Commentary Thread: Feminine and Enlightenment (Dan V Sam)

One-on-one debate plus audience commentary.

Re: Commentary Thread: Feminine and Enlightenment (Dan V Sam)

Postby RobertGreenSky » Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:13 pm

Jamesh wrote:So Robert, what is it within you that influences you to post jokes?

Might it be the memories you have from experiences of the past, of joke telling releasing tension in your interrelationships with others.


You clearly like to argue for arguments sake, which must cause anxiousness at times. Perhaps this very tension has turned you into a person addicted to posting on forums, as that is where your ego can safely pursue the activities "it thinks" will sate it's desires. When I say "it thinks" I just mean it compares past and present in a computerised like fashion - meaning that the ego leads a person to seek and obtain a present set of experiences that match in a general synchronistic sense some past mental configuration where the outcome at the time, or on a majority of occasions, was emotional pleasure. The ego has an empathy with the past, in fact that is all empathy really is anyway - a synchronistic relationship to one's past experiences.

At times, there is so much obvious desire for revenge in your words. Even the idea of having to "win" an discussion clearly indicates this.

You use forums as a ego tool, and not subtlety like most of us non-enlightened sagelings do - by subtle, I mean that all forms of stating opinions, whether it be simply to alleviate the emotional need to express one's ideas or to even teach others, is still an egotistical activity, in that the pleasure in such activities comes from the relationship of these actions to the ego. The desire for revenge that I sense is a dominant program of your ego, must have been learnt from some set of past experiences. Examine it - find the causality of your revengeful personality, be it an array of others that you felt dominated by when young, or a set of unfortunate circumstances that crushed your self esteem to the extent that you feel using the words of others gives you a superior strength of reason. Know the causes of those same causes, and the causes of those causes ad infinitum. See how all these causes and your present ego are totally interconnected and you may begin to release yourself from the causes in your mind that binds you to a feminine relationship to truth and channels your masculine spirit into games of ego competition.

[Emphasis Robert.]

So James, you chose to ignore the wealth of material available in the thread - Mahayana Buddhism, Daoism, contrasts with Confucianism, etc. - so you could pretend you've got psychological insights worth sharing. I was posting jokes in part because the subject of the discussion was the QRS view of humour, and which you might have observed if you were less interested in passing yourself off as a message board psychoanalyst. Your insight was oblivious.

Absolutely have I come to the (debate commentary) thread to argue and with whom am I arguing? (You don't count.) Again, your insight was oblivious. About what are we arguing? Your oblivious remarks take absolutely none of the content into account and if your ideas are correct they should be borne out in the content, but which you've avoided. Were you afraid of it?

Why yes indeed I like to argue and you should try it. The masculine minded engage in intellectual argumentation about real philosophy and eschew writing that mincing pansy psychoanalysis. Here's a suggestion: Try supporting one of Dan's arguments in the thread instead of just kissing his arse. Lucky for you we won't lower ourselves to consider how in your remarks to Dan your covert acceptance of your Genius Forum status is tantamount to a female 'presenting' to a male animal so she can be mounted.

Take up one of the arguments. Go to it, James. Let's see how you think under pressure rather than how you obliviously pretend you're worth reading.
User avatar
RobertGreenSky
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:24 pm

Re: Commentary Thread: Feminine and Enlightenment (Dan V Sam)

Postby RobertGreenSky » Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:32 pm

Kevin Solway wrote:I personally find Robert's posts hilarious. I'm not sure I've ever run across anyone as thick.

I Especially liked the following bit:

Evidence that the modern dharma community recognizes the sagehood of women.

"The sagehood of women." Hilarious.

You find me thick and I find you ignorant. Well, what's new?
User avatar
RobertGreenSky
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:24 pm

Re: Commentary Thread: Feminine and Enlightenment (Dan V Sam)

Postby RobertGreenSky » Wed Mar 26, 2008 11:28 pm

Robert To James wrote:Take up one of the arguments. Go to it, James. Let's see how you think under pressure rather than how you obliviously pretend you're worth reading.

James,

I could have answered your post seriously instead of having fun with it but what would have been the purpose in answering extensively? I would still have responded 'pretense' and arguably writing mischievously was the better way to handle it. The individual whom you describe is not me; since it's no universal description it probably can't be a realistic one given that you don't know me - you are opposing me without knowing me. You can oppose my arguments without knowing me but to pretend insight into my character and psychology without knowing me is unfair as well as pretentious. Argue fairly please.
User avatar
RobertGreenSky
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:24 pm

Re: Commentary Thread: Feminine and Enlightenment (Dan V Sam)

Postby Jamesh » Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:31 pm

You can oppose my arguments without knowing me but to pretend insight into my character and psychology without knowing me is unfair as well as pretentious.


Just pointing at possibilities. How you react to this is not my concern.

The masculine minded engage in intellectual argumentation about real philosophy and eschew writing that mincing pansy psychoanalysis
.

I have a different viewpoint - everyone can engage in intellectual argumentation, but only the masculine minded really learn deep conceptualisations about reality from such communication.

Here's a suggestion: Try supporting one of Dan's arguments in the thread instead of just kissing his arse.


I'm lazy, and quite frankly sick to death of debates about masculinity and feminity.

Lucky for you we won't lower ourselves to consider how in your remarks to Dan your covert acceptance of your Genius Forum status is tantamount to a female 'presenting' to a male animal so she can be mounted.


There are minds I like more than others, and Dan has one of them. So does Sapius, whom I feel the most conceptual affinity with. I also favour Pye (and want to read her book goddamit). Others I only feel favourably towards at certain times, and some almost never. You are in the almost never category, and you irritate me because I don’t see the spiritual growth that I think all your discussions should have achieved. You seem little different from the Robert in the Larkin Debate. This I find irritating.

With regard my self-perception of my status, well I'm not enlightened. I have an ego at play.

To some degree I was attempting to manipulate Dan into action, because I would probably enjoy (ego derived) reading a major work of his, but he didn't fall for the trick at all :)

Undoubtably, my ego has had an uncomfortable relationship with this forum. It used to annoy the hell out of me that the QRS rarely responded to me in the manner I felt what I was saying deserved, eventually they more or less stopped responding to me. My ego stills want to affect them, I still want recognition, I want to see them take on some of my views. The important thing however, is that this ego play is decreasing a lot, I am becoming ffar more indifferent to how they may view my ideas.

Belief in myself is now quite strong. The truth of the matter is that I believe I have been the most philosophically conceptually inventive person on this forum for about two years now. I'm a long way off the most intelligent and miles away from the most general knowledgeable person, but I do see some concepts only I have expressed here before arising anew in some others (in their own fashion). This could mostly be delusions of grandeur, but I don’t think so, well at least not entirely. It is very hard to tell, partly because of the sheer volume of wisdom here, but also because my area of interest (describing nature within a holistic process) is often so very abstract and difficult to comprehend, and I am not good at writing in manner where there is a clear flow from one idea to the next. I also am likely to appear somewhat inconsistent. In people like you, most people actually, I'm sure this makes me often look like an crazy idiot, but quite frankly I have very little concern about that - what most people think no longer matters to me. Only what a few people think does, and for them I am more interested in them showing me where I my inventiveness has gone astray.

What is not hard to tell though, is that the preceding cause of this is what the QRS have said. I sometimes observe myself writing things that the QRS, and some others, have said, as if they were my own. Note though that one should be completely indifferent to concepts like ownership and status, and the fact that I even used the phrase "as if they were my own" indicates an ego at play.
User avatar
Jamesh
 
Posts: 1516
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: Commentary Thread: Feminine and Enlightenment (Dan V Sam)

Postby RobertGreenSky » Fri Mar 28, 2008 5:33 am

Jamesh wrote:
You can oppose my arguments without knowing me but to pretend insight into my character and psychology without knowing me is unfair as well as pretentious.


Just pointing at possibilities. How you react to this is not my concern.

Your insight has been failing you and I think it also fails you here. You did not present your analysis as 'possibilities' but as legitimate, purposeful, and supposedly accurate analysis of some other human being's character and psychology. You ignored every contribution to understanding that person has offered at Genius Forum in favour of denigrating him, in effect reducing those contributions to the products of someone with poor character and lamentable psychology. Is it really likely you were writing 'possibilities' - you failed to mention you were doing it.

You are not entirely at fault in this. David Quinn recently behaved similarly in writing a supposed analysis of Laird Shaw which was in fact merely character assassination. Quinn claimed to see adolescent sexuality in every post of Laird's but there is no linguistic analysis or psychoanalytic - certainly no Daoist, Zen, or Buddhistic - interpretation which would support such an asinine and self-serving claim. If that 'mind-reading' was available to Quinn due to his (claimed) attainments, those attainments are obviously not available to Quinn's students. It is another failue of education at Genius Forum that you were taught that method, one which is not used in Daoism, Zen, or Buddhism for very obvious reasons - why would you teach the student to do what the student cannot do? If the student must be failing in such analyses, why would you then continue to allow them? Why, it's a double failure. It is a triple failure because it is taught at Genius Forum that such necessarily failed methods are a legitimate answer to reasoned discourse. It is not just you but Diebert also who has been playing at them in his answers to me and neither of you were corrected by the masters here, who have failed to see their own errors in instruction - I have now gotten into the tongue in cheek but the points are reasonably accurate.

James wrote:...

There are minds I like more than others, and Dan has one of them. So does Sapius, whom I feel the most conceptual affinity with. I also favour Pye (and want to read her book goddamit). Others I only feel favourably towards at certain times, and some almost never. You are in the almost never category, and you irritate me because I don’t see the spiritual growth that I think all your discussions should have achieved. You seem little different from the Robert in the Larkin Debate. This I find irritating.

If your insight has been failing you then it might be failing you here also. I suspect your assumptions about what is my spiritual growth are dependent on how much I can be seen to agree with QRS, yet when I am their master it is not likely I will be learning from them. Again and again they are forced to walk away from what they cannot answer - it is not I who need learn from them. The Patriarchs have taught me sufficiently to answer QRS. Again and again the combative ego appears and in being met by combative ego yet which cannot answer, what does that tell you? Smile and understand that the Patriarchs are smiling with you.

I can be a combative old cuss anyway, and 'master' should not be taken to imply 'Zen master', 'enlightenment', or any other claim on accomplishment.

James wrote:Undoubtably, my ego has had an uncomfortable relationship with this forum. It used to annoy the hell out of me that the QRS rarely responded to me in the manner I felt what I was saying deserved, eventually they more or less stopped responding to me. My ego stills want to affect them, I still want recognition, I want to see them take on some of my views. The important thing however, is that this ego play is decreasing a lot, I am becoming ffar more indifferent to how they may view my ideas.

Belief in myself is now quite strong. The truth of the matter is that I believe I have been the most philosophically conceptually inventive person on this forum for about two years now. I'm a long way off the most intelligent and miles away from the most general knowledgeable person, but I do see some concepts only I have expressed here before arising anew in some others (in their own fashion). This could mostly be delusions of grandeur, but I don’t think so, well at least not entirely. It is very hard to tell, partly because of the sheer volume of wisdom here, but also because my area of interest (describing nature within a holistic process) is often so very abstract and difficult to comprehend, and I am not good at writing in manner where there is a clear flow from one idea to the next. I also am likely to appear somewhat inconsistent. In people like you, most people actually, I'm sure this makes me often look like an crazy idiot, but quite frankly I have very little concern about that - what most people think no longer matters to me. Only what a few people think does, and for them I am more interested in them showing me where I my inventiveness has gone astray.

What is not hard to tell though, is that the preceding cause of this is what the QRS have said. I sometimes observe myself writing things that the QRS, and some others, have said, as if they were my own. Note though that one should be completely indifferent to concepts like ownership and status, and the fact that I even used the phrase "as if they were my own" indicates an ego at play.

No one owns thinking or insight but a sense of humility is useful; Zen advises humility; Daoism teaches that the superior man does not think about being superior and so is superior. Where the Patriarchs have helped me I am indebted to them and in a real sense I cherish them. People here can be very protective about QRS - you were being so - and I hope you understand that part of what you see in me is the same, but it is for the Patriarchs.

Laird Shaw is opening a philosophy forum and I hope that you will attend and all who might find something to read or care to develop some thinking to share. RobertGreenSky will not be there and this is his goodbye post although I'll be damned if that avatar won't be used. I might drop in at Genius Forum as B. O. Krishnamurti although he is not a 'combative old cuss'.
User avatar
RobertGreenSky
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:24 pm

Re: Commentary Thread: Feminine and Enlightenment (Dan V Sam)

Postby Faust » Sat Mar 29, 2008 1:18 pm

Shahrazad wrote:
Look at table 42 of this government document and make your own assessment:
I have made my own assessment. Thanks, Dan.

and what was your assessment? Did I pull them out of my ass?

your lack of disclosure is dishonest
Amor fati
User avatar
Faust
 
Posts: 680
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Commentary Thread: Feminine and Enlightenment (Dan V Sam)

Postby Faust » Sat Mar 29, 2008 1:28 pm

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Faust, I know you're interested in the subject of men and women, but from your above response to Lydiia, I'm not sure you know exactly why you are so interested. Clearly you’re passionate about the issues, but the above stream-of-consciousness rant doesn’t bring any clarity to the subject – it just shows you feel frustrated. This means that your comment is rendered as groundless and emotive as Lydiia’s – and you’ve achieved nothing whatsoever.

To prevent such waste, you need to work from a rational base. At present you don’t appear to have one. (And yes, frustration is a base – it’s just not rational enough for such an important subject.)

No it's that you don't see the clarity that's contained in my post. There's nothing wrong in being frustrated with ignorance, even if I wasn't frustrated my comments would have entailed the same facts, hence it's not groundless at all.

If you weren't so myopic, you would see that my post refutes the pseudofeminist claptrap of "patriarchal" society in which men were always priveladged and the masters, and that they always oppressed women which is why women are the way they are. Pseudofeminist history likes to blame all its problems on men and their history while ignoring their own flaws and their own destructive contribution to human history.
Amor fati
User avatar
Faust
 
Posts: 680
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Commentary Thread: Feminine and Enlightenment (Dan V Sam)

Postby Faust » Sat Mar 29, 2008 2:27 pm

Lydiia Knightjoy wrote:We at least can agree on something--that you are an emotional wreck--quite indicative of a female mind.

Agree? When did I agree that I'm an emotional wreck?

An emotional wreck is indicative of a female mind? That's what I said, are you agreeing with my points?

You accuse me of appealing to emotion when you can't write a single post without resorting to emotional, childish name-calling.

except I also use facts, history, sociology, anthropology, psychology, and biology. What do you use? Empty rhetoric

Even Sue Hindmarsh, who's on your side of the issue, says this about you: "it just shows you feel frustrated. This means that your comment is rendered as groundless". I'm fairly certain you are an emotion-wracked, Black woman steeped in self-loathing.

HAHAHAH, WHATTT?!!!! I'm a BLACK WOMAN????!!! Forgive me, but here I can safely be very emotional. Your certainty of thinking that I'm a black woman, is proof of your dismal intellectual vacuity and empty-headedness.

And not all of what Sue says is true

I presented logical reasons why women have not lived up to their potential thus far. You showed nothing that refutes those reasons.

and I showed very easily that it's been a very good few decades that they've been praised above the clouds and yet still have nothing to show for it. And I've shown that in late White Western society, many women arose to prominence with their literary and cultural interests, because smarter men are more objective and tolerant and aren't going to bonk every woman that has even a remote brain.

I even showed that the chemical oxytocin, influences women not be as achievement oriented but to raise a family, yet you say nothing about this.
Amor fati
User avatar
Faust
 
Posts: 680
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Commentary Thread: Feminine and Enlightenment (Dan V Sam)

Postby sue hindmarsh » Sun Mar 30, 2008 12:30 am

Faust wrote:
Sue: Clearly you’re passionate about the issues, but the stream-of-consciousness rant doesn’t bring any clarity to the subject - it just shows you feel frustrated.

There's nothing wrong in being frustrated with ignorance, even if I wasn't frustrated my comments would have entailed the same facts, hence it's not groundless at all.

Your post was the same as Lydiia’s in that it was based on an emotional interpretation of the situation between the sexes. This is a complete waste of time and energy, as you then just remain on the surface of the subject, the same as Lydiia is doing. And more importantly, a superficial understanding won’t ever put an end to your feeling of frustration – look at Rich Zubaty’s work for proof of that.

If you really want to know what’s going on, and end your frustration; you need to dive deeper into the subject. You need to get to the core of what the feminine and the masculine really are, and from that position you can understand people’s behaviour.

If you weren't so myopic, you would see that my post refutes the pseudofeminist claptrap of "patriarchal" society in which men were always priveladged and the masters, and that they always oppressed women which is why women are the way they are. Pseudofeminist history likes to blame all its problems on men and their history while ignoring their own flaws and their own destructive contribution to human history.

I’d be interested to know how you came to the view that my work is “myopic”. Do you reckon that I’m not aware of the points you raise? Do you consider me ignorant of the “history, sociology, anthropology, psychology, and biology” of both the feminine and the masculine? Do you consider my work on a par with the “Pseudofeminists”?

I can’t see how you could think me ignorant on anything to do with woman. I've made it my business for over thirty years to not only understand all the “facts”, but more importantly to know the underlying foundations of woman and man. I decided on this task because to live without a deep understanding of human behaviour was - as far as I was concerned - not living.

But, then again, you do say to Lydiia that “not all of what Sue says is true” – which could mean that you have a different idea of what those underlying foundations are? Or you may be pointing to something else entirely? Lydiia has the impression that I am “on your side of the issue”, but maybe you consider that I’m not? I suppose that depends on what issue you think I'm involved in.

One last question: you wrote of “Pseudofeminist” – a term that I’ve never seen used in the way you used it. I'm interested to know what type of thinking you’d define a ‘real feminist’ as having, since traditionally feminists do “blame all its problems on men and their history while ignoring their own flaws and their own destructive contribution to human history”?
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
 
Posts: 1086
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Re: Commentary Thread: Feminine and Enlightenment (Dan V Sam)

Postby Faust » Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:10 pm

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Your post was the same as Lydiia’s in that it was based on an emotional interpretation of the situation between the sexes.

I didn't interpret the situation as emotional.

This is a complete waste of time and energy, as you then just remain on the surface of the subject, the same as Lydiia is doing. And more importantly, a superficial understanding won’t ever put an end to your feeling of frustration – look at Rich Zubaty’s work for proof of that.

I'm aware of the strong emotional attachments that the sexes have between each other and how frustration is a manifestation of sexual tension. I would have thought that you knew that I was aware of this.

If you really want to know what’s going on, and end your frustration; you need to dive deeper into the subject. You need to get to the core of what the feminine and the masculine really are, and from that position you can understand people’s behaviour.

now, already knowing the core of the relationship between the sexes, do you think Lydiia is purposely causing this frustration?

Do you reckon that I’m not aware of the points you raise? Do you consider me ignorant of the “history, sociology, anthropology, psychology, and biology” of both the feminine and the masculine? Do you consider my work on a par with the “Pseudofeminists”?

Philosophers get very angry and frustrated at people who continuously promote ignorance and downright imbecility. Even male philosophers get very frustrated with male scoundrels and third-rate pedagogues who promote ignorance and thrive off mediocrity, so it's not always a *sexual* thing.

I've made it my business for over thirty years to not only understand all the “facts”, but more importantly to know the underlying foundations of woman and man.

for over thirty years? Wouldn't you have been around 10 when you started doing this then, as you're in your mid-40s right?

But, then again, you do say to Lydiia that “not all of what Sue says is true” – which could mean that you have a different idea of what those underlying foundations are?

well, you seem contradictory when you tell of innate differences between men and women, then go off about how society is "sexist" and "chauvinsitic," that doesn't seem to make much sense.

you wrote of “Pseudofeminist” – a term that I’ve never seen used in the way you used it. I'm interested to know what type of thinking you’d define a ‘real feminist’ as having, since traditionally feminists do “blame all its problems on men and their history while ignoring their own flaws and their own destructive contribution to human history”?

Well if, the original feminists, such as Anthony et al, blamed all their problems on men and "patriarchy" while ignoring their own flaws, then "pseudofeminist" would not make much sense. I would have thought that original feminism was about equality in law and individual responsibility, and especially making women value intellect and thinking. If this was the original feminism, then "pseudofeminist" is the opposite, and hence "pseudo."
Amor fati
User avatar
Faust
 
Posts: 680
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Commentary Thread: Feminine and Enlightenment (Dan V Sam)

Postby sue hindmarsh » Sun Apr 06, 2008 5:16 pm

Faust wrote:
you seem contradictory when you tell of innate differences between men and women, then go off about how society is "sexist" and "chauvinsitic," that doesn't seem to make much sense.

Firstly, I’ve never said that the differences are wholly innate. I’ve described that the feminine and masculine exists in both females and males. Females exhibit, thus far, the feminine mind to a greater degree, but males are catching up to them as each year they adopt more feminine traits. For example, the alarming number of males that need to be in constant contact with other people through MSN, SMS, Face Book, My Space, Skype, chatting on their mobile, and gossiping on forums. I know that such behaviour is considered as just being part of modern life, but it is more than that, it is their feminine side in full swing.

Most men are blind to the fact that society has become more feminized, and that by their adoption of this “modern” behaviour, they have just taken the path of least resistance - which also happens to be another feminine trait.

I know that some men natter away in order to pick up women - and sometimes they do - but they’re also exercising that part of their mind that is feminine. So that in the end, it is women trying to pick up women!

Secondly, most people haven’t any understanding of human psychology, or the truth about the nature of existence. This means that their lives are based on untruths. And since their beliefs about things are based on ignorance of what is true, their conclusions about things become just more lies.

Even if they may - by chance - hit upon an insight that has some truth to it, it is rendered useless by the mass of lies it is expected to fit in with. For example, sexism and chauvinism may have grown out of an observed difference existing between the two genders, but because of people’s ignorance, those discriminations were set to work to foster more untruths. In this case, they are ignorant of the truth that the psychologically differences are present to varying degrees in each and every person; making absurd the notion of discriminating against someone because of their sex.

There is a legitimate reason for highlighting the difference between the feminine and masculine, and that is to foster the masculine, and thereby encourage conscious behaviour. Any other use only fosters more lies.

-

Faust, that brings me to the question of what rationale you have for discussing men and women the way that you do? What do you foresee is their future?

-

On the matter of my age. I'll be fifty this November.
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
 
Posts: 1086
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Re: Commentary Thread: Feminine and Enlightenment (Dan V Sam)

Postby Faust » Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:43 pm

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Females exhibit, thus far, the feminine mind to a greater degree

Ahh. Now, you realize that this is an essentially empirical observation right? What I've wanted to know, is how you can be sure that in total, females actually exhibit it more than males? Couldn't you say that most females and males, equally are mindless?

Most men are blind to the fact that society has become more feminized, and that by their adoption of this “modern” behaviour, they have just taken the path of least resistance - which also happens to be another feminine trait.

and how can you be sure that more females are like this than males?

In this case, they are ignorant of the truth that the psychologically differences are present to varying degrees in each and every person; making absurd the notion of discriminating against someone because of their sex.

what about if this was done, not necessarily because of an absolutist idea that every genre was distinctly seperate, but that because most females were like this, it would be wiser to not take a chance and have none of them be able to vote?

Faust, that brings me to the question of what rationale you have for discussing men and women the way that you do? What do you foresee is their future?

a bleak one unfortunately. But I'm interested in knowing how you can be sure that females in total, exhibit more mindlessness. What do you think of Leyla, do you think she's not mindless like other females? Is she like this because she's necessarily "masculine" or just simply that she's not mindless?
Amor fati
User avatar
Faust
 
Posts: 680
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Commentary Thread: Feminine and Enlightenment (Dan V Sa

Postby paco » Wed Jan 26, 2011 11:18 am

maestro wrote:I think Dan's post is well reasoned, but Samadhi has chosen four qualities of all of which are problematic at the get go

Nurturing: Sample your neighborhood for the modern woman, she is not nurturing by any means, she uses sex as a tool to advance her aims and is competitive and egoistic and incredibly shallow.

Receptive: Again few are receptive, and it is a hard work to be receptive. Is woman receptive by default? A big no? Again sample the women around you for proof.

Sensitive: This is a quality that a person develops with great practice. It requires peeling of layers of conditioning. To say that women are sensitive by default is very disingenuous.

Intuition: By which you mean acting without thinking, or decide on a whim. This quality is of course present in the modern woman in dollops. But isn't it a big hindrance to enlightenment?

Nurturing.
I am illiterate[code][/code]
paco
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 2:57 pm

Re: Commentary Thread: Feminine and Enlightenment (Dan V Sa

Postby LhasaLhamo » Sun Jan 08, 2012 5:59 am

maestro wrote:Nurturing: Sample your neighborhood for the modern woman, she is not nurturing by any means, she uses s** as a tool to advance her aims and is competitive and egoistic and incredibly shallow.

This sounds like someone has been talking to the wrong women, someone has been making poor choices.

Intuition is not acting on whim. Intuition is just another means of apprehending reality, albeit by subtle means. One factors into one's decisions the information gained by intuition, along with information acquired via the other senses. There are plenty of male intuitives. Tuning in to intuition is an acquired skill for most people.

This thread demonstrates a sad estrangement from women. One could just as easily advance a similar theory using stereotypes to argue that men's inherent nature is an obstacle to enlightenment, but what would be the point? The fact that this thread is being taken seriously is an embarrassment. By what criterion does this qualify for a forum entitles "Genius Forum"?

(forum censor disallowed the "s" word for new member)
LhasaLhamo
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 5:25 am

Re: Commentary Thread: Feminine and Enlightenment (Dan V Sa

Postby Karius » Fri May 25, 2012 2:50 am

Enlightment is a myth
Karius
 

Re: Commentary Thread: Feminine and Enlightenment (Dan V Sa

Postby Dan Rowden » Fri May 25, 2012 8:50 am

And you know this, how?
User avatar
Dan Rowden
 
Posts: 5407
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm

Re: Commentary Thread: Feminine and Enlightenment (Dan V Sa

Postby Karius » Sat May 26, 2012 9:06 pm

First, what do you mean by enlightment ?
Karius
 

Re: Commentary Thread: Feminine and Enlightenment (Dan V Sa

Postby ForbidenRea » Sun May 27, 2012 9:22 am

Wah.
The seen Deamons possess the crown accordingly.
ForbidenRea
 

Previous

Return to The Crucible

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest