"Ten Challanges of a Liberated Woman"

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I'm not speaking to the masculine in the context of this forum. I was speaking to the masculine in terms of the opposing forces in nature, as per the yin-yang symbol, in the context of the previously linked yin-yang Wikipedia article.

What I was commenting on was merely your statement: "It is the All that has divided into the equal and opposite (yin-yang, masculine/feminine) parts fundamental to all creation.".

Perhaps we're not clear on what "Creation" or the "All" means as opposed to physical science in which by the way there appear to exist only in some very arbitrary cases things like "twin opposing forces". But we're talking here about the way we create the world and respond to it within our mind and this is the realm where a term as 'masculine' has a very precise meaning and context. There are really not so many ways to chart this as this specific context is the same in everyone.

[syzygy]

Ja jetzt wird in die Haende gespuckt!

In laborantum cordis suo, non es deus. Non es ni une cum deum, non es usque ad unum. Et excomunicatus, ex unionus e deum.

The map doesn't matter, right?

Ja ja, kopfnicker! Willst du radikal sein?

the map is relative to the context, which includes the one who is using the map, and the agenda the map is used for, be it a conscious or unconscious agenda.

[Animus]

Ja jetzt wird in die Haende gespuckt!

In laborantum cordis suo, non es deus. Non es ni une cum deum, non es usque ad unum. Et excomunicatus, ex unionus e deum.

The map doesn't matter, right?

Ja ja, kopfnicker! Willst du radikal sein?

the map is relative to the context, which includes the one who is using the map, and the agenda the map is used for, be it a conscious or unconscious agenda.

Sort-of like when someone who speaks English is spoken to in German or Latin. It has no context.

When someone with a new-age philosophy speaks, and one with a history in cognitive neuroscience listens; there is no context.

[syzygy]

Ja jetzt wird in die Haende gespuckt!

In laborantum cordis suo, non es deus. Non es ni une cum deum, non es usque ad unum. Et excomunicatus, ex unionus e deum.

The map doesn't matter, right?

Ja ja, kopfnicker! Willst du radikal sein?

the map is relative to the context, which includes the one who is using the map, and the agenda the map is used for, be it a conscious or unconscious agenda.

Sort-of like when someone who speaks English is spoken to in German or Latin. It has no context.


When someone with a new-age philosophy speaks, and one with a history in cognitive neuroscience listens; there is no context.

If there were no context, for example between you and I, we'd not have spent so much time interacting over the years.

You are selecting aspects of the 'context' through which to assess the context. There's a difference between 'what is' and how you or I look at it.

[Animus]

If there were no context, for example between you and I, we'd not have spent so much time interacting over the years.

You are selecting aspects of the 'context' through which to assess the context. There's a difference between 'what is' and how you or I look at it.

Thanks Captain Obvious! :P

What I wonder is why you keep attempting to point out what I clearly already understand, and with such an air of superiority.

Me: "Consciousness consists of metarepresentations constructed by neural networks from fragmentary stimuli, beginning with lower-level representations (e.g. life, animate, human, metal, ...) compounding upward into more complex metarepresentations (car, mom, etc..). As a result what was once part of a contiguous whole is phenomenally represented as fragmentary or self-subsistent 'things'"

Syzygy: "Well... see... I look at things from the light... and the map is not the territory"

[Talking Ass]

What I wonder is why you keep attempting to point out what I clearly already understand, and with such an air of superiority.

If by any chance you need a disinterested third party to assume the Ultimate Superior role, by someone actually qualified, please don't hesitate to ask. It comes very naturally to me and I'm damned good at it.

Bis später.

[syzygy]

If there were no context, for example between you and I, we'd not have spent so much time interacting over the years.

You are selecting aspects of the 'context' through which to assess the context. There's a difference between 'what is' and how you or I look at it.

What I wonder is why you keep attempting to point out what I clearly already understand, and with such an air of superiority.

You said: "there is no context"

The fact of the matter is there is a context. Reality keeps showing us that there is a context, whether we're conscious of it or not. I stated it matter of factly and realistically. Thought is not superior to other functions, because it is based on our agenda and our personality filters, which are individual. Thought is just as unconsciously driven by a personal agenda as emotions are. Unless great personal awareness is practiced, one's thoughts will be based on a tangle of our psychologicial conditioning of our lifetimes, rather than what actually occurs before us.

As I said earlier, all balanced views, even if coming from a positions of "thought", or of the masculine, or from authority, or of patriarchy, by their balance will naturally work with emotion in a holistic integrated way; with the feminine, in laterally based ways, also. It is automatically implied in a balanced view.

personal digs, talking down to another, etc. (as per transactional analysis) indicate this balance is not in practise.

[Animus]

If there were no context, for example between you and I, we'd not have spent so much time interacting over the years.

You are selecting aspects of the 'context' through which to assess the context. There's a difference between 'what is' and how you or I look at it.

What I wonder is why you keep attempting to point out what I clearly already understand, and with such an air of superiority.

You said: "there is no context"

The fact of the matter is there is a context. Reality keeps showing us that there is a context, whether we're conscious of it or not. I stated it matter of factly and realistically. Thought is not superior to other functions, because it is based on our agenda and our personality filters, which are individual. Thought is just as unconsciously driven by a personal agenda as emotions are. Unless great personal awareness is practiced, one's thoughts will be based on a tangle of our psychologicial conditioning of our lifetimes, rather than what actually occurs before us.

As I said earlier, all balanced views, even if coming from a positions of "thought", or of the masculine, or from authority, or of patriarchy, by their balance will naturally work with emotion in a holistic integrated way; with the feminine, in laterally based ways, also. It is automatically implied in a balanced view.

personal digs, talking down to another, etc. (as per transactional analysis) indicate this balance is not in practise.

Evidently you missed the context in which I said there was no contex and that's probably why you think I'm missing a context.

The rest of this is just preaching to the converted, like I said a multitude of times, the limbic system is intimitely linked to the frontal cortex by the ventro-medial pathway, as illustrated in Antonio Damasio's book "Descartes' Error". In patients who suffer damage to this linkage, they are incapable of putting into action the determination of their thoughts. Thinking becomes an inapplicable enterprise when the emotional system is separated from reason. You don't have to convince me of this, and perhaps you aren't trying to. Instead, you are seemingly attempting to imply that I am incomplete, and you are complete, and if I only listened to you I wouldn't be as hostile as you perceive me to be. Yet, I've only given you an illustration of my perception of your philosophy, that we might better communicate. In so doing, time and time again, you attempt to beat me over the head with this view that you have attained integrated superiority and that I should aspire to your level.

[syzygy]

I'm not speaking to the masculine in the context of this forum. I was speaking to the masculine in terms of the opposing forces in nature, as per the yin-yang symbol, in the context of the previously linked yin-yang Wikipedia article.

What I was commenting on was merely your statement: "It is the All that has divided into the equal and opposite (yin-yang, masculine/feminine) parts fundamental to all creation.".

when you take it out of the context I used it in, which is a process I pointed out to you, then you have misconstrued any point I was making. I'm therefore not involved in this issue except as an imaginary placeholder for the newly-construed view you have created(which is not mine in actuality).

You originally called out my words as inaccurate, but really it was such words within the new context you placed them in that was inaccurate.

Perhaps we're not clear on what "Creation" or the "All" means as opposed to physical science in which by the way there appear to exist only in some very arbitrary cases things like "twin opposing forces". But we're talking here about the way we create the world and respond to it within our mind and this is the realm where a term as 'masculine' has a very precise meaning and context. There are really not so many ways to chart this as this specific context is the same in everyone.

I actually wasn't talking about the way we create the world and respond to it.

I understand that you are talking about what for you is a very precise meaning and context. I understand that you use this map as a way of charting everyone.

I use different sorts of maps, whereupon there is not a "masculine" overriding energy.

Could you please direct me to any (hopefully concise, to the point) descriptors of the masculine concept as it is used in this forum? Hopefully by the menoftheinfinite, if possible. I'd be very interested to see what it's about.

[Animus]

Good luck with that one, I think your best bet would be to read Weininger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Weini ... _Character

[Animus]

Lo and Behold; Sex and Character by Otto Weininger on TheAbsolute.net

http://www.theabsolute.net/ottow/

Direct Link to "Full" PDF: http://www.theabsolute.net/ottow/schareng.pdf

[syzygy]

The rest of this is just preaching to the converted, like I said a multitude of times, the limbic system is intimitely linked to the frontal cortex by the ventro-medial pathway, as illustrated in Antonio Damasio's book "Descartes' Error". In patients who suffer damage to this linkage, they are incapable of putting into action the determination of their thoughts. Thinking becomes an inapplicable enterprise when the emotional system is separated from reason. You don't have to convince me of this, and perhaps you aren't trying to. Instead, you are seemingly attempting to imply that I am incomplete, and you are complete, and if I only listened to you I wouldn't be as hostile as you perceive me to be. Yet, I've only given you an illustration of my perception of your philosophy, that we might better communicate. In so doing, time and time again, you attempt to beat me over the head with this view that you have attained integrated superiority and that I should aspire to your level.

What my actual intent here is to show that "thinking" is as false, fragmented, and based on psychology (and unprocessed/unconscious emotions of our past) as our emotions are.

emotions and logic are both illusory in the overview. In the big picture, anything that arises also falls. Anything that arises has a dual nature. On a practical level, while emotions have strengths, and a dual shadow nature that creates havoc, so does thought.


"Thought"* falls away, once imprisoned linearly in words, as delusionally as emotion does, as we've just represented with "context".

When I hear a talking down to functions that have been designed evolutionarily for reasons, and from which other "prioritized" functions hinge upon, I'm going to address this lack of awareness that is common in our society. The reason I speak to this is because I see rampant imbalance being justified over and over due to such ignorance and lack of awareness. At great cost to billions upon the planet.

If we can't all come from a place of actual humility to the limits of our egos, the limits of the tools at our disposal, and our universal potential to falsify all that we perceive, then the foundations for any discussion here are built on distorted and faulty foundations, and any 'truth' which arises will be distorted accordingly.


*Thought itself, like emotion, when operating purely, beyond distortion is clear, and truthful. Both become distorted and we have not only ongoing fragmentation with both, but we have egos debating on why their way is better (duality).

[syzygy]

The good news is that when we integrate thought, emotion and intuition, we end up managing their shadow aspects. This means the shadow aspects, by being accepted into the light of day, are no longer shadow aspects.

It is in the shadow, where we stuff all that exists that we opt not to look at (deny) that we perpetuate duality through.

Nonduality is possible. Living as holistic, healthy beings is also possible.

[Animus]

The rest of this is just preaching to the converted, like I said a multitude of times, the limbic system is intimitely linked to the frontal cortex by the ventro-medial pathway, as illustrated in Antonio Damasio's book "Descartes' Error". In patients who suffer damage to this linkage, they are incapable of putting into action the determination of their thoughts. Thinking becomes an inapplicable enterprise when the emotional system is separated from reason. You don't have to convince me of this, and perhaps you aren't trying to. Instead, you are seemingly attempting to imply that I am incomplete, and you are complete, and if I only listened to you I wouldn't be as hostile as you perceive me to be. Yet, I've only given you an illustration of my perception of your philosophy, that we might better communicate. In so doing, time and time again, you attempt to beat me over the head with this view that you have attained integrated superiority and that I should aspire to your level.

What my actual intent here is to show that "thinking" is as false, fragmented, and based on psychology (and unprocessed/unconscious emotions of our past) as our emotions are.

emotions and logic are both illusory in the overview. In the big picture, anything that arises also falls. Anything that arises has a dual nature. On a practical level, while emotions have strengths, and a dual shadow nature that creates havoc, so does thought.


"Thought"* falls away, once imprisoned linearly in words, as delusionally as emotion does, as we've just represented with "context".

When I hear a talking down to functions that have been designed evolutionarily for reasons, and from which other "prioritized" functions hinge upon, I'm going to address this lack of awareness that is common in our society. The reason I speak to this is because I see rampant imbalance being justified over and over due to such ignorance and lack of awareness. At great cost to billions upon the planet.

If we can't all come from a place of actual humility to the limits of our egos, the limits of the tools at our disposal, and our universal potential to falsify all that we perceive, then the foundations for any discussion here are built on distorted and faulty foundations, and any 'truth' which arises will be distorted accordingly.


*Thought itself, like emotion, when operating purely, beyond distortion is clear, and truthful. Both become distorted and we have not only ongoing fragmentation with both, but we have egos debating on why their way is better (duality).

You aren't going to convince me that emotions and thoughts are equally fallible or equally valid. It doesn't matter how vague you become, or how discrete you become, because I already know that is nonsense. They are of a different function, a different utility, consist of different faculty and also appear different. You can try to equivocate the two, in order to justify your strong emotional attachments, but I'm not buying it for a second.

[Animus]

The good news is that when we integrate thought, emotion and intuition, we end up managing their shadow aspects. This means the shadow aspects, by being accepted into the light of day, are no longer shadow aspects.

It is in the shadow, where we stuff all that exists that we opt not to look at (deny) that we perpetuate duality through.

Nonduality is possible. Living as holistic, healthy beings is also possible.

Great, send us a postcard :P

[syzygy]

The rest of this is just preaching to the converted, like I said a multitude of times, the limbic system is intimitely linked to the frontal cortex by the ventro-medial pathway, as illustrated in Antonio Damasio's book "Descartes' Error". In patients who suffer damage to this linkage, they are incapable of putting into action the determination of their thoughts. Thinking becomes an inapplicable enterprise when the emotional system is separated from reason. You don't have to convince me of this, and perhaps you aren't trying to. Instead, you are seemingly attempting to imply that I am incomplete, and you are complete, and if I only listened to you I wouldn't be as hostile as you perceive me to be. Yet, I've only given you an illustration of my perception of your philosophy, that we might better communicate. In so doing, time and time again, you attempt to beat me over the head with this view that you have attained integrated superiority and that I should aspire to your level.

What my actual intent here is to show that "thinking" is as false, fragmented, and based on psychology (and unprocessed/unconscious emotions of our past) as our emotions are.

emotions and logic are both illusory in the overview. In the big picture, anything that arises also falls. Anything that arises has a dual nature. On a practical level, while emotions have strengths, and a dual shadow nature that creates havoc, so does thought.


"Thought"* falls away, once imprisoned linearly in words, as delusionally as emotion does, as we've just represented with "context".

When I hear a talking down to functions that have been designed evolutionarily for reasons, and from which other "prioritized" functions hinge upon, I'm going to address this lack of awareness that is common in our society. The reason I speak to this is because I see rampant imbalance being justified over and over due to such ignorance and lack of awareness. At great cost to billions upon the planet.

If we can't all come from a place of actual humility to the limits of our egos, the limits of the tools at our disposal, and our universal potential to falsify all that we perceive, then the foundations for any discussion here are built on distorted and faulty foundations, and any 'truth' which arises will be distorted accordingly.


*Thought itself, like emotion, when operating purely, beyond distortion is clear, and truthful. Both become distorted and we have not only ongoing fragmentation with both, but we have egos debating on why their way is better (duality).

You aren't going to convince me that emotions and thoughts are equally fallible or equally valid. It doesn't matter how vague you become, or how discrete you become, because I already know that is nonsense. They are of a different function, a different utility, consist of different faculty and also appear different. You can try to equivocate the two, in order to justify your strong emotional attachments, but I'm not buying it for a second.

Suit yourself. Learn through learning, then.

[Animus]

Suit yourself. Learn through learning, then.

Is the redundancy of that statement intentional?

[syzygy]

Suit yourself. Learn through learning, then.

Is the redundancy of that statement intentional?

The point is when we are out of synch with what is, we must either learn, which includes a process, or we must accept the consequences which are anti-life (which may include learning the "hard way". at any rate, we create our own anti-life consequences as the outcome of our creative acts). TA alluded to people with, I think it was strong preferences to certain extremes of function (biases), and how that sort of thing catches up with one over time. It's evolution, baby.

Then there is knowing and being in the Eternal beyond karma and cause and effect.

Anyone can choose the Eternal in any moment. All one has to do is live in acceptance of what is. This implies "acceptance". This may seem self-evident, but people show over and over that to their way of processing things, it is not self-evident. This means that people show their lack of acceptance by fighting reality everywhere they turn. If there exists such a conflict between thought/word/deed--ie: one speaks to the now, but acts in non-acceptance of the now--one must play such conflict out in time. Through cause and effect. One thusly takes one's self out of the Eternal when doing so, and enters their psychology (which is the actual state of being delusional, or out of touch with reality--living instead based on the past programming as it exists in one's mind, projecting this programming outward, as if it were the state of the world that we see, when again, it's just our unresolved psychology. Our scripts that we willfully choose to play out).

Transactional analysis has already charted the basis of human imbalance when we look at others and see them as "not okay" and ourselves as "okay". People can understand this in an inkling, or learn the hard way through experience, or bear the ongoing conflict in their bodies over time.

It's all good. Depending on how you look at it...

[Blair]

[You shouldn't pay too much attention to Prince, syzergy. Nothing he says makes any sense. I don't think he intends sensibility. All the other 549 posts of his are pretty much in the same category.]

That's right, I don't intend sensibility. The sensibility finds the intention.

You don't have it, which is why you are compelled to spew so much narcissistic horseshit on this forum. You beg for attention, you are truly pitiful, but at the same time magnificent in your arc of ignorance.

[Is.]

http://modulado.files.wordpress.com/200 ... 3_2624.jpg