On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

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

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

Postby Jason » Mon Dec 28, 2009 5:10 pm

Sue Hindmarsh wrote: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"?


If a man intentionally created a particular personal appearance(through the use of jewellery, clothing, shaving etc) in a conscious attempt to manipulate the social world, would you consider that feminine? Couldn't such actions be seen as just another way to control and create the world, somewhat like engineering and science?
User avatar
Jason
 
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

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

Postby sue hindmarsh » Mon Dec 28, 2009 5:46 pm

Jason,

It would depend upon his reasons for wanting to "created a particular personal appearance".

If it was done to "manipulate the social world" so he could, for example, attract women to him, or so that he was considered a "nice (safe) bloke", or a "cool dude" - then yes, that is 'feminine' behaviour.

Even if a man decided to shave off his beard in order to save his life; his action could still be considered 'feminine' if in his heart he feared for his life.
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
 
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

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

Postby sue hindmarsh » Mon Dec 28, 2009 5:48 pm

Kunga,

From Pye's above post, you can see how difficult it is for women to define themselves according to anything other than through their relationship with men. 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.

I know this as I was involved in the feminist movement in the late 70's and early 80's. And the stuff Pye goes on about was part of every discussion meeting and lecture. I was then a 20 year old passionate naive romantic who thought this preoccupation with all things male very strange indeed. For I held the belief that the idea of a women's group was to forge a new culture for women based on the principle of individualism. "'We' women need to hold a goal that encompassed our spirit", I suggested at the first meeting I went to. I joyfully exclaimed, "Once defined, we could use it to map out our future path." And then in full gusto I exclaimed, "We just need to pin down what that spirit is so that we can start our new life." "Kill all men! Then we can really live!", one woman pronounced in reply. "Cut off their balls" another offered up. A middle aged serene looking woman halted this flurry by suggesting,"Teach men to respect us for what we are." I scratched my head and asked what men had to do with our quest to discover the essence of our being? Man must have a separate life to us because we are NOT him. Patriarchy and Matriarchy are constructs that must be surmounted by that which is our true separate identity as 'man' and 'woman'. Silence. More silence. The woman sitting beside me turned to the group and said that we needed to "take back the night" and that men should be placed under a curfew. I sat looking at the women's faces while the subjects of discussion hurriedly went from one topic to the next. All the topics included men. No one mentioned my idea again at that meeting. When I'd bring up my idea at meetings of other groups and organizations, I was always met with the same deadly silence. Even now, if I mention the idea of there existing a woman's being that is completely separated from man, both women and men look dumbfounded. Their only comment is on the same level as Pye's: women are already 'individuals', it's just that men stand in the way of women achieving their full potential. (And every time I hear such nonsense I laugh out loud, for it is pure comedy!)

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. And no woman wants to give up being 'woman'. But that's what happen's! You lift her veil and the mystery is gone - and so is she.
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
 
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

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

Postby sue hindmarsh » Mon Dec 28, 2009 5:55 pm

Elizabeth wrote:
Kunga, perhaps it would be useful if you were to try to summaries what the QRS woman theory really is.

It might be useful to Kunga if you gave your summary of 'Exposition'.
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
 
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

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

Postby Jason » Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:06 pm

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:If it was done to "manipulate the social world" so he could, for example, attract women to him, or so that he was considered a "nice (safe) bloke", or a "cool dude" - then yes, that is 'feminine' behaviour.


What if having a certain contrived physical appearance was more conductive to the spread of truth? Suppose, for example, that young people are more likely to be interested in philosophy and truth than older people, and that these same young people are also more likely to enter into discussion of any kind with people closer to their own age who look "nice." Would you consider it justified then, for a philosopher to shave off his beard, in order that he appear younger and more approachable to those young people who are most likely to have an interest in what he has to say?
User avatar
Jason
 
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

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

Postby sue hindmarsh » Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:26 pm

Jason,

If a young person is easily impressed by a shaved-face, and say, clean clothes and a smiling face - then he or she isn't worth their salt.
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
 
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

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

Postby Jason » Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:50 pm

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Jason,

If a young person is easily impressed by a shaved-face, and say, clean clothes and a smiling face - then he or she isn't worth their salt.


I think it's quite likely that even most fair and high-minded philosophical people still constantly make judgments based on appearances.
User avatar
Jason
 
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

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

Postby Nick Treklis » Mon Dec 28, 2009 10:29 pm

Jason wrote:I think it's quite likely that even most fair and high-minded philosophical people still constantly make judgments based on appearances.


That goes without saying, but the difference lies in the ability of the philosopher to judge appearances in a clear rational manner, not based on what's fashionable.
User avatar
Nick Treklis
 
Posts: 1674
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

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

Postby Jason » Mon Dec 28, 2009 11:11 pm

Nick Treklis wrote:
Jason wrote:I think it's quite likely that even most fair and high-minded philosophical people still constantly make judgments based on appearances.


That goes without saying, but the difference lies in the ability of the philosopher to judge appearances in a clear rational manner, not based on what's fashionable.


I'm interested in exploring the limits of this, and what is considered "rational" in this sense. Say you were seated in a public place and you spotted a nude man walking calmly in your direction. What do you do? What is your "rational" response to his appearance and approach? Is, for example, the wearing of clothing in public itself merely a fashion?
User avatar
Jason
 
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

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

Postby Nick Treklis » Mon Dec 28, 2009 11:42 pm

Jason wrote:I'm interested in exploring the limits of this, and what is considered "rational" in this sense. Say you were seated in a public place and you spotted a nude man walking calmly in your direction. What do you do? What is your "rational" response to his appearance and approach?


I think it would reasonable to assume this person is disturbed, increasing the likelihood that he could pose a threat. As such, I would put myself on guard in order to be prepared for any out of the ordinary behavior. Other than that, I'd probably consider calling the police, but that's about it.

Jason wrote:Is, for example, the wearing of clothing in public itself merely a fashion?


Not entirely, but for most people the attire they choose is more about making a fashion statement than anything else. If this wasn't the case everyone would wear similar plain looking clothes.
User avatar
Nick Treklis
 
Posts: 1674
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

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

Postby Jason » Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:07 am

Nick, what if anything would you look for in a person's appearance, that would lead you to believe that they may be a decent thinker? Conversely what types of appearance would suggest to you that they are more likely not decent thinkers?
User avatar
Jason
 
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

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

Postby Pye » Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:12 am

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 as well with the genders reversed - 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.

Aside from that, "single or married" depending on men is redundantly obvious. Yes, I've been in on those tiresome discussions too, Sue, but I would challenge the notion that thoughtful women are only concerned about this. 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. 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. And it's created, this substance - self-created as it is with any 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. 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.

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.

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.

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.
Pye
 
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

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

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:14 am

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Elizabeth wrote:
Kunga, perhaps it would be useful if you were to try to summaries what the QRS woman theory really is.

It might be useful to Kunga if you gave your summary of 'Exposition'.



A teacher does not merely read the answer out of the back of the book. Kunga may need for me to spell it out to her (by giving my summary of 'Exposition') but I'd like to see her try for herself first. Women have had men telling them what to think for so long that they have learned to only have a cursory look at things, and then ask how they are supposed to interpret that. This learned helplessness can only be overcome by taking her through the steps to get to the end result, not by just giving her the answer.

I recall whining about not being given the answer right away when I was new, but now I understand how it works.
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

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

Postby Nick Treklis » Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:37 am

Jason wrote:Nick, what if anything would you look for in a person's appearance, that would lead you to believe that they may be a decent thinker?


Generally I don't use a person's appearance to try and tell if they are a descent thinker or not. I'd much rather judge a person's capacity for thought by their thoughts and what they have to say. But if I were going to pick a person out of a crowd who I thought might be the most thoughtful, I'd pick a person who was dressed modestly, fairly plain clothes with no flamboyant colors or designs, with comfort and practicality in mind.

Jason wrote:Conversely what types of appearance would suggest to you that they are more likely not decent thinkers?


Thinks like tattoos, piercings, flamboyant colors/designs, styled hair, make up, dressy clothes like suits and dresses, and being scantily clad would cause me to think a person has no inner life, which is why they focus so much on aesthetics leading me to believe they aren't much of a thinker.

I already operate under the assumption that everyone I encounter has no capacity for genuine thought until proved otherwise. In order to prove otherwise I would at least have to have some kind of meaningful discussion with them so I can find out how much of what they say is regurgitated bullshit and if they have a firm grasp on logic or not. So a person's appearance rarely, if ever, influences how I interact with them.
User avatar
Nick Treklis
 
Posts: 1674
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

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

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:57 am

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:I held the belief that the idea of a women's group was to forge a new culture for women based on the principle of individualism. "'We' women need to hold a goal that encompassed our spirit", I suggested at the first meeting I went to. I joyfully exclaimed, "Once defined, we could use it to map out our future path." And then in full gusto I exclaimed, "We just need to pin down what that spirit is so that we can start our new life."


That is some pretty deep thought for a 20-something year old. Most of the animal-people don't think beyond what would have a near-term effect on their comfort level. Men have not been really sure what they are, which is why QRS decided to preach about masculinity. Women don't know what they are either, and it sounds like you realized that once - but rather than really digging in and figuring out what a woman is, (perhaps a half-thought came across your mind about the shallowness of women, but then you failed to challenge that thought), you accepted whole-heartedly what some men told you that a woman is.
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

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

Postby Alex T. Jacob » Tue Dec 29, 2009 2:06 am

Pye wrote: "It is only just striking me that some folks here haven't any notion of what feminism is now."

It might also be said in truth that feminism does not know what it is either then or now. My perception is that the deeper one goes into it (this broad area: the defining of women by women) the more uncertain one will become. Feminist thinking tends to split into factions and the factions fiercely resist each other. I tend to think that as long as feminist thinking takes place within a purely philosophical realm it will never be able to get to the 'truth'. Personally, I think the most sensible area to start is with evolutionary biology. To define why nature created this division of the sexes, and why nature gave women such a stark and difficult role within biological life. One needs a cool, scientific head to look at the biological platform in this way. I think this perspective is new, and it also threatens the strict philosophical model (for example, de Beauvoir).

Pye wrote: "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."

I don't at all think this is so, for the reasons I mention above. Nature designed women to be nothing but the field in which it plants its seeds. Nature determined that there is no other role possible for her. The pack will track her down and will rope her to the role that nature has assigned to her: reproduction. In a purely naturalistic sense (and one supposes that---eventually---nature will again reduce all to the most basic elements all over again) 'woman' is actually pretty easy to define. It is in truth 'utterly' simple. It is culture, and culture designed by men, the structure of which is brought into existence by man's energy and, at the core (if you will permit such a raw word) his violence, that has created a world apart from nature. And in that 'new world' the role of women begins to shift. Complexity begins there.

But it does seem to me important and necessary, both for women and for men (in a genuine dialectic between men and women if this is even possible), to understand that women have been and are the dependant sex. They did not, do not and likely will not ever have an independence from man's culture or from men. The whole world of culture and technology is a world built and maintained by men, by their inventiveness and their 'violence' (as manipulation, ruthless activity). This is a necessary element in a genuine conversation about women. It is peculiar to me, therefor, that you speak of men as 'redundant'. This is a woman's fantasy it seems to me that has its origin in women's resentment.

Pye wrote: "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 :))"

Well, there has certainly been struggle. However it is interesting to note that in the modern 'liberation of women' it was carried out with an extraordinary lack of violence, with hardly a drop of blood spilled. It was negotiated through dialectic. It also fit into a new economic model and in this sense is supported by a mercantile system, a world-corporate system, that seems to replace the Roman/European model while it extends itself to the whole planet. What the 'freedom' of women means in this new context is very much up for debate.

True, in that new corporate world, the new economic catholicism, there is no real need for 'man' anymore. Best if everyone is reduced to the status of woman/cultivated field. And a Machine shall rule them, and a Machine shall give them freedom! (Excuse that, but I am all into this idea that what defines us and ALL our conversations and values is that we live in the old, dying structure of a Medievalism that has been utterly undermined and yet its vestiges still exist, especially in the mind, as we move into an utterly new territory, vast and blinding, that we are not yet able to understand or define).

Pye wrote: "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?"

Oh no, I think it is a good question, though individuals will likely answer it differently (as individuals define feminism differently...) Also, one has to start from the true platform: nature instills in women the need and the desire to fuck and especially to get fucked. Men don't do this to women, it is women's loving Mother-nature who lords it over them. To tell the truth about this condition is important. Women need no help from men to desire man's cock, his seed, and perhaps more especially his image that she holds before her while she accepts 'his' seed and offers her body and mind to that process as if possessed through her vagina---literally a possession of her very self. Men do not do this to women, but her cruel Mother nature does. I would suggest that the way you seek to frame this debate is 'wrong from the beginning'. Again, men have largely allowed a new definition of women to arise and they have, by and large, supported it. In that new order women have had perhaps the best opportunity that has ever been presented to them, at least from one perspective.

By and large men demonstrate what it is they 'want'. They build it. It is visible. It is the structure in which we live. It is subjective, certainly, but in the general sense I mean it is objective. It is man's creation and man's creativity. It is fair to ask what women would have created independant of man, because the answer is...nothing at all like what has been created. Important distinction. For good or for evil human freedom became unleashed from theological control and has penetrated, and will continue to penetrate, in an infinite manner wherever the winds of the mind may blow.

Pye wrote: "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."

Well, no argument there. It is as if the 'plowed field' raises its voice and asks for it to be done a little more gently, please. (Excuse the poor joke). De Beauvoir, it seemed to me, essentially defined a philosophical position for liberation générale. It was very much in keeping with the age, with the musings of the French existentialists. But, oddly enough, the way it seems to be playing out has another face: a world corporate machine that has claimed human territory and protoplasm as its possession and which is actively redefining both men and women so they will function within that new order.

Pye wrote: "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".

Again, the original repression was established by the biological and evolutionary reality. Masculinity and male culture enables other possibilities to arise, and within our late modernism a new role for women has been devised and implemented. It is spreading far and wide and will soon be established in all parts of the world. While women can never and will never be those who design and construct and maintain the over-arching structures that define human life on the planet right now, they have been given a certain horizontal mobility within these structures, and seem to gravitate toward managerial positions but generally on the lower rungs of power. It would be peculiar---a little science-fictiony---if women were ever to 'take over' and run the show behind scenes. And yet I don't think anyone should ever forget or minimize women's power (within all cultures, whether liberal or repressive). In this light, your phrase 'total repression' seems to me absurd. From a natural perspective, that is from a biological perspective, what would a 'total repression' look like? I think it would be to keep her from her reproductive role, wouldn't it? Or to replace her with a reproductive machine. (Excuse this irrelevant musing).

In actual fact, in many parts of the globe, women now have a very decent deal, and it is only getting better.

The rest of what you wrote in this second post seems to me purely philosophical and in that sense non-utilitarian. I mean, it's interesting but not tremendously relevant.

...and one has to stick on at the end a reminder that it is imperative that men focus on themselves and continue to plunge into new territory, that 'blinding territory' I mentioned earlier.
I can't go on. I'll go on.
User avatar
Alex T. Jacob
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:04 am

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

Postby Jeannie » Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:04 pm

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.


prince

I find this comment interesting as I often say "I don't know why people would want to bring children into this world" I read in here once that there are VERY few good reasons to have kids. Perhaps that was "no good reason" LOL I agree....and the women "spitting" out kids for money makes me sick.

When you look at life in the deepest level, you do wonder what is the point as you will just die, anyway.

I remember when I first started working, I used to tell my colleagues about my "Way Back" theory which was "How can we even be here when we have infinite time in the past? Our time cannot have come!" I know very well, people on here have answers to that. My colleagues did not understand my angst and could not grasp why I was asking it.

I could not understand HOW they didn't want to think of such things.
Jeannie
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:46 pm

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

Postby sue hindmarsh » Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:15 pm

Jason wrote:

What if having a certain contrived physical appearance was more conductive to the spread of truth? Suppose, for example, that young people are more likely to be interested in philosophy and truth than older people, and that these same young people are also more likely to enter into discussion of any kind with people closer to their own age who look "nice." Would you consider it justified then, for a philosopher to shave off his beard, in order that he appear younger and more approachable to those young people who are most likely to have an interest in what he has to say?

Sue: If a young person is easily impressed by a shaved-face, and say, clean clothes and a smiling face - then he or she isn't worth their salt.

I think it's quite likely that even most fair and high-minded philosophical people still constantly make judgments based on appearances.

You’re correct, in that everything is an “appearance”. : )

And as far as people are concerned: if you’re mind is fixed on god you’re neither looking out to impress, nor the slightest bit interested in being impressed by anyone. If someone wants to talk to you, fair enough. If they don’t – what’s the problem?
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
 
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

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

Postby Jason » Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:26 pm

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:And as far as people are concerned: if you’re mind is fixed on god you’re neither looking out to impress, nor the slightest bit interested in being impressed by anyone. If someone wants to talk to you, fair enough. If they don’t – what’s the problem?


Don't you want to spread wisdom? I would've thought that impressing people(in the right way) was very beneficial to that goal.
User avatar
Jason
 
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

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

Postby sue hindmarsh » Tue Dec 29, 2009 2:11 pm

Jason,

People can easily be "impressed", as seen by advertising and TV.

I reckon all you can do is live as closely as you are able, to the truth, and that's it. You can't press people one way or another. They either get it, or they don't. You can put truth out there, but you have no power over what happens to it from then on.
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
 
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

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

Postby sue hindmarsh » Tue Dec 29, 2009 2:14 pm

Kunga wrote:
Kunga: 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 ?

Sue: 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.

and Sue...bless you for defending the men ! It's true....i don't understand it...but you're right about all you've said ! I absolutely hate sports (except surfing,skateboarding/snowboarding)... but yeah..it keeps them busy and out of trouble and it's better than war. God bless sports and men. i have a lot to learn.......i'm sure more than i'll ever realize...._/\_

Thank you, but I can't accept your blessing because I wasn't "defending the men"; I was just stating a fact.

Another fact is that you sound rather confused about the concept of 'understanding'. You wrote: "It's true....i don't understand it...but you're right about all you've said !"

How can you say that you agree with what I write, yet at the same time admit you don't understand "it"??? Would you clarify which it is?
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
 
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

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

Postby guest_of_logic » Tue Dec 29, 2009 2:28 pm

Jeannie wrote:I remember when I first started working, I used to tell my colleagues about my "Way Back" theory which was "How can we even be here when we have infinite time in the past? Our time cannot have come!" I know very well, people on here have answers to that.


What do you think those answers are and are you satisfied with them? I analysed this issue at length in the opening post of the thread, Wisdom of the Infinite Regress... but it's a long read and I won't blame you if you couldn't be bothered getting through it all - anyhow only the first half is relevant. Perhaps you could answer my question there so as not to derail the current thread.
User avatar
guest_of_logic
 
Posts: 1041
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

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

Postby Steven Coyle » Wed Dec 30, 2009 8:32 am

Knowing you're God, and following the lord ("his/one love") may just equate to finding a true love.

Woman issues dissolved.
Steven Coyle
 

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

Postby Steven Coyle » Wed Dec 30, 2009 8:47 am

oh and this...

dreams? sub to sub contact.
Steven Coyle
 

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

Postby Kunga » Wed Dec 30, 2009 12:34 pm

This is gonna be spontaneous...i've been trying to figure this out the past few days...i'm so sick of reading this Exposition...i had it figured out in the beginning...i should of just left it there...but nooooooooooooo i had to start thinking and the more i thought the more angry i got.....i was so angry i couldn't read it without this anger clouding my mind.

So...my first reaction was that David, in order to pursue the Ultimate Truth, had to eliminate all the positive qualities of woman. To be distracted by woman was his one and only obstacle. By defaming her, exposing all her weaknesses and blowing them all out of proportion, he created this monster, this devil, this WOMAN. His obsession with this was his downfall. Buddha taught the middle way. (He considers Buddha his brother & comrade don't forget.)

From the Vimalakirti Sutra :



Sariputra: Goddess, is not Liberation the freedom from desire, hatred, and folly ?

Goddess: "Liberation is freedom from desire, hatred and folly." That is the teaching of the excessively proud.
But those free of pride are taught that the very nature of desire, hatred,and folly is itself Liberation.

Sariputra: Excellent ! Excellent, Goddess !
Pray what have you realized, that you have such eloquence ?

Goddess: I have attained nothing, reverend Sariputra. I have no realization. Therefore I have such eloquence.
Whoever thinks, "I have attained! I have realized ! Is overly proud in the discipline of the well-taught Dharma.



So, this battle, this obsession, is the very thing you must rid yourself of. Being objective, not melodramatic, and remaining non-judgemental are essential for spiritual progress.

But go ahead...knock yourself out.... you are expending tremendous energy with this imagined WOMAN....why not make peace with her and put her down....it's such a heavy burden to carry this around when you could be traveling light.

Ok...enough......I AM THE DEVIL-WOMAN !!!!!!!!! HA HA HA !!!!


http://www.purifymind.com/Vimalakirti6.htm

Peace Out !!!
User avatar
Kunga
 
Posts: 2305
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am

PreviousNext

Return to GENIUS FORUM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests