Women, Freedom, Entrapment, Strategy

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The statements you are making, I see now, are less about me and more about yourself. I hadn't seen that before. You are defending something now.

It's certainly great progress to see how this is not about you! We are all mimicking in a mirror but more specifically I'm looking for a way to defend the age I'm living in and I'm working with it, looking for its fruits and directions. And if it's a defense then it's a defense against the elitist rather backward looking cultural philosophy you keep suggesting for six years in a forum which doesn't care much about it, in an age which doesn't care much about it anymore but you do not accept it.

[Dennis Mahar]

Yes, you have been upset one way or another.

lonely road.

I can hear it.

upon reflection,
can you see that all that exists is finite.
arises, endures, ceases.

that nothing exists under its own steam.

[Pye]

that nothing exists under its own steam.

except for existence itself.
And that is all there is.

[Dennis Mahar]

except for existence itself.
And that is all there is.

astonishing.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

looking out of the peepers and seeing body/minds rushing about with their strategies.
'tis funny, uproariously so.

"Watch the turmoil of beings,
but contemplate their return."

Beings have a natural need to encounter problems, if everything is alright, they will make up that something has gone wrong, it's like they can't be satisfied without having something to worry about for the future, thinking that if they plan well their worries will go away!

Alex, you write so much to say what you could say in one line, and we understand exactly what we are trying to destroy, here are some of the things I'm trying to help rid you of: Common sense, Habit, Ritual, Desire, Reason (You can use it but not your older flawed kind), and knowing.

Doing this crushes people, the common person has spent their whole lives erecting barriers, refusing to really think about themselves or the bigger picture, instead distracting themselves with their desires, sadly, if you want to be given everything, you first have to give everything up :'( !

What does "everything" mean?...everything.

What does it mean that you gain "everything" once you've given everything up? It means you gain everything.

What is left at the end? You won't have many possessions, you won't be secure for the future, you will be in eternal paradise and your life will go perfectly.

Buddha and Lao Tzu said whoever can see through all fear will always be safe.

This is really the same thing but, the moment you know you've stopped thinking of the future, that you can honestly say it no longer crosses your mind, then you have achieved what you should be aiming for.

[Alex T. Jacob]

I can't thank you enough for taking the time to help me out. Don't give up on me. I'll get there by and by! But despite appearances, and in the spirit of wanting to humble myself and be helpful, I really think that Diebert needs your help more. It's just that he can't ask for help. A pride thing I suppose.

I am willing to give up everything except the villa and I do need a minimum monthly income of 10g which, while not living in poverty will still be hard for me. Do you have any particular primer books that I should start with? Tonight I am going to start by attempting to give up the mind and that old way of reasoning. I'll let you know how it goes. Do you have other disciples and would it be a good idea to get in touch with them?

[guest_of_logic]

Bringing this thread back to its original post...

Alex, you describe women as "unconscious", "mediocre" and a "trap", you say that women should be "controlled", and you imply through your actions that (the right) women should be assisted by men who have their own power. Now, I'm not sure that I would ever self-identify as a feminist, because the term covers such a variety of views that it's not a particularly helpful one to label oneself with, but my views could be seen to fit under that category. From that perspective, there are both merits to and problems with what you outline. So, in in this post I'll sketch a version of feminism that makes sense to me, and then reflect on your post from that perspective.

In a nutshell, to me, feminism is that struggle against imposition which has its roots in the struggle against impositions on women. If that's too broad for you, then you might prefer to view feminism as simply one of the manifestations of this generic struggle. Either way, the key is word imposition, which is, by one reasonable definition, always an injustice. We can look back over history to see the ways in which groups of people have been imposed on in sometimes overt and sometimes subtle ways, and, if we're aware, we can see it in present times - the biggest current example of this is a glaringly obvious one when your eyes are opened, and that is our imposition on non-human life. In fact, imposition is in many of these cases, and in this particular case, too mild a word: exploitation is more apt.

From the perspective of this struggle, the aim is freedom and its responsible exercise. There is, though, a paradox with responsibly-exercised freedom that bears on this, and that is that in the exercise of freedom, we make choices, and those choices, both in the fact that the choices themselves cannot be avoided, and in their effects, are in some sense also restrictions. A more helpful way of putting this is that freedom cannot exist without structure, unless it is purely potential rather than actualised. Responsible choices, too, are by definition consistent choices (consistently responsible), and often in making responsible choices, we make them consistently in other ways too, and in doing so we construct a role for ourselves. Whether or not roles in this sense are in and of themselves to be avoided - whether we ought to be so radically free as to be unpredictable - is a question I think each person needs to answer for themselves, personally I think it's an ideal to be strived for (within the limitations of the paradox) even though I haven't until now made the effort. This, perhaps, is the type of freedom that Dennis and John might aspire to.

In any case, whether or not the struggle is against roles themselves, it is certainly against the imposition of roles. Feminists are right to point out that one of the subtler ways in which imposition occurs is through normative expectations of roles. The resistance to feminist attempts to remove those normative expectations is often based on a view that these roles are optimal, healthy and natural. I'm not sure, Alex, to what extent you take your prescriptions of masculine and feminine roles, but from talking to you I get the impression that you do believe that the roles you prescribe are natural. I also get the impression that you seek only to advocate them and not to impose them - that you believe that others should be free choose their own roles, even if in your view they are unnatural ones. In this sense, I don't think you're in as violent an opposition to a feminist view as you might otherwise seem.

I also think that the role you seem to want to manifest, that of self-empowered man retaining his independence whilst providing the means for a materially impoverished woman to broaden her possibilities, is in one sense aligned with a feminist perspective, that sense being the fostering of freedom (for the woman mired in limitation, and for the man, who does not need to compromise-restrict himself in the process). In an ideal world (maybe not yours?), we would all be equally free already, and power inequalities like that would not exist (personally, perhaps because of my ideal, I might find them a little uncomfortable, but who really knows unless/until I find myself in that situation?), but given the reality of inequality, the choice to enhance another's possibilities is a responsible one, not one to be derided.

As I've mentioned to you already, I also think that when you say that women should be controlled, you are being perhaps unconsciously provocative, because I think that what you really mean is not that women themselves should be controlled (your choice to help a woman expand her possibilities through education seems to contradict any putative desire to "control" her), but that a man should exercise good (protective) judgement in the circumstances in which he relates to a woman. This is a pragmatic and defensible if not very romantic choice - what happened to love as a wild adventure?

Perhaps the answer lies in your view of women as "unconscious", "mediocre" and a "trap". To take this view, is, I think, to set up limitations that are opposed to the fundamental aim of freedom. Our thoughts make our reality, and I don't want a reality in which women and the possibilities of relating with them are limited in that way, nor do I believe it is the reality.

Finally, the story that you related is a sad and ugly one, a story of impositions: woman imposing paternity on man, man imposing death on child. As a morality tale, it teaches the righting of one injustice with another, the combating of deception with more deception, the evasion of responsibility and the expediency of life.

Thanks for the chance to share my views.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Everyone needs help

[SeekerOfWisdom]

And your such a douche bag, but I do have some reading

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9 ... te-v3.html

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bb/bb08.htm

Grab a bible, Jesus's words specifically

After all those three in a row, tell me your thoughts, then..

Villa sounds nice

Give me 10g,

I'll 10x the income of your business simply through being a super genius, hit me with the details

[Dennis Mahar]

take note Laird.

you are under admonishment by the Court of Inquiry for 'leading the witness'.

[Alex T. Jacob]

Hello Laird. As I have recently declared, I am right on the verge of giving up my mind and becoming witless. It is surprisingly easy once you get into the hang of it, but it does help to have good teachers too. And I've got two of the best who will be helping me squeeze through the eye of the needle so to speak. My aim: to think and write like Dennis within six weeks! It will be hard but I am going to give it a college try. (If not 'college' then vocational school...or whatever, you know what I mean). Still, I will try to respond to what you have written, but you must understand that I do so only by projecting myself backward into what I once was an no longer am.

What I wrote was this:

My position is that women, speaking generally, are very much indeed a mediocrity, but certainly no more and often quite a bit less than the vast multitudes of men. But with that in mind (as operative knowledge) it *should* be a man's decision to in some way or other break out of mediocrity. Not to conform to women's desires for him, not to become merely her 'biological servant'. In the best case, if indeed a man had such characteristics, he would could still have relations with women, but what complicates the whole issue is that, certainly in the First World, a woman represents a very real trap. Again, harkening to the Greek concept of 'metis': the clever designs employed by nature to disguise predation and the predator, and pushing the metaphor further: to 'guild the cage' or to scent it with lovely scent, but it is still a trap. Marriage and paternity can be and often is a Life Sentence for a man: once in you never get out.

My personal view is that a woman is something that one should consciously decide to 'control'. One must secure one's own position and make it unassailable (no way to get at what you have), and from that position one chooses the exact level of involvement one wants. For example, I have a GF (here in Latin America) who is really a sweet and respectful person and who is also getting help to finish school (she has a five years-old son, not mine). In truth she is a beautiful soul and did not have designs on me, as many Latinas do of foreigners, and this is why it became easy to desire to help her. She lives now with her mother and I definitely have no intention of inviting her to live with me. So, it turns into almost the 'perfect situation', but it is all predicated on male power: I have my own sources of income which are unassailable. Isn't this, I ask, what any one of us should seek? Our own sovereignty?

I accept, therefor, one aspect of the QRS platform, and one it would seem shared by Ortega y Gasset: in the most general sense, if men allow them to, women and women's concerns hold us back. To excel, if we can, means to really hold to a focus within our own selves. In this, I think, men are uniquely constructed. Perhaps it is simply that we are free of the reproductive system of women, or perhaps it is for other 'evolutionary biological' reasons, but men have unique aptitudes. Esther Vilar said something to the effect that men do very well to divorce themselves from female concerns and to excel and keep excelling in masculine ones. Strange, coming from a woman. A close reading of Camilia Paglia who has a similar view of men's accomplishments also supports this idea, I think.

About 'unconsciousness': It all has to be very carefully qualified. It is not, I don't think, a part of an average woman's make up to 'deeply question'. This understanding or view almost doesn't need to be defended. There is an edge in men (and by this I mean 'the best of the best' that history offers) that is simply not shared by women, speaking generally. Men in this sense explore consciousness. Women, by and large, have their being. They are. But they do not question, not in a profound, existential sense. Do you know women that do? Would you describe women generally has having that sort of 'restlessness' or whatever it is? In this specific sense, though one has to be careful with any generalization, women represent 'unconsciousness'. Women =naturally turn to consciousness-defining men. Consciousness-defining men have a unique position. Camilia Paglia summed it up in this way: 'If it were left to women we'd still be living in grass huts'. It says a lot, and it seems to sum it up. If it were left to women we would not be in any sense in the conditions we are now in as a world race. That is pretty strong medicine. Does this mean that women cannot be brought into this 'project'? It most certainly does not mean that. But men, in my view, 'own' this territory, and what I really mean is that they own the responsibility. The burden of responsibility plays a large part in my view on all these issues.

Women as 'trap': This is a much more tricky question. What I principally mean is that women are a trap for men who seek self-realization. Because this is, by and large, a 'male project'. Men need thereofr to define themselves and their circumstances, if you will, in a space separate from women. But this is not, as I see it, 'allowed' in our first world cultures for all the politically correct reasons. Forces I do not quite understand seek to 'level' men and women, to make women men and men women to put it bluntly. I see this as coming from mercantile forces as well as PR forces, but this leveling is sponsored by the State, which comes to represent (for the benefit of mercantile interests) women's core interests. The landscape, then, of 'modern society' becomes 'female'. To function in it, men are asked (forced, pressured) to become women. I think this is all highly questionable. It is to be avoided, and it is a trap.

I won't attempt to define feminism, not here. It is far too broad a subject. Myself, I don't care about it too much though it is interesting to read feminist theory. If there is a core 'imposing' force, it is Nature itself which has 'defined' women so, if you'll permit me, cruelly. With an absolute and ruthless hand it has radically defined and limited women, and cares not a whit about her 'condition'. Man's culture on the other hand has offered to women whole new vistas for activity, and within natural limits (which we all face) 'transcendence'. But I don't see women, generally, as desiring 'transcendence' but rather desiring comfort. It is also true that men accustom themselves to 'comfort' and surrender attainment.

I have been influenced by studies in so-called evolutionary biology and so, yes, I indeed see 'roles' as being 'natural'. Certainly in situations of reduced or absent culture those roles tend to become quite evident and stark. It is in 'advanced cultural and social settings' that other options open, both for men and women. But the biological realities seem to remain.

I advocate for: men becoming much more self-conscious, self-contained, and self-constructing than they now are. I recommend all manner of different activities and doing to become more of what they are (or can be) naturally. They will be in a much better position, therefor, to serve women which is the other side of the equation: it is man's role to serve women. Not to be ruled by women and not necessarily to 'rule' women.

I think we all need to recognize a small fact that tends to slide by us: men construct this world. They construct it and they maintain it. Roads, rail systems, airplanes, cars, harbors, ships, space ships, tools, buildings, not to mention agriculture: every single object that you can name. And processes, systems and so much more. I am also speaking about the physical side of things, the side that requires physicality. There is a vast territory of labor and doing in which women are now and will likely always be absent. They could be there but of course they are not. When you really go into that and think it through it is puzzling. 'Women are a dependent species'. This is an essential, and also disturbing truth. A whole current of Politcally Correct though will not allow the group of truths that arises from this to coalesce. It is illegal to entertain them.

I also think that the role you seem to want to manifest, that of self-empowered man retaining his independence whilst providing the means for a materially impoverished woman to broaden her possibilities, is in one sense aligned with a feminist perspective, that sense being the fostering of freedom (for the woman mired in limitation, and for the man, who does not need to compromise-restrict himself in the process).

It is startlingly a rich experience to watch a person come out of a restraining circumstance and flow upward toward new possibilities. It is also uniquely strange in a way to 'help plan it out'. To plot a course forward. To recommend reading. To stress education (and reading which is what education is) as the primary tool to gain knowledge and mastery, to the degree it is possible, in this world. Still, the person I am 'aiding' is of a more traditional bent, and this is why I can do it, and why it is satisfying. There is a kind of spiritual affinity we share that would be hard to speak about.

The difference is that I am not inclined to think quite in the strict terms of first-world discourse, so laden, so preconceived, so 'middle-class'.

It is the worlds of man's creations that has opened up vast possibilities for all people that even 50 years ago, not to say 100 years ago, did not exist. That is a sort of Carl Sagan statement. It is man's focus on his 'duty' and his talent that has done that, and not in giving himself over to female concerns in a frivolous sense.

Finally, the story that you related is a sad and ugly one, a story of impositions: woman imposing paternity on man, man imposing death on child. As a morality tale, it teaches the righting of one injustice with another, the combating of deception with more deception, the evasion of responsibility and the expediency of life.

That is certainly true on the face. But at a deeper level it speaks...to a way of being forceful and engaged in pursuit of one's own 'power' and sovereignty, even when it requires taking radical steps. I see it in the context (as I said) of 'metis': with is skill, foresight, craftiness and also deception. It is smarter to pay attention to what people do than to what they say.

The beatniks, I read somewhere, had a motto. This was before the hippies came up with the 'transform the system' motto. The beatniks were merely concerned with eluding the system. It takes a 'predatorial' mind (which is not the same as being a hunter-predator and killing and feeding on things) to elude. Is 'transformation' really possible globally? I am less inclined to think so. An individual transforms himself. The world does what it does...

Now, don't believe a gosh-durned werd of what I done writed. Git with the program and git witless! It's the wave of the future!

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Hello Laird. As I have recently declared, I am right on the verge of giving up my mind and becoming witless. It is surprisingly easy once you get into the hang of it, but it does help to have good teachers too. And I've got two of the best who will be helping me squeeze through the eye of the needle so to speak. My aim: to think and write like Dennis within six weeks!

hahah :D "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication" - witless

[Alex T. Jacob]

Have I pleased or displeased you, Master?

The wise words you dispensed
make sense

Line after line provide
a sign

Give up my wits
and leave behind the bits.

Dennis and John
were my teachers all along!

Blind to the real teaching stuff
I stuck with unproductive fluff.

Home now with the GF Truth
my former mind's gone 'poof'!

[Dennis Mahar]

Whether to believe it or not is not up for evaluation.

It's just vanity,
that's all it is.

[Alex T. Jacob]

there is something really profound in what you said there

astonishing

:::humble bows:::

[Alex T. Jacob]

Diebert wrote: We are all mimicking in a mirror but more specifically I'm looking for a way to defend the age I'm living in and I'm working with it, looking for its fruits and directions. And if it's a defense then it's a defense against the elitist rather backward looking cultural philosophy you keep suggesting for six years in a forum which doesn't care much about it, in an age which doesn't care much about it anymore but you do not accept it.

Oddly enough, I never, EVER would have imagined this as your goal or desire. Honestly. All this, and all we talked about today, I never would have imagined. Was I reading so badly all along? I don't think that could be. I don't think you have ever expressed it so precisely. It changes things for me to know this.

When you say 'I am looking for a way to defend the age I'm living in and I'm working with it, looking for its fruits and directions', what have you found?

As to 'a defense against the elitist rather backward looking cultural philosophy you keep suggesting for six years in a forum which doesn't care much about it, in an age which doesn't care much about it anymore but you do not accept it' I have a few things to say as you might have imagined! One is that I absolutely defend 'elitism'. Even in the sense of GF as a flawed or partial philosophical system it is predicated on a sense of 'spiritual elitism'. Naturally, I would never have imagined that you had another project in mind.

And I don't think forward and backward should be considered, and forward placed after backward or backward behind forward, not in the sense of 'elitist' and aristocratic ideals (in a Platonic sense).

And even if I were going utterly against the current of the present, I would still attempt forcefulness in that direction. I take heed to what people like Harold Bloom say about the 'continuity' within 'our' traditions that link back to Homer.

I am curious to know what you read. And what you have read. What, if anything, do you still have lying around?

[Dennis Mahar]

I hear you.

thanks love.

[Alex T. Jacob]

Without words.

[Dennis Mahar]

bliss

[Alex T. Jacob]

.

[skipair]

The story fascinated me because it was so counter-crafty and contained so much 'metis' (trickery). I am curious to know what you-all think of the ethics of his decision and what it might mean as a 'morality tale'.

I believe those ethics are great. Or if not great then realistic and necessary. In the politics and the business of social relations and the getting of one's desires, it is impossible along the way to avoid trampling on other people's agendas or to avoid the instances of other people attempting to trample on yours. It'd be nice if we could all avoid stepping on each others toes at all times, but there is always at least some degree of having to fight for our own existence just to stay alive. The higher quality a life someone wants, the more trampling he'll have to do (one way or another). This is the game.

My personal view is that a woman is something that one should consciously decide to 'control'. One must secure one's own position and make it unassailable (no way to get at what you have), and from that position one chooses the exact level of involvement one wants.

100% agree. Since women's agenda is to betafy the man (sacrifice his agenda for hers), it's sometimes good to keep in mind the analogy of the lion and the lion-tamer. She will never allow for any significant length of time a situation where you can 100% relax in the knowledge that she won't try to get 'The Power' on you. Either you whip the lion, or the lion eats you.

Groups tend to stick together, too. So this isn't just true for women, but also countries, races, religions, etc.

In truth she is a beautiful soul and did not have designs on me, as many Latinas do of foreigners, and this is why it became easy to desire to help her.

The best part about Disney's Cinderella is when she falls in love dancing and only later is shocked to find out he was the prince. For me about the only thing more seductive than that is seeing her 'fight' for you.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

In the politics and the business of social relations and the getting of one's desires, it is impossible along the way to avoid trampling on other people's agendas or to avoid the instances of other people attempting to trample on yours.

Don't have agenda's, nothing to lose

[Pye]

Diebert writes: We are all mimicking in a mirror but more specifically I'm looking for a way to defend the age I'm living in and I'm working with it, looking for its fruits and directions. And if it's a defense then it's a defense against the elitist rather backward looking cultural philosophy you keep suggesting for six years in a forum which doesn't care much about it, in an age which doesn't care much about it anymore but you do not accept it.

Alex replies: I have a few things to say as you might have imagined! One is that I absolutely defend 'elitism'. Even in the sense of GF as a flawed or partial philosophical system it is predicated on a sense of 'spiritual elitism'. Naturally, I would never have imagined that you had another project in mind.

Pardon me, but over morning tea, this really struck me, given the Alex-Diebert long-sparring in this area, that this is a clear-spoken moment for the both of you, given its deep root in intentionality of thought and nature of belief. Diebert would need to make clear the colour of this postmodern stripe - iow, whether it refers to the hermeneutic process (meaning-making) itself, or whether the impulse is towards a sense of underlying cohesion in a shifting age. At any rate, this strikes me as one of Diebert's most intellectually honest moments here, and it's also given me some insight into why its not been easy to draw you into analysis about analysis . . . . :)

After all this time, to see Alex in 'absolutist' (so to speak) territory, you would need to make clear whether a belief in [spiritual] absolutism/elitism as absolutism/elitism has been your critique here all along, or that you've been misunderstood here in your critiques. It's also an intellectually honest moment for you, and sorry for getting all in you guys's stuff, but this really, really struck me, in that pathological roots-of-arguments sense, struck me as a moment for some movement and clarity . . . .

[Alex T. Jacob]

From Franz Kafka's story An Old Manuscript:

• "Speech with the nomads is impossible. They do not know our language; indeed they hardly have a language of their own. They communicate with each other much as jackdaws do. A screeching of jackdaws is always in our ears. Our way of living and our institutions they neither understand nor care to understand. And so they are unwilling to make sense even out of our sign language. You can gesture at them till you dislocate your jaws and your wrists and still they will not have understood you and will never understand. They often make grimaces; then the whites of their eyes turn up and foam gathers on their lips, but they do not mean anything by that, not even a threat; they do it because it is their nature to do it. Whatever they need, they take. You cannot call it taking by force. They grab at something and you simply stand aside and leave them to it."

In my view of 'spirituality' we discover spirituality in our relationship with all the tremendous sacrifice and work undertaken to carve out the reality we know from the Chaos. At great cost, men have struggled to see and to learn and to record in memory what they learned in the course of living. The Library is in fact a temple because everything is there. Everything is discoverable. When we also have a ways-and-means---a life-style, an approach, a way of being---where we can live out what it is we are taking in through our reading (reading and literacy as Sacred Activity) we seem to be able to create value and beauty in our world. Or, it does not come from any place else: it is not an angelic dispensation (though it might be brought from afar by extraterrestrials!)(a little joke there).

Our beloved QRS have committed a terrible mistake. By establishing an Absolutist platform they have, essentially, invoked a demon. I believe we can see the face and hear the chatter of this 'demon' when we are forced to read the nonsense spouted by, say, Guru Moist-Eyes of Swami Sock-it-to-me, Dennis and John. They get hold of the absolutist possibility and value this abstract thing or idea while they simultaneously destroy, in themselves, a connection to the wide range of knowledge that is part of our heritage. This is the activity of the Vulgar Man but it is true that we all have some link and connection to 'him'.

When I read the crap that is posted on these pages, these shrill arrogant declarations by 'jackdaws' and 'nomads', and fail to see people making genuine connections in themselves and through themselves, I am inclined to say: We all need to go back to our reading. Reading, looking, thinking, feeling...

As far as I know I have not been 'intellectually dishonest' and I don't see anything I have written in this post as new revelation.

[Dennis Mahar]

what's the problem then?

I think you've distinguished a condition 'ignorance' in distinguishing 'jackdaw' and 'nomad'.

therefore you are in wholehearted agreement.

what's all the fuss about.

you've also distinguished:
it's empty and meaningless that it's empty and meaningless,
in relation to the activity born out of 'ignorance'.

you are a fully fledged leading exponent of the fine art of QRStianity.


as to your reading preferences,
that would constitute the 'bonfire of the vanities'.

most of the writers you mention know they are making shit up as possibilities for meaning.
literary concoctions.
a necessary fiction.

geddit?