Security 'bad news for sex drive'
A woman's sex drive begins to plummet once she is in a secure relationship, according to research.
Researchers from Germany found that four years into a relationship, less than half of 30-year-old women wanted regular sex.
Conversely, the team found a man's libido remained the same regardless of how long he had been in a relationship.
Writing in the journal Human Nature, the scientists said the differences resulted from how humans had evolved.
For men, a good reason their sexual motivation to remain constant would be to guard against being cuckolded by another male
Dr Dietrich Klusmann
The researchers from Hamburg-Eppendorf University interviewed 530 men and women about their relationships.
They found 60% of 30-year-old women wanted sex "often" at the beginning of a relationship, but within four years of the relationship this figure fell to under 50%, and after 20 years it dropped to about 20%.
In contrast, they found the proportion of men wanting regular sex remained at between 60-80%, regardless of how long they had been in a relationship.
Tenderness
The study also revealed tenderness was important for women in a relationship.
About 90% of women wanted tenderness, regardless of how long they had been in a relationship, but only 25% of men who had been in a relationship for 10 years said they were still seeking tenderness from their partner.
Dr Dietrich Klusmann, lead author of the study and a psychologist from Hamburg-Eppendorf University, believed the differences were down to human evolution.
He said: "For men, a good reason their sexual motivation to remain constant would be to guard against being cuckolded by another male."
But women, he said, have evolved to have a high sex drive when they are initially in a relationship in order to form a "pair bond" with their partner.
But, once this bond is sealed a woman's sexual appetite declines, he added.
He said animal behaviour studies suggest this could be because females may be diverting their sexual interest towards other men, in order to secure the best combinations of genetic material for their offspring.
Or, he said, this could be because limiting sex may boost their partner's interest in it.
Professor George Fieldman, an evolutionary psychologist from Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College, said: "These findings seem to fit in with anecdotal studies and his explanations seem plausible.
"The rational for why a woman's sex drive declines may be down to supply and demand. If something is in infinite supply, the perceived value would drop."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/h ... 790313.stm
Published: 2006/08/14 10:07:34 GMT
Article: Women in Secure Relationships Lose Libido
Article: Women in Secure Relationships Lose Libido
The following is an article from the BBC about the sex drive of women in secure relationships. Something men have known since the dawn of time...
- sue hindmarsh
- Posts: 1083
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
- Location: Sous Le Soleil
Welcome to The Twilight Zone.
Yes, the BBC article once again highlights how foolish most men are. Men fail to recognize over and over again that when they enter into a relationship with woman they are entering The Twilight Zone: a place where nothing is as it seems; and nothing can be taken for granted. This imaginary world emerges from the deep dark recesses of men’s minds, and represents their base animal lusts and longings. The centre of this world is Woman – and man’s whole life is dedicated to first creating, and then supplying, her every need and want. She is his creation alone, and he welcomes being enslaved to her.
Obviously, his creation has been of great benefit to him, by providing him with a lifetime of direction and rewards. Through her, he is able to make a place for himself in the world. She allows him to have relationships, jobs, status, comfort and pleasure. Every mountain he conquers, every battle he wins: he does so for her. Civilizations are built and destroyed in her name. Stars and moons are but jewels to lie at her feet. She is his All – and he feels that he is nothing without her.
When he holds her in his arms and asks her if she loves him, he is really asking himself if he has done enough to deserve her love. This measure that he himself has implanted in her, creates for him a way to mark his progress in life. For him, her acceptance means that he has reached his own high standard, and he can take pride in himself for doing so. But, of course, he can not rest at ease in that love and acceptance for very long, for she has a never ending changeable array of desires. This inconsistent and irrational aspect of her he created for a very good reason, for being kept busy attending each new desire means he never has to think deeply or honestly about his life, nor anything at all. He is happy that there is no time when he is set free from his bonds, as that is the way he designed it to be, and wants it to continue.
The twist to this story is man’s confusion and frustration with woman. He looks truly foolish when he says that he doesn’t understand her, or wants to escape her – because being his own creation, he has absolute power over her. Everything she says and does is him. Her loves, hates and desires are his loves, hates and desires. She is nothing more than he himself. To understand her, he need only look at his own self, and there lie all the answers.
The only way for him to stop being foolish is to admit to himself that she is a figment of his imagination. By accepting this truth, he can halt all his action and take a closer look at what he is. This is the first step towards true freedom for him – a step that will end her existence, but allow him to truly experience life. He will then no longer need to enter The Twilight Zone.
-
Sue
Yes, the BBC article once again highlights how foolish most men are. Men fail to recognize over and over again that when they enter into a relationship with woman they are entering The Twilight Zone: a place where nothing is as it seems; and nothing can be taken for granted. This imaginary world emerges from the deep dark recesses of men’s minds, and represents their base animal lusts and longings. The centre of this world is Woman – and man’s whole life is dedicated to first creating, and then supplying, her every need and want. She is his creation alone, and he welcomes being enslaved to her.
Obviously, his creation has been of great benefit to him, by providing him with a lifetime of direction and rewards. Through her, he is able to make a place for himself in the world. She allows him to have relationships, jobs, status, comfort and pleasure. Every mountain he conquers, every battle he wins: he does so for her. Civilizations are built and destroyed in her name. Stars and moons are but jewels to lie at her feet. She is his All – and he feels that he is nothing without her.
When he holds her in his arms and asks her if she loves him, he is really asking himself if he has done enough to deserve her love. This measure that he himself has implanted in her, creates for him a way to mark his progress in life. For him, her acceptance means that he has reached his own high standard, and he can take pride in himself for doing so. But, of course, he can not rest at ease in that love and acceptance for very long, for she has a never ending changeable array of desires. This inconsistent and irrational aspect of her he created for a very good reason, for being kept busy attending each new desire means he never has to think deeply or honestly about his life, nor anything at all. He is happy that there is no time when he is set free from his bonds, as that is the way he designed it to be, and wants it to continue.
The twist to this story is man’s confusion and frustration with woman. He looks truly foolish when he says that he doesn’t understand her, or wants to escape her – because being his own creation, he has absolute power over her. Everything she says and does is him. Her loves, hates and desires are his loves, hates and desires. She is nothing more than he himself. To understand her, he need only look at his own self, and there lie all the answers.
The only way for him to stop being foolish is to admit to himself that she is a figment of his imagination. By accepting this truth, he can halt all his action and take a closer look at what he is. This is the first step towards true freedom for him – a step that will end her existence, but allow him to truly experience life. He will then no longer need to enter The Twilight Zone.
-
Sue
- Kelly Jones
- Posts: 2665
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
I recently read Dian Fossey's book, Gorillas in the Mist, and watched the film (not as good). It was hilarious.sue hindmarsh wrote:Welcome to The Twilight Zone.
Women's libido falls because she has secured the top-ranking female position in her ape group: she has no rivals as long as she has as many copulation opportunities as she desires. Her victim is the male who believes that being top dog gives him everything in life that is worth seeking. But who is the true victim of this delusion, this parasitic relationship?
It is the individual who treated unfairly. The only one who is treated unfairly is the one who can become conscious, but is prevented. Both of them can become conscious, but the woman is far less likely to become conscious, since she has much less strength to do so. Therefore, the man is both victim and predator.
The predator says, "Flow, relax, let it all go," and his victims urinate relaxedly, flowing, flowing, flowing. They all ignore the incontinency creeping into their cuckolded minds.
.
- Kelly Jones
- Posts: 2665
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Hi Bryan,
I'm still largely feminine and not in the human realms. So my position is very different from a wise man's (one who experiences formlessness).
Physiognomy indicates a person's character, but the thoughts and speech and actions indicate how wise or foolish they are.
[edit] Dian Fossey recorded that one of the young male gorillas, who was nursing a grudge at how Dian treated him, sat nearby while the others were further away, and started masturbating. I would say that meant an animal is likely to have sexual fantasies.
I'm still largely feminine and not in the human realms. So my position is very different from a wise man's (one who experiences formlessness).
Physiognomy indicates a person's character, but the thoughts and speech and actions indicate how wise or foolish they are.
[edit] Dian Fossey recorded that one of the young male gorillas, who was nursing a grudge at how Dian treated him, sat nearby while the others were further away, and started masturbating. I would say that meant an animal is likely to have sexual fantasies.
Hi Kelly,
The above lumping is indicitive of my motivation to please and be accepted. While Sue and yourself exhibit strong masculine thinking, I think Sue exhibits the greater.
As to the ape, he worked out his sexual frustration. While we will never know with certainty if he visualized mounting Dian, there were probably no accoutrements nor communications of desire running through his cerebral theater. I imagine there was little if any visualization. Visualization, or imagination, is a faculty whose boundaries and elasticity is exercised in man to an extent and intensity unrivaled in earthly creation. For imagination is intimately entwined with creativity, with will. This conduit to causality, in a manner of speaking, frees man from finitude. So, were a beast to match imagination with man, it would truly live in hell. As Nebuchadnezzar's episode. Echos of consciousness trapped in the irresistable compulsion of a feral life might truly be close to hell.
note: edited greeting
The above lumping is indicitive of my motivation to please and be accepted. While Sue and yourself exhibit strong masculine thinking, I think Sue exhibits the greater.
As to the ape, he worked out his sexual frustration. While we will never know with certainty if he visualized mounting Dian, there were probably no accoutrements nor communications of desire running through his cerebral theater. I imagine there was little if any visualization. Visualization, or imagination, is a faculty whose boundaries and elasticity is exercised in man to an extent and intensity unrivaled in earthly creation. For imagination is intimately entwined with creativity, with will. This conduit to causality, in a manner of speaking, frees man from finitude. So, were a beast to match imagination with man, it would truly live in hell. As Nebuchadnezzar's episode. Echos of consciousness trapped in the irresistable compulsion of a feral life might truly be close to hell.
note: edited greeting
- Kelly Jones
- Posts: 2665
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
I do, too. She's intellectually freer. I think she's a good demonstration of how one can consciously relax into taking causation personally.BJMcGilly wrote:While Sue and yourself exhibit strong masculine thinking, I think Sue exhibits the greater.
The gorilla male probably didn't try to copulate with the human female because she was a more powerful species. No gorillas in the groups ever tried to mount their dominant male - regardless of sex, but there was plenty of other vicarious copulating.As to the ape, he worked out his sexual frustration. While we will never know with certainty if he visualized mounting Dian, there were probably no accoutrements nor communications of desire running through his cerebral theater. I imagine there was little if any visualization. Visualization, or imagination, is a faculty whose boundaries and elasticity is exercised in man to an extent and intensity unrivaled in earthly creation. For imagination is intimately entwined with creativity, with will.
There was also a passage describing how young male gorillas were using binoculars correctly. They weren't "aping" Dian. To me this suggests the ability to visualise.
Does this poetic symbolism help you to become free from the realms of desire ?This conduit to causality, in a manner of speaking, frees man from finitude. So, were a beast to match imagination with man, it would truly live in hell. As Nebuchadnezzar's episode. Echos of consciousness trapped in the irresistable compulsion of a feral life might truly be close to hell.
[edit]Females who are not in a secure relationship - what happens to their libido? Same as men. As Dan has pointed out, celibacy doesn't mean absence of sex.
Hi Scott,sschaula wrote:Does your screenname mean "Neuro Linguistic Programming Registered Nurse"?
Medical terminology: normal, as needed.
The answer is no, although I do find NLP, classical and operant conditioning to be interesting topics.
best,
Last edited by NLPRN on Mon Aug 21, 2006 6:27 pm, edited 3 times in total.
I'm not convinced there is an all-encompassing definition for the so-called secure or unstable relationship. I believe both depend on prevalent societal and cultural standards. That which is considered unacceptable in one society may very well be acceptable in another. Engaging in polygyny from a western societial perspective would likely be considered disadvantageous to a "secure relationship" yet in many Asian countries it is not uncommon.BJMcGilly wrote:How do you definine an unstable relationship, NLPRN?
It appeared to me this article insinuated "secure" as length of time (four years) in the relationship and the primary reason for decreased female libido. It failed to present other possible factors such as stress from having children or purchase of a primary residence both relatively common practices in many cultures.
Granted this was not the study nor even an abstract, it was a subjectively written article. Its basic premise (both article and study) is certainly plausible. The previous post constitutes a benignly humourous remark toward the article.
Yes, the BBC article once again highlights how foolish most men are. Men fail to recognize over and over again that when they enter into a relationship with woman they are entering The Twilight Zone: a place where nothing is as it seems; and nothing can be taken for granted.
Can't disagree with this. Though it could be just a matter of what occurs when one enters into a complex personal relationship. I'm not gay, so cannot asses the matter from my own experience, but I'd imagine at least one the partners could say the same thing, notwithstanding that gay men are overall quite feminine in any case. Thinking back on any relationship though, friends and family, I could easily say the same thing. There were no philosophically masculine minded men that I recall being attached to in my childhood, though there were a few true blue type uncles. The only philosophy I experienced was from reading science fiction and fantasy books.
This imaginary world emerges from the deep dark recesses of men’s minds, and represents their base animal lusts and longings. The centre of this world is Woman – and man’s whole life is dedicated to first creating, and then supplying, her every need and want. She is his creation alone, and he welcomes being enslaved to her.
Rubbish. The centre of the world is sex and comfort, and a retreat. A fundamental layer of the world is Woman, but it is not the centre.
Man’s whole life is dedicated to his every need and want, just as is a woman's. A man can only be enslaved to a woman if he first enslaves himself by the desire for power over that woman. He gives the woman some of his potentiality for power in order to be satisfied in exercising his power in some other way. He and she barter for power to reach compromises, they give and take. I'm speaking in a whole sexual division sense and this is the way it must be, though within individual relationships it will at times, and in some cases always, be otherwise.
To obtain enlightenment one must give up personal inter-relationship emotions, in order to obtain an emotional relationship with infinity. You gladly give away one power to take another. That others will only very reluctantly give away the power of inter-relationship emotions is not something negative, though it is if you have an emotional relationship to infinity-for-yourself, which all of us have to some degree. We seek this infinity-for-ourselves by caring about and taking actions where the aim is to preserve the human race.
She is not his creation alone, except in the sense that everything is a creation in one's mind anyway. If you understood duality, or even yin and yang, you would realise that, as a totality, both men and women put the same degree of influence into the human partnership. Neither side can do anything on their own, and the greater the degree of balance between the two sides the greater the opportunity there is for those who are less male/female balanced to make use of it.
How they made use of it is up to how they are caused to make use of it, in which case what rationally entitles you to make an emotionally based value judgement of this, which you have done by being so one sided towards the masculine, or should I say a certain limited definition of masculinity.
Obviously, his creation has been of great benefit to him, by providing him with a lifetime of direction and rewards. Through her, he is able to make a place for himself in the world. She allows him to have relationships, jobs, status, comfort and pleasure.
"She" does not allow this, unless "she" is nature, not just woman.
Every mountain he conquers, every battle he wins: he does so for her. Civilizations are built and destroyed in her name. Stars and moons are but jewels to lie at her feet.
While at the same time he does this for himself, otherwise what value would masculinity have of its own.
She is his All – and he feels that he is nothing without her.
Other people are everyone's all.
When he holds her in his arms and asks her if she loves him, he is really asking himself if he has done enough to deserve her love. This measure that he himself has implanted in her, creates for him a way to mark his progress in life.
Sure. We all mark our progress by our association with other people. I don’t agree that he himself implanted such measures however.
For him, her acceptance means that he has reached his own high standard, and he can take pride in himself for doing so.
But, of course, he can not rest at ease in that love and acceptance for very long, for she has a never ending changeable array of desires.
This certainly is a much stronger attribute of women, one I find can be attractive short term but always awful long term. My relationships were always temperamental ones, perhaps for this reason.
This inconsistent and irrational aspect of her he created for a very good reason, for being kept busy attending each new desire means he never has to think deeply or honestly about his life, nor anything at all.
Yes, men are women too, when their desires are being satisfied.
He is happy that there is no time when he is set free from his bonds, as that is the way he designed it to be, and wants it to continue.
You know each man doesn't really do this, as evolution has created the necessity of it.
The twist to this story is man’s confusion and frustration with woman. He looks truly foolish when he says that he doesn’t understand her, or wants to escape her – because being his own creation, he has absolute power over her.
This is not really true you know. Few men or women realise that any concept held about someone else, is a just a set of memories created by a converging duality of past personal experiences that interact causally to form new memories. If men don’t realise this, then women can’t be considered their own creation, and man could not exercise absolute power over them, not that any such power exists. Even if they do realise such a concepts, they can only have as much power, or ability, or opportunity, as they have been caused to have, in terms of re-evaluating their relationship to women.
Everything she says and does is him. Her loves, hates and desires are his loves, hates and desires. She is nothing more than he himself. To understand her, he need only look at his own self, and there lie all the answers.
Are you sure you are not stuck in the past. You just don’t accept that femininity can have any value at all do you. Again this is because you don’t understand duality properly, you haven't properly merged cause and effect into your conceptualisation of duality. You think cause is 100% masculine and effect 100% feminine, which is not the case. The logical rule of equal and opposite reactions in an ultimate reality sense, ensures that all reactions are equal, including reactions between males and females. Ignoring the fact that effects are an illusion of consciousness, only causes exist - a cause must be equal to an effect, in order for that effect to continuously become a cause again. Masculinity can only be as equally powerful as femininity is. It is not equal in your head because you have a very limited definition of masculinity. You take a small set of properties of maleness and say these properties are greater than what is left. It is an illusionary divide.
Imagine the black and white of the Yin/yang symbol as each formed from a mandlebrot set of smaller yin/yang patterns. What this means is that the Yang consists of near equal portions of black and white. Differentiation is created by the total pattern having just enough additional black to cause the colour black. It is not solid black, black is a mere property of something that also contains white, and it is the reverse for the white segment. The white section has either less black or more white, whichever way you want to look at it.
When you enlarge or shrink the mandlebrot set, whether it will be white or black just depends on your reaction to the effect. To produce opposite patterns however, the starting instructions must produce an initial outcome that is opposite to the initial one of the other.
This is the nature of all things not just the Yin/yang pattern, things are all mandlebrot sets of mixtures of black and white opposites, mixtures of action and inaction, mixtures formed from some sets of evolving internal qualities and devolving external qualities, mixtures formed by opposing forces - none of which are ever 100% equal, or 100% greater than or lesser than the other. They are equally dependant on each other for their existence, for the form they take. The concepts of masculine and feminine should be thought of from the same dualistic perspective.
It is also the same for the totality, to produce things that can be perceived as being opposite and that may change polarity depending on the level at which the thing is being perceived, in my mind requires that the totality itself, being the mandlebrot program, could only consist of two opposites. In a physical sense instructions are forces.
The only way for him to stop being foolish is to admit to himself that she is a figment of his imagination.
How can something caused to exist in one's mind be a figment of their imagination. I am picking on your language to show your selective thinking and exaggeration.
By accepting this truth, he can halt all his action and take a closer look at what he is. This is the first step towards true freedom for him – a step that will end her existence, but allow him to truly experience life. He will then no longer need to enter The Twilight Zone.
I just think it lets one know their place in the universe, or non-place as it were.
Can't disagree with this. Though it could be just a matter of what occurs when one enters into a complex personal relationship. I'm not gay, so cannot asses the matter from my own experience, but I'd imagine at least one the partners could say the same thing, notwithstanding that gay men are overall quite feminine in any case. Thinking back on any relationship though, friends and family, I could easily say the same thing. There were no philosophically masculine minded men that I recall being attached to in my childhood, though there were a few true blue type uncles. The only philosophy I experienced was from reading science fiction and fantasy books.
This imaginary world emerges from the deep dark recesses of men’s minds, and represents their base animal lusts and longings. The centre of this world is Woman – and man’s whole life is dedicated to first creating, and then supplying, her every need and want. She is his creation alone, and he welcomes being enslaved to her.
Rubbish. The centre of the world is sex and comfort, and a retreat. A fundamental layer of the world is Woman, but it is not the centre.
Man’s whole life is dedicated to his every need and want, just as is a woman's. A man can only be enslaved to a woman if he first enslaves himself by the desire for power over that woman. He gives the woman some of his potentiality for power in order to be satisfied in exercising his power in some other way. He and she barter for power to reach compromises, they give and take. I'm speaking in a whole sexual division sense and this is the way it must be, though within individual relationships it will at times, and in some cases always, be otherwise.
To obtain enlightenment one must give up personal inter-relationship emotions, in order to obtain an emotional relationship with infinity. You gladly give away one power to take another. That others will only very reluctantly give away the power of inter-relationship emotions is not something negative, though it is if you have an emotional relationship to infinity-for-yourself, which all of us have to some degree. We seek this infinity-for-ourselves by caring about and taking actions where the aim is to preserve the human race.
She is not his creation alone, except in the sense that everything is a creation in one's mind anyway. If you understood duality, or even yin and yang, you would realise that, as a totality, both men and women put the same degree of influence into the human partnership. Neither side can do anything on their own, and the greater the degree of balance between the two sides the greater the opportunity there is for those who are less male/female balanced to make use of it.
How they made use of it is up to how they are caused to make use of it, in which case what rationally entitles you to make an emotionally based value judgement of this, which you have done by being so one sided towards the masculine, or should I say a certain limited definition of masculinity.
Obviously, his creation has been of great benefit to him, by providing him with a lifetime of direction and rewards. Through her, he is able to make a place for himself in the world. She allows him to have relationships, jobs, status, comfort and pleasure.
"She" does not allow this, unless "she" is nature, not just woman.
Every mountain he conquers, every battle he wins: he does so for her. Civilizations are built and destroyed in her name. Stars and moons are but jewels to lie at her feet.
While at the same time he does this for himself, otherwise what value would masculinity have of its own.
She is his All – and he feels that he is nothing without her.
Other people are everyone's all.
When he holds her in his arms and asks her if she loves him, he is really asking himself if he has done enough to deserve her love. This measure that he himself has implanted in her, creates for him a way to mark his progress in life.
Sure. We all mark our progress by our association with other people. I don’t agree that he himself implanted such measures however.
For him, her acceptance means that he has reached his own high standard, and he can take pride in himself for doing so.
But, of course, he can not rest at ease in that love and acceptance for very long, for she has a never ending changeable array of desires.
This certainly is a much stronger attribute of women, one I find can be attractive short term but always awful long term. My relationships were always temperamental ones, perhaps for this reason.
This inconsistent and irrational aspect of her he created for a very good reason, for being kept busy attending each new desire means he never has to think deeply or honestly about his life, nor anything at all.
Yes, men are women too, when their desires are being satisfied.
He is happy that there is no time when he is set free from his bonds, as that is the way he designed it to be, and wants it to continue.
You know each man doesn't really do this, as evolution has created the necessity of it.
The twist to this story is man’s confusion and frustration with woman. He looks truly foolish when he says that he doesn’t understand her, or wants to escape her – because being his own creation, he has absolute power over her.
This is not really true you know. Few men or women realise that any concept held about someone else, is a just a set of memories created by a converging duality of past personal experiences that interact causally to form new memories. If men don’t realise this, then women can’t be considered their own creation, and man could not exercise absolute power over them, not that any such power exists. Even if they do realise such a concepts, they can only have as much power, or ability, or opportunity, as they have been caused to have, in terms of re-evaluating their relationship to women.
Everything she says and does is him. Her loves, hates and desires are his loves, hates and desires. She is nothing more than he himself. To understand her, he need only look at his own self, and there lie all the answers.
Are you sure you are not stuck in the past. You just don’t accept that femininity can have any value at all do you. Again this is because you don’t understand duality properly, you haven't properly merged cause and effect into your conceptualisation of duality. You think cause is 100% masculine and effect 100% feminine, which is not the case. The logical rule of equal and opposite reactions in an ultimate reality sense, ensures that all reactions are equal, including reactions between males and females. Ignoring the fact that effects are an illusion of consciousness, only causes exist - a cause must be equal to an effect, in order for that effect to continuously become a cause again. Masculinity can only be as equally powerful as femininity is. It is not equal in your head because you have a very limited definition of masculinity. You take a small set of properties of maleness and say these properties are greater than what is left. It is an illusionary divide.
Imagine the black and white of the Yin/yang symbol as each formed from a mandlebrot set of smaller yin/yang patterns. What this means is that the Yang consists of near equal portions of black and white. Differentiation is created by the total pattern having just enough additional black to cause the colour black. It is not solid black, black is a mere property of something that also contains white, and it is the reverse for the white segment. The white section has either less black or more white, whichever way you want to look at it.
When you enlarge or shrink the mandlebrot set, whether it will be white or black just depends on your reaction to the effect. To produce opposite patterns however, the starting instructions must produce an initial outcome that is opposite to the initial one of the other.
This is the nature of all things not just the Yin/yang pattern, things are all mandlebrot sets of mixtures of black and white opposites, mixtures of action and inaction, mixtures formed from some sets of evolving internal qualities and devolving external qualities, mixtures formed by opposing forces - none of which are ever 100% equal, or 100% greater than or lesser than the other. They are equally dependant on each other for their existence, for the form they take. The concepts of masculine and feminine should be thought of from the same dualistic perspective.
It is also the same for the totality, to produce things that can be perceived as being opposite and that may change polarity depending on the level at which the thing is being perceived, in my mind requires that the totality itself, being the mandlebrot program, could only consist of two opposites. In a physical sense instructions are forces.
The only way for him to stop being foolish is to admit to himself that she is a figment of his imagination.
How can something caused to exist in one's mind be a figment of their imagination. I am picking on your language to show your selective thinking and exaggeration.
By accepting this truth, he can halt all his action and take a closer look at what he is. This is the first step towards true freedom for him – a step that will end her existence, but allow him to truly experience life. He will then no longer need to enter The Twilight Zone.
I just think it lets one know their place in the universe, or non-place as it were.
I don't seek to be free from the realms of desire.BJM: This conduit to causality, in a manner of speaking, frees man from finitude. So, were a beast to match imagination with man, it would truly live in hell. As Nebuchadnezzar's episode. Echos of consciousness trapped in the irresistable compulsion of a feral life might truly be close to hell.
KJ: Does this poetic symbolism help you to become free from the realms of desire ?
In my thinking, "poetic" is a dirty word. Certainly, I've not mastered communication and my posts reflect that. Writing in a clean-cut, easily understandable manner is something I lack. Probably because my thinking is yet riddled with false imaginations.
I don't understand, can you elaborate on that?KJ: [edit]Females who are not in a secure relationship - what happens to their libido? Same as men. As Dan has pointed out, celibacy doesn't mean absence of sex.
- sue hindmarsh
- Posts: 1083
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
- Location: Sous Le Soleil
Bryan wrote:
But let’s say, for example, that you value your ‘maleness’ over your wisdom: which causes you to be blind and deaf to wisdom that happens to dwell in a female. Under this circumstance, where the sex of a person is considered more important than the wisdom they hold, I would be ignored or perhaps even berated for being an upstart. This reaction has no effect on my own philosophical development, as I value wisdom over my own self. The male who values his sex over the development of his wisdom is also of no consequence to me, because all he is doing is harming his own philosophical development. When he removes the planks of wood from his eyes he will see that the only sane object of discrimination is people’s minds – not their sex, colour, education, nationality, size, religion, looks, clothes, etc. Then, it will not concern him where wisdom dwells - his only concern will be wisdom.
-
Sue
No. Both male and female budding philosophers have the same aim: to wipe from their minds all illusion (the feminine). The more Truth-full one becomes; the less chance of being taken in by the feminine.Your words are wise and full of insight. Do you see your position as women, born again into the masculine, any different from that of a wise man?
For you to consider my thoughts “wise†and “full of insightâ€, you would have already thought similar thoughts yourself. You obviously value understanding the relationship between man and woman, and have therefore thought about it. When I write or speak about an issue, I do so from the position of valuing Truth above everything else. Because of this, it is not for me to be concerned about what effect my thoughts have on others, only that my thoughts are in accordance with Truth.Granted, wise is wise, do you think your form change how your truths are perceived?
But let’s say, for example, that you value your ‘maleness’ over your wisdom: which causes you to be blind and deaf to wisdom that happens to dwell in a female. Under this circumstance, where the sex of a person is considered more important than the wisdom they hold, I would be ignored or perhaps even berated for being an upstart. This reaction has no effect on my own philosophical development, as I value wisdom over my own self. The male who values his sex over the development of his wisdom is also of no consequence to me, because all he is doing is harming his own philosophical development. When he removes the planks of wood from his eyes he will see that the only sane object of discrimination is people’s minds – not their sex, colour, education, nationality, size, religion, looks, clothes, etc. Then, it will not concern him where wisdom dwells - his only concern will be wisdom.
-
Sue
- Kelly Jones
- Posts: 2665
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Could you explain why not?BJMcGilly wrote:Does this poetic symbolism help you to become free from the realms of desire ?
Bryan: I don't seek to be free from the realms of desire.
Thanks for your honesty.In my thinking, "poetic" is a dirty word. Certainly, I've not mastered communication and my posts reflect that. Writing in a clean-cut, easily understandable manner is something I lack. Probably because my thinking is yet riddled with false imaginations.
Dan's excellent dialogue on celibacy:Females who are not in a secure relationship - what happens to their libido? Same as men. As Dan has pointed out, celibacy doesn't mean absence of sex.
Bryan: I don't understand, can you elaborate on that?
http://www.futurephilosophy.org/viewtopic.php?t=197
I would like to read the Thinker's Guide to Wanking, Dan. If you haven't created it yet, consider this a command from a black-hearted minister seeking to suck the populace dry!
- sue hindmarsh
- Posts: 1083
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
- Location: Sous Le Soleil
- sue hindmarsh
- Posts: 1083
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
- Location: Sous Le Soleil
Jamesh wrote:
-
Sue
No, to obtain enlightenment one needs to know the Truth. From that knowledge, all other things are judged. Your idea that one has to “give up†relationships so as to be able to form a relationship with Truth is totally incorrect. When you know that all things arise causally, you also know that no thing has inherent existence. This makes having a relationship with other things absurd, since other things are as empty of existence as you are yourself.To obtain enlightenment one must give up personal inter-relationship emotions, in order to obtain an emotional relationship with infinity.
You cannot “give away†something you never had in the first place, to then replace it with something that also doesn’t exist. How can there be any loss or gain when abiding in Emptiness.You gladly give away one power to take another.
What are you chatting on about? What do you mean by “infinity-for-yourself†and “infinity-for-ourselves�That others will only very reluctantly give away the power of inter-relationship emotions is not something negative, though it is if you have an emotional relationship to infinity-for-yourself, which all of us have to some degree. We seek this infinity-for-ourselves by caring about and taking actions where the aim is to preserve the human race.
-
Sue
Celibacy and Other Boards
Thanks for the pointer, Kelly, that was a worthwhile read.Kelly Jones wrote: Dan's excellent dialogue on celibacy:
http://www.futurephilosophy.org/viewtopic.php?t=197
Celibacy is something I have no problem with on a rational, conscious level, but there are un- and sub-conscious parts of my mind that seem to have objections.
I don't actually read much other than this board. Are there other ones around worth taking a look at? Too bad that one was closed down.
- Kelly Jones
- Posts: 2665
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Celibacy and Other Boards
DHodges wrote:Celibacy is something I have no problem with on a rational, conscious level, but there are un- and sub-conscious parts of my mind that seem to have objections.
I am going to start psychotherapy again in a fortnight, to practise confidence in reasoning when "all those possibilities" arise.
I've googled key-words, nothing. Contemplating the nature of one's self when confronted with loneliness is quite psychotherapeutic. I think this is very closely related to developing a celibate mind. There are plenty of opportunities to do this.I don't actually read much other than this board. Are there other ones around worth taking a look at? Too bad that one was closed down.
