On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

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

Post by David Quinn »

Woman has no positive qualities, so there is nothing to rail against in that regard. Everything that a woman can do (with the exception of giving birth and the like), a man can do a thousand times better, simply because his mind is more focused and direct. That is why even within traditional feminine fields, such as cooking and fashion design, men are the leading figures.

Diebert described it best with his thread about femininity, with quotes alluding to feminine consciousness's lack of capacity, its affinity with madness, its tendency towards nothingness. It is hard to be positive about such a lifeless phenomenon, particularly if your goal in life is full understanding and consciousness of enlightened reality, and particularly if you live in a society that is in total denial about the reality of woman.

It is this denial, and its countless consequences, that I rail against. Women themselves are secondary to the issue.

This relates to the point I make about how "femininity" and "unconsciousness" shouldn't be regarded as equivalent terms. A feminine person is unconscious in an entirely different way to that of the ignorant masculine person. The latter is unconscious because of fears, emotional attachments and mental blocks, while the former's unconsciousness derives from an inherent lack of capacity. In other words, ignorant masculinity is a thing restricted, while the feminine is simply nothingness.

-
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

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

Post by Kunga »

David....what if there was no Enlightenment ?
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

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

Post by Kunga »

Some of the men that excel in woman dominated fields.....are very feminine & more like females .
Animus
Posts: 1351
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:31 pm

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

Post by Animus »

Hmmm. I didn't realize that farting infront of others was a sign of masculinity or independence.

I tend not to fart in the company of others because the noxious gases produced by my digestive system can displace oxygen content in the air others are breathing and possibly lead to asphyxiation. Though this outcome is unlikely, it is still incredibly nasty and just due courtesy to leave the room to expel noxious gases.

On the other hand, I will tell my 17 year old cousin that her belief that my apartment is haunted is unfounded bullshit. If I remember correctly, which quite often I don't, the conversation went something like this:

Steph (My cousin): This place is haunted! (gasp)
Ryan (Me): What makes you say that?
Steph: Well this place is very old and I mean, someone probably died in here.
Ryan: Its quite possible someone died in this house, but why does that make the house haunted?
Steph: Because they are still on the earth
Ryan: Well, they might have become part of the earth, but why do you think they are haunting this house?
Steph: I'm just saying, someone probably died in here and that's a scary fact.
Ryan: Hold on, its not a fact, at this point its just your imagination making up stories and that in no way means that anything is haunting this house.

Anyway, I'm not likely to fart in my anyone's presence, but I'll tell my dearest family members when I think they are full of shit and making up ludicrous nonsense. Does that make me a mouse or a man?
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

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

Post by Kunga »

women never fart.
women don't exist.
there is only Buddha.

Buddha farted.

you are neither mouse nor man....you are Buddha.


_/\_
Animus
Posts: 1351
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:31 pm

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

Post by Animus »

If I had to name a woman whom I thought was most masculine.... it would be Patricia S. Churchland.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

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

Post by David Quinn »

Kunga wrote:David....what if there was no Enlightenment ?
If there was no enlightenment, then where would all the Buddhas be?

Enlightenment is not only real, but there for anyone who really wants it.

Some of the men that excel in woman dominated fields.....are very feminine & more like females .

I'm sure their minds are pretty focused and ruthless, no matter how camp their outward behaviour.

-
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

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

Post by Kunga »

David Quinn wrote:
Kunga wrote:David....what if there was no Enlightenment ?
If there was no enlightenment, then where would all the Buddhas be?

Enlightenment is not only real, but there for anyone who really wants it.



-


Do Buddhas need to be Enlightened ?
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

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

Post by David Quinn »

The Buddha thought so.

-
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

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

Post by Kunga »

LOL


_/\_
Ataraxia
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 11:41 pm
Location: Melbourne

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

Post by Ataraxia »

Animus wrote:If I had to name a woman whom I thought was most masculine.... it would be Patricia S. Churchland.
Unfortunately, both the Churchlands are sending philosophy of mind in exactly the wrong direction, IMHO.
pointexter
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 7:19 pm

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

Post by pointexter »

kunga wrote: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.
Interesting interpretation. Detached reductionism = hatred and loathing.

Not acting out such emotional notions would preclude anyone from the path you imply. Refraining from such action is indicative of freedom from delusion, a strong sign of an enlightened person.
kunga wrote:A true Sage is beyond love and hate.
To a truly enlightened sage, its doubtful that there is any such thing as 'beyond.'
Last edited by pointexter on Sat Jan 02, 2010 7:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Animus
Posts: 1351
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:31 pm

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

Post by Animus »

Ataraxia wrote:Unfortunately, both the Churchlands are sending philosophy of mind in exactly the wrong direction, IMHO.
Can you elaborate on that?
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 »

Pye wrote:
Sue: Women NEED men. Without him she is aimless. She may be single or married - it doesn't matter - as both states still depend on men. As does the 'women's movement' need men to rail against.
This sounds to me an effective summary of QRS philosophy
Your understanding of Woman is very poor, making your “summary” of the topic untrustworthy.
as well with the genders reversed
You really don’t know anything about this matter. What you have written there, and throughout your whole post is really lazy thinking; for it takes no effort at all to spruik the same old academic-feminist line. You’re like the religious person, unable to think for themselves: they just regurgitate the stuff their spoon fed.

The fact that women need men does not automatically mean that men need women. For example, children NEED adult care and guidance, but adults don’t NEED children.

Men do need women for certain things, such as occasional moments of comfort and affection. But they don’t need women to shape their whole psychological and physical world.
a body of thought that must define itself over and against its "other" in order to find its own ass with both hands. In that case, this "other" has to be something, or no comparisons would be possible.
The relationship between the genders goes much deeper than them simply sizing each other up.
Aside from that, "single or married" depending on men is redundantly obvious

Women exist in these states wholly because they have no others. Her relationship to man is all she has.
Yes, I've been in on those tiresome discussions too,
I see no difference between your post and “those tiresome discussions”, since both are dependent upon the superficial and spontaneous to ensure that no real thought can enter.
Sue, but I would challenge the notion that thoughtful women are only concerned about this.
“Thoughtful women” – I find your judgement on who is thoughtful impossible to take seriously, since you haven’t (and it seems, won’t) put any energy into thinking about Woman. But your inability or unwillingness isn’t at all unusual, for it is woman’s nature not to know Her. For woman’s strength lies in the propagation of Her as a complete mystery to herself and everyone else.
About the time I am dealing with women, they have already been single, they have already been married, they have already done their breeding and they have already exhausted any sense from any of these as definitions of self.
“Exhausted” – hardly! Those events are obviously still extremely useful as gossip. The women are still living through the events and people from their past.

Interestingly, gossiping and crying come from the same psychological need to escape being judged. And it is that fear of judgement that drives her every moment.
I wouldn't be seeing any women in any of these seminars if they thought those were the only two "states" that concerned them. It is exactly the grounding of higher work in the world that concerns them and most of what we do is provide practical network for their movement - for substance outside of male-definition.
The herd exists because of “practical” networking. I’m thinking that your networking is to do with herdish things such as peace, compassion and bringing happiness to others. But I’d be interested if the focus of these women was on suppling the backing needed for the publication of Quinn’s “Exposition”. : )
And it's created, this substance - self-created as it is with any man.
Your understanding of ‘substance’ is like that of someone who has never encountered it before, and therefore doesn’t know what they are looking for.

This makes you incapable of understanding the scope and consequences of man’s substance. One of which is his ability to exist in places in his mind that have nothing whatsoever to do with women. And because in woman’s mind there is no compartmentalization, a woman cannot even begin to understand this fact about man.
If we are to assume that when the male-defined modifiers for women are stripped away, she is revealed as nothing - empty, blank, etc., then we will have to assume that for men, too, since they are mutually dependent and mutually defined.
Women are not “modified” by men, or by anything else. To be able to modify something it would first have to have some existing form - which woman does not possess. She vaporously-exists and fills every crevice made available to her. The consequences of which are visible all around us.
I'd be alright with that, given that man has no nature, either - he has only his conditions and his history. If we stay with her and her alone as originally nothing and ultimately nothing - and man as something - then we will land squarely in the bed of illogic that would assume no qualities whatsoever for a given phenomenon.
*See above.
Sue: I realized years later what a crazy idea it was of mine to think women wanted, or needed to understand their inner self. "Crazy", because as I found out, understanding woman means leaving her behind.
Understanding man's woman - you bet. And man's woman is that "single" or "married" (or the third category of detached sex-server) you mention, by definition. Emerging from the mess that has been the women's movement are individual women, who do not "become men," but become themselves, with work, values, and project in the world.
Woman is always 'becoming' this or that. The reason being is that she has never actually 'become' anything - other than woman.

It is just so clumsy and petty-minded of you to go on about that New-Agey/Feminist/mental-patient's mantra. It is complete crap. How about at least trying to put some intelligence into this conversation.
To you, this might mean "becoming a man." After all, if none of this analysis about the emptiness of women can apply to the emptiness of men, then we have a problem of logical reciprocity - and a fine monument to deep-seated male fear about the thing which he defines himself over and against.
*See above.
Yet, I take your comment to mean: I came to understand myself, didn't like what I saw, and left her (woman) behind. Good for you. But you did not become a man, I can guarantee you that.
You plainly know nothing about woman, therefore you equally know nothing about man. This situation makes my discussing this subject with you difficult to say the least.

-
Man conquers himself through self knowledge.
Woman has nothing to conquer.
-
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

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

Post by Jehu »

It is evident that there are significant differences in both the physiological and psychological makeup of the male and female, some of which are evolutionary, and other purely cultural, nevertheless, both sexes are fully endowed with all of the fundamental elements that comprise a ‘human being’ – and to be enlightened is simply to be an ‘authentic’ human being. Human beings, like all beings (relative entities), have a function, that is to say, a mode of activity whereby they fulfil their purpose; and this purpose is to do whatever they can, as far as is possible, to reduce the suffering of other sentient beings. In other words, as far as a person fulfils this purpose in their everyday lives, to that extent is that person enlightened – be they male or female.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

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

Post by David Quinn »

By that criteria, hollywood film-makers, drug-dispensers, smiling priests, and other purveyors of soothing mediocrity designed to comatose people are the most enlightened of all.

But granted, such an outlook allows women to feel they have a connection to enlightenment, that they are not "missing out". That's the priority, it would seem.

Here lies the evil behind the phrase, "women can do everything". Everything is watered down, even the spiritual path itself, so that women can enjoy the illusion of being included.

All in the name of "fairness". Or is it chivalry....?

-
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

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

Post by Kunga »

an ant on the move does more than a dozing ox
pointexter
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 7:19 pm

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

Post by pointexter »

pye wrote:not permitted to withhold work
Not permitted to be free of the permissions of others. Oh dear. This is starkly contradictory considering the rhetoric behind it.
pye wrote: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?
Anyone who is not you, who has wants, wants you to want what they want. What do they want? They want you to want what they want. That is not a category error. It is an absolute truth about the nature of desire.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

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

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

David Quinn wrote:This relates to the point I make about how "femininity" and "unconsciousness" shouldn't be regarded as equivalent terms. A feminine person is unconscious in an entirely different way to that of the ignorant masculine person. The latter is unconscious because of fears, emotional attachments and mental blocks, while the former's unconsciousness derives from an inherent lack of capacity.
Just to be absolutely clear for the readers, especially because of your recent extended sabbatical, you do not mean that masculinity is only to be found in biological males just as femininity is not necessarily tied to only biological females - though the propensity for these characteristics is tied to the gender-associated terms, right?
Animus
Posts: 1351
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:31 pm

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

Post by Animus »

Honestly, if I understand Quinn's position, which I think I do, but he can correct me if I'm wrong. The angrier you get about his position the more you affirm it within yourself.


Put it this way, suppose someone is saying directly to you, and Quinn is not doing this, but suppose somone was... you can't handle truth because you are too caught up in your place in it. If you respond with an emotional reaction you are only confirming the statement because your emotionality arises from your place in what they are saying. If you can't get over the basic hit to your ego then there is virtually no hope in becoming enlightened. The basic idea I embrace is kind of like this; What I am isn't really that important, as much as its something I have to be. So its like this, what is, is regardless of me. I think he was saying women have a hard time with that. I have read others, particularly I think Kierkegaard saying that women can't handle a dialectic. Now, the dialectic in this sense is difficult to grasp, because its not two people going back and forth in disagreement, but the same person going back on themself.

The way I gather it, in its many forms, you need to really ask yourself if you are what you think you are and be prepared to be utterly descimated by whatever truth you find. The claim seems to be that women by and large are incapable of doing this. Getting upset about this claim and lashing out against it, doesn't serve to disprove it one bit, and here is the catch, if you set out to disprove it, you still aren't disproving it. The very attempt to disprove it is a demonstration of the personal concern over one's place within it.


Its hard to speak broadly, but I'll say that it seems to me as well that women seem largely unaware of this whole dynamic and even think men escape to oblivion within their own minds, they are drooling fools most of the time. Because women seem to be always on the go, never stopping to think things through all the way, they see contemplation and think stagnation. Personally I think a lot of this has to do with women not being held as responsible as men. You don't see people consistently coming down like a ton of bricks on the mistakes of women, but men get crucified for minor things quite a lot. In some respects Quinn is not helping by implying that women are incapable, it can serve to make them less capable although, they are as much players in that as he is. Or they can lash out in rage trying to disprove Quinn in which case something might be gained from it, but its difficult to say what exactly. At any rate, his exposition does claim to be for an advanced mind, so it would be unfair to claim it was easily accessible.
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 »

Jehu wrote: "It is evident that there are significant differences in both the physiological and psychological makeup of the male and female, some of which are evolutionary, and other purely cultural, nevertheless, both sexes are fully endowed with all of the fundamental elements that comprise a ‘human being’ – and to be enlightened is simply to be an ‘authentic’ human being. Human beings, like all beings (relative entities), have a function, that is to say, a mode of activity whereby they fulfil their purpose; and this purpose is to do whatever they can, as far as is possible, to reduce the suffering of other sentient beings. In other words, as far as a person fulfils this purpose in their everyday lives, to that extent is that person enlightened – be they male or female."

This is interesting. Do you think that 'man' has been given some sort of 'command' to relieve the suffering of others? At what point in the evolutionary process did this 'command' enter in? Or, like the Johannine 'logos' does it preexist? My way of seeing things, which is just one way of organizing perception I am sure, is to see human and biological life as blind, unconscious, extremely selfish and likely ultimately driven by all that is summarized in the phrase 'selfish gene'.

Even if we don't like to think so, all the impetus of the evolutionary drives (survival, reproduction, etc.) still dictate our choices and behavior. It is only in those regions where the spirit of man is reached or touched---higher thinking, art, philosophy, spirituality, religion, theology, ethics---that man enters an area where other possibilities exist. I would think 'ahimsa' is such a possibility. But biological life and human life will always go on and do what it has always done: fight ruthlessly, assert ruthlessly.

I was also puzzled by the term 'authentic human being'. What you are really suggesting is more that one become entirely inauthentic, that by caprice or contrary will one go 180% against the existing grain.

The issue seems to be, in speaking of men and women (in such general terms), from which predominantly comes the impetous to discover and express those higher possibilities? Everything hinges on this. The spiritual and religious motivation---is this true or not?---is masculine through and through.
I can't go on. I'll go on.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

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

Post by Kunga »

No...you don"t get it either animus. Everything Quinn says is for the man that loves woman obsessively. His mission is solely to rid him of this obsession so he can pursue the holy life in peace without the distraction of woman. And another thing,as it angers woman to have herself brutally "stripped naked", and verbally sodomized....it propels her into the response of fight or flight, and motivates her to seriously drop everything and pursue solitude so she as well can contemplate and meditate what the truth is. Unfortunately Quinn forgot to realize that men can and do get Enlightened without giving up women and sex. His route is for those men that have no self control and need rigid disipline. Nagarjuna (one of Quinns "brothers") had many consorts during his quest for Enlightenment. Read "Lady of the Lotus Born" if you doubt womans abilites to strive and gain Enlightenment . I challenge you.


http://www.wisdom-books.com/ProductDetail.asp?PID=10459

http://www.tealchemy.org/what/alchemists/index.html


_/\_
Last edited by Kunga on Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:21 am, 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 »

Kunga,

Tell me what enlightenment is in one paragraph.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

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

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Animus wrote:The angrier you get about his position the more you affirm it within yourself.
Assuming that by "you" above, you mean "biological females" then what you are saying is only true to females, and entirely misses the advantage that David gives to biological females in his Woman essay - though I don't know whether to call it an unfair advantage considering that biological men do have a head start to enlightenment, whether it is a biological head start or a cultural advantage due to pervasive sociological differences in how males and females are treated from the time of birth.

Yes, the angrier one gets, the more of Quinn's femininity is highlighted, but that is rather obvious. What is more subtle is that the more smug that biological males feel on reading this material, the more feminine he actually is - but smugness is not a red flag waving like anger or pain is. A hurt or angry female will be more prodded to think about it in different ways until she understands it than a man is prodded by a seeming ego boost - which is what an unconscious male could get from Quinn's essay on Woman.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

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

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Animus wrote:In some respects Quinn is not helping by implying that women are incapable, it can serve to make them less capable
This is true, too. The self fulfilling prophesy is common, and this sort of thing can be especially damaging to females who have already experienced significant denigration. That female might then be more inclined to defer to a biological male (which may be her biological tendency anyway, but enhanced by cultural exposure) whether the biological male is Quinn masculine or Quinn feminine, assuming that because it is a male, especially if he is using male-pattern mannerisms, that he is more likely to be right.

As you said, as he pointed out, this is "for the advanced mind." I only wish that this essay - and segments of Kevin's Poison for the Heart, were only available with a prescription. These works are not for everybody - but the fact of pointing that out seems to draw people directly to these works. It's the forbidden fruit phenomenon.

In ancient times, a prospective student had to go through many trials to prove that he was worthy of even the most minor piece of wisdom. That hording of wisdom in power-hungry elitism (whether they were conscious of that being what they were doing or not) was wrong, and free access to wisdom for whoever cares to pursue it is a much better model, but there are some lessons that are dangerous for the wrong person or even the right person at the wrong time.

It would take an incorruptibly enlightened soul to continually judge which people are ready for what material and never falter either in giving something too soon or witholding something unnecessarily long.
Locked