On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.

On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Postby Kunga » Fri Dec 25, 2009 2:53 am

http://members.optushome.com.au/davidqu ... ition.html


i only read it on the fly...so this discussion can expose the depths....
As i read it...red flags popped up all over the place...i tried to imagine i was David....i could feel the emense pain...a love/hate relationship with women...and a deep desire to transend my human nature by destroying any attachment to women in the pursuit of Enlightenment. In Davids' view, woman/femininity is the downfall of any man that ever hopes to attain Enlightenment. Therefore he must kill all love and admiration of woman by reducing her to nothing more than a clump of dirt. If this hatred and loathing of woman was put in physical form, rather than expressed in words...he would be behind bars.

A true Sage is beyond love and hate. A true Sage knows equaniminty. A true Sage is a light for the world.

This is attributted to the philosophy of Buddha (Which David professes to respect ) :


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... 5.html#ch1
User avatar
Kunga
 
Posts: 2303
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Postby Ryan Rudolph » Fri Dec 25, 2009 3:22 am

A sage simply sees women for what they are - imperfect creatures.

He doesn't feel hate towards them, but he doesn't place them on a pedestal either. It is merely a matter of seeing both sexes as they are, without any distortion.

David's critique prevents this from happening, prevents men from idolizing women without seeing their faults, but he could have went into a bit more detail of not falling into the trap of hating women.

A hatred of women usually happens when the spiritual seeker is young, has a lot of libido, and is frustrated by his inability to connect with women on a deeper level, and frustrated by his inability to have constant sexual fulfillment and the women of his choice. Most sexual crimes agaisn't women occur due to this frustration that builds up in men.

Here is relevant poem that illustrates how men can idolize women as goddesses, denying their true nature and even their worldliness. It is almost as if he sees the divine in her, and ignores everything faulty and human about her. Men have fallen into this trap throughout the ages, and fell into the trap of putting all their energy into sexual/romantic pursuits, while ignoring philosophy and wisdom. The end result is a man that is a shell of what he could be, and his life ends up filled with despair, loneliness and negative karma.

Johanthan Swift - The lady's dressing Room:

Five hours, (and who can do it less in?)
By haughty Celia spent in dressing;
The goddess from her chamber issues,
Arrayed in lace, brocades, and tissues.
Strephon, who found the room was void
And Betty otherwise employed,
Stole in and took a strict survey
Of all the litter as it lay;
Whereof, to make the matter clear,
An inventory follows here.
And first a dirty smock appeared,
Beneath the arm-pits well besmeared.
Strephon, the rogue, displayed it wide
And turned it round on every side.
On such a point few words are best,
And Strephon bids us guess the rest;
And swears how damnably the men lie
In calling Celia sweet and cleanly.
Now listen while he next produces
The various combs for various uses,
Filled up with dirt so closely fixt,
No brush could force a way betwixt.
A paste of composition rare,
Sweat, dandruff, powder, lead and hair;
A forehead cloth with oil upon't
To smooth the wrinkles on her front.
Here alum flower to stop the steams
Exhaled from sour unsavory streams;
There night-gloves made of Tripsy's hide,
Bequeath'd by Tripsy when she died,
With puppy water, beauty's help,
Distilled from Tripsy's darling whelp;
Here gallypots and vials placed,
Some filled with washes, some with paste,
Some with pomatum, paints and slops,
And ointments good for scabby chops.
Hard by a filthy basin stands,
Fouled with the scouring of her hands;
The basin takes whatever comes,
The scrapings of her teeth and gums,
A nasty compound of all hues,
For here she spits, and here she spews.
But oh! it turned poor Strephon's bowels,
When he beheld and smelt the towels,
Begummed, besmattered, and beslimed
With dirt, and sweat, and ear-wax grimed.
No object Strephon's eye escapes:
Here petticoats in frowzy heaps;
Nor be the handkerchiefs forgot
All varnished o'er with snuff and snot.
The stockings, why should I expose,
Stained with the marks of stinking toes;
Or greasy coifs and pinners reeking,
Which Celia slept at least a week in?
A pair of tweezers next he found
To pluck her brows in arches round,
Or hairs that sink the forehead low,
Or on her chin like bristles grow.
The virtues we must not let pass,
Of Celia's magnifying glass.
When frighted Strephon cast his eye on't
It shewed the visage of a giant.
A glass that can to sight disclose
The smallest worm in Celia's nose,
And faithfully direct her nail
To squeeze it out from head to tail;
(For catch it nicely by the head,
It must come out alive or dead.)
Why Strephon will you tell the rest?
And must you needs describe the chest?
That careless wench! no creature warn her
To move it out from yonder corner;
But leave it standing full in sight
For you to exercise your spite.
In vain, the workman shewed his wit
With rings and hinges counterfeit
To make it seem in this disguise
A cabinet to vulgar eyes;
For Strephon ventured to look in,
Resolved to go through thick and thin;
He lifts the lid, there needs no more:
He smelt it all the time before.
As from within Pandora's box,
When Epimetheus oped the locks,
A sudden universal crew
Of humane evils upwards flew,
He still was comforted to find
That Hope at last remained behind;
So Strephon lifting up the lid
To view what in the chest was hid,
The vapours flew from out the vent.
But Strephon cautious never meant
The bottom of the pan to grope
And foul his hands in search of Hope.
O never may such vile machine
Be once in Celia's chamber seen!
O may she better learn to keep
"Those secrets of the hoary deep"!
As mutton cutlets, prime of meat,
Which, though with art you salt and beat
As laws of cookery require
And toast them at the clearest fire,
If from adown the hopeful chops
The fat upon the cinder drops,
To stinking smoke it turns the flame
Poisoning the flesh from whence it came;
And up exhales a greasy stench
For which you curse the careless wench;
So things which must not be exprest,
When plumpt into the reeking chest,
Send up an excremental smell
To taint the parts from whence they fell,
The petticoats and gown perfume,
Which waft a stink round every room.
Thus finishing his grand survey,
Disgusted Strephon stole away
Repeating in his amorous fits,
Oh! Celia, Celia, Celia shits!
But vengeance, Goddess never sleeping,
Soon punished Strephon for his peeping:
His foul Imagination links
Each dame he see with all her stinks;
And, if unsavory odors fly,
Conceives a lady standing by.
All women his description fits,
And both ideas jump like wits
By vicious fancy coupled fast,
And still appearing in contrast.
I pity wretched Strephon blind
To all the charms of female kind.
Should I the Queen of Love refuse
Because she rose from stinking ooze?
To him that looks behind the scene
Satira's but some pocky queen.
When Celia in her glory shows,
If Strephon would but stop his nose
(Who now so impiously blasphemes
Her ointments, daubs, and paints and creams,
Her washes, slops, and every clout
With which he makes so foul a rout),
He soon would learn to think like me
And bless his ravished sight to see
Such order from confusion sprung,
Such gaudy tulips raised from dung.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
 
Posts: 2489
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Postby Kunga » Fri Dec 25, 2009 4:05 am

Is it not human nature to conceal the animal nature ?
Man tries to conceal his flaws just as much as woman.
Man primps and preems just like woman.
Granted there are men and woman that fart indiscriminately and don't give a shit what they look like and smell like...there's lot's of them ...mostly mentally ill types.

The unnatural aspect of any behavior reguarding the use of cosmetics is born from a society that values the norms of society, and the demands of a culture that reguards things of this nature as important aspects of personal hygiene....not to mension mans' need to survive by producing these products as the supply of demand dictates. It's human nature to adorn himself....they wern't born with peacock feathers.

The stoneage people on this planet walk around stark naked..but adorn themselves as well.
This poem "The Lady's Dressing Room" could be applied to the man's dressing room also....let alone the transgender male's dressing room....lol...but seriously...it would be a shock for any man to discover that a woman acually shits. It's only a deluded man that has unrealistic expectations of woman, and that is why he is repelled by the truth.

For every negative thing you can find reguarding a woman there is a positive. And vice versa with men.
So why don't men (and women) just grow up and realize that neither of us is perfect. We just try hard to be...mentally physically and spiritually.
User avatar
Kunga
 
Posts: 2303
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Postby Kunga » Fri Dec 25, 2009 4:33 am

Ryan Rudolph wrote:He doesn't feel hate towards them, but he doesn't place them on a pedestal either. It is merely a matter of seeing both sexes as they are, without any distortion.


Well, he certainly had a field day distorting and generalizing all women as the same.


Ryan Rudolph wrote:A hatred of women usually happens when the spiritual seeker is young, has a lot of libido, and is frustrated by his inability to connect with women on a deeper level, and frustrated by his inability to have constant sexual fulfillment and the women of his choice. Most sexual crimes agaisn't women occur due to this frustration that builds up in men.


Yes...i sensed that his inexperience with women (or his lack of bonding in a satisfying/meaningful realtionship) was the cause of his frustration and torment resulting in wanting to kill all his love and admirations towards woman and all she represents.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:The end result is a man that is a shell of what he could be, and his life ends up filled with despair, loneliness and negative karma.





Yes...it is a pity...this is not the result of all mens' experience with women....only of those that have failed to experience a normal healthy realtionship with women.
User avatar
Kunga
 
Posts: 2303
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Postby Ryan Rudolph » Fri Dec 25, 2009 7:35 am

no I wasn't implying that David fell under that category. Overall, I think his generalizations and critique is highly accurate of how most women are. Sound reasoning in my opinion.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
 
Posts: 2489
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Postby Kunga » Fri Dec 25, 2009 8:45 am

Ryan Rudolph wrote:no I wasn't implying that David fell under that category. Overall, I think his generalizations and critique is highly accurate of how most women are. Sound reasoning in my opinion.


i think you would be in the minority...and it's the majority that rules. i am a woman and most women i have met have been intelligent...nothing like the women David has come in contact with....his characterture of woman is a reflection of himself....little has he realized that within himself and all men is the female hormone, estrogen ...how the hell does he propose to rid himself of that ? Our bodies are nothing but chemicals...male and female hormones are us. He will never rid himself of his innate femininity that lies dormant.....as he ages his testoserone levels will diminish and his estrogen levels will increase.....that's a fact.
User avatar
Kunga
 
Posts: 2303
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Postby Trevor Salyzyn » Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:36 am

Kunga,
Is it not human nature to conceal the animal nature ?

Humans have no essence. They are neither one way nor another necessarily. What they happen to do is more often accidental than virtuous.
For every negative thing you can find reguarding a woman there is a positive. And vice versa with men.

It depends on what you value. If you value truth above all else, then the negative (people tend to avoid truth) has no corresponding and equally useful positive. It's all negative.
...a normal healthy realtionship with women.

Those who go against the norm have no use for normal; those whose temperament is made for solitude have no use for relationships, no matter how healthy normal people insist they are. Jesus never married: in all likelihood, he never had a normal healthy relationship with women.
it's the majority that rules

That's a rather trite expression. It's almost as though you think truth is democratic. Which side would you be on? Galileo, or the philosophers?
Our bodies are nothing but chemicals...male and female hormones are us.

I don't believe David is making a judgement about body chemistry. The Exposition came across as a moral condemnation, a re-appraisal of something held sacred.
A mindful man needs few words.
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
 
Posts: 2397
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Postby Kunga » Fri Dec 25, 2009 12:55 pm

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Humans have no essence. They are neither one way nor another necessarily. What they happen to do is more often accidental than virtuous.


Can you please give an example ? i have a hard time following that one . Thanks :)


Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Those who go against the norm have no use for normal; those whose temperament is made for solitude have no use for relationships, no matter how healthy normal people insist they are. Jesus never married: in all likelihood, he never had a normal healthy relationship with women.



i agree with that...but Jesus had no inclinations towards abusive speech towards women either. Ahimsa (non-violence/non-harming) includes the harmful thoughts and speech as well as physical harm. The damage created from intensional abusive speech aimed at belittling women however "truthful" will follow you like a shadow. Most likely those that intensionally belittle and abuse women will be a woman in their next life....and it won't be a pretty sight....


Trevor Salyzyn wrote:That's a rather trite expression. It's almost as though you think truth is democratic. Which side would you be on? Galileo, or the philosophers?




It's just a fact of how society is. i am a loner, i love solitude, i do not subscribe to the norm, i would be with Galileo....
User avatar
Kunga
 
Posts: 2303
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Postby Trevor Salyzyn » Fri Dec 25, 2009 1:14 pm

Kunga,
Can you please give an example ? i have a hard time following that one .

When you talk about human nature, you are talking about essences. For instance, human nature is benevolent. Or, humans are essentially evil.

The example you used is that humans are inherently deceptive when it comes to their animal side. However, I don't think there's enough in common across the range of cultures to call that our nature. The Bacchic rituals of ancient Greece, for instance, show us humans glorifying their baser instincts.
A mindful man needs few words.
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
 
Posts: 2397
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Postby Kunga » Fri Dec 25, 2009 1:26 pm

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:instance, human nature is benevolent. Or, humans are essentially evil.


That would be an opinion....my opinion is that man is basically good. But i also belive we have evolved (not nessesarly from apes...their DNA does not match ours), and our evolution is not complete...we still have bodily hair, molars (teeth), animal instincts (sex) by the way...i think sex is primitive LOL...and i hate it !!!!!!

All in all we are still evolving.....Davids Exposition on Women is biased..it seems to portray is views on the western woman...which has no bearing on the rest of the zillions of women that have lived on earth since the beginning of time...
User avatar
Kunga
 
Posts: 2303
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Fri Dec 25, 2009 11:57 pm

Kunga wrote:i only read it on the fly...so this discussion can expose the depths....

Why not read it in depth, slowly and thorough as it was written?

..i tried to imagine i was David....i could feel the immense pain...a love/hate relationship with women...

Why would you imagine straight away the feelings of the author as first argument? The problem is that there's no defense, no critique possible to what you think David must be feeling. It does create an atmosphere of bias with a veiled ad hominid, although I'm not entirely against character analysis, but starting with it doesn't look helpful.

and a deep desire to transcend my human nature by destroying any attachment to women in the pursuit of Enlightenment.

Not so strange in the context of transcending desire and the average man desires power, status and women in an unholy triad.

Therefore he must kill all love and admiration of woman by reducing her to nothing more than a clump of dirt. If this hatred and loathing of woman was put in physical form, rather than expressed in words...he would be behind bars.

Could you give an example where the clump of dirt comparison was made? We're all clumps of dirt in the end with some breath or spark added, after all.

A true Sage is beyond love and hate.

Yet all sages have always spoken against something and promoted something else. Especially the Buddha.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5020
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Postby Kunga » Sat Dec 26, 2009 8:14 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Why not read it in depth, slowly and thorough as it was written?


Yes...i will do that...still haven't had the time (been busy all day, came here to take a lttle break)

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Why would you imagine straight away the feelings of the author as first argument? The problem is that there's no defense, no critique possible to what you think David must be feeling. It does create an atmosphere of bias with a veiled ad hominid, although I'm not entirely against character analysis, but starting with it doesn't look helpful.


i don't know...i no nothing about formal debate...i bought a bunch of books recently on Philosophers, Philosophy and logic....but haven't had time to read them yet (a little on Descartes)...all my life (since a teen) i've been interested in philosophy but never studied it per say...never had much intellectual discussion with people, etc....this is all new to me....i think my male hormones are kicking in...lol ...i have a great interest in this like never before...the past 10 years or so i've studied buddhist philosophy...which i embrace...but i have a lot to still unlearn :)

One of the reasons i started to think of myself as David when i was reading was because he seemed to think he knew how a woman felt/thinks/etc...some of his "observations" were ridiculous....as a woman i know how a woman thinks...but his detest towars women clouds his thinking...if i was a sage and he was my student i would require him to learn to love woman and have a lover before he has any right to Enlightenment....then after he acomplished that he'd be ready.
Last edited by Kunga on Sun Dec 27, 2009 2:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Kunga
 
Posts: 2303
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Sat Dec 26, 2009 10:47 pm

Kunga wrote:....as a woman i know how a woman thinks...but his detest towars women clouds his thinking...if i was a sage and he was my student i would require him to learn to love woman and have a lover before he has any right to Enlightenment...

It's implied several times in the article that most women do not know how or why she thinks the things she does. Apart from a vague and largely mistaken notion. That's why she remains a mystery, to herself but also to men who assume she has to know somehow.

Again you raise the cloud of detestation as some kind of evidence but it's merely a prejudice on your side, impossible to contest. Perhaps it helps to read Quinn's biography and note he did once fall for a woman who is still a friend and even member here too and she had his child. Not that this would prove anything by itself but it easily counters your idea that it's just lack of experience that would explain the article.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5020
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Sat Dec 26, 2009 10:57 pm

dejavu wrote:Diebert:
Could you give an example where the clump of dirt comparison was made? We're all clumps of dirt in the end with some breath or spark added, after all.

"Compared to the majesty of God women are as about interesting as a lump of dirt. They are like cream cakes - capable of giving one great pleasure for a moment but fail to satisfy in any genuine sense."

The man who wrote this does not truly possess what can be called sagacity.

Of course you do possess enough sagacity to state that so convincingly! LOL

Compared to the majesty of the Whole of Existence, nobody looks impressive and that includes, shock, the most beautiful beings, even the ones some wouldn't mind dying or killing for. It takes a few lumps of brain cells to understand the meaning here, I suppose.

Where is Prince when you need him? Before his conversion to a Belluci worshiping cult he wrote amazing things about her, like: "bad breath, gunk in their eyes, feces inside them and on them, disease and spore ridden gaping vagina hole, that stench, that rotting blood stink and most of all, that presumptuousness". [source]
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5020
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Postby Kunga » Sun Dec 27, 2009 6:43 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:lack of experience


lack of a successful experience....he failed as a man to have a successful/rewarding experience with a woman...and so he wallows in his misery, and decides to lash out like a child that didn't get what he wanted ...

as i read this essay, i am sitting in a room with a man that mindlessly enjoys watching stupid tv shows....LOL and has no interest in pursuing the Ultimate Truth (one endevor that i've persued all my life since a teen...but have been interupted throught the years because i've had to juggle work & raising a family...but always reading and expanding my mind in between...

as i read this essay now, the red flags of hypocrisy and childish views and distortions run amuck...not to mension his being diagnosed as having a personality disorder...(he himself admitting to that )
User avatar
Kunga
 
Posts: 2303
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Sun Dec 27, 2009 7:35 am

Kunga wrote:lack of a successful experience....he failed as a man to have a successful/rewarding experience with a woman...and so he wallows in his misery, and decides to lash out like a child that didn't get what he wanted ...

Hold on, Kate Bush!

The problem is that now it's up to you to describe the exact "success" factor in relationships and how to experience such. Good luck! Do you see how you go from "requiring him to learn to love woman and have a lover" to: love successfully have some rewarding experience with the lover in question. It's a slippery slope in a discussion but feel free to expand on the secrets to real love.

as i read this essay now, the red flags of hypocrisy and childish views and distortions run amock...not to mention his being diagnosed as having a personality disorder...

Enjoy your time with a healthy man that mindlessly enjoys watching stupid TV shows then. Hope you can appreciate the irony of that situation compared to your critique on the article.

So far you haven't made one single argument but an imagined failed love life that somehow ended up with hating all women and referring to a red herring of a diagnosis that no one but a professional health-care worker has use for.

Your budding interest in philosophy is cool but it's in the end a very personal journey that could turn a lot of things in your life still upside down. Perhaps you should refrain from waving red flags around at this stage and practice cooling down and directing your thoughts to various subjects in your own life. See what happens if you allow it to shape yourself and apply what you learn. There are enough women on this forum who did something similar. It's a long and winding road and double winding for women.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5020
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Postby Kunga » Sun Dec 27, 2009 8:22 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:The problem is that now it's up to you to describe the exact "success" factor in relationships and how to experience such. Good luck! Do you see how you go from "requiring him to learn to love woman and have a lover" to: love successfully have some rewarding experience with the lover in question. It's a slippery slope in a discussion but feel free to expand on the secrets to real love.



when you are successful as an adult, that has been in love, and has had a lover or two...you don't feel the need to lash out in life, you can go forward and continue your life, chocking up whatever transpired in your experiences as part of life...you are still healthy ...maybe could of been set back for whatever time it might take to heal a wound...put it does not make you a cripple....i've been in many relationships with men in my life...the first one, the deepest love...my first love...lasted in my heart for 30 years...but the time we spent together was only a few short months....i succeeded in giving myself completely ..never asking or requireing anything of him....the relationship failed because we were both in military and separated too long...and i was so miserable i turned to drugs and ultimately decided he couldn't make a commitment to me, so i became permiscuous in order to drowned out my love......( i was only 21...and that's how i thought then).

So i've been in the present relationship for 20 years (skipping a few more relationships). We've raise 2 kids together (they're teens now). Although i'm not perfectly happy in this relationship, i realize there is more to life than having personal happiness....and that is responsibility. Responsibility to other peoples happiness. Not causing others to be miserable by your selfishness. Rare is it to find a family that isn't broken now days. I came from a broken home, and it has always been a great importance for my kids to have a father and mother.


So to answer your question as to what is a succesful relationship...it is one in which you don't wind up hating the opposite sex, but continue to grow and mature as an adult not blaming or shameing the opposite sex for your mistakes. Success is being able to go forward dispite your failures....if at first you don't succeed..try try again...or not...but it dosn't make you handicapped for the rest of your life.



Hey ! i never listened to Kate Bush before...i just found out who she was for the first time now Diebert :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYSCHKmv ... re=related
User avatar
Kunga
 
Posts: 2303
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Sun Dec 27, 2009 8:48 am

Kunga, did you have a period longer than a year in your adult life you were not busy with relation shipping or sex? What did you learn from that time?

Kunga wrote:i realize there is more to life than having personal happiness....and that is responsibility. Responsibility to other peoples happiness.

There's more to life than being responsible for other people's happiness. It sounds too much like needing to please. And what makes people happy does not automatically mean it's good for their mind or body.

So to answer your question as to what is a succesful relationship...it is one in which you don't wind up hating the opposite sex, but continue to grow and mature as an adult not blaming or shameing the opposite sex for your mistakes.

But we haven't established yet David Quinn hates the opposite sex. That's just your premature sounding conclusion. Quinn talks much about the things women hate. And he talks about the philosopher: "cannot hate women, for that would be to hate Nature itself, and this would be sheer stupidity to say the least. The philosopher is fully aware that all things have causes and that both woman and man are therefore innocent in every aspect of their existence. How could he hate what is blameless?"

And you still have nothing but suspicions that there was some "mistake" happening somewhere in Quinn's love life just because he didn't end up starting a family or isn't promoting it as a sound environment for thinking.

What do you think of this sentence from the article: She strives to make everyone like herself - open-minded, happy, tolerant, caring, sensitive to others, cooperative - that is, a non-entity. Have you an idea what he might mean with "non-entity"?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5020
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Sun Dec 27, 2009 8:52 am

Kunga wrote:Hey ! i never listened to Kate Bush before...i just found out who she was for the first time now Diebert :)

I only mentioned it because your avatar icon shows her recent album cover. And because she sings about love now and again.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5020
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Postby Kunga » Sun Dec 27, 2009 9:10 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Kunga wrote:Hey ! i never listened to Kate Bush before...i just found out who she was for the first time now Diebert :)

I only mentioned it because your avatar icon shows her recent album cover. And because she sings about love now and again.




LOL...i was just looking for an interesting avatar that had the 80x80 specs..i didn't know it was her album cover !!! LOL


Diebert van Rhijn wrote:What do you think of this sentence from the article: She strives to make everyone like herself - open-minded, happy, tolerant, caring, sensitive to others, cooperative - that is, a non-entity. Have you an idea what he might mean with "non-entity"?


That's a ridiculous statement....i don't strive to make anyone like myself...those are ideals/tools that anyone can use to bring more understanding and peace into their lives, as this world is filled with a multitude of personalities and cultures...we need to find ways to understand and get along with others in this world...he assumes he knows woman and how she thinks...but his analogies are only opinions not facts. He is alluding to women being non-existent (non-entity), and those characteristics of open-mindedness, happy, tolerant, caring,sensitive to others, cooperative, are valid attributes any human can aspire to....they do not cause one to become invisable or non-existent....like a woman (his woman), but to be more HUMAN/HUMANE. Most of his statements are INSANE.


Granted, ones ego must disappear a bit to become open-minded, tolerant, cooperative...etc. But that's a good thing. (Egolessness)



i've been reading this shit all day...i gotta take a break ! Many times i thought it's not worth even reading...let alone comment about...i feel like i'm wasting my time.
User avatar
Kunga
 
Posts: 2303
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Postby Nick Treklis » Sun Dec 27, 2009 10:24 am

I think when it comes to true spirituality, if a person doesn't show signs of getting it right away, they have no chance of ever getting it. Real wisdom can easily penetrate through even the most deluded minds to move one's soul, but if there is no soul, just delusion through and through, nothing can be done. If wisdom is a tree, it needs a place to set it's roots.
User avatar
Nick Treklis
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Sun Dec 27, 2009 10:48 am

Kunga wrote: He is alluding to women being non-existent (non-entity), and those characteristics of open-mindedness, happy, tolerant, caring,sensitive to others, cooperative, are valid attributes any human can aspire to....they do not cause one to become invisable or non-existent....like a woman (his woman), but to be more HUMAN/HUMANE.

This is getting close to making an actual point, very good! But it also shows the difficulty: you haven't explored the very nature of your journey yet and the forces stacked against it. Humans might aspire to the things you list but consider that philosophy is all about, as Quinn wrote: conflict, a something fundamentally different from the norm, an intense and sustained suffering, a conquering and striving for lofty impersonal ideals.

Woman claims to desire real substance, yet the values she holds dear - her "living for others" - necessarily implies her lack of it. She desires substance, but it is impossible for her to create something out of nothing.Instead, she must continually strive to weaken others, to reduce them to her own level of nothingness. Only in this way, she can gain a feeling of substance.

Compare this with your realization that there's: "more to life than having personal happiness....and that is responsibility ... to other peoples happiness. Not causing others to be miserable by your selfishness".

But philosophy is all about developing a certain degree of selfishness which Quinn calls "individuality". This is the "manhood" he's talking about and men do tend to be selfish and individualistic, although it rarely develops into something of spiritual significance. The women in their life are not exactly helping though, they often represent the end of development and abortion of any true spiritual life in embryonic form. In some cases the roles are reversed but the dynamic still the same.

Kunga wrote:Many times i thought it's not worth even reading...let alone comment about...i feel like i'm wasting my time.

You could ask yourself if you are not wasting your time here on this forum if you're that much opposed to this line of thinking. Not that agreement is required but wisdom starts with choosing the right environment to develop. And since the philosophy has proven so alien and "hateful" to you so far, your presence here would appear rather a waste of a kind soul. Real philosophy is hard, it will crack the many delusions of our life wide open and is more than just dangerous. That's why the willingness to stand alone, explore dark territory and "crack some skulls' is required, not exactly known to be female traits.
Last edited by Diebert van Rhijn on Sun Dec 27, 2009 10:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5020
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Postby Kunga » Sun Dec 27, 2009 10:52 am

Nick Treklis wrote:I think when it comes to true spirituality, if a person doesn't show signs of getting it right away, they have no chance of ever getting it. Real wisdom can easily penetrate through even the most deluded minds to move one's soul, but if there is no soul, just delusion through and through, nothing can be done. If wisdom is a tree, it needs a place to set it's roots.



I've read many wonderful spiritual books, none of them sound anything like what Quinnn has written...all of the spiritual books were written by men that i have read (well most of them) . My soul or essence has been deeply penetrated by the words of these men. (unlike the words defecated by Quinn).
User avatar
Kunga
 
Posts: 2303
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Sun Dec 27, 2009 10:54 am

Kunga wrote:I've read many wonderful spiritual books, none of them sound anything like what Quinn has written...

There could be another reason why that is so. But only real individuals could ever find out as one has to consider going against a massive flow.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5020
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Postby Kunga » Sun Dec 27, 2009 11:05 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Real philosophy is hard,



You call what Quinn has written Philosophy ??????????????????
I call it the ramblings of a mad-man ...i often wondered if he was even drunk while writing...
Seriously...if you call his rant philosophy...is there a sub-category for philosophy ?
it's more cult-like thinking....not rational or logical...totally opinionated and biased...obsessive...
User avatar
Kunga
 
Posts: 2303
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am

Next

Return to GENIUS FORUM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests

cron