The Meaning of Life

[Carmel]

It's no use expecting Kelly to recognize her obsession with women is unhealthy. It's a result of being cut off from her own femininity as a result of a previous psychological trauma. note the affective apathy. Instead of seeking the help she needs, she externalizes her problems by projecting her own inadequacies onto women (and me as well.) She doesn't possess the level of self honesty required to acknowledge this. Her prognosis is poor: soulless, heartless, half dead.

[Kelly Jones]

I did ask you if any female who criticises feminine psychology and women with consistency is masochistic, and gave the example of Esther Vilar, who still stands by "The Manipulated Man" after nigh-on 30 years. And she is far more vehement than I am in her attacks on women. I could also give other examples: Celia Green, Camille Paglia, Sue Hindmarsh, and Ayn Rand. So the question would be whether all these highly intelligent women all hate themselves, or whether they're actually criticising something that they find contemptuous, and don't personally share any part of. One would have to at least consider that latter possibility, if one was a reasonable being.

Let me ask you a straight question, since you don't want to answer that one. Would you find it easier to cope with discussions if I dropped the analysis of feminine psychology for a while? I don't mind. I can see you're finding it hard to concentrate with the two challenges going simultaneously.


.

[Carmel]

Do whatever you want...I just feel don't comfortable feeding what often appears as a "WOMAN" obsession/addiction.

Also, it's like prince once said...you'll be over all this when you're 35. It's just the stage you're at,(hopefully) perhaps the younger people here would like to engage in further gender discussions with you. That's fine, but don't take it personally that I find them to be redundant and boring.

[Bobo]

Why do you make it mean bot?

I mean something like a machine that functions through algorithms. They pop up here and there on the internet. And I was referring to the possible paranoia coming with the impossibility of knowing if people are 'real' or not.

If I take an expression from here or there that shows up as a perfect expression in the context of a project I'm undertaking...

So Dennis Mahar is an experimental project? One that doesn't exist without an external memory device (your pc)? If theres a problem it is related with the personalism of the quotes and how you may mislead yourself and others, for it is not the case of something in which you must merely agree, but that you must understand completely by yourself.

Is it shameful?
Is it a crime?

What happens with shame if you can only believe that other people exists? Dennis Mahar belives in shame, Dennis Mahar IS THAT shame.
The concept of property is controversial on many levels.

Ugly is as ugly does...

who made it ugly.

You did.

Are you being a smartarse?

Are you expecting to dismiss a perceived treath by trying to make me do something evil (if that is the word) so you ego could breath in relief?

[Kelly Jones]

Do whatever you want...I just feel don't comfortable feeding what often appears as a "WOMAN" obsession/addiction.

I'm glad you say "what often appears as". I do understand that your perspective and interpretation is a common one, and you find it difficult to find another way of looking at it. The thing is, irrationality and the love of irrationality are widespread phenomena. So it should not come as any surprise, really, if you think about it, that women are so exempt from public criticism as well as being quite stupid. So far from being an obsession per se, it's actually a topic of great relevance to the path of enlightenment. If this makes me "obsessed" in the eyes of the world (which ought to be: stupified masses), then I have no problem with that at all.

Also, it's like prince once said...you'll be over all this when you're 35. It's just the stage you're at,(hopefully) perhaps the younger people here would like to engage in further gender discussions with you. That's fine, but don't take it personally that I find them to be redundant and boring.

I think it's highly unfair for people to use Prince's tendency to let damaged emotions influence his behaviour to be some kind of example of anything related to this forum; particularly unfair on him. It's unfortunate that he has let himself regress into that stuff, but it cannot be held against him or anyone else. Such things are difficult to overcome, and it'd be better if he took a break from the forum to deal with it.

And, I can definitely assure you that if I am still alive and well in six months, then I'll be in my 36th year, and, given my good progress of late, am highly unlikely to be sweeping my understanding of wise psychology under the carpet. I'm glad to see that more people over time are seeing the connection between women worship (or in men it is more likely to be fear of criticising them), and lack of faith in reason.


.

[Carmel]

So you worship "MAN" instead, idealizing him, putting "HIM" on a pedestal. He's your knight in shining armour. C'mon now, you can do better than fairy tales and idol worship, can't you?

Anyway, yeah, I think you'll be struggling with gender issues for a long time to come yet...

[Kelly Jones]

If I perceived Maltese terriers to have habit of grovelling and licking their owner's hand, would you conclude I worship Maltese Terriers? That's how your conclusion looks to me.


.

[Dennis Mahar]

Bobo,
My declaration is...
I will pull anything I deem as a perfect expression out of the 'global brain' that fits in a conversation that is undertaken as a possibility for transformation.
Everything you say Bobo originated in the global brain.

You meant to cause harm Bobo. I didn't.
It's true.

Trust me Bobo.

Love me without condition as I love you.

[Carmel]

Kelly,

You see an animal because you are an animal. You can't see spirit because you have no spirit, or rather you are cut off from your spirit, heart and soul. You're not truly awake.

[Kelly Jones]

Because I criticise animality, that makes me an animal? Uh-huh.


.

[Carmel]

yes, all human beings have an animal side to their nature. Men, too. Thank me for stating the obvious. I really shouldn't have to, but you seem oblivious to this basic truth. You're really no different in your mentality than the militant rabid anti-men feminists who say things like "Men are pigs", "Men are dogs". It's spiritually and emotionally retarded, on both counts. ...This is not the first time I've said this to you, but it never seems to sink in. Your psychological defense mechanisms are too strong.

[Kelly Jones]

Aren't you seeing me as an animal, and are therefore an animal, and therefore devoid of spirit? It's your belief, not mine, but I'm wondering how you square it.


.

[Bobo]

Evil wasn't the right word. But the dynamics are if I answer yes or no you get your ego a boost. Unless you were being a smartass yourself, I've dismissed this possibility because you focused on the bot thing.

I will pull anything I deem as a perfect expression out of the 'global brain' that fits in a conversation that is undertaken as a possibility for transformation.

But the global brain doesn't work as a singularity. You may misinterpret the individuals. If what you want is a perfect expression about something you know yourself, it's better to write it with your own words, or quote it right.

You meant to cause harm Bobo. I didn't.
It's true.

Trust me Bobo.

If it is not a belief but something you know there's no need for me to blindly trust you, just show me what I've done and why it is so.

Love me without condition as I love you.

Are you saying this because you think that I've harmed you? Your feelings are not important on the matter, what matters is if what you are saying is the truth.

[Dennis Mahar]

You are taking a stand on the question of private property Bobo.
And judging from that.

There are dualistic 'stands' on the question of private property.

On the question of private property, uncertainty arises.

Therefore you are standing on uncertain ground.

Come home Bobo.

[m4tt_666]

we see others as organisms in the same way we see a tree to be a tree. logical deductions cannot be ignored as fact based off of what our senses are telling us. for us to 'assume' we are something more than animal is to have attached, the expected criticism from others who navigate life through the given senses, just as much as the one who thinks they are more than animal.

conformity is not comfort by any means, but giving up your senses based off of ill reasoning of a higher being is not feasible, to myself at least.

[Blair]

I think it's highly unfair for people to use Prince's tendency to let damaged emotions influence his behaviour to be some kind of example of anything related to this forum; particularly unfair on him. It's unfortunate that he has let himself regress into that stuff, but it cannot be held against him or anyone else. Such things are difficult to overcome, and it'd be better if he took a break from the forum to deal with it.

Would you mind not defending me with your patronising, insular, "not wanting to be tarred with the same brush" comments?

Thanks.

You Kelly, are small-fry, and genuinely mentally-ill to boot.

It's not your place (figuratively or literally) to request me to leave. Get over yourself.

[cousinbasil]

Yes, that quote managed to be condescending and arrogant at the same time, but those two things often go together. What would make this quote so...special... is that I'm sure Kelly thinks she was just being "compassionate."

[Bobo]

This is fact.
I KNOW that I exist. I do not KNOW that you exist. This basic ‘truth’ is the same for everyone – but I cannot prove it. You can prove it for yourself. You do not believe that you exist – You KNOW that you exist. And in that ‘small fact’ there is everything you need to know.

So can you only believe that others exist? And others experiences can you only believe in them?

There is certainty of only ‘your’ own experience. Everybody else’s ‘experience’, is a subset of your own. It will be only an assumption, to assume that ‘everybody’ else is also experiencing in the same way. You can never know ‘others’ experience, only your own experience. Then you must ask how many ‘I Am’s', are there? And how many Awareness’ are there? If you are honest, you will verify or rather self-verify that there is only one. Your own.
Give this careful consideration! As the implications are staggering……

How are you certain that suki experience is like your own? Doesn't it need to be?

You are taking a stand on the question of private property Bobo.
And judging from that.

There are dualistic 'stands' on the question of private property.

On the question of private property, uncertainty arises.

Therefore you are standing on uncertain ground.

Come home Bobo.

Only I Am is certain.

[psychoactive]

How are you figuring "I am" is a necessary element?

[Dennis Mahar]

What I'm looking for are expressions concerning how assumptions are the basis for how ordinary, everyday conciousness constructs a picture of the 'World'.

Suki's expression showed up an assumption.
Just as Frost's poem did.

That's all.

I talk about inquiry, possibility and a project.

to love without condition is to open up a space for conversation, for beings to talk into, that is safe, where beings are granted their being, where listening is provided, where stands are recognised as possibilities amongst a range of possibilities and lack the necessary ground of certainty to launch an attack from or defend, that quarrelling is unnecessary in the light of that.

[Dennis Mahar]

How are you figuring "I am" is a necessary element?

If I say existence doesn't exist
Or
I don't exist

That's silly
because
I have to exist to be able to say it.

I can say I Am with certainty.

I Am....home, I have everything, it never leaves me.

[Kelly Jones]

Would you mind not defending me with your patronising, insular, "not wanting to be tarred with the same brush" comments?

Can you refrain from the vicious kind of language that characterise your posts? Just a request from a fellow member of the forum.

I'm thinking of more than yourself.

You Kelly, are small-fry, and genuinely mentally-ill to boot.

This is an example of not practising what you preach, don't you think?

It's not your place (figuratively or literally) to request me to leave. Get over yourself.

If you are spreading bad karma, it is my place to put my foot down. It would be wrong of me to ignore the effect your anger has on others. I'm getting rather tired of your lack of self-control, and would like you to do something about it.


.

[Blair]

Can you refrain from the vicious kind of language that characterise your posts? Just a request from a fellow member of the forum..

No, just no. It is you who is inexcusably vicious.

I care none for your amateurish armchair psycho-analysis.

[Kelly Jones]

There's a big difference between hard-nosed criticism that subjects the judger more than the one judged to the criticism which is founded on pushing onward to uncover a truth, prince, and anger-driven name-calling that does not offer any substantial arguments or assistance to the person who is being criticised.

It is easy to browbeat people if you believe yourself to be superior to them on detecting their errors, but it is better not to fall into that trap.


.

[Blair]

Alex was right about you needing a spanking.

And I'll tell you, if you were my daughter, the way you carry on you would get gagged, spanked and bitch slapped into the middle of next week and beyond.