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 Diebert van Rhijn » Fri Oct 12, 2007 6:01 am

skipair wrote:Diebert, I'm not convinced that this "slip back into the feminine" by spending sexually-minded time with women is any different from not having a perfect diet or exercise routine, or indeed not having perfection from ANYTHING in life.


Distraction, seduction, what's the difference? All that ever would be accomplished becomes undone again. In that sense it might be fruitful to think about what one means with perfection and how it relates to what we continue to drive at. It has a few more dimensions to it than just what we put in and squeeze out of a body.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5010
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

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

Postby skipair » Fri Oct 12, 2007 6:49 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Distraction, seduction, what's the difference? All that ever would be accomplished becomes undone again.


I can't tell exactly what you mean by this.
User avatar
skipair
 
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:19 am

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

Postby Pye » Fri Oct 12, 2007 7:52 am

Kevin, I refer to the genealogical origin of "good" - the first of the noble - for whom good meant to be strong and well-witted enough to seize for oneself, before strength such as this became revalued as "evil."

Diebert, yes, notions of masculinity as the individuating force that rises up out of the indistinguishing miasma of dark femininity - these stand as perfect metaphors for the original condition of paternity/identity that lead men to think this way; metaphors as well for the original condition of birth. For them, there is only no-thing/unconscious/irrationality until there is them to emerge identified out of this chaotic darkness. And when they "look back" this is also all they see. Freud's notion of masculinity as the motive force of sexuality is merely thinking of a similar stripe. Freud, being one of patriarchy's best mouthpieces, could think and say no differently than he does. After all, he was particularly prone to the patriarchal business of getting all up in the sexual behavior of women, in addition to creating normative theory that makes anything of women beyond regular and willing genital sex in monogamous heterosexual marriage some sort of aberration.

paternity/identity
and its mushroomed plummage. Very many things to understand lay there.


.
Pye
 
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

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

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Fri Oct 12, 2007 8:51 am

Pye wrote:It's about identity

...

Feminism freaks the shit out of most men at perhaps an even deeper quick: their knowledge of what it has taken to keep themselves in the procreative loop and fear of a value-shift that would render them as extraneous as nature has made them.


Kevin Solway wrote:Yes, but it's a man's identity, along with what he owns, that makes a man attractive to a woman. Nature has designed things this way. He provides what she doesn't have.


Just as she provides what he does not have, which makes a woman attractive to a man. Neither are as complete alone as with the other. The problem is that if either is a mess, the combination makes a complete mess. However, if spiritually robust men combine with spiritually robust women, they become completely spiritually robust.
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

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

Postby Ryan Rudolph » Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:30 am

Elizabeth wrote:

However, if spiritually robust men combine with spiritually robust women, they become completely spiritually robust.


Elizabeth, I’m just curious - - what would a spiritually robust relationship between a man and a woman look like to you? How would a rational man and woman deal with issues of attachment in the form of sex, intimacy, pleasurable habits and so on? For what reasons would you prefer a spiritually robust man in your life?
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
 
Posts: 2489
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

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

Postby Kevin Solway » Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:46 am

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:Yes, but it's a man's identity, along with what he owns, that makes a man attractive to a woman. Nature has designed things this way. He provides what she doesn't have.

Just as she provides what he does not have

But if he becomes wise then there's nothing he needs. Only then is he spiritually robust.
User avatar
Kevin Solway
 
Posts: 2578
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia

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

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:07 pm

Kevin Solway wrote:But if he becomes wise then there's nothing he needs.


That would depend on how you define "need" My scope of "he" is probably bigger than yours.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:what would a spiritually robust relationship between a man and a woman look like to you?


The short answer is that each would focus their energies on what their strong suit was, and the division of strengths would synergistically match up to most completely fulfill the goal of raising and perpetuating wisdom in sentient species.
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

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

Postby David Quinn » Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:47 pm

What about a threesome? That would be even better, wouldn't it? There would be three sets of strong qualities that could be pooled together.

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

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

Postby skipair » Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:09 pm

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:The short answer is that each would focus their energies on what their strong suit was, and the division of strengths would synergistically match up to most completely fulfill the goal of raising and perpetuating wisdom in sentient species.

The problem with this is that its impossible. You are describing a democratic relationship, which is not what nature has allowed. The only way this could possibly happen is if both individual's sex drive was SO LOW (to the point of basically be inhuman) that natural instincts could not kick in. And in such a case, there would really be no reason for a man and woman to live together anyway.
User avatar
skipair
 
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:19 am

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

Postby Shardrol » Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:24 pm

David Quinn wrote: What about a threesome?
Maybe you should start by sending flowers . . .
User avatar
Shardrol
 
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:08 pm
Location: New York, USA

Postby xerox » Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:34 pm

...
Last edited by xerox on Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
xerox
 

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

Postby daybrown » Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:50 pm

DNA reveals that Native Europeans evolved in villages of 150-300 over the course of the last 10,000 years. In that setting, the "Noble" knows everyone he deals with, and the effect of his decisions on them personally. He has interest in seeing that they all get along and that all the children are well fed so as to help his sons defend their common interest at maturity.

In this setting they commonly had "fertility rites" which helped to maximize genetic diversity in small gene pools. The villages no doubt realized that if the Noble had a harem, that after a few generations that tribe was so inbred they were all idiots. And thus, that Noble line was extinguished.

So- Noble came to mean good, cause only the good was sustainable. This system broke down with cities where the personal relationships were gone and genetic diversity was not a problem.

But that civilized system is now breaking down as well because physical strength is no longer sufficient for security in the age of WMD and dangerous contagious pathogens. Moreover, the Transnationals have found that they can hire women for less money and make more *profit*. As a result, women are starting to make more money than men. Men cant protect women any more, nor can they provide for them.

The transnationals provide security services and surveillance equipment for the apartments of the women who work in their high rises. The transnationals, not the husbands, offer security and economic support. And the smart women in upper management are figuring that out. And rather than looking for the perfect mate, they are going to fertility clinics to choose among thousand of far more promising Y chromosome lines to sire their children... who will grow up to be far more competitive in the global economy.

And unlike a husband, when momma's get into middle age, the moms wont be dumped for a trophy bimbo. by their children.
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 skipair » Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:41 pm

daybrown wrote:And rather than looking for the perfect mate, they are going to fertility clinics to choose among thousand of far more promising Y chromosome lines to sire their children... who will grow up to be far more competitive in the global economy.

The women who do this are not psychologically healthy. They cannot function in a romantic relationship because they cannot maintain rapport, cannot show empathy, and do not allow themselves to be treated well. Their desire for arificial insemination has a double meaning - to releave the pain of not having a loved one, and to say fuck you to the men she has come to hate.
User avatar
skipair
 
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:19 am

Postby xerox » Fri Oct 12, 2007 3:11 pm

...
Last edited by xerox on Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
xerox
 

Postby xerox » Fri Oct 12, 2007 4:26 pm

...
Last edited by xerox on Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
xerox
 

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

Postby Pye » Sat Oct 13, 2007 12:26 am

skipair writes:
The women who do this are not psychologically healthy. They cannot function in a romantic relationship because they cannot maintain rapport, cannot show empathy, and do not allow themselves to be treated well. Their desire for arificial insemination has a double meaning - to releave the pain of not having a loved one, and to say fuck you to the men she has come to hate.


This is a fine illustration of the historically patriarchal bias involved in psychologizing the woman. She is not "normal" unless her behaviour and aspirations match her highest possible functioning in the social order: to want/need men, romance, relationship, children, etc. Psychology makes room for a natural drive to "autonomy" for human men (and excuses/elevates same) but makes or assumes no such provision necessary - or even capable - for human women.* Psychology has only one kind of model from which women can earn a certificate of health. As with men, these normatives held up to ourselves actually create the sick-beds rather than rout them out. You might take note of the words you use to describe "normal" woman and how many of those items and actions are really just things you need from her, and cannot live without. You're in a panic at the thought of losing them. So much so, that you will imply she is insane for not participating according to specs.

Great fear is the undercurrent of your declaration, too. Once again, if men do not insert themselves forcefully into the behavior and circumstances of women - make her think she is hardwired for dependency, cannot live without him (and in fact in many cases, make this a physical fact involving safety, resources, shelter, opportunity, etc. withheld from her until she submits to this arrangement), then men have no currency to secure their own needs (sex/paternity) in this scheme. If it is "not normal" for a woman to go through the child-process without "rapport" with the man (i.e. artificial insemination), then what all can we say regarding the sexual behavior of men that is "not normal" ? Inside the brain that makes this most declarative of accusations is fear, fear, fear.

Like every patriarch, you want to manage women, sex, and procreative practices, for at the heart of your bottom, you know how much you have to lose if you leave her in an original condition that can be indifferent to paternity/identity. The least you can do is keep access to resources she needs away from her; restrict her free movement and opportunity; and keep up a steady stream of sciences and psychologies - not to mention derogatory social dialectic - that all bends itself toward management of this resource that many are too terrified to admit is person, and one with a peculiarly powerful strain of natural autonomy that men will never have. Fear grips the throat of the man who bemoans the dissolution of the Family; blames women for destroying marriage; sees in his dark continent a whole collapse of world order and a return to utter chaos. This man is the metaphor in living colour. He faces his natural redundancy unconsciously, but head-on. He knows what is at stake for him in paternity/identity, not to mention any opportunity to be involved in the loop at all (have sex).

Perhaps men are the slaves, original and still, and patriarchy is his own long-running ressentiment - labyrinthine, tissue-thin, and in need of constant maintenance.




*Many women, however, are or become aware of just how tissue-thin is the rhetoric of her need for him, for having a man; for pleasing a man; or having final satisfaction only in marriage and/or coupled w/children - it does not take much to tear through this tissue of lies and bad faith.
Pye
 
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

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

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Sat Oct 13, 2007 12:46 am

David Quinn wrote:What about a threesome? That would be even better, wouldn't it? There would be three sets of strong qualities that could be pooled together.


Or more than that, depending on the situation. Most aspects of propagating wisdom would best be achieved by a larger group, especially while even the wisest may have some gaps in their wisdom. As far as teaching wisdom to others - which would include all aspects of raising children - "the more, the merrier" so to speak.

If you are referring to sexual relations for the purpose of passing on the wisest genes, there would be occasions for that, too. If a male sage indubitably had 100% wisdom - and even more importantly if wisdom is found to be a recessive gene and he had no unwise genes to pass on, he should have access to as many females as have the appropriate genetic match to produce healthy offspring. As for wise women, since pregnancy is more of a toll on the body than insemination, and they can not possibly procreate as often as men, when it is an optimal time for her to procreate, she should have access to as many males that are most worthy of having their genetics passed on as possible, to not lose that period of optimal procreation. If the community is trying to breed a specific genetic combination, then the woman should limit herself to the one man they are trying to reproduce. Should someone become infected with an STD, that person should permanently be removed from the procreative ring. If it is all that important to pass the infected person's genetics along, in that case, medical procedures might be called for. Otherwise, sex is a highly efficient method of passing on wise genes to the next generation.
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

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

Postby Pye » Sat Oct 13, 2007 12:54 am

xerox, I take note of your exception to the relative level of male nurturing when you transform it into what they "provide." I would simply go into a series of questions regarding the value of what men are kept busy providing; where the scratch they itch in doing this really resides; and in what, like women, this singular configuration of family is both confining and insincere to their deeper natures.

Part of the motivational providing is also keeping-from, for men have in this as well to deal competitively with one another against their mutual condition of redundancy.


.
Pye
 
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

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

Postby daybrown » Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:56 am

skipair wrote:
daybrown wrote:And rather than looking for the perfect mate, they are going to fertility clinics to choose among thousand of far more promising Y chromosome lines to sire their children... who will grow up to be far more competitive in the global economy.

The women who do this are not psychologically healthy. They cannot function in a romantic relationship because they cannot maintain rapport, cannot show empathy, and do not allow themselves to be treated well. Their desire for arificial insemination has a double meaning - to releave the pain of not having a loved one, and to say fuck you to the men she has come to hate.

So? they function in the upper levels of transnational and government management, and make far more money than you ever will, or I ever did. And if they perceive that they lack the mothering skills they will, as some have already, hirer nannies.

If they are trophy blondes, as many are, they may even hire the nannies 9 months earlier, and have them accept egg donation so that they can ramp up production for the one commodity the rich leches of this world can never get enuf of: trophy blonde wives. Inasmuch as we saw one in SCOTUS last year getting part of the *billions* she inherited for making the last few years of some lech happy, its a business plan that would get all the economic backing the women wanted.

You say they "cannot function", I would point out that they *dont need to*. Primate field studies give us the terms "alpha" and "beta" males. The alphas toe the line to defend the resources and territory of the troop against other alphas. What are the betas good for? I doubt very much if that question has crossed your mind from the tone of your comment. Just leeches off the superior alphas?

Well, its the alphas that produce the females who have the same attitude to dominate, and we see their daughters moving up in the transnational culture. But it turns out that the daughters of the alphas are just like you say, unable to form attachments, and in the field studies of the primates, are the ones who abuse and abandon the young. Tribes that dont have enuf betas to adopt the orphans become too inbred and come apart in violent struggles for top alpha status. Its the *betas* who produce the competent moms.

So- we are headed for the global Platonic Republic, with these trophy blondes at the top of the power structure, who will, in classic civilized fashion, have *professional* mother/nannies to bear and nurture their young while the egg donors go on about running the global business. The good news is that these Uberwench will also see the advantage of a line of sex kittens, and they'll stop the breeding frigid bitches.
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 skipair » Sat Oct 13, 2007 2:28 am

Pye,
No young woman grows up with the majestic dream of driving to a fertility clinic to buy the seed of her future baby. Women are preconditioned to seek "the relationship", and only after she has failed at that will she resort to another way. Relationships are a woman's bread and butter. It's what they do. And the only way she could fail is if she's psychologically damaged. Show me the woman who has made this decision who also does not have a traumatic relationship history, and I'll buy you dinner. But no funny business.
User avatar
skipair
 
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:19 am

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

Postby Ryan Rudolph » Sat Oct 13, 2007 2:34 am

Elizabeth,

The short answer is that each would focus their energies on what their strong suit was, and the division of strengths would synergistically match up to most completely fulfill the goal of raising and perpetuating wisdom in sentient species.


You missed my point. A man and a woman living together gives way to potential psychological problems, they both may have sincere intentions to serve the cause of wisdom, but the instincts and lower self are more powerful than sincere intentions. Therefore, a pragmatic arrangement would only have the possibility of working if there were strict rules established in order to prevent the emergence of attachment. For instance: separate bedrooms, the wearing of non-sexual clothing, and the avoidance of regular habits where both are needed to participate and so on.

If you are referring to sexual relations for the purpose of passing on the wisest genes, there would be occasions for that, too. If a male sage indubitably had 100% wisdom - and even more importantly if wisdom is found to be a recessive gene and he had no unwise genes to pass on, he should have access to as many females as have the appropriate genetic match to produce healthy offspring. As for wise women, since pregnancy is more of a toll on the body than insemination, and they can not possibly procreate as often as men, when it is an optimal time for her to procreate, she should have access to as many males that are most worthy of having their genetics passed on as possible, to not lose that period of optimal procreation. If the community is trying to breed a specific genetic combination, then the woman should limit herself to the one man they are trying to reproduce. Should someone become infected with an STD, that person should permanently be removed from the procreative ring. If it is all that important to pass the infected person's genetics along, in that case, medical procedures might be called for. Otherwise, sex is a highly efficient method of passing on wise genes to the next generation.


You will never find a male with 100% wisdom, this figure implies absolute perfection, which I don’t believe is currently possible in the human organism. However, I agree some of what you said above. Although, any truly wise man would want to use the latest scientific technology to make sure the child is a boy, and many women would never go for that.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
 
Posts: 2489
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

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

Postby David Quinn » Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:21 am

xerox wrote:
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Just as she provides what he does not have, which makes a woman attractive to a man. Neither are as complete alone as with the other. The problem is that if either is a mess, the combination makes a complete mess. However, if spiritually robust men combine with spiritually robust women, they become completely spiritually robust.


Wisdom requires nothing from anyone else into order to become 'complete' anymore than a walking stick completes someone with the sort of limp that one can heal thyself of.

You cannot complete me. For we are all, intrinsically complete. Its difficult to see under the layers of rubbish. Wisdom is the pursuit of recognising, embracing and (the hardest and most improbable part) LIVING the self evident, which we have spent much time avoiding and denying. Sloughing off all the nonsense is the process by which we come to bask in our already complete natures. Seamlessly.

The element of attraction to that which, and those whom, symbolise what is absent in self, is the essence of the matter.That old chesnut, delusion. The un-truth of melding one consciousness with another. This will, at worst, destroy your consciousness. At the very least, much unnecessary energy will be expended in its defence.

Being attracted to what one does not possess, for the benefit of self, is ultimately attraction to self. A lie, substituting for truth, ergo... delusion. Compounded by the illusion of being able to possess. Hence, incomplete.

What could be less 'complete' than leaning and relying on another. The idea that the sexes need each other to 'complete' one's existence strikes me as a feminine ideal. Certainly, the female needs the man's seed to do what her womb can do. At the very least, having a tenured male at your side goes a long way in keeping the bigger, stronger species away from you, whilst negotiating the terms by which you allow that particular male to believe he possesses you. Woman is tethered to the physical, for she bares the species, she is physically and psychologically restrained by her own being. Compounded by the reality of stronger males who WILL assert himself in order to satiate his desires, hence completing the physical hegemony.

Thus, in the interests of self preservation she tethers the male. Its not a concidence that men use symbols like a ball and chain in reference to matrimony.

It is only the females who do not breed who can release themselves from part of this problem. It still leaves the bigger, stronger, desirous male problem intact. She basically requires a man to either literally protect her or as a psychological/emotional symbol of that protection. Either way, Woman has a hel of a lot of challenging obstacle to overcome, for which she deserves much empathy and compassion. As difficult as she can make that, with her tendency to wallow and project the nature of her plight. Which can make the whole thing a destructive vicious cycle.

A man can roam, aimlessly, wantonly. Woman finds this possibility to be extremely frightening. The mother has a very practical need for support networks of some kind, at the very least a matriarchy, in which children can be raised or as the feminine would have it 'nurtured.' Or as l would prefer to describe it... nuetered. How will she protect her offspring from the potentially wanton desires of man? Answer... solicit the service of other men and program boys to become a certain type of (compliant) man and teach the girls how to design, instal and tweak the source code for programming the beast.

But what of all those men left roaming? What will moderate their animalistic tendencies, their delusional desires, if he is not somehow tethered, restrained, moderated? Woman, child, family, society (laws, enforcement, punishment) are the perfect instruments by which a man can be restrained. Restrained, ultimately, by his very self. Calling that system, patriarchy (father RULE) completes a brilliant tethering of man's consciousness, by affecting the ruse that he is in command.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Wisdom is a DIY project. Its stand alone. Anyting less is a lie.

Good post.

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

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

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Sat Oct 13, 2007 12:09 pm

David Quinn wrote:Good post


I thought that Pye's response to skip was a sufficient rebuttal, reinforced by her direct rebuttal to xerox - but I suppose there are a few points that I can add.

xerox wrote:Wisdom requires nothing from anyone else into order to become 'complete' anymore than a walking stick completes someone with the sort of limp that one can heal thyself of.


Yes, it is true that wisdom does not require anything or anyone. That includes the fact that wisdom does not require men.

xerox wrote:You cannot complete me. For we are all, intrinsically complete.


No, I can not complete you because you are you and nothing else. It is just like a foot can not complete a hand - but both of those and more parts are needed for a complete body.

xerox wrote:Wisdom is the pursuit of recognising, embracing and (the hardest and most improbable part) LIVING the self evident,


No.

xerox wrote:Wisdom is the pursuit


No, wisdom is not a pursuit. Try again.

xerox wrote:recognising, embracing and (the hardest and most improbable part) LIVING the self evident, which we have spent much time avoiding and denying.


That is what a wise being would do, but that is not wisdom itself. If it were, wisdom would need something that was capable of doing these things - and we have already established that wisdom does not need anything.

xerox wrote:Sloughing off all the nonsense is the process by which we come to bask in our already complete natures. Seamlessly.


Indeed - who are we?

xerox wrote:The un-truth of melding one consciousness with another. This will, at worst, destroy your consciousness. At the very least, much unnecessary energy will be expended in its defence.


Defend what? Defend completeness? From what? How could we be complete if we are not everything that was, is, and ever will be?
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 » Sat Oct 13, 2007 12:16 pm

Ryan Rudolph wrote:A man and a woman living together gives way to potential psychological problems, they both may have sincere intentions to serve the cause of wisdom, but the instincts and lower self are more powerful than sincere intentions.


I say you underestimate the potential of sages.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:You will never find a male with 100% wisdom


True - basically I was using it as an academic example to simplify the core concept.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:any truly wise man would want to use the latest scientific technology to make sure the child is a boy


If that is your belief, then you missed my point. There are some things that men are better suited for, and some things that women are better suited for. A wise man would realize that there is a need for some people of the female gender. He would want all minds optimized - male or female. He may decide that there should be more male children born than female ones - but that happens naturally anyway. No wise person would ever do away with all of either gender out of some perception of inferiority.
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Postby xerox » Sat Oct 13, 2007 2:38 pm

...
Last edited by xerox on Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:20 pm, edited 4 times in total.
xerox
 

PreviousNext

Return to Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests