Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

[Laird]

Weininger argues that ... [t]he male aspect is active, productive, conscious and moral/logical, while the female aspect is passive, unproductive, unconscious and amoral/alogical.

This is not even an argument, it's simply an abstract model that he happens to like, probably because of some psychological bias against women. It's not the only way to model masculinity and femininity. Furthermore it is objectionable and should be rejected as an appropriate model on the basis that it ascribes wholly negative characteristics to femininity and wholly positive characteristics to masculinity, whereas in the real world we find a mixture of good and bad in men and women. Femininity and masculinity are to some extent contrived abstractions. This particular contrivance is an unfair, belittling one smacking of spite.

[T]he duty of the male, or the masculine aspect of personality, is to strive to become a genius

A noble striving and one that I can't find fault with. Weininger's writings on genius are of a vastly superior quality to his writings on masculinity and femininity.

and to forego sexuality for an abstract love of the absolute, God, which he finds within himself.

Why forgo one for the other? What prevents engagement with both? Can't sexuality be viewed as an expression of God? (I haven't yet read this part of Weininger's book: perhaps my questions are answered within it)

[Jamesh]

Laird said

...denial of the importance of engaging in life; denial of the importance of engaging with others; denial of the value and role of emotion...

If you look at it another way however, it is the opposite of that. Your emotions are just thoughts in your head. Everything you are is just thoughts in your head. You only know pain when you have the thought of pain.

Therefore to fully engage in life, all one has to do is have thoughts. It then becomes a question of the nature of those thoughts. We want to do things that interest us. You want love because it seems natural to desire it. The QRS sought truth because it seemed natural to them to desire it.

We are not gods that could categorically state which one is better or worse than the other, as it is an individual matter. It is the right of the person to choose. If followers of reality are caused to believe in memes that are not quite correct, then so be it. At least they are thinking more in relation to an whole of society level, rather than a "whats in it for me" egocentric perspective. It is up to philosophers to independantly determine where people are heading - no-one else is doing it.

The difference is that the QRS, in the seeking and understanding of truths of reality, move well past learnt memes and thus have more freedom to rationalise from a less constrained mental base.

Love is a bloated concept. It is real, in an instinctual sense, there is intense infatuation and the caring love of family and so on, but romantic love has been made out to be more than it really is. After a while love can turn a loved one into an optional family member. When religions supressed sex, romantic love started to become a fantasy, and once it became a fantasy it became marketable. We are bombarded with such marketing from birth.

Still, once one can see through current societal memes, this does not mean that all such memes are wrong. One can select those that seem beneficial and those that do not, on a more holistic level than a self-involved person can. For instance, currently love of X, Y and Z appears to be ruining the world. The X, Y, Zs all involve some form of self love though.

Anyway, once a person finds value in truth, in the deepest most widely applicable truths, it makes perfect sense not to pollute, with emotional ego-driven ups and downs, one's ability to apply these truths to their thoughts as they relate to the ways of the world. The degree to which one desires to do this is an individual matter.

Some people get lost in this world of thinking, they lose their rationality, whereas some don't. It is their choice however, not ours. I for one have decided not to even attempt to entirely abandon emotions, but rather I prefer to experience them less directly as a third party voyeur [and many of those who post on forums are doing the same thing]. I can still get a smile or shed a tear from the actions of others. It is just that the level of insanity in society is a bit much for me to tolerate directly.

[Kevin Solway]

Why forgo one for the other? What prevents engagement with both? Can't sexuality be viewed as an expression of God?

To understand the answer to this question you would need to understand exactly what God is, and especially your relationship to God. I don't believe you really want to know such things, and therefore you won't be able to have an answer to your question.

[Imadrongo]

The source of all spirituality and religion is from some lacking in life.

"Your emotions are just thoughts in your head. Everything you are is just thoughts in your head." -- Everything is not a thought in our head, that is not logical. Is your head also a thought in your head? And even supposing this were true, it doesn't refute anything to say it is a thought in your head; why do you devalue thoughts in one's head?

"The difference is that the QRS, in the seeking and understanding of truths of reality, move well past learnt memes and thus have more freedom to rationalise from a less constrained mental base." -- Utter nonsense.

"When religions supressed sex..." -- Like QRS.

"Anyway, once a person finds value in truth, in the deepest most widely applicable truths..." -- All religions find some higher truth, all of them based on errors, QRS included.

"...it makes perfect sense not to pollute, with emotional ego-driven ups and downs, one's ability to apply these truths to their thoughts as they relate to the ways of the world. The degree to which one desires to do this is an individual matter." -- No, it doesn't inherently make sense. Emotion is pollution? Thoughts are better than emotions or actions??

"It is just that the level of insanity in society is a bit much for me to tolerate directly." -- The insanity is yours pal.

[Imadrongo]

I don't normally say this to anyone, but Laid, you really need to go out into the world, find a girlfriend and get laid.

David: You aren't fooling anyone with this tone.

[Laird]

Laird: Why forgo one for the other? What prevents engagement with both? Can't sexuality be viewed as an expression of God?

Kevin: To understand the answer to this question you would need to understand exactly what God is, and especially your relationship to God. I don't believe you really want to know such things

And I'm sorry to hear that you're under such a misapprehension. Absolutely I want to know such things. And I already know your "knowledge" of these things, I just don't accept that it is of necessity "absolute truth". For all I know you're right, but you certainly haven't (because it's impossible) proved it.

and therefore you won't be able to have an answer to your question.

Nevermind, I'm used to your evasiveness by now Kev. If you can't be bothered thinking up an answer then by all means say so or simply don't respond - I won't hold it against you. But please don't play this game of "you wouldn't be able to understand anyway" - I think by now I've proven that I have a reasonably good handle on QRS-think.

Jamesh: I'm quite drained right now but I'll probably respond to your post tomorrow. No promises though.

[Kelly Jones]

it is objectionable and should be rejected as an appropriate model on the basis that it ascribes wholly negative characteristics to femininity and wholly positive characteristics to masculinity, whereas in the real world we find a mixture of good and bad in men and women. Femininity and masculinity are to some extent contrived abstractions.

Weininger goes to great lengths to avoid misinterpretations, like yours. For example, in the preface, he says he'd be horrified if his book destroyed something positive:

And if in this wider context it becomes apparent how small the chances are that culture can be weaved together with the nature of woman, if the ultimate conclusion means a complete devaluation, yes, a negation of womanhood: nothing is sought to be destroyed through it, [of] what is, nothing to be degraded, what has a value in itself. Indeed a certain horror would even have to come over me at my own deed were I here really merely a destroyer and nothing would remain in the plan!
---- from Rob Willis' literal translation

And if in this wider sense it be proved that culture can give only the smallest hope for the nature of woman, if the final results are a depreciation, even a negation of womanhood, there will be no attempt in this to destroy what exists, to humble what has a value of its own. Horror of my own deed would overtake me were I here only destructive and had I left only a clean sheet. Perhaps the affirmations in my book are less articulate, but he that has ears to hear will hear them.
---- from the Heinemann translation

Why forgo one for the other? What prevents engagement with both? Can't sexuality be viewed as an expression of God? (I haven't yet read this part of Weininger's book: perhaps my questions are answered within it)

Weininger's book is all of it about the difference between genius and sexuality.

One thing that marks a genius: he recognises that his problems are his own to solve, so he doesn't need affirmation or support. He just goes ahead and works his pathway out alone.

For this, sexuality is irrelevant.


Kelly
[formatting]

[Laird]

Weininger goes to great lengths to avoid misinterpretations. For example, in the preface, he says he'd be horrified if his book destroyed something positive

The only reason that he didn't end up being horrified then is because the majority of the human race is too sensible to fall for his misogyny.

One thing that marks a genius: he recognises that his problems are his own to solve, so he doesn't need affirmation or support. He just goes ahead and works his pathway out alone.

Is any person so perfect that no one else can improve upon what that person has done or help em in any way? Is any person so detached that words of affirmation and support can not assist em? I'm not saying that we should be hounds for affection, but I do think that appropriate honest words can lift and inspire the most detached of people.

For this, sexuality is irrelevant.

Whether or not sexuality is relevant to problem-solving is not the question. The question is whether sexuality is relevant to you as a feeling human being.

[Kelly Jones]

What Weininger is saying is that culture is man striving to understand life.

He describes in great detail that the active contributions to culture by females, are paltry. He does it without malice.

And I posit that the last 105 years since, are little different.

There are still next-to-zilch females contributing anything to culture. In more modern times, academic females, like Anscombe or O'Neill are just repeating tripe that others have fed them; the feminists like Cavendish, Kristeva, Irigaray, Millett, Firestone and so on haven't got anywhere near an understanding of Life, or Nature; and the spiritualists like Tenzin Palmo or Pema Chodron aren't remotely interested in it either. Nothing has changed.

Engaging in Life, or Nature, (and creating naturalistic, life-oriented philosophies) is not something women do. They prefer the past-time paradise, wasting time doing absolutely nothing.

This is why Weininger's book doesn't actually say anything negative about women. There is nothing valuable or positive in Woman that can be destroyed.

I do think that appropriate honest words can lift and inspire the most detached of people.

Only if they've got their thinking caps on.

Whether or not sexuality is relevant to problem-solving is not the question. The question is whether sexuality is relevant to you as a feeling human being.

Laird, I'll be honest with you, since I know you find that inspiring and uplifting. :)

First, I'm not a feeling human being.

Second, and I'll be direct: You have a penchant for projecting your psychology onto others. This seems to be why you get upset when members of the forum don't support or affirm your needs. But this is silly. All one need do, who's in your position, is deal with the issue alone. It's no one else's issue. Just go ahead and solve it. Be separate from others. No vindictiveness - that wastes energy. You know in your own mind what needs to be done.

Take responsibility for yourself. It's much more dignified.


Kelly

[formatting]

[Kevin Solway]

I already know your "knowledge" of these things

You are deluding yourself.

If you knew all about God, you wouldn't be asking the questions you are.

[Laird]

You are deluding yourself.

And you're still evading my question.

[Laird]

James,

I found the energy to respond tonight after all.

Therefore to fully engage in life, all one has to do is have thoughts.

I disagree. Engaging in life also involves interacting with other people and also involves manipulating physical reality.

You want love because it seems natural to desire it. The QRS sought truth because it seemed natural to them to desire it.

You say that as though I am not interested in truth either: I am. I don't see why we have to erect a false dichotomy between love and truth. We can and should have both.

It is up to philosophers to independantly determine where people are heading - no-one else is doing it.

I wouldn't have used the word "independantly [sic] determine", I would rather have used the phrase "influence and persuade through reasoned argument", but I generally agree with your sentiments.

The difference is that the QRS, in the seeking and understanding of truths of reality, move well past learnt memes and thus have more freedom to rationalise from a less constrained mental base.

They do seem to have some novel things to say, such as their postulation that the universe stretches indefinitely in both temporal directions, although I can't really be sure that this isn't an existing meme - it's at least one that I can't remember coming across before (possibly Buddhist?). The problem with QRS "rationalisations" though is that they are in many cases arbitrary yet they are presented as absolutes. QRS have indeed exercised their freedom but now by promoting their somewhat arbitrary findings as "absolutes" what freedom do they grant to others? If one doesn't subscribe to their definitions, concepts and conclusions one is "deluded". They promote "thinking for oneself" when what they really mean is "coming around to our way of thinking".

Love is a bloated concept. It is real, in an instinctual sense, there is intense infatuation and the caring love of family and so on, but romantic love has been made out to be more than it really is. After a while love can turn a loved one into an optional family member. When religions supressed sex, romantic love started to become a fantasy, and once it became a fantasy it became marketable. We are bombarded with such marketing from birth.

I agree with this to some extent although I reckon that romantic love can be pretty spectacular per my (very limited) experience. Perhaps I will be able to get back to you more authoritatively in a few years when I (hopefully) have some more real-life long-term experience.

Still, once one can see through current societal memes, this does not mean that all such memes are wrong. One can select those that seem beneficial and those that do not, on a more holistic level than a self-involved person can. For instance, currently love of X, Y and Z appears to be ruining the world. The X, Y, Zs all involve some form of self love though.

Yes, one of the big problems of the modern world is love of X, Y and Z without concern for how that love impacts on other people and animals, for example loving consumer goods that have been produced unethically.

Anyway, once a person finds value in truth, in the deepest most widely applicable truths, it makes perfect sense not to pollute, with emotional ego-driven ups and downs, one's ability to apply these truths to their thoughts as they relate to the ways of the world. The degree to which one desires to do this is an individual matter.

Emotion need not be viewed as "pollution" - it can be viewed as a source of power and guidance and as an intrinsically valuable part of the human experience.

Some people get lost in this world of thinking, they lose their rationality, whereas some don't. It is their choice however, not ours. I for one have decided not to even attempt to entirely abandon emotions, but rather I prefer to experience them less directly as a third party voyeur [and many of those who post on forums are doing the same thing]. I can still get a smile or shed a tear from the actions of others. It is just that the level of insanity in society is a bit much for me to tolerate directly.

I don't quite understand how the last sentence relates to the preceding sentences. Are you saying that the "insanity" of society is its emotionalism?

[Alex Jacob]

Kelly wrote:

"I thought your interpretation of vedic scriptures as suggesting enlightenment is existence in a "magical world" was wrong, that's all. It failed to see them pointing at what is true for any and all experiences. Isn't that more important than "playing in backworlds" and "disengaging from life"?"

But that is not what I said, and it is not what I meant. What I tried to say is that the early Vedists, whoever they were, whatever sort of people they were, began to focus their attention on all the elements and the phenomena of the world: the light, the sun and moon, the 'celestial dome' (a sphere of experience in which life is taking place), on the wind, on the dawn, on fire, and discovered consciousness and intelligence within those things. And those things, those elements of the world, 'spoke' to them, or they developed a religious relationship with those things. I also said that these early Vedists expressed a very open wonder at what they saw, and they expressed this wonder in poetry and hymn. What I am alluding to, is that any of us can do the same thing, we can enter into a relationship with the forces of the divine that compose our world.

It does seem to me that the experience of the divine through the mysterious potencies that surround us, does not occur to us like some passage out of a book, and does not come to us as a group of already settled ideas and conclusions, but rather the experience itself, when compared to some of the writings that record the experiences of others, in a very real sense gives meaning and sense to the recorded vision, as many of the Vedas seem to be. I would be much more inclined to see the Vedas as a sort of sophisticated shamanism, if you will allow me the term, and in that it is something very personal, something that one must have experience of, but there is no way for that experience to be a formulated doctrine. Also, and I think this is important, these Vedas stem directly from potencies of nature, from the world that we live in, and though there may be intimations of absolutes, this platform, this world and this life, are vitally important, and it becomes absurd to postulate some other realm or dimension other than what is here, in front of us.

I spoke about 'word-games' because that is the way I interpret your linguistic reductions. If that works for you, if that helps you, I can only say that I am happy. But that style of thinking has never done me any good, it puts a cart before the horse.

[Alex Jacob]

The examination of the conflict or dichotomy between intellectual, mental, 'spiritual' life, and the experience of sensual life, the addiction to sensual life, or like in the Bhagavad Gita, the experience of a consuming 'kama' of sensual life that 'consumes' like fire consumes, seems to me an important area.

It is pretty obvious, likely to all of us even if we differ on some important points or in particulars, that the culture around us is very openly involved in purveying unlimited sensuality and that there is now a sort of world-porn-culture that is coming into existence. Especially those of us who are connected to the internet know that the merest whiff of sex into a search engine without filters, will take one to the depths of 'kama realms'. It is such a powerful magnet for so many that it certainly requires examination. This internet kama is having a profound effect in the world right now, it is a vast enterprise, simply vast. The implications are extreme, I think.

The funny thing in my own case is that I have always been a sensual person, and have had all sorts of sensual and sexual experiences with women, but also long periods without sex, yet the most important thing is that I avoided making the commitment to a woman and a relationship, and of course to having a child, and I discover that it was in essence for many of the reasons articulated in these pages: I always wanted my own freedom, and my personal freedom was (evidently) far more important to me than what might have been gained from marriage, kids, a house, and all that.

It seems to me that most people, or many people, simply slip into patterns and models that culture provides them, and maybe they do this 'unconsciously', just because that is what everyone does. It is a strange activity, rewarding but strange, to turn against 'socialization', to question and challenge it, to try to handle it and not have it handle you, to go against the grain, and to try to provoke life or 'the spirit' (God, however one is defining it) to show you something different, and to have a hunger for other levels of experience, to invest energy in other kinds of experience.

Taking a more simple model, why is it that the Plains Indians (or the Aboriginals of Australia, I guess they are similar) of North America did this thing called Vision Quest? A very male thing, to leave the women behind and go up into the craggy mountains and starve oneself for days on end, praying for a vision? What is the purpose of that, what could possibly be the use? The use is that 'the Vision' provides a map, a significant dream, that outlines ones relationship to the Great Spirit, to the 'infinite', and provides one with tools for better conduct of ones life, a way to move through life. Referring to that 'simple' model, to find or be given some clues or 'magic' that would make one a better hunter or tracker, would have been of supreme importance, and for this reason (in my case) I think we have to reassess these 'absolute' philosophies and 'bring them back down to earth'.

But for those Indians and those shamans (and in my way of seeing thing, the Vedists), they really did have to leave the female world, the world of socialization, and to avoid sexuality for a time before, during and after their time of vision quest. But it doesn't mean that they don't ever go back, or that they remove themselves comletely and forever from sensual life.

Some say that it is the sexual urge that keeps our consciousness attached to this world, that sex is the primary anchor. And that to get free means to restrict and control sexuality. Referring to the Vedic-derived ethical systems, they don't rule out any sensuality, but seek to regulate it, to give it a focus, but to see it for 'what it is'. The humanist of course interpret it very differently, and say that sexuality has to become unfettered, uncontrolled by religious dictum. I am inclined to believe that when sexuality is allowed to run rampant that it has far more negative consequences than good.

[Laird]

Kelly,

In turn I'll be honest with you then:

There is nothing valuable or positive in Woman that can be destroyed.

That you are a woman and make statements like this is very, very sad.

First, I'm not a feeling human being.

Your actions belie your words. Why are you posting to this forum if not that you care? And what is care but a feeling?

See, you can't get away from the fact that human beings are in a constant state of feeling. It's incontrovertible that to be conscious is to be in some sort of mood, whether that mood be serious, frivolous, contemplative, happy, sad, frustrated or something else. And what are moods but manifestations/sources of feelings?

And let's consider this supposed dichotomy that you and QRS propose between reason and emotion. How do you know when you are right? It's because you feel certain, isn't it? You think your way around an idea so much that the feeling of certainty arises. Certainty and confidence are nothing other than feelings.

You may not experience extremes of emotion, but you can be in no doubt that if you are alive, and if you are thinking, then you are feeling.

You have a penchant for projecting your psychology onto others.

I prefer to think of it as refusing to deny what I recognise through thirty years of life amongst other people (well, not all of those years were amongst other people but close enough to it) as being common to all of us.

This seems to be why you get upset when members of the forum don't support or affirm your needs.

The only reason that I get upset with this forum is because I see poisonous ideas being preached.

Take responsibility for yourself.

Whatever gave you the idea that I don't?

[daybrown]

Primate field studies show that it is the alpha males who do all the raping, kidnapping, murder, and are in front, going toe to toe to defend the tribal resources.

They sire alpha daughters who inherit much of the drive, but are also the females who abuse and abandon the young. It is the betas, both male and female, that adopt the young. A tribe which does not have enuf betas does not have enuf young survive when the current generation of alphas gets to old to do battle.

The tribe that dont have enuf alphas has its females kidnapped. But the tribe that has too many has civil war with different sets of alphas struggling for dominance. Too many chiefs, not enuf Indians. Alphas have higher adrenalin (which speeds reflexes) and lower seratonin (which sharpens senses). The DNA markers associated with these emotionally powerful hormones are handed down on the Y Chromosome. "He's just like his father." is true 80% of the time.

Hominids of course, range more widely from alpha to beta in different situations, and are affected by emotionally traumatic events more powerfully. An alpha who looses his mother at a critical point often turns beta. An alpha that enters a new school and gets the shit kicked out of him by a more proficient alpha also has an attitude adjustment, and likewise, the schools that still use the paddle have changed alphas into betas so regularly that the violence rates drop to zero. I see this in rural areas where boys still know where the back of the woodshed is.

Conversely, 'power corrupts'. And power really is an aphrodisiac; which I expect will be shown to work with women as they move up in the power structures. We see in history how often powerful women used sexual services to advance their agendas, without considering that they had already advanced their agendas, and now exercised the prerogative of power in ignoring sexual conventions. And of course, the more alpha females are more lusty to start with.

There have always been two ways to control the behavior of men. Sex or violence. Pick one. History, which after all was recorded by scribes in the pay of the warrior class, shows us how violence has been repeatedly used. We also see how the weapons were constantly improved at the behest of the warrior class. But this has backfired. It was really important at one time to have the brave heart, strong right arm, sword in hand. The alphas can hack a man down, and as Greek & Roman reports say, return from battle spattered with the blood of their enemies.

Betas cant really handle the gore very well. But now, with assault rifles, smart bombs, and even nukes, the warriors could even wear white gloves, and as we see now in the Mid East, even be female. And in fact, the organization needed to fulfill modern battle plans is improved by the superior ability of women to cooperate rather than compete for status.

Violence no longer works for the alpha male warrior class. In fact, its become increasingly obvious to everyone else that they cannot even control themselves, much less a whole nation. Which is empowering women, and doing so at an accellerating rate. And reflective of the powers of women we are seeing the emergence of sex to control the behavior of men. Men are eager to buy that which they can no longer steal.

This is a huge attitude adjustment for both men and women. Gibbon noted that while the maintenance of moral values is essential to maintain a republic, every effort to restore them once lost, has been a failure. And indeed, the moral values are lost. And we no longer have the kind of republic the Founding Farmers established. Get over it.

[Kelly Jones]

Shantideva's thought comes to mind:

One who acts in the same manner as foolish people definitely goes to a miserable state of existence. They do not like someone who is different. What is gained from association with fools?
.
One moment they are friends, and the next moment they are enemies. On an occasion for being pleased, they become angry. Ordinary people are difficult to gratify.
.
When given good advice, they become angry; and they turn me away from good advice. If they are not listened to, they become angry and go to a miserable state of existence.
.
They feel envy toward a superior, competitiveness with a peer, arrogance toward one who is inferior, conceit due to praise, and anger due to reproach. When could there be any benefit from a fool?
.
Between one fool and another, something non-virtuous is inevitable, such as glorification of one's own self, speaking ill of others, and conversation about the pleasures of the cycle of existence.
.
Thus, on account of one's association with someone else, one encounters adversity. I shall happily live alone with a non-afflicted mind.
.
One should flee far from a fool. One should gratify the encountered person with pleasantries, not with the intention of intimacy, but in the manner of a kind and impartial person.
.
Taking only what benefits Dharma, like a bee taking nectar from a flower, I shall live everywhere without acquaintance, as if I had not existed before.

[Alex Jacob]

Jeez, thanks a million, Kelly.

;-)

[Kelly Jones]

The only reason that I get upset with this forum is because I see poisonous ideas being preached.

I think the ideas presented on this forum will make a person who values happiness very unhappy indeed. Such a person believes "happiness is truth". There's nothing inherently wrong with them. Nature has made them so.

Engaging in life also involves interacting with other people and also involves manipulating physical reality.

One can not stop interacting with other people, and everything else.

One can not manipulate physical reality, because one is already totally immersed in its interactions.

QRS do seem to have some novel things to say, such as their postulation that the universe stretches indefinitely in both temporal directions

They don't. The Universe is not infinitely large. It is neither vast nor small. Infinite is a logical concept, meaning not-finite. Finite means, stops short of something else.

QRS have indeed exercised their freedom but now by promoting their somewhat arbitrary findings as "absolutes" what freedom do they grant to others? If one doesn't subscribe to their definitions, concepts and conclusions one is "deluded". They promote "thinking for oneself" when what they really mean is "coming around to our way of thinking".

Present any absolute logical truth that you see on this board, and your reasoning where it isn't.

If you don't, then your post is nothing more than a tantrum or the like.

Emotion need not be viewed as "pollution" - it can be viewed as a source of power and guidance and as an intrinsically valuable part of the human experience.

James was talking about emotion distorting one's reason.

Where is emotion more powerful (meaning, more reliable, accurage, and efficient) a guide than reason?


Kelly

[Alex Jacob]

M-e-n-t-a-l i-n-s-t-i-t-u-t-i-o-n

[Kelly Jones]

Patience, Alex.

It does seem to me that the experience of the divine through the mysterious potencies that surround us, does not occur to us like some passage out of a book, and does not come to us as a group of already settled ideas and conclusions, but rather the experience itself, when compared to some of the writings that record the experiences of others, in a very real sense gives meaning and sense to the recorded vision, as many of the Vedas seem to be.

I agree in one sense. I certainly was not taking a book-worshipping perspective when I endorsed those few gems. As you say, Nature teaches much more directly and deeply than through the words of others.

And I disagree in another sense. All experiences are natural, so experience itself cannot provide insight into Nature. It is thinking - reason - that does the dirty work.

I think this is important, these Vedas stem directly from potencies of nature, from the world that we live in, and though there may be intimations of absolutes, this platform, this world and this life, are vitally important, and it becomes absurd to postulate some other realm or dimension other than what is here, in front of us.

I haven't. I'm interested in Ultimate Reality. Meaning, that which is ultimately real, and true for any world, platform, life, dimension, realm, and whatever else you want to call experience.

I spoke about 'word-games' because that is the way I interpret your linguistic reductions. If that works for you, if that helps you, I can only say that I am happy. But that style of thinking has never done me any good, it puts a cart before the horse.

Would you care to explain what style of thinking you're talking about? Are you talking about making up absolutist definitions? Why is this "putting a cart before the horse"?

I hope to high heaven you don't mean you prefer big chunks of writing.....

The examination of the conflict or dichotomy between intellectual, mental, 'spiritual' life, and the experience of sensual life, the addiction to sensual life, or like in the Bhagavad Gita, the experience of a consuming 'kama' of sensual life that 'consumes' like fire consumes, seems to me an important area.

The experience of the senses isn't necessarily deluded. The delusion arises with addiction because no particular experience really exists.

It is such a powerful magnet for so many that it certainly requires examination. This internet kama is having a profound effect in the world right now, it is a vast enterprise, simply vast. The implications are extreme, I think.

It's basically an epidemic of unreason. I find it comical.

Imagine a mentally retarded person, who is confused and easily agitated, being splashed on every magazine front-cover as the most envied super-celebrity. That is exactly how I see what is being done to women (people in general). Women are retards, and yet even the smarter people envy them.

Why? Because mental retards seem to be free of worries!

I always wanted my own freedom, and my personal freedom was (evidently) far more important to me than what might have been gained from marriage, kids, a house, and all that.

Freedom from ....... ?

t is a strange activity, rewarding but strange, to turn against 'socialization', to question and challenge it, to try to handle it and not have it handle you, to go against the grain, and to try to provoke life or 'the spirit' (God, however one is defining it) to show you something different, and to have a hunger for other levels of experience, to invest energy in other kinds of experience.

Yes, you're unusual. But are you at bottom just the same as the others, aiming to be free of worries?

to find or be given some clues or 'magic' that would make one a better hunter or tracker, would have been of supreme importance, and for this reason (in my case) I think we have to reassess these 'absolute' philosophies and 'bring them back down to earth'.

So long as one is hunting and tracking Truth.

But for those Indians and those shamans (and in my way of seeing thing, the Vedists), they really did have to leave the female world, the world of socialization, and to avoid sexuality for a time before, during and after their time of vision quest. But it doesn't mean that they don't ever go back, or that they remove themselves comletely and forever from sensual life.

Sensuality as women experience it, is all about merging with others, being thrilled by the latest surprise, and emotional spectacles. Leaving such a realm completely is wise.

Some say that it is the sexual urge that keeps our consciousness attached to this world, that sex is the primary anchor.

That's right. Without the sexual urge, or any desire, consciousness experiences the world with non-attachment.

Referring to the Vedic-derived ethical systems, they don't rule out any sensuality, but seek to regulate it, to give it a focus, but to see it for 'what it is'.

When you see hatred and craving for what it is, it flees like a thief found out.


Kelly

[Kelly Jones]

There is nothing valuable or positive in Woman that can be destroyed.

That you are a woman and make statements like this is very, very sad.

Perhaps you're unhappy because you believe I'm more a woman than a man.

It's interesting. According to many brain sex tests I've done lately, just for entertainment, I'm more a man than a woman.

Why are you posting to this forum if not that you care? And what is care but a feeling?

I post to the forum to correct mistakes. In myself, and in others. It stimulates thought.

Also, I do find it satisfying to aim for freedom from error. If rationality is a feeling, then I'm a feeling human being.

See, you can't get away from the fact that human beings are in a constant state of feeling.

Most people are not rational.

It's incontrovertible that to be conscious is to be in some sort of mood, whether that mood be serious, frivolous, contemplative, happy, sad, frustrated or something else. And what are moods but manifestations/sources of feelings?

This reminds me of the quip by Dave Sims:

Emotion, whatever the Female Void would have you believe, is not a more Exalted State than is Thought. In point of fact, I think Emotion is animalistic, serpent-brain stuff. Animals do not Think, but I am reasonably certain that they have Emotions. 'Eating this makes me Happy.' 'When my fur is all wet and I am cold, it makes me Sad.' 'Oooo! Puppies!' 'It makes me Excited to Chase the Ball!' Reason, as any husband can tell you, doesn't stand a chance in an argument with Emotion. There are no rules to Emotional Argument. You simply wander around in rhetorical circles until you feel Happy again, and then the argument is over. This was the fundamental reason, I believe, that women were (rightly) denied the vote for so long. In order to move a civilisation forward, an overview is required. You have to be able to step back and examine the structure of a problem. This is what Thinking, Reasoning, is. Every political campaign waged in the G-7 countries has as its centerpeice Job Creation. Polls give the politicians a list of voter concerns. Job Creation is at the top of the list. Ergo, the politicians promise Jobs. Because the Female Void dominates the proceedings (simply because the Female Void dominates everything), a candidate is elected based on how he or she makes the electorate Feel. We Feel we can Trust this candidate. No effort is made to step back and ask, 'Isn't the whole point of technology to eliminate work?' Reason would tell you that you can either eliminate (or limit) technology or you can eliminate (or limit) jobs. It is not possible to have it both ways. The Female Void Emotional response is that we have to have it both ways. And so we do. And so the problem gets worse instead of better.

----from "Reads", last chapter, p233

And let's consider this supposed dichotomy that you and QRS propose between reason and emotion. How do you know when you are right? It's because you feel certain, isn't it?

No, it might arise if one has an attachment to finding certainty in reason.

I prefer to think of it as refusing to deny what I recognise through thirty years of life amongst other people (well, not all of those years were amongst other people but close enough to it) as being common to all of us.

Well, it'd be honest if you could admit to yourself that there might possibly be exceptions. Nothing major, Laird.


Kelly

[David Quinn]

Laird,

I think by now I've proven that I have a reasonably good handle on QRS-think.

The problem with QRS "rationalisations" though is that they are in many cases arbitrary yet they are presented as absolutes.

That you regard the absolutes presented as "arbitrary" means that you don't see the logical connection between them, nor the underlying basis of it all. At best, all you see is the outer shell, the words (which you can't connect together). This does not constitute an understanding.

-

[Alex Jacob]

Kelly writes:

"Would you care to explain what style of thinking you're talking about?"

To be honest, it has occurred to me that one must take into consideration, in respect to this list, that a large part of difference of outlook seems to come about because of stark differences of 'personality type', and by that I mean the four functions outlined by Jung. (Not that I follow Jung but I think it is a useful model). Frankly, I haven't ever tested myself, so I can't say what combination of types I am, but I think it pretty clear that I am of a different essential structure than you are, and this might be true across the board.

"And I disagree in another sense. All experiences are natural, so experience itself cannot provide insight into Nature. It is thinking - reason - that does the dirty work."

Yes, obviously, thinking is a very exalted activity, the defining human feature. But in the face of the experience of creation, and in those moments of revelation that provide insight into the nature of things, I think it is more than just analytical, dry thinking that is required. You seem predominantly a sort of dry, analytical sort, and of course this is an unusual feature in a woman. I think I understand and 'feel' something about you in the way you write, and your way of being and perceiving, or ordering ideas, or perhaps focussing on 'thinking, is not what helps me. I feel (though some here might disagree) that I do a fair amount of thinking and am essentially 'intellectual', and perhaps that is why in my spiritual life I seem to need to express other, more holistic ways of being. The 'activity' that seems to do me a great deal of good, spiritually, is giving up thinking, at least for awhile, relaxing, letting go, a sort of surrender to the diivine being, to trust in my life, life in general, the creator and the creation.

You see, my way of seeing things seems quite different from what I understand of yours(plural)(insofar as I do understand it, which is not certain). I think that with just the smallest 'movement'. the smallest choice, the smallest agreement, the smallest cooperation, we begin to 'go home'. My impression is that human life is largely about suffering, I mean that suffering, the internal hells, is a great part of huamn experience, and we are indeed longing for release. I see this earth as a 'loka', a plane of experience on a gradient of experience, and it can either get better or it can continue to get worse, much worse. I think you are very right to focus on rational recognition of our condition as a major aid in gaining clarity, and gaining a sort of platform from which we can make choices (to avoid 'fools' inside and outside, for example). But I think that once we have an internal sense of the nature of our entrapment, which is far more than merely an analytical and dry thought about it, at least in my experience, we are faced with a question: what is the right means of comportment and what is required of me so that I do not continue to sink in mire, but move toward safe(r) ground.

I will honeslty say that what is most required, since our thinking capacities will always be limited, is a surrender of our will, which is very different, in effect.

[David Quinn]

David,

DQ: Our openness to truth is also endless.

Laird: Those phenomena that you deny and that I listed are a part of truth. Your denial of them proves that your openness to truth is far from endless.

DQ: This depends on what is meant by "truth". What do you mean by it?

In this context by "truth" I mean that which has meaning in life.

I'm not sure that I can think of a more meaningless definition of truth. By its criteria, the Christian God, the supremacy of the Aryan race and the view that children should be molested are all true.

Laird: Any thinking person who sees you make the claim that logic on its own and independently of empiricism can prove anything ultimately and absolutely will likewise recognise this.

David: How would you know that?

Laird: Because of the nature of logic. Logic is a system of transformation that works upon information. What you get out is only as good as what you put in. You, however, seem to be denying that what you are putting in comes from empirical observation.

Suddenly, in saying this, you've completely abandoned your above definition of truth and plumbed for something more conventional, such as "what is real". While that is better, you are not being consistent.

I could say that each of your terms above, such as "logic", "empiricial observation", "system", "information", etc, aren't empirically observable things - indeed, they are logical categories - and yet you've some how managed to use them to reach a conclusion that you think is meaningful. But to say that would mean making an appeal to your intellectual integrity, which you don't have.

What you guys really do is construct models that are logically consistent, but there's a difference between "logically consistent" and "true".

What if a person considers logical consistency meaningful?

Forget it, I'm trying to appeal to your intellectual integrity again.

I am presently engaged in a passionate, intimate (and I mean that in every sense of the word, not just the physical...erm, virtual...well, you know what I mean) internet relationship with a wonderful, intelligent and insightful woman and it is very satisfying to both of us. It gives me confidence that what I write on this forum is not merely wishful thinking.

That's definitely one of the charms of woman, and also one of her greatest dangers. She can boost the male ego to such an extent that he can begin to believe in his own fantasies about himself. She can make even the wimpiest of fellows feel like he is a great hero.

-