Weininger

[Trevor Salyzyn]

I tend to be attracted toward individuals who have integrated the masc. and fem aspects of their nature

What do you mean by masculine and feminine aspects? Isn't that rather black and white?

[Carmel]

yes, prince, you are indeed the role model for dignity and decorum. :-/

[Dan Rowden]

Right, quantifiying things(cognitive testing) would yield more accurate results regarding women's state of consciousness than the approach that is relied upon here, which is to qualify the consciousness of women with random, useless speculation and the aforementioned name-calling, rocks, dogs, blah, blah. This type of rhetoric serves no purpose other than to be inflammatory, but if you really believe this is appropriate conduct, then have it, peeps. :)

Cognitive testing of what? There is no "cognitive testing" for the things discussed here. That's the real problem - you don't quite get that.

[Carmel]

I tend to be attracted toward individuals who have integrated the masc. and fem aspects of their nature

What do you mean by masculine and feminine aspects? Isn't that rather black and white?

Hi Trevor, nice to meet you. Your question comes at a rather inopportune moment. The answer to it would conflict with the general views regarding gender as espoused here and as you may have noticed, David is not currently open to dissenting opinion on the matter, but perhaps I'll respond to it at a later time, pending David's decision to ban my membership here. Thanks, however, for the inquiry.

[Carmel]

Right, quantifiying things(cognitive testing) would yield more accurate results regarding women's state of consciousness than the approach that is relied upon here, which is to qualify the consciousness of women with random, useless speculation and the aforementioned name-calling, rocks, dogs, blah, blah. This type of rhetoric serves no purpose other than to be inflammatory, but if you really believe this is appropriate conduct, then have it, peeps. :)

Cognitive testing of what? There is no "cognitive testing" for the things discussed here. That's the real problem - you don't quite get that.

consciousness. Clearly, Women don't have the same consciousness as a "rock", "tree", "dog" or "fish"...c'mon, Dan. Do you really not see the utter inanity and immaturity in using this sort of rhetoric?

[Dan Rowden]

What do you mean by "consciousness"? Consciousness of what? I really don't think you actually said anything.

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

[Carmel]

What do you mean by "consciousness"? Consciousness of what? I really don't think you actually said anything.

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

Actually, yes, Kelly and jupiviv have repeatedly compared the consciousness of women to inanimate objects and animals.

jupiviv's favorites are "trees" and "rocks". Kelly has used the words "rock, cow, fish, and dog" as well as "mentally retarded" to describe women's consciousness. When I confronted her on this, she's says it's okay to use these words within a certain context. Again, no it isn't okay from my perspective and yes, it is quite clearly, "stupid".

[Dan Rowden]

What about the first part of my post?

[Carmel]

What are you asking me exactly? My definition of the word "consciousness", perhaps. Can you clarify your question?

p.s.

I'm signing out now, catcha later...or...

[Dan Rowden]

Yes, I'm asking that, but also what it is about consciousness that you think relevant to enlightenment. And beyond that, how it is you think that conventional cognitive testing is able to say anything about such matters. I mean, you know that stuff like IQ or academic prowess are irrelevant, right?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Calling women dogs, trees and cows is blatantly obnoxious

Unless being man has been defined differently and refers to spirit. It's possible you just don't see spirit and in that case, indeed, why not move on?

individuals who have integrated the masc. and fem aspects of their nature

Your concept of the dualism remains childish. Consider that integration and unification are pure masculine movements. Blesses are the peacemakers! Sons of God!

my focus on "masculine", empirical, hard evidence

Sis, you don't have that much focus or handle on the hard sciences. You keep telling yourself that but you'd do good to question it a bit more often.

[Bobo]

Women aren't as mysterious as they like to make out.

Yes, they do like to make out.

I'm not sure they even know what it means not to make out ...

-

If they don't know what is not to make out it's difficult to say that they even like it. There would need to be the knowledge of what is not to make out for this.
Or if making out is alrealdy a discriminative process, meaning that woman wants to make out with whom they want to, in this case they would be indeed mysterious, since this mysteriousness would be concealed in them. But still only to those who want to make out with them.

So to the question "Woman wants to make out with whom (what)?", the answer could be: woman can't want/like to make out. Men wants to make out with woman. And woman can't want but what what men wants.
In this case it's better said that woman doesn't like to make out but men.

Or the answer could be: Woman wants to make out with whom they want to, if a man wants to make out with woman, woman will be mysterious to him.
Better said as woman are mysterious only to a man who wants to make out with them.

[David Quinn]

If you want me to leave, so be it.

Good. See you another time, then.
-

You missed the most important part of my post, which was:

"Ban me". :)

You're not in the position to dictate terms here. You are the guest, not the host. I fully expect that, as a guest and as a human being, you will honour the wishes of your host and depart gracefully.

-

[Dennis Mahar]

A powerful access that can get through this difficult argument is held in understanding:
'The hand that rocks the cradle rules the World'.
specifically,
the purposes that are animated in that hand that rocks the cradle.
that hand has agenda.
a conditioning agenda.
a conditioning agenda that obscures Reality.

It's not a blame game on women.

The QRS conversation is about 'smashing' conditioning to get at ultimate reality.
Women are free to 'smash' conditioning as well.

It's not personal.

[guest_of_logic]

Right, quantifiying things(cognitive testing) would yield more accurate results regarding women's state of consciousness than the approach that is relied upon here, which is to qualify the consciousness of women with random, useless speculation and the aforementioned name-calling, rocks, dogs, blah, blah. This type of rhetoric serves no purpose other than to be inflammatory, but if you really believe this is appropriate conduct, then have it, peeps. :)

Cognitive testing of what? There is no "cognitive testing" for the things discussed here. That's the real problem - you don't quite get that.

Here are some quotes from PFTH that describe certain qualities of women:

"To sell yourself is to diminish yourself, and to beg for help from fools and intellectual insects, I mean women."

"for it must be said, women (as they are) are barely human."

"This innocence bestows upon [a woman] a certain cheerfulness; but the price of innocence is that you forever remain - a child or an animal."

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

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

What exactly is that supposed to mean, Dan? What is a "direct" correlation and how is it different from an "indirect" correlation? It looks like you're trying to say something like, "Well, nobody's ever said a woman's consciousness is exactly equivalent to that of a rock" - but how is this supposed to save the comparison from being odious? Is it not blindingly obvious that such comparisons, to whatever extent they are made, are unwarranted and offensive? The import of being as conscious as a rock is having no consciousness at all: however you try to ameliorate this with "indirectness", it's hardly a realistic and fair comparison, is it?

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

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

[Robert]

Hey Laird.

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

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

From On Last Things (link to the whole book in pdf):

Someone who wants to read Weininger with sympathy might do well to start with Ellen Mayne. She not only gives an outline of his metaphysical first principles, but also gives a brave defense of his M / W dichotomy. Self-consciousness, awareness that one is self-identical, is what distinguishes humans from other animals. However, the abstract principle of self-identity (A = A, as Weininger puts it) does not imply the existence of a self-identical entity. For the expression “A = A” to have a reference, someone must affirm it, and then it means, “I am”. Its first application is self-referential. Thus, although everything in the empirical world is constantly changing, I remain self-identical. Indeed, this is a condition of the assertion of any proposition; any other identity that we can meaningfully refer to, “is derived from this first one”. Memory and time are necessary conditions making it possible for this self-identity to perform its creative function, and the “ideal or goal of mankind ... is an intensification to perfection of self-consciousness. This [Weininger] calls genius”.

The principles “M” and “W” are opposites. M stands for self-consciousness, for the commitment to self-identity and the laws of logic, for commitment to truth, self-examination and responsibility – to the higher self or “ego” that transcends the temptations and demands of the lower, “empirical ego”. W, of course, as the opposite concept, is negative – it stands for none of the above, but for the social and heteronomous rather than the individual and autonomous, for the “meaningless” rather than for the “concept-positing self”.

Mayne advises women not to take the negativity of W “personally and subjectively.... For this could tend to demonstrate the inability of woman to value truth more highly than her personal vanity”. The truth she would thus miss is that Weininger gets some important things right. There is a fundamental difference between male and female. He is wrong, however, to think of W as negative. A world totally M, she argues, would destroy itself. M and W are complementary, and “taken together they would make up a complete human person, but every actual individual is an incomplete mixture”. It is difficult not to see this as an attempt to rewrite Weininger. Nonetheless, Mayne points out that Weininger himself draws the conclusion that “no one has a right to forbid things to a woman because they are ‘unwomanly’”.

My own view is that this is not the place to look for “Weininger's error”. If there is such a thing, it lies deeper, in the metaphysics of dualism, itself. I shall return to this theme in section 6.

[Carmel]

David:

You're not in the position to dictate terms here. You are the guest, not the host. I fully expect that, as a guest and as a human being, you will honour the wishes of your host and depart gracefully.

Carmel:

No can do. I've already seen several flaws in reasoning in this thread that I either will or won't address dependant upon your decision to ban me. I have no intention of trying to persuade you one way or the other. The decision is yours and yours alone.

[Pam Seeback]

The infinite, or nondual, by its very definition, is not divided within Itself. This blatant, in your face wisdom, is irrefutable. Which means those who preach dualism, in no way, preach wisdom of the infinite. This was Weininger's failure to attain enlightenment of the difference between human psychology and the non-psychology of the Infinite, a failure of attainment of all philosophers who believe God or the Totality has a dual human mind as he or she has a dual human mind.

[jupiviv]

Actually, yes, Kelly and jupiviv have repeatedly compared the consciousness of women to inanimate objects and animals.

I've never compared the consciousness of women to inanimate objects or animals, although I hold that feminine women are only slightly more conscious than, say, rocks, if rocks are to be thought of as 100% unconscious. If I remember correctly, I used the tree and rock analogies in completely different contexts.

[Pam Seeback]

Dennis: The QRS conversation is about 'smashing' conditioning to get at ultimate reality.
Women are free to 'smash' conditioning as well.

Smashing a duality, which is what is happening on this board, will not smash conditioning. One is conditioned to dualism, which means 'two' or double-mindedness, which means that if it is to the end of conditioning that a man seeks, then he must smash the whole enchilada, dualism itself.

To think as a man is a conditioned idea, as is to think like a woman. There is no wisdom of the infinite being expressed in either conditioned idea.

[David Quinn]

David:

You're not in the position to dictate terms here. You are the guest, not the host. I fully expect that, as a guest and as a human being, you will honour the wishes of your host and depart gracefully.

Carmel:

No can do. I've already seen several flaws in reasoning in this thread that I either will or won't address dependant upon your decision to ban me. I have no intention of trying to persuade you one way or the other. The decision is yours and yours alone.

No problem. See you later.

-

[David Quinn]

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

Carmel has been banned because her posts have long become repetitive and abusive - that is to say, they have become indistinguishable from spam.

In essence, that is the only reason why a person would get banned here. If it was forum policy to ban people for "dissent" or presenting opposing points of view, then she would have been banned a long time ago. But she wasn't. She was given a long run. She received plenty of time to have her say. But now, I've had enough. I've had enough of the sheer repetition of her mundane point of view and the endless abuse she poured on those who disagreed with it.

For me, that is the bottom line for whether a worldly person should be welcome here or not - namely, that they should be interesting. And sorry to say, but Carmel was boring my brains out.

-

[Kunga]

Do Enlightened people get bored or lose compassion for others in the face of adversity ?
Do Buddha's ever lower themselves ?

[jupiviv]

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

[Diebert van Rhijn]

• Boredom is the consciousness of repetition. - Osho