Porn

Post questions or suggestions here.
MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi » Fri Apr 07, 2006 2:46 pm

Psychiatric labels are a good example of how people *don't* like to judge.
I comprehend your meaning but they DO judge. Teachers psycho-diagnose and get away with it. I have lived this crap with my kids and I know what I am talking about. My daughter, particularly, was labeled somehow deviant the minute she set foot in school. That was a judgment. She could have been judged creative and enthusiastic. But creativity and enthusiasm does not entail medication. The only way to medicate her was to say that she was ADHD. ADHD was the only judgment that bore meaning.

I had to take her to a neurologist who was a jack ass. She made fun of him so he wanted to diagnose her with echolalia. I said, "I disagree with that diagnosis. She is making fun of you." He wanted to diagnose her with Tourettes. I said, "I know Tourettes. She does not have Tourettes."

ADHD is a judgment made by people who are paid to promote mediocrity. It is a judgment with severe consequences. Giving kids amphetamine and and amphetamine like drugs is serious. A judgment is made and a drug is given. Hard drugs. Drugs that can damage your heart.

The obvious hypocrisy of that is busting kids for weed when drugs have been a part of their daily lives since they started kindergarten.

Watching my kids and their peers come up through high school, it is amazing to see how truly shit floats to the top. I see nothing wrong with doing well in school and excelling. I do see something wrong with class and racial discrimination that starts as soon as a kid sets foot inside elementary school. I see something wrong with browbeating children into submission. I think more parents are child abusers than can be imagined. Some forms of child abuse are acceptable.

It is more of a genetic bias than racial or class. I think the judgment is made more on a gut or archetypal level -- this kid does not fit the mediocre mold.

You can see that sort of thing when you are going through school. It is magnified when you see your kids going through school. By the time kids get to high school, there is this cream of the crop group that does everything. They do all the sports and they excell in grades.

My kids were both athletes. Yet, both stopped when they were in middle school. So did other kids of similar genetic class, for lack of a better way to say it. Many of these kids were excellent athletes. I look at the softball and basketball teams in high school now and I cannot believe the wusses.

There should be redneck/nigger teams outside school venues. The anti-genetics. The non-conformist athlete leagues.

It is heart breaking to see mediocrity rewarded for being mediocre.

Mediocrity is the result of judgment because mediocrity judges mediocrity against that which may be above it but which must be pushed down.

An enlightened person may judge a child as creative or truthful or intelligent but the world is not composed of enlightened people. It is composed of the mediocre and the judgments of the mediocre stand and destroy.

Faizi

User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones » Fri Apr 07, 2006 5:41 pm

MKFaizi wrote:I have never decided how a person should behave. I did assert my opinion.
In other words, you don't want to recognise your own cohesive value system, because you're ashamed of it?

That value system drives your posts on the Genius Forum. You frequently attack people's behaviour - it's virtually all you ever do - which means, you have a value system about how people ought to behave.

How do you decide how a person ought to behave?

Whether or not you reply, you will know for certain what value you have given to your life.

Here are some more of your judgments about how people ought to behave:
Psychiatric labels are a good example of how people *don't* like to judge.

Marsha: I comprehend your meaning but they DO judge.
So take the point deeper. Judgments are made in almost all cases by almost all people, because they don't want to judge *accurately*. Do you agree?

If one thinks carefully about a judgment, instead of wanting to get it over and done with, this means one *keeps on thinking*. One has no desire to rush headlong into a "no-thinking-zone".


My daughter, particularly, was labeled somehow deviant the minute she set foot in school. That was a judgment. She could have been judged creative and enthusiastic. But creativity and enthusiasm does not entail medication. The only way to medicate her was to say that she was ADHD. ADHD was the only judgment that bore meaning.
Your daughter was judged so as to put her in a cage, where she could be forgotten, or chastised for not staying there. Forget your daughter. Her "meaning" is merely a symbol appearing your own mind, a figment of your own self. This isn't psycho-babble. You've been on the forum long enough to know what I'm talking about.

In brief:

My Daughter
= deviant
= my little self
= misjudged
= harmed by false judgment
= untruth applied to my self makes me a lie

Thus, A=A is being used to *believe* A=not-A

Your daughter represents your illogical thoughts fighting against your logical thoughts. Or more accurately, your values at war.

If you take your thought processes and symbols back into your mind where they belong, you'd stop being *angry* at incorrect judgments, and realise they are simply incorrect - and correct them.

Your health care profession is all about this desire to correct judgments, but mislocated and placed outside of your own thoughts, into symbols of your environment. If you "healed" the severe errors of judgment in your mind, you would then have the tools of a true health care profession, and could help others appropriately.

For instance, you clearly don't value the spirit of incorrect judgment (mediocrity), but you don't openly value the spirit of rewarding correct judgment. The closest to an open admission is this:
Mediocrity is the result of judgment because mediocrity judges mediocrity against that which may be above it but which must be pushed down.
= the will to unconsciousness suppresses conscience.

Judgment that doesn't want to judge is illogical, so one can easily correct it. Simple enough?

I think what it comes down to, is that you'd like to give free reign to your mind's clear and simple logic, but you are deeply afraid of being swamped by "hurtful and harmful false judgments of yourself". As in the following:
the world is not composed of enlightened people. It is composed of the mediocre and the judgments of the mediocre stand and destroy.
Illogical people are used to ignoring their clear and simple errors, only because logical people aren't pointing them out.

If you do decide to take that path, you are going to get attacked, full bore. Although I haven't pushed hard enough (yet) to confront the challenge of being physically attacked, Rhett is. It's inevitable. I know full well how much evil people are capable of - because I know myself.

So what? It's Nature. Just be a robot, that way you can at least continue to think logically.

I'm not saying "Go and get yourself killed". Not in that sense.


-

User avatar
DHodges
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 8:20 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Porn

Post by DHodges » Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:06 pm

Kelly, on another thread, wrote:The results have been quite startling, and well worth the "con". I was not aware that even quite intelligent males on this forum are so blind about sexual desire. It has been an excellent example of the huge divide between the enlightened mind and the deluded mind - the latter just hasn't the foggiest what you're on about.
Kelly, could you explain what you mean? What do you think men are blind about, with respect to sexual desire?

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Post by Jason » Sat Apr 08, 2006 12:04 am

J: What sort of images did you imagine you'd see?

K Probably a series of large, very subtle erotic images, not pornography, i.e not to do with sex but the emotions of love. Something like seeing intellectual types being dominated by coarse witchy types, that are seducing them: a kind of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde scenario. A dark, shadowy, vague image with two people, focussing on their facial expressions, one person with a very subtle but obviously dominant gesture (Mr Hyde, but not an ugly lecherous type, but rather with all signs of "beauty", a Lucifer), in relation to the other person's body. But both are clearly aware that the relationship is not over their bodies, but their ego's.
Is that the first time you've ever seen porn?
K: You do realise that sexual desire isn't about physical bodies or environmental conditions?
No I don't realize that at all. That would be absolutely stupid. But this seems like a contradiction to some other things you have written, so maybe it's an error.
Also, Diogenes lookalikes give me the jitters. This could be read as "Diogenes gives me the jitters", or more accurately, "non-attachment hurts".
There is a story about Diogenes masturbating, and how he saw it as a positive thing.
J: I think that what you're attempting is all wrong, but that may be neither here nor there to you, coming from a insane monkey brain such as myself. I think if you're attempting a QSR-type enlightenment you've got it wrong, like I think they have.

K: I'm assuming you repeated "I think" three times in that paragraph, because "I think" is typically used to express uncertainty. It would be good for you if that assumption were true.
No, I used "I think" because those things I wrote are my thoughts.

User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Porn

Post by Kelly Jones » Sat Apr 08, 2006 11:15 am

DHodges wrote:Kelly, from "Those who move posts to the Brothel are on a power trip" thread in Main Forum: The results have been quite startling, and well worth the "con". I was not aware that even quite intelligent males on this forum are so blind about sexual desire. It has been an excellent example of the huge divide between the enlightened mind and the deluded mind - the latter just hasn't the foggiest what you're on about.

D: Kelly, could you explain what you mean? What do you think men are blind about, with respect to sexual desire?
Men are far more likely to see it, than women. (I've been a freak from a very early age, so am slightly more at ease with masochism and misogyny) It comes down to understanding the nature of the ego (not the popular usage of the word, ie. inflated sense of self).

Sexual desire is at its core: the mind identifying *itself* as two (not taking dualism to its conclusion). All emotion arises from this error.

A=A is the very means of all conscious thought. The dualistic mind identifies things - that's fine. But then it identifies itself (consciousness) as a thing (i.e. two), which is *wrong*. The identification is A=A=not-A.

I'd bet you anything that the majority of posters on Common Ascent at the moment, engaged in opposing Kevin's reasoning that A=A is the foundation of logic, have sexual partners, and have recently had more intense arguments with them, and more painful, emotional sex.

The mind identifying itself as not-being, because it is identifying itself as a being, immediately goes into loopy mode. It is already and has always been, but keeps defining itself as a thing, implying it is not.

It then goes on to make the additional mistake of relating the mistaken self-identity "thing" to the bodily organism, by associating the pain of the loopy mental state with the pain that the bodily organism occasionally experiences. The loopy mental state is trying to pull itself together: intense subconscious psychological violence is emotion.

Probably from the way the bodily organism evolved to use emotion to organise its behaviour, emotion is used by the loopy mental state (egotism) to express its need to pull itself together. Thus, the tonus of a whole-body tension is where the body is organising itself as a unity to "feel itself".

I would say this is where epilepsy comes from. Epilepsy means "seizure, attack, being captured". Its whole-body clonus (I think that's the word) is the mind in super-loopy anguish. As David has mentioned, Kierkegaard's demonic explorations probably brought on his seizures.

The same with the desire for orgasm, and the sadness and nausea (Nietzsche's meaning of the word) afterwards.

The ego merges the two things (one is a mistaken self-identity, the other just a self-identity), such that any mental loopiness is tied to physical experiences.

This is gross egotism: using the body to solve the mind's schizophrenia (split-mind, a philosophical term).


"Wretched is the body that is dependant upon a body, & wretched is the soul that is dependant on these two." Thomas: 87


-

User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones » Sat Apr 08, 2006 11:57 am

Jason wrote:Is that the first time you've ever seen porn?
You still haven't *seen* porn.

K: You do realise that sexual desire isn't about physical bodies or environmental conditions?

J: No I don't realize that at all. That would be absolutely stupid. But this seems like a contradiction to some other things you have written, so maybe it's an error.
I can't help you see what you aren't willing to see. If only you went into that terrifying machine of the Infinite, in which one sees oneself as an infinitely microscopic spickitto, faced with the INFINITE, as described on Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and came out saying, "Hey, I'm ALLLL-RIIIIGHT!!!!!"

Then you might be able to see.


K: Also, Diogenes lookalikes give me the jitters. This could be read as "Diogenes gives me the jitters", or more accurately, "non-attachment hurts".

J: There is a story about Diogenes masturbating, and how he saw it as a positive thing.
I don't know that story. Would you like to post it?

Also, don't forget that Diogenes' entire life expressed opposition. He was utterly open about human vices. Who knows but that the story was like the one of him shouting at the top of his lungs, for who knows how many hours, "All women are whores! All women are whores! All women are whores! All women are WHORES!"

....in that he was masturbating in public, and saying, "Masturbating is whoring oneself! Masturbating is whoring oneself! Masturbating is whoring oneself! Masturbating is whoring ONESELF!"

"Hey Diogenes, shut up, why don't you!"

"Masturbating is whoring oneself! Masturb-"

"Here's some money, you lunatic! Go find a whore!"

"Alright, thanks. Giving money to shut Diogenes up is whoring oneself! Giving money to shut Diogenes up is whoring oneself! Giving money to shut Diogenes up is whoring oneSELF!"

[Man rushes up to Diogenes and punches him on the nose. It starts bleeding.]

"There, now you'll shut up!"

"Hey, Diogenes, why'd you let him punch you?"

"Well, some men get a runny nose standing in the cold sea to net their dinner. Why should I complain about getting a runny nose fishing for mine?"

"But he could have broken your nose! I mean, I know you're not concerned about beauty, but hell, aren't you taking things a bit too far?"

"Since I'm not concerned about beauty, then the uglier my nose, the less concerned I could ever be about my nose. It's positive outcome, wouldn't you think?"




J: I think that what you're attempting is all wrong, but that may be neither here nor there to you, coming from a insane monkey brain such as myself. I think if you're attempting a QSR-type enlightenment you've got it wrong, like I think they have.

K: I'm assuming you repeated "I think" three times in that paragraph, because "I think" is typically used to express uncertainty. It would be good for you if that assumption were true.

J: No, I used "I think" because those things I wrote are my thoughts.
Do you think it is insane for the ego to disappear by reasoning about what it is?


.

MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi » Sat Apr 08, 2006 12:59 pm

Kelly,

I read your post. It is psycho-babble. Beyond that, it is stupid. Roxanna is a very separate person from me. I was never subjected to quite so harsh judgments as Roxanna.

You are a pure idiot if you do not recognize that short-sighted judgments are made about children as soon as they enter the school system. You are stupid if you believe that the consequences of those judgments can be changed or avoided. You are living in a plastic bubble.

Basically, I think that you are a fairly intelligent human being with good potential.

Unfortunately, your cunt gets in your way. The more that you reveal yourself, the more that I see you as a great, gaping hole.

Faizi

MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi » Sat Apr 08, 2006 1:02 pm

For God's sake, Jason, can't you see she is making a fool of you?

Faizi

MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi » Sat Apr 08, 2006 1:06 pm

In an effort to save face with her mentors, Kelly Jones actually wrote:
It has been an excellent example of the huge divide between the enlightened mind and the deluded mind - the latter just hasn't the foggiest what you're on about.
Like hell.

What a cunt.

Faizi

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Post by Jason » Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:55 pm

MKFaizi wrote:For God's sake, Jason, can't you see she is making a fool of you?

Faizi
What, you think I need to defend myself or something? I think Kelly has made a fool out of herself. I have given her a very large benefit of the doubt, which might be a little foolish. Sometimes I do that, witness my interactions with propellorbeanie. It's the eternal optimist and idealist in me.

User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones » Sat Apr 08, 2006 5:10 pm

MKFaizi wrote:Kelly,

I read your post. It is psycho-babble. Beyond that, it is stupid. Roxanna is a very separate person from me. I was never subjected to quite so harsh judgments as Roxanna.
Could you use "I" to mean "everything that appears in consciousness"?

Thus, everything that the thoughts in consciousness identify, is you.

A tree is part of you, Roxanna is part of you, the feeling of comfort in a warm soft place is part of you, the hateful judgments of 'others' is part of you.

Is this not logical, according to the definition?


You are a pure idiot if you do not recognize that short-sighted judgments are made about children as soon as they enter the school system.
That wasn't disputed. Rather, incorrect judgments about things appearing in consciousness were seen simply as what they are: incorrect, and flawed.

The judgment is part of you, and is about some other part of you. Thus, if you judge any of those parts, to truly be *you* and only you, then the judgment is false. This is logical because one thing is not another thing.

Do you get what I was on about now?

I.e. judging Roxanna to be not-Roxanna is incorrect, and judging Roxanna, or any other part, to be "all-of-you" is also incorrect.


You are stupid if you believe that the consequences of those judgments can be changed or avoided. You are living in a plastic bubble.
That wasn't in dispute either, in my previous post.

I realise you've had a tough life, and that's you're struggling with your causes, but they can be changed, and do change.

I was labelled quite a few things in my early development (taking all memories in my consciousness as part of me). They've obviously influenced how I tend to think. But I am continually valuing. So, I am discarding lots of karma.

For instance, I've mostly thought my father was a decent, honourable man, who did well in his life. Recently I discovered, by reflection on my values, that he was a gutless coward. This, again, is part of me - it is my values speaking and interpreting. So, I have left him (his values, what he is to me) behind.

So, by experience, I know my post to you was not at all stupid. It's just a far tougher road than most people are capable of taking.

There's no blame, ok? One can only do what one can do - it gets a bit easier, as one keeps digging away at the coalface.


Basically, I think that you are a fairly intelligent human being with good potential.

Unfortunately, your cunt gets in your way. The more that you reveal yourself, the more that I see you as a great, gaping hole.
But it would be better to walk over the bridge, rather than kick it. Just focus on the ideas, and deal with those, rather than what you think I am.




-
Last edited by Kelly Jones on Sat Apr 08, 2006 5:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones » Sat Apr 08, 2006 5:17 pm

Marsha wrote to Jason: For God's sake, Jason, can't you see she is making a fool of you?
If one does anything foolish, it would be ignoring what one has reasoned to be true.

That's all.



Jason wrote to Marsha: What, you think I need to defend myself or something? I think Kelly has made a fool out of herself. I have given her a very large benefit of the doubt, which might be a little foolish. Sometimes I do that, witness my interactions with propellorbeanie. It's the eternal optimist and idealist in me.
If people are emotionally aroused about something, and say, "No, that's not true!", it usually is.

So, checking out what the issue is, is pretty wise.



-

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Post by Jason » Sat Apr 08, 2006 5:55 pm

Kelly there is a pressing issue at hand, that I think you need to get to the bottom of. Other forum members may have also realized that something is up. I've been analyzing your posts to this "Porn" thread, and I've found some astounding and somewhat disturbing things in your writings. All the following quotes are from this thread:
Kelly Jones wrote:Benefactors are Dan, Sue and David Quinn types, the superiors are Kevin Solway (and also David Quinn to an increasing extent) types, and the enemies are Rhett Hamilton types (mostly, but also KS and DQ types).

It's a good sign, actually, when these experiences happen, as I can tell something's awry. I might be reading the newspaper, or just see a road-sign, and an association will jump into my mind. This is the idea: words like "rowdy" or "quintessential" or "Gone with the Wind" or "solanoid", or "DQ" and so on, will make me slightly uncomfortable.
It is very interesting that you chose to use the word "solenoid" as an example of a word your mind associates with the name "Solway". A solenoid is an electrical device with a phallic-like metal rod. The metal rod extends out when electricity is applied. Very much like a penis going from the flaccid to erect state. Being a metallic rod, and an electrical device, it resembles a robotic penis, which is interesting considering you used the term "robotic mind" in this thread for someone whose mind you admire. This suggests repressed sexual desire for the robotically-minded(as you see him) Kevin Solway.

You also gave the examples of "rowdy" and "Gone with the Wind" as words associated in your mind with "Rowden" and "Quinn." According to you Dan Rowden is not a superior, which means he represents the less idealized and romantic forms of sex, therefore the "rowdy" link, as in rough or forced sex. Whereas you say David Quinn is increasingly a superior, which is why you associate his name with idealized romantic sex as portrayed in "Gone with the Wind." This again suggests repressed sexual desire, this time for both Dan Rowden and David Quinn.
Kelly Jones wrote:It is my mind organising a deus ex macchina, which is what I've subconsciously spent the previous day desiring, in the form of a "white knight".

Typically (I don't experience these very often, but they are quite startling), the sexual fantasy will be a few seconds of being held. There's actually no sex as such. It is really a terrible experience for me, and often makes me feel like crying when waking up. I feel like a criminal, because I've given up my self to *another person*.
Here you speak about your sexual fantasies involving a "white knight", and by no chance, the picture you have chosen for your avatar is a sword. As you are well aware, Kevin, David and Dan all have large beards, which is a characteristic of the archetypal knight. This means that you are trying to seduce your "white knights" aka Kevin, David and Dan, by displaying a sword, in order to draw them closer to you. The sword itself also has strong phallic symbolism, likely symbolising you holding their penis. As with the rod on the solenoid, the sword is a metallic phallic object, which further strengthens the link with the "robotic" minds of QSR.
Kelly Jones wrote:Hi, jouster at unconsciousness! Drive the lance deeply, all the way to the other side!
This basically speaks for itself. More symbolism and imagery of metal phallic symbols, knights and penetration. A slight addition here in your use of "deeply" and "all the way to the other side", which gives us an idea of the sheer intensity of your repressed sexual desire for QSR.
If I ever experience orgasm, it's never to do with sex, but occurs in deep dreams, in the form of an irrational conclusion. The orgasms don't occur through masturbation but through the subconscious.
Here there is a glimmer of insight into your own condition. You have managed to realize at least partly, that you are supressing your sexual desires, and forcing them into the subconscious, thus that is where your orgasms come from. What you still haven't consciously recognized is that Kevin, David and Dan are the white knights in your subconscious.

The conclusion from all these insights, is that a considerable part of your reason for being on Genius Forum, and interacting with QSR in particular, is sexual. Bubbling just under the surface of your conscious mind and the posts you make here, is the seduction of QSR, and your wish for them to sexually "take you."

User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones » Sat Apr 08, 2006 9:22 pm

Jason wrote:Kelly there is a pressing issue at hand, that I think you need to get to the bottom of. Other forum members may have also noticed this. I've been examining your posts to this "Porn" thread, and I've found some astounding and somewhat disturbing things in your writings.
Ah, hah! Good on you, Jason. I applaud.

Don't be disturbed by finding symbols of my sexual desire in my writings, it's inevitable. I'm aware of it, mostly. I couldn't point out in others what I hadn't investigated, and considered it worthwhile to "attack".

Of course, it makes me uncomfortable, so I'm trying to keep that in mind, since others may find it terrifying. I'll try to give others a bit of breathing space, so they can reflect more "safely".

For myself, I can't help pushing in this direction as it's really important to learn how to become crystal-clear about how the ego fights consciousness. I don't mind admitting my faults openly. Or rather, I aim to be wise about how to deal with them.

(I'm really shaking in my shoes, but hey, it has to be developing my character.)


It is very interesting that you chose to use the word "solenoid" as an example of a word your mind associates with the name "Solway". A solenoid is an electrical device with a phallic-like metal rod. The metal rod extends out when electricity is applied. Very much like a penis going from the flaccid to erect state. Being a metallic rod, it resembles a robotic penis, which is interesting considering you used the term "robotic mind" in this thread for someone whose mind you admire. This obviously suggests repressed sexual desire for the robotically-minded(as you see him) Kevin Solway.
Close, but you got there by speculating that I actually knew what a solenoid is.

I visited Kevin a year ago, and idly flicked through a car manual lying on the ground. A word jumped out - I recall it as solanoid - which is like "Solway". That's all. It looked like a spark-plug. I didn't remember the other information. It also reminds me of "schizoid", which relates to Kevin as well, as it turned up in that Personality Disorders thread he started, over a year ago.

So, I associate it with Kevin because of the circumstance of first encountering the word.

As for sexual desire for a robotic mind, that's close enough, in the sense of the erotic love for the masculine mind. It's not hard to see how that would be the case in any feminine mind.

It's something any person would have to deal with, whether male or female. Once a person finds the "genius" of one's own mind, and identifies oneself as consciousness, it's possible to re-embody objects of sexual desire - whatever they are named, and however they are symbolised - into an object of intellectual desire. Namely, to think logically.

It's just a step of homing in on what the symbol really means, and "seeing" it conceptually.

So, I really did mean that the sexual-desirer operates in a theatre of dreams. When the mind is really altering, and the genius is forming, the theatre becomes a realm of abstractions.

This is great stuff, I rate it 70% poison.



You also gave the examples of "rowdy" and "Gone with the Wind" as words associated in your mind with "Rowden" and "Quinn."
No, "Gone with the Wind" links to Rhett Butler, ie. Rhett Hamilton, particularly because Rhett's mother named him after that character. Says quite a lot about her.

According to you Dan Rowden is not a superior, which means he represents the less idealized and romantic forms of sex, therefore the "rowdy" link, as in rough or forced sex.
Remember that "benefactor, superior, and enemy" are in relation to the spiritual path, not the path of getting laid. That is, these are models to help the ego's habits to die out.

A benefactor is rather more motherly, as there is too much false compassion. This fits what I know of Dan Rowden, not to say he isn't rigorous with his judgment.


Whereas you say David Quinn is increasingly a superior, which is why you associate his name with idealized romantic sex as portrayed in "Gone with the Wind." This again obviously suggests repressed sexual desire for both Dan Rowden and David Quinn.
As mentioned above, Mitchell's book has to do with Rhett Hamilton. It's a sloppy comedy, and has utterly nothing to do with spiritual superiority.

A spiritual superior (not the models, but the actual abstraction) is terrifying, as they have no egotistical reactions to things, and therefore can move in the symbolic world without aversion or desire, confusion or forgetfulness. Their ability to teach is quite incredible, much like a programmer who sees which commands, their order, and their interrelationships, are applicable in certain situations, and can weave the program together virtually without the "output" having any consciousness of the logic behind it. It's really saddening to have to do this, as the "output" needs so much spoon-feeding to get anywhere.

I'm getting better at this, and my models are becoming part of my own commands vocabulary.

Also, I'm not ashamed of repressing sexual desire. I'd be ashamed of suppressing it, and pretending it doesn't exist. I do struggle with it, and anyone who is seriously interested in becoming as wise as possible, will do so.

There's no shame in experiencing all these kinds of subconscious lusts - which is what they are. It's human karma - the biological and the psychological in one package. So, psychoanalysis, wisely done, can be a helpful tool.

The mind has to gel the concepts together, and understand the delusion that causes it all. It's all about the ego wanting to get itself together, and searching for ways to be permanent - which has to be dropped.


Kelly: It is my mind organising a deus ex macchina, which is what I've subconsciously spent the previous day desiring, in the form of a "white knight".

Typically (I don't experience these very often, but they are quite startling), the sexual fantasy will be a few seconds of being held. There's actually no sex as such. It is really a terrible experience for me, and often makes me feel like crying when waking up. I feel like a criminal, because I've given up my self to *another person*.

Jason: Here you speak about your sexual fantasies involving a "white knight", and by no chance, the picture you have chosen for your avatar is a sword. As you are well aware, Kevin, David and Dan all have large beards, which is a characteristic of the archetypal knight. This obviously suggests that you are trying to seduce your "white knights" aka Kevin, David and Dan, by displaying a sword, in order to draw them closer to you. The sword itself also has strong phallic symbolism, likely symbolising you holding their penis. As with the rod on the solenoid, the sword is a metallic phallic object, which further strengthens the link with the "robotic" minds of QSR.
That's very good! Thanks. You've made me blush, and that doesn't happen often.

Ok, so what do I do now? Extract the deepest, most valuable meaning. Alter my karma *consciously*. Since I deliberately chose the sword to represent the discriminating mind of reason, and judgment, I return to that symbol, and employ it. Thus, I have created my own "white knight", or "deus ex macchina".

Now, your point was that I'm trying to attract knights to assist: and indeed, I did. I just don't have a beard, yet. You suggest I'm trying to hold their penis - symbol of masculinity. Yes, I'm doing that too, holding to reason.

Indeed, the robotic mind is the model that comes to mind: which is what my thoughts are increasingly emulating. So, I am actually being born as that existence that I wish to attract.

The next step is to use the *meaning* of the symbol, and discard the attachment to it, by applying reasoning to itself. This means, the intellectual love for the object fades by applying it purposefully.

Since the robot's purpose is to become fully enlightened, (and by holding onto its masculine strength), it recalls what enlightenment means, and reasons that the sword, the robot, and all the other desired symbols, are not inherently existing.

End of story.



Kelly: Hi, jouster at unconsciousness! Drive the lance deeply, all the way to the other side!

Jason: This basically speaks for itself. More symbolism and imagery of metal phallic symbols and penetration. A slight addition here in your use of "deeply" and "all the way to the other side", which gives us an idea of the sheer intensity of your repressed sexual desire for QSR.
Go higher (or deeper): find the core of all the branches, by assembling all the categories.

Since QSR symbolise enlightenment (to me), desire for them must mean desire for enlightenment. That's all my values will allow for, anyway. Thus, any sexual desires, being in conflict with higher values, have to be converted into a sheer obsession with enlightenment.

If that has a sexual element to it, then I can use it, but be wary of it, because it is backwards-looking at heart.

The analogy of the jouster is delusional, of course. But just those kinds of analogies are what *spur* the ego onwards. Spiritual literature is full of them, from crossing the shore, to stepping into a bottomless well, struggling to break free of a cocoon, discarding a boat, riding a bull, standing on one's own feet, swinging one's arms while walking, entering the gateless gate, playing the role of a woman, and so on.

There's no problem with using sexual symbols, as long as one recognises their meanings, and struggles to keep one's wit "finely poised" (there's another!)


Kelly: Look at the images of the penis stuffed into a vagina: and see how closely related it is to images where it's stuffing the mouth. The penis is an entity imagined to choke a "I-can-tear-down-anyone-with-a-mere-snotty-look" female, to prevent her from having any threatening come-back; or something that can spit out a bodiless slime, to indicate that female isn't even worth one's effort to form hateful words.

The above quote is a direct reply to the points in one of my posts.
I remember everything quite clearly.

I am the only poster on this thread to actually talk about having a penis and wanting to put it into a vagina. This implies that what you wrote above is symbolic in your mind of your interaction with me, but transposed into a sexualized form.
No, I looked at the pictures on Oborden's website purely in the context of females and males having sex. You didn't come to mind.


You are represented by the "I-can-tear-down-anyone-with-a-mere-snotty-look female", and I am the man with the penis, who you feel is stuffing your mouth which is muting and choking you.
No, not really. The truthful reply is that I do experience snotty feelings, and haughtiness, but it's not as strong as you might think. However, I *am* competitive and arrogant, like any person who's desperately struggling to get the better of egotistical habits. I try to keep it in check, but don't always succeed. I'm aware of not spending enough time reasoning carefully, and of tending to be too intuitive (as I challenged Marsha about, since I don't value it).

In dealing with illogical posts that have a long life, my intuition interprets them as strong, and suffocating. (Recently I wrote to Leyla that she was "pushing my values out of her mind"). As you might guess, there are a lot of them. I write to four philosophy fora, and often experience the fleeting thought of being choked.

It is much like Nietzsche's description of being surprised by some devil lying in the grass, and instinctively laying about it with a stick! Or falling down in dread, when a "Higher Man" turns up. It's all subconscious matters of the ego.



The QSR with their robotic penises allow you to talk without obstruction, but I, with my flesh and blood penis obstruct you. You realize that you are not even worth the effort on my part to form hateful words.
No, you switched the objects in the story. The man spews out bodiless slime. Or, I suppose, since Oborden site had lots of semen all over the place, it wouldn't matter who was spewing it out.

I see this happening alot on fora where masculine types (aggressive, anyway) attack on the mere insinuation that they are irrational. They spew out bucketloads of nonsense, as if that would make the "haughty witch" (me, or anyone challenging them) go away.

As for this discussion, even if I were haughty, or on the other hand, spewing nonsense at you, I would soon be pulled up by my thoughts. This happens frequently, when there is an illogical thought (unacceptably gross signs of imperfection) and I instinctively go to type it - then have to pull back when thoughts judge it as incorrect.

So, although it is a useful analogy, it doesn't truthfully fit.

I've spent quite a long time discussing, very openly, my thoughts about sexual desire with everyone on this thread. That may be seen as spewing bile - in a Hakuinesque fashion.

I've been quite gentle, and careful, although others may not believe it. The fact that I keep pushing my reasoning to perform as accurately as possible, means that the ego is being edged out.

So, I think it is acceptable to write and publish it.

Kelly: If I ever experience orgasm, it's never to do with sex, but occurs in deep dreams, in the form of an irrational conclusion. The orgasms don't occur through masturbation but through the subconscious.

Jason: Here there is a glimmer of insight into your own condition. You have managed to realize at least partly, that you are supressing your sexual desires, and forcing them into the subconscious, thus that is where your orgasms come from. What you still haven't consciously recognized is that Kevin, David and Dan are the white knights in your subconscious.
No, you're going backwards. I've answered the second point about suppression, and in earlier posts about the need to be conscious about the nature of desire.

My condition is simply egotism. Sexual desires are the same for everyone, it's just that in my case, they're "moving upstairs" all the time, becoming more conscious, to use Kierkegaard's analogy of the self as a four-storey house. Thus, after a while, I won't have orgasms.

As for your last point, when all the sexual desire is *resolved* abstractly, and my mind is wholesome and rational, I'll be on par with any model. This is an awesomely arrogant thing to say for a female, and I realise that, but by ----, why not aim for the impossible!

The conclusion from all these insights, is that a considerable part of your reason for being on Genius Forum, and interacting with QSR in particular, is sexual. Bubbling just under the surface of your conscious mind and the posts you make here, is the seduction of QSR, and your wish for them to sexually "take you."
Good work!

That's in fact what the ego does desire: to be spirited away into unconsciousness. No doubt at all. What can I say? It's true.

This will let millions of existences all over Reality know that in the heart of all women is the liar and seducer. In this way, many will remember this for "endless kalpas".

The hard work is: she must recognise it, and can only do so by relying on reason. Automatically, this puts the egotistical heart at odds with itself.

And thus, there is a possibility of redemption.




---
Thanks, Jason, you're probably not aware of how many beings you've helped orient towards freedom - all the ones in the future.....
---

User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones » Mon Apr 10, 2006 4:39 pm

.


This thread has helped resolve some of my long-standing intellectual tasks.

I indicated via private message to Jason that I would push "him" a bit further with this thread. He seems ok with that. The private messages actually motivated me to continue digging into my tasks, so I think they're worth publishing.


Jason, on Sun Apr 09, 2006 1:10 am wrote: I apologize Kelly, that whole post was a joke. I feel guilty about it now. I'm sorry. I was a bit of an asshole for writing that post. I'm posting this privately so that I don't embarass you. If you want, we can take it back to the public forum, I don't mind.

The point of my post was just that I think trying to find symbolism, archetypes and such in other peoples writings or desires is pretty much useless in most cases. Especially if you don't know the person extremely well. It's rather useless because it is such a very speculative and imprecise method.

Your idea about a vagina being symbolic of a mouth and thus fucking being the desire to mute and choke a woman is what got me a little annoyed. I really think that claims like that are just so tenuous that they lack relevance to truth. Complex symbolism has always gotten on my nerves, and I put that down to the fact that I think it is so lacking in certainty, and I like certainty in my truth.

I do however think a person may be able to find subtexts and sybolism in their own writings and desires and minds, and perhaps in those people who they are very very close to and knowledgeable of. Otherwise I would stick to less uncertain psychological insights. But it seems you may believe differently.


Kelly wrote:

Hi Jason,

Would you like to post this on the forum?

I agree that psychoanalysis is useless without an understanding of the psyche (it's like horoscopes).

I'm not at all embarrassed. It was a great exploration.

Kelly


Jason wrote, on Sun Apr 09, 2006 6:11 pm:

Maybe if someone on the forum wonders if it was a joke, I'll say it was, otherwise there is no need to post it on the forum. My main concern was to let you know it was a joke.


Kelly wrote:

Jason,

It is related that you are privately messaging me about your attempt at psychoanalysis, and are backing away from it. So I can't do other than push you towards it.

Kelly


Jason wrote, on Sun Apr 09, 2006 6:40 pm:.

Go for it.

.


I decided to explore psychoanalysis to see whether it is an empirical science, intuitive guess-work, or reliable in defining absolute truths. The following essay is a result of my exploration.

Feedback is welcome.




Analysis of Psychoanalysis

by an apprentice thinker (expressing the will to truthful boundaries)



1. Is psychoanalysis an empirical science or not?


Psychoanalysis, as I define it, is the examination of the psyche. Psyche means "soul", "wholly conscious individual", "genius". By definition, psychoanalysis doesn't work unless the examination is conducted by the genius, on itself.

Take this example: "something is appearing". This is true as soon as "something" is defined as the same as "appearance", or "appearing" is defined as the same as "thinging" (existing). It validates itself, so it relies on no other input. It is an absolute logical truth, applicable to any thing that is also defined as "appearance". It is true for all appearances, and all segments of appearances, rather than only a certain segment. In other words, there is really no segmentation of Reality, but a conceptual overlay that pretends that the Totality of all things is a thing.

Now contrast it with the example: "a spider is appearing." If "spider" is the meaning given to all appearances, it would be an absolute logical truth (like above). However, if "spider" is the meaning given to a certain segment of appearances (as is usually the case with "spider"), then it is only true for the appearance of that segment. If "me=appearances" is the same as "spider + not-spider", then there can be absolute certainty that neither spider nor not-spider is exactly the same as me.

Further, let's take the example: "a spider is appearing as an eight-legged web-weaving insect". If "spider" is only a certain segment of appearances, contrasted with not-spider, then "spider" is itself given two segments: "an eight-legged web-weaving insect", and "not an eight-legged web-weaving insect". Again, there can be absolute certainty that this is the meaning given to the segment within the segment, and that this segment is not the same as all appearances (likewise, it is not the same as me=appearances).

In psychoanalysis, since the psyche is wholly conscious of all its parts ("me=appearances"), it can define with absolute certainty the relationships between causation of meaning of all its parts. For instance, the genius knows whether a spider is being defined in direct relationship to itself. Because "me=appearances" is not a thing within consciousness, it is not an empirical science. Thus, its definitions and conclusions about meaning are not tenuous and uncertain.

However, psychoanalysis can only arrive at absolute certainty when it is used by the genius on itself. The reason the genius cannot have certainty about the meanings of things within a consciousness within itself (a certain segment of "me"), is because the "web of meaning" of "me" is NOT privy to the entire web of meaning that is relevant to that consciousness. That is, other consciousnesses appear as a certain segment of "me", such that that segment's entire web of meaning is not part of "me". Or, more accurately, that segment that appears in 'me' is defined to be "a segment of a different web of meaning". That is, one makes the assumption that other consciousnesses are integral webs of meaning. Because of this assumption, the entirety of the web of meaning that is "me" cannot be applied to that segment with certainty. The definitional gap between the meanings of "their" meanings is an inability to establish their absolute truthfulness. Also, one can only assume that there is a web of meaning applicable to other consciousnesses.

For a psychological causation engineer, i.e. a genius whose web of meaning integrates all human characters, this definitional gap is small. He has attained a very high level of subtle differentiation of the meaning of things, by relating appearances of those segments of webs of meaning to his own. Being a master differentiator, any uncertainty about the meanings of things is minimal. For this reason, he can judge a character very quickly, from the most subtle appearance, and make very accurate guesses.

Note that I am not denying that psychoanalysis is an empirical science when used to determine the truth of meanings used by other' consciousnesses. It is indeed by nature tenuous. However, it is not very tenuous in a genius who uses it empirically. And, it is not at all tenuous in a genius who uses it on himself. I will discuss this now.



2. The non-empirical aspect of psychoanalysis, or, why does psychoanalysis make people uncomfortable?


To most, it's a "turn-off" to talk about sexual desire. Why? Because it's psychoanalysis, and psychoanalysis must rely on, and confront, the nature of Reality. I'll explain why.

As a preface, most prefer voyeurship, rather than seeing the nature of sexual desire in a full-frontal way. Any serious discussion of sexual desire is wished to be a joke. Mock it or disparage it, but don't become conscious, don't face it squarely. Humankind's strongest expletives are words like "fuck", "cunt", "whore", "cock-sucker", and so on. This shows fear of facing an "instinctive-love" (=shame). To help us overcome this fear of knowing something, which is not mentally healthy, we need to look closely at the causes of egotism. I call this psychoanalysis.

So, let's look closely at psychoanalysis.

Psychoanalysis isn't about examining sexual fantasy, or the difference between male and female psychology. It's about examining the psyche. So, the question is, is it an empirical science, with uncertain truths, or is it utterly reliable? It needs more clarification.

Psychoanalysis is the examination of the psyche. Psyche is "soul", a "wholly conscious individual", the "genius". It is the "type" of consciousness that accurately classifies all its parts (ie. everything in memory and experience) by relating all things to the whole. Since the whole is not merely the "island of awareness" but the whole of Reality, psychoanalysis is based on the Absolute.

The point is: accurate psychoanalysis and the psyche arrive together. And the psyche arrives by relying on absolute truths, about the Absolute. There are several points related to psychoanalysis, to distinguish it from an empirical science:

1. As the finger cannot touch itself, so, the psyche cannot know itself *scientifically*. It doesn't try to know itself scientifically, by assuming it arrives by classifying all the interrelationships of its parts. It is not an aggregate (a mass of divisions). There is a difference between being a sum, and knowing the causation of meaning for all parts of consciousness (the latter is a characteristic of sanity). It starts with anything, and deducts the whole.

2. The psyche doesn't know itself (psychoanalysis) until it "sees" the Absolute. Because the Absolute cannot be seen as being or not being, so, in the same way, the psyche cannot know itself. This is knowing itself. It relies on truths - by - definition, rather than truths - by - observation (because the Absolute cannot be observed to be or not be. Empirical science classifies parts based on other parts, never relating any part to the whole. Thus, psychoanalysis is not an empirical science (when used by the genius on itself).

3. Anything that contradicts psychoanalysis is absolutely false, by definition. Empirical science is not in contradiction with psychoanalysis, as long as its relative classifications aren't assumed to be wholistic (absolute). But once it does, it contradicts psychoanalysis. Thus, psychiatry as practised in modern society, is absolutely false. It is on a level with religious fanaticism, horoscopology, cosmology, and poetry. There may be some practical truths in each of these, but they all broach the absolute category inappropriately.

The next step in this account of psychoanalysis is to look at ego. This will lead us to examining sexual desire, via the causes of egotism.

Ego is what psyche is not. Psyche is "soul", "wholly conscious individual", "genius", and "relating all parts to the whole". Ego is lacking these characteristics, because it lacks the logical cause of understanding the nature of Reality (the Absolute). As the Absolute is ever-present, ego fights consciousness. The reverse of psyche is true for ego: Not knowing the causation of meaning for all parts of consciousness; not perfect, free, and unhindered logical thought. Ego's consciousness is illogicality, which is the same as the will to forget. That is an interesting indication of its opposition to psyche: ego has the will to forget anything is happening. But the whole cannot 'forget' any of its parts, or it would not be the whole. Psyche is equally interested in everything, without attachment or lingering over any part. On the contrary side, ego is anti-distinctiveness, un-free, hostile, conventional, and bland. Most know it's very easy to criticise and hate, and very difficult to hold a long series of complex metaphysical thought. As most are not-psyche-conscious, these characteristics are true.

Here I'll begin the psychoanalysis of sexual desire. It classifies parts in relation to the whole. The types used are logical parts of the ego, classified in relation to the psyche.

The insane psyche is unable to become a wholly conscious individual. The ego expresses its will to unconsciousness in two ways: it could directly forget, and continue knowing that it was forgetting. Or it could destroy all evidence of having forgotten. Ego manifests itself in people solely through these two ways. Suicide is the destruction of all evidence of having forgotten, and, naturally, is not so common, as it expresses consciousness of this will to forget - albeit briefly. Direct, ongoing forgetting is true to the character of ego, as it is the will to forgetfulness, an active decision. It has just enough ways to express this ongoing forgetting, that enable it to forget its forgetting. I wouldn't call this diversity of self-expression a will to distinctiveness, or freedom, but a will to suppress contrasts.

I'll move quickly to the point now.

Consciousness, on a sliding scale from ego to psyche, shows that the most egotistical character expresses the greatest will to forget. For illustrative purposes, I'll mark out types:

- 100% ego is a small glimmer of consciousness, enough for there to be awareness (insanity)
- 90% is trying to obfuscate boundaries (falsity, criminal, femininity and feminine sexual desire, instinctive shame).
- 80% is trying to find boundaries (lust, greed, masculine sexual desire).
- 70% is the will to defend and patrol boundaries (anger, resentment, arrogance).
- 60% is trying to hide boundaries (aversion, guilt).
- 50% is questioning boundaries (anxiety).
- 40% is trying to clarify boundaries (determination).
- 30% is the will to truthful boundaries (courage, honesty).
- 20% is the will to boundlessness (thinker, masculinity)
- 10% is the will to non-attachment (genius, philosophy)
- 0% ego is non-attachment (sage, wisdom, perfection, sanity)

This scale was created mostly using logical deductions from my web of meaning. I assumed that 'others' have webs of meaning also, based on their behaviour. Any uncertainty over the truth of my reasoning is owing to lack of faith in what I have reasoned to be true, and therefore, diminished truthfulness (familiarity with Truth).

Now, to the point:

The type with least will is the vaguest type, rather than the wisest, since the latter is fully conscious and has no will to consciousness. At 90% ego, it wants to forget everything. This is the criminal, and the type of feminine sexual desire. Embarrassment in confronting sexual desire comes from its relationship to the criminal.

The murderer type (the intensification of the criminal, the slaughterer of conscience) is more conscious than the feminine sexual desire type, as it wills to know and not to forget its crime, simply by not suiciding. It is close to insane, however. Murderers wish to destroy conscience and go on to live with the insanity. Suicide types are proud about conscience and wish not to live with insanity; they detest lust, so cannot want to be conscious of insanity. Feminine types, slightly less conscious than the feminine sexual desire types, are too vague to even want to know it has committed any crimes.

Sexual desire, of the feminine kind, best expresses forgetfulness and the will to unconsciousness. Sexual desire expresses the will that someone else has consciousness, much like a little child (it is a baby, and it wants a very far-off future existence to have a conscience). I have split them into masculine and feminine, because there are two ways to "achieve" unconsciousness through sexual desire. The first merges boundaries, and suppresses contrasts (feminine), and the second suppresses particular contrasts, thereby enforces some (masculine). Sexual relationships only work through the dynamics of ego: with one being clay for the other to work on. Women like to scatter and obfuscate boundaries, by my observations, and men like to patrol and defend boundaries. In orgasm, both lose consciousness, the feminine sexual desire type going to 100% ego (ecstasy is an intense emotion that obliviates the self's bodily boundaries) and the masculine sexual desire type going to sleep.

It is important to recognise, that any emotions of depression and nausea about this ideas, come from realising that the comforting oblivion of passivity (feminine sexual desire) is being threatened. The ego is voting for suicide, because of fear of its increasing consciousness. But I doubt anyone will become angry, as there is so little will to truth. Most are closer to the feminine type, which is actually less conscious than the feminine sexual desire type. It may mean feminine types have less ego than I've attributed (20% less, which is a lot!), but a person who defends boundaries instinctively does not actually know what those boundaries are. Being unwilling to know their motivations, they are trying to obfuscate boundaries, and are indeed feminine types.

While the above ideas are certain (as far as I am Truthful) as applied to my own experiences, they are uncertain with regard to all 'others' whose webs of meaning I cannot know. Thus, statements like "men want to choke witchy crones with their penises" is certain when there is an appearance defined as "Men wanting to choke witchy crones with their penises". For instance, it could be a dream-appearance, to which I have given this meaning. Whether the men actually have such thoughts is uncertain, as they may not even exist. If they express a level of 80% ego (or thereabouts) in their behaviour, then according to my above list, it's fair to segment the segment with the given attributes, in the way I defined the spider as an eight-legged web-weaving insect.


.

User avatar
DHodges
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 8:20 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Balloon Porn

Post by DHodges » Tue Apr 11, 2006 3:14 am

Speaking of bizarre fetishes, I'd never heard of this before:
Balloon Fetish
I swear I didn't think that was a real thing, even though my old band put out an album called Pornographic Balloon Animals. We just thought it was funny.

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Post by Jason » Tue Apr 11, 2006 3:29 am

You might find this interesting:
http://www.maskon.com/marti/gallery.htm

avidaloca
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2001 6:24 pm
Contact:

Ego and woman

Post by avidaloca » Tue Apr 11, 2006 5:14 pm

This passage by Weininger contains his famous line about the "lowest standing man being superior to the highest standing woman". It reminds me of Nietzsche who said "Woman is ego personified". I read in it that women have no higher essence, they are pure ego, which is lowness, of the world, of body rather than soul. That's also why old women are the most ignored group in society - there's nothing left of any of that in them, and they have nothing else to offer us.

But equal legal rights of men and women can quite rightly be demanded without having to believe in moral and intellectual equality. Moreover, any barbarity of the male sex against the female can be reproached without contradiction at the same time as the most tremendous, cosmic opposition and difference of being is not mistaken. There is no man in whom the supersensual does not somehow still live, who is not good at all; and there is no woman to whom that would truthfully apply. The lowest man thus stands still immeasurably higher than the highest woman, so high that comparison and ranking hardly seem still valid; and yet no-one has the right to belittle or crush even the lowest-standing woman.

Aber die rechtliche Gleichstellung von Mann und Weib kann man sehr wohl verlangen, ohne darum an die moralische und intellektuelle Gleichheit zu glauben. Vielmehr kann ohne Widerspruch zu gleicher Zeit jede Barbarei des männlichen wider das weibliche Geschlecht verworfen, und braucht doch der ungeheuerste, kosmische Gegensatz und Wesensunterschied hier nicht verkannt zu werden. Es gibt keinen Mann, in dem nicht noch irgendwie Übersinnliches lebte, keinen, der gar nicht gut wäre; und es gibt kein Weib, von dem in Wahrheit das gälte. Der tiefststehende Mann steht also noch unendlich hoch über dem höchst-stehenden Weibe, so hoch, daß Vergleich und Rangordnung hier kaum mehr statthaft scheinen; und doch hat niemand das Recht, selbst das tiefststehende Weib irgendwie zu schmälern oder zu unterdrücken.

User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones » Tue Apr 11, 2006 5:56 pm

.

Notice that Weininger says that "the lowest woman" can be crushed. This means, she is not utterly, 100%, unconscious of her mediocrity. She is not totally incapable of thought. Hard to believe....

Is he correct, or is the lowest woman an utter good-for-nothing? If she were, it would not make it any worse to judge her! Therefore, it can only make her better to reprimand her. Is Weininger wrong, or is he distinguishing between judgment and "causing to become less conscious"?

I'm finding it hard to decide. I may have been very sheltered. Is he saying that it is of no use to cause a person to lose faith in their own native powers of reason? Perhaps he means, one should be careful to use judgments truthfully and without petty vengefulness.

.

avidaloca
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2001 6:24 pm
Contact:

Post by avidaloca » Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:28 pm

Notice that Weininger says that "the lowest woman" can be crushed. This means, she is not utterly, 100%, unconscious of her mediocrity. She is not totally incapable of thought. Hard to believe....
It's a salient point you make. Weininger wrote about everyone (excepting the absolute Woman [W] who cannot exist empirically) having some degree of consciousness, even the lowest-standing woman. Everyone is a mixture of masculine and feminine, without exception.
Is he correct, or is the lowest woman an utter good-for-nothing? If she were, it would not make it any worse to judge her! Therefore, it can only make her better to reprimand her. Is Weininger wrong, or is he distinguishing between judgment and "causing to become less conscious"?
What do you mean by the last question?
I'm finding it hard to decide. I may have been very sheltered. Is he saying that it is of no use to cause a person to lose faith in their own native powers of reason? Perhaps he means, one should be careful to use judgments truthfully and without petty vengefulness.
Another Weininger quote:
Contemporary health care and therapy is immoral and therefore ineffective: it seeks to work from outside to inside, instead of from inside to outside. It corresponds to the tattooing of the criminal: he alters his outer appearance from outside, instead of by a change in his mind. Thus he also actually denies his outer appearance, and therefore does not like to look in the mirror, because he hates himself (the intelligible being), without the desire to love himself. The criminal is pleased when others are offended by him (as every connection whatsoever to others, every influence upon them, every unsettling of their person through his own is agreeable to him).

Every sickness has mental causes; and each must be cured by the person himself, by means of his will: he himself must seek to recognize it inwardly. All sickness is only the mental become unconscious, “gone into the body”; just as it is raised into consciousness, the sickness is cured.
From that I deduce that no real change can come about in a person (lowest woman or not) from outside. It must be from inside. So judging them to get them to change would not have a durable impact.

User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones » Tue Apr 11, 2006 7:08 pm

avidaloca wrote:Kelly: Is he correct, or is the lowest woman an utter good-for-nothing? If she were, it would not make it any worse to judge her! Therefore, it can only make her better to reprimand her. Is Weininger wrong, or is he distinguishing between judgment and "causing to become less conscious"?

Martin: What do you mean by the last question?
He says no one has the right to belittle or crush the lowest woman. She cannot judge herself, for then she is a slightly higher existence. But the higher existence may either cause the lower type to become even worse (lower than now, and lower than before). He probably means that whoever judges must do so to cause the person to become even more conscious than that being judged. And the only way is to judge accurately = will to conscience.

I interpret it to mean: according to the cause and effect of conscience, any inaccurate judgment of a poor thinker creates more poor thinkers - and is truly inethical.

Contemporary health care and therapy is immoral and therefore ineffective: it seeks to work from outside to inside, instead of from inside to outside.
This was exactly my point in my essay above, the analysis of psychoanalysis (that psychiatry is absolutely false, lacking understanding of God).

If you read my reply to Dave Hodge on the nature of sexual desire, even though it is too wordy, it says the same thing.
It corresponds to the tattooing of the criminal: he alters his outer appearance from outside, instead of by a change in his mind. Thus he also actually denies his outer appearance, and therefore does not like to look in the mirror, because he hates himself (the intelligible being), without the desire to love himself.
It's nice to know Weininger understood what I meant :-)

This is the idea behind my question to Jason on masturbating with only the reflection of his face. It is also the idea behind my relationship between the criminal and feminine sexual desire (as outlined in the second part of my essay, above).

The criminal is pleased when others are offended by him (as every connection whatsoever to others, every influence upon them, every unsettling of their person through his own is agreeable to him).
It's true. One who happens to offend others by speaking truthfully is ashamed for them. Only a criminal would want to destroy a person's ability to think clearly (conscience), and could bear doing so.


Every sickness has mental causes; and each must be cured by the person himself, by means of his will: he himself must seek to recognize it inwardly. All sickness is only the mental become unconscious, “gone into the body”; just as it is raised into consciousness, the sickness is cured.
Delightful words.

Jason thought I was suffering a condition of sexual desire going into my subconscious, as if becoming conscious of the symbols of sexual desires was a symptom of having made sexual desires subconscious. I think he believes it's healthy to express it all, like people who believe it is healthy to unleash one's anger and rage to "get it out of their system". It's beyond me how anyone thinks this rage of unconsciousness can solve problems. "Getting it off their chest" is what women do, in order to dislocate their conscience, and flit around as if it's all solved.

They don't bother to understand why there is any upset in the first place. They need to become intellectually stronger, in order to shed light on their thoughts. Like Kierkegaard says, a very ill person is not well enough to become sick.

From that I deduce that no real change can come about in a person (lowest woman or not) from outside. It must be from inside. So judging them to get them to change would not have a durable impact.
You mentioned this belief in an inner vs outer split last May (on the phone), but my explanation doesn't seem to have lasted. Weininger is calling everything "mental causes", actually. By "mental", "inward", and "body", he is contrasting thoughts with images. All these are mental experiences, since all is consciousness. The stronger the mind is, the less it relies on visual symbols, and more on conceptual symbols.

Similarly, the visual symbols that appear as "others", plus their voices and writings, are all in the mind. So there is no difference between the meaning one ascribes to one's thoughts, and the meaning one ascribes to thoughts identified as "by others". All of them are your definitions.

You judge yourself. Even if it it's assumed to be coming from a person outside your mind.

That's why conscience is a sign of soul: it's the whole mind, it's its own judge, not turning away from any judgment.


.

avidaloca
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2001 6:24 pm
Contact:

Post by avidaloca » Tue Apr 11, 2006 8:33 pm

Weininger:
There is no man, in whom not yet somehow something supersensual lives, none, who could be not at all good; and there is no woman of whom that would in truth be valid.

Es gibt keinen Mann, in dem nicht noch irgendwie Übersinnliches lebte, keinen, der gar nicht gut wäre; und es gibt kein Weib, von dem in Wahrheit das gälte.
What this is saying is that while there is no man who has nothing of good in him, there is no woman who can claim to have that. So that means no woman has even the tiniest amount of good in them, or they would be like the man who always has the smallest amount. That's pretty substantial as a comment, as it means that which is good and women have no relationship; you just don't find one in the other at all, while there is always some, however minute, in a man.

Of course he must be talking about masculine and female essences here as he always does, because he also claims that masculinity can be within women. Here's another great one:
Every true man turns away with repugnance and contempt from the marriage-making drives of women, even if it's for his daughter and he would quite like to see her provided for, and leaves the coupling worries completely to woman as her department. One also sees clearest here how the true psychological sexual character of woman is not attractive to man, how it instead drives him away, where he is conscious of it: while purely masculine traits in themselves, and as they really are, suffice to attract woman, man must first transform woman before he can love her.


Jeder wahre Mann nämlich wendet sich vom heiratsvermittelnden Treiben der Frauen, selbst wenn es sich um seine eigene Tochter handelt, und er diese gern versorgt sehen möchte, mit Widerwillen und Verachtung ab und überläßt die Kuppelsorgen überhaupt dem Weibe als sein Fach. Zugleich sieht man hier am klarsten, wie auf den Mann gar nicht die wahren psychischen Sexualcharaktere des Weibes attraktiv wirken, wie sie ihn vielmehr abstoßen, wo sie ihm bewußt werden: indes die rein männlichen Eigenschaften an sich, und wie sie wirklich sind, das Weib anzuziehen genügen, muß der Mann das Weib erst umformen, ehe er es lieben kann.

avidaloca
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2001 6:24 pm
Contact:

Sex and Character: Male and Femal Psychology Chapter

Post by avidaloca » Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:27 pm

This sums up Weininger's entire thesis:
In short, this is what it pivots on. It has been found that the logical and the ethical phenomenon, linked together as one in the concept of truth as the highest value, compel the assumption of an intelligble I or a soul, as an existence of highest, hyperempricial reality. In a being which, as W, lacks the logical and ethical phenomenon, the basis for making that assumption also fails. The completely female being knows neither the logical or ethical imperative, and the term law, the term duty, duty to oneself, is the term most alien to her. The conclusion that she therefore also lacks a supersensual personality is completely legitimate.

The absolute Woman has no I.

This is in a certain respect a final result of the observation, an end, to which all analysis of Woman leads.


Worum es sich handelt, ist in Kürze dieses. Es wurde gefunden, daß das logische und das ethische Phänomen, beide im Begriffe der Wahrheit zum höchsten Werte sich zusammenschließend, zur Annahme eines intelligiblen Ich oder einer Seele, als eines Seienden von höchster, hyper-empirischer Realität, zwingen. Bei einem Wesen, dem, wie W, das logische und das ethische Phänomen mangeln, entfällt auch der Grund, jene Annahme zu machen. Das vollkommen weibliche Wesen kennt weder den logischen noch den moralischen Imperativ, und das Wort Gesetz, das Wort Pflicht, Pflicht gegen sich selbst, ist das Wort, das ihm am fremdesten klingt. Also ist der Schluß vollkommen berechtigt, daß ihm auch die übersinnliche Persönlichkeit fehlt.

Das absolute Weib hat kein Ich.

Dies ist, in gewisser Beziehung, ein Abschluß der Betrachtung, ein Letztes, wozu alle Analyse des Weibes führt.

User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Sex and Character: Male and Femal Psychology Chapter

Post by Kelly Jones » Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:45 pm

.

I am not eager to discuss genius, especially given that I keep associating it with "intelligible ego" and stuff like "the highest reality is the hyperempirical reality". Vanity, vanity.

Good time to pay heed to the ethical imperative.

.

Post Reply