GENIUS FORUMS

Leaners?

Atum wrote:To David, Kelly, or whomever:

What steps do you recommend to get a complete picture a woman? What have you yourself done?

At root, one has to learn how to see beneath her veil. Regard her veil as a facade whose sole purpose is to misdirect. Try to figure out why she has the veil in the first place and what mental machinations are needed for each expression of the veil.

A neat trick is to imagine her observed behaviour coming from a man and comparing the differences. For example, bursting into tears at the drop of a hat. Try to imagine a man doing that and what kind of mentality he would need to generate such behaviour.

This needs to complemented by introspection of your own veils and the machinations behind them. You will also need to work out what exactly unfeminine behaviour consists of, so that you have a template to work with. The secrets of women's behaviour reside in the inner woman inside you, and also in the inner man.

Above all, immerse yourself in the Infinite so that you have the strength to make these contemplations without getting sucked into them. Otherwise, the attention you give to women in these contemplations could easily cause you to fall in love with them all over again.

-

Jason wrote:

David Quinn wrote:A classic expression of female sexuality, closely related to dressing in a feminine, sexual manner in order to turn men's heads. In both cases, the enjoyment lies in being so attractive that it disables man's minds. If she can't turn him into putty, then at least turning him into a raging animal that rapes her is better than nothing.

That example could just as well be be viewed as a reverse of the dynamic that you perceive. She turns him into putty. That almost sounds like the work of engineer or scientist - reshaping reality to conform to their will. I think there's quite some subjectivity and latitude in deciding which side is dominant and which side is submissive. It reminds me of how some cultures define the moon as feminine and the sun as masculine - rather arbitrary.

There is some truth to that. Although, in the context of philosophy and human behaviour, it is more natural to think of male behaviour as being dominant because it is more direct, more consistent, more self-contained, more conscious, more destructive (and constructive), etc. Female behaviour, on the other hand, rarely goes beyond the level of instinctive cunning and is easily thwarted.

Men allow themselves to become putty at the sight of an attractive woman because they are addicted to sex and female approval, but they can easily pull themselves up at a moment's notice should something else come to their attention. In other words, female dominance requires the collusion of the male allowing himself to be dominated. Her source of dominance actually resides in the male himself. The affair and its outcome lies in his hands, not hers.

A woman's power over a man essentially depends on the effectiveness of her charades. First, there is the charade of her feminine charm. When that doesn't work, she whips up the charade of the disapproving matron. And when that doesn't work, the charade of victimhood suddenly emerges and she bursts into tears. And that is pretty much it as far as her tools for dominating men are concerned.

-

David Quinn wrote:A woman's power over a man essentially depends on the effectiveness of her charades. First, there is the charade of her feminine charm. When that doesn't work, she whips up the charade of the disapproving matron. And when that doesn't work, the charade of victimhood suddenly emerges and she bursts into tears. And that is pretty much it as far as her tools for dominating men are concerned.

Usually that is enough to overwhelm the man. :-)

There's a story about the Mughal emperor Akbar. Akbar had finished the siege of a North Indian city, and entered it with his army. Just after entering the city, he was met with a horde of women with their children, who were wailing at the top of their voices, pleading him to have mercy on them. Akbar was so touched by this, that he drew out his army from the city and left it alone. He even payed to have the walls of the city rebuilt.

David Quinn wrote:Above all, immerse yourself in the Infinite so that you have the strength to make these contemplations without getting sucked into them.

Useful advice.

David Quinn wrote:...the attention you give to women in these contemplations could easily cause you to fall in love with them all over again.

Too true.

Difficult thinking, it is.

I think movies and romance novels has a lot to do with modern popularity of the rape fantasy. Those girls rarely say no for long, if the guy beats other males to "save" her.

No doubt there are underlying remnants from our past forms still existent here in our present makeup. We are from millions of years of herd animals with dominant males. Being taken by the dominant male gave some females the opportunity for status, enhancing their survival odds. The nature of that taking was often rough and preceded by male-to-male violence. The females genitals would need to be in a state to accept cock without pain.

In this highly sexualised world, where many women would say be scared walking home from a station, perhaps some women are caused to often dwell about such situations, then it morphs into a fantasy where such situations are not actually dangerous. Even the common past/present love/hate relationship dynamic with a semi aggressive boyfriend could induce rape fantasies - as the relationship is unsatisfying she might as well engage in fantasy.

Many men have reverse harem fantasies - is one better than the other?

Women will transform themselves into anyone that men want in order to get attention and sex. Attention and sex are just energy transfers, sex is the biggest one where a man's soul is injected into a man. She is a clever parasite.

Since attention and "I" consciousness are closely related (the great the one the greater the other) you could say she feeds off it, his genius, his ego, his soul. The greater the "I" consciousness, she greater she manifests attraction.

Woman is lust. Specifically, the lust for life (male attention, sex, etc.) Lust explains why she can't think or stand back and consider or use logic, who in lust can?

You seem pretty fucked up. There is too much ego dressed around what you say.

In my opinion only fools accept David's views on women to the extent he does. It is not that his facts are technically wrong, but he becomes false by his very one-eyedness, by his own belief in his superiority. Make sure that you remember that the only thing of importance to him is enlightenment, and his comments always need to be considered within that context. David's playing games - he tries to induce negativity towards femininity so that you will form a strong dislike of it in others and THEN within yourself, and in doing so perhaps you will overcome it and with philosophical development the "Woman" issue will no longer be a concern. He thinks, perhaps rightly, that only by removal of the "Woman" influence will people be caused concentrate to the prolonged intense level needed to understand reality in the manner he does.

IMO, what women are is not particularly relevant. Recognise what the general differences in the sexes are and move on. It isn't really women towards which your energies should be focused, but rather yourself, your own motivations. Ponder about feminine/masculine things within yourself - both the good and the bad of each type - and understand what causes them to manifest.

There is no such thing as superiority, other than that which is associated with one's ego, and to you’re tone is precisely that. As everything is caused, determined by the past, how can anything be truly superior or lesser than another? All that matters is the path to your future, and yes, to determine the paths direction you will need to make value judgements that are advantageous/negative to your circumstances, not the circumstances of others - be careful your ego does not misdirect your ideas.

I'm not suggesting that it is wrong to develop virtuous masculinity or that one should mindlessly accept the increasing trend to the feminine mindset in society, but it's impact on you is all that counts. One needs to reject it unemotionally, which to be means being far more subtle and honest than the one-sided "all femininity is bad" mindsets that visit here.

Be aware that enlightenment is also a form of femininity by any unbiased viewpoint. In many ways it is the ultimate in femininity, seeing as its goal is to envelop the whole world in the pussy lips of the mind - so if you do seek enlightenment be prepared for this.

@ Jamesh
1. here is no such thing as superiority, other than that which is associated with one's ego, and to you’re tone is precisely that. As everything is caused, determined by the past, how can anything be truly superior or lesser than another?

There is such a thing as superiority, even without ego association, just not inherent superiority. Is the Sun not superior to darkness, and darkness superior to light? Maybe you mean there are no values without ego. And about that, well, i think it's impossible to avoid having a purpose, even if there is really no purpose, we naturally arrive at an action, even without an ego. A value judgement without an ego is possible too, i mean, u can still have a comfortable bed, drink soda and create a world for yourself, even if it's not neccesarily real--

There's a difference in observing the difference in males and females, and seeing the feminine and masculine psychology, however, i'd say that Women are relevant, u can look at them, and you will be reminded of the feminine side. I know what you're saying, that it is about your own psychology and the feminine masculine sides associated, i get that.

"David's playing games - he tries to induce negativity towards femininity so that you will form a strong dislike of it in others and THEN within yourself and in doing so perhaps you will overcome it and with philosophical development the "Woman" issue will no longer be a concern."

but, can you overcome femininity by blindly agreeing with David's promotion of masculinity?

If you form a dislike of femininity and were led on without proper self-examination and thought, it is a failure to see ones own self-contradiction, or in not really 'getting it' concerning feminine/masculine psychology.
The only person that has a 'danger' of becoming fond of masculinity is somebody who could never be fooled into worshipping authority in the first place. So it doesn't really matter. There is no danger of a blind mass cult worshipping masculinity really working, is there? ..Is that not contradicting it's values? In forming a blind mass cult that starts worshipping masculinity, you sort of end up with a large group of people who would all prefer thinking for themselves.....again, somebody mentioned a reason meme, which is essentially a group of people all worshipping something on a feminine level, but which , unconsciously, turns them into conscious people.

Anders Schlanders wrote:There is no such thing as superiority, other than that which is associated with one's ego, and to you’re tone is precisely that. As everything is caused, determined by the past, how can anything be truly superior or lesser than another?

I'll take the liberty of clarifying this point. Nothing is superior in the sense that all things exist and are therefore interdependent. But, we can call things superior in the sense that we choose one thing over another. For example, if we choose consciousness over unconsciousness, then we can call consciousness superior. Or, if we choose efficiency over inefficiency, then we can call efficiency superior.

When it comes to consciousness, though, we always have to choose consciousness over unconsciousness. This is because the ability to choose(distinguish) requires consciousness. The moment we decide to choose unconsciousness, we are already unconscious by default, and exercise no choice by definition. So when it comes to choosing between masculinity and femininity, you actually have no choice....if you want to have a choice.

EDIT: The same can be said of any situation where a choice is involved. In any situation where a conscious being has to choose, there is a choice is conscious(rational), and another one that is unconscious(irrational). Freedom denies us slavery.

.


-A.R-
Thanks tomus (tomas)...maybe you're the one who's undestand me.

-tomas-
Around these parts I'll take all the back slaps (congratulatory accolades) available ;-)


-A.R-
-No it’s just questions ….and about learning english ...it's not the one goal.

-tomas-
You betcha, you've come to the right (correct) forum to "learn" the common usage of English, as we are scattered across this planet quite nicely, if I may say so myself.


-A.R-
I joined in and I've alot of goals such as:

-tomas-
I joined in? .. please explain.


-A.R-
* know more information

-tomas-
Um huh, I've travelled to the Gulf region a couple few times. Lovely places.


-A.R-
*Understand the Foreign and learn how to speek (speak) with them and thier (their) nature.

-tomas-
Well, I'm flattered that you'd maybe? single me out for such an honor. Please note, that I was raised around a grouping of peoples (immigrants to America) fluent in Norse, Russian, Swede, Dane, German, Turkic, Arikara, Mandan (to a limited extent) and Hidista. The final 3 being Native American Indians... Nature?- well, that's a whole different can of worms altogether.


-A.R-
*Make friendship with different people...etc.

-tomas-
One can never have enough *real* friends :-)

As far as "different" goes - you sure know how to pick 'em ;-/

Warm Regards,
Tomas (the tank)
Prince of Jerusalem
16 Degree
Scottish Rite Free Mason

VietNam veteran - 1971

Steven Coyle wrote:Leaners?

Sweet.

Jamesh wrote:

Women will transform themselves into anyone that men want in order to get attention and sex. Attention and sex are just energy transfers, sex is the biggest one where a man's soul is injected into a man. She is a clever parasite.

Since attention and "I" consciousness are closely related (the great the one the greater the other) you could say she feeds off it, his genius, his ego, his soul. The greater the "I" consciousness, she greater she manifests attraction.

Woman is lust. Specifically, the lust for life (male attention, sex, etc.) Lust explains why she can't think or stand back and consider or use logic, who in lust can?

You seem pretty fucked up. There is too much ego dressed around what you say.

In my opinion only fools accept David's views on women to the extent he does. It is not that his facts are technically wrong, but he becomes false by his very one-eyedness, by his own belief in his superiority. Make sure that you remember that the only thing of importance to him is enlightenment, and his comments always need to be considered within that context. David's playing games - he tries to induce negativity towards femininity so that you will form a strong dislike of it in others and THEN within yourself, and in doing so perhaps you will overcome it and with philosophical development the "Woman" issue will no longer be a concern. He thinks, perhaps rightly, that only by removal of the "Woman" influence will people be caused concentrate to the prolonged intense level needed to understand reality in the manner he does.

IMO, what women are is not particularly relevant. Recognise what the general differences in the sexes are and move on. It isn't really women towards which your energies should be focused, but rather yourself, your own motivations. Ponder about feminine/masculine things within yourself - both the good and the bad of each type - and understand what causes them to manifest.

There is no such thing as superiority, other than that which is associated with one's ego, and to you’re tone is precisely that. As everything is caused, determined by the past, how can anything be truly superior or lesser than another? All that matters is the path to your future, and yes, to determine the paths direction you will need to make value judgements that are advantageous/negative to your circumstances, not the circumstances of others - be careful your ego does not misdirect your ideas.

I'm not suggesting that it is wrong to develop virtuous masculinity or that one should mindlessly accept the increasing trend to the feminine mindset in society, but it's impact on you is all that counts. One needs to reject it unemotionally, which to be means being far more subtle and honest than the one-sided "all femininity is bad" mindsets that visit here.

Be aware that enlightenment is also a form of femininity by any unbiased viewpoint. In many ways it is the ultimate in femininity, seeing as its goal is to envelop the whole world in the pussy lips of the mind - so if you do seek enlightenment be prepared for this.

I don't care about my "ego". I care about knowing the truth of the situation.

I understand that the world and everything in it is my representation. "Understand" is too weak a word, I literally feel it. It is useful to hang all my "hate" (It's not really hate, but it might appear that way) on "woman". It objectifies my soul. To be honest, the only time I hated woman was when I was very attached to her, and successful with her. In fact, I think, it is the successful seducer who learns to hate woman.

You act like you're above talking about woman. Your tone is strident. Nevertheless, I agree with your conclusion, that one must play the famale role as regards God. Thanks for your time.

David:
I'm not interested enough in the subject to produce that kind of effort.

Carmel:
..nor am I.

David:
I've been referencing stuff that I've read over the years, of which I have no record. I realize this won't satisfy you, but there it is.

Carmel:
That's fine. It's not a point worth belaboring over. moving on...

David:
What you say here is true enough. The key point here, though, is that the mentality underlying the rape fantasies spills over into real life, which is why women generally want men who are stronger than them and who are willing to take the initiative. They want rapists that they can control.

Carmel:
possibly, but isn't the inverse of that true? Some men want "victims" they can control, but whatever the case, the core issue is the power struggle underlying every close relationship which manifests whenever any 2(or more) people live within close proximity whether spouses, roommates, parent-child etc. Sometimes it manifests subtly, i.e. "not tonight dear, I have a headache" or sometimes not so subtly i.e. physical abuse.

David:
No doubt. What do you find attractive in a man, may I ask?

Carmel:
Of course, you may ask. It's certainly preferable to being told what I(women) want as seems to be the norm around here;)

The usual litany of positive attributes would apply: integrity, intelligence, good sense of humour, compassionate, creative, confident(which is not to be confused with false bravado,ego). More generally, I'm attracted to men who are uniquely "themselves". Their attributes may vary somewhat...

Then beyond all that, there's that mysterious quality which the French call "Je ne sais quoi"...that indefinable quality someone possesses which attracts, but it's difficult to articulate why.

oh, and if they smell woodsy, like cedar and fresh pine...well, that's always nice. :)

Carmel wrote:David: What do you find attractive in a man, may I ask?

Carmel:
Of course, you may ask. It's certainly preferable to being told what I(women) want as seems to be the norm around here;)

The usual litany of positive attributes would apply: integrity, intelligence, good sense of humour, compassionate, creative, confident(which is not to be confused with false bravado,ego). More generally, I'm attracted to men who are uniquely "themselves". Their attributes may vary somewhat...

Then beyond all that, there's that mysterious quality which the French call "Je ne sais quoi"...that indefinable quality someone possesses which attracts, but it's difficult to articulate why.

oh, and if they smell woodsy, like cedar and fresh pine...well, that's always nice. :)

Would he have to have a job? If he had all those qualities above, but no money, would you support him?

-

do you think you'd make a good candidate david?, with that list.

Carmel, is david a candidate?

In my opinion, such a man with those qualities still needs to have a degree of harmlessness and coersion to softness, otherwise it is pointless...he might have all those things, but what if he was uninterested in a woman, or couldn't 'cuddle' enough?

David Quinn is flirting with Carmel?

Oh never mind....

This is a slightly offtopic comment.

I have feminine qualities. Today a guy at work said I projected a feminine aura. This isn't the first time I've received such a comment. I think I am essentially male, i.e. my inner life is male.

Adum, you wrote "...never question things."

You ain't never come-in at 4am.

Stay on groovin' safari,
Tor

Atum wrote:This is a slightly offtopic comment.

I have feminine qualities. Today a guy at work said I projected a feminine aura. This isn't the first time I've received such a comment. I think I am essentially male, i.e. my inner life is male.

What do you think is the cause of this feminine aura?

-

Hard to say. When I smile, I smile a lot and big. This often gets commented on. I am compassionate. I am shy. I am soft-spoken. I don't have anything "macho" about me except, perhaps, my facial hair. I am, however, an independent thinker, at least relative to other people. Either "masculine" =/ "macho" or I am fatally over-estimating my manhood.

Virgil was nicknamed "Parthenius" (the Virgin), Milton was nicknamed "The Lady of Christ's, Chekhov was described as "modest and quiet like a girl." I admit these are artistic geniuses, and a philosopher is less likely feminine. However, I can't imagine Nietzsche, for example, was anything like a macho guy or the super-man.

David:
Would he have to have a job?

Carmel:
No, it doesn't matter whether or not he has a job. I don't place value on job "status" and the material world doesn't hold much interest for me...except for nature. I find respite in nature.

David:
If he had all those qualities above, but no money, would you support him?

Carmel:
It's impossible to answer definitively, but it may be a moot question as, even if someone had all of those qualities, I've a proclivity for autonomy and have no desire to live with anyone. Ideally, I'd only see him on the weekends...and twice on Sundays ;)

Atum:
Virgil was nicknamed "Parthenius" (the Virgin), Milton was nicknamed "The Lady of Christ's, Chekhov was described as "modest and quiet like a girl." I admit these are artistic geniuses, and a philosopher is less likely feminine. However, I can't imagine Nietzsche, for example, was anything like a macho guy or the super-man.

Carmel:
In some Native American tribes, it was the most androgynous men who were revered as sages.

Don't you think your masc/fem sides can complement each other, or do you still feel like they're at odds?

I suspect the reason the spiritual man doesn't need a woman is because he has a woman already. I mean, Adam gets his rib back, the external woman vanishes.

Atum wrote:I suspect the reason the spiritual man doesn't need a woman is because he has a woman already. I mean, Adam gets his rib back, the external woman vanishes.

That is not the reason. The sage doesn't have a large enough feminine side which would want to merge with the environment(women, society, friends, etc.) All this balancing the yin and yang stuff is fantasy. Balance is always feminine. If you are conscious, you have to choose between man or woman, and you have to choose man if you want to remain conscious.

Who said anything about merging with your environment?