Making peace with femininity

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by sue hindmarsh »

Laird wrote:
Let me ask you then, Sue, whether you consider that it's possible to live a life in which love and not hatred is the norm, in which one uses rational, willful thought such that as negative emotions arise, one reflects on their unhelpful/unfair consequences and gradually trains one's mind into a more generally loving one?
You keep imagining you’re onto something with this idea of love as an independent concept. If you thought about it, you’d see that you’re not. All you’re doing is ignoring what is in front of your very eyes – that EVERYTHING is interdependent.

Love doesn’t just sit there all by itself waiting to be called upon to perform. It’s constantly out there hustling and bustling along with all the other emotions.
Sue: But once you arrive at the knowledge of the interdependent nature of all things, you naturally become loosened from the emotions, and thereby act not solely according to them, but more and more according to the truth.
Truth to me is that love and respect are the best way, and that all emotions that lead me in that direction should be fostered, and that all emotions that lead me in a different direction should be rationalised away (insofar as that is possible).
Suppressing emotions only works for a short time – then they rear their ugly head twice as angry, and at a time when you are least expecting them.

Also - the idea that, “Truth is that love and respect are the best way” has been bandied about trillions of times in every conceivable way that even you, Laird, must wonder why the world is so rife with turmoil and sorrow when so many people so obviously value love and respect. Love must actually have something to do with creating that turmoil and sorrow.

Love is all around, it's everywhere you look: a young couple in love marry, start a family, build a home, pray together with all the other families in the community church, build a fence around their house, get a guard dog, and buy a gun to shoot any bastard who comes near all that is so dearly loved.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by brokenhead »

Sue H. wrote:It appears that you consider ‘love’ an independent entity. My post described that idea to be false, for all things depend on other things for their existence.
You relentlessly miss the point about what love is, or more precisely, what it can be if you let it.
Also - the idea that, “Truth is that love and respect are the best way” has been bandied about trillions of times in every conceivable way that even you, Laird, must wonder why the world is so rife with turmoil and sorrow when so many people so obviously value love and respect. Love must actually have something to do with creating that turmoil and sorrow.
So now you are trying to play catch-up by bandying about this notion that love creates turmoil and sorrow. Sue, you can't opt out of the human race if you're not a part of it to begin with.
Love is all around, it's everywhere you look: a young couple in love marry, start a family, build a home, pray together with all the other families in the community church, build a fence around their house, get a guard dog, and buy a gun to shoot any bastard who comes near all that is so dearly loved.
Your "truth" continues to be disingenuous. It is a sophistry. You are trying to convince yourself of its validity by publicly proclaiming it. The young couple you describe is but one young couple out of the infinite variety from which you could have chosen.

If your point is that people should not be a slave to their emotions, then I agree with it. But you do not say that. You insist on equating love and hatred. They are not the same thing. They are not merely two sides of the same coin. They do not have equal power, unless you confer it to them. And that is precisely what you insist on doing. Love is divine in its origin, hatred mundane. Love does not come from you, it comes through you; hatred and fear result from your blocking that love and resisting that understanding using your flawed philosophical reasoning. You deliberately refuse to think for yourself; until you know how to do that, until you can take responsibility for what goes on in your own head, you should keep your thoughts there. You are spreading lies thinly disguised as some holy grail of truth. You are better than that. I can tell from your writing that you are very intelligent. Do not abrogate your own membership to the human race, at least not until you have fully discovered its potential.
User avatar
divine focus
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by divine focus »

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Love is all around, it's everywhere you look: a young couple in love marry, start a family, build a home, pray together with all the other families in the community church, build a fence around their house, get a guard dog, and buy a gun to shoot any bastard who comes near all that is so dearly loved.
This type of love is not the truth of love. Love is not an emotion or a sentiment, though it translates into that within perception. Love is all around, as it is the basis of self and reality. With "low" or narrow consciousness, the self is limited and therefore love is limited to that self and the few things important to that self. Everyone has this limited self, whether the most anguished soul or the ultimate pinnacle of embodied enlightenment. With the progression of consciousness, this limited self willingly takes a back seat (or passenger-side seat) to the true self of ultimate love. The limited self is beneficial in that it allows efficient living in the world of society, where the energy of the true self is in desperate demand.

I cannot describe the sadness I feel seeing the simplicity of truth and knowing how hard it is to reach a clear understanding. Life goes on, and this feeling will pass as I move my attention and go about my day. But the feeling is caused by knowing that I can personally do nothing right now within my perception to ease the suffering of the lack of power. Each individual holds the same power, and claiming it is up to each individual. I may help individually with the people I come in contact with, but humanity as a whole is beyond my perceptual reach.
eliasforum.org/digests.html
Laird
Posts: 954
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:22 am

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Laird »

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:It appears that you consider ‘love’ an independent entity. My post described that idea to be false, for all things depend on other things for their existence.
I don't see (after rereading my post) anything that might reasonably give you the idea that that's my position. In fact I even wrote that there are "modes of thinking that lead one to hatred", clearly recognising that hatred "depends" on modes of thinking. Likewise for love. But for the record, my actual position is: "who knows the true nature of love?" All that I know is that it exists and that it's the most useful, helpful and wonderful of emotions/attitudes/actions and should be fostered. Whether it exists wholly dependently on other things or has a somewhat more independent existence is anyone's guess.
Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Have you ever observed that some of the things you love now were not loved, say, ten years ago? And that some things you now hate, were once in the love pile?

Have ever wondered how that came to be?
Yeah, and my usual answer for the hate-to-love thing is: "greater familiarity". I used to hate the taste of pumpkin but after my parents forced me to eat it a few times, I grew to like it through familiarity. As for the love-to-hate thing, it doesn't happen very often but when it does it's usually because I've been badly wronged and a person has shown him/herself to have malicious intent. Even then, though, "hate" is perhaps too strong a word. I try as much as possible to not hate.
Sue Hindmarsh wrote:You keep imagining you’re onto something with this idea of love as an independent concept.
You're reading things into my words that aren't there. I talked about fostering a state of love over a state of hatred. If one can intentionally foster that state, then there are things that one can do to enhance the amount of love in one's life and therefore love has "dependencies", or, as I'd prefer to write, "influences".
Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Suppressing emotions only works for a short time – then they rear their ugly head twice as angry, and at a time when you are least expecting them.
I didn't say anything about "suppressing" emotions, I talked about rationalising them. But in any case, what's the alternative? What do you do to eliminate both love and hatred from your life?
Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Also - the idea that, “Truth is that love and respect are the best way” has been bandied about trillions of times in every conceivable way that even you, Laird, must wonder why the world is so rife with turmoil and sorrow when so many people so obviously value love and respect.
I've already alluded to what I believe: that many people have - either through their genetics, their upbringing, or their experience - developed modes of thinking that lead them down the wrong path. I believe that for the most part those modes of thinking are susceptible to reworking.
Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Love must actually have something to do with creating that turmoil and sorrow.
I'll grant that sometimes people do extreme - and what might be considered hateful - things because they are trying to promote what they love - case in point, religious extremists who turn to terrorism. But: it is not the love itself that caused that act! It is the faulty mode of thinking.
Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Love is all around, it's everywhere you look: a young couple in love marry, start a family, build a home, pray together with all the other families in the community church, build a fence around their house, get a guard dog, and buy a gun to shoot any bastard who comes near all that is so dearly loved.
Geez, you must know some pretty unbalanced folk. None of the couples that I know would even dream of owning a gun. That's not to say that they would just lie there and let someone beat them up and rob them either. I'm sure that they'd defend themselves.
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Nick »

divine focus wrote:A key component of the WOMAN philosophy is that the feminine equals unconsciousness. If that means the feminine doesn't know the truth, that's not a very effective argument.
That's not quite accurate. Part of the WOMAN philosophy is that the feminine mindset is far less likely to achieve consciousness in comparison to the masculine mindset.
divine focus wrote:The purpose of the feminine isn't to know the truth; it's to be the truth. Unconsciousness in terms of not knowing the truth is a masculine aspect and has nothing at all to do with the feminine. The masculine seeks to know truth, and if it doesn't know it isn't the fault of the feminine. The feminine is the truth and has no need to know itself the way the masculine does, because the masculine is there to provide that sort of knowing.
Could you elaborate on exactly what you mean when you say the feminine is Truth? In my experiences with feminine minded people they tend to distract one's mind from Truth, a far cry from actually being the Truth.
divine focus wrote:WOMAN is a highly inaccurate descriptor of masculine unconsciousness. The need to control, which results from not knowing the truth, has little to do with feminine unconsciousness. Both sides of unconsciousness support each other in staying unconscious, but the when the truth of the feminine is blurred, it leads to absolute judgment. Judgment is definitely not what QRS means when they speak of WOMAN; so throwing a feminine label on control, which is a masculine "fault" if you want to judge it, does not help their understanding at all.
Consciousness, and likewise, unconsciousness is neither masculine or feminine. It's just a matter of fact that the feminine minded individual is far less likely than the masculine minded individual to achieve an exceptional level of consciousness.
Ataraxia
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 11:41 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Ataraxia »

divine focus wrote: Love is not an emotion or a sentiment, though it translates into that within perception. Love is all around, as it is the basis of self and reality.
Fine,then how does it differ from hate in that regard?

It seems to me many people want to grant 'love' some sort of divine,etheral or ineffable status but then say 'hate' is something different.

If 'God' is love (which seems to be what you are alluding to),then 'God' is hate too.No?
User avatar
snow bunny
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:00 am

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by snow bunny »

Ataraxia wrote:
divine focus wrote: Love is not an emotion or a sentiment, though it translates into that within perception. Love is all around, as it is the basis of self and reality.
Fine,then how does it differ from hate in that regard?

It seems to me many people want to grant 'love' some sort of divine,etheral or ineffable status but then say 'hate' is something different.

If 'God' is love (which seems to be what you are alluding to),then 'God' is hate too.No?
Looks like there might be a key word missing here, in this topic, and that is apathy, right? I mean, love,hate, and apathy, but then there is the other side of the coin, and maybe you're getting into dualism there, or something that could be more multi-dimensional.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by brokenhead »

If 'God' is love (which seems to be what you are alluding to),then 'God' is hate too.No?
No.
User avatar
Faust
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Faust »

brokenhead wrote:But let's go with your definition that a misogynist is a man who hates women's feeble-mindedness. Now if you have contempt for a person's feeblemindedness, you have contempt for that person. Agreed?
yes, what's your point?
You use the term "quantitative." Where do you get the idea that women are quantitatively more feeble-minded than men? Do you mean there are more feeble-minded women than there are feeble-minded men? I'm sure that's true. Because there are more women than men.
there isn't MUCH more women than men, the ratio isn't like 50:1. Also are you saying there's more women in the world than men? Can you prove me this?
I am well aware of the stereotypes that exist about women's "feeble minds." The Bimbo, for instance. What does the existence of a stereotype prove? It proves nothing, but it does indicate that there are actually living people out there who fit it to a tee. Well, so what? Are you telling me that in your experience women have weak minds? If so, I am telling you that in my experience, there is no evidence that one gender has it over the other.
I think men on average atleast *value* things more than women. Let's look at the teenager population as a whole, especially in the West. Just looking at this population, would you say there's an equal amount of "bimbo" girls and stupid men? From my experience, universities are loaded with girls, and almost none of them deserve to be there. You have universities, where intellectual growth is the main purpose, filled with girls who don't care about real intellectual growth. Girls are more credulous and uncritical, they don't actually care whether something is *true* or not or if it has any value, they rather *please* the teacher than question them. I think girls do this much more than men, atleast men care about say politics and civil liberties, most teenage girls have no such interest, they don't care about their destiny, they've abandoned themselves to society, as Celia Green said. It's no wonder, that everything that Schopenhauer says in his essay On Women, is exactly the same as me and other people have seen happen, that's not a coincidence.
I think your point is that women do not have to achieve in the intellectual arena as much as men do. They can look for a man in the desired socioeconomic strata, and then hook him like a fish.
it's not that they don't have to, it's that they don't *want* to, they don't *value* important things.
I think you suffer from womb-envy. The truth is that it's the women who have the babies. That makes them societally different from men. On this level, you cannot compare the two from an idealistic standpoint. It is simple biology.
what the hell is this???? Here's another good example of feminine logican oxymoron of a word. Women have the babies, so what? why would that make them societally different from men? Just because women have babies they have a priveladge and a right to be stupid and credulous and uncritical? Why would I be envious of being credulous and uncritical? I can compare the two perfectly well because apparently women have brains, but unfortunately they don't use them, perhaps their brains is their womb, or better yet their vagina.
In the world on TV, women seem to outnumber men in the audiences of mindless talk shows. And the talk shows themselves seemed aimed at the basic hausfrau. Maybe the reason women seem "quantitatively" more feeble-minded is that they talk more on TV.
that's just more evidence for my position then. It's not that it "seems" like it, it's because it IS it.
True. Men are more capable of becoming less deluded because they have more delusions to begin with.
men and women both have the same number of delusions when they don't see Truth. It's just manifested in different ways.
Faust13, I can't harbor the kind of "contempt" you are speaking of. I just can't. Life is too short, too hard.
I don't know what this is supposed to mean. You don't forget about things because "life is too short, too hard" sounds very feminine to me.

Like I said, you would have to look at the quantitative difference, so far I'm still convinced that more women than men are feeble-minded and cowardly, but I guess the evidence still needs to be found more.
Amor fati
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by brokenhead »

Faust13 wrote:I don't know what this is supposed to mean. You don't forget about things because "life is too short, too hard" sounds very feminine to me.
It's so plainly obvious that harboring contempt is counteproductive, that it's difficult to know how to respond.
Like I said, you would have to look at the quantitative difference, so far I'm still convinced that more women than men are feeble-minded and cowardly, but I guess the evidence still needs to be found more.
Uh, yeah.

By all means, go forth and gather evidence that women are more feeble-minded and cowardly than men. Knock yer socks off.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by brokenhead »

Faust13 wrote:Here's another good example of feminine logican oxymoron of a word.
This is a very interesting sentence. What does it mean?
User avatar
Faust
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Faust »

brokenhead wrote:It's so plainly obvious that harboring contempt is counteproductive, that it's difficult to know how to respond.
harbouring contempt isn't counterproductive, it's a test to see if someone actually cares about something or if someone just wants to be validated by them. You can respond with a reasoned and empirically backed argument as to the meaning of your post. Philosophers are obviously going to harbour contempt for such silly things as "life is too short, too hard" I mean what does that mean??
By all means, go forth and gather evidence that women are more feeble-minded and cowardly than men. Knock yer socks off.
[/quote]
I already have numerous times, and so far it's only been confirming the view.
Amor fati
User avatar
Faust
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Faust »

brokenhead wrote:
Faust13 wrote:Here's another good example of feminine logican oxymoron of a word.
This is a very interesting sentence. What does it mean?
there was supposed to be a space there, don't tell me you didn't notice that. Feminine logic is an oxymoron because there's nothing logical about the feminine. The feminine mind is like, in the words of Sue, a "swirling, half-formed, tangled thing." It's essence is illogical and incoherent sophistry. Women have to compensate for men's superior physical and mental superiority through cunning and deception, a sort of infinite submission, they've already lost the battle.
Amor fati
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Faust13 wrote: The feminine mind is like, in the words of Sue, a "swirling, half-formed, tangled thing."
Haha - he even has to quote a female to communicate his thoughts about how females can't think.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by brokenhead »

He has his point of view and it's valid. I just don't view the world the same way.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Dan Rowden »

I do believe that's the most unintentionally funny post I've seen on GF ever.
User avatar
Faust
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Faust »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Faust13 wrote: The feminine mind is like, in the words of Sue, a "swirling, half-formed, tangled thing."
Haha - he even has to quote a female to communicate his thoughts about how females can't think.
actually no. I quoted her because her choice of words and tone fit perfectly the real thing.
Amor fati
User avatar
Faust
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Faust »

brokenhead wrote:He has his point of view and it's valid. I just don't view the world the same way.
that's the problem with you. You consider every point of view to be valid, not if it's True or not.
Amor fati
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Faust13 wrote:
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Faust13 wrote: The feminine mind is like, in the words of Sue, a "swirling, half-formed, tangled thing."
Haha - he even has to quote a female to communicate his thoughts about how females can't think.
actually no. I quoted her because her choice of words and tone fit perfectly the real thing.
And he still doesn't get it. Amazing.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Dan Rowden »

I'm not sure your point has much sting in its tail, Elizabeth, given that it's possible for a female to not have a feminine mind. I think the irony factor only reaches about a 5 on a scale of 10. Maybe a 6.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by brokenhead »

Faust13 wrote:
brokenhead wrote:He has his point of view and it's valid. I just don't view the world the same way.
that's the problem with you. You consider every point of view to be valid, not if it's True or not.
WTF? You win. Your viewpoint is invalid.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by brokenhead »

Dan Rowden wrote:I do believe that's the most unintentionally funny post I've seen on GF ever.
I'm glad we amuse you, Dan.
User avatar
Shahrazad
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:03 pm

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Shahrazad »

Dan,
I do believe that's the most unintentionally funny post I've seen on GF ever.
Pray tell, Dan: which post are you talking about?
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Dan Rowden »

That would be the one immediately before my observation. Am I the only one gets the humour of it?
User avatar
Faust
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Making peace with femininity

Post by Faust »

brokenhead wrote:
Faust13 wrote:
brokenhead wrote:He has his point of view and it's valid. I just don't view the world the same way.
that's the problem with you. You consider every point of view to be valid, not if it's True or not.
WTF? You win. Your viewpoint is invalid.
how is my view invalid? Because you believe there's not enough evidence to show that quantitatively there's no difference between stupid males and females?

What intrigues me is your weird rant about women being the baby bearers, and how this is supposed to make me have womb envy, or how it's related to the discussion. It was quite an incoherent and spontaneous post which I showed it to be, yet you completely ignored it.
Amor fati
Locked