The Sexes

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Orenholt
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:20 am

Re: The Sexes

Post by Orenholt »

Look, if you are truly concerned about being mistaken as a female of the ‘unconscious’ type, do your best to make all females conscious – then you’ll not have to go about apologizing to all and sundry.
I have tried in some small ways to share my "masculine" ideals with other women who embody the unconscious by way of discussion.
I do not know for certain that my ways are always the correct ways though so I'm not really in position to be telling other people what to do. I don't consider myself some kind of guru.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: As for the thread itself, I think Kunga singlehandedly proves each word of Quinn's essay to be very realistic, nearly with every of her posts, no matter how well intended at times.
A person can only speak for themselves.
Orenholt, the point is to stop trying to defend some offended "womanhood" because it doesn't make sense considering the back story you supplied like "completely divorcing myself from the concept of the male female dichotomy". And then you come on a philosophy forum having an issue with an article "vilifying all women" and suggesting the author might have "mommy issues". If you really want to break free from male-female dichotomy you should not see yourself as part of the "women" at all, or men. It just doesn't add up, do you even know what you want?
It's not that I am seeing myself as a woman, it's merely acknowledging that others do by default.
I would be saying the same things if the genders were reversed.
If Quinn were to say that "masculinity" or "manhood" is synonymous with "unconsciousness".
The problem with the males is that they created the division by loading all kinds of qualities on an ideal called "Woman". In a way a man created sexes on top of genders. There's no fix to this apart from attacking this ideal, this set of emotions and this ego game as direct as possible.
It's possible that I'm just not seeing "woman" as some kind of (good) ideal for men. For me "woman" has always been viewed as a bad thing to begin with so the ego attachment isn't one of love but one of hate.
And by the way, your obsession with "insult" shows you haven't even started to look into the Woman issue yet. You start sounding more like a man with woman issues than a woman with man issues....
Should I be sorry that I was honest and acknowledged my flaws? Should I be sorry that I wanted a straight answer?
Last edited by Orenholt on Tue Apr 02, 2013 12:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: The Sexes

Post by Kunga »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:As for the thread itself, I think Kunga singlehandedly proves each word of Quinn's essay to be very realistic, nearly with every of her posts, no matter how well intended at times.
That's a crock of low testosterone ! You womanlyishly try to scratch my eyes out ! You only say that to brainwash the masses with your air of superiority....always trying to make everyone you come in contact with feel like they are wrong or misguided, and you are never wrong nor can anyone correct your mistakes. You try to undermind peoples confidence in themselves, and ass-kiss those that serve you. Your posts are boring for the most part. I know it's a game of politics around here...and I always hated politics...I don't play by the rules. If you were truely intelligent you could see my genius......you are not a genius, only someone that tries to look intelligent because of your ego-driven need to be . I am naturally intelligent, and a creative genius, that dosn't care about impressing others.




Man....I've become posessed ! I've been taking Pine Pollen suppliments, to increase testosterone, and I think it's kicked in ! LOL
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The Sexes

Post by Pam Seeback »

Reasoning the things of spirit takes one out of the realm of awareness of sexuality.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: The Sexes

Post by Kunga »

movingalways wrote:Reasoning the things of spirit takes one out of the realm of awareness of sexuality.
Spirit/Material

No separation
User avatar
Getoriks
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 7:07 am

Re: The Sexes

Post by Getoriks »

I actually think it was brave and masculine of Orenholt to admit that she was nearly offended. Just pretending she was not nearly offended and dismissing it in order to appear wiser than she really is to you guys would have been a feminine act, a dressing up for sake of argument. Instead, she comes out and reveals herself, and I don't think the point was to obsess over her near offense, or apologize to you guys for her offense to get back on your good sides. Rather, I think she is actually trying to understand the psychology of why she became nearly offended, so that she can overcome it. You cannot overcome something by simply stopping all thinking of it -- that is not transcendence or growth or maturity, but simple blocking out or ignorance or unconsciousness.

Anyway, Orenholt, why would it matter if the ego attachment to WOMAN was particularly this or that, particularly love or hate, or what ever? I think they are trying to tell you to not get lost in some petty and trivial and inane argument over whether the ego attachment to WOMAN is love, or hate, or any particular thing. Rather, that you should see it for what it still is regardless: an emotional attachment. I could be wrong, but it would seem to me that they are not attacking you, Orenholt, but that they are helping you, by showing you that you have inconsistencies in your thoughts, which, of course, is just the result of unconsciousness. As Sue said:
You wrote in your first post on this thread that you hoped outing yourself as being female "doesn't taint your view of me as thinking something negative about me or not taking me seriously". You shouldn’t be concerned about being female tainting you, for it’s your mind that is doing the tainting. Look, if you are truly concerned about being mistaken as a female of the ‘unconscious’ type, do your best to make all females conscious – then you’ll not have to go about apologizing to all and sundry.
She's saying: just do your best to become as conscious as possible and to help other females become as conscious as possible. That's all you CAN do. You can't keep worrying about whether others think you are unconscious. It is like you are a new basketball player, and who knows, you could have great potential and become one of the best basketball players in history, but instead of just getting out there and playing the game and practicing and not caring if others make fun of you for being so new and bad at basketball, you stop practicing or at least pause it or hesitate to do it, and instead go to the other players and say to them, "hey all, I hope you don't think I'm bad at basketball, I admit that I make a lot of errors and have a lot of practice to do, but I hope you don't treat me differently because of this".

It just proves that you are not there to get better at basketball, regardless of what others think of you, but that you are there to make others notice you, to make them notice that you are getting better. Even though it might not initially seem like it to you, they can immediately sense that you are very sensitive to what others think of you, and so, if they are mean persons, they will exploit that weakness and bully you, and if they are nice persons, they will point to that weakness and show you that it's precisely that which keeps you from becoming a better basketball player. That it's not merely the case that you need to practice your dribbling and fake outs more, but that the first thing you need to practice is not caring what others think of you, since only you know you. Your reputation does not matter, only your character does.

By you apologizing for your newness and badness at the game, you are not improving your game, you are simply trying to improve your relationship to the other players of the game, you are trying to score points with them, you are trying to gain their acceptance and approval. Again, it is precisely your insecurity that others might think you are intrinsically a bad player, that others might think that just because you are new that you have no potential to be good, that discourages you and prevents you from becoming good. It literally sucks the energy and drive out of you, or rather, redirects it into worrying about how you appear to others, and not how you actually are.

Likewise, don't worry about people treating you differently here simply by the fact that you are a female. By worrying about that, you are, first, making an unwarranted assumption that they will treat you differently, that their view of you will become tainted, and second, that even if this were to really happen, that it would matter at all. It would not matter because, who cares if others think you are dumb and stupid? Also, they are saying that it is not you being female that is making them see your contradictions in your thoughts. It is simply that they can see the contradictions in your thoughts! You could be a male and they would still treat you the same: pointing out your contradictions, helping you become more conscious and logical.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The Sexes

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Orenholt wrote:A person can only speak for themselves.
And a philosopher can only aim at addressing all of us.
It's not that I am seeing myself as a woman, it's merely acknowledging that others do by default.
But nobody here had identified you yet as womanly or am I wrong? If you don't see yourself a women then why you think everyone else would "suspect" it? You cannot just decide not seeing yourself as a woman if everything you say or do would still be "woman", even in your own eyes.

It's possible that I'm just not seeing "woman" as some kind of (good) ideal for men. For me "woman" has always been viewed as a bad thing to begin with so the ego attachment isn't one of love but one of hate.
You cannot ask others to treat the subject properly (in your eyes) if you are admitting to some wrong view on it yourself. It's very confusing this way of thinking. It just doesn't make sense. But the reason the people hated the women in your experience seemed -- based on the information you gave -- because of a whole atmosphere of indiscrimate hatred. The weakest might have received even more as they are used as lightning rod. I don't think there was a gender issue in particular there, not more or less than anywhere else anyway.
Should I be sorry that I was honest and acknowledged my flaws? Should I be sorry that I wanted a straight answer?
It just seemed interesting that you started even wondering if that might be an insult, in this place, where everyone is assumed to have ego issues somewhere. And you might want to ask that question to yourself as well but of course, it's up to you.
User avatar
Orenholt
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:20 am

Re: The Sexes

Post by Orenholt »

Getoriks wrote:I actually think it was brave and masculine of Orenholt to admit that she was nearly offended. Just pretending she was not nearly offended and dismissing it in order to appear wiser than she really is to you guys would have been a feminine act, a dressing up for sake of argument. Instead, she comes out and reveals herself, and I don't think the point was to obsess over her near offense, or apologize to you guys for her offense to get back on your good sides. Rather, I think she is actually trying to understand the psychology of why she became nearly offended, so that she can overcome it. You cannot overcome something by simply stopping all thinking of it -- that is not transcendence or growth or maturity, but simple blocking out or ignorance or unconsciousness.
Thank you, although I do understand on some level why I was nearly offended. It's my belief that my ego was sensing a mild threat to itself.
Getoriks wrote:Anyway, Orenholt, why would it matter if the ego attachment to WOMAN was particularly this or that, particularly love or hate, or what ever? I think they are trying to tell you to not get lost in some petty and trivial and inane argument over whether the ego attachment to WOMAN is love, or hate, or any particular thing. Rather, that you should see it for what it still is regardless: an emotional attachment.

Because if it was of hate then it would not break the attachment, it would only make it stronger.
Getoriks wrote:Sue is saying: just do your best to become as conscious as possible and to help other females become as conscious as possible. That's all you CAN do. You can't keep worrying about whether others think you are unconscious. It is like you are a new basketball player, and who knows, you could have great potential and become one of the best basketball players in history, but instead of just getting out there and playing the game and practicing and not caring if others make fun of you for being so new and bad at basketball, you stop practicing or at least pause it or hesitate to do it, and instead go to the other players and say to them, "hey all, I hope you don't think I'm bad at basketball, I admit that I make a lot of errors and have a lot of practice to do, but I hope you don't treat me differently because of this".
I admit that I'm flawed and that perceptions of unkindness would color how I receive information so I'm requesting that the unkindness be kept to a minimum so that I can absorb knowledge more easily.
Getoriks wrote:Your reputation does not matter, only your character does.
My reputation influences my subjective experience of the world through my interactions with others.
I would say that character is far more important though.
Getoriks wrote:Likewise, don't worry about people treating you differently here simply by the fact that you are a female. By worrying about that, you are, first, making an unwarranted assumption that they will treat you differently, that their view of you will become tainted

Given my past experiences I would say that worry is highly warranted.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: And a philosopher can only aim at addressing all of us.
That doesn't conflict with my statement.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:But nobody here had identified you yet as womanly or am I wrong? If you don't see yourself a women then why you think everyone else would "suspect" it? You cannot just decide not seeing yourself as a woman if everything you say or do would still be "woman", even in your own eyes.
I mean that people know that I am a female in real life.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:You cannot ask others to treat the subject properly (in your eyes) if you are admitting to some wrong view on it yourself. It's very confusing this way of thinking. It just doesn't make sense.
I'm not sure that I am wrong though. I was just admitting the possibility.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:But the reason the people hated the women in your experience seemed -- based on the information you gave -- because of a whole atmosphere of indiscrimate hatred. The weakest might have received even more as they are used as lightning rod. I don't think there was a gender issue in particular there, not more or less than anywhere else anyway.
Yes I can see how that would be true. Though I did notice that males in my life were treated with more respect in contrast.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The Sexes

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Orenholt wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:But nobody here had identified you yet as womanly or am I wrong? If you don't see yourself a women then why you think everyone else would "suspect" it? You cannot just decide not seeing yourself as a woman if everything you say or do would still be "woman", even in your own eyes.
I mean that people know that I am a female in real life.
Yeah, perhaps the confusing thing is that you draw some connection to Quinn's thesis and the way you were being treated in life as a woman as well as the hatred you feel or felt for women or being woman yourself. It would be simpler if you'd see the women in the thesis as indeed something to be dismissed if that's how women or men would desire them to be or remain. There's a lot of hatred possible of frustrated men not because they cannot "handle" women but simply because at some level, barely, vaguely, they know very well what many women are about and they desire and reject it at the same time. This is an endless source of suffering and frustration for everybody. You of all should know and realize men and women should first admit to the problems. Which I think is in part what the "exposition" tries to facilitate. And at a deeper level even more is being aspired to.
User avatar
Orenholt
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:20 am

Re: The Sexes

Post by Orenholt »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Yeah, perhaps the confusing thing is that you draw some connection to Quinn's thesis and the way you were being treated in life as a woman as well as the hatred you feel or felt for women or being woman yourself.
It's not that I hate women, it's that I hated being thought of and treated like a "woman" or an inferior.
And take note of what I said to Getoriks.
"Because if it was [an attachment] of hate then it would not break the attachment, it would only make it stronger."

It would be simpler if you'd see the women in the thesis as indeed something to be dismissed if that's how women or men would desire them to be or remain. There's a lot of hatred possible of frustrated men not because they cannot "handle" women but simply because at some level, barely, vaguely, they know very well what many women are about and they desire and reject it at the same time.This is an endless source of suffering and frustration for everybody. You of all should know and realize men and women should first admit to the problems. Which I think is in part what the "exposition" tries to facilitate. And at a deeper level even more is being aspired to.

What exactly is it that "many women are about"? Why would men "desire and reject it at the same time"?
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: The Sexes

Post by Russell Parr »

Orenholt wrote:What exactly is it that "many women are about"? Why would men "desire and reject it at the same time"?
Not to speak for Diebert, but many women are about exactly what David describes as the feminine. A lot of men sense this to a degree and while they despise the mindlessness of it, they find pleasure in securing and dominating the feminine in women, all in egotistical ignorance, of course.
User avatar
Orenholt
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:20 am

Re: The Sexes

Post by Orenholt »

Russell wrote:Not to speak for Diebert, but many women are about exactly what David describes as the feminine. A lot of men sense this to a degree and while they despise the mindlessness of it, they find pleasure in securing and dominating the feminine in women, all in egotistical ignorance, of course.
Ok I will accept these answers.
And yes, to add on to my reply to Diebert, I do think it's important to recognize the flaws within ourselves BUT I don't think it's right to say things that are inaccurate, which is how I see his essay and the use of the idea of "woman".
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The Sexes

Post by Dennis Mahar »

The overall Context seems to be the possibility of enlightenment for human being.

People are:

embodied
embedded in cultures
enactive
affective
extended environmentally

does the body type preclude enlightenment?

clearly there are causes/conditions for enlightenment.

shedding cultural conditioning works out
reflecting on one's actions and consequences works out
being unduly affected by the actions and thoughts of others doesn't work out
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Sexes

Post by Dan Rowden »

Orenholt wrote:Because if it was of hate then it would not break the attachment, it would only make it stronger.
Yes, that's true, but it's also true of love, to the exact same degree.
User avatar
Orenholt
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:20 am

Re: The Sexes

Post by Orenholt »

Dan Rowden wrote:
Orenholt wrote:Because if it was of hate then it would not break the attachment, it would only make it stronger.
Yes, that's true, but it's also true of love, to the exact same degree.
How would David's essay enhance one's love for woman?
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Sexes

Post by Dan Rowden »

I'm not saying it would, I was making the point that love of something excites attachment to the same degree as hate. Each are as bad and delusional as the other. However, with regard to David's essay, yes, it has the potential to ignite feelings of hatred in some minds. But such ones will find hatred by any means available. It's who they are. The essay has the ability to produce all sorts of emotional responses, each of them an important insight into where the individual is in relation to their psychology. That's what we always miss in such things - the nature of our response. Is the hatred, the love, the fear, the disgust in the essay or in us?
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The Sexes

Post by Dennis Mahar »

so, it's a button pusher,
an affectivity trigger,
an indicator of 'where you're at'
a trick of the trade.

it lacks inherent existence,
of relative significance only.
User avatar
Orenholt
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:20 am

Re: The Sexes

Post by Orenholt »

Dan Rowden wrote: Is the hatred, the love, the fear, the disgust in the essay or in us?
That's a good question, but how does one know for sure without talking to the author himself?
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: The Sexes

Post by Kunga »

Dan Rowden wrote:
Kunga wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:Actually, you'd probably collapse in an emotional heap and do nothing. Or, shoot randomly in an hysterical state and kill the woman too. This is what most people, make or female, would tend to do in such a circumstance. But your violent reaction to violence is instructive.
I think intension is everything.


Yeah, so your intention is right while everyone else's is wrong. See where this is going?


I don't quite follow you....in the rape scenerio, if my intension was to save the woman from being raped, and if having a weapon would scare the men off, I would certainly use this weapon to defend a helpless woman, being gang raped. Your intensions, in whatever you are doing, is the karma (action) that will set in place the next action (everything being dependant, or interdependant ). If my actions, or intensions were hatefilled as opposed to compassionate, the karma I created, would have consequenses related to the intensity or intension .

If using force is what it takes to prevent a ,tragedy then it is the right thing to do. To do nothing would be more violent.
See where this is going?


Yeah....sometimes violence can be justified.

Your violent reaction, (wanting to rip this to shreads...lol) is instructive also Dan .
I'm sorry, that was a bit petty on my part. I was attempting to have fun at your expense and you walked right into it. The fact that you did so it what's instructive.
I also thought it was funny....it was only after you provolked me that I reacted to it.



You see.....it takes 2 to tango......and I love to tango these days....must be the extra testosterone doing this to me.....I have been extraordinarly angry and lashing out at everyone the past few months......
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: The Sexes

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Love scrolling down these threads, so funny.

"dependent arising"

It's like watching that old tv show 'robot wars'.

It only occurs when lacking awareness of what's happening.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Sexes

Post by Dan Rowden »

Orenholt wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote: Is the hatred, the love, the fear, the disgust in the essay or in us?
That's a good question, but how does one know for sure without talking to the author himself?
Talking to the author is actually irrelevant to my point.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Sexes

Post by Dan Rowden »

Kunga wrote:Yeah....sometimes violence can be justified.
Violence is always justified.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: The Sexes

Post by Pam Seeback »

Kunga wrote:
movingalways wrote:Reasoning the things of spirit takes one out of the realm of awareness of sexuality.
Spirit/Material

No separation
As long as you're thinking about the material.
User avatar
Orenholt
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:20 am

Re: The Sexes

Post by Orenholt »

Dan Rowden wrote:
Orenholt wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote: Is the hatred, the love, the fear, the disgust in the essay or in us?
That's a good question, but how does one know for sure without talking to the author himself?
Talking to the author is actually irrelevant to my point.
Well if you mean it the other way it could be interpreted then it is of course in the reader since essays cannot have those things.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: The Sexes

Post by Kunga »

Dan Rowden wrote:
Kunga wrote:Yeah....sometimes violence can be justified.
Violence is always justified.

Why do you say that ?
Are you saying that violence is justified because it is the natural reaction of whatever provolked it ?

Do you think an adult beating a baby is justified ?

Just because a natural reaction (like thunder striking), is being caused, dosn't mean a human being is justified (for whatever reason),
for committing acts of violence, when he has the choice of controlling his actions....

I don't think violence is always justified. There is way too much unjustified, random, mindless acts of violence to comprehend.....
User avatar
Orenholt
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:20 am

Re: The Sexes

Post by Orenholt »

Kunga wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:
Kunga wrote:Yeah....sometimes violence can be justified.
Violence is always justified.

Why do you say that ?
Are you saying that violence is justified because it is the natural reaction of whatever provolked it ?

Do you think an adult beating a baby is justified ?

Just because a natural reaction (like thunder striking), is being caused, dosn't mean a human being is justified (for whatever reason),
for committing acts of violence, when he has the choice of controlling his actions....

I don't think violence is always justified. There is way too much unjustified, random, mindless acts of violence to comprehend.....
I think he might be just messing with you, Kunga.
Locked