Brad and Elizabeth

Post questions or suggestions here.
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Post by sue hindmarsh » Sat Dec 17, 2005 12:55 pm

I asked Diebert:
Which of the characters, from the passage by Nietzsche, best describes your thoughts about women – “the youth”, “the sage”, or “one of the crowd”?
Diebert wrote:
Obviously the sage. But even a fool would be smart enough to choose that answer. Leaves me to doubt the relevance of the question.
That’s a surprise, Diebert - I thought you’d have answered “the youth”, because you seemed to be saying the exploration of the feminine was somewhat passé. You even suggested that by investigating her too closely, there was a “danger” of becoming like her –
…that one gets even as opponent sucked up in her superficial aspects. When fighting too many ghosts, one becomes a ghost. Or conveniently remains one.
From the above, I concluded that, like “the youth” in the passage, you would be content to leave the subject alone. If this is the case - fair enough, but I think ‘the feminine’ is a difficult subject for most people, and anyone who wants to develop philosophically, would do well to understand it thoroughly. So, for the benefit of those who do want to know more about her, I’ll continue my exploration.
Let me ask you opinion about something Kevin Solway wrote in his Poison for the heart
Where there is ego, there is violence. The two always exist together because they are actually one and the same.

Violence is usually kept below the surface where it manifests as hatred and fear. It surfaces as physical violence and war.

If a woman is 'personified egotism' and assuming Kevin uses the same definition of ego here, would that mean women are also full of hatred, warlike and violent?

Woman is without ego; she is instead man’s ego “personified”. All man’s weaknesses have gone into creating her. His ego longs for immeasurable comforts, unending pleasures and eternal happiness – and he comes up with ‘woman’ as the focal point for the fulfillment of all these obsessions. Through his love for her, he believes that his longings will be satisfied, and then his life will be successful and have meaning. But after a short time with her, the seeds of doubt encroach upon his happy dream, and he begins to feel unsure that she can actually live up to his expectations. He has invested a lot of himself in her, so he won’t give her up, but he will try and find ways to make her appear more than what she is now. He will get a better job, work harder and make more money. Then he’ll buy a bigger house and a better, faster car. He’ll send his kids to the best schools and encourage them to be the best in all they do. He’ll pay for his wife to have all the clothes, shoes, hair styles, personal trainers, plastic surgery, pottery classes, university degrees and flying lessons that he can afford – all to make her look better; so that he looks better. He’ll go and fight wars for her, be killed for her, conquer and pillage whole worlds for her. He’ll create philosophies, religions and great art; in celebration of his belief in beauty, compassion and purity – all of which he ascribes to her. But stop! He cannot keep the pretence going – he starts to drink more, he yells at the kids, he hits her, loses his job, loses her, loses the kids, starts a fight in the pub, spends time in jail, starts a new job, meets a new woman, buys another house …

Man’s ego drives him onwards; never satisfying, nor comforting him. Woman is just along for the ride.

Sue

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sun Dec 18, 2005 1:45 am

sue hindmarsh wrote:That’s a surprise, Diebert - I thought you’d have answered “the youth”, because you seemed to be saying the exploration of the feminine was somewhat passé. You even suggested that by investigating her too closely, there was a “danger” of becoming like her –
Diebert wrote:The danger I see in going on about the feminine too much, warning for and revaluing her…that one gets even as opponent sucked up in her superficial aspects. When fighting too many ghosts, one becomes a ghost. Or conveniently remains one.
From the above, I concluded that, like “the youth” in the passage, you would be content to leave the subject alone. If this is the case - fair enough, but I think ‘the feminine’ is a difficult subject for most people, and anyone who wants to develop philosophically, would do well to understand it thoroughly.
Okay, that's another way to look at it. It's not that I want to leave the subject alone altogether. I wonder how you came to that idea when I was only talking about "going on about it too much and "fighting too many ghosts", while at the same time suggesting of course you could be like "one of those present", full of warnings. Say like you wrote in this thread:
So, in summary: Never trust a woman, nor take for granted anything she tells you, and always strive to eliminate her from your mind and the minds of all who come in contact with you.
What the sage meant in Nietzsche's text was that it's wiser to learn to define and express masculinity than it is to probe femininity. Defining or entering masculinity doesn't need femininity as contrast, while femininity needs the masculine to even start defining or maintaining herself. Or in other terms: the self needs consciousness to imagine existence, while consciousness does not need a self.
Woman is without ego; she is instead man’s ego “personified”. All man’s weaknesses have gone into creating her. (...) He’ll create philosophies, religions and great art; in celebration of his belief in beauty, compassion and purity – all of which he ascribes to her.
I'd say she is only one of the many delusive creations of ego. I wouldn't give (the idea of) woman so much credit, even as merely the main 'focal point'. Much art, religion and war revolves around other causes or beliefs entirely, some ego related, some purely life trying to advance.

User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Post by sue hindmarsh » Tue Dec 20, 2005 11:19 pm

Diebert wrote:
Okay, that's another way to look at it. It's not that I want to leave the subject alone altogether. I wonder how you came to that idea when I was only talking about "going on about it too much and "fighting too many ghosts", while at the same time suggesting of course you could be like "one of those present", full of warnings. Say like you wrote in this thread:
Quote:
So, in summary: Never trust a woman, nor take for granted anything she tells you, and always strive to eliminate her from your mind and the minds of all who come in contact with you.
To eliminate the feminine from “your mind”, and the minds of others, you first need to understand the feminine completely. The degree of difficulty in achieving this is equal to the degree of masculinity a person possesses. A man with a very high degree of masculinity can easily understand the feminine completely, with her having little or no effect on him; whereas, a lesser man will be blind to a deeper understanding of her, and therefore will still find himself affected by her.

The problem is - she is not always easy to find - having as she does the whole universe to hide in. And if you can’t find her, then it is impossible for you to ever understand her. This is why the feminine is much discussed by the likes of Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Solway and Quinn – they know how cunning she can be at finding hiding places in the minds of men. They also know that the only way to eliminate her is to first dislodge her from men’s minds. Once that is done, men have a greater chance of taking a step onto the philosophic path.
What the sage meant in Nietzsche's text was that it's wiser to learn to define and express masculinity than it is to probe femininity. Defining or entering masculinity doesn't need femininity as contrast, while femininity needs the masculine to even start defining or maintaining herself. Or in other terms: the self needs consciousness to imagine existence, while consciousness does not need a self.
Yes, I see your point, but I see a problem - quite often, what looks to be 'masculine', is actually the feminine at play – so it is wise to weed out the feminine, to ensure that any discussion about the masculine is truly just that.

For example: Nietzsche’s text is a discussion on the power of the feminine, and how man should be better prepared to expel her from his life –

The sage shook his head and smiled. "It is men," said he, "that corrupt women; and all the failings of women should be atoned and improved in men. For it is man who creates for himself the image of woman, and woman forms herself according to this image."

Nietzsche describes how ‘the feminine’ exists first in man, and then from him, woman is created.

"Will is the manner of men; willingness that of women. That is the law of the sexes - truly, a hard law for women. All of humanity is innocent of its existence; but women are doubly innocent. Who could have oil and kindness enough for them?"

Man has no inherent existence – he was never born, nor shall he ever die – from this he understands his Eternal Nature.
Woman has no inherent existence – but to understand this, she must first be ‘born’.

"Men need to be educated better"

When men value the Truth, they grow to be truly loving and kind to women and men alike. They treat women like men – speak to them, and interact with them, as if they were men. These Truth loving men speak against love, marriage, comfort, friendship, religion, traditions, family, pride, vanity, success, beauty, humility, compassion and the many other falsehoods which have created Woman. They laugh at those who value their lives, and at those who seek gain or regret loss.

I'd say she is only one of the many delusive creations of ego. I wouldn't give (the idea of) woman so much credit, even as merely the main 'focal point'. Much art, religion and war revolves around other causes or beliefs entirely, some ego related, some purely life trying to advance.
As I said in my post - man will create “philosophies, religions and great art; in celebration of his belief in beauty, compassion and purity”, but instead of ensuring that all these activities are underpinned by Reality, he haphazardly throws himself into them – then “ascribes” his follies to woman.

For example – War: Men have fought each other over property since the beginning of time. His ‘property’ is his family and community, and the land they occupy; and protecting them is his life’s work. Generation after generation of men have gone to battle to preserve the lifestyle they value – but if men realized how truly valuable their lives were, that within them lay the potential for eternal life, do you think they would waste their precious lives on protecting woman, children, scraps of land and flags?

Once men understood their potential, they might fight a war to preserve their lives and lifestyles, if they thought that in doing so they were preserving Truth - but I'd say they'd only do it as a last resort.

Sue

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Thu Dec 22, 2005 8:04 am

Sue,
Sue Hindmarsh wrote:To eliminate the feminine from “your mind”, and the minds of others, you first need to understand the feminine completely. The degree of difficulty in achieving this is equal to the degree of masculinity a person possesses.
When fully understood there's nothing to eliminate anymore. If all ignorance is gone, how could the feminine still be there somewhere, hiding behind what?
The problem is - she is not always easy to find - having as she does the whole universe to hide in. And if you can’t find her, then it is impossible for you to ever understand her. This is why the feminine is much discussed by the likes of Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Solway and Quinn – they know how cunning she can be at finding hiding places in the minds of men.
As far as I know Solway and Quinn take a firm stand against the ongoing 'feminizing' of the modern world, the worship and idealisation - turning into values - of the feminine itself. But chasing it down and attacking it becomes a bit like fighting fire with fire: tricky and possible counter-productive at one point.
They also know that the only way to eliminate her is to first dislodge her from men’s minds. Once that is done, men have a greater chance of taking a step onto the philosophic path.
That's not a prerequisite because it's certainly not something that can be dislodged from a mind before someone can start on the path. It couldn't be done perfectly anyway without having walked the whole path first. It would mean overcoming all ignorance before starting to overcome ignorance! But somewhere on the way however the sexes have to be understood more fully, as well as duality and consciousness, deeper and deeper until there are no shadows and cobwebs left in our awareness of it all.
Yes, I see your point, but I see a problem - quite often, what looks to be 'masculine', is actually the feminine at play – so it is wise to weed out the feminine, to ensure that any discussion about the masculine is truly just that.
The feminine at play! The Sanskirt word Lila or Leela describes her well in the ultimate sense. Tricky problem indeed.
For example: Nietzsche’s text is a discussion on the power of the feminine, and how man should be better prepared to expel her from his life –
Expelling Woman while giving double portions of oil and kindness to women?
As I said in my post - man will create “philosophies, religions and great art; in celebration of his belief in beauty, compassion and purity”, but instead of ensuring that all these activities are underpinned by Reality, he haphazardly throws himself into them – then “ascribes” his follies to woman.
I don't believe any deluded person is really 'celebrating beliefs' in a conscious or unconscious manner, when art or war is born. It's a matter of drifting on the wild river of life with all its currents, streams and blocks. It's all quite innocent if only mankind didn't have such need to think its having a say in its affairs, or even the most basic understanding of what's happening. As such futile dust and sand-clouds are created were a possibility for real knowing is present.
Once men understood their potential, they might fight a war to preserve their lives and lifestyles, if they thought that in doing so they were preserving Truth - but I'd say they'd only do it as a last resort.
So ultimately there are 'good' wars, or at least 'lesser evil' wars? You should realize even here there's no real difference.

User avatar
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

BATTLE OF THE SEXES

Post by Leyla Shen » Thu Dec 22, 2005 10:46 pm

sue hindmarsh wrote:
They also know that the only way to eliminate her is to first dislodge her from men’s minds. Once that is done, men have a greater chance of taking a step onto the philosophic path.
Then the issue is directed at the feminine-male and the masculine-female: the area in between. One would imagine that a masculine-male would, by definition, have sufficient masculinity to do this with considerable ease if indeed he had any need to overcome the feminine at all and that the feminine-female would have very little chance, if any at all.

If we then define the term “men” as such (masculine-males, feminine-males and masculine-females), we are left with feminine-females coming under the category of “woman.”

MMM -- FMM -- MMF -- FMF
Man..........................Woman

Legend
MMM: masculine (minded) male; FMM feminine (minded) male; MMF masculine (minded) female; FMF feminine (minded) female.

If the two extreme categories (MMM and FMF) are ultimately hypothetical -- that is, if there can be no such thing as a 100% masculine male and a 100% feminine female -- who is a woman and of what use (in this philosophical context) is the term?

I do not agree that feminine-males are necessarily possessed of any greater potential for stepping onto the philosophic path than masculine-females by “virtue” of having a penis.

For me, this notion of "Woman" raises a few pertinent items for consideration, therefore:

1. Does a masculine-female embody Woman more than a feminine-male? That is, is a male with a feminine lifestyle more a man than a female with a masculine lifestyle?

2. If the female is the embodiment of Woman, it is not only contradictory to say that there is such a thing as a masculine female with the potential for “great philosophy,” but impossible for the female to achieve it -- so the category becomes redundant. Nothing more than fanciful, self-indulgent and meaningless diatribe undeserving of the label of great philosophy. A nice distraction, perhaps, designed for nothing more than gaining the attention of women.

3. If the last, non-existent category of feminine-female is the embodiment of Woman, why is She proposed to exist at all?

User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Post by sue hindmarsh » Tue Dec 27, 2005 11:32 am

Diebert wrote:
When fully understood there's nothing to eliminate anymore. If all ignorance is gone, how could the feminine still be there somewhere, hiding behind what?
When ignorance is eliminated, the feminine (worldly existence) doesn’t disappear; you’re just able to see its true reality.
As far as I know Solway and Quinn take a firm stand against the ongoing 'feminizing' of the modern world, the worship and idealisation - turning into values - of the feminine itself. But chasing it down and attacking it becomes a bit like fighting fire with fire: tricky and possible counter-productive at one point.
How do you deal with the feminine?
That's not a prerequisite because it's certainly not something that can be dislodged from a mind before someone can start on the path. It couldn't be done perfectly anyway without having walked the whole path first. It would mean overcoming all ignorance before starting to overcome ignorance! But somewhere on the way however the sexes have to be understood more fully, as well as duality and consciousness, deeper and deeper until there are no shadows and cobwebs left in our awareness of it all.
The world, as we have been brought up to understand it, is nothing like its reality. As you point out, there are many things that have to be re-evaluated, such as consciousness and unconsciousness. The unwrapping of the feminine is just that – a re-evaluating of the underlying driving force of humanity. Looking into the feminine makes it easier to get a clearer picture of the masculine.

Most men are feminine through and through, making masculinity very rare. The consequence of this is that most men don’t understand what true masculinity is, easily getting confused by their own cockeyed ideas about it. For example, most men think ‘being courageous’ is a masculine trait – and it is, if it is directed at a masculine endeavour like Understanding the Ultimate – but it becomes a laughing matter if you waste it on something as feminine as say; mathematics, science or soldiering.

Back in October 11th on the “Why are Otto Weininger so important for you guys?” thread, you wrote:

The man has the disposition to go outwards, to explore, to uproot the peace, to initiate change, to aggressively penetrate the secret and to destroy that what is blocking change. The fact that he's not ending up doing this, or at least not for the highest possible purpose, doesn't undo the difference. One might wonder how (the phenomenon of) women could influence this.

One might wonder indeed! One doesn't have to "wonder" about how this works, you just have to keep your eyes open and take a long hard look. Which is what you have done for the masculine to a certain degree. You state that most men don’t direct their energies toward the “highest possible purpose”, but you haven’t made the next logical step; if men aren’t directing their energies towards discovering truths, they must instead be directing their lives towards perpetuating ignorance. Since ignorance is the realm of the feminine, men are therefore adding to the “feminizing” of the world.

This being the case, don’t you think it a good idea to be fully informed about the world in which we live, so that we can begin to eradicate falsehoods from our lives?


I don't believe any deluded person is really 'celebrating beliefs' in a conscious or unconscious manner, when art or war is born. It's a matter of drifting on the wild river of life with all its currents, streams and blocks. It's all quite innocent if only mankind didn't have such need to think its having a say in its affairs, or even the most basic understanding of what's happening. As such futile dust and sand-clouds are created were a possibility for real knowing is present.
This sounds quite poetic, but also vague - isn’t unconsciousness the same as “drifting on the wild river of life with all…” - could you please make clear your thoughts on man’s involvement in worldly endeavours?
So ultimately there are 'good' wars, or at least 'lesser evil' wars? You should realize even here there's no real difference.
So Truth is not a worthy goal to fight a war over?

Sue

User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Post by sue hindmarsh » Tue Dec 27, 2005 1:52 pm

Leyla,

I think I understand how important this topic is to you personally, but even though it is an important topic, it is sometimes best to separate yourself from it when you first begin your investigation. Only putting yourself back into the equation when you have a good grip of the subject.

For example -

You wrote:
I do not agree that feminine-males are necessarily possessed of any greater potential for stepping onto the philosophic path than masculine-females by “virtue” of having a penis.
I assure you that penises have nothing what so ever to do with becoming a philosopher. Neither does boobs, vaginas, bottoms or little toes – all these are just useful bits to keep our bodies working. Your mind is the most important ‘bit’ to concern yourself with.

Have a read of what I’ve written below, and let me know what you make of it.

* * * *

Keeping it simple - it is best to describe the masculine as consciousness, and the feminine as unconsciousness – and since our interest is in understanding Truth, we can use as our reference point ‘Consciousness of Truth’. So a female or male that is conscious of the Truth can be spoken of as exhibiting true masculine traits, whereas a female or male who is not conscious of the Truth can be spoken of as exhibiting feminine traits.

The first group use their level of living in accordance with Truth as their benchmark in discerning their levels of masculinity and femininity. The second group, being ignorant of Truth, can be divided into varying degrees of masculinity and femininity. For example, a prerequisite for understanding Truth is a strong mind which can use reason and discriminate to a high degree – so if a person has the beginnings of that type of mind, you could say they were more masculine than feminine. It is only a small step, especially when you consider that much of that person’s life would be spent wallowing in ignorance, but a small step is better than no step at all, and could lead to larger steps.

Most prerequisites for becoming a Great Philosopher are already present in many males; that hardly any of them will go on to become philosophers gives us a clear indication of how difficult philosophy is for most men. Women who have thoughts of becoming philosophers have to factor in that they will be constantly tugged back to the realms of the feminine not only by other women, but by men also. Of course men have these same pressures on them, but the reason some are able to break away more easily than others, is that they are able to direct all their energies to that one goal, and not be distracted by worldly concerns.

For some males and females, understanding the basics of Truth is enough. For others they want to do more than understand Truth, they want to live it. They possess an unquenchable thirst for Truth, giving them the strength of giants and the courage of lions. It is these few that everyone else is judged against – so when you are considering your own development, size yourself up beside the likes of say; Diogenes or Hakuin; Kierkegaard or Solway, and then you will know what needs to be done in your own life. Use their strength and their courage to push your own life forward.

Truthfulness is what matters - don’t let yourself be sapped of all your energies because you are worried about whether or not you are masculine enough to become a philosopher – instead, open your eyes and mind to Truth, and then cast your mind upon the world.

Understand the feminine/masculine, but do it from a less emotional perspective.


Sue

AgentB
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 2:45 am

Post by AgentB » Tue Dec 27, 2005 2:25 pm

For example, most men think ‘being courageous’ is a masculine trait – and it is, if it is directed at a masculine endeavour like Understanding the Ultimate – but it becomes a laughing matter if you waste it on something as feminine as say; mathematics, science or soldiering.
I'm still not quite sure I agree with this forums tenet that mathematics, science and engineering are useless. Without men entering these "feminine" persuits, discussions like this wouldn't be made, as technologies such as the internet and computers simply wouldn't exist. Abandoning these fields would be a huge impediment to the survival of the human race.

From what I've gathered from lurking/reading "Wisdom of the Infinite", enlightenment doesn't free the enlightened person from cause and effect, meaning his consciousness is still dependent on the human body. Abandoning medicine, engineering and science because they're not absolute truths would be madness, as without them the human body, and therefore the consciousness would be destroyed by the forces of nature...

I don't claim to 100% understand "Ultimate reality" as it's dubbed (chiefly because I'm unsure whether I'm simply "parroting" reasonings I've heard here whilst lurking), but being enlightened and gaining skill in a field doesn't appear to be mutally exclusive...

User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Post by sue hindmarsh » Tue Dec 27, 2005 4:27 pm

AgentB,

Science, maths and engineering are all important for the development of technology; and as you say, without technology, the Internet wouldn’t exist. I’m all for the development of technology, and for men’s involvement in it, as long as those men involved realise that their tinkering with numbers and tossing up “theories of everything” has nothing to do with the understanding, or the fostering of Truth. The fact that they do consider their pursuits as important work in “unlocking the truths of the universe” means that their efforts are the stuff of the feminine. If they acknowledged that they weren’t really interested in knowing or understanding Truth in any shape, way or form, then I’d say they were at least being honest, and that perhaps they had some potential to actually start thinking about Reality.

So, it’s not, as you say, “mutually exclusive” for men to be involved in the development of technologies and also understand Truth, but it would be very rare. Both take a lot of mind work – so much so, that to do both might mean to do neither very well. This would explain why most of the Great Philosophers led solitary lives, free from the constraints of taking care of a family, and working at a job.

Sue

User avatar
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen » Tue Dec 27, 2005 8:51 pm

sue hindmarsh wrote:
I assure you that penises have nothing what so ever to do with becoming a philosopher. Neither does boobs, vaginas, bottoms or little toes – all these are just useful bits to keep our bodies working. Your mind is the most important ‘bit’ to concern yourself with.


I reckon that's exactly the point I am (and have been) making -- unless I'm much worse with my English skills than I realise.

So, it's not really assurance that I'm looking for.

However...
Have a read of what I’ve written below, and let me know what you make of it.


Some relevant stuff there. I'll reply soon.

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by David Quinn » Wed Dec 28, 2005 7:35 am

AgentB wrote:
I'm still not quite sure I agree with this forums tenet that mathematics, science and engineering are useless.
It's all relative. Doing math or engineering is better than, say, shooting up heroin or bashing children. But it's not quite as good as eliminating all delusion from the mind and comprehending the nature of Reality.

Of course, there is no reason why people can't do both - i.e. become wise and do science. But the emphasis still needs to be on the wisdom side of things, otherwise we are just going to keep perpetuating ignorance on an increasingly larger scale. First the Kingdom of God, as Jesus sensibly used to say.

Perhaps a rule should be made that no one can enter University and become a specialist academic or scientist until they can demonstrate that they are enlightened. Not only would that encourage the more gifted in our society to strive for enlightenment, but it would also raise the quality of their scientific research via the elimination of the irrational prejudices and fears which usually clog up the human mind.

At the very least, there needs to be far greater emphasis placed on the value of wisdom by society in general. This really has to be the most glaring fault of our modern era - the complete disregard for the need of individuals to develop philosophically and become enlightened human beings. It is an amazing oversight on society's part.

-

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

Post by avidaloca » Wed Dec 28, 2005 9:15 pm

...the most glaring fault of our modern era - the complete disregard for the need of individuals to develop philosophically and become enlightened human beings. It is an amazing oversight on society's part.
I would say the reason it's ignored is people don't want to be or be thought of as pompous twits prancing about claiming they're God - most people are more casual and relaxed.

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by David Quinn » Thu Dec 29, 2005 7:12 am

Eh?

-

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

Post by avidaloca » Thu Dec 29, 2005 9:42 am

I get the feeling that for those who develop philosophically and become wise, people think good for them but essentially "leave us alone".

They don't want it pushed on them, such as to enter university as you suggested.

I think that's due to people being pretty much happy with themselves and not wanting to develop higher. However, this just shows their simple sense of self-worth, i.e. "I'm ok, even if I don't do anything with my life to reach higher levels".

User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Post by sue hindmarsh » Thu Dec 29, 2005 11:00 am

avidaloca,

Do you really believe that most people are rational enough to be able to judge who is, or is not wise?

The old saying goes, "Ignorance is bliss", but anyone with a couple of brain cells to rub together would be able to see that that isn't the case. Ignorance is hell - and anyone living in ignorance is subject to an eternity of torture.

Finding enough gumption to take a look around, and see that the world isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be, often means having a closer look at your “sense of self-worth” - with the inevitable finding that it’s nothing to crow over.

Sue

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

Post by avidaloca » Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:21 pm

Do you really believe that most people are rational enough to be able to judge who is, or is not wise?
I used to think that was a fair call when Kevin bandied it about, but then I found it operated in reverse with other things. For example, Kevin thought he knew more about translating German into English than I did, because he was just by default better than me, regardless of my years of experience doing it. He had the same attitude to everything else such as computer repair and so on. So it seems that Kevin and maybe more of the QRS should alter the maxim: "Do you really believe that most people are rational enought to judge anything as well as us?"

User avatar
Rhett
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:31 am
Location: Australia

Post by Rhett » Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:26 pm

.
avidaloca wrote:I get the feeling that for those who develop philosophically and become wise, people think good for them but essentially "leave us alone".
Yes, that does occur. Poor cherubs.


They don't want it pushed on them, such as to enter university as you suggested.

I think that's due to people being pretty much happy with themselves and not wanting to develop higher. However, this just shows their simple sense of self-worth, i.e. "I'm ok, even if I don't do anything with my life to reach higher levels".
So they go to university and, say, learn about evolution and thinks it's great, whilst personally maintaining an anti-evolutionary perspective. Poor cherubs. I guess it's not so bad as going to the zoo and wanting to be a chimp or cuckoo.

.

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

Post by avidaloca » Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:50 pm

They don't want it pushed on them, such as to enter university as you suggested.

I think that's due to people being pretty much happy with themselves and not wanting to develop higher. However, this just shows their simple sense of self-worth, i.e. "I'm ok, even if I don't do anything with my life to reach higher levels".

So they go to university and, say, learn about evolution and thinks it's great, whilst personally maintaining an anti-evolutionary perspective. Poor cherubs. I guess it's not so bad as going to the zoo and wanting to be a chimp or cuckoo.
I was actually referring to an earlier post by David Quinn saying people should have to study philosophy to a certain level before they can even go to a university.
Do you really believe that most people are rational enough to be able to judge who is, or is not wise?
I think some people have an idea what it is but it is very vague. Nonetheless having an idea is enough to at least roughly or approximately identify it.

There are those of course who couldn't care less about wisdom or those who either have it or not.
The old saying goes, "Ignorance is bliss", but anyone with a couple of brain cells to rub together would be able to see that that isn't the case. Ignorance is hell - and anyone living in ignorance is subject to an eternity of torture.
There are plenty of people who live relatively suffering-free lives due to being well-off but money is definitely not everything. The flipside to it is it often creates problems that wouldn't have been there without it.

In other words, I reject the notion that the more ignorant someone is the more suffering they live in. I've known plenty of asshole people who have a pretty good time in life.
Finding enough gumption to take a look around, and see that the world isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be, often means having a closer look at your “sense of self-worth” - with the inevitable finding that it’s nothing to crow over.
Those who crow over their sense of self-worth are usually doubtful of it - hence the need to parade and promote. I am always suspicious of people who claim to know everything or have some special status or position of wisdom or whatever. I include in this women who think they are better than men but lack in key areas such as morality, justice and so on.

User avatar
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen » Fri Dec 30, 2005 4:18 am

sue hindmarsh wrote:
Keeping it simple -
Well, of course, Truth is always simple. A=A, for example. So, I am not so much concerned with simplicity here as I am with logic.
it is best to describe the masculine as consciousness, and the feminine as unconsciousness – and since our interest is in understanding Truth, we can use as our reference point ‘Consciousness of Truth’.
OK. I’m going to refer to this paragraph as “1”.
So a female or male that is conscious of the Truth can be spoken of as exhibiting true masculine traits, whereas a female or male who is not conscious of the Truth can be spoken of as exhibiting feminine traits.
OK, again. I’m going to refer to this paragraph as “2”.
The first group use their level of living in accordance with Truth as their benchmark in discerning their levels of masculinity and femininity.
Using 1 & 2 as a reference point in understanding what you mean by this -- I interpret it as follows:

Those who exhibit true masculinity (Consciousness of Truth) use their level of living in accordance with Truth as their benchmark in discerning their levels of masculinity (consciousness) and femininity (unconsciousness).

Those who could be considered truly masculine (Conscious of Truth) yet contain the element of/potential for femininity (unconsciousness), since not living in accordance with Truth is the measure for their own masculinity/femininity, aka consciousness/unconsciousness -- or, are we entering in a different definition for the two terms here? Something such as, maybe, mental/intellectual characteristics usually identified with one or the other biological sex?

This is the very same contradiction I see all over again. Is it because I am emotional, or because it actually does not make sense?

Moving on:
The second group, being ignorant of Truth, can be divided into varying degrees of masculinity and femininity.


Pretty straightforward. However, the first group -- when not living in accordance with Truth -- also become part of this second group by definition. When is a Consciousness of Truth not a Consciousness of Truth? When one is not living in accordance with it (true masculinity).
For example, a prerequisite for understanding Truth is a strong mind which can use reason and discriminate to a high degree – so if a person has the beginnings of that type of mind, you could say they were more masculine than feminine.
Yes.
It is only a small step, especially when you consider that much of that person’s life would be spent wallowing in ignorance, but a small step is better than no step at all, and could lead to larger steps.
OK.
Most prerequisites for becoming a Great Philosopher are already present in many males; that hardly any of them will go on to become philosophers gives us a clear indication of how difficult philosophy is for most men. Women who have thoughts of becoming philosophers have to factor in that they will be constantly tugged back to the realms of the feminine not only by other women, but by men also. Of course men have these same pressures on them, but the reason some are able to break away more easily than others, is that they are able to direct all their energies to that one goal, and not be distracted by worldly concerns.


Yes, that is the reason. But, obviously, the statement that “some…more than others” is a gross understatement when Great Philosophy is used as the benchmark. I mean, out of all the people on Earth, you have mentioned -- what? -- 5-ish.
For some males and females, understanding the basics of Truth is enough.
So, here we are talking about a sort of intellectual understanding of Truth as opposed to living in accordance with Consciousness of Truth. Again, according to 2, these people are, in fact, feminine. So, the questions in my previous post still stand, perhaps now more than ever.
For others they want to do more than understand Truth, they want to live it. They possess an unquenchable thirst for Truth, giving them the strength of giants and the courage of lions. It is these few that everyone else is judged against – so when you are considering your own development, size yourself up beside the likes of say; Diogenes or Hakuin; Kierkegaard or Solway, and then you will know what needs to be done in your own life. Use their strength and their courage to push your own life forward.
A fair comment, in general. But whilst I obviously understand the demands on me due to the fact of being a single mother of three children, and the effect that has on any immediate ability to produce a work of philosophical significance, it does by no means bar me from such an ideal as Truth. For example, once my children have become independent individuals I do not intend to embrace this “new freedom” to indulge in any egotistical fancy that may be so desired. In fact, I simply see myself spending more time doing what I am doing at this very moment.
Truthfulness is what matters -
Yes. And if the mark of a Great Philosopher is the number of people he reaches after his death and not his living in accordance with Truth -- then I may never be one.

That's not going to make a difference to anything I'm doing right now, however. I am not after the Great Philosopher goal. I am not interested in personal titles. To me, that's secondary -- a potential by-product.

I am only after Truth. And what and how I know of it is passed to my children and those who encounter me. Which is what made me seek it in the first place.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Fri Dec 30, 2005 9:36 am

Sue,
sue hindmarsh wrote:When ignorance is eliminated, the feminine (worldly existence) doesn’t disappear; you’re just able to see its true reality.
What is exactly this "true reality" that the feminine is supposed to possess? It has none, so there's nothing anymore to see when ignorance is gone. 'Worldly existence' as you term it, seizes to be. Or do you equal nature as a whole as feminine? But where then is the masculine hiding?
How do you deal with the feminine?
No dealing at all.

Women deal with women, all the time. This way her survival is ensured.
The unwrapping of the feminine is just that – a re-evaluating of the underlying driving force of humanity. Looking into the feminine makes it easier to get a clearer picture of the masculine.
Masculinity is needed as drive to get a clearer picture of anything. That it causes the feminine to be exposed for the false idea that it is, occurs merely as a result. So I have difficulty following your reversal: the feminine as something to 'look into' so we might get to masculinity. This might look as a subtle difference but I think it's not.
Most men are feminine through and through, making masculinity very rare.
If this were so, the terms 'masculinity' and 'men' would be very confusing and not appropriate to use in the context of wisdom if one wants to be understood. Masculinity in itself is no wisdom. In most cases it even doesn't lead to any; that would indeed be rare. But that doesn't mean it equals femininity! It seems that you are confusing genius and masculinity.
For example, most men think ‘being courageous’ is a masculine trait – and it is, if it is directed at a masculine endeavour like Understanding the Ultimate – but it becomes a laughing matter if you waste it on something as feminine as say; mathematics, science or soldiering.
Why would it become a laughing matter? Just because it's not ultimate wisdom, it doesn't mean mathematics or science are feminine activities. When done properly, they will always remain based on logic and in need of an exploring, questioning, conquering mindset. What you call 'the ultimate' is also 'the fundamental'. Without reason every scientific process is doomed to fail sooner or later, no matter if performed by an enlightened scientist or not. The process of science is bigger than merely one or two scientist and their possible foolishness.
You state that most men don’t direct their energies toward the “highest possible purpose”, but you haven’t made the next logical step; if men aren’t directing their energies towards discovering truths, they must instead be directing their lives towards perpetuating ignorance. Since ignorance is the realm of the feminine, men are therefore adding to the “feminizing” of the world.
I don't see "discovering truths" as equal to the "highest possible purpose". Only the highest possible truths would suffice here. So men still could pursue smaller truths about this existence or merely live out the truths of their masculine nature without 'perpetuating ignorance'. It sounds like you're saying something like: "whose not completely genius, is against genius".
This being the case, don’t you think it a good idea to be fully informed about the world in which we live, so that we can begin to eradicate falsehoods from our lives?
Yes, lets start with some basic science then to inform us about the world we live in. Or was that too feminine? But I'd suggest to let this education start with being trained in logic, all the fundamentals of reason and how they relate to the 'divine' or the absolute. And how all other relevant things, including relevance itself can be derived from here. People should not have to be told about the dangers of the feminine but about the importance of going all the way in (self)observance, (self)criticism and (self)knowledge. We cannot win boxing with our own shadows but we can let sunlight pooring in.
Diebert wrote:I don't believe any deluded person is really 'celebrating beliefs' in a conscious or unconscious manner, when art or war is born. It's a matter of drifting on the wild river of life with all its currents, streams and blocks. It's all quite innocent if only mankind didn't have such need to think its having a say in its affairs, or even the most basic understanding of what's happening.
This sounds quite poetic, but also vague - isn’t unconsciousness the same as “drifting on the wild river of life with all…” - could you please make clear your thoughts on man’s involvement in worldly endeavours?
Life is larger than a few persons minds. The realities behind war and art are in such degree caught up in the causal web of culture and nature, that they become part of the flow of life. Nothing to 'eradicate' here. Only romantics, dreamers and utopians are considering 'just' wars or 'enlightened' societies. Such dreaming can be valuable to a certain extent but ultimately deceptive.
So Truth is not a worthy goal to fight a war over?
War like it's mother 'the state' only exists because of the need to maintain a large or over-consuming population of ignorant people. Cause and effect, just like heavy clouds gathering to produce rain.

But, how many ignorant people would be needed to breed one genius? Is he rare by definition or because of circumstances?

User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Post by sue hindmarsh » Fri Dec 30, 2005 4:56 pm

Diebert,

Before we go any further - could you please tell me what you think "the feminine" is?

Then - can you describe what you think I mean by "the feminine"?

Sue

User avatar
Rhett
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:31 am
Location: Australia

Post by Rhett » Sat Dec 31, 2005 10:04 am

.
Avidaloca: They don't want it pushed on them, such as to enter university as you suggested.

I think that's due to people being pretty much happy with themselves and not wanting to develop higher. However, this just shows their simple sense of self-worth, i.e. "I'm ok, even if I don't do anything with my life to reach higher levels".

Rhett: So they go to university and, say, learn about evolution and thinks it's great, whilst personally maintaining an anti-evolutionary perspective. Poor cherubs. I guess it's not so bad as going to the zoo and wanting to be a chimp or cuckoo.

Avidaloca: I was actually referring to an earlier post by David Quinn saying people should have to study philosophy to a certain level before they can even go to a university.
Yes, i have seen that for myself.

Do you intend for me to gain something from this comment of yours?

Are you trying to imply that my points were irrelevant? If so, i disagree. Surely it is clear that i am positing that people will remain at a lower, contradictory level, in the absence of spiritual training prior to university study.

.

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

Post by avidaloca » Sat Dec 31, 2005 11:18 am

Do you intend for me to gain something from this comment of yours?

Are you trying to imply that my points were irrelevant? If so, i disagree. Surely it is clear that i am positing that people will remain at a lower, contradictory level, in the absence of spiritual training prior to university study.
It's been some time since David Quinn's post here which started my reply:
Perhaps a rule should be made that no one can enter University and become a specialist academic or scientist until they can demonstrate that they are enlightened. Not only would that encourage the more gifted in our society to strive for enlightenment, but it would also raise the quality of their scientific research via the elimination of the irrational prejudices and fears which usually clog up the human mind.

At the very least, there needs to be far greater emphasis placed on the value of wisdom by society in general. This really has to be the most glaring fault of our modern era - the complete disregard for the need of individuals to develop philosophically and become enlightened human beings. It is an amazing oversight on society's part.
I remember thinking you might not have been aware of that when you replied but now I see you were.

The point you made about people going to university and learning about one thing while believing another is a bit strange to me because just by learning about it, it doesn't mean you have to believe in it personally. It's actually good to have a diversity of ideas/beliefs and so on.

Having a lack of spirit when you approach a topic is a great failing, so I agree totally with the sentiment you expressed there. I just don't know if forcing philosophical training on people would work - it seems that would thwart the very spirit of freedom required to pursue such endeavours.

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by David Quinn » Sat Dec 31, 2005 11:56 am

Not so much forcing, but rather encouraging people to pursue enlightenment of their own free will.

It would be like what already happens with tertiary entrance requirements. People currently can't go to University unless their marks at school are at a sufficiently advanced level. Because of this, many children choose to study hard at school out of their own free will.

Keep in mind that ignorant people are usually ignorant of the importance of enlightenment and can't think of any reasons to pursue it. Linking it to things like University entry would help them overcome this obstacle.

We could even make it a rule that no one can marry and have kids unless they are enlightened. At the very least, it would help ease the world's massive overpopulation problem.

-

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

Post by avidaloca » Sat Dec 31, 2005 12:19 pm

It used to be the case that you had to have a Bachelor of Arts before you could progress to further qualifications. This would ground you in art, literature and political theory. Then you continued with a more specialised field like medicine or law, having knowledge of ethics, literature and philosophy.

They have now brought that in to some medical degrees. You need a Bachelor degree now before you can start a medical degree at at least one major university I know. These studies frequently include philosophy.

I know you don't support academic philosophy but it's got to be better than people coming from high school to a medical degree.

Post Reply