Suggestion List

Some partial backups of posts from the past (Feb, 2004)

Re: Suggestion List

Postby skipair » Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:53 am

Franco the seducer. He would make for a very good interview/discussion.

http://www.franco-seduction.com/contact.htm
User avatar
skipair
 
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:19 am

Re: Suggestion List

Postby integral » Thu Feb 14, 2008 4:57 pm

David or Dan: can you guys debate/discuss with Stefan Molyneux?
He's a philosopher that thinks that a stateless society is the only type society compatible with the rational man.
He has the attribute of being a true atheist.

For more info on him you can check out:
http://www.freedomainradio.com
http://www.strike-the-root.com/archive/molyneux.html
User avatar
integral
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 8:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Suggestion List

Postby Nick Treklis » Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:48 am

I agree with Integral, I think Stefan would be a very interesting guest.
User avatar
Nick Treklis
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: Suggestion List

Postby sue hindmarsh » Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:38 pm

Integral and Nick,

You both seem keen on Stefan Molyneux. Integral, you reckon he has "the attribute of being a true atheist". I'll be interested to know what attributes you saw in him that led you to that conclusion. I viewed some of his work and I didn't see anything of that nature in him. He appears to be propped up by numerous things - indeed, so many things that all the life seems to have been squished out of him. But then, success has a way of doing that to people.

He's really just a social commentator - and then, to my mind, not a very interesting one. He doesn't seem to have much of a base to his thinking, apart from maybe the idea of fairness through equality - but I'm just clutching at straws choosing that. Have you guys any idea of what he bases his ideas on?

When considering him in discussion with Dan, Kevin or David, what is it in his thinking that makes you feel that he would be interested in discussing ultimate matters with them?
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
 
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Re: Suggestion List

Postby Nick Treklis » Sat Feb 16, 2008 4:11 am

I haven't had the chance to research his work more thoroughly yet, but he appears to be an honest man who claims to make Truth a priority in his video introduction on the main page of freedomainradio.com. I'll have to research him a bit further, but I still think he would make for a good guest, mostly because I want to see just how far he is willing to go in his quest for Truth.
User avatar
Nick Treklis
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: Suggestion List

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Sat Feb 16, 2008 8:22 am

Sue, rather than just being a naysayer, do you have any suggestions?
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: Suggestion List

Postby Nick Treklis » Sat Feb 16, 2008 8:26 am

You know on second thought, after listening to a few snip-its from some of his podcasts, he does seem a bit on the dull side. Although it might still be interesting to challenge his position on a few things, especially women, relationships, and love, considering he claims to be on a quest for Truth.
User avatar
Nick Treklis
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: Suggestion List

Postby Dan Rowden » Sat Feb 16, 2008 10:11 am

He strikes me as a fairly typical American whose done some undergrad philosophy; he's a neo-Randian showman. I can't think of a reason to talk to him other than to make him look foolish and I see no point in that. He's not on a quest for truth, he's only a quest for Libertarian glory.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
 
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm

Re: Suggestion List

Postby Nick Treklis » Sat Feb 16, 2008 11:03 am

He seems to have a lot of listeners whom he might feel inclined to let know he's going to be a guest on The Reasoning Show. If that were to be the case I can see very good reason in making him look foolish, mainly for the sake of pointing out his logical inconsistencies so that his listeners might recognize them. I doubt he would be prepared to encounter any ultimate matters, but he seems reasonable enough to at least explore them. It could be worth the while.
User avatar
Nick Treklis
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: Suggestion List

Postby Dan Rowden » Sat Feb 16, 2008 11:35 am

Well, I'll try and think up a workable angle. But with a guy who writes books about stuff like relationship intimacy and makes numerous references to his "glorious" wife, it could be a struggle.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
 
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm

Re: Suggestion List

Postby Unidian » Fri Feb 22, 2008 5:07 pm

Dan, don't have that retard on there. He's a typical libertarian cretin, as I'm sure you've realized. Nothing special. But if you must have him on, at least have someone there to tear him a new ass. Don't give that regressive crap a free platform.
I live in a tub.
User avatar
Unidian
 
Posts: 1843
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:00 pm

Re: Suggestion List

Postby Dave Toast » Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:36 pm

Have a look here for a precis and start here and work your way through the philosophy series for a better idea.
User avatar
Dave Toast
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm

Re: Suggestion List

Postby Dan Rowden » Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:44 pm

I got as far as "How to meet a nice girl" and then wondered why I'd want to talk to this guy.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
 
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm

Re: Suggestion List

Postby Unidian » Mon Feb 25, 2008 1:27 pm

For once, the QRS aversion to all things feminine saves the day. :)
I live in a tub.
User avatar
Unidian
 
Posts: 1843
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:00 pm

Re: Suggestion List

Postby Dave Toast » Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:07 pm

Because he has a relatively massive interwebs audience and all his actions are allegedly the result of philosophical convictions, convictions of alleged logic.

It depends on what you're looking for I suppose. What is an interesting subject? What is a useful subject? They're two completely different though related questions.


Oh, and because his missus loves sudoku.
User avatar
Dave Toast
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm

Re: Suggestion List

Postby Ataraxia » Tue Feb 26, 2008 5:09 pm

Chalmers would still be my vote.

Hearing Paul Davies under the pump would be pretty interesting-to me anyway.
Ataraxia
 
Posts: 592
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 11:41 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Suggestion List

Postby Nick Treklis » Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:08 am

I still think you should have Stefan Molyneux on the show. He seems extremely confident in the fact that he not only speaks about logic and truth, but that he also lives a life of absolute non-contradiction according to what he values. Values which he claims are perfectly logical. Obviously this isn't the case since he's very open about how he values emotional attachments, a blatant contradiction. But maybe, just maybe, the thought had never occurred to him. Judging by his following it appears he's never been challenged on the issue. Maybe he's been so caught up in the logic of liberty, government, and politics he never stopped to think about how it applies to emotional attachment. Either way I think it would make for a very interesting discussion to challenge someone so confident in their reasoning about Woman and emotional attachment.

Here's a link and quote from an article of his called The Ron Paul Revolution – A Postmortem (& Prescription)

"We expect so much from everyone else – and so little from ourselves.

“You should give up your lucrative and comfortable public sector position,” we say, “though I will not give up spending time with my cousin who supports the war in Iraq.”

“You should give up your war profiteering,” we say to mercantilist corporations, “though I will continue to party with my friends who fully support the state pointing its guns at my head.”

Is it any wonder that the Ron Paul revolution could never have succeeded?

Is it any wonder that for the past few hundred years, libertarianism has made virtually no progress whatsoever?

The answer is very, very simple.

If we want to free the world, we have to stop lecturing others about our ethics, and start living them ourselves.

If you don’t want to do that, that’s fine of course – but if you don’t want to live your ethics, can you do the rest of us a favour please?

Please – just stop talking about “ethics,” and thus discrediting those of us who are actually trying to make a difference."
User avatar
Nick Treklis
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: Suggestion List

Postby Carl G » Wed Feb 27, 2008 12:18 pm

http://www.deida.info/
An interview with David Deida could be a gentlemanly rough'n'tumble of opposing viewpoints not only about the value and place of the feminine in a thinking man's life, but in the definitions of and path to enlightenment itself.
Good Citizen Carl
User avatar
Carl G
 
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Suggestion List

Postby divine focus » Fri Feb 29, 2008 4:20 am

Quite unintentionally, I came across this page with some of Deida's work. There is something very true about this, as it relates to deep sexual attraction:

Each person, every man and woman, has both masculine and feminine within them. Years ago, men were forced by social custom to always play the masculine role and women to play the feminine. This felt suppressive and limited. So, modern-day social custom has evolved to idealize balanced men and women: people who are each supposed to embody both masculine and feminine in a kind of psychological wholeness and relational independence.

Being whole unto oneself is a sign of psychological health. But being able to take the next step, to relinquish your boundaries in order to realize and express something larger than yourself, is a sign of spiritual maturity. To grow beyond mere self-sufficient wholeness, you and your lover can learn to open your boundaries and relinquish sexual autonomy for the sake of two-bodied divine play.

If you are sexually playing the feminine, you want to be swooned by your lover’s unwavering presence, taken beyond all resistance into the overwhelming fullness of love, ravished into bliss. If you are playing the masculine, you want to feel your lover’s trust and be attracted into your lover’s radiant surrender so that you may give yourself utterly in the ravishment of your lover. As your hearts trust, your boundaries are relinquished, and masculine and feminine open—sometimes savagely, sometimes sublimely—as one conscious light.

But if you cling to psychological wholeness, you won’t be willing to relinquish your boundaries of self-sufficiency. If you are like many modern women, you have worked hard to establish healthy boundaries and actualize your own direction and purpose; relinquishing your own navigation seems dangerous. Yet, if you have a more feminine sexual essence, this trust and sexual surrender is exactly what your deep heart desires. So, if you want to open in deep sexual play, you can practice trusting your lover to play the masculine while you play the feminine.

Even more difficult is the fact that, today, many women have a more highly developed masculine than their lovers do. You may not want to surrender to your lover’s masculine direction because you don’t trust it. And if your masculine direction is more evolved than your lover’s is, then you shouldn’t surrender to your lover’s masculine. You are better off navigating yourself, following your own sexual lead! But if you do so, don’t expect that your masculine lover will desire you for long.

Would you like to feel your masculine lover desiring and diving into your feminine radiance? Put another way, how attracted would you be if your lover preferred his own radiance to yours? Would it turn you on if he spent more time looking at himself in his dressing room mirror than at you, desiring himself and inspiring himself with his own beauty and shine?

Would that attract you sexually, if your masculine lover were “self-sufficiently radiant,” so that he enjoyed his own shine more than yours? This is how you feel to him, if you are “self-sufficiently directional,” trusting your own navigation more than his. Deep down, if you have a feminine sexual essence, then you want him to desire your radiance more than his own, and he wants you to desire his navigation more than your own. That is how the divine wants to make love through your bodies.
eliasforum.org/digests.html
User avatar
divine focus
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: Suggestion List

Postby sue hindmarsh » Fri Feb 29, 2008 7:37 pm

Divine wrote:

There is something very true about this, as it relates to deep sexual attraction

Are you able to spell out what that "something very true" is?

If you can't, then there was no point in YOU sharing that quote with the forum.
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
 
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Re: Suggestion List

Postby divine focus » Sat Mar 01, 2008 5:42 am

I'm sure we all here are capable of putting things together. We might not always use that ability, but I like to encourage it.
eliasforum.org/digests.html
User avatar
divine focus
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: Suggestion List

Postby Laird » Sat Mar 01, 2008 6:51 am

For what it's worth, DF, I thought that it was a great quote and a wonderful piece of honest writing. Thanks for sharing it.
User avatar
Laird
 
Posts: 954
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:22 am
Location: Tasmania

Re: Suggestion List

Postby David Quinn » Sat Mar 01, 2008 9:22 am

It sounds like the kind of spiel that hypnotists and seducers direct at women when they want to get into their pants.

Here is a standard example: Hypnotic Dating

It obviously doesn't take much to possess a woman's soul. A generic spiel and a lack of conscience is all that is needed.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: Suggestion List

Postby Unidian » Sat Mar 01, 2008 10:38 am

Oh, women have a soul now? When did they get the upgrade?

In any case, who says the "soul" is what's being possessed? Couldn't it be that certain rather mindless women are going out to play a game with certain rather mindless men, and that game has certain rules and a certain script? That's how I tend to think of it. The goal of all such people is to end up in bed, because the whole thing is about mating. But a game has to be played on both sides before they get there, in order to "screen out" certain contestants. It's basically just evolutionary dynamics being played out - it's how human beings find "ideal" mating partners, where "ideal" is defined in evolutionary terms (looks, health, money, conformist psychology, etc). It's how most of us got here.
I live in a tub.
User avatar
Unidian
 
Posts: 1843
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:00 pm

Re: Suggestion List

Postby divine focus » Sun Mar 02, 2008 1:22 pm

David Quinn wrote:It sounds like the kind of spiel that hypnotists and seducers direct at women when they want to get into their pants.

LOL I see what you mean, but there's more to the quote. That wasnt the gist I was trying to capture in the excerpt.

I do wonder if he's right, though, that women who trust their direction limit their options for relationship, or at least for sexual satisfaction, because it threatens a lot of men. Then again, it doesn't matter, since if you're trusting yourself you can bring into your life whatever you need.
eliasforum.org/digests.html
User avatar
divine focus
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests