Esther Vilar's "Women's Vices"

[Dennis Mahar]

Neitschke, Kierkergard, Heidegger, Weineger amongst others contributed to opening up the World as possibility for human being..that's not a possibility run by worldhood.
Kierkergard grokked the plastic christians, was correctly disgusted and opened up the possibility of 'authentic christian'.
His quest is magnificent, courageous and had him isolated against the swelling tide of the waters he was swimming in...he snatched victory out of the jaws of defeat like the champion he was.
His quest brings a tear to my eye and fills me with 'pride' that a human being remembered being.
The greats break out of the mould.

[Dennis Mahar]

Alex,

All well and good, but is it possible you operate too from the typical 'reduced' stance of some of the men who are attracted to this Position? Like a ping-pong ball bounding in a metre square room, endlessly?

Take that statement and speak it into a mirror then get back to me

[Kelly Jones]

Kelly: As cousinbasil pointed out, a female who criticises women isn't necessarily masochistic. How did he explain that, do you remember?

cousinbasil: I also pointed out it would be meaningful to know whether such a female was also as "truthful" and "consistent" in criticizing men on particularly male issues. My reasoning is quite simple, especially when discussing this topic with you, Kelly. For while I might not assail a man who harped on only male shortcomings (I would consider him interested, as I have said, in the betterment of himself and his fellow men, about whom he was presumably more of an expert), you, Kelly, would accuse him of all sorts of sheep-like behavior and herd mentality!

How do you know that I wouldn't perceive in his critique an implicit assumption that women were beyond the pale, and incapable of understanding his points? For instance, many of the philosophical texts I particularly admire operate thusly. Few of them ever criticise women, because it's pretty damn obvious there would be no point. Unfortunately, these kinds of texts are often misrepresented in this era of supposed intellectual and moral equality between the sexes.

You would say he has been brought up to defend women and fail to properly see their faults and resort to protecting her as if she were frail, a damsel in distress.

No, I don't think I would do that automatically. It depends more on the context, not forgetting, of course, what he was actually criticising men for plays a big role here.....

You would, in short, fault such a male, would you not?

Nope. Or rather, I lack enough information to know what I would do.

You would see him unknowingly wearing blinders, but can't the same be said about you?

But again, I have already said on a number of occasions, including just a day or two ago, that all my critique against the feminine mind is a direct criticism of men, who are the ones who love and endorse and support women's unconsciousness, coddling them because they so fear the Infinite that they need a cute, cuddly, mindless, dependent yet totally enslaving, yappy little pet to take their minds off Reality. It's not the pet's fault, but the pet definitely has a lot of repulsive traits. It's the owner's fault for grooming and breeding the pet to be just so.

You either can see this or you can't, but there it is.


.

[Dennis Mahar]

Alex,

All well and good, but is it possible you operate too from the typical 'reduced' stance of some of the men who are attracted to this Position? Like a ping-pong ball bounding in a metre square room, endlessly?

That statement discloses 'where you're atness'..
It kinda shrieks nihilism, cynicism...

You've got to ask the question who am I being as a possibility of Being-in-action.

Ask yourself who am I in the environments I'm being in.

Am I a mocking presence?
Am I a spiv with a shiv looking for a chance to stick the knife in?

Am I as a fixed way of being in a persistant complaint?
Am I shut down from being hurt in some way and living in a holding pattern to protect against further hurt?

Am I getting about in the World in such and such a way?

Who am I being?

Am I inspiring?

These are the kind of questions that came out of Kierkegard's inquiry.
Ultimately it's empty and meaningless and against that there's a possibility for being-in-action.

The QRS as collective is Academy that has speakers like K in there.
It's an Academy that is out on the margins of worldhood that explores frontiers and breaks through.
It takes listening that can't happen if you come at it from an agenda, if you're running a counter-postulate against it in the space it exists in...It's postulating genius as a way of being, that's taken in deeply so all the seeds can bring forth fruit..
Like the possibility for Buddhists is loving Kindness..a possibility that bears fruit in the being of it...that takes single minded determination...

[Alex Jacob]

Dennis writes: "These are the kind of questions that came out of Kierkegard's inquiry. Ultimately it's empty and meaningless and against that there's a possibility for being-in-action. / The QRS as collective is Academy that has speakers like K in there. It's an Academy that is out on the margins of worldhood that explores frontiers and breaks through."

QRS is a group of very tendentious persons who arise within a very chaotic circumstance, at peculiarly strange and confusing period of history. They are people who have been 'propelled' by long lines of different causes. They are people 'fighting a war', or people who congregate after a war, in a war-zone, and huddle together. The first thing about them is their personhood. The first thing to touch or to 'understand' is their personhood. Everything else is layed on top.

QRS can also be looked at as a group of 'mad persons', who have gone crazy in their own unique way, under social and 'life' pressures. One aspect of their persons, and that part which contains a significant 'will', was thrust or thrust itself into intellectualism, and the disparate doctrines of Weininger, the Buddha, Nietzsche, and others. All was stirred together in a great mind-pot but underneath, unchanged perhaps we might say, are those persons coming out of a war-zone. This 'war-zone' is a kind of place where personhood is severly attacked by anti-life forces that stalk the mental world, like carniverous parasites, like half-flesh and half-mechanical hybrids who incorporate every day more and more of The Machine, the empty and the meaningless, to borrow your term.

Don't be fooled. Look deeply inside.

[jupiviv]

They are people 'fighting a war', or people who congregate after a war, in a war-zone, and huddle together. The first thing about them is their personhood. The first thing to touch or to 'understand' is their personhood. Everything else is layed on top.

Ignore people's ideas, judge them by their "personhood" - that's quite a charming worldview you have there Alex.

[Alex Jacob]

We lack a holistic structure for our 'ideas'. Our ideas, because they are strangeley abstract from 'persons' and 'personhood', and with no means to connect us in a complete way with the 'Kosmos', in the sense of offering the possibility for 'mystical union' (if you'll permit me the terms), become almost a separate realm for us, an 'escape' from 'reality' and not a way to join ourselves with 'reality'.

To ignore or not to ignore a person's ideas is not so much the issue. The issue is the totality of themselves, the wholeness of themselves.

We all are existing now in an exploded outcome of ideas and events that have shattered our relationship, in a holistic way, with ourselves and with others. This is now and will always be an area of supreme importance, whether you see it or understand it or don't.

The 'war-zone' is that 'exploded outcome'.

You are a charming boy who has discovered his Weinigerian pee-pee for the first time. I imagine for you this is all quite exciting: to watch it grow and expand, to stroke and preen it like a pride-swelled rooster! But there is infinitely much more than just this level of intellectual narcissim Jupi. You are going to have to begin to grow up.

[Dennis Mahar]

What is your project Alex?

to throw a wet blanket on existence?

Is that you?

Hello?

What's the story?

[cousinbasil]

But again, I have already said on a number of occasions, including just a day or two ago, that all my critique against the feminine mind is a direct criticism of men, who are the ones who love and endorse and support women's unconsciousness, coddling them because they so fear the Infinite that they need a cute, cuddly, mindless, dependent yet totally enslaving, yappy little pet to take their minds off Reality. It's not the pet's fault, but the pet definitely has a lot of repulsive traits. It's the owner's fault for grooming and breeding the pet to be just so.

You either can see this or you can't, but there it is.

I don't recall your putting it quite this way. You do have a sense of humor after all, don't you? When you put things in this manner I see your point quite clearly. It's funny to me because you do seem to genderize human frailty. The short of it is, it bothers you when you see men and women turning to each other for comfort. Am I right?

[Alex Jacob]

Hello Dennis! Do you have a question for me?

[Dennis Mahar]

Hi Alex,

Hello Dennis! Do you have a question for me?

No.
I have a question OF you.

A starting point could be a story you carry about Youth.
Breakthroughs are for the most part grabbed by people between age 20 - 30.

It's a precept of QRS that Youth interested in a conversation about the nature of ultimate reality be nurtured.

The question is:

Who are you being?

[jupiviv]

We lack a holistic structure for our 'ideas'. Our ideas, because they are strangeley abstract from 'persons' and 'personhood', and with no means to connect us in a complete way with the 'Kosmos', in the sense of offering the possibility for 'mystical union' (if you'll permit me the terms), become almost a separate realm for us, an 'escape' from 'reality' and not a way to join ourselves with 'reality'.

*You* may lack a holistic structure for your ideas, but that doesn't mean everyone else lacks it too. I am not separate in any way from my ideas - they are my very soul.

You are a charming boy who has discovered his Weinigerian pee-pee for the first time. I imagine for you this is all quite exciting: to watch it grow and expand, to stroke and preen it like a pride-swelled rooster! But there is infinitely much more than just this level of intellectual narcissim Jupi. You are going to have to begin to grow up.

Let's say I am engaging in intellectual narcissism, i.e, there is some kind of a narcissistic motive behind what I say. Does that in itself negate the truth of what I actually say? Obviously not. So why don't you address what I say instead of making an analysis of my "personhood"?

[Alex Jacob]

It doesn't negate it, it renders it irrelevant. Not *absolutely* irrelevant, but notably or highlightedly irrelevant.

I believe we can only speak of the ideas of persons, and ideas that operate in persons. Why you ask? Because it is in a person where the 'field of activity' is. The object is to somehow function with the wholeness of a person, not with a lopsided part. I have noticed time and time again that a goodly portion of the QRS hangers-on seem to be 'partial persons', schisms of persons. It is a perception that became clear quite some time ago. (I am talking more about the 'TB's, the ones who carry the QRS-derived 'blazons').

One interest of mine has been to try to locate the reasons, the causes for that self-division.

"You may lack a holistic structure for your ideas, but that doesn't mean everyone else lacks it too. I am not separate in any way from my ideas - they are my very soul."

I wasn't talking about you. I was talking in general terms about 'the persons' of QRS: the factors and forces that have formed them. And also all of us, by extension. We all derive from 'fracture'.

It is a hard idea to communicate because it involves considerable 'back-story'.

Dennis asks: "Who are you being?"

Myself. You?

[jupiviv]

It doesn't negate it, it renders it irrelevant. Not *absolutely* irrelevant, but notably or highlightedly irrelevant.

How does the truth of an idea become irrelevant because of a characteristic that happens to exist(or is imagined to exist) in the person expounding it?

I believe we can only speak of the ideas of persons, and ideas that operate in persons.

A "person" is an idea too you know.

It is a hard idea to communicate because it involves considerable 'back-story'.

If it involves a considerable "back-story", then you should either tell the back-story or not talk about the idea at all. As it happens, you are not telling the back-story at all. You're simply accusing people of whatever you think would justify your disagreement with them.

[Dennis Mahar]

Alex,

Myself. You?

Out of inquiry by people like Kierkeggard and Neitschke an understanding happened.

Nelson Mandella, for his protest was snatched off the streets by apartheid politics.
They bashed, tortured him and gaoled him for 28 years on Robbin Island.

At no time did he say 'I wish I was free'....'I hope to be free one day'.....'please free me and I will do what you want'...'let me out you bastards'...

He stood wholly in a possibility for being-in-action for human being.

That stand was 'I am free'..
despite circumstances.

[Kelly Jones]

But again, I have already said on a number of occasions, including just a day or two ago, that all my critique against the feminine mind is a direct criticism of men, who are the ones who love and endorse and support women's unconsciousness, coddling them because they so fear the Infinite that they need a cute, cuddly, mindless, dependent yet totally enslaving, yappy little pet to take their minds off Reality. It's not the pet's fault, but the pet definitely has a lot of repulsive traits. It's the owner's fault for grooming and breeding the pet to be just so.

You either can see this or you can't, but there it is.

I don't recall your putting it quite this way.

Since almost always I put it quite this way, I think the theory would have to go along the lines of you're not having read much of what I've written on the matter.

You do have a sense of humor after all, don't you? When you put things in this manner I see your point quite clearly. It's funny to me because you do seem to genderize human frailty. The short of it is, it bothers you when you see men and women turning to each other for comfort. Am I right?

It bothers me in the sense of an apparently rational adult besotted with his sock puppet. Although, of course, women wouldn't be quite as directly a manifestation of men's dreams as a sock puppet, but they aren't far from that reality.

For instance, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, is a young blonde who is constantly battling evil foes that possess great physical power but generally little intelligence, and she herself shows no sign of a fighter's musculature. Yet the series is or was very popular, despite or probably because, it is wholly fantastical. She's a sock puppet "dreaming" (this is a noun in Australia) of an apathetic, defeatist, demoralised masculinity who has no faith in reason.


.

[Alex Jacob]

Jupi asks: "How does the truth of an idea become irrelevant because of a characteristic that happens to exist (or is imagined to exist) in the person expounding it?"

You are bending things around with your own phrasing, you sophist! Truths cannot or perhaps 'should not' exist apart from persons. Truths are integral to persons. Especially the great, overarching truths. A fragmentary knowledge separated from persons, or one that cannot examine wholes and consider persons in relation to wholes, is a removed, abstract knowledge. Certain kinds of minds 'escape' in a special way into the 'domains of knowledge'. There is a schizm between the knowing mind...and the issue of personhood.

The wave of the future, so to speak, is a new order of knowing, a new way to focus knowledge.

"If it involves a considerable "back-story", then you should either tell the back-story or not talk about the idea at all."

You're going far too slow to even begin to catch it. You have either to speed up or simply make a place for yourself in the slow lane. Yet you must know that there, in the slow lane, you will forever get bonked on the head...

[Kelly Jones]

Jupta's pointing out how much you rely on argumentum ad hominem, Alex. You know, the logical fallacy that an argument can be disproved on the basis of the argumenter's character, even when the argument is not containing any reference to same.

Argumentum ad hominem is only a viable technique in debate (or reasoning), if the argument contains reference to the argumenter's character. For example, "My character is one that loves both irony and honesty, is simple and direct, is perceptive and psychologically subtle, self-reliant and efficient, ordinarily patient but with little time for dithering or deliberate evasion, and tending to arrogance and selfishness as befits the individualist or pioneer." Only if the argument is overtly based on the argumenter's character, is the ad hominem response a rational one.

But only very rarely are the arguments offered on the Genius Forum of such a nature, making your focus on that technique utterly irrational.


.

[cousinbasil]

cousinbasil: You do have a sense of humor after all, don't you? When you put things in this manner I see your point quite clearly. It's funny to me because you do seem to genderize human frailty. The short of it is, it bothers you when you see men and women turning to each other for comfort. Am I right?

Kelly: It bothers me in the sense of an apparently rational adult besotted with his sock puppet. Although, of course, women wouldn't be quite as directly a manifestation of men's dreams as a sock puppet, but they aren't far from that reality.

For instance, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, is a young blonde who is constantly battling evil foes that possess great physical power but generally little intelligence, and she herself shows no sign of a fighter's musculature. Yet the series is or was very popular, despite or probably because, it is wholly fantastical. She's a sock puppet "dreaming" (this is a noun in Australia) of an apathetic, defeatist, demoralised masculinity who has no faith in reason.

Okay, I'll admit I was wrong about the sense of humor thing.

[jupiviv]

Truths cannot or perhaps 'should not' exist apart from persons. Truths are integral to persons.

So why don't you focus on recognising the truth in a person instead of negating that truth by pointing out other aspects of that person? Wouldn't that be more helpful?

If it involves a considerable "back-story", then you should either tell the back-story or not talk about the idea at all.

You're going far too slow to even begin to catch it. You have either to speed up or simply make a place for yourself in the slow lane. Yet you must know that there, in the slow lane, you will forever get bonked on the head...

Come on...stop being such a cocotte and just give me the back-story!

[Alex Jacob]

Such 'debate rules' are for high school debate teams, as I see it: pimply-faced boys who masturbate too frequently.

The point is to combine our use of thinking, our handling of ideas, the kind of ideas we have and what we do with them and what they do to us, in honest discourse. The only realistic and meaningful subject is 'the man'. True, it would be absurd and irrational to say "I dismiss your arguments because you are not 6' tall!" or perhaps because your fingernails are dirty. But to always hold the individual and the person (who is in many ways the outcome of his ideation) ultimately accountable, makes only the best of sense.

People driven by abstracted ideas, as you seem to have been when you wrote your lecture on debate techniques, pose a certain problem to genuine conversation and honest communication. Their use of ideas becomes a foil behind which an often essentially dishonest person hides.

We all know this and we all have to deal with people like this in our lives...

The issue of honestly and dishonesty---that is 'of persons'---is not necessarily connected to the ability to make simply logical (or 'logical') statements. This issue of honestly has to do with another level within the person. One is there, and one is honest, or one is not.

A certain number of the players on the GF field, more often than not the TBs (as I see things, as I perceive things) are fundamentally dishonest. For this reason there is a disconnect between the pretense of 'logic' and 'rationality' and what can honestly be called 'truth'.

But there is no way in the world to 'prove' this with logical sentence structure...or so-called 'reasoned arguments'.

I have dealt quite often with children and toddlers and you simple know when you are dealing with a child who is being honest with you. And you know when you have a child who is all wrapped up in some deception. It does not matter what they say, how they say it, or what they don't say. It stems directly from their person and their behavior.

It is something you see.

See?

[jupiviv]

So you're basically making an accusation of dishonesty against me, Kelly Jones, Diebert, and other people who agree to various degrees with "QRS"? That's quite a bold stance to be taking, and more so because you have provided no evidence for the same. In my case, the only consistent reason you seem to have for calling me dishonest is that I'm young and therefore inexperienced. I wonder whether you would accuse a child of telling a lie about something simply because he is a child - you should, if you want to be consistent with your ideas.

[Kelly Jones]

Alex,

When one focusses on a person's character instead of examining the validity and coherency (or not) of their central idea, the motive is what? To establish what degree they deviate psychologically from what one regards as sane (or whatever word you would like to connote perfection, or the ideal).

In other words, the method you are using depends itself on a central idea, that being sanity / perfection / the ideal.

Your actions - the way you keep trying to "lay charges" against members of this forum - shows that you have a particular idea or ideal that you are holding us against. For instance, you mention "honesty".

I, and others here, present what we regard as "honesty" - truth, the nature of Reality, enlightenment, wisdom, etc. But instead of examining the idea, to show how it deviates from your ideal, you refuse to get to the principles.

How do you think you will ever make progress unless you focus on precisely what the differences are between your basic principle, and that you are criticising?



Ad hominem is simply a name for incoherence. For example, criticising behaviour that doesn't match up to your ideal, when the one you criticise doesn't actually regard that ideal as valid. It's totally futile.

That is why it is called a logical fallacy. It's not a rule of a game, it's a real technique people use so often that it has gained its own name to try to educate against its use.


.

[Alex Jacob]

Jupi,

This particular 'conversation' is taking place in a specific context; a thread with a specific theme, and one that is endlessly hashed here on this forum. Now, what you may decide to do---but only if you feel so inclined---is to take a few steps back, and examine what I just wrote, and see it as a commentary that might not be as immediately transparent as you assume. In other words, perhaps it points to something that requires more than just a simple, rather vain, retort? Is it possible it may require a little introspective thinking? A review, if only mentally, of attitudes and ideas that are presented on this forum on this theme? Or, shall you turn it into a word-construct that you attack with a group of rhetorical/analytical tools (perhaps Kells will assist you in this) and when you have located some flaw, or have invented some flaw, that you can drag around until you feel or imagine you have gained some leverage, shall you succeed in dismissing it, without hearing or grasping what was said? If you do so, you will demonstrate how accomplished you are at the proven game of intellectual dishonesty, a game that is (often) the very essence of the GF.

[Alex Jacob]

Ad hominem, as you are labeling it Kelly, yet which I have myself defined rather differently, is one tool of communication that is used with many others. It has to do with a statement of fact as I see it. It is qualified in that way, and that qualification makes a difference. I offer an analysis, or an opinion, that points to what I perceive as fundamental intellectual---or perhaps existential?---dishonesty. 'Delusion' or 'prejudice' might also function, but I will stick with intellectual dishonesty.

• The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious. For in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.---from Wiki page