On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

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

Post by Kunga »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Kunga wrote:THE GUY I'M WITH IS A BIG BABY....HE PLEADS WITH ME NOT TO LEAVE HIM...HE KNOWS HOW I WOULD LOVE TO...AS A BUDDHIST IT IS NOT ETHICAL TO HURT SOMEONE THAT BEGS YOU TO STAY...ALSO MY TEACHER FEELS SORRY FOR THIS MAN AND DOEN'T WANT ME TO HURT HIM BY LEAVING HIM....I KNOW IT'S SOUNDING CRAZIER BY THE MINUTE....LOL
Crazy people and their caps...

To me you sound like a ruthless killer, killing each and every moment your own life with a smile on your face, killing every trace of your own ambition, while keeping this baby-guy chained to you, utterly emasculated. Forget about talking about Quinn's supposed hatred. Look at the disgusting pit of codependent relationship wreckage you try to justify with meaningless justifications wrapped in holier-than-though wrongly applied Buddhist terms. Exactly the kind of stuff the WOMAN article tries to address. Be thankful for it that it's being pointed out by people with nothing to lose.

you are exactly right..i've pointed that out to my insignificant other....i've told him...ok...you want this relationship ? then this is what it is...this is what will happen..don't bitch to me that i'm a bitch...you wanted me...you want this relationship....i have no love, only pity....but he loves pity...it's better than nothing..i've told him, go find someone that loves you...you deserve it... So i am numb.....dumb...whatever...i don't care anymore. It's only about survival now. i'm getting too old for anymore shit. Oh, and as far as Buddhism goes...when you have a teacher....you heed his advice. But i don't expect you to comprehend that one .
Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

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

Post by Pye »

Kunga asks: why does he regard the feminine as lower than masculine in the first place?
Out of the mouth of babes. And striking right at the heart of the incoherence contained herein.

QRS doctrine, no matter how it's spun, is dualistic - and dualism (in this sense) is any philosophic/religious view that insists on the existence of two independent, separable, irreducible, unique realms (in this case, the masculine and the feminine). Yet in dualism, the universe can only be explained by means of both realms.

So far, so good, as regards the M.O. here. Now this (QRS)dualism becomes Manichaeistic by: 1. hybridizing elements from various philosophies/religions (as Mani did [incidental, but worth mentioning]), and 2. teaching the release of the spirit from matter through asceticism (no sex, get your mind off women, keep your distance from 'worldly matters,' etc.). Again, necessary dualism: body/matter is irreducibly independent of so-called spirit. In this case, one stands in the way of realizing the other, which is, of course, incoherent to the original thought that they cannot be realized without one another.

Now in this particular dualism - as is the Manichaeistic tendency - one half of the duo needs to be eliminated (e.g. the forces of good overcoming the forces of evil; the masculine overcoming the feminine, etc). The "dual" actually becomes a duel - as in, they must do battle, and one must win. In this (incoherent) process, the fundamentally dualistic explanation of the universe has to eat itself -- render its own "irreducible" view of the nature of the universe as reducible.

This is how QRS-whatever has hybridized (in my view, completely misunderstood) the wisdom of the Tao whilst still laying claim to it. This is how this doctrine has hybridized/misunderstood Nietzsche, whose view of human life was anything but a dualism of body (so called 'matter') and mind (so called 'spirit'). This is how this doctrine has also hybridized/misunderstood Kierkegaard, who places faith past reason/logic and states the irreducible truth as subjectivity. Subjectivity is his only absolute.

What the aforementioned three philosophers have in common in this context is any discussion of masculine/feminine, men and women. And the latter two were great critics of women - the actual women and not Woman. As long as unconsciousness is conflated with the feminine, these great soldiers of logic and consciousness will be all about the dismantling of the very dualism that gives rise to their own philosophy. A self-eating philosophy. There are not enough O's in "incoherent" to address the lack of logic right at the heart of matters here.

Good luck, Kunga. I'd watch very carefully. You may have understood what they mean by "Woman," and by the masculine sickness of Woman-belief, but this will slide perceptibly toward women-people over and over again. This way, they can vent their philosophy of disgust toward female bodies, odors, conditions, behaviors, worth, humanhood, etc. - jump right from the so-called ideological heights (Woman) into the concrete circumstances from which they recoil (women). They can entertain their dualisms whilst denying them. They can dream, as they have often done, of a way to reproduce humans without the physical human-woman at all.

Such an old story, overcompensating-man; resentful-man, who has used all else in his arsenal to insert himself into something he believes himself left out. The history of the world is the history of this man dis-empowering women in any way he can enforce. He feels used; he feels manipulated; he feels he's not in control and ought to be. Poor, resentful man. He has not reconciled himself to reality at all.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

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

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Pye, philosophy, as in loving truth, naturally invokes dualism. One values truth above lie. Nature is not philosophical.
existence of two independent, separable, irreducible, unique realms (in this case, the masculine and the feminine).
There are two biological genders but beyond that there are no two realms in this case. You've never seem to have understood this, the true feminism involved: there's no woman unless derived and upheld by men and their needs, their culture and in there lies liberation for both genders.

The concept of Woman is a whole different thing compared to the metaphysical or cosmic Yin type of force or principle. Conflating them both is your mistake but yours alone. It's this world with all its men and women who are mixing up biological genders with psychological forces. Not Quinn or Solway. And perhaps indeed they have taken it further than Kierkegaard and Nietzsche could, just as the world has taken the confusion much and much further.
User avatar
Alex T. Jacob
Posts: 413
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:04 am

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

Post by Alex T. Jacob »

I think it is actually largely accurate to equate women with unconsciousness, as long as one does it with a great deal of care. And to think in terms of a dualism between 'spirit' and 'nature' is a good place to begin, for a man anyway. (I have no idea what the starting point for women should be). Also, to equate women with the body and with nature is useful as a tool, a way to organize perception. Early feminism did this, and described man's relationship to 'woman' as similar to that of man's relationship to a cultivated field. Man 'cultivates' nature. He takes raw elements and molds them into cultural elements, and with advanced culture attempts some great thing---and what is that?

It is more accurate to say that the body---this physical body that drives us all, with its appetites and needs and longings---is the thing that needs to be 'overcome', and in this sense is 'female'. In fairness to these Australian loco-beans they do state that a given man can be quite 'feminine' and they would also say that there are many women more masculine than certain men. I don't think that QRS ave any interest or opinion on reproduction, do they? This is of course a great fault: their philosophy is for people opting out of existence. It is not and cannot be a philosophy for people interested in reproducing, growing, expanding horizontally.

Pye wrote: "Such an old story, overcompensating-man; resentful-man, who has used all else in his arsenal to insert himself into something he believes himself left out. The history of the world is the history of this man dis-empowering women in any way he can enforce. He feels used; he feels manipulated; he feels he's not in control and ought to be. Poor, resentful man. He has not reconciled himself to reality at all."

There is no doubt that the QRS philosphy attracts overcompensating men, resentful men and men with a certain form of mental malady. That can be easily seen. It would be far more interesting if QRS were more aware of these tendencies within themselves. At the same time, all men need to understand on a psychological level what is REALLY happening inside of them, where they are REALLY coming from, and what REALLY makes them what they are. To do that is to go into and through that resentment. Know it, feel it, deal with it---but don't stop there.

Also, it is a very interesting issue, that of men who 'disempower women in any way they can'. In actual fact I would like to suggest that men have cooperated in an unprecedented manner in the construction of a new world-culture in which women have an extraordinary level of freedom. The doctrines of human freedom, which feminism borrowed, were masculine creations almost through and through. The emancipation of women was, in fact, a project defined by men.

Left to themselves (if such a thing were possible) it is interesting to ask: What would women want? What would they, on their own, create? I mean in the widest sense possible. We know, we know very well indeed, what men would create: it is in front of us. In 4 or 5 hundred years, as Western men have plunged into their freedom, they have remodeled the world, and it hasn't stopped. But again, women on their own, what would they have created? To what are they impelled? Is it a fair question? I think women would be the natural 'quietists', myself. I don't think a woman's culture would go much of anywhere, really. But I really don't know. The old-school feminists used to talk of the marvels that would come to the world when the female clitoris were released from bondage, as an event that would revolutionize the world. Well, what came of that? ;-)

I think strong, ambitious, willful women can very easily enter into existent man's culture and can begin to 'act like men'. And they can go quite far in man's culture. So many do. A woman with a good mind is perhaps a little rare but not that rare. There are many. And she moves in a purely masculine territory, a space carved out of 'the body' and 'nature' and 'unconsciousness', pretty exclusively by men. I think this is what QRS want to say, but I may be wrong. I think they ask men to really ASK THEMSELVES the question, Who am I? Men really need to know who they are, and they ALSO need to know that it is they themselves who have the power to define women! Now there is a very problematic statement, but it is true. That is the sort of power we have.
I can't go on. I'll go on.
Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

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

Post by Pye »

Diebert: Pye, philosophy, as in loving truth, naturally invokes dualism. One values truth above lie. Nature is not philosophical.
The critique is not toward dualism, but how it's being used.
Diebert: There are two biological genders but beyond that there are no two realms in this case.
Quality-sets considered belonging to masculine and feminine have been listed here ad nauseam. Further, all that is considered 'good' tendency belongs to the masculine, and all that belongs to the feminine is demeaned, devalued and in need of removal (flowy, immediate, relational, sensual, et al.). Finally, "biological genders" as pure division here is not accurate either: hence, the capacity for participants to declare many men "women/feminine," and some women "men/masculine." Your statement is disingenuous.
Diebert: 1. You've never seem to have understood this, the true feminism involved: 2. there's no woman unless derived and upheld by men and their needs, their culture and in there lies liberation for both genders.
"True feminism"?

Perhaps you hold a rather outdated view of it. Discourse of the last decade or so has swung sharply away from the equalization model that characterized 3rd wave feminism of the 70s - that is, the notion that women must step-up and be like men - in livelihood, character, aggression, possession, praxis, etc. Discourse for some time now has been quite the opposite. The problem is the aforementioned devaluing of any characteristic associated with women (and the resultant de-sexing of men who dare exhibit any of these characteristics). The address now is to that very hegemony of qualities associated with males that are then assumed to be definitive of what it means to be human. Now, what belongs to all humans is what it means to be human. And that would include our moments of unconsciousness, flowiness, sensuality, mergence, all-things in relation to all other things, and humans, above all, to be relational beings. No 'self' happens in a vacuum.

Now, to the second part of your statement, 2. if I did not understand that this site has a foundational interest in debunking men of their neediness, I doubt I would have ever posted. Again, it is the matter of how it's gone about, and the extreme to which - at least David - wishes it to be taken. If you can tell me that the founders of this site do not wish to eliminate in people the qualities belonging to the feminine quality-set, then I've indeed misunderstood. Through reams of pages and streams of words along those lines, I guess I will have misunderstood.

Secondly, how this debunking is gone about here is the same object-devaluing that has been the locus of innumerable posts on my part regarding bad faith. Enough words have been spilt on it. Men need to take on another, more immediate and pernicious myth, and that is the myth of themselves. I don't think even a third-rate rehab center would focus all their attention on "bad drug, bad drug." The focus is on the user alone.
Diebert: It's this world with all its men and women who are mixing up biological genders with psychological forces. Not Quinn or Solway.
Again, disingenuous. See above. How else can women become "men" and men be accused of being women, if biology has the last word? Who is doing the mixing up?

What an attorney you'd make :)
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

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

Post by Cory Duchesne »

Decent post Alex, but I will address the most glaring flaw:
Alex T. Jacob wrote:I don't think that QRS have any interest or opinion on reproduction, do they?
They've made a great effort to produce and preserve memes, which is clearly because they want those memes to carry on in the minds of others into the future. I have heard them say quite explicitly that they value the survival of wisdom indefinitely, and are even interested in the colonization of space to increase chances of survival. As for genetic reproduction, I think most serious thinkers realize we need a reduction in population, and if your goal is mind improvement, then having a family is a huge impediment. With having a family or wife, you sacrifice time that could be better spent clarifying the mind, rather than wasting time doing generic things that too many people are doing to begin with (having kids). There are no shortage of births happening this world, Alex.
This is of course a great fault: their philosophy is for people opting out of existence.
Make sure you only allow things into your mind that are true, Alex. Don't be a gambler/whore.
It is not and cannot be a philosophy for people interested in reproducing, growing, expanding horizontally.
It's a philosophy for people interested in seeing humanity as a whole reproduce, grow and expand intelligently and wisely.

--
Last edited by Cory Duchesne on Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Alex T. Jacob
Posts: 413
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:04 am

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

Post by Alex T. Jacob »

Diebert wrote: "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."

It is interesting that you use the word 'philosophy' when in fact what the QRS define and live in accord with (if one takes them at face value) is so much more than a philosophy. It is in fact a religious stance in the most strict and accurate sense of the word. According to their own manifesto they have come to a full stop within themselves, which is a feat so few even approach (according to the mystics). In that stopping, they have deeply considered the reality that flows around them and in them, and have become aware that all the old models for defining the Totality are innaccurate, partial, flawed. They seek to grasp a new model of the Totality, and this new model also impels them to the remodeling of their own selves (these [processes feed each other). In this sense they define a new mystical relationship to the Totality, and Quinn expresses this as his relationship with 'God', to which no finite thing (nor woman, nor delightful aromatic young vulva) can compare.

I suggest to you that this new position is in fact religious. It has extended far beyond mere philosophy into a territory that involves the whole person. It attempts to reconnect that person to a new understanding of the Whole, which is far more than merely mental, and that is the best explanation of what religion is.
I can't go on. I'll go on.
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 »

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Come on Kunga and guest! Less gossip - more retorts!

You both can't be suggesting that Quinn’s Exposition is just a knee-jerk reaction. That he has some "problem" with women!?

It's like you're saying if he loved women he’d understand them as open-minded, happy, tolerant, caring, sensitive to others, and cooperative beings.
Sometimes people run with an idea and build extensively on it even when the idea isn't all that sound - they invest so much energy into developing the idea that they lose objectivity; it consumes and overwhelms their critical capacities. This, perhaps, is how WOMAN got written and promoted. So no, I'm not suggesting that it's a knee-jerk reaction.

Does David have a "problem" with women? He very explicitly does: he writes that one who knows the truth would "denounce" women. I suspect, though, that you mean a psychological rather than a philosophical problem, and on that I won't speculate.

Ought women to be "loved" as "open-minded, happy, tolerant, caring, sensitive to others, and cooperative beings"? Only the ones who fit that description. I'm not going to fall into the same trap of over-generalising that David has.
Sue Hindmarsh wrote:But he already knows that about her:

"She strives to make everyone like herself - open-minded, happy, tolerant, caring, sensitive to others, cooperative"

But he also sees the deeper consequences of this behaviour. He’s gone beyond all love and hate of woman so that he could find her true nature. And what he found was that her need to gel with everything and everyone left her - "a non-entity".
Again, all we get is one side of the story. There's no dialectic going on here; no fluid consideration - David seems instead to be performing the very feat that he accuses women of: that of jumping on board the first idea that makes him feel good, and what seems to make him feel good is to lump everything negative into the feminine basket.

There is definitely an element of truth in that side of the story: excessive emphasis on the listed traits can lead to loss of self-identity, and it is a real-world problem, but what about the other side of the story? What about the benefits of those traits in moderation? The issue isn't as black and white as you and David make it out to be.

It's not so much that I don't find anything valid in what David has written - I made it clear in my first post that I do find elements of truth in it - as that it's too over-generalised and one-sided to be significantly truthful as a whole.
Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Your cry for Quinn to stop philosophizing about the nature of women and just love her, would be of what use?
That's not actually my cry: may he philosophise to his heart's content, but may he also consider both sides of the story.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

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

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Pye wrote:Quality-sets considered belonging to masculine and feminine have been listed here ad nauseam.
But the feminine doesn't belong to any "independent, separable, irreducible, unique" realm. It's only our thinking about it that makes it necessary: if we assert something like wisdom, a "realm" of foolishness is born in its shadow. This is not "independent". So if we talk about what men should and could become, the shadow called women is thereby created. That is: the childish realm that is now outgrown but still grabbed on to.
Finally, "biological genders" as pure division here is not accurate either: hence, the capacity for participants to declare many men "women/feminine," and some women "men/masculine." Your statement is disingenuous.
No, it shows that the only undisputed division is biological gender and by itself not of philosophical interest. But behavior goes way beyond that, although one can make the observation that biology is still playing a tremendous role in the whole process that needs to be recognized for what it is.
"True feminism"?
Referring playfully to David Quinn's statement about regarding himself as "a true leader of the movement for women's liberation".
Now, what belongs to all humans is what it means to be human. And that would include our moments of unconsciousness, flowiness, sensuality, mergence, all-things in relation to all other things, and humans, above all, to be relational beings.
It's about the call how much further one dares to take it. Post-human doesn't necessarily mean downloading of brains into computers. It's about daring to look further and giving that what brought us here a more proportional role; a constant re-evaluation.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

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

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Hey Alex! All that talk about women must have gotten you excited enough to post again... or did you feel a disturbance in the force?
Alex T. Jacob wrote:I suggest to you that this new position is in fact religious. It has extended far beyond mere philosophy into a territory that involves the whole person. It attempts to reconnect that person to a new understanding of the Whole, which is far more than merely mental, and that is the best explanation of what religion is.
Of course. It's also about strategy, how to bring religion in that sense to this world - one has to connect with language, culture, the young people, the whole thing and take a stab at it. It's not an intellectual thing in the end, it never is. That's only there as safe-guard or low hanging fruit perhaps.
Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

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

Post by Pye »

Hey Alex.
Alex: Also, to equate women with the body and with nature is useful as a tool, a way to organize perception. Early feminism did this, and described man's relationship to 'woman' as similar to that of man's relationship to a cultivated field. Man 'cultivates' nature. He takes raw elements and molds them into cultural elements, and with advanced culture attempts some great thing---and what is that?
It is only just striking me that some folks here haven't any notion of what feminism is now.

Nor then, Alex. Early feminists made this observation as a severe critique of men who could not perceive of women as human (See Beauvoir Second Sex Part III Myths: Dreams, Fears, Idols). They must be "something else" - some natural force that overpowers men much like the weather. Women were considered a "resource" - much like those fields you mention. She's a field into which he plows/plants his seed. Utterly simplistic and completely indicative of his original resentment. He has to go into breeding management so he can control this force and ensure his progeny. He feels "helpless" to it, as he does toward any force of nature.
Alex: In actual fact I would like to suggest that men have cooperated in an unprecedented manner in the construction of a new world-culture in which women have an extraordinary level of freedom.
That "cooperation" has been a tooth and nail affair. As pressure from females increases its appetite for independence and access to resource, men have no choice but to play along to ensure continued access to sex. It is Man's longtime nightmare come true - that he shall become redundant, dispensable, etc. from the sex-breeding loop. Now he has nothing to control her with if he is not permitted to rape/harass or promise to protect from other rape/harassment, not permitted to withhold work, resources, free-passage in the world without fear, etc. (I recall a fellow here once - daybrown? - who was very acute at describing the panic and resentment he felt from a sense of being discarded, unvalued, incidental in a world being moved and arranged by women. The idea of lesbians, if I recall correctly, pissed him off most - women who don't need men. horrors :))
Alex: What would women want? What would they, on their own, create?
This question has been wrong from the beginning, especially since it is so often claused with "what do women want so I can get them to fuck me? What will make them happy so they'll fuck?" It's a category error. You're going to have to ask individual women. This is like asking what blacks want, or Asians want, or some other category. The truth is subjectivity. Do you think you could accurately answer for men?
Alex: I think strong, ambitious, willful women can very easily enter into existent man's culture and can begin to 'act like men'. And they can go quite far in man's culture.
This is not the question anymore. Cutting edge feminism is asking after the value of the entire enterprise to begin with. That's why it has, by and large, become effective friends with environmentalism. Since when is male culture our best paradigm? Perhaps there are better, non-dominance models with which to be in exchange with the earth and everything on it.

The question is no longer about women becoming like men. The question no longer rests in male behavior as the exemplar of what it means to be human. A bizillion unhappy "successful" women can attest to this. A good bizillion unhappy men, too, running that gerbil wheel. The question now is making room for the wisdom of the Tao and the reality of individuality - the incapacity for mas/fem dualities to describe human reality anymore. One should look so very closely at the features of the Tao symbol. It's rife with interdependency and overlap, implicit. One also might have hope of exiting a dominance model as the only way to treat nature or people.

It is understandably common for a male to perceive the world as a matter of competition, because this is his breeding reality. He constructs the world thusly. It is also understandably common for a woman to perceive the world as a matter of cooperation, for this is her reality - the only way she has made it through. A little Tao here between them both could go a long way . . . .
Diebert: It's about daring to look further and giving that what brought us here a more proportional role; a constant re-evaluation.
If you mean what brought us here a re-apportionment role, etc. I'm with you there, amigo.
Jeannie
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:46 pm

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

Post by Jeannie »

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Kunga wrote:
in my experience with men.. they are impatient...and want what they want when they want it ! Look at all the men sitting around watching sports all day...what are they doing for their future happiness ?
A lot, actually! Though it doesn't look like it to watch them with their bottoms glued to the sofa and their eyes fixed to the TV screen. It looks like they are just wasting the day away. But they’re not. They’re keeping alive that part of the masculine mind that strives for perfection. It’s all about respect for striving towards the highest: expert players playing games that depend on high levels of expertise. It can be anything from chess to boxing. And, oh yes - it has to have men playing, not women – unless those women are at the very top of their game.

It may sound like a kooky way towards spiritual enlightenment, but it is part of the ground work.

Oh, yes, I am sure the very thing on a man's mind is working towards enlightenment whilst screaming "Go Collingwood" and chucking down numerous beers. Of course, a woman watching sport is NOT working towards enlightenment is she?

I suppose if I said if a woman watches a cooking show to learn new recipes, you would poo poo that as an acceptable and practical activity? I know very well what you mean by "woman", Dan. The unconscious blah blah blah. Sue's post here, however is defending what seems to me a pretty unconscious activity. It only means something beyond the superficial when men do it, apparently.

You people crack me up. If men are so much more likely to attain enlightenment, why aren't they bashing down the doors to be like you lot? I find this not so different to Religion in the sense that "if you don't follow Christ you are doomed" You think that your way is the only right way. Fine, free yourself of dellusions, get rid of the emotions you were born with. Just because it rocks your boats, doesn't mean everyone else should strive for it.

I am well aware that women are NOT above criticism. Only budding geniuses seem to be above that. A few of my workmates had a half hour conversation about hats. I would have been bored after 1 minute. But, they are not hurting anyone and they are entitled to talk about hats for hours if they like. If talking about hats = dellusion to you lot, well, don't talk about hats!
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

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

Post by Kunga »

Realistically this world canno't function without both male/female...Trees, flowers, all nature has the element of both sexes to survive....if QRS had their dream come true of only a male culture/world there would be no trees, flowers, animals, insects,......essentially all life would die....then man would eventually die. End of story. Is that the goal for mankind ?

Eliminate the female/femininity and this world will be a better place ?
What would man be like without estrogen in his body ?
Wouldn't his bones crumble ?

Give it up QRS .... your theory is fucked.


Balance is the key :

http://www.totalhealthbreakthroughs.com ... dominance/


and i thought of another irony....the thing about females being un-natural (make-up etc)
what's so natural about an all male society ?
Natural in nature includes the female as much as male...without balance there is unbalance.
when things are unbalanced they become sick.
That's what this world would be without a balance of male/female.

Dosn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.
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 »

Finally! A gender dialogue between Alex and Pye... why did they make us wait for so long?
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

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

Post by sue hindmarsh »

Kunga,

Thinking out-loud is useful, but maybe you might want to take your time and consider things a bit more before you write them to here.

I know that you are reacting to something you feel about Woman when you say that Quinn's ideas are fucked, so maybe the way to go now is to write about your own understanding of the feminine nature - that which has been informing your conclusions about Exposition. For one thing, you can't believe that the feminine is only about procreation, as you suggest in your post. Your concept of the feminine must have more to it. On the strenght of your reaction, I hope so.
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:Realistically this world canno't function without both male/female...Trees, flowers, all nature has the element of both sexes to survive....if QRS had their dream come true of only a male culture/world there would be no trees, flowers, animals, insects,......essentially all life would die....then man would eventually die. End of story. Is that the goal for mankind ?

Eliminate the female/femininity and this world will be a better place ?
What would man be like without estrogen in his body ?
Wouldn't his bones crumble ?

Give it up QRS .... your theory is fucked.
Sorry, but this post does nothing more than demonstrate that you lack even a remedial understanding of the "theory". What you keep addressing is really just your own confabulation. You are basically talking to yourself. Enjoy.
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

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

Post by sue hindmarsh »

Kunga wrote:
...the thing about females being un-natural (make-up etc)
what's so natural about an all male society ?
More and more men are getting into being more fashionable: wearing make-up, dressing more flamboyantly, draping themselves in jewellery, getting decorative tats and piercings. Such behaviour is generally considered “feminine”, and men involved in it are thought of as being "weird", or "homo".

What do you reckon? Would you describe their actions as "feminine"?
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

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

Post by Kunga »

ok... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femininity

but still...the issue of male & female is brought up continuously in his essay too....that's why i thought about the necessity of needing both for all life to flourish...and that men cannot live without the female component...i was not referring to femininity...but the female in all natural phenomena is necessary for man to survive.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:What do you reckon? Would you describe their actions as "feminine"?

No, not anymore...men all over the world for centuries have adorned themselves with jewelry, earrings, make-up
the western culture is immature compared to ancient cultures. Even the manly/masculine pirate wore earrings ...it's even a requirement for some yogis to wear one in their left ear....American Indians painted his face...look at the indigenous people all over the world....


http://www.backpacker.com/media/origina ... ngunem.jpg

http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/200504 ... 7D601FECA8

http://www.pinktink3.250x.com/essays/th ... age006.jpg

http://s3.amazonaws.com/lightstalkers/i ... _large.jpg


http://media.techeblog.com/images/earring.jpg
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

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

Post by Kunga »

"I OFFER THESE ESSAYS AS A GUIDE TO THOSE WHO WISH TO BE FREE OF WOMAN IN THEIR ATTEMPT TO LIVE THE PHILOSOPHIC LIFE....."


This reminded me of this story :

http://www.endlesshumanpotential.com/bu ... story.html
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

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

Post by Kunga »

"THE AVERAGE MAN IS FAR CLOSER TO WISDOM THAN EVEN THE MOST GIFTED OF WOMAN....."


http://blogsimages.skynet.be/images/000 ... at_men.jpg
User avatar
Blair
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

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

Post by Blair »

Kunga wrote:that's why i thought about the necessity of needing both for all life to flourish...and that men cannot live without the female component...i was not referring to femininity...but the female in all natural phenomena is necessary for man to survive.
Well this is true, life only continues by the synergy of male and female. But to what end?

As you become enlightened the whole idea becomes redundant. There's absolutely no point to it, you have already realized all there is to reality. Procreation would just be a pathetic, self-absorbed exercise in futilty.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

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

Post by Kunga »

prince wrote:
Kunga wrote:that's why i thought about the necessity of needing both for all life to flourish...and that men cannot live without the female component...i was not referring to femininity...but the female in all natural phenomena is necessary for man to survive.
Well this is true, life only continues by the synergy of male and female. But to what end?

As you become enlightened the whole idea becomes redundant. There's absolutely no point to it, you have already realized all there is to reality. Procreation would just be a pathetic, self-absorbed exercise in futilty.

Yes, i agree...redundant period.


"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."


The Victorious Ones have announced that emtiness is the relinquishing of all views.........


The state of mind transcendent over all dualities brings Liberation.
User avatar
Blair
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

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

Post by Blair »

Not really. The only state of liberation is death.

Humans are perpetually dissatisfied creatures, this is a living hell we have been thrown into. We are designed this way for a reason.

There is no escape.
Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

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

Post by Pye »

Alex again: In actual fact I would like to suggest that men have cooperated in an unprecedented manner in the construction of a new world-culture in which women have an extraordinary level of freedom.
Before I go to my sleep tonight, I am reminded of a thought from Luce Irigaray and/or Helene Cixous. They described the 3rd wave feminist notion that all will be well for women if they just become equal with and similar to men - if they just enter into praxis with this male culture at large as full participants - as the last act of gynocide - the final nail in her total repression. It is no wonder that [some] men, in their cooperation, have derived comfort from the 'solution' to the woman-problem by making her something he can at least understand - male-like. These French feminists put forth a blazing critique of 70s feminism for promoting such a so-called solution. Here again shall male incapacity to accept, understand, or define female be resolved by obliterating her distinctions altogether, turning her into something else he can understand - something he can exercise upon the power-plays with which he is familiar, as he plays them with other men. At least a level playing, so to speak, is established, and man doesn't really have to raise his consciousness about her a single inch. Neither does she about herself. He can now denude her of any power as he does his own competitors. He can also, in turn, court her favors as he does the other members of the boys club.

Equally, do Irigaray and Cixous argue that the female does herself no favors by, once again, denying anything she might know and learn about herself - denying any self-definition - by thinking that the carrot held by the male-value system should be her carrot as well. No, no - less female; less woman-ness, whatever that shall be determined to mean - is hardly the route to healing anything about the world or all its unhappy, misogynistic, misandristic people. It least of all serves the female who has had a hard road of it understanding herself, what with patrician culture having done all her defining for her by historically withholding resource, free-movement, and human status altogether. Each of those definitions can be seen as one blow after another, pounding her on the head like a stake into the ground. "Becoming like a man" is her last act of gynocide and not her liberation at all.

Luckily, women have penetrated masculine praxis enough to apply what they know to changing it - apply what they have come to see about themselves as self-defining. And it is a praxis brighter with the realties of human interdependency, cooperation, earth-groundedness and acceptance of human configurations that cannot, do not, and never have fit the 2 gender and 2 gender only ideology that marks the male belief about the world. He has needed this binary to maintain his grip upon the world. That way, everything he is not can suffer the fate of alterity.

That is how weak is our mythical Man.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

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

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Dan Rowden wrote:
Kunga wrote:Realistically this world canno't function without both male/female...Trees, flowers, all nature has the element of both sexes to survive....if QRS had their dream come true of only a male culture/world there would be no trees, flowers, animals, insects,......essentially all life would die....then man would eventually die. End of story. Is that the goal for mankind ?

Eliminate the female/femininity and this world will be a better place ?
What would man be like without estrogen in his body ?
Wouldn't his bones crumble ?

Give it up QRS .... your theory is fucked.
Sorry, but this post does nothing more than demonstrate that you lack even a remedial understanding of the "theory". What you keep addressing is really just your own confabulation. You are basically talking to yourself. Enjoy.

Kunga, perhaps it would be useful if you were to try to summaries what the QRS woman theory really is.
Kunga wrote:
Carl G wrote:
Kunga wrote:They laugh at me, all men in this household...even the cat. The absolute truth to them is rap/videos games/tv/sports/porn/food

i know they will just laugh and make fun of me.
Those rednecks are 'women'. Get it?

Good luck.

yeah..it's finally sinking in (the feminine/woman aspect that i've mistaken for WOMAN as an ad-hominen .....
I thought that you were getting it for a moment.
Locked