Women have no soul?

[drax]

Hey, I was reading about the infinite. And this caught my attention. I´m not a femalle rights activist, but I never thought of this sentence before.

So if I may ask, why is that, and how can you back this information up?

Thanks in advance!!!

[Pincho Paxton]

No doubt that there is a way to scan for the soul, so it will appear eventually.

[Pye]

Since when have men proven the existence of such a thing for themselves, let alone to the exclusion of women?

Otherwise, it is in reference to concrete, existential qualities. Those shall need defined before anyone can determine to whom it belongs and to whom it is excluded.

And once again, it will never delineate itself purely along mas/fem lines.

And once again, another fruitless, arhythmic assertion.

[Pye]

But the awakened and knowing say: body am I entirely, and nothing else; and soul is only a word for something about the body.
The body is a great reason, a plurality with one sense, a war and a peace, a herd and a shepherd. An instrument of your body is also your little reason, my brother, which you call "spirit"--a little instrument and toy of your great reason.
"I," you say, and are proud of the word. But greater is that in which you do not wish to have faith--your body and its great reason: that does not say "I," but does "I."

- Nietzsche

[drax]

Thanks guys.

That´s what I thought.

See ya.

[Cory Duchesne]

No doubt that there is a way to scan for the soul, so it will appear eventually.

After some sophisticated scanning, I think most of them will turn up in a secret vault at Oprah's house.

[Carl G]

Thanks guys.

That´s what I thought.

See ya.

Glad our elucidations on this complex issue were able to so quickly provide verity to your own insights.

Bye bye.

[Carmel]

"Black Dog"
Led Zeppelin

"I don't know, but I've been told
a big legged woman ain't got no soul"

So, maybe it's only big legged women who don't have a soul?

hmm..things to ponder...

Nevertheless, Zeppelin had both rhythm and soul, so they're ok in my book. ;)

[Animus]

If you are reading Wisdom of the Infinite by David Quinn your best bet is probably to read Woman - An Exposition for the Advanced Mind by David Quinn.

E.G.

"Behind the glitter and dazzle of woman lies an emptiness which goes nowhere. The great skill of woman - her art par excellence! - is her ability to point beyond herself. All her movements suggest a source hidden deep within her. Man looks and looks - but finds nothing. He exclaims, "Woman is a mystery!" And no wonder! Nothing exists there to be found! Woman is purely the superficial, whose superficiality so skillfully persuades to the contrary. For she has no depth - there is not one bit, not one tiniest fraction, not even one slither of this fraction of anything other than the superficial.

Her powers of deception here ultimately originate in her not actually possessing a self, for woman is completely selfless. This is not the selflessness of the fully enlightened sage, but that of a child or an animal - that is, of a being who has not yet formed reflective consciousness to any significant degree. Having no self, she is able to respond spontaneously to her circumstances without the all the baggage that comes with existing. She never experiences the need to conform her actions to ethical principles, and this gives her a confidence and an inner glow that is looked upon enviously by men." - David Quinn, Woman; Looking Beneath Her Make-up

[Animus]

Also taken from David Quinn's Woman:

Someone took a youth to a sage and said: "Look, he is being corrupted by women."

The sage shook his head and smiled. "It is men," said he, "that corrupt women; and all the failings of women should be atoned and improved in men. For it is man who creates for himself the image of woman, and woman forms herself according to this image."

"You are too kindhearted about women," said one of those present; "you do not know them."

The sage replied: "Will is the manner of men; willingness that of women. That is the law of the sexes - truly, a hard law for women. All of humanity is innocent of its existence; but women are doubly innocent. Who could have oil and kindness enough for them?"

"Damn oil! Damn kindness!" Someone else shouted out of the crowd; "women need to be educated better!"

"Men need to be educated better," said the sage and beckoned to the youth to follow him.

The youth, however, did not follow him.

Nietzsche, 1882

[Pye]

Objects themselves do not have inherent values--these can only be given to them by subjects themselves. David has always worked this problem from the ass-end: Women are unconscious, rather than men become that way around them. Women have no selves, rather than men lose their own sense of self around them. It is a matter of the value attached to an object, and this can only come from the subject itself. The object does not contain these things inherently.

A single viewing of Antiques Roadshow ought to wise up any thinking person to this dynamic. If it's not wanted anymore; it's not valued. Want can only come from the subject itself. Every one of us can stare at a thing we once craved, see that we no longer do, and come to understand that the object itself did not change; rather our subjective desire for it did; our subjective assignment of value.

David, as subject, came to not-value women anymore.* He would like others to do the same. So he starts with the ass-end of bad faith: blaming/discrediting the value of the object itself, instead of addressing the subject's desire for it as the source of the [perceived] problem. Women above are blamed for using make-up to cover their emptiness. What is really afoot is the indiscriminate incapacity of most men to not-be drawn to its beauty and/or artifice. The weakness resides in the men-wanting, regardless of the artifices of the object itself. For nothing inherently exists in the object itself.

Does repetitive bashing of the value of something affect the subject's consideration of it? Well, sure, like any repetitive de-valuing of something will eventually do. It's monkey training. It usually works. But it does nothing to get to the true dynamic of the subject's responsibility in valuing. It stays on the value-swing: good/bad; good/bad, and never reaches the very clarity of neutrality it claims to serve. It continues to attribute to the object values that can only be created and held by the subject alone.

That David has failed to live clear-headed in a world containing women is what he has passed on to some others here. It will always be his failing, and not that of the 'objects' he descries. Bad Faith is self-deception, and great self-deception takes place through this m.o.

Would it be a noble effort to consider women in some other way? Yo buddy. But this is not the way to get there.

Now we might be better prepared to really understand what Nietzsche is meaning in the quote supplied above . . . .



edit: *to be fully correct, I should say that David came to negatively value his own responses to women.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

And once again, it will never delineate itself purely along mas/fem lines.

Unless soul, being a unifying essential quality in most meanings out there, is defined to be a masculine property.

Dawn and dusk do not delineate itself purely among day/night lines either. Yet nobody questions the difference between day and night. Neither is it unusual to see the dawn as the reveille of the day and as such reflecting its glory and the dusk as its decline, the slow glide into the night, as its representative bearing a tiding.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Objects themselves do not have inherent values

An object is defined by the value of its self. Derived from instantiation of its parents. Otherwise we wouldn't have an object.

[Pye]

Diebert writes: Unless soul, being a unifying essential quality in most meanings out there, is defined to be a masculine property.

Oh christ, Diebert. I'm not getting sucked into that again. We might as well say, "Unless soul is defined as a (fill-in-the-blank) property." I've not made opposites out of complementaries. And further, have not applied the pathology of western dualistic thinking to the whole mess by elevating one over the other in value, when interdependency is the truth - each owed to the other.

Dawn and dusk do not delineate itself purely among day/night lines either. Yet nobody questions the difference between day and night. Neither is it unusual to see the dawn as the reveille of the day and as such reflecting its glory and the dusk as its decline, the slow glide into the night, as its representative bearing a tiding.

spin, doctor, spin . . . .

[Pye]

Diebert: An object is defined by the value of its self.

value . . . to whom?
always to whom . . . .

[Diebert van Rhijn]

David, as subject, came to not-value women anymore.* He would like others to do the same. So he starts with the ass-end of bad faith: blaming/discrediting the value of the object itself, instead of addressing the subject's desire for it as the source of the [perceived] problem .

The woman liberation David announces is the truth of the woman not being an object at all. She's entirely part of the man as subject. The subject's desire as the source of the problem is the whole soul of the article. Not sure how you manage to miss it yet proclaiming it as a supposedly superior approach. Almost worth the label of feat, tapping away at some supposed contra-beat?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Diebert writes: Unless soul, being a unifying essential quality in most meanings out there, is defined to be a masculine property.

We might as well say, "Unless soul is defined as a (fill-in-the-blank) property.

No, the way I phrased it is very deliberate, full of meaning, history and connection for those inclined to listen. But don't take my word for it, contemplate it yourself.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Diebert: An object is defined by the value of its self.

value . . . to whom? always to whom . . . .

If you could agree there was no object without a perceived value, that its self is that value which forms the object, then it's not a large step towards seeing the object as such does not exist. And since David in this article lines out how creator-man wills the object-woman into existence it's up to that same man to undo her, which is: his own delusion. Whatever is left remains blessed.

[Pye]

Diebert writes: The woman liberation David announces is the truth of the woman not being an object at all. She's entirely part of the man as subject.

She, the person, is not ‘entirely part’ of man-as-subject at all. She, the concept, is. David is working for the freedom of men, and the elimination of women – I’d suggest both in person and in concept.

In addition, men will never be the liberators of women. Women will have to assume their own subjectivity and do this themselves.

Truth is, “creator-man” has never had anything to do with her free-standing subjectivity, or the withholding thereof. He merely compensates for his incapacity to host and gestate new realities.

[Nick]

Pye,

I think your missing the fundamental basis of the Woman philosophy, which is simply understanding the difference between feminine and masculine psychology and how they influence one's ego, thus determining the level of consciousness one can potentially attain. Masculinity causes one to have a sense of needing to overcome in order to become, being able to say fuck the world. These components found in that crazy masculine spirit wanting to break through at all costs are essential when starting off on the spiritual path. In a way it's a very violent process. Femininity causes one to seek out emotional bonds and because of this it is inherently limited in attaining consciousness, it lacks that spark. Enlightenment requires the rejection of emotional bonds and all forms of attachment, the feminine simply has no place in the realm of spirituality.

Now you can say I just monopolized the "spiritually conducive traits" and labeled them masculine, but I think this would ignore the fact that the masculine and feminine components in our own ego play out to near perfection in the sexual dynamic between males and females, where males represent the masculine and females represent the feminine. It's not just some cultural phenomenon, it's roots run deep within our species evolution in how our means of survival shaped the psychology of the sexes and the resulting roles we played.

[Pye]

Nick, the believers of this construct have always mistaken disagreement with it as misunderstanding of it.

All believers do this very thing.

[Nick]

Well you basically said that there is a denial of the fact that men become unconscious around women or "lose their sense of self" around them. I do not deny this, nor do I recall any denial of this by anyone else familiar with the Woman philosophy. This would be a misunderstanding on your part; correct?

[Pye]

Nick: Well you basically said that there is a denial of the fact that men become unconscious around women or "lose their sense of self" around them. I do not deny this, nor do I recall any denial of this by anyone else familiar with the Woman philosophy. This would be a misunderstanding on your part; correct?

I'd go back up the thread to the Quinn excerpt and tell us where this is what's being said?

I see little there but transference of blame - the same transference that characterizes most of the discussions along these lines that I've ever seen on this site.

In fact, Nick, I suggest your statement is the first of its kind I've ever seen in this context.

So, congratulations are in order ;)

[Nick]

I'd go back up the thread to the Quinn excerpt and tell us where this is what's being said?

you said,

"David has always worked this problem from the ass-end: Women are unconscious, rather than men become that way around them. Women have no selves, rather than men lose their own sense of self around them."

This statement appears to imply that David, or men in general, are denying that is their responsibility to remain conscious if that is what they want to do. I do not deny this, nor has David from what I can tell.

I see little there but transference of blame - the same transference that characterizes most of the discussions along these lines that I've ever seen on this site.

It would be a huge mistake to deny one's individual responsibility to remain conscious no matter what they are exposed to, be it women or anything else. That said, how can there be any transference of blame? Or should I ask, where did blame ever enter the equation to begin with?

In fact, Nick, I suggest your statement is the first of its kind I've ever seen in this context.

Not sure I understand what you mean here. Which statement? Can you expand on this a little bit?

So, congratulations are in order ;)

I'm a little nervous about the congratulations right now being that I'm not certain what I'm being congratulated for!

[Pye]

Nick writes: That said, how can there be any transference of blame? Or should I ask, where did blame ever enter the equation to begin with?

Nick, with all due respect - and I mean that sincerely - where the fuck have you been through all of the women-are-this, women-are-that dialogues that take place here? Every one of them has been aimed at object-blame - or if you prefer - object denigration in order to address subject weakness. "Women are unconscious. Women have no hope of becoming enlightened. Women are flighty flibberty-gibbets. Women are not human-being. Women cannot think. Women cannot reason." etc. Each of these are explicit transferences of what most men become around them. The concern of enlightenment will never be anyone or anything but the self and its inward exploration. This outward denigratory focus is what children do when they want an excuse.

And for a philosophy that purports a toughness to ego, a tearing down of same, none of it is directed at that ego directly. Instead, object-denigration is the high house of comfort in which this masculinity is encouraged to reside. It's tantamount to saying other people are responsible for my problems of consciousness. In what universe of wisdom will that ever be right?

No real exposition of Man as myth has ever taken place here. Here, the Woman-myth is the problem. Get rid of the Woman-myth and man will see himself clearly? My ass. Man simply has to begin seeing himself clearly. And as long as he coddles and nurtures his own mythic dimensions, he's doomed.

The congratulations were for stating outright that women are not the problem: that your response-to and desire for them is. Here, in this: "you basically said that there is a denial of the fact that men become unconscious around women or "lose their sense of self" around them. I do not deny this." The only other person I have ever seen that from here is skipair. As I recall, he didn't "understand" this construct properly, either, according to many of you.

My apologies to Steven Coyle.
Carry on . . . .