scene sometime afterwards. We corresponded a bit at the time, but I think he felt too strong a desire to be able to think it out. He would have always had his ego gnawing at him, feeling starved and resentful. Such a bright beginning, but now dust. Who knows, he might get back on track some day, but a lot of time will have been wasted. He might even have children to look after now, creating further karma, and possible temptations for self-sabotage.


...

She's not improving my confidence at all. Allow me to expand a bit on the dynamic because I think you'll find it interesting. I created a lot of resentment in my family and hers through my interactions on facebook. A lot of my family are pissed at me for things I've said and generally just think I'm insane. They don't tell me as much, but they do tell her and avoid me. A lot of people encourage her to get away from me as soon as possible, and some of them are my closest relatives. Ironically, they all seem to think I am the opposite of what they think they are. My cousin disowned me because I questioned her atheism and others secretly despise me for being an atheist. I completely underestimated the force of ignorance and how close it was to home. And perhaps that is all I'm continuing to do with my roommate, but I became convinced anyway that my intolerance of ignorance was ignorance itself. Living with her kept me embedded in the dark reality I was desperately avoiding, and still does I guess.

She has always said that I need to be less confrontational and work on how I address people. And I've always maintained that it was beyond my control or ability to tolerate it. But I think she is right, its not getting anything accomplished, so I either quit or come up with a new approach to conversation. At least there are some wise souls around this place. The hope that I had for her was really for the fact that despite everyone else hating me and telling her how bad I am, she remains my friend and even has a negative view of me herself. Quite the rarity I might say. And that doesn't just apply to me, she is pretty level headed with everyone. She just flips out a bit when she feels underappreciated and when someone is telling her that her feeling of underappreciation is egotistical. She tries very hard to be hospitable to everyone. She went out with people who were much younger than her and of completely different tastes simply because she was asked to do so. I encourage her to be more selective in who she tries to reach out to as well, but that made her upset and then I said she ought not to be upset about something that is true. Eventually she kind of dropped that friendship and stopped going out to the bar with a bunch of younger girls. I think she realized eventually that she was descending in order to help someone and getting dragged down by them. Her friend basically nagged her about not wearing nice enough clothes or make-up, a very superficial crowd. But she had some hope that she would be able to impart wisdom on them. Sounds familiar...

[Kelly Jones]

You do sound quite attached to her, like the only friend you have in an ocean of sharks. That's a dangerous thing, not only because she's not a wise person, but because using her as a buffer against society's rejection of you, is deeply weakening. One has to confront the rejection by society fully, and not be afraid of it. It just is what it is. Work through the suffering, and come out the other side.

Family and friends will keep trying to manipulate the thinker emotionally, by exposing a cold shoulder, or dropping hints at one's cruelty and madness. It's typical animal behaviour. It's got nothing to do with the truth of one's views, but with setting oneself apart, outside the tribe. That makes any animal outraged. They'll eventually start crying for attention, to get their relationship fix. One cannot lend a hand since this will only worsen their delusion...

If one wants to be known as a saviour and altruist, then that's really from pride and a concern over one's reputation. It's a tough call, but one should be wary of indulging in that stuff.

The Khaggavisana Sutra is good medicine.


Renouncing violence
for all living beings,
harming not even a one,
you would not wish for offspring,
so how a companion?
Wander alone
like a rhinoceros.

For a sociable person
there are allurements;
on the heels of allurement, this pain.
Seeing allurement's drawback,
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.

One whose mind
is enmeshed in sympathy
for friends and companions,
neglects the true goal.
Seeing this danger in intimacy,
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.

Like spreading bamboo,
entwined,
is concern for offspring and spouses.
Like a bamboo sprout,
unentangling,
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.

As a deer in the wilds,
unfettered,
goes for forage wherever it wants:
the wise person, valuing freedom,
wanders alone
like a rhinoceros.

In the midst of companions
-- when staying at home,
when going out wandering --
you are prey to requests.
Valuing freedom,
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.

There is sporting and love
in the midst of companions,
and abundant fondness for offspring.
Feeling disgust
at the prospect of parting
from those who would be dear,
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.

Without resistance in all four directions,
content with whatever you get,
enduring troubles with no dismay,
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.

They are hard to please,
some of those gone forth,
as well as those living the household life.
Shedding concern
for these offspring of others,
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.

Cutting off the householder's marks [hair and beard],
like a kovilara tree
that has shed its leaves,
the prudent one, cutting all household ties,
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.

If you gain a mature companion,
a fellow traveler, right-living and wise,
overcoming all dangers
go with him, gratified,
mindful.

If you don't gain a mature companion,
a fellow traveler, right-living and wise,
wander alone
like a king renouncing his kingdom,
like the elephant in the Matanga wilds,
his herd.

We praise companionship
-- yes!
Those on a par, or better,
should be chosen as friends.
If they are not to be found,
living faultlessly,
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.

Seeing radiant bracelets of gold,
well-made by a smith,
clinking, clashing,
two on an arm,
wander alone
like a rhinoceros,

[thinking:]

"In the same way,
if I were to live with another,
there would be careless or abusive talk."
Seeing this future danger,
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.

Because sensual pleasures,
elegant, honeyed, & charming,
bewitch the mind with their manifold forms --
seeing this drawback in sensual strands --
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.

"Calamity, tumor, misfortune,
disease, an arrow, a danger for me."
Seeing this danger in sensual strands,
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.

Cold and heat, hunger and thirst,
wind and sun, horseflies and snakes:
enduring all these, without exception,
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.

As a great white elephant,
with massive shoulders,
renouncing his herd,
lives in the wilds wherever he wants,
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.

"There's no way
that one delighting in company
can touch even momentary release."
Heeding the Solar Kinsman's words,
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.

Transcending the contortion of views,
the sure way attained,
the path gained,

[realizing:]

"Unled by others,
I have knowledge arisen,"
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.

With no greed, no deceit,
no thirst, no hypocrisy --
delusion and blemishes
blown away --
with no inclinations for all the world,
every world,
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.

Avoid the evil companion
disregarding the goal,
intent on the out-of-tune way.
Don't take as a friend
someone heedless and hankering.
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.

Consort with one who is learned,
who maintains the Dhamma,
a great and quick-witted friend.
Knowing the meanings,
subdue your perplexity,
[then] wander alone
like a rhinoceros,

Free from longing, finding no pleasure
in the world's sport, love, or sensual bliss,
abstaining from adornment,
speaking the truth,
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.

Abandoning offspring, spouse,
father, mother,
riches, grain, relatives,
and sensual pleasures
altogether,
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.

"This is a bondage, a baited hook.
There is little happiness here,
next to no satisfaction,
all the more suffering and pain."
Knowing this, circumspect,
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.

Shattering fetters,
like a fish in the water tearing a net,
like a fire not coming back to what is burnt,
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.

Eyes downcast, not footloose,
senses guarded, with protected mind,
not oozing -- not burning -- with lust,
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.

Taking off the householder's marks [lay clothing],
like a coral tree
that has shed its leaves,
going forth in the ochre robe,
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.

Showing no greed for flavors, not careless,
going from house to house for alms,
with mind not enmeshed in this family or that,
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.

Abandoning barriers to awareness,
expelling all defilements -- all --
non-dependent, cutting aversion,
allurement,
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.

Turning your back on pleasure and pain,
as earlier with sorrow and joy,
attaining pure equanimity,
tranquility,
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.

With persistence aroused
for the highest goal's attainment,
with mind not smeared, not lazy in action,
firm in effort, with steadfastness and strength arisen,
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.

Not neglecting seclusion, absorption,
constantly living the Dhamma
in line with the Dhamma,
comprehending the danger
in states of becoming,
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.

Intent on the ending of craving and heedful,
learned, mindful, not muddled,
certain -- having reckoned the Dhamma --
and striving,
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.

Not startled, like a lion, at sounds.
Not snared, like the wind in a net.
Not smeared, like a lotus in water:
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.

Like a lion -- forceful, strong in fang,
living as a conqueror, the king of beasts --
resort to a solitary dwelling.
Wander alone
like a rhinoceros.

At the right time consorting
with the release through good will,
compassion,
appreciation,
equanimity,
unobstructed by all the world,
any world,
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.

Having let go of passion,
aversion,
delusion;
having shattered the fetters;
undisturbed at the ending of life,
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.

People follow and associate
for a motive.
Friends without a motive these days
are rare.
They are shrewd for their own ends, and impure.
Wander alone
like a rhinoceros.




...

[Robert]

There is genius in the person who invented tenses, and particularly in the person who invented the subjunctive tense. So much of our tenses are actually tinged with the subjunctive.

Yeah, and luckily (for me at least) in French there uses of the subjunctive that replaces old-fashioned or more literary conjugations. French is interesting in this sense, there are existing subtilties in the grammar that's lost in English when complex composed verb and tense forms are employed. Mind you, it's mostly hermetic to me since I'm not a native speaker nor do I study it much these days, but it genuinely impresses me how the native speaker can almost instantaneously and instinctively make the correct masucline/feminine singular/plural accords.

[Kunga]

Thank You for that Sutta Kelly...never read that one before.

Today as i drove to work i was thinking how i dislike western philosophy & philosophers....i was always drawn towards eastern philosophy & philosophers...

[Anders Schlander]

Real 'freedom' then, is not relative, it does not come and go, because that is only relative to the amount of slavery in our lives. It is in a sense not freedom at all, but just 'being' without anything added ontop of it. Being free from samsara then, is not freedom as one might think, but is pure, so calling nirvana freedom wouldn't be right.

Freedom is still a dualistic concept, it is something relative to that which one is free of, though not neccesarily attachment, but anything at all. I think Kelly thinks that freedom from desire is the freedom that stands out the most, though.

It's like using the word "Infinite" to give contrast to "finite", or "ultimate truth" to contrast with "logical truth". The aim is to use words to point to everything, and to go beyond any particular words, into the meaning of everything: the nature of One.


...

Yes, and attachment and non-attachment is exactly the same, non-attachment is not about holding on to the branch of non-attachment. It's about not indulging in grapping hold of things. You actually said it yourself in that post; But I didn't realize it untill later that day.

[cousinbasil]

Yes, and attachment and non-attachment is exactly the same, non-attachment is not about holding on to the branch of non-attachment. It's about not indulging in grapping hold of things. You actually said it yourself in that post; But I didn't realize it untill later that day.

Attaching seems to be something one does without conscious activity, much the way a facade passively becomes overgrown with ivy. I find myself constantly pruning attachments away, but I have also noticed that this activity of resisting attachment can become second nature, as it were. I notice myself emerging from things unentangled often, when similar things would have ensnared me in previous years.

I will note that while ivy often appears appealing to the eye, it usually damages that upon which it climbs.

[Beingof1]

Kelly:

Your neighbour is yourself?

Thank you for your journey. Yes.

You are mostley right about attachment however. There is no aspect where or that I cannot be.
You cannot uninvolve or uninlove wherever you may be if you are seeking truth. The best that one can do is realize you are involved - with everything. Agape/love/compassion without restraint - I beesech you.

Those around you may not understand when and if you create negative ripples of sewing and reaping - it is for ripples of illumination because light, or understanding cannot be seen only experienced and that, takes a mirror.

Truth is by far, more important than a relationship because it is the clarity of experience.



Robert:

The infinitif is either present or past tense. The past form of the infinitif verb in French is formed with either one of two verbs - être (to be) or avoir (to have). Which means that the infinitif verb formed with avoir will always be neutral (which equates to masculine and singular in French), whereas the the infinitif verb formed with être will either be masculine or feminine, singular or plural, depending on the subject(s) it's referring to. I could give you some examples if you want.

n French, the past imperative form follows the same logic, the auxiliary verbs are être and avoir, and follow the same rules of conjugation (but the auxiliary verb takes the present subjunctive form). The present imperative takes the present indicative verb form.

Opened a train of thought for me - thank you Robert.

[Animus]

You do sound quite attached to her, like the only friend you have in an ocean of sharks. That's a dangerous thing, not only because she's not a wise person, but because using her as a buffer against society's rejection of you, is deeply weakening. One has to confront the rejection by society fully, and not be afraid of it. It just is what it is. Work through the suffering, and come out the other side.

Family and friends will keep trying to manipulate the thinker emotionally, by exposing a cold shoulder, or dropping hints at one's cruelty and madness. It's typical animal behaviour. It's got nothing to do with the truth of one's views, but with setting oneself apart, outside the tribe. That makes any animal outraged. They'll eventually start crying for attention, to get their relationship fix. One cannot lend a hand since this will only worsen their delusion...

If one wants to be known as a saviour and altruist, then that's really from pride and a concern over one's reputation. It's a tough call, but one should be wary of indulging in that stuff.

The Khaggavisana Sutra is good medicine.

Thanks for the Sutra

You may be underestimating the extent to which I've pushed her to my extremes. Later on I will post a short conversation we had on Facebook, one of many. She has 199 friends on facebook, and I have 29. I used to have a lot more, but I got tired of reading egotistical bullshit and decided to limit myself to people who are philosophically or politically minded, like the Juana Sophia. So, she said something about love, quoting Erich Fromm, who I think is a great thinker. The quote said that Love was a matter of faith, of giving freely of oneself with the hope of return, and, in a separate quotation from Fromm, that Love is the solution to human existence. I don't disagree with the latter quote, but I do disagree with the former in some respect. So I engaged in disagreement with the quote on her facebook wall, and it sparked another gentleman to ridicule me, and provoked her to criticising me.

So, that should be interesting, you'll see that I don't allow any attachment for her to stop my inquiries or silence me.

[Animus]

For Kelly and others who find it of interest:

Note that all of the "i'm a moron" are really Laugh-out-louds, but it seems someone has set up a translation service on this board.

Amanda: “Love means to commit oneself without guarantee, to give oneself completely in the hope that our love will produce love in the loved person. Love is an act of faith, and whoever is of little faith is also of little love.” ~Erich Fromm

Amanda: “Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence.” ~Erich Fromm

Ryan Shirk: Agape is disinterested love. . . . Agape does not begin by discriminating between worthy and unworthy people, or any qualities people possess. It begins by loving others for their sakes. . . . Therefore, agape makes no distinction between friend and enemy; it is directed toward both.
- Martin Luther King, Jr.

Ryan Shirk: "Agape is infinite love..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1J6xINDAvw [link to menoftheinfinite video "Agape"]

Amanda: I read a few Martin Luther King, Jr quotes yesterday. He seems like a very interesting fellow who has said lots of things that ring true.
We must develop and maintain the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love. There is some good in the worst of us and some evil in the best of us. When we discover this, we are less prone to hate our enemies. ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.
I do like that men of the infinite video, but I think you've posted it here already a few times. There is agape love and I do think that is the type of love you should have for everyone, but the fact remains, with a spouse or a child you will still have some maternal or romantic interest. The backbone should be based on agape, but the brain will make the rest happen with the help of oxytocin. You will favour your child over another child.
I am way more interested in you showing some agape love, then just reposting the same videos on my wall.

Ryan Shirk: The desire to feel loved is antithetical to agape-unconditional love. The desire to feel loved, and the love one has for a child or romantic partner are rooted in ego. The central delusion of the inherently existing self. Love of a mother or romantic love are pleasurable because they grant a sense of concretion to the ego. Agape follows from understanding and not from the same well of egotism that all other love springs from. Ego is an obstacle to agape. Agape is understood during the death of one's own ego. The less self-focused we are, the more we learn what it means to actually love and be loved.

The man who is willing to fight for my right to an opinion has more love for me than the woman who wants me tethered to her side. Because the man loves me for my sake and respects my fundamental rights as a human. The woman just wants to consume me to fuel her incessant desire to feel loved. Agape is not selfish and selfishness is the opposite of agape. So I would disagree that the two can coexist.

This is love. When a person attempts to stand up to the delusional masses on a controversial issue, and that person is crucified, knows they will be crucified but takes a stand anyway. That person truly loves, because they are not concerned with what they might get out of it, no faith required. They simply do what is right, and often in the face of condemnation. E.G. Jesus Christ, Mahatma Gandhi, etc.. Neither of these examples sought romantic or motherly love.

Can you have a companion or offspring without contaminating the potential for agape? Probably not, it depends how much of that ego-bound love is embraced in the process, or how much of the love is agape instead. For, when the threat of a criminal arises, one would be overwhelmed with the desire to protect one's own interests and thus lose all love for the criminal.

"Love is the sun,wind, leaf and wise man. :)" - Kunga

"And presumably also dog-shit, cancer and a dismembered Sudanese baby." - Dan Rowden


Ryan Shirk: "Stop right there. Forget relationships. Get centred in your own individuality and the truth of it. Then all those love-needing relationships will be revealed as illusions of the ego." - Kelly Jones

Jordan: wow, thats a lot to swallow for a wall post. lol

Ryan Shirk: "Why level downward to our dullest perception always, and praise that as common sense? The commonest sense is the sense of men asleep, which they express by snoring... If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away...No face which we can give to a matter will stead us so well at last as the truth. This alone wears well. For the most part, we are not where we are, but in a false position...Any truth is better than make-believe. Tom Hyde, the tinker, standing on the gallows, was asked if he had anything to say. "Tell the tailors," said he, "to remember to make a knot in their thread before they take the first stitch."... However mean your life is, meet it and live it; do not shun it and call it hard names. It is not so bad as you are... We read that the traveller asked the boy if the swamp before him had a hard bottom. The boy replied that it had. But presently the traveller's horse sank in up to the girths, and he observed to the boy, "I thought you said this bog had a hard bottom." "So it has," answered the latter, "but you have not got half way to it yet."

Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth. I sat at a table where were rich food and wine in abundance, and obsequious attendance, but sincerity and truth were not; and I went away hungry from the inhospitable board. The hospitality was as cold as the ices. I thought that there was no need of ice to freeze them. They talked to me of the age of the wine and the fame of the vintage; but I thought of an older, a newer, and a purer wine, of a more glorious vintage, which they had not got, and could not buy. The style, the house and grounds and "entertainment" pass for nothing with me. I called on the king, but he made me wait in his hall, and conducted like a man incapacitated for hospitality. There was a man in my neighborhood who lived in a hollow tree. His manners were truly regal. I should have done better had I called on him."

- Henry David Thoreau (Walden)

Ryan Shirk: Compassion must become judicious inner sorrow (with appreciation of justice) and may not remain a desire for pleasure. For only then does one really love people - Otto Weininger

Jordan: for someone centered in there own reality, your pushin this pretty hard. lol

Ryan Shirk: Analysis does not set out to make pathological reactions impossible, but to give the patient's ego freedom to decide one way or another. - Sigmund Freud

Jordan: if i was more impolite i'd enjoy ridin this all day ;) lol

Ryan Shirk: I don't doubt it Mr. Brister. Do you think that is a noble thing to do?

“Don’t give that which is holy to the dogs, neither throw
your pearls before the pigs, lest perhaps they trample
them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces." (Matt 7:6)

Maybe you are a pig or a dog Mr. Brister, you seem more content to feed on the messenger than the message. It's rather indicative of intellectual insecurity. I'm open to debate, if you have anything to offer.

Jordan: isn't it great how religion teaches you to be understanding yet in-comprehensive.

Ryan Shirk: It's quite comprehensive. It means not to put things before people who don't appreciate their value, and instead "shoot the messenger". In particular philosophical truth. Those who overlook the "pearls" to gnaw on the bones of the philosopher are analogically related to pigs and dogs.

Further, a pig or dog, as a human, can be identified by their obsession with the self. Whether in defense of their own egos or on the offense against someone else's ego. Truth transcends individuality (ego), therefor earnestly speaking or seeking the truth is non-egoic. But pigs and dogs rend the speaker anyway, cause they are drenched in self, and can conceive of no other possibility, such as, the speaker actually cares for you and honestly wishes to attain and impart wisdom.

Be warned; You will not offend me by degrading religion. At most you will offend those who you do not want to offend. I can easily accept that you hold such a low view of religion and nevertheless love you as a human being, irrespective of my own view of religion.

Jordan Brister: hahaha. for someone who doesn't know anything at all about me you seem happy to make generalizations. i won't continue this battle of whits at amanda's fb expense.
my initial post was in regard to how you delivered your message.

Ryan Shirk: Notice that you characterize this interaction as a "battle of whits". Its something completely different to me - philosophical discourse. Or at least, that's what I'd hoped it would be. If you are attacking me with your "whits" that is unfortunate, and is the subject of my above analysis. Margaritas ante porcos - pearls before swine. Not once did I claim you are swine, but asked you your intentions and left the door open to illustrate otherwise. Now it is apparent that you did intend to play the pig, furthermore pig is all you see in me.

"...when you try to engage with them in an egoless manner, it doesn't work, and you are left prone to getting pulled down into their egotism. Egolessness still involves interaction, and with some people, the interaction gets reduced down to something narcissistic and petty. You need to beware of these people... they want you to subordinate yourself to, and thus become egotistical like them. - Cory Duchesne

Ryan Shirk: My apologies to Amanda for carrying on as well. However, let it be seen that the example she requested has been fulfilled and the disparity of ego-based love and agape elucidated in the above discourse. If one has eyes to see.

Amanda: Like I said to you, I don't think not associating with people that prone you to egoism is the answer. That is taking the easy road. It's like that buddist monk we watched who said, just removing all sexual temptation and getting women to cover up actually did the opposite. When exposed to the stimuli, it is novel and the reaction is more so and overwhelming instead of overcoming it daily as it arises. Jesus didn't hang out with the christians, he was highly criticized for his company of tax collectors, poor people and prostitutes in the bible. You say: "This is love. When a person attempts to stand up to the delusional masses on a controversial issue, and that person is crucified, knows they will be crucified but takes a stand anyway. That person truly loves, because they are not concerned with what they might get out of it, no faith required. They simply do what is right, and often in the face of condemnation. E.G. Jesus Christ, Mahatma Gandhi, etc.." But then say: "not to put things before people who don't appreciate their value, and instead "shoot the messenger". In particular philosophical truth. Those who overlook the "pearls" to gnaw on the bones of the philosopher are analogically related to pigs and dogs" Jesus Christ, Mahatma Gandhi and all of the like still threw their pearls out there and lots of people have been put to death for doing so. You say above that agape love is doing that very thing even knowing you will be trampled. Then you shouldn't be concerned with the trampling especially if you are doing what is right. It's hard to discuss this with you in this format if you post a bunch in a row. Then I have to write an essay to even point out a few things that I thought were contradictory and it seems more like a bombardment than a discussion.

[at this point we had a private offline discussion while sitting on the living room couch]

Ryan Shirk: (as per earlier)

The crux of the story is not to say that I'm not going to throw out "pearls of wisdom." I think the important part of the parable is the mindset of the swine. It's a tricky parable because it confronts directly a particularly persuasive fault in the mind. If the mind moves to focus on the messenger and not the message it is "swinish". Perhaps it is wise to take note of patterns of behavior and respond appropriately. But there is a sense in which the mind tries to condemn the messenger and misinterprets the message or completely ignores the message. This has a lot to do with love. Surely the pig loves gorging on flesh, but does that mean that it loves flesh? What of the fleshes' well-being? So there is a sense in which romantic love is a kind of swinish love. When the persons involved are loving the loving and not loving each other. Take or leave my personal observation, but it appears to me that we have a tendency to love loving more than anything. If circumstances shifted, the mind can easily move to hating a person or being covertly malicious. That kind of love is conditional and consumptive. Agape is understanding love, i.e. compassion. As per me, I like to think that I'm relatively compassionate on a true scale of compassion, but I have a lot to grow to compensate for a disparity in the conception of compassion. To me compassion is understanding love, and I like to think I understand people as good or better than most, yet imagine I'll never be perfect. I understand that they may harbor a repulsion to my words, as did Jesus' contemporaries. They shot the messenger too. It's an eternal tale written in ancient stone. So regardless of whether or not I am truly compassionate the message is the same. I do try to be compassionate, but I'm not the perfect son. Finally, maybe I'm wrong, its all subject to endless reproof. Truth is eternal and available to all. Unconditional love, disinterested love releases the mind from its egotistical biases, it's swinish habit, opening the path to truth and ultimately is truth. Perhaps all of that is just my opinion or the reality which I am centered in, or maybe its food for the mind and spirit. I feel like I want to be in this with everyone else and realistically I am. I can struggle against it, but ultimately this is a collaboration, we're all in this together. I can learn from others and move closer to perfection, as can we all, but if someone is particularly bent on hating me or ignoring me due to some perceptual error then not much fruit will come to bear. In that case finding other company is probably mutually beneficial. It doesn't mean I can't still love them unconditionally. I should still save their life, protect them from the cold, feed them and so forth. But I need not interact with them routinely and subject myself to what is already beneath me. I would have to resist them dragging me down while I'm resisting dragging myself down and I'm not strong enough to support the world.

Amanda: "Understanding a person does not mean condoning; it only means that one does not accuse him as if one were God or a judge placed above him” ~Erich Fromm

Ryan Shirk: I agree with Fromm, and I'm not accusing as if I'm a "God or a judge" placed above anyone. I'm taking several years of study and personal meditation and sharing it. It is not wrong for me to evaluate people for mutual safety and well-being, and I'm not passing any terminal judgement on anyway. I'm merely providing a psychoanalysis and understanding of humanity.

I personally find what Mister Brister has said to me here to be shallow, judgmental, egotistical and ignorant, but that doesn't mean that I condemn him or assume that he is so of his own "free-will". There is a major difference between the psychoanalysis of a philosopher who genuinely seeks truth and the malicious condemnations meted out by the masses or the courts.

Therein lies a major difference. A philosopher, or psychoanalyst, or psychologist, can study the criminal mind and find valid exogenous and endogenous reasons or causes for the criminal behavior and mindset. Such an one does not seek to condemn the individual, but seeks to understand them and to help them understand themselves. The blood-thirsty masses and the litigious courts care not for understanding, and focus almost exclusively on guilt, blame and punishment.

And yet, their method of condemnation is accepted as normal and justified. My interests are not condemnation, but enlightenment. However, it takes an open mind to consider one's own psyche in an objective way, so such analyses can be taken as malicious. It is purely the receiving mind which focuses on the ego, it does not want to be seen dimly, just as Lucifer refused to bow to man, the human mind refuses to bow to truth when it's own Brightness is questioned.

The Formula
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWj7oWlVtag

Ryan Shirk Add: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chzqWI346DI

Amanda: You are right Ryan. I love you and understand you are not choosing to do what you do or be what you are. I will not pass judgement on you, but again you are correct, I do not have to subjugate myself to being in close proximity to you. If you are really about truth, you should be about the truth at home too not just online. Then again you are only human and so is everyone else. At least I can consistently recognize this and not only apply it to myself. Try to really understand and help people instead of using them as posting boards. You still don't understand that people don't come to people's walls to debate at length, they go to a discussion board or have a conversation. So don't expect people to understand what you are doing when it is out of context.

Ryan Shirk: You can use your wall for whatever you want, there is no "correct" usage of facebook. I and many others use facebook as a place for discussion, we use the Philosophy + Philosophers app, and we post to each other's walls. Such users are; Janua Sophia: Undergraduate Journal of Philosophy, Hypatia Alexandria, P. Kelly, S. Byrne. Some use it for political discussion; S. Hart, J. Austen, etc..

The Curse of Unconsciousness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtkC42i7q6Q

Amanda: Yes, true I can use my wall for whatever and so can you. I just typically
don't use it much. I'm just saying you keep doing the same thing expecting different results. Slow down, make it a discussion and not a wall of Ryan.
You probably intimidate any wouldbe discussionist with your approach. The format and traditional use of facebook also make the fact that you were
looking for a discussion convoluted, especially in combination with your bombardastic posts.

Ryan Shirk: Well, you can choose to see it anyway you like. If you view it as bombardastic, then I guess you've never read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Some things need to be spelled out at length and its not necessarily the case that Immanuel Kant was arrogant, although he did say things like "Most people deny metaphysics but make all sorts of metaphysical assumptions anyway" [sic] and then proceeds to explain why that is the case. One can easily respond to Kant with "I'm not like that you big meanie!" or "You just think you're so smart" or "Tone it down Homer!" or "Can't you make it any simpler?"

In regard to Thomas Metzinger's book "Being No One" which spans 1,000 pages, containing no illustrations and consisting of small print, a philosopher once said "This book would not have been so short, if it wasn't so long." meaning that it would have taken even longer to understand the book, if it was made shorter. Whereas, it is easier to understand ultimately because of its length and attention to detail.

One might suppose that if all we ever did was speak in one-liners and sound-bytes, it's because we really don't understand anything at all.

Ryan Shirk: I can appreciate that a lot of people use facebook to rub their own ego, I see it every day. But I'm generally not in contact with such people for long, for the reasons stated above. Reality is bigger than "me". All this whining about my style and length of posts is evidence to me that readers are weak-minded and egomaniacal. Truth does not need to be tailored to the individuals comfort zone. It is hard, and most of us take the easy road, or as an analogy, if they were Jake Green in the movie revolver, they take the stairs, afraid of taking the elevator. In which case, they never overcome ignorance.

Soren Kierkegaard's quotes on Truth:

Truth is not something you can appropriate easily and quickly. You certainly cannot sleep or dream yourself into the truth. No, you must be tried, do battle, and suffer if you are to acquire truth for yourself. It is a sheer illusion to think that in relation to truth there is an abridgment, a short cut that dispenses with the necessity of struggling for it. With respect to acquiring truth to live by, every generation and every individual essentially begin from the beginning.

To merely "know" the truth is insufficient � it is an untruth. For knowing the truth is something that follows as a matter of course from being in the truth, not the other way around. Nobody knows more of the truth than what he is of the truth. To properly know the truth is to be in the truth; it is to have the truth for one�s life. This always costs a struggle. Any other kind of knowledge is a falsification.

The truth is lived before it is understood. It must be fought for, tested, and appropriated. Truth is the way. And when the truth is the way, then the way cannot be shortened or drop out unless the truth itself is distorted or drops out. Is this not too difficult to understand? Anyone will easily understand it if he just gives himself to it.

continued: http://members.optushome.com.au/davidqu ... ard04.html

so yes, we all choose to be stagnant, stair-takers or longsuffering truth-seekers.

Ryan Shirk: This particularly pertains IMHO

"Truth is the work of freedom and in such a way that freedom constantly brings forth truth. What I am referring to is very plain and simple, namely, that truth exists for a particular individual only as he himself produces it in action. If the individual prevents the truth from being for him in that way, we have a phenomenon of the demonic. Truth has always had many loud proclaimers, but the question is whether a person will in the deepest sense acknowledge the truth, allow it to permeate his whole being, accept all its consequences, and not have an emergency hiding place for himself and a Judas kiss for the consequence." - Soren Kierkegaard

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry for the lengthy post, but I thought it could be seen as an interesting public discussion between two friends that isn't too egotistical.

[Kelly Jones]

What I found interesting in the Facebook conversation, Ryan, was how Amanda kept trying to shush you up. Her view is that it is compassionate not to judge people. But she is clearly judging you. She judges the high-calibre, conscientious individual as someone who is doing wrong, and rejects it judgmentally in exactly the same way that she says ought not to be done by the compassionate, non-judgmental person. Her hypocrisy stems from cowardice. The truth is, she doesn't want to be judged by your high standards, but wants to keep everything mediocre and lovey-dovey, so that she is not challenged, and remains comfortably acceptable to the herd. For her, this is true compassion, and yet obviously serves her weak mind.

Tolerating ignorance is not sane. One does have to point it out. The point here is to do it skillfully, and not bother if one's audience has no scope.

Another flaw in her reasoning was her claim of your inconsistency in being willing to be crucified for your views while making judgments, namely, of close-minded people being swine and dogs. But those also are your views, for which you also would be "crucified" (or, really, in this era, ignored and ridiculed).


...

[Kelly Jones]

Just thought I'd add, a woman can stand public humiliation of herself, but not of the man she loves. His public status is her own real status. She could stand poverty, ill-health, bad luck, and being abused by others, even by the man she loves. But if he decides to quit his job, become poor, allow himself to be publicly ridiculed, goes around in rags, and deliberatedly makes himself a nothing --- all the while seeing himself as noble --- she becomes outraged.

Nowadays it is conceivable that a wife could even reconcile herself to the thought that her husband would risk sacrificing himself in battle with a great power — a king, for example, or an emperor. Warum? Because it appeals to her imagination. But to expose oneself to people's gossip, to be laughed to scorn by them, that is something from which a woman's nature shrinks. She perhaps would have the fortitude to think of him beheaded by the state — but mistreated by the rabble, laughed and scorned by the crowd — no, no, that she cannot endure. Here a woman will beseech and implore the man for God's sake not to expose himself to that; she will tearfully maintain that she cannot bear to see him mistreated that way, will beg for the sake of their children, so that they may not have to suffer the torture of having the father abused in this way, and of being the children of such a father.

...

Strangely enough, Socrates always spoke of having learned from a woman. O, I, too, can say that I owe my best to a girl. I did not learn it from her directly, but she was the occasion.

— Kierkegaard

...

[Animus]

What I found interesting in the Facebook conversation, Ryan, was how Amanda kept trying to shush you up. Her view is that it is compassionate not to judge people. But she is clearly judging you. She judges the high-calibre, conscientious individual as someone who is doing wrong, and rejects it judgmentally in exactly the same way that she says ought not to be done by the compassionate, non-judgmental person. Her hypocrisy stems from cowardice. The truth is, she doesn't want to be judged by your high standards, but wants to keep everything mediocre and lovey-dovey, so that she is not challenged, and remains comfortably acceptable to the herd. For her, this is true compassion, and yet obviously serves her weak mind.

Tolerating ignorance is not sane. One does have to point it out. The point here is to do it skillfully, and not bother if one's audience has no scope.

Another flaw in her reasoning was her claim of your inconsistency in being willing to be crucified for your views while making judgments, namely, of close-minded people being swine and dogs. But those also are your views, for which you also would be "crucified" (or, really, in this era, ignored and ridiculed).


...

Yes, actually, the discussion about Jordan that followed was interesting. I suggested to her that Jordan was simply trying to be her hero of the day, and thought he'd put me down in a bid to shut me up. She disagreed, stating that Jordan emailed an apology to her. But I maintained that the apology was merely an after-thought.

This is an interesting phenomena. Yesterday the roommate brought home a note that was placed on her computer keyboard at work. She received the note when she arrived in the morning. The note read "I'm watching you!" and next to the words was a hand-drawn picture of eye-glasses. To the lower-right corner of the note was a heart with a cupid arrow and some strange scribble over-top the heart. She said that it caused quite a stir at work and everyone thought "Ed" or "Eddy" had written her the note. However, later on the Operations Manager Lynn was seen putting notes on other peoples' desks. In the end it was determined that Lyn wrote the note, but I pointed out to her, if you look carefully the scribble over the heart looks like its actually the letters "E" and "D" and says "ED" in cursive. At this point she said that all of the other notes that were written were done in a different pen and not in cursive. I suggested to her that the other notes were an after-thought to her note, and I remained skeptical than Lynn wrote it, or that Lynn intended to write the other notes to begin with.

Of course, I didn't conclude anything, but suggested she keep an eye out for more evidence. But this provides an example of how easily she took the common story that Lynn, the Operations Manager, was just pulling a prank on her employees before she went on vacation. That may be so, I said, but then why wouldn't she prepare all of the notes at once in the same pen and style of cursive? And why would she write "ED" over the heart unless she intended to frame Ed. I wondered if this woman wasn't into murder mysteries and thought she'd play one on her staff, but then when it got out of hand and everyone was excitably interrogating Ed she found a way to come clean, partially, by producing more notes and turning it into a quirky farewell. Alternatively, I said, perhaps Ed actually wrote the note and Lynn was covering for him. But I'm more apt to believe the former hypothesis until I see Ed's hand-writing or signature.

Point being, even as I proposed more depth to the story than what she had believed, the thought of such behavior caused her to not want to believe it. In a similar scenario; I noticed a side-wall bulge on her driver's side tire and thought that the structural anomaly could pose a safety risk. So I did a lot of research on tire maintenance and blow-outs, and talked to some people at work who are gear heads. What I concluded is that any bulge in the tire is an indication of structural failure, fractured steel straps and makes the tire prone to explosive decompression, especially at high speed. She drives her car down the highway to get to work every day. I explained what I'd discovered to her and she said "You are just trying to scare me into doing something." and an fucked up argument ensued.

Maybe you are right, and I spend my time with her in vain.

[Animus]

In regard to Jordan she said "I've notice some things about him." but apparently didn't notice anything in what he had written to me. She was quite defensive of him... I pointed to his facebook photographs as an indication of "some things about him." Jordan has a wide collection of photographs in which he is posing egotistically with rifle in hand, or next to his rice rocket, or maniacally smiling behind a sea of empty beer and booze bottles. Apparently none of this stood out to her as an indication of his habits of mind. He occasionally posts philosophically oriented sound-bytes or quotations, indicating some suppressed need to discover the truth earnestly, but she fails to realize that he isn't taking it at all seriously, yet. On one occasion he would write or copy a quotation on love, perhaps even unconditional love, but then when the circumstances permitted, he tried to be her hero and silence any truthful inquiry. Perhaps I should take her unwarranted defense of his conduct as an indication of a faulty judgement on her part. Ironically, I think, it is just as judgmental of her to suppose that Jordan is a good guy, than it is of me to suppose he is not really.

[Talking Ass]

Kunga wrote: "Today as i drove to work i was thinking how i dislike western philosophy & philosophers....i was always drawn towards eastern philosophy & philosophers..."

• This is a pan-cultural phenomenon.
• A whole generation, maybe a few, have felt a desire and a need to go against what exactly it is that makes them them.
• Isn't that curious?
• More curious about it is that it is not conscious.
• Really.
• It is something that people just began to do. Then, it became contageous.
• It spread into other people who, without really thinking it through, adopted it as praxis, as activity.
• Many, many people have given their lives to 'the East'.
• 'I don't like this harem, I'm moving to another harem!'
• It is a huge phenomenon of the West.
• It has many aspects, no doubt, but one of them is---unconsciously---to undermine.
• 'What?' you ask. 'Undermine what?'
• The answer is complex. Start with *everything*. The desire to undermine everything.
• The activity of undermining, of boring under, of working to undermine the foundations, is bound up with ressentiment.
• Ressentiment is, according to Nietzsche, 'feminine', female, womannish. It is the strategy of the weak one, the powerless one.
• Peculiar, isn't it?
• A great portion of Indian metaphysics is the stuff of pipe-dreams. Not all, but a great deal.
• Some would take issue with the ressentimentism of running from 'the real' to 'the unreal'.

[Beingof1]

Animus:
{quote]Amanda: I read a few Martin Luther King, Jr quotes yesterday. He seems like a very interesting fellow who has said lots of things that ring true.
We must develop and maintain the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love. There is some good in the worst of us and some evil in the best of us. When we discover this, we are less prone to hate our enemies. ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.
I do like that men of the infinite video, but I think you've posted it here already a few times. There is agape love and I do think that is the type of love you should have for everyone, but the fact remains, with a spouse or a child you will still have some maternal or romantic interest. The backbone should be based on agape, but the brain will make the rest happen with the help of oxytocin. You will favour your child over another child.
I am way more interested in you showing some agape love, then just reposting the same videos on my wall.[/quote]

This is the key quote to her hearts desire.

[Kunga]

i suppose the reason eastern philosophy attracted me more was because i was more interested in the Ultimate Truth than in Conventional Truth....although the reasoning may be subconscious (or unconscious)...to me it goes to show that there may be value in the unconscious (spiritual)...as opposed the the materialistic (conscious).

Any philosophy that invalidates woman as inferior is detrimental to harmony and peace in the UNIVERSE.
It seems to me that Ego has a very masculine connotation if the feminine is void of any substantial characteristics worthy of Enlightenment.
In that respect...it is only logical that the feminine mind is the source of Enlightenment...as The Void is Emptiness....

[Talking Ass]

• Eastern philosophy (say, Hindu, say Sri Aurobindo), allows for an exalted 'cosmic' view of woman while, in fact, it utterly keeps woman in an inferior, subservient place. India in that sense has been medievally backward.
• What has changed Indian culture, in this sense, is nothing in Eastern philosophy itself but the influence of the West.
• The West has, more than any other thought-system, offered woman a 'means of escape'---not theoretically, nor abstractly, but in concrete terms.
• Tangible materialism of the West has done this. Abstract, pipe-dreamy Hinduism has not.
• One of the greatest modern Indian influences was Gandhi.
• Gandhi is utterly beholden to Tolstoy, who is almost completley utterly a product of the West.
• I will grant you, though, that he is 'of the West' with a tinge of an Eastern mysticism.
• The other-worldy, Eastern religions, seem to need a materialistic 'lever' that comes from the West.
• The 'lever' is the element that changes everything.

[Kunga]

Eastern philosophy (say, Hindu, say Sri Aurobindo), allows for an exalted 'cosmic' view of woman while, in fact, it utterly keeps woman in an inferior, subservient place. India in that sense has been medievally backward.

That's true and a paradox...often puzzled me. I can only conclude that the majority of people are stuck in herd-mentality, and very few are deeply influenced by altruistic and spiritually advanced truths.

What has changed Indian culture, in this sense, is nothing in Eastern philosophy itself but the influence of the West.

And that influence in itself was brought on by women most likely....and men that have advanced enough to see the barbaric mentality that has supressed women .

[Talking Ass]

Kunga writes: "That's true and a paradox...often puzzled me. I can only conclude that the majority of people are stuck in herd-mentality, and very few are deeply influenced by altruistic and spiritually advanced truths."

• I'd rather suggest that, in contrast to the Judeo-Christian traditions, which 'command' concrete activity in a concrete world by a concrete individual who efforts and activities acutely matter, the Hindu---and perhaps many Eastern conceptions---do not really apply pressure to the individual. In what seems an important sense, the individual, in the East, is irrelevant. It doesn'y matter what the individual does or doesn't do because some radically *other* state is privelaged. ('Enlightenment', 'nirvana', etc.)
• But in the West, with a strong Judeo-Christian base, the nature and essence of an individual is essential and paramount. Also, the individual is commanded to *do*, to imitate the Divine Being, in the sense of 'do what He did'. If the spiritual ideal is 'liberation' of the individual, it is a tangible liberation that is strived for. Not a merely abstract and in that sense 'unreal', otherworldly liberation.
• Many Hindu religions suppress the individual, render the individual useless or superfluous. The conceptualization, the form of divinity, is seen as being complete and perfect and ever-existing. You as a person, as an actor on the stage of life are literally irrelevant. Or, you are essentially a 'walking problem'. You are asked to 'merge' with Godhead in some kind of inner level and you are therefor free to 'abandon' the world, to retreat from it, to have no responsibility for it.
• Jewish conception is radically different. And though it is expressed incompletely in Christian traditions still it shines through: Man's activity and existence in the world is by no means meaningless or irrelevant. What a man does or doesn't do is highly relevant and meaningful. The act of deciding to live in accord with divine principals is to become part of a pprocess of repair and restoration of the cosmos, of the world. Every single activity has therefore immediate relevance.
• This is quite in distinction to the Eastern traditions (speaking broadly) which seek to annihilate the individual, reduce the individual to a cog.
• In such a situation it is not hard to see why women and a woman could only have a strict service role. If the ideal of men is to serve the completed, ever-perfect God, there is really no sense to improvement in the world, hence stasis is admired.
• Hindu cutlure, by and large, thereby renders itself irrelevant, ineffective. Its central goal or aspiration is other-worldly: ie not of this world.

"And that influence in itself was brought on by women most likely....and men that have advanced enough to see the barbaric mentality that has supressed women."

• Don't count on it. Or, examine it more closely. The actual origin of the motive for the liberation of women did not come from women in the West. It arose from doctrines conceived by men. Also, it could be seen to stem from certain Biblical stories where women are portrayed as real actors who act in relation to or in response to God (or 'God' if you wish).
• The notion of 'real liberation' is part and parcel of the Prophetic traditions, and these traditions and ideas have operated in history in a way that utterly pales that of the East. The notion of Exodus is a movement from one physical state to another physical state---a lateral movement in time and space---during which the mentality of the people undergoes a radical, this-world transformation. When you combine such a 'sober spirituality' (the Jewish offering) with that of Greek science and blend it together in the mind's 'Alexandria', you get a tangible mix that literally goes out and remakes the world, from the ground up.
• It wouldn't be fair to describe the Indian culture's role for women as 'barbaric', if only because that reflects a chauvinism on your part. Who is the ultimate judge of such a thing? Rather, the strict and limited role for women fits into the general role for each social class (varnashrama), and this hierarchical ordering is a necessary outcome of the spiritual and religious concepts of that culture, and of that 'revelation'.
• It is predominantly, but not of course exclusively, the influence of Western men that has allowed for 'women's liberation' in the West. It is most likely advertising, with its mercantile necessity, that is now transforming the role of women in Indian culture. And this again arises in the Western context, as a branch of rhetoric and persuasion.
• Look. Or this. And this.
• Almost absolutely 'Western' moulding of culture through advertising. It is rational (masculine) activity on the inert and malleable 'feminine'.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I just spent over an hour composing a response, which got lost in cyberspace when I hit "preview." Since I am on someone else's computer, I could not save the post first. I apologize for the delay in my response, but I can't spend any more time on this today and don't know when I'll have access again.