The Nature of Woman
Re: The Nature of Woman
Eh? What's to miss about A=A? I think you and I agree about the basic nature of it.
I live in a tub.
Re: The Natural Man
Dan: Besides which, Donna does not speak for anyone here with such a philosophy as expressed by myself.
Mensa: Of course we differ, I appreciate your philosophy as much as I would anyone I respect. Unfortunately, you refuse to give credit where credit belongs.
Tomas: All is lost in the translation.
Mensa says: All is not lost, it was just preferred.
Tomas: Okay, the opportunity of choosing.
Mensa: I could have said, well Dan, you think very highly of your philosophy, and of course most
people think their own philosophy is better than anothers, and that is a part of bigotry.
Tomas: As it should be.
Mensa: Only partial to their own, intolerant to anothers point-of-view.
Tomas: Ah yes, shifting the gears all the way to overdrive.
Mensa: I can clearly see myself as a bigot, but I don't belong to any social group.
Tomas: Good for you but I do and will continue to do so.
Mensa: Of course we differ, I appreciate your philosophy as much as I would anyone I respect. Unfortunately, you refuse to give credit where credit belongs.
Tomas: All is lost in the translation.
Mensa says: All is not lost, it was just preferred.
Tomas: Okay, the opportunity of choosing.
Mensa: I could have said, well Dan, you think very highly of your philosophy, and of course most
people think their own philosophy is better than anothers, and that is a part of bigotry.
Tomas: As it should be.
Mensa: Only partial to their own, intolerant to anothers point-of-view.
Tomas: Ah yes, shifting the gears all the way to overdrive.
Mensa: I can clearly see myself as a bigot, but I don't belong to any social group.
Tomas: Good for you but I do and will continue to do so.
Don't run to your death
-
mensa-maniac
Re: The Nature of Woman
Hi Tomas
I love your style of posting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Nature of Woman
The nature of woman meaning singular vs. plural, is to nurture male or female. It is within her divine creation to follow her intuitive nature to her motherly calling.
To put others before herself is to be assured they are cared for. She thinks of herself as number 1 only when her time is hers. She realizes her time must be shared.
The nature of woman is to see the beauty in everyone, to realize the flaws are human, but the good resides within.
I love your style of posting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Nature of Woman
The nature of woman meaning singular vs. plural, is to nurture male or female. It is within her divine creation to follow her intuitive nature to her motherly calling.
To put others before herself is to be assured they are cared for. She thinks of herself as number 1 only when her time is hers. She realizes her time must be shared.
The nature of woman is to see the beauty in everyone, to realize the flaws are human, but the good resides within.
Re: The Nature of Woman
The purpose of sites such as this and other attempts to enlighten the populace is simply to improve life for everyone and everything, man, woman, child, creatures of all kind, and the planet we all call home!
For instance, if but 10 or 20 percent of men or mostly men became far wiser than they currently are, there's a good chance women-kind would benefit greatly, whatever their ambitions or dispositions happen to be.
Quality of life will only improve if sites and forums such as these succeed in their mission.
That is why the women who understand this and know the men who have dedicated their lives to the task, support rather than belittle such efforts.
Heaven on earth would certainly arrive far sooner with the backing of devoted sisters.
For instance, if but 10 or 20 percent of men or mostly men became far wiser than they currently are, there's a good chance women-kind would benefit greatly, whatever their ambitions or dispositions happen to be.
Quality of life will only improve if sites and forums such as these succeed in their mission.
That is why the women who understand this and know the men who have dedicated their lives to the task, support rather than belittle such efforts.
Heaven on earth would certainly arrive far sooner with the backing of devoted sisters.
FOREIGNER
-
mensa-maniac
Re: The Nature of Woman
Mensa says: Gotcha! Thanks!Foreigner wrote:The purpose of sites such as this and other attempts to enlighten the populace is simply to improve life for everyone and everything, man, woman, child, creatures of all kind, and the planet we all call home!
For instance, if but 10 or 20 percent of men or mostly men became far wiser than they currently are, there's a good chance women-kind would benefit greatly, whatever their ambitions or dispositions happen to be.
Quality of life will only improve if sites and forums such as these succeed in their mission.
Mensa says: Absolutely!
That is why the women who understand this and know the men who have dedicated their lives to the task, support rather than belittle such efforts.
Mensa says: Thank you I stand to be corrected, however for the most part, I'm 99.99% for the QRS and support their efforts. I appreciate the QRS for daring to create a genius forum. This tells me they are confident in their abilities.
Heaven on earth would certainly arrive far sooner with the backing of devoted sisters.
Re: The Nature of Woman
I still get a kick out of the way the Woman is formulated in Quinn's expose.
It inspired me to think up this statement: "You have an ego"
The purpose of this statement is a sort of educational trap. If one responds to it by stating "No I do not!" or "Yes I do!" in either case the statement is likely to still be true. It might be akin to what Alan Watts calls a "double-bind" or a Buddhist koan. Where, there is no chance of escaping the truth of the statement, whilst giving any credence at all to the statement.
If one responded with "That has the potential of being true." then I'd say that's a more appropriate answer to get out of the double-bind.
It inspired me to think up this statement: "You have an ego"
The purpose of this statement is a sort of educational trap. If one responds to it by stating "No I do not!" or "Yes I do!" in either case the statement is likely to still be true. It might be akin to what Alan Watts calls a "double-bind" or a Buddhist koan. Where, there is no chance of escaping the truth of the statement, whilst giving any credence at all to the statement.
If one responded with "That has the potential of being true." then I'd say that's a more appropriate answer to get out of the double-bind.
-
Anders Schlander
- Posts: 222
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 12:11 am
- Location: Denmark
Re: The Nature of Woman
U can give credence to the statement by silence though, yes/no is not the only option. Or you could ask the student why he is attaching himself and asking these questions rather than learning to swim for himself.
On the premise that the student knows what the ego means, and is aware of his ignorance, it could help him realize his faults and move on.
If heclaim that he has none, he's either gonna have to be convincing or be bound to fail. If he fails, either he's going to admit his ignorance or continue to be lost.
the bottomline: I think its a valid statement to use if people have learned the nature of the ego and seen it in themselves, otherwise it's empty air. As for being a koan, either you understand the nature of the ego or you don't, i think it's vital people see the problem in themselves, and I suggest that a koan should try to unravel the insight into the nature of the ego, whereas this statement is meant to test if one is geniune, and aware of ignorance. But for that to be sucessful, one must know why it is that one is imperfect, and what the flaws are. Which means, as i've said before, that the statement is only for those who has passed the other *tests* that enable one to see what the ego is.
On the premise that the student knows what the ego means, and is aware of his ignorance, it could help him realize his faults and move on.
If heclaim that he has none, he's either gonna have to be convincing or be bound to fail. If he fails, either he's going to admit his ignorance or continue to be lost.
the bottomline: I think its a valid statement to use if people have learned the nature of the ego and seen it in themselves, otherwise it's empty air. As for being a koan, either you understand the nature of the ego or you don't, i think it's vital people see the problem in themselves, and I suggest that a koan should try to unravel the insight into the nature of the ego, whereas this statement is meant to test if one is geniune, and aware of ignorance. But for that to be sucessful, one must know why it is that one is imperfect, and what the flaws are. Which means, as i've said before, that the statement is only for those who has passed the other *tests* that enable one to see what the ego is.