A MAN NEVER ARGUES WITH A BEAUTIFUL WOMAN - OH BUT I INSIST

[Kevin Solway]

Oh, bullshit. Most men are bitches. Saying all men have some philosophical talent is like saying all men have a talent for basketball.

You interpret the same acts by men differently than if a woman did it.

That's because I don't consider them to be the same acts (not usually, at least).

Let me give you an example: I can have a philosophical discussion with a sixteen year old boy and he will understand a good deal of what I have to say (about cause and effect, etc). He will take at least some of what he hears on-board and integrate it with his own thinking. It will continue to affect him for years to come, if not his whole life.

Interestingly, the tone of the discussion will vary significantly from one man to another.

Now, if I have a like discussion with any woman, no matter whether she is a thirteen year old girl or a 50 year-old professor, the discussion will vary little from one woman to the next, and they won't understand a word of it. They might repeat back to me what I'm saying, telling me how wise and lofty it is, but it doesn't even penetrate the outer layer of cells of their brain. The discussion will rarely influence their lives in any way whatsoever other than in possibly increasing their vocabulary.

This is my experience. Perhaps my perceptions are distorted, but I don't think so.

Seriously, it seems like a major blind spot that you have, Kevin - interpreting anything that comes from a male as masculine, and interpreting anything coming from a female as feminine. But it's just your prejudice.

I don't interpret everything that comes from a male as masculine. For example, when a man wants to get drunk, or unconscious on drugs, or wants to drown in music, or get married, or become a Christian, etc, he is seeking to satisfy the feminine part of his being.

[Shardrol]

Let me give you an example: I can have a philosophical discussion with a sixteen year old boy and he will understand a good deal of what I have to say (about cause and effect, etc).

[. . .]

Now, if I have a like discussion with any woman, no matter whether she is a thirteen year old girl or a 50 year-old professor, the discussion will vary little from one woman to the next, and they won't understand a word of it.

[. . .]

This is my experience. Perhaps my perceptions are distorted, but I don't think so.

It's hard to respect your position when you put forth the same kind of anecdotal evidence you would not accept from others.

In the past I & others have been criticized for responses such as 'I've met women who aren't like that' -- & rightly so, I think. Our individual empirical observations no doubt vary, because of the style of our minds & also because of our circumstances. I'm living in one of the largest cities in the world & you're living in Tasmania. I think this makes some difference in the variety & scope of people we are likely to meet.

So if I'm to take your assertions as significant I'm sure you'll be interested in my own observation: I've met women who aren't like that.
.

[spiritual_emergency]

Yes, this is where I also see an error in the perceptions of both David and Kevin: when they draw their lines between the inferior and the superior they place the feminine firmly on the inferior side regardless of whether the act was carried out by a male or female. When it comes to their perception of the superior however, they recognize only the higher masculine. The higher feminine is co-opted and bent to this purpose. It implies that they are in fact operating from a lower (and fearful) masculine masquerading as a higher masculine.

Ultimately the labelled terms are meaningless but there are two natures which must be brought together in union in order to transcend the natures of both. Kevin and David have both rejected the higher opposite nature and that means they have divorced themselves from their most valuable guide. It is the anima -- Sophia herself -- who can lead one into the abyss and back out again.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Kevin wrote:

I don't agree with the definition that a person with a high IQ is a genius. You will notice that the page of quotations on genius I gave you a reference to (and which is also linked to at the top of the forum) made no mention of IQ.

Only an average IQ is required for genius. But the other ingredients are harder to come by.

I accept your disagreement, and liked the quotations. I see the quotations as descriptions of examples of genius, but descriptions of examples are not definitions. IQ may not equate to genius, but it is a far more reliable indicator than a penis. I perceive that you have enough words invested in your prejudice that no female alive today is a genius that your nebulous way of defining genius is the only way you have left to try to convince someone that you are right.

On Sept. 5, 2006 I wrote:

I do not have a problem with admitting when I have been deceived, even if I was only deceived by my own thoughts, because it is more important to me to have the truth than to try to falsely prove myself previously right. Do any of you guys have enough courage to admit when you have been deceived, or is the male ego that is predominant on this board so fragile that truth and honesty take a back seat to masculinity?

I see that when you, Kevin, insisted that no woman is a genius, you did not have enough courage to be open-minded.

One of the quotations you linked to on the other thread indicated that all geniuses are destitue. If that is part of the definition of genius, the following sentance would be true:

"The ability to pay your bills is not a sign of genius."

That sentance is as illogical as your prejudice against all women, and as illogical as being closed-minded for the purpose of trying to prove yourself right. "Trying" means that you are not doing a very good job of convincing people - as evidenced by the quantity of people disagreeing with your conviction.

Despite my observation of the illogic of your conviction, I still sort through what you say for worthwhile thoughts because I am open-minded. I will read your link to Camille Paglia.

sky wrote:

by posting your iq posting your picture and kissing up to david you are only underscoring exactly from whence comes the anti feminine found here

On Sept. 5, 2006 I wrote to sky:

first I quoted sky:
they who have become enlightened give off light

they are the 'beckoning candles'

then I responded:

I like that.

Would you say that I was kissing up to you?

same day I also wrote to you, sky:

Please stay.

more kissing up?

same day in response to you, sky:

Quote:
do i need to be 'butch' to grasp that

I responded:
No. Personally, I think that if someone needs to credit himself for something like his gender, then he must feel that he is so lacking in actual intelligence that he must clutch at straws to try to "prove" himself intelligent.

Genius is shown by quality thoughts, not bodily appendages, sexual orientation, mannerisms associated with gender, or anything other than quality thoughts and, if possible, behavior that is congruent with those quality thoughts.

All that was in the same tone I used with David, and that is just my tone. Since many posts in that tone were directed at you, would you like to share a can of lip balm?

sky wrote:

quite frankly you embarrass me

I do not want to embarrass you, my friend. If I can prove by example that a female can display the positive aspects of femininity and still be a genius (which was part of the reason for posting my test results and picture - the other part was to show concrete proof rather than unverifiable statements), then I will have made a positive impact by spreading some enlightenment. Isn't that a point of the board - enlightenment? Isn't that what you wanted for everyone here as well?

Kevin later wrote:

Perhaps my perceptions are distorted, but I don't think so.

I see a glimmer of hope that you can be open-minded.
(I hope that recognizing that isn't too much "kissing up" for anybody.)

[Nick]

I agree with Kevin. I live in a very populated area with people from many different walks of life, and like Kevin said; "They (women) might repeat back to me what I'm saying, telling me how wise and lofty it is, but it doesn't even penetrate the outer layer of cells of their brain". Not to say this isn't the case with most men, but it is the case with all women.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I wish to make a further acknowledgement of Kevin:

Sky wrote that Kevin wrote:

ksolway
Quote:

This is correct. Women who attain masculine qualities of mind, such as powerful discrimination, focus, consistency, depth, etc, have no barrier.

Just because a person is born as a woman is not a guarantee that they will not become wise. Weininger might have thought otherwise, but he can be forgiven. . . .

I'll take that under the paradigm that human qualities have more of a tendency to polarize to one gender or another. I agree that various qualities polarize.

I believe that there is room for debate about which qualities belong in which category as a function of gender predisposition as opposed to social influence. I add to the debate additional thoughts regarding the nature and components of wisdom, some of which are classified as feminine, which anyone can read in other posts.

I challenge what seem like inconsistencies in Kevin's posts. Here's an example:

Kevin wrote:

Now, if I have a like discussion with any (underlining added by EI for emphasis of the inconsistency)woman, no matter whether she is a thirteen year old girl or a 50 year-old professor, the discussion will vary little from one woman to the next, and they won't understand a word of it.

this is inconsisent with Kevin's:

Just because a person is born as a woman is not a guarantee that they will not become wise.

I also wonder where Kevin gets some of his definitions.

Kevin wrote:

Men are mostly feminine, and unconscious.

There goes the polarity paradigm, for if men are not mostly masculine but mostly feminine, where does the definition of masculinity come from?

[Pye]

.

Kevin:

Let's say I'm overworked and I want to go on a holiday to Hawaii. Does that mean I'm blaming Hawaii for my weakness?

Confused as is your example, I reconfigure for one last try:

Let's say 2 people want to go to Hawaii, and by the implications of your example, because they are overworked, in need of respite and distraction. Both have attended the same location, done the same things.

Person 1 goes, enjoys, gets respite, distraction.
Person 1 says, "Hawaii was wonderful; I had a great time."

Person 2 goes, gets no respite, is not distracted.
Person 2 says, "Hawaii was a big pain in the ass and I did not have a good time."

These two different qualities of experience - where is their ultimate source? In Hawaii itself, or each of the 2 people experiencing it? It was the same place, wasn't it? They did the same things, didn't they? So how can Hawaii be both pleasant and a pain in the ass?

It can't, because it isn't about Hawaii . . . .-- it is about each of the people experiencing it.

It isn't about women, Kevin. It's about you. So . . .

Does that mean I'm blaming Hawaii for my weakness?

Replace "Hawaii" with "women," and the answer to this question is, yes.

Bad-faith is self-delusion (lying to oneself) about exterior authority for interior events. You are deluding yourself by suggesting that the problem of enlightenment lies in women and femininity. The problem lies in you.

You seem to be working from the assumption that women are equally as conscious, rational, and deep thinking as men.

The only handicap for women here is socio-historically situational, not fundamentally constitutional. Or, at least, for the few women, like the few men, who have any impetus at all for the work of the rising consciousness.

women are equally as conscious, rational, and deep thinking as men. And this I certainly do not agree with - although I wish it were true.

.

More lies. You have constructed here a path to enlightenment that depends upon this distinction.

Seriously, Kevin, until you look into this bad faith thing, I don't think it's possible to have a rational discussion about women or femininity with you. I'd get my nose out of others people's failings and potentials if I were you and start hoofing it back to your own.

.

[Leyla Shen]

[quote=""Nick""]I agree with Kevin. I live in a very populated area with people from many different walks of life, and like Kevin said; "They (women) might repeat back to me what I'm saying, telling me how wise and lofty it is, but it doesn't even penetrate the outer layer of cells of their brain". Not to say this isn't the case with most men, but it is the case with all women.[/quote]

[laughs! God damn cross-dressers.]

And male women are the most unconscious of them all!

That’s what happens when you think “femininity” is a quality of body and not mind.

.

[David Quinn]

Sky wrote:

and if david cannot handle frank and must needs ban him then where is the transcendent equilibrium of the enlightened sage

If the Buddha was trying to discuss the path to enlightenment with a number of his students, and an interloper came along and kept wanting talk last week's footy games instead, would the Buddha lose his transcendent equilibrium by asking this fellow to leave?

Being enlightened doesn't mean passively accepting whatever happens without murmer.

-

[spiritual_emergency]

If the Buddha was trying to discuss the path to enlightenment with a number of his students, and an interloper came along and kept wanting talk last week's footy games instead, would the Buddha lose his transcendent equilibrium by asking this fellow to leave?

Being enlightened doesn't mean passively accepting whatever happens without murmer.

Uh oh. Ashton's left his thong out and now, David, ooops, I mean His High and Mightyness, has gone and hung himself with it.

Let this be a lesson to all readers: Thongs are bad. I have never met a good thong. Boxers are where it's at. If you're seeking liberation, go towards the tightie-whities.

[David Quinn]

spiritual_emergency wrote:

I found your posts to contain good insights, Frank and often found myself agreeing with your perspectives, i.e. revulsion is attachment.

Of course, this is obviously true, and I acknowledged my agreement to frank a number of times. The trouble was, frank wouldn't let the matter drop, somehow believing that it was a significant point and that we were at odds over it. The discussions kept coming back to this same shallow point, over and over again. There is only so much of this, I can take. Life is too short for such endless repetitions.

So too, holding "enlightenment" up as a dangling carrot is almost guaranteed to ensure that it will always remain just out of your grasp, even as you hold the stick the carrot dangles from.

If enlightenment remains out of your grasp, then that is entirely your affair. You can't blame the concept itself for you own inadequacies.

It is better sometimes, to toss aside the stick and carrot in recognition of their worthlessness.

That is certainly the way of the world.

Awareness will find you where it finds you.

Altered states of consciousness can certainly arise out of the blue and "find you where they find you", but enlightemnment is an entirely different matter. Enlightenment is a much rarer attainment and can only be found when consciously sought.

-

[David Quinn]

spiritual-emergency wrote:

Uh oh. Ashton's left his thong out and now, David, ooops, I mean His High and Mightyness, has gone and hung himself with it.

Let this be a lesson to all readers: Thongs are bad. I have never met a good thong. Boxers are where it's at. If you're seeking liberation, go towards the tightie-whities.

So why are you suddenly objecting to my "thong", in favour of your own "boxer shorts"?

-

[spiritual_emergency]

Only one who has been at one with boxer shorts could possibly be capable of speaking with any authority on the matter, David. You, clearly, are a thong people and as some of "us" more "enlightened" people know, thong people are not capable of perceiving the superior wisdom of boxer shorts people.
I'm sorry. There's nothing I can do to help you.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Kevin wrote:

Have a read of the following compilation of writings by Camille Paglia first. Then you you might like to start a thread discussing the issue

No, if that is what you believe (rather closed minded and prejudicial) then it is not worth discussing with you.

Kevin wrote:
Quote:
There's a reason why women rarely get into positions of power - across all times and cultures. And it's not just a socially created artifice.

I responded:
I would really like for you to expound on that. Would you please start a separate thread stating your insights? I have a few thoughts, too, and would like to respond to yours.

When I wrote that, obviously I overestimated your ability to think with an open mind. I will discuss other topics with you, but this one is not worth my energy so long as your mind is closed.

[Pye]

.

I wrote [to Kevin]:

I don't think it's possible to have a rational discussion about women or femininity with you.

I should rephrase. Women and femininity are not the point. As long as one cannot move past the obsessive busywork of this presented here as step one in understanding to enlightenment, it is enlightenment that cannot be rationally discussed here.

How unconscious are so many of these men here about their [parasitic!] obsession with women! Perhaps you think because the talk turns away from favoritism for her to denigration of her that you have overcome your own unconsciousness, your own obsession, your own weakness. Yet all you have done is given it another form so you can pander, suckle and paw at it still, thinklessly.

And all dressed up like "enlightenment."


.

[David Quinn]

spiritual_emergency wrote:

Only one who has been at one with boxer shorts could possibly be capable of speaking with any authority on the matter, David. You, clearly, are a thong people and as some of "us" more "enlightened" people know, thong people are not capable of perceiving the superior wisdom of boxer shorts people.
I'm sorry. There's nothing I can do to help you.

Try taking a step back and you will see that you are doing precisely the very thing you accuse me of doing.

Why are you allowed to tick others off for their "unenlightened" behaviour, and no one else is?

The hypocrisy on this forum is really quite rampant at the moment - and it's all of the same type too.

-

[spiritual_emergency]

Try taking a step back and you will see that you are doing precisely the very thing you accuse me of doing.

It's called mockery. You would be just in labelling it hypocrisy if I actually believed I was "enlightened". I don't. I'm merely mirroring your own schtick. You're right, it doesn't seem very "enlightened" at all.

Why are you allowed to tick others off for their "unenlightened" behaviour, and no one else is?

I am, am I? Allowed to tick others off? Do you think that any others might have some say into whether or not I tick them off or am I so powerful that I strip them of their will to make their own decisions?

Meantime, I guess I'll let you into my Temple of Enlightened Boxer Shorters after all, but not until you lighten up a little. Since getting laid is out of the question, have you considered laughing?

[David Quinn]

spiritual-emergency wrote:

DQ: Try taking a step back and you will see that you are doing precisely the very thing you accuse me of doing.

SE: It's called mockery.

I realize that, but underlying the mockery is a more serious point, which is that you are praising your own behaviour and rating it above my own - the very thing you accuse me of doing.

Since getting laid is out of the question, have you considered laughing?

I'm laughing all the time, but I guess you don't share my sense of humour.

Verily, my joy and my freedom come like a storm!
But mine enemies shall deem that The Evil One
Rageth above their heads.

Nietzsche

-

[Nick]

And male women are the most unconscious of them all!

How so?

That’s what happens when you think “femininity” is a quality of body and not mind.

.

I have always said femininity is a quality of the mind, although it be a quality of a mind most commonly found in a woman's body.

[spiritual_emergency]

I realize that, but underlying the mockery is a more serious point, which is that you are praising your own behaviour and rating it above my own - the very thing you accuse me of doing.

Does this mean you don't want to be part of my Temple of Enlightened Boxer Shorters?

[Shardrol]

I agree with Kevin. I live in a very populated area with people from many different walks of life, and like Kevin said; "They (women) might repeat back to me what I'm saying, telling me how wise and lofty it is, but it doesn't even penetrate the outer layer of cells of their brain". Not to say this isn't the case with most men, but it is the case with all women.

So would you say then that all the women on the forum do not understand the writing of those on the forum whom you consider wise?
.

[Nick]

So would you say then that all the women on the forum do not understand the writing of those on the forum whom you consider wise?
.

If by women you mean anatomical women, then no. If you mean people with a feminine mentality, then yes.

[Kevin Solway]

. . . it isn't about Hawaii . . . .-- it is about each of the people experiencing it.

It isn't about women, Kevin. It's about you

You're working from the theory that anyone who says that women are significantly more unconscious than men are only doing so because they have supposedly had bad experiences with women, and not because it is true.

That's certainly a theory you can work with. And it may be true of false. Personally, I think it is false.

You are deluding yourself by suggesting that the problem of enlightenment lies in women and femininity. The problem lies in you.

Femininity is in every person - in both men and women. So the problem is not outside, in women for example. The problem is inside, as you say.

You seem to be working from the assumption that women are equally as conscious, rational, and deep thinking as men.

The only handicap for women here is socio-historically situational, not fundamentally constitutional.

Once again you are working from the theory that women have no genetic disadvantage when it comes to deep thinking.

This is another theory I think is false.

Disadvantages can of course be overcome - even genetic disadvantages.

You have constructed here a path to enlightenment that depends upon this distinction.

Our explanation depends on the distinction between consciousness and unconscousness, yes. But we only point to women, and femininity, as a convenient way of reminding people what we mean by unconsciousness. Otherwise people would too easily think it meant something else.

the talk turns away from favoritism for her to denigration of her

Generally speaking, I regard women as being like my own sisters or daughters. Why on earth would I denigrate them? I would never even consider doing such a thing.

Saying that women are almost completely unconscious is a simple statement of fact, and not a denigration.

There are of course exceptional women, who have more consciousness than other women.

[Kevin Solway]

So if I'm to take your assertions as significant I'm sure you'll be interested in my own observation: I've met women who aren't like that.

I agree that there are women who have minds that are indeed deeper than the norm for the female population.

When I said "any woman" I was slightly exaggerating. But the number of deep-thinking women I have even heard of is still virtually nil. And I've spent countless hours scouring the literature for them, and asking people if they can direct me towards a deep-thinking female, just to satisfy my curiosity.

And even those women who are deep thinking, are not overly astonishing.

The deepest writing I've ever read from a woman is probably "The Human Evasion" by Celia Green. But she could not maintain it. It was a flash in the pan.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Kevin wrote:

When I said "any woman" I was slightly exaggerating.

Acknowledged.