Weininger

[Kunga]

I'd say that David Quinn's banning Carmel was an act of compassion towards her.

Could be....if he wanted to prevent her from creating bad karma for herself or himself. But if that was the case this form would be empty....and emptiness would be this form.

Why don't you explain the compassionate nature of why Carmel was banned.

I just think he got angry.

[Kunga]

• Boredom is the consciousness of repetition. - Osho

Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall

Or

Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter

?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Smashing a duality, which is what is happening on this board, will not smash conditioning.

Smashing a duality, especially the one of gender which is probably the duality most ingrained in our identities since birth, does go a long way to uncover nuances of other dualities that might not be so easily seen. Racism, for example, on the surface seemed to be, narrowing it down to black vs white which is the main division in America, that just some people think their race is superior and the other race sucks - and some people do think like that. What I uncovered is a sentiment that when they say white people make things hard on black people, they mean things like when GM closed plants in America and moved them overseas, it was white people that ultimately made that decision - and although it was both black and white people that suffered because of that, it was white people not black who made the decision, and black people did suffer because of it - and if a white person feels insulted by the general statement and can't figure out that the person making the statement didn't mean them personally, then that's the white person's fault.

It struck me how much that sentiment has in common with the WOMAN vs feminism (yes I know those are two different things but they tend to get heaped together during debates) arguments that I've heard. Yes there are differences - like calling whites bad for the actions of a few powerful people vs calling men greater by holding up the examples of a few mental giants, combined with the general sentiment that blacks have been held back being to blame for there not being so many black high achievers, though there have been some - similar to the sentiment that women have been held back, etc.

But the point here is that not so many heavy doors have to be crashed down to at least understand what is being said, rather than just getting flustered by insinuations that sound rather insulting.

[Kunga]

sorry ...i was thinking on the lines of this boring life ...all the repititious seasons... eon after eon....isn't it the nature of life to keep repeating itself ? Are you bored every time it rains ?

Only children get bored. Adults make lemon out of lemonade.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

• Boredom is the consciousness of repetition. - Osho

Winter Spring Summer Fall or Winter Winter Winter Winter?

Woman Woman Woman . Woman . Com

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Only children get bored. Adults make lemon out of lemonade.

And women end up running back to their emotional support group, moaning about the asshole she finally managed to leave and that she can't believe she fell for another fake.

Such things also never change.

[Kunga]

Woman......the other half of the sky ....

[Weininger.....reborn as John Lennon]

[Pam Seeback]

Smashing a duality, which is what is happening on this board, will not smash conditioning.

Elisabeth Isabelle: Smashing a duality, especially the one of gender which is probably the duality most ingrained in our identities since birth, does go a long way to uncover nuances of other dualities that might not be so easily seen.

This very well may be true, but I do not see the smashing of the duality of gender on this board, I see the attempt to smash of one-half of the duality of gender, that of the feminine. Which, to me, is a demonstration of a lack of wisdom of the nature of dualism. Which translates, to me, into a demonstration of a lack of wisdom of the nature of the infinite. True wisdom of dualism and of the infinite is the wisdom that addresses the primary dualism, which is not that of gender, but that of the subject-object mental divide. It is from this 'first' dual split of subject-object that all other dualities emerge. This is the wisdom lacking on the Genius board of genius of the absolute/infinite.

Elisabeth Isabelle: Racism, for example, on the surface seemed to be, narrowing it down to black vs white which is the main division in America, that just some people think their race is superior and the other race sucks - and some people do think like that. What I uncovered is a sentiment that when they say white people make things hard on black people, they mean things like when GM closed plants in America and moved them overseas, it was white people that ultimately made that decision - and although it was both black and white people that suffered because of that, it was white people not black who made the decision, and black people did suffer because of it - and if a white person feels insulted by the general statement and can't figure out that the person making the statement didn't mean them personally, then that's the white person's fault.

The above example is an example of the duality of good and evil and of how complex and self-righteous existence within this duality can become. I return to the primary dualism of subject-object: if one has transcended the original split of I-other, if even for a moment, then he or she will never look at the color or shape or sex of form in in the same way again.

But the point here is that not so many heavy doors have to be crashed down to at least understand what is being said, rather than just getting flustered by insinuations that sound rather insulting.

Do you not think that the human mind loves its heavy doors of duality debate? It is my own experience that the human mind is loathe to let go of its heaviness of its race and/or gender good and evil debate because it is terrified of facing its own subjective-objective [ego] death. I believe this terror exists because of the belief that the outcome of dying to one's subject-object awareness is that one will be sentenced to some hellish place of 'no thought.' Not so. But one has to be willing to go directly to the first subject-object door and step over its threshold before the wisdom of the language of duality-reconciliation, of spiritual love, is revealed.

[Kunga]

Only children get bored. Adults make lemon out of lemonade.

And women end up running back to their emotional support group, moaning about the asshole she finally managed to leave and that she can't believe she fell for another fake.

Such things also never change.

Men's clubs also will never change.

The funny thing is.....aren't we all fake ?

[Dennis Mahar]

This very well may be true, but I do not see the smashing of the duality of gender on this board, I see the attempt to smash of one-half of the duality of gender, that of the feminine. Which, to me, is a demonstration of a lack of wisdom of the nature of dualism. Which translates, to me, into a demonstration of a lack of wisdom of the nature of the infinite. True wisdom of dualism and of the infinite is the wisdom that addresses the primary dualism, which is not that of gender, but that of the subject-object mental divide. It is from this 'first' dual split of subject-object that all other dualities emerge. This is the wisdom lacking on the Genius board of genius of the absolute/infinite.

You too are missing the point.

As well as that you are also making the forum wrong (duality) for dealing with conditioning in the way it does.
Do you see that?
If you do...why?

[cousinbasil]

The funny thing is.....aren't we all fake ?

Not really. You might be, though.

[guest_of_logic]

Hi Robert,

guest_of_logic: Carmel is right to challenge the extremes of the chauvinism that gets preached here and then defended through weaselling

Robert: You know, that's another one of those blanket assertions that aren't all that helpful.

It was more than just a blanket assertion: it was an assertion built on the previous two supporting paragraphs.

If it were true, then you'd be right, but the reality isn't quite so clear cut. It makes sense to dismiss those who have the wrong end of the stick, but not to dismiss the source of confusion just because they are confused about it. In other words, yes it would be right to denounce extreme male chauvinism and those who promote it, when it is clearly identified as such. And how is this notion defined, for you?

Rather than construct a definition, I'll point you to one of my past posts containing some quotes which define it pretty well. Note in particular the first quote, by Weininger himself, which quote is perhaps the best concise definition of extreme male chauvinism out of the lot: "However degraded a man may be, he is immeasurably above the most superior woman". Now, tell me, Robert, after reading through those quotes, and that one in particular, what is your reaction to them? Do you find them reasonable and truthful? I hope you're brave enough to answer, because Dennis, another QRS sympathiser, wasn't (I hope I'm not going too far by placing you as a QRS sympathiser, but you tend to object to criticism of them, so at the very least it doesn't seem to be far from the truth).

Thank you for that excerpt - it looks like the whole thing would be worth reading.

[Kunga]

The funny thing is.....aren't we all fake ?

Not really. You might be, though.

Ultimately speaking...what's the difference between you and I ?

[Kelly Jones]

Pam, sorry for the delay in responding, but it's jarringly different to how the thread unfolded. I didn't wish to interrupt things. Your more recent discussion with Elizabeth is more "sympathetic", and I think that direction (plus Laird's) is worth following-through on here.

However, if you'd like me to respond to it anyway, feel free to start a new thread with that post (page 2 of this thread, I think).

[Kelly Jones]

So, here's what our battery of cognitive tests needs to ascertain:
* that women are fools and intellectual insects (some kind of intelligence testing)
* that women are "barely human" for some definition of what it means to be cognitively "human" (we could consult with Kevin on that definition)
* that women throughout their lives remain in a state comparable to a child or an animal (some kind of general coping and life skills testing).

For the first and second tests, Poison for the Heart gives the definition of wisdom, throughout, including where the comments are critiques of folly, which indicates what is not, and therefore why women are fools; and of what "human" means (see Stages of the Way). As for the naivete or limited mindfulness of a child or animal, this correlation is something one has to observe, but again from a basis of a higher consciousness.

That last bit is the most important. As Carmel so perceptively wrote, "As for how I see women and men qualitatively, I don't see much difference at all, but that is simply a reflection of my experience."

Has anyone ever made a direct correlation between the consciousness of women and rocks? I don't think so. If they did, it would be totally stupid.

I wrote that the instinctive "rationality" of women (that they behave according to causes) is like the rationality of rocks falling down a hill according to their causes. Carmel mistakenly thought I was calling women rocks, whereas I was showing the unconscious and uncontemplative way of that instinct was like that of rocks. She does things like this - which is imperceptive, emotional, and poorly reasoned. For some reason, she seems to think her perception and her experience ought to be that of everyone, and, even more arrogantly, that she is a highly rational person, and therefore able to judge precisely what is being analysed. Yet she is often unable to present reasoning processes, clarify her intuitions, or test the validity of any impressions. She is quick to judge, in an absence of evidence, and has a very limited awareness of the nature of the identities she is dealing with.

What exactly is that supposed to mean, Dan? What is a "direct" correlation and how is it different from an "indirect" correlation? It looks like you're trying to say something like, "Well, nobody's ever said a woman's consciousness is exactly equivalent to that of a rock" - but how is this supposed to save the comparison from being odious?

The comparison isn't odious. Getting offended when foolishness is correctly identified is itself very foolish.

Is it not blindingly obvious that such comparisons, to whatever extent they are made, are unwarranted and offensive? The import of being as conscious as a rock is having no consciousness at all: however you try to ameliorate this with "indirectness", it's hardly a realistic and fair comparison, is it?

Blessed is he who is not offended.

The problem with the Woman philosophy here, and particularly with your defence of it, Dan, is that it goes to extremes and makes direct and ugly comment on biological women, and yet you and/or other adherents will defend it as "contextual" or "talking about women of either gender". What a load of rot, when science and genetics in particular are brought into it so as to make it clear that biological women are the target of the critique.

How many times has it been said to you that the blame for women's unconsciousness is squarely directed at men? Yet you still can't handle this, and prefer to turn it into a critique on women alone.

Carmel is right to challenge the extremes of the chauvinism that gets preached here and then defended through weaselling: she calls it simply as it is, and for that it looks like she's going to get the standard treatment, a banning.

You are wrong to judge everyone else's values and standards based on your experience, particularly since your own reasoning is not perfect.


.

[Robert]

Now, tell me, Robert, after reading through those quotes, and that one in particular ["However degraded a man may be, he is immeasurably above the most superior woman" - Weininger], what is your reaction to them? Do you find them reasonable and truthful?

From my perspective, yes I do. It's not so difficult to key into the root meaning of those quotes if the reader can pierce beyond the surface.

If it helps, I often think about the terms masculine and feminine, woman and man, as equivalent to vertical and horizontal, up and down, north and south. Direct contrasts, like opposite points on a spectrum, yet there is this middle ground where boundaries begin to blur and distinctions can be difficult to determine, but can be perceived if examined closely enough. Where these distinctions exist, at this meeting point, is where I understand "QRS" to hold a quite singular voice on internet philosophy discussion boards, a point that speaks directly to either gender, is itself without sex, but grammatically masculine. Honestly, I see it as practically a banal topic, it's so obvious that the utility in concentrating on this thorny subject of misogyny and its common perception is bound to rub some people the wrong way it's almost as if it's a form of hazing in itself, a right of initiation, a proof of rationale to read between the lines.

[Dan Rowden]

Has anyone ever made a direct correlation between the consciousness of women and rocks? I don't think so. If they did, it would be totally stupid.

I wrote that the instinctive "rationality" of women (that they behave according to causes) is like the rationality of rocks falling down a hill according to their causes. Carmel mistakenly thought I was calling women rocks, whereas I was showing the unconscious and uncontemplative way of that instinct was like that of rocks. She does things like this - which is imperceptive, emotional, and poorly reasoned.

This sort of thing is very common, though. People respond to words and ignore the meaning and context. I'm quite sure she told the truth when she said she'd read Sex and Character, but I'm equally sure she only did so for the sake of being able to say that she had.

Anyway, she's getting all her ranting and venting out of her system elsewhere now. I guess it's good that there's a place for her to do that.

[guest_of_logic]

guest_of_logic: Now, tell me, Robert, after reading through those quotes, and that one in particular ["However degraded a man may be, he is immeasurably above the most superior woman" - Weininger], what is your reaction to them? Do you find them reasonable and truthful?

Robert: From my perspective, yes I do. It's not so difficult to key into the root meaning of those quotes if the reader can pierce beyond the surface.

Well, that was bold of you, to identify with a bunch of quotes that essentially say, "Women are worthless in every sense that counts, including intellectually, spiritually and morally". That's what those quotes are from my perspective, no matter what spin is applied to them.

If it helps, I often think about the terms masculine and feminine, woman and man, as equivalent to vertical and horizontal, up and down, north and south. Direct contrasts, like opposite points on a spectrum, yet there is this middle ground where boundaries begin to blur and distinctions can be difficult to determine, but can be perceived if examined closely enough.

I see, so you basically go with the man/masculine = everything noble, moral, rational and worthy; woman/feminine = everything ignoble, amoral, irrational/emotional and worthless? Where did you get such a debased notion of the feminine from? And how are you able to so readily ignore the failings in men?

No one can deny that men with their masculine power have achieved great things in this world, but to maintain that masculinity is without its flaws is just blind: the will to power and the territorial aggressiveness that goes with it have resulted in much suffering as a result of warfare and other forms of violence and/or injustice.

Likewise, to assert that femininity is devoid of its own value (independent of and not in opposition to masculine power) is just churlish. At the very least, femininity can be seen as a balancing, stabilising force for harmony.

Where these distinctions exist, at this meeting point, is where I understand "QRS" to hold a quite singular voice on internet philosophy discussion boards, a point that speaks directly to either gender, is itself without sex, but grammatically masculine.

I'm not sure what you mean by "at this meeting point". Do you mean the meeting point that is GF? Or do you mean the place where the distinctions meet?

Honestly, I see it as practically a banal topic, it's so obvious that the utility in concentrating on this thorny subject of misogyny and its common perception is bound to rub some people the wrong way it's almost as if it's a form of hazing in itself, a right of initiation, a proof of rationale to read between the lines.

Reading both the lines themselves and between the lines, I see an irrational devaluation of not just femininity in general but of biological women specifically, often in very concrete terms (for example, Kevin speculates in PFTH that the problems with women are due to their genetic make-up - clearly indicating that he's referring directly to biological women and not some "philosophical feminine principle" or what have you).

Everything that QRS seem to want to say in philosophical terms about the value of rationally based conscious thought as distinguished from emotionally driven, irrational urges can be said completely without reference to gender. The fact that gender is brought into it and that biological women are specifically referenced indicates that there's more to it than just a philosophical paradigm of consciousness versus unconsciousness: there is at work here a very real and emotionally-driven prejudice against women.

Anyway, I came into this thread mainly to express my support for Carmel, and I don't really feel like rehashing this topic all that much, so forgive me if I don't continue to respond in detail.

[Dan Rowden]

And how are you able to so readily ignore the failings in men?

More to the point, and such a salient point it is, how are you able to continually ignore the fact that the analysis of the feminine isn't - ever - just about [biological] women?

[guest_of_logic]

And how are you able to so readily ignore the failings in men?

More to the point, and such a salient point it is, how are you able to continually ignore the fact that the analysis of the feminine isn't - ever - just about [biological] women?

Reread my second to last paragraph, particularly its first sentence, and you'll see that I don't ignore that, my point is simply that any philosophical points of that ilk that you might care to make need not reference gender, and the fact that they do and that (biological) women clearly and demonstrably are made into objects of (scathing - witness "intellectual insects") criticism indicates a deeper and more emotional prejudice against them (biological women).

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I do not see the smashing of the duality of gender on this board, I see the attempt to smash of one-half of the duality of gender, that of the feminine.

You don't see the smashing at all - you are still tripped up by the bashing. It's hard to see this at first, but the bashing of the feminine makes it easier in the long run for biological women and traditional men who get a sword through their heart at the thought that a woman might so much as get her feelings hurt.

Of course it is not so helpful for males with an actual superiority complex, but I won't get into that now.

True wisdom of dualism and of the infinite is the wisdom that addresses the primary dualism, which is not that of gender, but that of the subject-object mental divide. It is from this 'first' dual split of subject-object that all other dualities emerge.

Yes, but anyone with a grain of chance of really experiencing that kind of wisdom gets it on that level. Understanding that as a concept is like getting a C on a wisdom test (as opposed to just being able to parrot that, which merits a D).

To even get a C+, you would have to demonstrate some skill in not forgetting this, not having delusions shake your holding of this in your spirit - the WOMAN philosophy is, where there is truth in there if you come to find it and understand it - more of an exercise to strengthen a person in walking through all the other delusions - race, truth, truthfulness, reality - all of them.

This is the wisdom lacking on the Genius board of genius of the absolute/infinite.

That's here too, though it does not stick out like a sore thumb, as the WOMAN concept does. The sore thumb is needed though, because pain can serve to wake a person up more completely.

The above example is an example of the duality of good and evil and of how complex and self-righteous existence within this duality can become. I return to the primary dualism of subject-object: if one has transcended the original split of I-other, if even for a moment, then he or she will never look at the color or shape or sex of form in in the same way again.

Uh, yeah - did you see the part where I said that this was just another example? I'm trying to say that there are millions of examples - we don't really have to work through each one individually.

Do you not think that the human mind loves its heavy doors of duality debate?

Yes, the human mind loves delusion. So? We're working on getting past delusion here.

I believe this terror exists because of the belief that the outcome of dying to one's subject-object awareness is that one will be sentenced to some hellish place of 'no thought.' Not so. But one has to be willing to go directly to the first subject-object door and step over its threshold before the wisdom of the language of duality-reconciliation, of spiritual love, is revealed.

C-

I often think about the terms masculine and feminine, woman and man, as equivalent to vertical and horizontal, up and down, north and south. Direct contrasts, like opposite points on a spectrum, yet there is this middle ground where boundaries begin to blur and distinctions can be difficult to determine, but can be perceived if examined closely enough. Where these distinctions exist, at this meeting point, is where I understand "QRS" to hold a quite singular voice on internet philosophy discussion boards, a point that speaks directly to either gender, is itself without sex, but grammatically masculine. Honestly, I see it as practically a banal topic, it's so obvious that the utility in concentrating on this thorny subject of misogyny and its common perception is bound to rub some people the wrong way it's almost as if it's a form of hazing in itself, a right of initiation, a proof of rationale to read between the lines.

That's really clear and rather good - though as evidenced by responses already, the thorniness prevents some from even seeing what you are saying. To an extent, getting through it is a proof - but I still say that it is the getting through it that functions as an exercise. Kind of like doing math problems gets one better at doing math problems, and doing them right on the test proves that you've mastered that step and are ready for the next level of math.

[Robert]

I see, so you basically go with the man/masculine = everything noble, moral, rational and worthy; woman/feminine = everything ignoble, amoral, irrational/emotional and worthless? Where did you get such a debased notion of the feminine from? And how are you able to so readily ignore the failings in men?

I don't think about it exactly like that Laird. I mean I can separate actual men and women from the concept, from what the words masculine/feminine mean in the context of abstract thought constructions. That's basically the point, as I see it, in cajoling the mind into thinking things through from a perspective that's unfamiliar and delicate to navigate, but has definite value if improving the quality of thought is important enough for an individual. At any rate, it's inevitable to address gender issues at some point if one is genuinely serious about philosophy, even if the manner in which it's approached may be unusual for many. I view critical thought as learning how to identify and distinguish strawman arguments from valid criticism, which is generally easy enough to establish when definitions are clear and not (too) ambiguous, but which clearly isn't always the case when it comes notions of gender.

I'm not sure what you mean by "at this meeting point". Do you mean the meeting point that is GF? Or do you mean the place where the distinctions meet?

The latter.

Anyway, I came into this thread mainly to express my support for Carmel, and I don't really feel like rehashing this topic all that much, so forgive me if I don't continue to respond in detail.

Fair enough. I'm not sure I agree that banning Carmel was a good idea. David asked her to leave, which she didn't want to do apparently, which seems to me a sure sign that she thought something was worthwhile about staying around. Banning her only allowed her to justify her own prejudices, instead of leaving the door open to address them. Whatever, maybe I'm being too generous.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I don't think about it exactly like that Laird. I mean I can separate actual men and women from the concept, from what the words masculine/feminine mean in the context of abstract thought constructions. That's basically the point, as I see it, in cajoling the mind into thinking things through from a perspective that's unfamiliar and delicate to navigate, but has definite value if improving the quality of thought is important enough for an individual.

The question could also arise if actual men and women do even exist. Or animals and humans, cloud and air, and so on. Weininger for one proposed that what was actual was more like principal, reason and as such character, "moral volition" and so on. The whole sensual reality and categorizing is derived from valuing, at each and every level. So the value "man" or "masculine" would have more reality and relevance than common gender discussions, which might be just a weak substrate from the values at stake: as derivatives.

But since most people are thinking in terms of "I feel so it must be real", or are born and raised within a certain conceptual god-given model they relate all their knowledge to, it cannot be escaped some attachments will be challenged when departing from this model to one of existence, constance and pure value, and derive all else from that.

[Robert]

I don't think about it exactly like that Laird. I mean I can separate actual men and women from the concept, from what the words masculine/feminine mean in the context of abstract thought constructions. That's basically the point, as I see it, in cajoling the mind into thinking things through from a perspective that's unfamiliar and delicate to navigate, but has definite value if improving the quality of thought is important enough for an individual.

The question could also arise if actual men and women do even exist. Or animals and humans, cloud and air, and so on. Weininger for one proposed that what was actual was more like principal, reason and as such character, "moral volition" and so on. The whole sensual reality and categorizing is derived from valuing, at each and every level. So the value "man" or "masculine" would have more reality and relevance than common gender discussions, which might be just a weak substrate from the values at stake: as derivatives.

But since most people are thinking in terms of "I feel so it must be real", or are born and raised within a certain conceptual god-given model they relate all their knowledge to, it cannot be escaped some attachments will be challenged when departing from this model to one of existence, constance and pure value, and derive all else from that.

The irony is that those who appear to be the most offended and who show the most indignation are often the very same who start out wanting to challenge their own attachments in order to attain answers, peace, nirvana, enlightenment or whatever from states of emotional angst in the first place. It's comical in fact. They tend to forget that they themselves wanted this, that they signed up for the whole hog, and now that a truly difficult patch of ground is opened up to them, they lose all sense of mission and perspective since it represents a level of engagement with an aspect of existence that probably never occured to them beforehand, and which can offer so much meaning if the commitment to a non-confused state of mind is kept in full view. They'll dip their toes in the water, but if it isn't warm enough, they're not diving in.

[Kelly Jones]

Good point there, Robert, regarding that fear of dipping even one's little toe in the waters of self-abandonment, let alone crossing over.

As to Dave's banning of Carmel, he didn't forbid her return. People fluctuate, and Carmel was in the hells. She had no respect for reason in that incarnation. So I believe he's taken the initiative of helping her control herself, and go away for a break to get her moods and thoughts in better shape. When she's made some progress and reborn closer to the human realms, I'm quite sure she'd be made very welcome.

Personally, I believe Carmel does indeed have a genuine interest in the path of enlightenment, but she knows she has become too settled in her distancing ways to make some serious sacrifices. She finds comfort in the role of critic, or academic, rather than putting herself in the wild and socially-taboo'd stream. It manifests as unwillingness to be decisive about her interest in wisdom in an either/or manner. Namely, to reject worldliness. To abandon life. It's that kind of uncertainty and cowardice that causes her to fear "crossing over". As you put it, to dip even her little toe into the waters. The abandoning of unconsciousness, as expressed in the misogynist paradigm (rejecting feminine dimensions of mind), is therefore too much for her.

One can see this dynamic in the startling difference between her style, tone, and quality of thought when discussing any topic, except the nature of woman. Generally she is laconic, a bit detached, hard-nosed, and at times displays a fine-pointed quality of reason. Particularly strong during those times is her awareness of the difference between the scientific method, and the philosophical. Her memory is also very good, and she picks up on actual discrepancies (rather than straw-men) in what people have said. However, as soon as she engages in discussion on the feminine in relation to philosophy, she becomes very emotional, she becomes forgetful, perceives phantom menaces, and her reasoning goes claggy. She has actually entered into hell, and sees ghostly threats everywhere.

People may believe my analysis is condescending, but I have memories of Sue Hindmarsh doing me a similar favour in late 2005. She pointed out that my interest in wisdom was still superficial, because I hadn't really let my understanding do its "dirty work". She could see I was still battling constructions of mind, and agitating for achievement (as Nietzsche says, "beneath us violence and purpose and guilt steam like rain") rather than letting awareness of the infinitude of causation deeply etch itself in my being. I was rather grumpy at Sue for a while, but I pondered what she said, and intuitively felt she had hit something true. Even though it wounded my pride.

It's up to Carmel whether she wants to regress and take comfort from false friends, or accept she has some work to do. Even if she leaves open the possibility that her personal stagnancy on the path of wisdom is tied to her agitation over the woman question, that would be one baby step forwards.


.