On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

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

Post by Dan Rowden »

So far, you haven't offered a single rebuttal, just rhetorical bullshit. Put up or shut the fuck up.
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

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

Post by guest_of_logic »

Dan, whatever happened to that objective rejection of emotion? Kunga is after all merely the blameless product of her deterministic causes, isn't she?

Kunga, you've inspired me to finally get down to a thorough reading and analysis of this essay. Some of the things that you write resonate with me: red flags everywhere; distortions and generalisations; caricatures; childish views; assumptions presented as fact.

My overall response is that this essay assigns all of the very worst characteristics of women and humanity in general to femininity, and all of the best characteristics of men and humanity in general to masculinity, and that it ignores for femininity the best that women can be and for masculinity the worst that men can be (or to the extent that it observes failings in men, it ascribes them to the "woman" in man): in other words, it is mean-spirited and systemically biased. To take an example, it observes that women are in fierce competition with one another, yet it fails to observe that women are equally likely to be so anti-competitive as to help out another woman who has fallen into abject poverty, for example by providing financial aid to a relative stranger whom they have just discovered is living off gruel. No doubt David would raise all sorts of socio-psychological objections to such an observation, all of which would ignore the fundamental human spirit of selfless generosity and egalitarianism to which women are no less subject than men.

"Ah," I hear David object, "but generosity and egalitarianism have nothing to do with Truth!" Indeed, part of the systemic bias against women in this article stems from David's conception of Truth ("Truth" with a capital T) and the relation that he perceives women to have with this Truth:

"Can you honestly conceive of a woman living for truth? She is completely oblivious to even the very notion of truth, let alone the importance of pursuing it."

"The average man is far closer to wisdom than even the most gifted of women. The understanding of ultimate reality is no small matter. To attain it requires the masculine attributes of /absolute purpose/, of courage and rationality, of single-minded persistence, constancy under pressure, and a sense of destiny. I assure you that not one aspect of femininity is even remotely suited to the task."

To properly respond to these quotes would require a fairly detailed discussion of Truth and "ultimate reality" as David Quinn understands them, primarily as propounded in his online essay, Wisdom of the Infinite. Without going into detail, and skipping large parts of the doctrine, the essence in this context is the understanding that no individual is responsible for his or her achievements and characteristics, and that such responsibility can only be ascribed to the impersonal principle of causality as the ultimate deterministic principle of existence, and hence that the perspective of ego is flawed.

Is this really Truth with a capital T? Ought all single-minded rationalists to inevitably arrive at it? That's a debate to which I won't dedicate the space in this post, suffice it to say that it is far from a concept that is beyond the average woman to analyse. David's notion that women are "oblivious to the very notion of truth" might very well be a reflection on the idiosyncratic path of absolutist "truth" that he has committed himself to: it is not so much that women are oblivious to truth in general, as that they recognise the dogmatic zealotry and presumptuousness in his own approach.

David protests that he is not a misogynist and does not hate women. Fine, I say: in his individual social dealings with women on this forum and in the podcasts I detect no personal malice either; nor do I detect malice in Kevin's individual social dealings with women. There is, though, in both of them, a thoroughly negative streak and undeniable bias in their attitudes towards women in general - take, for example, the following two quotes from David:

"The true test of a person's spirituality is his relationship to woman - or, I should say, his lack of relationship to woman. If he has anything to do with her at all, it is only to denounce her."

"There is nothing in me that desires to put women down. Even if I wanted to, I couldn't do it - women are already as low as they can get and cannot be put down any further."

So, women are to be "denounced" and renounced; they are so low that they cannot be "put down any further". It's not hatred, but it's far from love, admiration and respect; it's far from a balanced view: it's a thoroughly negative perspective; a looking-down-on and denouncing-of; a patronisation that reduces women to intellectually and ethically incompetent little girls despite a best attempt to objectify the position - and even though David is talking in generalisations, he also makes the claim that whilst he is "open to the possibility that there could be exceptions, [he nevertheless thinks] that the exceptions are in reality so rare that the generalisation can be thought of as a solid truth". It can't be much clearer: he considers the generalisations to be so powerful as to apply to any specific woman, with barely the possibility of an exception. The folly of black-and-white thinking does not seem to occur to him; indeed he exalts in it: "As far as wisdom is concerned, everything is black and white."

I do note the odd element of truth in this essay, but anyone competent can manage that: the challenge is to be consistently truthful. I don't want to lapse into hypocrisy by accusing David of being unbalanced whilst not providing a balanced perspective on his own work, but on the other hand I have difficulty finding any quotes untainted by systemic bias, and worth consideration on their own merits. Here, though, is one:

"Whoever it was that said humans spend their lives attempting to crawl back to the womb was not too far from the truth. More accurately though, the ego is fundamentally motivated to find the supreme happiness and security of infancy and early childhood."

Kunga, because in your opening post you indicated a desire to "expose the depths" of this essay, and because you likewise observe an excess of inaccurate generalisations in this essay, and for my own interest and analysis, I've compiled a list of quotes that I find to be caricatures, mischaracterisations and stereotypes. It would be interesting to get your own response to these from the perspective of a woman - this might stimulate some in-depth discussion. I won't provide them all at once, so as not to overwhelm the discussion, so here I'll provide just the first three:

"By all accounts, women are destined to remain the happy, charming, mindless creatures they are."

"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."
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

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

Post by Nick »

Kunga wrote:My soul or essence has been deeply penetrated by the words of these men.
Interesting the way you put it; your soul being deeply penetrated. Delusion can be penetrated by wisdom, soul nourishes it. So it wasn't your soul that was penetrated, it was just the foggy delusions in your mind that were penetrated, maybe blown around enough to get rearranged a little bit. There was no soul to be found though.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

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

Post by Dan Rowden »

guest_of_logic wrote:Dan, whatever happened to that objective rejection of emotion? Kunga is after all merely the blameless product of her deterministic causes, isn't she?
So? People still need to, at some point, put up or shut up. It's just common sense and reasonableness.
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

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

Post by guest_of_logic »

Dan Rowden wrote:So?
So don't tell me that you're joining the ranks of the swearing atheist.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

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

Post by Dan Rowden »

Fuck yeah! Damn mo fo!
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

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

Post by guest_of_logic »

Mo fo, PoMo - I'll leave it to someone else to work out the difference.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

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

Post by Kunga »

Dan Rowden wrote:So far, you haven't offered a single rebuttal, just rhetorical bullshit. Put up or shut the fuck up.

i've been taking notes ..i know i haven't addressed anything specific yet...i don't know where to begin...i'm overwhelmed !!!

And so i will begin with Guest_of_Logics :


1. " By all accounts, women are destined to remain the happy, charming,mindless creatures they are."
i never consciously thought of myself as a woman...i was just a human being...i grew up in a household without men, no brothers,no father,my mother ran away from home when she was 11 or 12 years old...i was raised by a woman that worked 3 jobs to support me & my sister...my mother never depended on a man to take care of her...most of my life i spent reading and writing poetry as a teen...i had friends, but didn't need them, i prefered to be alone..i hated cliques in school..although i was basically happy and had a happy childhood...i was depressed a lot too as i felt unattractive...unlike my beautiful sister...my mother use to tell me i was beautiful from the inside and my sister was from the outside....so i didn't think i was charming either..nor did i try to be...........................Quinns statement is mindless, as charming as he tries to be to his male audience.



2. "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."
That statement in itself is shallow and superficial...the reason she seems to have no depth to him...is because he is afraid of diving deep...he stands at the beach wading with his toes in the cold water...unable to take the plunge ...his repulsive views prevent him from truely knowing a woman deeply because he is afraid of her...afraid she might know more than he...afraid she might whip his ass in any intellectual debate...so he put's up his defenses with false and empty words that he hopes will scare her off


3. "Her powers of deception here ultimately originate in her not acually possessing a self. For woman is completely selfless. This is not the selflessness of the fully enlightened sage, but that of a child or animal--that is, of a being who has not yet formed reflective consciousness to any significant degree."
This statement only reflects his own lack of consciousness...his words are all puffed up in defense of his own lack of any truth....his words are deciveing...maybe the only women he's come in contact with were immature women...women similar to himself...i seriously hope when he reflects on this essay of his, written many years ago, that his views have changed...that he has matured by then.....never in my life have i come across men that thought so ill-willed towards women...that in itself is proof that what he says is of his own experiences with women and not that of man as a whole. Most of the men i've met were normal and intelligent ....and i've also had a few genius lovers (they were the best and extremely romantic )


Bombs away !
Last edited by Kunga on Sun Dec 27, 2009 1:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Steven Coyle

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

Post by Steven Coyle »

.
Last edited by Steven Coyle on Sun Dec 27, 2009 2:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

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

Post by Dan Rowden »

Laird,

You callin' me a post modernist!!?
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

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

Post by guest_of_logic »

Dan Rowden wrote:Laird,

You callin' me a post modernist!!?
All I'm sayin' Dan is that there be a lot of O's in mo fo.
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

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

Post by guest_of_logic »

Kunga wrote:1. " By all accounts, women are destined to remain the happy, charming,mindless creatures they are."
i never consciously thought of myself as a woman...i was just a human being...i grew up in a household without men, no brothers,no father,my mother ran away from home when she was 11 or 12 years old...i was raised by a woman that worked 3 jobs to support me & my sister...my mother never depended on a man to take care of her...most of my life i spent reading and writing poetry as a teen...i had friends, but didn't need them, i prefered to be alone..i hated cliques in school..although i was basically happy and had a happy childhood...i was depressed a lot too as i felt unattractive...unlike my beautiful sister...my mother use to tell me i was beautiful from the inside and my sister was from the outside....so i didn't think i was charming either..nor did i try to be...........................Quinns statement is mindless, as charming as he tries to be to his male audience.
I like your last line. I also wonder how women who are struggling to support a family, or who are in a position of abuse, are "happy", "charming", and "mindless".
Kunga wrote:2. "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."
That statement in itself is shallow and superficial...the reason she seems to have no depth to him...is because he is afraid of diving deep...he stands at the beach wading with his toes in the cold wat...unable to take the plunge ...his repulsive views prevent him from truely knowing a woman deeply because he is afraid of her...afraid she might know more than he...afraid she might whip his ass in any intellectual debate...so he put's up his defenses with false and empty words that he hopes will scare her off
David is committed to the idea that he has penetrated the veil of ultimate truth: that he has discovered through pure logic the absolute truth of reality. He is highly likely to reject the notion that a (mere illogical, superficial) woman has anything to contribute that might rebut him. This is his bias through which he wards off any challenge from woman. He doesn't realise that from certain perspectives, his own "Truth" can be deconstructed into the equivalent of the superficial. So be it.
Kunga wrote:3. "Her powers of deception here ultimately originate in her not acually possessing a self. For woman is completely selfless. This is not the selflessness of the fully enlightened sage, but that of a child or animal--that is, of a being who has not yet formed reflective consciousness to any significant degree."
This statement only reflects his own lack of consciousness...his words are all puffed up in defense of his own lack of any truth....his words are deciveing...maybe the only women he's come in contact with were immature women...women similar to himself...i seriously hope when he reflects on this essay of his, written many years ago, that his views have changed...that he has matured by then.....never in my life have i come across men that thought so ill-willed towards women...that in itself is proof that what he says is of his own experiences with women and not that of man as a whole. Most of the men i've met were normal and intelligent ....and i've also had a few genius lovers (they were the best and extremely romantic )
"Selflessness". What does it mean? Quinn contends that in a woman it is nascent consciousness, prior to reflective consciousness. What then is it to have a self? How can it be reconciled with the QRS rejection of the ego? There seems to be some contradiction happening here. One must have a self/ego (be beyond the child-like/animal-like consciousness) to be capable of realising that there is no such thing as self/ego. This is no small nit-pick, it is one of the contradictions of the fundamentals of QRS existential philosophy.

Anyway, if you're ready for it, here are three more caricatures, mischaracterisations and stereotypes to grapple with:

"She never experiences the need to conform her actions to ethical principles"

"A woman is continually locked into fierce struggle with other women. It is easy to be fooled into thinking otherwise, that women are above such petty activity, but if you look closely enough you will see it. Their one and only concern is status. Their one true happiness lies in being seen to be superior to other women. Marriage, children, houses, looks, clothes, lovers, ornaments, wealth, politics, social and artistic activities - these are just some of the things she can call upon as visible signs of success in the great game of womanhood."

"The annals of psychology are littered with examples of her terrifying sense of injustice. Her morals and concerns are but tools for the status game, and if they prove a hindrance she will discard them as easily as she took them up in the first place - without batting an eyelash."
Jeannie
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:46 pm

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

Post by Jeannie »

I would hate to see what an actual misogynist would say about women. roflmao

Nice to be able to put shit on women all the time and justify it with philosophy.

Reminds me of Bible bashers when they call me evil, an abomination etc etc and justify it because it's in the Scriptures.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

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

Post by Kunga »

WOMAN IS CONTINUALLY LOCKED INTO FIERCE STRUGGLE WITH OTHER WOMEN. IT IS EASY TO BE FOOLED INTO THINKING OTHERWISE, THAT WOMAN IS ABOVE SUCH PETTY ACTIVITY, BUT IF YOU LOOK CLOSELY ENOUGH YOU WILL SEE IT. THEIR ONE AND ONLY CONCERN IS STATUS. THEIR ONE TRUE HAPPINESS LIES IN BEING SEEN TO BE SUPERIOR TO OTHER WOMEN. MARRIAGE, CHILDREN,HOUSES,LOOKS,CLOTHES,LOVERS,ORNAMENTS,WEALTH,POLITICS,SOCIAL AND ARTISTIC ACTIVITES--THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE THINGS SHE CAN CALL UPON AS VISABLE SIGNS OF SUCCESS IN THE GREAT GAME OF WOMANHOOD."


1. WOMAN IS CONTINUALLY LOCKED INTO FIERCE STRUGGLE WITH OTHER WOMAN.


Man is continually locked into fierce struggle with other men.
Never have i struggled with other women over any man...it can happen and it happens all the time to both men and women ...but he sounds like he's living in the stone age.

2. THEIR ONE AND ONLY CONCERN IS STATUS....

Men seem to be more concerned about this than women....look at all the metals on their chest in the military..

My only concern was LOVE . Never did i ever care about how much money a man had....a sense of humor, common decency,intelligence and love were my only concerns. The women David has met were not anything like me. i didn't come from money or status . Sometimes when men do not have those things to offer they feel like they're a failure...only if that was expected of them i suppose....i really can't fathom how anyone enlightened can be so biased and shallow in their thinking about women. Granted somewomen can be this way....but to generalize all women like this is childish.




Sorry.. guest_of_logic ...i missed the first question:


SHE NEVER EXPERIENCES THE NEED TO CONFORM HER ACTIONS TO ETHICAL PRINCIPALS.


That's why i've been studying Buddhism for the past 10 years or so....and before that it was the I Ching,,and before that i read the Urantia Book...and before that i was a born again christian in constant bible study day and night and even in my dreams......

even when i was doing drugs i thought of myself as an experiment and was always conscious of my actions....always feeling guilty if i did something i shouldn't have...."and if you can't be with the one you love, honey, love the one your with..love the one your with...love the one your with..."


as far as other women goes....can i really honestly speak for other women ? Can you honestly and truthfully speak for other women ?

If you can't speak truthfully without delusion...you have no credibility as a sage. Or even as a decent human being.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

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

Post by Kunga »

IT MAY BE THAT THE READER, HAVING REACHED THIS POINT, WILL HAVE FORGOTTON MY WARNING IN THE INTRODUCTION AND CONCLUDE THAT I AM A MISOGYNIST, NEED IT BE SAID, NOTHING IS FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH ! INDEED, I REGUARD MYSELF AS A TRUE LEADER OF THR MOVEMENT FOR WOMANS LIBERATION....WHAT COULD BE MORE IMPORTANT TO WOMAN THAN TO HAVE SOMEONE POINT OUT THE FALSENESS OF THEIR LIVES ? WHAT ELSE DOES LIBERATION MEAN IF NOT THE ESCAPE FROM DELUSION ? THERE IS NOTHING IN ME THAT DESIRED TO PUT WOMAN DOWN. EVEN IF I WANTED TO, I COULDN'T DO IT--WOMEN ARE ALREADY AS LOW AS THEY CAN GET AND CANNO'T BE PUT DOWN ANY FURTHER. MY DESIRE IS TO HELP THEM UP.


Shortly after this statement his nose grew as big as a didgeridoo..........
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

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

Post by guest_of_logic »

Thanks for responding, Kunga. There are only two more quotes in my list - see what you make of these. The first is not particularly damning of women as a standalone statement, but I'm interested in your response as a woman anyhow; the second is ... well, you can see for yourself:

7. "If the whole of gender psychology could be summed up in one sentence, it would be this: men look to the future for their happiness, while women find it in the present."

8. "The only thing consistent in women is her lack of consistency. She can believe one thing today, its complete opposite tomorrow, and not bat an eyelid. How could she be doing wrong when she had succeeded each time in enjoying herself immensely?"

Now... I know that David (and QRS adherents in general) associate femininity with unconsciousness quite explicitly, so I'm also wondering how your reactions change when the words are changed from "woman"/"the feminine" to "the unconscious", and when other supporting words are changed appropriately. I'll do this for a couple of the quotes - please let us know what you think about these quotes after the changes have been made:

"An unconscious person is continually locked into fierce struggle with other people. It is easy to be fooled into thinking otherwise, that even unconscious people are above such petty activity, but if you look closely enough you will see it. Their one and only concern is status. Their one true happiness lies in being seen to be superior to other people. Marriage, children, houses, looks, clothes, lovers, ornaments, wealth, politics, social and artistic activities - these are just some of the things the unconscious person can call upon as visible signs of success in the great game of life."

"Unconscious people are purely the superficial, whose superficiality so skillfully persuades to the contrary. For they have no depth - there is not one bit, not one tiniest fraction, not even one slither of this fraction of anything other than the superficial."

[edit: excised some over-politeness - this is GF after all...]
Last edited by guest_of_logic on Sun Dec 27, 2009 6:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

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

Post by Dan Rowden »

Jeannie wrote:I would hate to see what an actual misogynist would say about women. roflmao

Nice to be able to put shit on women all the time and justify it with philosophy.

Reminds me of Bible bashers when they call me evil, an abomination etc etc and justify it because it's in the Scriptures.
That's an incredibly shallow appraisal of things. Incredibly self-conscious and self-flattering too. Woman are above criticism? Is that your stance? And more importantly, it's not even about women! Only a woman would think it is! Talk about making the point.

Don't engage this discussion, Jean, if all you're going to do is bring indignance. It won't work for you. It's never worked for anyone.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

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

Post by Dan Rowden »

Kunga wrote:IT MAY BE THAT THE READER, HAVING REACHED THIS POINT, WILL HAVE FORGOTTON MY WARNING IN THE INTRODUCTION AND CONCLUDE THAT I AM A MISOGYNIST, NEED IT BE SAID, NOTHING IS FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH ! INDEED, I REGUARD MYSELF AS A TRUE LEADER OF THR MOVEMENT FOR WOMANS LIBERATION....WHAT COULD BE MORE IMPORTANT TO WOMAN THAN TO HAVE SOMEONE POINT OUT THE FALSENESS OF THEIR LIVES ? WHAT ELSE DOES LIBERATION MEAN IF NOT THE ESCAPE FROM DELUSION ? THERE IS NOTHING IN ME THAT DESIRED TO PUT WOMAN DOWN. EVEN IF I WANTED TO, I COULDN'T DO IT--WOMEN ARE ALREADY AS LOW AS THEY CAN GET AND CANNO'T BE PUT DOWN ANY FURTHER. MY DESIRE IS TO HELP THEM UP.


Shortly after this statement his nose grew as big as a didgeridoo..........
See, that sort of commentary just makes you look like a moron. But hey, knock yourself out....
Jeannie
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:46 pm

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

Post by Jeannie »

I know Dan, you mean "woman".

A female could easily do an exposition on "man" and come up with theories and insights into her experiences.

Whilst you lot keep "banging" on about "woman", you still attack "women" just because you can, seemingly.

I remember reading one fellow who stated that a woman's vulva (or vagina, forget which) was a "wound".

Such wisdom, such............crap!
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

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

Post by Dan Rowden »

I don't mean to be cruel here, but you know, I've have enough of this bullshit:
Kunga wrote:i've been taking notes ..i know i haven't addressed anything specific yet...i don't know where to begin...i'm overwhelmed !!!
Well, that's typical. Women feel that a lot. Sadly it stops them from being able to focus and think.
i never consciously thought of myself as a woman...i was just a human being
Bullshit. Let's juxtapose that with:
i was depressed a lot too as i felt unattractive...unlike my beautiful sister...
Whilst I'm sympathetic to your suffering regarding this, I have to call you out on your abject falsity in the first statement.
2. "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."

That statement in itself is shallow and superficial...the reason she seems to have no depth to him...is because he is afraid of diving deep...he stands at the beach wading with his toes in the cold water...unable to take the plunge ...his repulsive views prevent him from truly knowing a woman deeply because he is afraid of her...afraid she might know more than he...afraid she might whip his ass in any intellectual debate...so he put's up his defenses with false and empty words that he hopes will scare her off
That entire paragraph is female vanity at its worst. It's actually really stupid. Sorry, but it is. I've met barely a handful of women who could understand anything of a 3 -dimensional conceptual nature in a philosophical context; and, all too few men. It takes a certain sort of disposition and it's not common in either gender, but the reason for that is because of the dominance of the feminine in human psychology.
3. "Her powers of deception here ultimately originate in her not acually possessing a self. For woman is completely selfless. This is not the selflessness of the fully enlightened sage, but that of a child or animal--that is, of a being who has not yet formed reflective consciousness to any significant degree."

This statement only reflects his own lack of consciousness...his words are all puffed up in defense of his own lack of any truth....his words are deciveing...maybe the only women he's come in contact with were immature women...women similar to himself...i seriously hope when he reflects on this essay of his, written many years ago, that his views have changed...that he has matured by then.....never in my life have i come across men that thought so ill-willed towards women...that in itself is proof that what he says is of his own experiences with women and not that of man as a whole. Most of the men i've met were normal and intelligent ....and i've also had a few genius lovers (they were the best and extremely romantic )
Ah, yes, the best men are romantic. Sombody fucking shoot me.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

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

Post by Dan Rowden »

Jeannie wrote:I know Dan, you mean "woman".
Your understanding of that seems next to non-existent. If you want to be taken seriously by me, you might want to work on that understanding. I know you don't like the term, and I can understand why, but, really....this is philosophy, not smarmy office politics...
A female could easily do an exposition on "man" and come up with theories and insights into her experiences.
Indeed. Ever heard of Valerie Solanas? Weird but interesting woman. Look her up on Wiki. But would such an exposition have anything to do with reality and how the mind really works? Or would it be a politically driven tome? Thar's the real question.
Whilst you lot keep "banging" on about "woman", you still attack "women" just because you can, seemingly.
If that's all you see, then you see literally nothing but your own vanity.
I remember reading one fellow who stated that a woman's vulva (or vagina, forget which) was a "wound".
So? What the fuck has that got to do with me? Do you think I care about morons?
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

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

Post by guest_of_logic »

Dan Rowden wrote:And more importantly, it's not even about women!
You can't be saying that with a straight face, surely.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

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

Post by Dan Rowden »

Er, yes I can. That you think otherwise shows that you, too, don't get it at all.
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

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

Post by guest_of_logic »

Turn it up mate. There's only so much disingenuity a guy can take.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

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

Post by Dan Rowden »

Call me disingenuous one more time and I'll ban your arse. The fact is as I stated it. It is NOT about women. The fact is if you think that then you simply don't get it. I can't possibly be any more genuine or sincere in stating this.

I presume you comprehend the difference between: "involves" and "about"?
Locked