The human tendency to take things to their perfection

[Ryan Rudolph]

A quality that is present in the human being is our innate desire to take things to their perfection. And this is an activity that men and women both perform in different capacities. For instance: Men are more likely to enjoy fixing up an older model car, or upgrading a computer, or renovating a house, whereas women are more likely to enjoy perfecting what I call sensual things – the inside ‘look’ of the home, that makes her feel a certain way, or she perfects her ‘look’ by finding the right clothing combination, or she masters a recipe in cooking. However, the more masculinized a woman is, the more she will enjoy masculine-types of perfection activities, and the less she will enjoy feminine-types of perfection activities. And the same principle works in reverse - for instance: Gay men often enjoy feminine-types of perfection activities. However, then there are those humans who do not gain satisfaction from any sort of perfection activity at all.

And then, there are the rare ones who dedicate themselves to the perfection of their own minds, which is in another league altogether.

Moreover, the generic masculine-perfection activities tend to be more of a construction-orientated-pragmatic, whereas feminine-perfection activities tend to be more sensual in nature. However, that is not to say that all feminine-perfection activities are totally superficial because some sensual activities are also pragmatic as well, such as cooking or interior decorating, meaning they are necessary to some degree, and therefore are not totally frivolous.

[Tomas]

.



-Pied Piper starts another bash-the-girl thread-
Ryan Rudolph - A quality that is present in the human being is our innate desire to take things to their perfection. And this is an activity that men and women both perform in different capacities.

-tomas-
Gee whiz, I would certainly hope so.




-Pied Piper pigeon-holes the guys once again-
For instance: Men are more likely to enjoy fixing up an older model car, or upgrading a computer, or renovating a house,

-tomas-
Sure, reliving the past is downright adorable (gush, gush).




-Pied Piper takes another bite of his TV dinner-
whereas women are more likely to enjoy perfecting what I call sensual things "the inside look" of the home, that makes her feel a certain way, or she perfects her "look" by finding the right clothing combination, or she masters a recipe in cooking.

-tomas-
And she wants to be happy, something that you are incapable of fulfilling (except for your mommy).




-Pied Piper goes one-size-fits-all-
However, the more masculinized a woman is, the more she will enjoy masculine-types of perfection activities, and the less she will enjoy feminine-types of perfection activities.

-tomas-
Yup, I can just see my woman out there, with cattle prod in hand - segregating the male cattle - placing a band around their nutsack ... turning those wild boys into steers. This is Marlboro Country!




-Pied Piper takes a walk on the wild side-
And the same principle works in reverse - for instance: Gay men often enjoy feminine-types of perfection activities.

-tomas-
Well, its a good thing you stay over there with the boys. When your stiffy lasts for a week at a time, how do you relieve the dilemna?




-Pied Piper preaches to the choir-
However, then there are those humans who do not gain satisfaction from any sort of perfection activity at all.

-tomas-
Like those who still live with their mother and dad?




-Pied Piper pie-in-the-sky logic-
And then, there are the rare ones who dedicate themselves to the perfection of their own minds, which is in another league altogether.

-tomas-
Getting back to the week-long stiffy - how does one relieve that imperfection. (And, don't tell me the answer is in one of your Cosmopolitan article-polls you like to frank here, on Genius Forums).




-Pied Piper waves his free hand-
Moreover, the generic masculine-perfection activities tend to be more of a construction-orientated-pragmatic, whereas feminine-perfection activities tend to be more sensual in nature.

-tomas-
And I wouldn't have it any other way!




Pied Piper throws in a disclaimer-
However, that is not to say that all feminine-perfection activities are totally superficial because some sensual activities are also pragmatic as well, such as cooking or interior decorating, meaning they are necessary to some degree, and therefore are not totally frivolous.

-tomas-
You been observing your mom-in-action for far too long...


PS - getting back to that week-long sti


.

[Ryan Rudolph]

I wrote:

Moreover, the generic masculine-perfection activities tend to be more of a construction-orientated-pragmatic, whereas feminine-perfection activities tend to be more sensual in nature.

Tomas wrote:

And I wouldn't have it any other way!

Yes, we know Tomas, you are perfectly content with the man-woman pairups as they are, and that is why you object to the values of some of the posters here.

I mean, what would man be without a woman beside him cheering him on? He would forced to be an individual, what a travesty! How dare a philosopher promote authenticity, the audacity of these types! Lets crucify them all, says I, what do you say Tomas? Are you with me or not? I’ll get the hammer and nails, you get a dozen crosses, and I’ll meet you back at GF within the hour….

[Tomas]

.



-Some days earlier Ryan Rudolph orated-
Moreover, the generic masculine-perfection activities tend to be more of a construction-orientated-pragmatic, whereas feminine-perfection activities tend to be more sensual in nature.

-Tomas commented-
And I wouldn't have it any other way!



-Now, Ryan says-
Yes, we know Tomas, you are perfectly content with the man-woman pairups as they are, and that is why you object to the values of some of the posters here.

-tomas-
The "pairup" with my girlfriend is the only one I have known. She is the only girl I have dated.

I know of no other pairup that couples have. That being said, of course observing my parents pairup, brothers and sisters pairup, friends, neighbors etc. But I'm not looking into their bedroom windows for voyeur purposes as you seem to imply...

You said that you used to screw a lot of women in your earlier years .. to each his own and I don't judge anothers' moral terpitude.




-Ryan-
and that is why you object to the values of some of the posters here.

-tomas-
Please explain what you are saying...




-Ryan-
I mean, what would man be without a woman beside him cheering him on?

-tomas-
Living with his parents?




-Ryan-
He would forced to be an individual, what a travesty!

-tomas-
Oh come on Ryan, is your dad that much of a weenie to you?




-Ryan-
How dare a philosopher promote authenticity, the audacity of these types!

-tomas-
Authenticity means going 100% sexually celibate .. are you?

I've never sexually masturbated, all bets wouldda been off had I not hooked-up with my girlfriend. But my parents argued against that "lifestyle" when I was growing up, ditto for one of my brothers and sister. The other brother was always shakin' his stick.




-Ryan-
Lets crucify them all, says I, what do you say Tomas?

-tomas-
I understand the feminine part of me, and are fully comfortable with it.

'Them all' doesn't translate into anybody but you.




-Ryan-
Are you with me or not?

-tomas-
When you can show up here and take the flack that David and Kevin do, then I'll sign on.




-Ryan-
I'll get the hammer and nails, you get a dozen crosses, and I'll meet you back at GF within the hour.

-tomas-
Oh, now that enlightened crew has been expanded to twelve?

Lemme see, there's David Quinn, your Canadian pal Cory, Kevin Solway, (Ryan), Diebert, Dan .. ???


PS - Jesus had Mary Magdalene on his arm .. who's the enlightened Magdalene on Genius Forums.

Hey girls (ladies), any takers (up your cross) and follow Ryan?



.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Tomas,

You said that you used to screw a lot of women in your earlier years .. to each his own and I don't judge anothers' moral terpitude.

Its not so much the sex that is the problem, it’s the attachment, ownership and possession that comes with sex. If women could have sex without deluding themselves with sentimentalism, then I would be fine with it. The problem is they can’t, sex means something to them, and that is the problem. I just see sex as a biological urge, similar to hunger, and so on.

These days I respect women too much to have sex with them, because once you have sex, they want something, they become confused, they start asking questions like, “so what are we now?” Such ideas aren’t in the sage’s mind at all, a sage knows exactly what he is – an independent solitary being that is emotionally dependent on no one, and he wants to keep it that way!

Authenticity means going 100% sexually celibate .. are you?

I've never sexually masturbated, all bets wouldda been off had I not hooked-up with my girlfriend. But my parents argued against that "lifestyle" when I was growing up, ditto for one of my brothers and sister. The other brother was always shakin' his stick.

Authenticity to my mind doesn’t have anything to do with celibacy, masturbation is necessary for some, who are high in testosterone. Authenticity to me simply means not being emotionally attached to particular people or particular experiences that a person gives you – such an arrangement can only result in jealousy, insecurity, anger – basically violence. Attachment makes the mind violent.

Moreover, I don’t advocate this type of life, but if I had to judge a guy who frequently went to a prostitute compared to a guy that frequently had sex with his girlfriend, and told her that he loved her and all the rest of it, then I would say that the guy who went to the prostitute probably causes less karmic harm to the woman, as most prostitutes are totally detached from sex, as they treat it like a job because there is no feeling in it at all for them.

The emotional affects of sex are the evil, not sex itself.

[brokenhead]

These days I respect women too much to have sex with them, because once you have sex, they want something, they become confused, they start asking questions like, “so what are we now?” Such ideas aren’t in the sage’s mind at all, a sage knows exactly what he is – an independent solitary being that is emotionally dependent on no one, and he wants to keep it that way!

There is something disingenuous about this, Ryan. The truth is more like you do not know how to handle women, and that is probably because your understanding of women is at a low level. But because you wish to be a sage, or already see yourself as one, or wish others to see you as one, your lack of understanding when it comes to women should actually be a badge of honor.

Let me explain something to you. Humans get to live in just one body. That's it. That body lives for a short while and then it dies, and that's all she wrote. About half of the bodies are built in such a way that they can replace the ones that die. This is the sine qua non of our species as in all mammalian species. There can be no perfection of mind without minds to perfect, and these minds require brains which require their life-support systems we call the human body. There can be no human bodies of either sex without women. Still. Here in the twenty-first century. Not any particular woman, but women. The "they" that you "respect" too much to have sex with.

As a man, you no doubt understand biological urges. I know I do. A man's biological urge to have sex will cause him to lie, cheat, steal, and in extreme cases, even become a respectable provider. But you have to understand that a woman's drives are qualitatively different. She is driven not merely to provide a home for offspring, but to become one. She must become the nest wherein the eggs will hatch. She has no more control over this than you had over those times that led you to waking up beside someone you didn't really know and who made you want to puke.

So women don't "become" confused after you have sex with them. They were already confused before you did - if they weren't, they never would have had sex with you in the first place. When they ask "So what are we now?" they are doing a very rational thing - trying to become less confused by asking questions. And stop with the "such ideas aren't in the sage's mind." Such ideas aren't in your mind. As long as you are having delusions, why not go all the way? Why not say "such ideas are not in the Emperor's mind"? And don't fool yourself - such ideas aren't in most guys' minds. We're guys.

You say you do not want to become emotionally dependent on women, but in reality what you mean is you do not want the reponsibility of having a female emotionally dependent on you. But that in itself is being responsible in a way. I know for myself not too long ago I was mature enough not to become sexually involved with a girl because I knew I wouldn't be able to fulfill her expectations, that I would just have been too self-conscious taking her to her Junior Prom.

All seriousness aside, I have been on the other end of things, where a gorgeous, intelligent, and warm woman wanted to sleep with me. The very next morning, I found myself going "hummina hummina" and trying like hell not to blurt out the "L" word, knowing full well that unless she decided it was worth an encore, it would be a steady diet of beans again for the foreseeable future and that I might never get another prime rib.

Be honest, Ryan. Becoming a sage means perfecting selfishness. If women are shallow - and I'm not here to claim they aren't - men are all the more so, and that übermensch the sage the most of all.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Brokenhead,

Let me explain something to you. Humans get to live in just one body. That's it. That body lives for a short while and then it dies, and that's all she wrote. About half of the bodies are built in such a way that they can replace the ones that die. This is the sine qua non of our species as in all mammalian species. There can be no perfection of mind without minds to perfect, and these minds require brains which require their life-support systems we call the human body. There can be no human bodies of either sex without women. Still. Here in the twenty-first century. Not any particular woman, but women. The "they" that you "respect" too much to have sex with.

Technology will probably replace women’s role as mother, and allow women to either become philosophers or they should be humanely fazed out of existence, through genetic engineering. And As far as metaphysical claims such as the enlightened soul is the body/brain combination, and nothing more, I’m not as certain as you; I don’t claim to have certainty on such matters. As I believe one must make all sorts of material assumptions about the nature of reality in order to arrive at those conclusions.

There is something disingenuous about this, Ryan. The truth is more like you do not know how to handle women, and that is probably because your understanding of women is at a low level. But because you wish to be a sage, or already see yourself as one, or wish others to see you as one, your lack of understanding when it comes to women should actually be a badge of honor.

I know perfectly how to handle women, if they are not philosophers; we have nothing honest to offer each other. Plain and simple.

You say you do not want to become emotionally dependent on women, but in reality what you mean is you do not want the reponsibility of having a female emotionally dependent on you. But that in itself is being responsible in a way. I know for myself not too long ago I was mature enough not to become sexually involved with a girl because I knew I wouldn't be able to fulfill her expectations, that I would just have been too self-conscious taking her to her Junior Prom
Be honest, Ryan. Becoming a sage means perfecting selfishness. If women are shallow - and I'm not here to claim they aren't - men are all the more so, and that übermensch the sage the most of all

Yes, sage hood is virtuous selfishness. However, it is only those who are truly selfish that are truly honest.

However, I’ve clearly struck a chord with you in saying that I respect women too much to have sex with them because you clearly still have sex with women. Moreover, if you cannot stop pursuing sexual gratification, then that is what you are caused to do, don’t lose sleep over it. I used to be like you, but eventually I became bored with the whole thing, bored with the banal conversations, bored with the tedious game playing, bored with the loss of integrity, disgusted with sharing bodily fluids with another being, after awhile I tended to have quite a bit more of respect for my own hygiene and my own private space. perhaps you won’t get bored with it, perhaps you will. However, the main thing is to ask yourself that if women are not philosophers, what good at they, besides sexual toys to amuse you?

It wouldn’t be so bad if we invent robots that behave like women because then there is no threat to hurting a robot by leaving it the next morning, or not calling it back, or not playing all sorts of sentimental games, and all the rest of it. We could create robots to be less bizarre. In my opinion, Women are fragile emotional egos, plain and simple, and their deepest desire is to commit wholeheartedly to a strong man, which causes the most evil, both for themselves, and the man.

[Ryan Rudolph]

-tomas-

Like those who still live with their mother and dad?

The reason why the world is so imbalanced is because of humor like that. Let me explain: materialistic humans tend to envy/hate/despise the rich, meaning they only talk bad about them because they want what they have. However on the opposite end of the spectrum, they mock the poor. the ones who have very little, as if their existence is less valuable. Do you see the inherent corruption in your own humor? Values like that in a father can easily corrupt the child, or cause the child to self-destruct if that child cannot live up to the father's materialistic expectations.

A father should encourage the child to become great in spirit, great in mind, and what he becomes in society is only secondary.

If you consider yourself a man interested in morals/justice/fairness and enlightenment, then you should give great attention to the quality of your jokes.

[Tomas]

-tomas-

Like those who still live with their mother and dad?

The reason why the world is so imbalanced is because of humor like that. Let me explain: materialistic humans tend to envy/hate/despise the rich, meaning they only talk bad about them because they want what they have. However on the opposite end of the spectrum, they mock the poor. the ones who have very little, as if their existence is less valuable. Do you see the inherent corruption in your own humor? Values like that in a father can easily corrupt the child, or cause the child to self-destruct if that child cannot live up to the father's materialistic expectations.

A father should encourage the child to become great in spirit, great in mind, and what he becomes in society is only secondary.

If you consider yourself a man interested in morals/justice/fairness and enlightenment, then you should give great attention to the quality of your jokes.

So it is true that you live with your mom and dad...

Your mom prepares your meals.

Your dad pays your rent.

All this bullshit about robots meeting your whimsical needs... get real, Ryan.


.

[brokenhead]

However, I’ve clearly struck a chord with you in saying that I respect women too much to have sex with them

Yeah, I wouldn't join any club that would have me as a member.

because you clearly still have sex with women.

From your keyboard to God's ear.

Moreover, if you cannot stop pursuing sexual gratification

I can't.

then that is what you are caused to do

I was born with a dick and I'm very attached to it.

don’t lose sleep over it.

I don't.

I used to be like you, but eventually I became bored

If you were ever like me, then you weren't bored.

bored with the banal conversations, bored with the tedious game playing

It takes at least two people to do both of those things. From your video, I'd say you're not a bad-looking fella, and you say you know how to make money, so you can probably get girls if you wanted to. How do you know you just haven't met the right one? I am probably twenty years older than you are, and I'm not about to give up.

bored with the loss of integrity, disgusted with sharing bodily fluids with another being, after awhile I tended to have quite a bit more of respect for my own hygiene and my own private space.

Sharing bodily fluids with someone you love is what life is all about. The loss of integrity means you never figured out how not to lie to women. I've "cohabitated" for extended periods of time in the past. It's not all that difficult to establish your own private space in a relationship. It dependes on which partner you choose. And the hygiene thing is just too funny. What - are you turning into Felix Ungar?

However, the main thing is to ask yourself that if women are not philosophers, what good at they, besides sexual toys to amuse you?

Everybody is a "philosopher." Would you want to hang around a woman who was never at peace because she cannot accept Spinzoza's argument for a single substance? To philosophize is to verbally communicate what you think. Women already talk too much. Be glad they are not philosophers. They already tell you what to do. If they were philosphers, they'd be telling you what you should think.

You do not understand women if you think they are sexual toys and nothing else. Even I know there's more to it than that. You know what I think, Ryan? I think maybe you have never fallen in love. I don't necessarily recommend it, but it might just be necessary for understanding the other half of the people on the planet in any useful way.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Tomas,

So it is true that you live with your mom and dad...

Your mom prepares your meals.

Your dad pays your rent.

You see, Tomas, when you bring children into this world, it is an irresponsible act for the most part because at the present time, survival is very difficult, humans are very irrational, they’re difficult to cooperate with, and work weeks are excessive based on the greed of managers, and one up ends being a worse slave than one needs to be in order to appease the unrealistic demands of the company.

Work conditions are hellish because humans are hellish. And I don’t enjoy the prospect of being a slave to people’s greedy desires…

However, with a lower population, and minimal values, we could work half a week with half the hours, but humans refuse to do that. They loathe absolute freedom because they need their big house, their wives, their two kids, their two vehicles, their big screen tvs, they need to eat out at fancy restaurants, they need their vacations, their road trips, their parties, their golf excursions, their constant entertainment, do you follow Tomas?

Their values are the reason why I’m incapable of working in an environment such as that. People's values create long work hours, so one could say that a sage is too strong to work full time in such a slave culture like that.

When you’re entire being is 'order', meaning it abides in 'formlessness', and you’re thrown into a circus of insatiable desires coming at you in all directions, such a disorderly chaotic hell is no place for a sage.

Basically, I don’t enjoy the prospect of 40 hours per week of continuous physical and mental invasion, it doesn’t sound all that appealing to me, I’d rather die. Seriously, life isn’t worth that sort of slavery. I have very little will to be a slave.

However, that’s not to say that I don’t work at all, I do, I tend to move from part-time job to part-time job, and a make a bit of money on the side through the stock market, and by buying and selling used items and products. I tend to make enough to keep a car on the road, buy books, clothes, essentials, and part of my food bills, and so on. I’m only partially dependent, and my parents barely notice me around because I take very little, a few meals a day, some hot water, and a bit of electricity.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Brokenhead,

From your video, I'd say you're not a bad-looking fella, and you say you know how to make money, so you can probably get girls if you wanted to.

I could be very successful if I put the energy into it, but it will be on my on my own terms, if it happens. And the money made will not be used to get girls, that’s too much of teenager mentality. It will be used to make the future lives of people better, it will be used to solve many of the problems we are now facing. The last thing I want my mind dominated with are thoughts reproduction and women. That is why humanity is in the crisis it is to begin with! Men are only concerned with reproduction, when they should be concerned with serving something greater than their own sensual enjoyment.

To philosophize is to verbally communicate what you think. Women already talk too much. Be glad they are not philosophers. They already tell you what to do. If they were philosophers, they'd be telling you what you should think.

You’re basically saying that women are control freaks because they are not philosophers; they are a bundle of insecurity and desire wrapped in shiny foil…

If humanity was smart, we’d be moving in the direction of non-attached relationships, and some women are open to this – open to the idea of friends with benefits that you only see a couple times a month, and these women are the independent ones with no desire to have children. These women are quite advanced mentally, as their maternal instinct isn’t dictating their entire fate. I think too many women are totally controlled by their maternal instinct, as every time you have sex with them, they have babies, long-term commitment, and emotional attachment on their minds. All of this sentimentalism probably evolved in the minds of women to ensure that the man sticks around for the long term to put bread on the table.

However, we need to begin to redefine new types of relationships with the types of women are who strong enough for it. For instance: Some women are open to just a friend with benefits who they see a couple times a month, and then they forget about the person, and there isn’t any attachment there. However, these types of women tend to be your older women who already had children, or perhaps younger career orientated women. The biggest change that I would like to see is psychologists openly recognizing behaviors that cause long-term attachment, and advise people to avoid those sorts of behaviors. For instance: Sleeping in the same bed every night forms dangerous habits of emotional dependence or even living in the same house or apartment. The ideal arrangement is separate living quarters.

And this is only an alternative for those who are unable to live alone all the time, and need the companionship once and a while.

You do not understand women if you think they are sexual toys and nothing else. Even I know there's more to it than that. You know what I think, Ryan? I think maybe you have never fallen in love. I don't necessarily recommend it, but it might just be necessary for understanding the other half of the people on the planet in any useful way.

Oh barf, so those are your words of wisdom – go fall in love. okay Bruce Springsteen!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo1npZWR5qk

[brokenhead]

Oh barf, so those are your words of wisdom – go fall in love. okay Bruce Springsteen!

I said I didn't necessarily recommend it.

In just a glance
Down here on Magic Street
Love's a fool's dance
I ain't got much sense but I still got my feet

[Carl G]

Let me explain something to you [Ryan]. Humans get to live in just one body. That's it. That body lives for a short while and then it dies, and that's all she wrote.

The only thing you are "explaining" here is your opinion, despite pronouncing as though established fact.

About half of the bodies are built in such a way that they can replace the ones that die. This is the sine qua non of our species as in all mammalian species. There can be no perfection of mind without minds to perfect, and these minds require brains which require their life-support systems we call the human body. There can be no human bodies of either sex without women. Still. Here in the twenty-first century. Not any particular woman, but women. The "they" that you "respect" too much to have sex with.

A convoluted argument to justify, it seems, you fulfilling your biological and emotional needs and to deny the validity of Ryan's personal path.

As a man, you no doubt understand biological urges. I know I do. A man's biological urge to have sex will cause him to lie, cheat, steal, and in extreme cases, even become a respectable provider. But you have to understand that a woman's drives are qualitatively different. She is driven not merely to provide a home for offspring, but to become one. She must become the nest wherein the eggs will hatch. She has no more control over this than you had over those times that led you to waking up beside someone you didn't really know and who made you want to puke.

You are correct in saying that most coupling is done in an entirely unconscious fashion. This of course is not something worth defending, from a sage's point of view, is it?

So women don't "become" confused after you have sex with them. They were already confused before you did - if they weren't, they never would have had sex with you in the first place. When they ask "So what are we now?" they are doing a very rational thing - trying to become less confused by asking questions.

This is not the only possible reason. For instance, the motive may be a very irrational need to continue creating closeness -- that is, attachment -- between her and her lover. In this way she may spin a web in which to entrap him.

And stop with the "such ideas aren't in the sage's mind." Such ideas aren't in your mind. As long as you are having delusions, why not go all the way? Why not say "such ideas are not in the Emperor's mind"? And don't fool yourself - such ideas aren't in most guys' minds. We're guys.

Again you appear to try to justify your own biological and emotional urges by mocking, by disbelieving, and by rationalizing "eh, we're only human."

You say you do not want to become emotionally dependent on women, but in reality what you mean is you do not want the reponsibility of having a female emotionally dependent on you.

Ugh, who would wish this "responsibility"? That's co-dependence and speaks against the virtue of self-completion.

But that in itself is being responsible in a way. I know for myself not too long ago I was mature enough not to become sexually involved with a girl because I knew I wouldn't be able to fulfill her expectations, that I would just have been too self-conscious taking her to her Junior Prom.

Mature enough to fulfill her expectations?? Say no more, my friend. I shan't follow you down that path.

All seriousness aside, I have been on the other end of things, where a gorgeous, intelligent, and warm woman wanted to sleep with me. The very next morning, I found myself going "hummina hummina" and trying like hell not to blurt out the "L" word, knowing full well that unless she decided it was worth an encore, it would be a steady diet of beans again for the foreseeable future and that I might never get another prime rib.

All I get from this is a confirmation that you are pretty content playing the standard mating game. How does that square with an interest in philosophy?

Be honest, Ryan. Becoming a sage means perfecting selfishness.

What else would it be?

If women are shallow - and I'm not here to claim they aren't - men are all the more so, and that übermensch the sage the most of all.

Hear, hear! Maybe all is not lost for you yet!

[brokenhead]

Let me explain something to you [Ryan]. Humans get to live in just one body. That's it. That body lives for a short while and then it dies, and that's all she wrote.

The only thing you are "explaining" here is your opinion, despite pronouncing as though established fact.

Carl, Carl. I had company over the weekend, so I missed this. It is an established fact that the body lives and it dies. Or does your opinion differ on this?

A convoluted argument to justify, it seems, you fulfilling your biological and emotional needs and to deny the validity of Ryan's personal path.

Unbeknownst to you, it seems, I am doing neither thing!

You are correct in saying that most coupling is done in an entirely unconscious fashion. This of course is not something worth defending, from a sage's point of view, is it?

It's worth defending from any point of view. Not the act of fucking per se, but the act of forming human bonds, yes. If screwing shkeeves you, there's always in vitro, baby.

This is not the only possible reason. For instance, the motive may be a very irrational need to continue creating closeness -- that is, attachment -- between her and her lover. In this way she may spin a web in which to entrap him

Ugh! The horrible spider! Gross!

Again you appear to try to justify your own biological and emotional urges by mocking, by disbelieving, and by rationalizing "eh, we're only human."

The urges are there, you can't deny it. Personally, I am not a slave to mine. Why, I haven't had sex in... wait, what millennium is this?

Ugh, who would wish this "responsibility"? That's co-dependence and speaks against the virtue of self-completion.

Uh, companionship? Ryan has it all wrong. There's more Tom Waits than Springsteen in me, I'm all for taking myself out for a date, a little Red Lobster, nothing cheap. And if things go right I'll wind up spending the night with myself, and, well, taking advantage of myself...

Mature enough to fulfill her expectations?? Say no more, my friend. I shan't follow you down that path.

Carl, Carl. You missed the whole joke with this one. Read it again. It wasn't subtle.

Hear, hear! Maybe all is not lost for you yet!

I should say not!

[geniuine]

OK, let me get this straight: when people post threads about the masculine and feminine, they're not actually criticizing others (judging others), rather they're judging themselves and identifying all these traits (positive and negative) within themselves, right?

[Carl G]

Let me explain something to you [Ryan]. Humans get to live in just one body. That's it. That body lives for a short while and then it dies, and that's all she wrote.

The only thing you are "explaining" here is your opinion, despite pronouncing as though established fact.

It is an established fact that the body lives and it dies. Or does your opinion differ on this?

I'm not disputing that a body dies, but your premise was about humans, not bodies per se. You said "Humans get to live in just one body. That's it." How do we know this? You argued that because "that body lives for a short while and then it dies...that's all she wrote " (for the human). How do we know this?

[brokenhead]

I'm not disputing that a body dies, but your premise was about humans, not bodies per se. You said "Humans get to live in just one body. That's it." How do we know this? You argued that because "that body lives for a short while and then it dies...that's all she wrote " (for the human). How do we know this?

I guess we really don't. I do not believe in reincarnation, but that has been tackled in another thread.