The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

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

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Ataraxia » Wed Sep 19, 2007 12:11 pm

David Quinn wrote:This thread has only reinforced my conviction that confronting woman directly, head on, without any backsliding at all, is the only way to go. If you make it any less direct, if you start hedging around and making concessions in order to appease her, then she will simply swallow you up and you’re gone. -
Yes,youre right on this David.

I need to take leaf out of the great Australian philospher Chopper Read's book :0 and "toughen the fuck up"
Ataraxia
 
Posts: 592
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 11:41 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby sue hindmarsh » Wed Sep 19, 2007 12:16 pm

Dan mentioned the Hour of Judgement - Sexual Fantasy show earlier on. I remember it being quite a wild ride because of the imput made by Patricia Peterson: a member of staff at the Department of Philosophy at University of Queensland, and anexpert on sexual fantasy. Patricia was out to shock with her passionate promotion of the power of the clitoris. What the listeners weren’t able to see was the package emanating this idea. There is no two ways about it; Patricia had dreams of becoming a famous commentator on all things sexual and had preened herself in an extremely showy manner to prove it. She entered the recording studio wearing a very short skirt, a blouse cut low to show off her ample cleavage, a blond coiffure, and make-up. She looked liked she’d just stepped out of a 50’s film noir classic. Her aim was to shock, but sadly, as she continued speaking it became clear that she had but this one idea, and its shockingness gave way to tedium very quickly.

It was after the show that I found most interesting. We were saying our farewells when she turned to me and said, “What you said took balls”. I have no memory of what I replied, but I do remember thinking how sad it must be for her that I’d shocked the wannabe "Queen of Shock", but I done so without any adornments - just my own mind.

I’ve not been able to find any info on Patricia, so I don’t know if she ever achieve her goal.

Anyway, all up it is an interesting show.
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
 
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby daybrown » Wed Sep 19, 2007 12:21 pm

Part of the problem that I have not seen delved into in this thread has to do with mental development.
Nature clipped the ends of the bell curve for women so as to ensure enuf competency to nurture kids.
As a result, there are relatively few female geniuses, but if you visit the asylums, you see far fewer female retards and less severe mental pathology.

Now, bear with me a little; there's a common opinion that there's been a decline since the 1960's. Well, that is the very same era in which the family farm was replaced with agribusiness, and when farming with what we now call 'organic' methods shifted to dosing the land with Nitrogen, Phosphorus, & Potash. [that's a period] And furthermore when organo-phosphates were used to control crop problems.

Back when the MDR was first determined, there were 7 neurotransmitters; 150 have so far been identified now. Neurobiology shows they are critical in mental development. Back when the MDR was outlined, the most common trace mineral added to the diet was iodine in the salt. Then fluoride in the water & toothpaste. we see how homeopathic levels of exposure have obvious physical health effects. We dont see the neurological damage until it shows up as autism, ADD, ADHD, & ICD.

Archeology reveals that Native European bog body stomachs and bone middens had over 100 wild plants and animals, and now its realized that these provided trace minerals besides iodine like iron, boron, copper, zinc, etc, and that the plants grown in natural soils absorb micronutrients from the biota... which the above set of 150 neurotransmitters expect to be there. And when they are not, the biochemistry of the mind tries to make do with any similar, like the traces of organo-phosophates on agribusiness food.

And the girls grow up with their mental faculties intact despite this, far more often than the boys do. Trying to fight feminism with the massive number of male nut cases that have resulted because of this is not going to work. The transnationals have begun to recognize some of the signs of neurosis, and the personnel officers are therefore more often hiring women who are more able to cooperate with the corporate culture rather than bend it to the alpha male will to power.

If you wanna fight feminism, dont argue with us, argue with the personnel departments.
Goddess made sex for company.
User avatar
daybrown
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 4:00 pm
Location: SE Ozarks

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Wed Sep 19, 2007 1:34 pm

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:just showing up isn’t what I meant by “bothering”.


Me either.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:What we’re engaged in here is a full blown bloody battle against the feminine. And anyone showing up without a weapon will be swept aside.


Gosh darn, the only weapons I have are truth, reason... um, let's see - oh, here's some objectivity... We'll have to see if those stand up against prejudice against women, and angry-sounding personal attacks with no basis in reality.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Of what interest is it to me what you “refuse”? You’re likes and dislikes are of no significance to this issue whatsoever, therefore they are of no significance to me.


Thank you for your continual challenge of fallacy identification. This one is red herring because my likes or dislikes have nothing to do with the statement. I outlined that I am using correct terminology to describe the truth, and you go off on a tangent.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Though, your preoccupation with such things on this forum clearly shows up the type of things that constitute your mind,


Yup, things like truth, logic, and reason.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:and that is somewhat interesting as they are also the same things that constitute woman’s mind.


Hmmm.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Quote:
The bottom line, Sue, actually is that the longer you spend debating through intentionally created confusion, the less time you have to debate the finer points of what was really meant.


Your sentiments would be comical if they weren’t so very dangerous.

You don’t actually list how I’ve “intentionally created confusion”,


That is not what I said, but perhaps the finer points of the differences between Australian English and American English are causing confusion. As a side note, that's ironic that an example of unintentional confusion comes up with this quote. We are spending enough time clarifying inadvertent confusion to prove that there is no need for intentional confusion to spark debate.

David intentionally created confusion by referring to both the aspects of culture that he deems feminine and to adult females as woman - you and Dan just copied him, so I am not laying the burden of guilt at your feet.

Perhaps you will understand my meaning better if I rephrase my previous statement to "The bottom line, Sue, actually is that the longer you spend cutting through intentionally created confusion, the less time you have to debate the finer points of what was really meant."

By the way, the name of the fallacy of the Woman philosophy is fallacy of equivocation

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Your intention, though not consciously committed, was to cast doubt upon my authority on the subject of the feminine.


Okay, I'll take that. You're wrong, and I'm trying to point out the truth. If you want to make it all about you, you could say that I'm unconsciously trying to cast doubt on your authority regarding the feminine.

The rest of your post looked like attempts at catfighting, so I won't respond to those individually.

David Quinn wrote:It should be noted that both Elizabeth and Laird are both proponents of infinite blandness


Fighting the ignorant slams in this thread - or in anything else I have been fighting on this forum for the last year, has been anything but bland.

David Quinn wrote:Elizabeth, for example, primarily wants “peace”, which is as bland and as meaningless a goal that can ever be. It wants to remove all the jagged edges of life, all contrasts and distinctions, and mush everything up into a sea of infinite blandness.


Incorrect. Here is a copy of my essay on the matter, which you must not have read, or have forgotten:

Would We Be Bored With Peace?

Someone recently asked me what peace would be like, if peace alone would make everything okay, and reflected a question that I have asked myself about whether or not people really want peace. The whole answer to just "what would peace be like" would take a book, but I answered with a few specifics that were asked of me. I thought I'd share the answer with you as well:

There is a difference between a peaceful existence and a banal existence. There would still be pains, such as the loss of loved ones. There may or may not be disease as we shift our resources into improving lives rather than to efforts of war. There are enough resources on this planet for everyone if we could only get the balance right, so hunger is an unnecessary pain. People do not mean to overeat nor do they like the results of overeating, and the pain of hunger for those who have overeaten is at least as bad as the pain of hunger of those who don't have enough to eat. Of those whose pain is from not having enough to feed their children, that is unnecessary. Overpopulation would not be a problem either if only those who really wanted children for the right reasons had children, rather than just because they thought that was what they were supposed to do, or even worse because they get a bigger welfare check if they have more children.

There may be a time and a place to let out aggressions (some people get into S & M, some people like to wrestle, some people like some vicious debates) and that could be okay as long as it didn't really hurt anybody and didn't interfere with real progress. It's when politicians cease doing their job of helping the societies that elected them because they'd rather have a verbal brawl that they're only in to win rather than see whole problem and thoughtfully and open-mindedly consider workable solutions.

War is not good, and it doesn't achieve the results the instigators want (and both sides invariably believe the other side started it). What's the idea behind war anyway? Kill off as many people as it takes to make the leader do what the other leader wants? If the problem is that one leader thinks the other leader is cold-hearted and unreasonable and he really is those things, is he going to care how many of "his" people that the other leader has his people kill off? And its "okay" to kill soldiers, but not okay to send in an assassin to kill off the leader of the other nation? Who made up these rules? If the leaders could be in as much personal risk, would they be so willing to go to war rather than work out the differences? It isn't okay to kill anybody unless it is totally unavoidable, and people seem to have a funny idea about what "unavoidable" means. All war, or any other kind of serious violence does is stir up hatred and anger, and waste resources that could be going to make the whole world a better place for everyone.

Okay, sometimes a mentally unwell person has risen to power. The obvious answer is to have gotten the unwellness recognized and taken care of before things got that far. If all people were mentally healthier, Hitler would never have gassed one person. People would have recognized that there was something wrong, and at the very least, not gone along with it. Of course it takes guts to do the right thing when your job is on the line few can currently do that even when it is a very low-stakes job. Getting everybody okay (healthy mentally, physically, and spiritually) will reflect throughout society even in the leaders.

So what is one country to do when another country really is being led by a madman, and the results are intolerable? Show the people around the leaders what the madness is, and let them take care of it. If the people ask for help, then come in and remove the problem. Otherwise, people don't like invaders coming in and trying to take over even if they are only trying to "keep the peace." Peace can't be kept at gunpoint.

Peace = freedom + responsibility.


David Quinn wrote:He has no need of goals, since for him everything is already mush. He already exists in infinite blandness.

Both are experts at absorbing everything, stripping away its meaning and moving on.

Confront this process directly, however, and suddenly they flounder. Their absorption and neutering powers are suddenly powerless. They start squealing like pigs...


Thank you, too, for another round of "Name that Logical Fallacy!" The answer to this one is appeal to ridicule.

David Quinn wrote:Both you and Laird claim to understand the woman issue, but your words and reactions say otherwise.

Let's contrast your responses to those of, say, Matt Gregory and Tom Smith. Matt and Tom are both filled with excitement and joy at the articulation of these truths about woman. They can sense the larger picture to which all these truths are pointing. They can taste the freedom that it provides.

The same is true of Dan and Sue. There is humour and joy in the way they present their thoughts on the issue. They are filled with a zest that doesn’t derive from negativity and hate. They are tapping into something joyful which is deeper than woman.

But there is absolutely none of this in your responses. There is no excitement and joy in you at all.


Tougher one. According to this, if I do not zealously degrade women, then I do not understand the issue. Now you did list a number of people and presented the attitude as the popular one on this forum - and it is popular to degrade women here - so that would be bandwagon fallacy, but that does not cover "if I do not zealously degrade women, then I do not understand the issue." That's a separate fallacy. My first guess is that this is an example of the no true Scottsman fallacy. My second guess is that this is an example of the fallacy of bifurcation.
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Alex Jacob » Wed Sep 19, 2007 2:04 pm

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:

"What we’re engaged in here is a full blown bloody battle against the feminine. And anyone showing up without a weapon will be swept aside."

Well, as you have seen, Sue, I didn't get included in the list of scapegoats such as Laird and Elizabeth (whew!), nevertheless I am probably among the fallen if only because I don't yet have a clear battle hymn and haven't worked out my drum rolls and besides I am not too good at marching...

But I will admit to you that I really am ready to take a feminist down a notch or two, if Fate will bring me one...

And yet I also have to admit the above formulation does avail itself of some interesting humorous scenes. I am thinking of rowdy bands of Australian bushboys with their American counterparts (with really strange head-gear?) rolling into town on mule-drawn buckboards, and unloading themselves before pristine and chi-chi shopping malls...charging in dressed in goatskins with dynamic face paint and with tall walking staffs like all philosophers of wisdom carry, but also sporting clubs and maybe even spears (I don't know if the boomerang is still in use or has a use in the bloody battles of this sort)...and overturning tables in sassy boutiques as horrified and very well dressed females stare in wide-eyed wonder, along with their gay houseboy yes-men, completely unbelieving what has come to pass, and yelling for the cops but the cops don't show up, the new male revolution has begun! Lots of smashing and upturning, lots of terrified screaming, but also many women who are simply relieved that the game is up...and plenty of scenes where confused women surrender en masse to the new authority. I'm thinking of one scene where some naughty and haughty urban brownies (the young girl version of your 'girl guides') humbly surrender their thongs and put on proper granny panties, bowing their heads and maybe even curtsying or something like that...

I have gotten some nice ideas for screenplays here too. In one, perhaps due to an eruption of sunspot activity, all males are sort of driven to extremes, not only a sort of loony genius, but also to outright mania, and there are all sorts of strange eruptions in culture as men go crazy. The women, utterly freaked out, realize (I am imagining a sort of Condaleza Rize protagonist but Condaleza Rice blended with Beyonce) that if they don't act fast their whole world will crumble, and the world will revert to something out of the Taliban, and seeing as though they are so close to the reins of power, they take over the military and all the centers of power, and they have to have some sort of device with which to turn men into pliant creatures suitable to female rule, I'm thinking it would be a low-level frequency that pulses through the whole civilization. But then there has to be an underground faction of manly men who are immune to this device, or maybe they are living in caves, maybe some sort of phallic cult based on DH Lawrence (?), they have to practice Kung Fu and read pithy philosophy, and they plan the counterrevolution...

;^)
Last edited by Anonymous on Thu Sep 20, 2007 1:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Alex Jacob
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby daybrown » Wed Sep 19, 2007 3:06 pm

I dont have the gift for language, but those who do mite learn Tocharian and access the websit the Brits & Chinese are putting up mentioned at http://www.silk-road.com/newsletter/vol ... _bloom.php

They say they have a canon of 100,000 ancient texts and artifacts they will put on line. Its quite a collection if you want storylines for screenplays, that will no doubt play well in *both* Western and Chinese TV.

Among the sources, a mail bag found in the Kara Kum desert that includes letters written in 331 AD. Or, the collection from Niya and Loulan, two Silk Road towns abandoned 1000-1500 years ago quite suddenly when a flash flood moved the river that supplied the only water.. some distance away. We have spooky ghost towns in the desert SW American states that were abandoned 150 years ago; they have some ten times older, and I dare say, ten times spookier.

But relative to the world of women, these ancient Silk road towns were run by women. We dont need to theorize what life will be like when women take over, we can look at the documents from these ancient towns and read all about it.

The citizens of these independent city states from Khotan to Urumchi didnt write about wars cause they never had any among themselves. They did sometimes have problems with the Tibetans, the Chinese, the Moslems, and finally the Mongols, who put them all out of business.

Across a span of over 1000 years. we see how the women ran the world's first transnational shipping business, and we see their letters trying to arrange for their boys to get laid when they arrive. They dont want the guys coming home with STDs from fucking cheap whores.

Kucha was run by a line of Gautamid queens for a damn long time. I have a copy of the "Maitreyasamiti Texts in Tocharian A. Its a conversation between the Gautama and the *living* Buddha. This copy was made in the 5th century. Preserved by the dry desert air, and found only recently by Taoist monks cleaning a Buddhist temple.

Kucha didnt have slums, nor welfare queens. The Kuchi drafted the airheads into brothels rather than breeding them. they didnt want slaves. *All* the graves are middle class. There are all kindsa themes that resonate now except the mighty exploits of warriors. There are no graves of warriors. When the Kuchi coo by the brothel door, the men come running to sign up for their cause. And when they leave, they pay in the curiously perforated Kuchan coin, like washers, that could be carried on a string. the Kuchan coins were called "cash". Any miniseries that reconstructs this world will make a lotta money.
Goddess made sex for company.
User avatar
daybrown
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 4:00 pm
Location: SE Ozarks

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Matt Gregory » Wed Sep 19, 2007 10:49 pm

Dan wrote:
Women tend to be thin on the ground in the "pure" sciences and thick on the ground in the Humanities. There's a reason for that. It ain't just coincidence.

Ummm, because there are no standards in humanities?
User avatar
Matt Gregory
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Wed Sep 19, 2007 11:35 pm

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Tougher one. According to this, if I do not zealously degrade women, then I do not understand the issue. Now you did list a number of people and presented the attitude as the popular one on this forum - and it is popular to degrade women here - so that would be bandwagon fallacy, but that does not cover "if I do not zealously degrade women, then I do not understand the issue." That's a separate fallacy. My first guess is that this is an example of the no true Scottsman fallacy. My second guess is that this is an example of the fallacy of bifurcation.


Beware of the fallacy fallacy however, creating a feel of an appeal to authority. How typical ?!
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5026
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:18 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Beware of the fallacy fallacy however, creating a feel of an appeal to authority. How typical ?!


Indeed. from Diebert's link to the fallacy fallacy:

Like anything else, the concept of logical fallacy can be misunderstood and misused, and can even become a source of fallacious reasoning.


Such misunderstanding and misuse could just as easily be done by a man as a woman, but Deibert's statement:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:How typical ?!


in an environment where the dominant meme is that women are manipulative subtly leads one into the fallacy of poisoning the well.

All I can hope for is that enough readers have strong enough reasoning skills of their own to discern the truth for themselves. No adult should ever accept being spoon-fed "truth" because anything could be in that spoon. Babies have no choice, and teenagers are still developing their reasoning skills (but hopefully they are trying). Don't just beware - be aware.
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Alex Jacob » Thu Sep 20, 2007 1:40 am

"All I can hope for is that enough readers have strong enough reasoning skills of their own to discern the truth for themselves."

Look, I hate Woman just as much as the next guy, I don't want to break ranks or seem like I am going against the grain, but as I sit here drooling and planning vengeance, a strange little thought comes and alights on my demented brain cells: the men here have no intention of actually reasoning though the essential, but subterranean, emotionalism that is the engine that drives their views. Let me repeat: the emotional position that underpins the feelings toward women will (it seems) cloud the issue perpetually. It doesn't matter what you say, how you say it, who says it, you could write here until the next Age of Brahman and you won't get anywhere! In this, I venture to say, is where you come fact to face with the counterpart of the three years-old girly: the 3 years-old boy, who is also very stubborn. This, I feel, indicates the nature of a submerged psychological issue, and until the psychological issue becomes truly conscious, the psychological issue will project itself onto the screen of projection, Woman.

Selah!

And that is why the potentially valuable ideas that are explored here (what men need to do to really be men, which so few really understand and no one articulates, IMO) will forever be shackled, hobbled.

Men are required to completely rethink the issues that define modernity in such a profound way that few will be able to do it. To be leaders this is required, and any half-measure will lead to the same result: impotent, loudmouthed and angry boy-men who simply don't know how to grow up.

I am here to teach you all and heal you all through my (trademarked) Slap 'n' Slug Therapy. Already there are clear signs of improvement. Keep your generous donations pouring in!

(The Slap 'n' Slug Sutras of Alex Jacob---calligraphied on handmade bamboo paper concocted from an secret recipe found along the ancient Silk Road, will soon be available to sufficiently supplicant males who toe the party line and recite the mantra: 'Ma, ma, I'm a willing servant in the Temple of Matter').
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Alex Jacob
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Thu Sep 20, 2007 3:06 am

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:in an environment where the dominant meme is that women are manipulative subtly leads one into the fallacy of poisoning the well.


You're confusing the word meme with idea or model which is not really about manipulation per see. And it's so far I can see a well reasoned out idea, based even on biological requisite.

Did you finish Zubaty's book already?

All I can hope for is that enough readers have strong enough reasoning skills of their own to discern the truth for themselves. No adult should ever accept being spoon-fed "truth" because anything could be in that spoon.


Reasoning skills alone are not enough. One could device reasons to murder babies if so inclined. What is "the truth" you're defending here anyway?

Did you finish Zubaty's book? Perhaps you could comment on it.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5026
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Thu Sep 20, 2007 5:18 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Did you finish Zubaty's book? Perhaps you could comment on it.


I do not believe that Zubaty, Quinn, or Rowden have correctly identified the female mind at all. I also believe that Solway has some misidentifications in his identification of the female mind, but I'll focus primarily on Zubaty for this post.

Zubaty, like Quinn and Rowden, believe that society is a mess because of female influence, including that men who mess up are doing so because they are feminine-minded. He does, though, admit that he is basically "just venting" when he says all that. I kind of get the impression that is basically what David, Dan, and Kevin do with the Woman philosophy as well, but none of these guys seem to be able to judge the difference between healthy venting and fueling the fires of prejudice.

Zubaty differs from the admins here in that he not only believes that men are acting more like women, but also that women are acting more like men - and that's bad for everyone because neither gender is acting like the gender they could be their best in. He uses the slippery slope fallacy to drag the reader from women having more materialistic stuff than men to laying the blame of everything gone wrong due to any manifestation of materialism at the feet of women.

He commits the fallacy of questionable cause when he states that women live longer than men, and slaves do not live longer than their oppressors, so this shows that women are oppressing men. He uses double talk by stating that men are not better than women, but then goes off on lists about how men are better than women. He does a nice scientific summary on the differences between brains based on gender and hormone levels, but then throws an ad hominem in there about women. The whole abortion things would be much easier if women could give the male the fetus and the male go through pregnancy - and the female be subject to child support - but his idea that men should have more right to say whether or not the woman they deposited sperm into goes through 40 weeks of pregnancy and all that is involved with the body changes that last even longer than that, just because it's half his genetic material and he might be held responsible for child support - is ridiculous. Okay, if the father does not want the child he should have an equal opportunity for aborting his parental rights and responsibilities - but by aborting the responsibilities, he also aborts the rights. If the man does not want anything further to do with the child, he should be responsible for the equivalent of the bill for an abortion and lost wages to have the procedure done (or lost sick leave). Of course that is not the healthiest thing for the child, but neither is having to tolerate a parent that does not want you.

He speaks against public education as brainwashing and claims that there is too much information out there, and that inner peace is far more important. Reminds me of the saying "ignorance is bliss." I agree that if someone doesn't want to learn something that resources should not be wasted by trying to force it on them - but I believe that everything should be made available to those who want to know. It is the responsibility of some of the people to make sure that information is used wisely - and would be ideal if all people had enough wisdom themselves to always use information wisely.

He made some interesting points, mostly when he left gender out of it. He makes sense when he points out that the problems of this world are a result of spiritual problems. Yes, some date-rape accusations are BS. He also made some uncomplimentary but accurate criticisms of women in general - essentially boiling down to women don't think clearly enough. He raises an interesting point about how it might be fair to charge people a childless tax because they are not contributing to the next generation like parents do - but childless people don't get to enjoy the rewards of parenthood either, and it would be a double slap in the face of infertile people. Of course there is always adoption, and to be totally fair there would also be a bad parenting tax and an exceptional parenting rebate - suddenly it looks like a lot of bureaucracy involved in that suggestion - would probably cost more to implement it than would be collected in taxes.

One really interesting point that he made was about the burning of "witches" being a rebellion of men against women - I wonder if that is true. The comment that women get maternity leave but men do not get parental leave is outdated - paternity leave was established, but man got razzed for taking it - then FMLA was introduced so no one would have to say anything about why they were taking time off work. Yet another case of hiding the problem and being secretive rather than making people understand about fairness. Now if only that paternity leave was always used to help with parental roles... women can hardly just skip out on the delivery or go do something else rather than medically recover from childbirth, but men and either do the responsible thing or tell his boss he's on FMLA and tell his wife he's at work while he's out getting serviced by another female because his wife is not medically fit for sex at that time.

He does a lot of quoting of other people. A lot of the time he is just commenting on what other people have said rather than flatly producing an opinion of his own. This casts doubt on his claim that men are more creative than women.

Most of the book was stuff that has been said here before by many guys in many ways. I'm surprised he and David didn't see eye to eye a little better. The only major disagreement was over the sexual stuff, and Zubarty displays emotion which David does not like to see - I guess that was enough to cause too much friction between them.
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Alex Jacob » Thu Sep 20, 2007 5:56 am

All I can ask at this point is whose harebrained ideas was it to send our women to university?
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Alex Jacob
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Nick Treklis » Thu Sep 20, 2007 6:44 am

David Quinn wrote:It’s as though you have memorized the wording of a joke, without understanding the punch-line, and you can’t understand why people around you are laughing.

-


She reminds me of someone from my past. They always reflected their surroundings but didn't really understand the reasoning, or lack-there-of behind them. I think she has been cast out by the people she has met through out her life because she made it more obvious just how ridiculous their actions were. Some how Elizabeth's inability to understand much of anything beyond the surface made the idiocy of "normal behavior" more apparent to those around her. After a while everyone had rejected her, which would explain why she spends all her time alone in her home, and eventually she stumbled upon this forum and began reflecting some of the philosophy found here. The difference is, she doesn't get rejected here because there is nothing about the philosophy that is ridiculous to reflect. Unfortunately that doesn't mean she has a deeper understanding of the things discussed around here though. Even that other forum with philosophaster and naturyl rejected her because she made the ridiculousness of their philosophy more apparent.
David Quinn wrote:Faust wrote:

DQ: For example, nearly everyone would turn their noses up at the thought of drinking someone else's snot. Or their urine. Both of which are in a similar class to semen.

WTF, no they aren't. Semen is clean amino acids and protein, not bad for you if you swallowed it. Urine is just waste, along with most of mucous.

That's true, there is a difference there. Still, the difference isn't really enough to affect the point I was making.

Have you ever swallowed another man's semen?

-


I do recall him saying he was a homosexual or bisexual a while back.
User avatar
Nick Treklis
 
Posts: 1674
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Alex Jacob » Thu Sep 20, 2007 7:51 am

"The bay-trees in our country are all wither'd
And meteors fright the fixed stars of heaven;
The pale-faced moon looks bloody on the earth
And lean-look'd prophets whisper fearful change."

---Richard ll

Wow! Now we move off the charts. Hey, it just gets better and better around here! Where can this go now? Someone, somewhere should sacrifice a lamb to Ba'al. I hear drumbeats in the distance. Clouds roll in, all dark underneath. Everything is eerie, silence at midday. (I better shut up, I'm scarin' myself).

"The night has been unruly: where we lay,
Our chimneys were blown down; and, as they say,
Lamentings heard i' the air; strange screams of death,
And prophesying with accents terrible
Of dire combustion and confused events
New hatch'd to the woeful time: the obscure bird
Clamour'd the livelong night: some say, the earth
Was feverous and did shake."


---Macbeth


Speaking in the third person of someone who is right there, that wasn't on the cult tactic list...

I don't quite grasp your post, yet it has a mysterious, indeed a sort of metaphysical tone to it.

'She reminds me of someone from my past...'

That shit'll land you on the psychiatric couch, bro.

"By the pricking of my thumbs,
Something wicked this way comes."


---Macbeth

;^)
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Alex Jacob
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Dan Rowden » Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:39 am

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Did you finish Zubaty's book? Perhaps you could comment on it.


I do not believe that Zubaty, Quinn, or Rowden have correctly identified the female mind at all. I also believe that Solway has some misidentifications in his identification of the female mind, but I'll focus primarily on Zubaty for this post.

Zubaty, like Quinn and Rowden, believe that society is a mess because of female influence, including that men who mess up are doing so because they are feminine-minded. He does, though, admit that he is basically "just venting" when he says all that. I kind of get the impression that is basically what David, Dan, and Kevin do with the Woman philosophy as well, but none of these guys seem to be able to judge the difference between healthy venting and fueling the fires of prejudice.


Sue and David are correct, you don't understand anything. This post proves it. I'm not sure it's even worth responding to.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
 
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:40 am

Alex Jacob wrote:Speaking in the third person of someone who is right there, that wasn't on the cult tactic list...


Actually the general behavior was. About a third of the way down the page:

PUNISHMENTS: peer/group criticism, withdrawal of support/affection,
isolation, negative feedback


another copy of the same link

It also seems to be another round of bullying tactics.

Because this is the internet and not in person, the bullying takes the form that is more commonly associated with how middle school girls bully as according to the article, boys are more likely to hit than use verbal tactics. Ironic, huh? I will acknowledge Nick's maleness by stating that if we were in person, I would not be surprised if Nick tried to hit me.

Despite the childish tactics, I believe that it is important that the readers of this forum get exposed to some actual reasoning. I hope that most can tell the difference, and recognize that most reasonable people wouldn't want to even bother getting into this because they don't want to be the target of this strange combination of childish and sophomoric behavior. I don't want to be the target either, but principles are more important than desires.
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Dan Rowden » Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:54 am

Bullying and cult tactics? Please. This is Woman at her finest.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
 
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Dan Rowden » Thu Sep 20, 2007 11:17 am

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:He [Rich] commits the fallacy of questionable cause when he states that women live longer than men, and slaves do not live longer than their oppressors, so this shows that women are oppressing men.


Agreed. That's a bad argument. Women live longer then men for biological reasons, not sociological ones. It's not even universally true that slaves die younger than their owners. It's dependent on culture and circumstance.

The whole abortion things would be much easier if women could give the male the fetus and the male go through pregnancy - and the female be subject to child support - but his idea that men should have more right to say whether or not the woman they deposited sperm into goes through 40 weeks of pregnancy and all that is involved with the body changes that last even longer than that, just because it's half his genetic material and he might be held responsible for child support - is ridiculous. Okay, if the father does not want the child he should have an equal opportunity for aborting his parental rights and responsibilities - but by aborting the responsibilities, he also aborts the rights. If the man does not want anything further to do with the child, he should be responsible for the equivalent of the bill for an abortion and lost wages to have the procedure done (or lost sick leave). Of course that is not the healthiest thing for the child, but neither is having to tolerate a parent that does not want you.


Certainly, men should think before they stick their dick in. However, if a man wants the fetus to be aborted and the woman declines, her decision is one wherein she adopts the totality of responsibility for the subsequent existence of a child.

He speaks against public education as brainwashing and claims that there is too much information out there, and that inner peace is far more important. Reminds me of the saying "ignorance is bliss." I agree that if someone doesn't want to learn something that resources should not be wasted by trying to force it on them - but I believe that everything should be made available to those who want to know. It is the responsibility of some of the people to make sure that information is used wisely - and would be ideal if all people had enough wisdom themselves to always use information wisely.


Education is not the problem. The problem is the values and goals underpinning the system.

Yes, some date-rape accusations are BS.


No, date rape is BS per se. It's a meaningless concept. Rape is rape. That's all there is too it. The only thing that makes so-called date-rape meaningful is statistical: it is more likely that a rape accusation in this circumstance will be BS. The reason for that is fairly obvious.

He also made some uncomplimentary but accurate criticisms of women in general -


If they are accurate, why call them "uncomplimentary"?

essentially boiling down to women don't think clearly enough.


I'd be interested to hear if Rich agrees with that distillation of his ideas.

He raises an interesting point about how it might be fair to charge people a childless tax because they are not contributing to the next generation like parents do


That's not interesting, it's fascistic and stupid.

One really interesting point that he made was about the burning of "witches" being a rebellion of men against women - I wonder if that is true.


No, it isn't, it's not even historically accurate. Rich has fallen into a little feminist trap there.

The comment that women get maternity leave but men do not get parental leave is outdated - paternity leave was established, but man got razzed for taking it - then FMLA was introduced so no one would have to say anything about why they were taking time off work.


Maternity and paternity leave are both nonsense. There is no reason that an employer ought be burdened by your private life choice. If they hold a sociological view that causes them to feel such things are worthwhile, fair enough, but they shouldn't be forced to hold such a view.

Yet another case of hiding the problem and being secretive rather than making people understand about fairness. Now if only that paternity leave was always used to help with parental roles... women can hardly just skip out on the delivery or go do something else rather than medically recover from childbirth, but men and either do the responsible thing or tell his boss he's on FMLA and tell his wife he's at work while he's out getting serviced by another female because his wife is not medically fit for sex at that time.


What happened to your previous obsession with logical fallacy?

He does a lot of quoting of other people. A lot of the time he is just commenting on what other people have said rather than flatly producing an opinion of his own.


If he is quoting people then what they said is his opinion.

This casts doubt on his claim that men are more creative than women.


Whoops, forgot about logical fallacies again!

Most of the book was stuff that has been said here before by many guys in many ways.


I largely agree with that, but it doesn't, of itself, lessen the value of it.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
 
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Thu Sep 20, 2007 11:44 am

Dan Rowden wrote:
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Did you finish Zubaty's book? Perhaps you could comment on it.


I do not believe that Zubaty, Quinn, or Rowden have correctly identified the female mind at all. I also believe that Solway has some misidentifications in his identification of the female mind, but I'll focus primarily on Zubaty for this post.

Zubaty, like Quinn and Rowden, believe that society is a mess because of female influence, including that men who mess up are doing so because they are feminine-minded. He does, though, admit that he is basically "just venting" when he says all that. I kind of get the impression that is basically what David, Dan, and Kevin do with the Woman philosophy as well, but none of these guys seem to be able to judge the difference between healthy venting and fueling the fires of prejudice.


Sue and David are correct, you don't understand anything. This post proves it. I'm not sure it's even worth responding to.


From David's book:


A sure sign of the genuine philosopher is his uncompromising attitude with respect to the feminine. But this does not mean that he hates women. Indeed, he cannot hate women, for that would be to hate Nature itself, and this would be sheer stupidity to say the least. The philosopher is fully aware that all things have causes and that both woman and man are therefore innocent in every aspect of their existence. How could he hate what is blameless?

What he does hate is delusion. For it is delusion which robs us of what we truly are! How can we discover our true nature if we cling to what is false? Spiritual progress is always a process of first exposing what is false and second eliminating it from one's being. The first is reason; the second is faith.

I openly admit that I care little for women's typical interests and concerns. At best, I find them banal - at worst, depraved. I realize this view will not make me the most popular person around - but at least I have a conscience.

Woman is the embodiment of delusion;



The true test of a person's spirituality is his relationship to woman - or, I should say, his lack of relationship to woman. If he has anything to do with her at all, it is only to denounce her. He speaks openly against the feminine - that is, he speaks against everything humanity values. And why? His love of truth demands it. It is called teaching the world about God.

When I use the terms "man" and "woman", I refer first and foremost to the masculine and feminine minds. Men generally possess masculine minds and women generally possess feminine minds. It is a generalisation, yes, and I am open to the possibility that there could be exceptions, but I think that the exceptions are in reality so rare that the generalisation can be thought of as a solid truth. The female, especially, embodies the feminine to a very high degree and so I have no qualms about interchanging the terms "woman" and "feminine mind" freely.


I put it to you that everything a woman does obstructs the growth of wisdom. This is no exaggeration.


Many other parts of David's book are quite similar to things Rich wrote.

In the difference between men and women thread, Dan wrote:

I haven't any idea what you're talking about, frankly. Woman and "females" are not identical things, but they're not distinct either. If they were what practical meaning could "Woman" have? The generalisations contained within Woman do apply to females - generally. Biological females embody the characteristics of Woman to a very high degree. It's just that Woman encapsulates more than just those characteristics - things such as social mores and memes and male behaviours and mentality as well. The concept of "Woman" is two things - the practical reality of what females generally are, and also the abstract reality of what society is in a broader sense.


From one of the Genius Newsletter articles:

Dan Rowden: So, you think we need evil just so that we can say good exists? Wisdom takes one beyond gender duality.

James: I believe we function better, and define ourselves more clearly, because of the presence of the feminine. Obviously, I think that the all-encompassing feminine nature of today's society is bad, it's why I'm here, but a total elimination would remove the dichotomy we need. Yin and Yang, in balance, to return to all Yang would leave us with the same # of problems we have now.

Dan Rowden: That doesn't make much sense if it can be shown that most of our problems stem from the unconsciousness of the feminine aspect of mind, (again, in both sexes), which is what I'm claiming.


but since you're not sure my comments are even worth responding to and just had to add to the pot of accusing me of not understanding "anything" then perhaps I should leave it at that.
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Thu Sep 20, 2007 11:56 am

Dan Rowden wrote:Quote:
Yes, some date-rape accusations are BS.


No, date rape is BS per se. It's a meaningless concept. Rape is rape. That's all there is too it. The only thing that makes so-called date-rape meaningful is statistical: it is more likely that a rape accusation in this circumstance will be BS. The reason for that is fairly obvious.


I think we're saying the same thing here. If they both get drunk and the next day she decides she wasn't capable of giving consent so it is rape - that is BS. If they know each other and are somewhere together, and he physically forces her to have sex or threatens her to coerce her into sex, that is rape.

Dan Rowden wrote:If they are accurate, why call them "uncomplimentary"?

Surely you know that some truths are complimentary, and some are not.

Dan Rowden wrote:Quote:
Yet another case of hiding the problem and being secretive rather than making people understand about fairness. Now if only that paternity leave was always used to help with parental roles... women can hardly just skip out on the delivery or go do something else rather than medically recover from childbirth, but men and either do the responsible thing or tell his boss he's on FMLA and tell his wife he's at work while he's out getting serviced by another female because his wife is not medically fit for sex at that time.


What happened to your previous obsession with logical fallacy?


I only threw out the fact of the differences in possibilities. I didn't say that may men do this.

Dan Rowden wrote:Quote:
This casts doubt on his claim that men are more creative than women.


Whoops, forgot about logical fallacies again!


What do you mean? I did not commit a logical fallacy. Are you fussing because I did not specifically label Rich's contradiction as a contradiction?

Good night.
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Imadrongo » Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:46 pm

Alex,
Neil, bless his heart, just read Nietzsche, and it comes into his little head that maybe this cat Hitler was just not so bad, maybe he is a Great Man in fact, and what does it matter in the grand scheme if a million or 2 million or many million die.
What does it matter? I've always held a less refined version of this view long before I read Nietzsche. Can you explain what is wrong with a few million people dying, especially when we are so highly populated on Earth?

It is just 'will-to-power' and Nietzsche has blessed it, so we really don't have to judge Hitler at all harshly, and sieg heil. This opens a road to entertaining some fairly dangeorous ideas that in or world can have, have had, are having profound destructive impact.
You have clearly misread Nietzsche if you think his intent or desire is for a world without suffering.
User avatar
Imadrongo
 
Posts: 724
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:52 am

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Dan Rowden » Thu Sep 20, 2007 1:35 pm

Alex Jacob wrote:Dan Rowden wrote:

"Your concern for how Rich comes across and the psychology from which he formulates his views doesn't seem to have any practical content, Alex. In what ways are his attitudes and statements bad or potentially harmful to anyone?"

This is what my thinking is on the matter.


No, it's actually your feeling on the matter. There's no thinking in it that I can discern; it's purely an emotional outpouring.

I have noted that at least a fair portion of the philosophical material you-plural refer to on this site, for example Nietzsche, Weininger, comes from a critical and axial period in the modern era---the 1880s to about the 1920s. I see this period as the theshold to what we know as modernity, and there were all sorts of ideas floating around as people were assembling their vision of what the world was asnd what it could be, should be. Very very intense time. So many of the important thinkers who have had and continue to have a profound effect on our modernity were working intensly, and out of that period came the psychological, physiological, social, scientific foundations that define our world. Interwoven in all of that are also some dark trends, not the least of which is an articulation of fascistic and totalitarian ideals, and we are still so very much in the midst of dealing with all of that. We stand on the threshold of that, and will likely go very much more strongly toward that (globally).


What has any of that got to do with us or Nietzsche or Weininger? And exactly what era of human history didn't have to deal with fascistic trends? I'm not aware of any.

The Nazi theorists were very much involved in articulating a 'science', a group of ideas, an ordering of perception, with which to mold the world, define it, structure it, dominate it and control it.


Yes, and there is exactly nothing new or unique in that.

With their formulations you can see how important and relevant are ideas---and these modern ideas---are in constructing ideological systems through which their power could be expressed, and these ideas are pushed, foisted, highlighted, privelaged, so to bring as many people under the control of a mass movement operating with those ideas as a conceptual base.


Nice speech, but I'm still waiting for the part that has even the remotest relevance to us and our observations about Woman.

They were very big on articulating definitions of geneder and race, as everyone knows, and I think it is pretty evident that there is still a very strong attraction on the part of many to 'fall into' and come under the influence of groups of ideas that do little more than articulate an essentially regressive position. Here on this list we note certain persons whose idea structures are...well...neo-fascistic for want of a better word.


That's a pretty big claim. Can you give examples?

They have fallen into the use of reductive ideas and (as I see things) backward ideas, but they are couched as being 'paradigm shifting ideas', 'true' ideas, the ideas of real men, ideas that appear in focus when different sorts of mind control have been defeated, and it is very obvious that 'feminism' is a chief bogey, but feminism mystified, a mystical, metaphysical feminism, and so it is railed against.


That is so much empty rhetoric. I can't find an argument in there anywhere. The only metaphysical and mystified feminism that exists is the one in your brain. It has nothing to do with me. There's nothing at all mysterious about the feminine to me. It's only mysterious to you because you don't understand it, yet.

It is not only a 'rational' position but a deeply emotional one, and you fool yourselves if you think it isn't emotiional and deeply psychological (IMO).


Without an argument to back it up this is a meaningless assertion; little more than a political stunt.

If you cannot see what a dangerous position you-all are working, in this very dangerous territory, with generally inadequate preparation, and if you are not truly responsible and honest with yourselves, you could very easily do a great deal of harm.


You haven't done anything to show how and why it's dangerous. The only thing it presents a danger to is your attachments to falsities and fables. I don't have any interest in protecting or preserving such things.

So you ask me what practical content my criticisms have, but to me this is self-evident.


The only thing self-evident is your lack of understanding of the issue. It your point was self-evident I wouldn't have asked you to express it.

I will draw a small analogy to give some indicator of the danger. Neil, bless his heart, just read Nietzsche, and it comes into his little head that maybe this cat Hitler was just not so bad, maybe he is a Great Man in fact, and what does it matter in the grand scheme if a million or 2 million or many million die. It is just 'will-to-power' and Nietzsche has blessed it, so we really don't have to judge Hitler at all harshly, and sieg heil.


Neil it totally wrong about Nietzsche, but Hitler wasn't as bad as he is made out to be. He was no worse than any number of previous and subsequent world leaders. That's makes him bad but not unique in any way. Neil is but one man, btw, and one, I might add, who not only has no real understanding as yet of our philosophy of Woman, but who appears to not agree with that part of it he has encountered. So, basically, your example totally fails.

This opens a road to entertaining some fairly dangeorous ideas that in or world can have, have had, are having profound destructive impact.


Non sequiter. What's the connection between our Woman perspective and Neil's ideas about Hitler?

In some of the forumlations about women and femininity, you are clearly engaging in profound generalizations,


Yes, indeed! Agreed! Many of our ideas are generalisations and they are most certainly profound.

but more than that they are fantastic prejudices,


Prove it. Just asserting this is weak as piss.

harsh judgments,


You find the truth harsh?

and you conflate all that is lowly and destructive with the feminine.


No, we conflate all that is unconscious with the feminine. You don't seem to understand that our only real interest in this lies in its relationship to consciousness and wisdom. The political, psychological and sexual observations are merely tools to demonstrate practical manifestations of these things. The actual politics of feminism, for example, is of only passing interest to me. If there weren't deeper philosophical connotations to it I would care about it at all.

You actually write these things out and you are not even cognizant of the danger inherant in these sorts of formulations?


The dangers you see spring from your own delusions. The only danger in our formulations is to your precious attachments, which is why you sound so fearful. This entire post has been fear driven hysteria. There's not a single argument to be found in it.

It is kind of incredible that you aren't aware of the danger in reductive, racist, anti-feminine thinking (thinking that follows this tempting paradigm).


Excuse me, where the fuck do you get "racist" from? Why say that? It's disgusting to employ such methods. You should go into politics.

I shouldn't even have to write this out (it is only a skeleton of what could be expressed), you-all should know all this.


What I know is that you suffer from the same ailment that most people do: hatred of reality.

In the most contentious and dangerous areas one has to be very, very careful, that is not sloppy, not impetuous, not driven by hidden psychological factors, misogynist anger, etc.


I agree with that. Now that you're done moralising, perhaps you could bother to make an actual argument about the falsity of our ideas. You do realise you haven't done that, right?
User avatar
Dan Rowden
 
Posts: 5463
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Alex Jacob » Thu Sep 20, 2007 1:37 pm

"You have clearly misread Nietzsche if you think his intent or desire is for a world without suffering."

Suffering will come, one way or the other. I think the Tragic position, the Tragic viewpoint, is the best refuge, myself. Although all that you say is true, what do you yourself want to be a part of? What are you willing to give yourself up to? That is really the most important question.

From De Rerum Natura by Lucretius:

'Tis sweet, when, down the mighty main, the winds
Roll up its waste of waters, from the land
To watch another's labouring anguish far,
Not that we joyously delight that man
Should thus be smitten, but because 'tis sweet
To mark what evils we ourselves be spared;
'Tis sweet, again, to view the mighty strife
Of armies embattled yonder o'er the plains,
Ourselves no sharers in the peril; but naught
There is more goodly than to hold the high
Serene plateaus, well fortressed by the wise,
Whence thou may'st look below on other men
And see them ev'rywhere wand'ring, all dispersed
In their lone seeking for the road of life;
Rivals in genius, or emulous in rank,
Pressing through days and nights with hugest toil
For summits of power and mastery of the world.
O wretched minds of men! O blinded hearts!
In how great perils, in what darks of life
Are spent the human years, however brief!
___________________________________________

"As flies to wanton boys, are we to the gods.
They kill us for their sport.

---King Lear
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Alex Jacob
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

Re: The World of Woman - Rich Zubaty & Sue Hindmarsh

Postby Alex Jacob » Thu Sep 20, 2007 2:20 pm

Dan wrote:

"No, it's actually your feeling on the matter. There's no thinking in it that I can discern; it's purely an emotional outpouring."

Hmmm. Have you a problem in the discernment department? That is a possibility you know.

Your post starts on this note, your spurious determination that the ideas I expressed (there were many) are not thoughts but feelings. I have no idea how you determine this, do you have some sort of meter? ;^)

If I were expressing feelings, I can tell you this, my posts would not at all take that form. So, the way I see it---and please excuse me for this---I don't think it would be too productive to come over to a ground you have prepared for the argument you want. I am really pretty happy with that post and it clearly expressed what I think about a group of related things. Maybe you should read it a few more times and make the effort to extract what I am attempting to communicate? But the tactic of reducing my communication to merely an emotional outburst (knowing what you think of emotions=female, etc.) is just a bad tactic.

I assert that my post is composed of a group of ideas, and those ideas should be approached as ideas.

AJ: "With their formulations you can see how important and relevant are ideas---and these modern ideas---are in constructing ideological systems through which their power could be expressed, and these ideas are pushed, foisted, highlighted, privelaged, so to bring as many people under the control of a mass movement operating with those ideas as a conceptual base.

Dan: "Nice speech, but I'm still waiting for the part that has even the remotest relevance to us and our observations about Woman."

(You know Dan, it really is a great deal about speech...As an orator I don't think you should ever lose sight of that. In fact that element makes all persuasion problematic (but that 'by the way'). I think though you are clever at working rhetorical angles, and so should it be...)

Therefor, 'lend me your ears'...

;^)

But to respond to your 'request': ah, well, it is because I think you are expressing and refining, and seeking agreements for and about an ideology, the ideology that you have developed and that you are interested in sharing. It is an ideology about woman. No ideology exists in a vacuum, and all ideas are related.

The whole issue hinges on how successful you are in getting your definitions to stick, in fact (I opine) it doesn't really matter if they are 'true' or 'false', I perceive that in a general way you actually start from your own emotive platform, but dress up ideas to appear 'rational' and 'reasonable'. But is it fair to say that the core of your ideas is in its way emotive? These are feelings about women, feelings about what they do, feelings about society, etc. I get the impression that you also operate from an eristical position, and I am not convinced that you are actually interested in sharing and building ideas.

I don't think that it is wise for any of us to assume we are not directly influenced by our psychology, and by our 'unconscious selves', and if I am not mistaken these are the seat of emotions, feeling about things.

I am not necessarily trying to 'win' here, I am interested just in getting as much on the table as possible. I wrote a while back I am not too interested in polarized, boring arguments. I have every intention of maximizing me time here to learn as much as I can about a subject of vital interest to me. I will likely get around to reading your writing, but so far (yawn) I am not at all impressed. Not at all. My doctrines are in fact superior, and with time I will demonstrate this. I will convert you all to mu disciples and I will bring you all to the Promised Land...

;^P

AJ: "Here on this list we note certain persons whose idea structures are...well...neo-fascistic for want of a better word."

Dan: "That's a pretty big claim. Can you give examples?"

The examples I would provide are to be found in specific formulations I have encountered on this forum since I joined. My first conversations were with Leyla. Those posts are there and can be read. I have seen a general similar trend in the ideas expressed here, but it would take me a while to pick through and present them to you. Do you really want me to do that, or is that an eristical tactic?

"Prove it. Just asserting this is weak as piss."

My piss is capable of melting steel.

;-)

If you keep reading my posts, and perhaps if you were to reread them (do a better reading), my ideas are expressed pretty clearly. I don't restate ideas, I prefer just to continue to work them in different ways and different contexts, using a gamut of up front and also 'devious' tactics. I prefer the angle of humor, but it has to be used sparingly.

You've got me back on the serious track.
Ni ange, ni bête
User avatar
Alex Jacob
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole

PreviousNext

Return to Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests