Otto Weininger on MTV

[jupiviv]

Undeveloped in the sense that he wrote Sex and Character and pursued his thought during the first wave of his philosophical career. He unleashed a tsunami of brilliance, if you like, but didn't hang around long enough to assess that first wave with an older, wiser head and make the necessary corrections.

Very few philosophies don't require corrections - the Buddha, Hakuin and Nagarjuna come to mind. Western philosophy is full of mistakes even at its best, probably because western philosophers hover around on the surface instead of getting to the essence.

[cousinbasil]

Undeveloped in the sense that he wrote Sex and Character and pursued his thought during the first wave of his philosophical career. He unleashed a tsunami of brilliance, if you like, but didn't hang around long enough to assess that first wave with an older, wiser head and make the necessary corrections.

And he may very well have required years and years before he could even make the effort to refine the initial offering. He could not see the light at the end of that tunnel. How is this not obvious? This is no great historical mystery or tragedy. Educated young men routinely published theses in his day. It seems that this particular thesis was an overreaching attempt to draw in theretofore disparate lines of discourse. Is it not always history itself that judges such attempts? Doesn't the vetting of time alone transform a work into a classic? If not, if there is such a thing as an instant classic, then it is pretty clear that Sex and Character is not one of them. Its publication provoked a tremendous burst of silence. It was not an important work in its day. It remains unimportant. Only the figure of OW has somehow survived. Can anyone indicate a single area in which this work has proved seminal?

I confess I could not read the entire work. But then, I could not read Gravity's Rainbow from cover to cover with out skipping ahead here and there. And Pynchon is a genius, not just some sentimental favorite who decided to bow out before his dues became due. And don't start with the apples and oranges BS - be honest. If you compare Weininger to anyone or anything else, you are doing the apples/oranges thing. That is the whole point. It's not that SAC was so original - it was not - it is that is was disconnected from the mainstreams of Western thought because it sought to force so many of them into one package. That might work if you are Isaac Newton. I have read Newton and Weininger, sir, was no Newton!

[Talking Ass]

I agree with what you wrote, cousinbasil, with one small caveat: it does occur to me.sometimes, though I ask myself if I.am.not resorting to.the attractiveness of reductionist thinking, if 'we' fail to really identify certain key directing facts about our.human existence, and so we continue along (in this 'causation') without fundamentally realizing what is driving us. I am not saying that W really got to that core, and if he were a genius he shortchanged everyone by not developing his ideas, but in some way at least the male-female question (operating at a fundamental level) is one that few are inclined to really look at. One could take it to a yogic-physiological level and not as prejudicial anti-woman or 'frauenhass' which in some sense the QRS seem to do. But again, it does seem to me that men need a sort of 'science of definition of masculinity', and W offers the shell of such a 'science'. What do you think?

[jupiviv]

Can anyone indicate a single area in which this work has proved seminal?

He clarified what it means to be a man, and what it means to be a woman, and established that everyone is both a man and a woman to some degree. He also clarified what it means to be a genius, as opposed to being merely talented. Those are great achievements, far greater than anything Newton has done.

I confess I could not read the entire work.

Be honest, cousinbasil. You didn't read any of it. Or if you did, you clearly haven't even attempted to understand it.

[Talking Ass]

The way you describe it only makes it sound pathetic, Jupi. W is not hard to read.and I.hardly think one needs to read all of S&C to get all there is to get. But the real question is what one does with this info, these ideas. You seem to do next to nothing with them and your writing is generally speaking insipid. That is not good.

I.could.easily imagine a whole.army of skinny, effeminate men drawn to W in an attwmpt to affirm what they do not at all have themselves: basic masculine energy. Not to understand that problem is an unfortunate thing.

[guest_of_logic]

Laird, I am curious what you think of the outlook of Bohm?

All I know of it is what I've just read in Cory's link and on Wikipedia - it's not enough to form an opinion. It does seem interesting, though. If I had the concentration I'd learn relativity and quantum mechanics well enough so that I could understand theories like his. Is there anything in particular you wanted to discuss about it?

[Talking Ass]

Only that if an underlying structurizing force is understood to exist, there is a ground on which to 'hang' other levels of metaphysical structure. If one has the support of 'hard science' in positing such an underlying organizing structure, there exists a more sound reasoning behind conceiving of and describing certain 'metaphysical' levels and also occurrances.

Sidelong glance at the local 'rationalists'...

[David Quinn]

The underlying organizing structure is, of course, causation. Causation is at the root of all things, metaphysical or otherwise. It is the God of Gods.

Science rests on it, but no scientific theory can ever prove it. It is a purely logic matter - as all genuine knowledge is.

-

[David Quinn]

Undeveloped in the sense that he wrote Sex and Character and pursued his thought during the first wave of his philosophical career. He unleashed a tsunami of brilliance, if you like, but didn't hang around long enough to assess that first wave with an older, wiser head and make the necessary corrections.

And he may very well have required years and years before he could even make the effort to refine the initial offering. He could not see the light at the end of that tunnel. How is this not obvious? This is no great historical mystery or tragedy. Educated young men routinely published theses in his day. It seems that this particular thesis was an overreaching attempt to draw in theretofore disparate lines of discourse. Is it not always history itself that judges such attempts? Doesn't the vetting of time alone transform a work into a classic? If not, if there is such a thing as an instant classic, then it is pretty clear that Sex and Character is not one of them. Its publication provoked a tremendous burst of silence. It was not an important work in its day. It remains unimportant. Only the figure of OW has somehow survived. Can anyone indicate a single area in which this work has proved seminal?

It is probably too flawed to ever be considered seminal. Yet it is too original and taboo-breaking to be dismissed. And so there it uncomfortably sits - an ugly child, a loner, laughed at by all the other children, mumbling about matters that no one wants to hear about.

From my perspective, the most glaring flaw was Weininger's failure to understand the Infinite. He was so close, only a connection or two away. You can see it in his writings on genius, identity and logic, and also in his observations on causation and psychology, that he was on the threshold. A little bit more push and he would have made that all-important breakthrough.

If he had done that, everything would have changed. He would have been able to assess his work in a completely new light. For example, he would have seen through the childish romanticism that drove him to suicide and also to Christianity (same thing at bottom). At the crucial juncture, just when a holy act of logic was required, he allowed his emotions to get the better of him and he was scurried away back into human mediocrity and death.

But you know, he was young. It is the sort of silly thing young people do.

-

[guest_of_logic]

TA, sounds good, I've been reading more on Wikipedia to try to find out whether his outlook supports that and it's hard to discover. The article on his view of implicate and explicate order is the closest I've come - the quote at the top refers to a "deeper order" from which space and time can be abstracted, such that they appear in 'the "explicate" or "unfolded" order, which is a special and distinguished form contained within the general totality of all the implicate orders'. It's not clear to me whether in his view the "explicate" order as a special form of "the general totality of all the implicate orders" supports a metaphysic including spirit realms, so I'll leave that one to the experts - it seems like a promising line of inquiry though. There's even something for the local rationalists in it, with his concept of "wholeness", as described in the Holomovement article, bringing a fresh take on the Totality.

[David Quinn]

There is nothing in Bohm's Holomovement idea that I haven't already thought about. And unfortunately, like Weininger, he doesn't cut through to the very root of the matter. So from my perspective, his take on the matter is rather stale.

-

[jupiviv]

I.hardly think one needs to read all of S&C to get all there is to get.

What do you think one gets out of reading it?

But the real question is what one does with this info, these ideas. You seem to do next to nothing with them and your writing is generally speaking insipid. That is not good.

I'm not heavily influenced by him, but his insights into feminine psychology are second to none. However, to appreciate these insights one has to abandon any kind of attachment to women, including that of misogyny. A misogynist reader of the book may get some encouragement from parts of it, but if he is intelligent enough he would soon understand that the truth in it would shatter his misogyny.

It(Sex and Character) is probably too flawed to ever be considered seminal.

I think the book more than achieves its aim, which in Weininger's own words is "to throw a new and decisive light on the relationship between
the sexes". It would probably be flawed if he intended it to be a guide to enlightenment, although not very much. But he doesn't, so I don know what you mean by it being flawed.

From my perspective, the most glaring flaw was Weininger's failure to understand the Infinite.

He did understand it, but he wasn't very clear about it.

For example, he would have seen through the childish romanticism that drove him to suicide and also to Christianity (same thing at bottom).

I don't know what you mean by "childish romanticism." It's not like he shot himself in front of his girlfriend because she was leaving him. He doesn't seem to have made a big deal out of his suicide, except perhaps for himself. I think the reason for his suicide was that he felt trapped within his flaws, and thought it was better to die than to continue living with them.

[cousinbasil]

On Weininger's regard for jews; another philosopher mentioned that OW made a distinction between Zionism and Judaism, implicating that Zionism was the cloistering together as a homogeneous unit that he viewed as unspiritual and cowardly, whereas the instinct of Judaism was dispersion, which he seen as a masculine impulse. So while he critiqued the Jewish character, he also pointed to the solution for his people, implicating that they had made progress in a direction he approved of.

This is an interesting observation. It seems very familiar - I believe I have read other Jewish writers make a similar distinction, knowing all too well that a world which is not typically friendly to Judaism is very often downright hostile to Zionism. A nonmilitant, average Jewish Joe Schmo (Moe Schmo?) may not find himself overly fond of the various Zionist movements in the last 120 years or so. But while not all Jews are Zionists, all Zionists are Jews. Start pressing your apolitical Jewish friend about the Gaza strip, and you can sense the defensiveness begin to bubble up. If Zionism (militant) is somehow feminine and cowardly, while the Diaspora is somehow masculine (six million Jews putting up little resistance while being herded into showers), then almost every Jewish person I have ever met will go, "Say what?!! What you sayin' 'bout my Moms...?" For every child may secretly favor one parent over the other, that preference will evaporate when someone outside the clan attacks...

[David Quinn]

From my perspective, the most glaring flaw was Weininger's failure to understand the Infinite.

He did understand it, but he wasn't very clear about it.

Sorry, that doesn't wash. If he understood it, he would have been clear about it.

For example, he would have seen through the childish romanticism that drove him to suicide and also to Christianity (same thing at bottom).

I don't know what you mean by "childish romanticism." It's not like he shot himself in front of his girlfriend because she was leaving him. He doesn't seem to have made a big deal out of his suicide, except perhaps for himself. I think the reason for his suicide was that he felt trapped within his flaws, and thought it was better to die than to continue living with them.

He went to the trouble of shooting himself in Beethoven's old room, which indicates a strong romantic gesture. And his last-minute conversion to Christianity was driven by a romantic love of mysticism.

By "romantic", I mean the older sense of the word - that of being youthful and idealistic.

-

[David Quinn]

It(Sex and Character) is probably too flawed to ever be considered seminal.

I think the book more than achieves its aim, which in Weininger's own words is "to throw a new and decisive light on the relationship between
the sexes". It would probably be flawed if he intended it to be a guide to enlightenment, although not very much. But he doesn't, so I don know what you mean by it being flawed.

We could say it is seminal for those who take the issue of masculine and feminine psychology seriously. But such people are very rare.

As a body of work, it doesn't seem to have enough in it to break into mainstream consciousness - whether that be due to the resistance of the human race, or because of its own failings.

-

[Talking Ass]

Cb: the part about Zionism being 'cowardly' and remaining in tne Diaspora 'masculine', I understood in this way: that according to. Jewish sense of both God and Fate, the Diaspora was God's decree. To accept that fate and deal with it, would be 'masculine'. But to try to 'weasel' out of it by one's own machinations would be 'cowardly' and 'unmanly'.

The Holocaust produced and still is producing many reassessments on many different levels. It was perhaps the main defining event of Jewish history and unenvisioned at W's time, obviously.

Jewish decensiveness about Gaza? Really? (*scratches head*). In whom did you notice that? ;-)

[cousinbasil]

Jewish decensiveness about Gaza? Really? (*scratches head*). In whom did you notice that? ;-)

Any time a blue-eyed kraut (such as me) ventures a criticism to a Jew about any Israeli policy...

Some day I will tell you about the time I almost won an argument with a Jew...

[jupiviv]

He did understand it, but he wasn't very clear about it.

Sorry, that doesn't wash. If he understood it, he would have been clear about it.

There are varying levels of understanding of the Infinite, and therefore varying levels of clarity in expressing it. Also, some people may have a different way of looking at it than others, and Weininger often liked to make up his own definitions. Some of Weininger's writings, especially the latter ones, clearly show an understanding of the Infinite.

By "romantic", I mean the older sense of the word - that of being youthful and idealistic.

I see. That's not a bad thing if you can use it to propel yourself towards enlightenment. The problem is that normally people are idealistic only if their ideals reward them in some way. I think Weininger thought that his ideals were unattainable, which is why he committed suicide out of despair.

As a body of work, it doesn't seem to have enough in it to break into mainstream consciousness - whether that be due to the resistance of the human race, or because of its own failings.

What do you think its failings are, as an analysis of masculine and feminine psychology? Not breaking into mainstream consciousness doesn't stop it from being seminal. People who read the work with the aim of actually understanding it will see its value. The problem is most people just try to dismiss his book by attacking everything about him and the book itself that seems to discredit what he wrote. However the amount of meanness that accompanies this proves the value of his work, for while people can get angry at a lie, they can only be mean towards the truth.

[Talking Ass]

Jupi asks: "What do you think one gets out of reading it?"

At best, one is stimulated to see things in a harsher light and to extra-value masculinity, and also to categorize women with a certain force or harshness, which seems to result in putting them under the microscope, which results in a heightened sense of a man's own value vis-a-vis a womannish culture generally, which leads a man to certain radical questions and propositions about the central goal in a 'conscious' person's existence, which naturally has become the central stated goal and drive in this 'Q-R-S' philosophy, which is indeed a good and necessary thing.

However, W is 'merely elucidating' and reexplaining and reemphasising a thrust that already exists in Christianity [and at every turn he refers to Christianity and to the mission of Jesus as opposition to Judaism, as it is generally understood]. In this, his Christianity becomes 'radical Christianity', and is exactly the Radical Christianity of the Q-R-S and this fact cannot be sidestepped. Because it is still 'Christianity', it is neither new and at least in a group of senses is not 'really radical'. Or, what is radical in it [in my view] requires more work in bringing out the important aspects.

Still, in my view, one cannot condemn Q-R-S and their fellow radical-definers---or you for that matter---for desiring to stick to a radical program, even though you yourselves may be more essentially female than you;d ever care to admit! No matter what, everything of Value in this world generally comes into existence because someone is 'acting radical'. Yet it too can have extremely negative results and only a fool (of which there are not a few lurking about) would forcibly remain ignorant of these dangers. The Tone of radicalism and of radical wielding of radical definitions [in W] most indeedily smacks of some of the future apsects of National Socialism. That is why I say it is 'just a hop, skip and a jump' in the tweaking of some of your-plural absurd and unstudied declarations that one might suddenly find oneself in a territory of 'Spiritual Fascism' and other fascisms too.

First comes the Radical Definition, then the imposition of that definition. So far, everyone who becomes W's champion gives clear evidence of a certain lack of restraint, a certain lack of holding back and thinking things through betterly, more judiciously. Not to mention the unmentionable 'psychological factors' such as in your own case. W's perspective was The Turn of the Century, but we now have so many new and different perspectives and considerations available to us. Also, these Weininger views can only seem to lead to 'extremism', yet extremism is one of the marks and requirements of radical religion certainly, but of so many other extremisms. It seems this has to be thought through much more than it ever is or likely will be by 'them' or by you.

If a man is to be 'liberated' of the very matrix that has given rise to him [this is what y'all mean by 'enlightenment' I take it], one needs a kind of structure to hang that notion on. Liberated from what to do just exactly what? You would say 'Realize the Infinite' and your explication is completely and absolutely rational. It is like revealing a complicated equation or offering an explanation of a complex math problem. This is the part I have never quite understood, simply because it seems incomplete to me.

If 'enlightenment' exists as a possibility for a human being, is this 'enlightenment' a choice? I mean, is it just as random a choice as any other ['empty and meaningless'] choice? How did this 'enlightenment' come into existence? Is it part-and-parcel of the Creation as the Yogis say? That aspect of the Creation (Bramhan) which is 'Ananda-Bliss'? How does one explain and defend that? As with Yoga-science, I think you'd almost need to have recourse to a physiological science of 'subtle nerves' and a means (as with Patanjali) of working with and dealing with the 'fluctuations' in the mind that resonate with the [Maya] fluctuations in the surrounding Cosmos that produce and maintain illusion, false appearances. If you-all propose that Weininger and any 'man of genius' who pushes the questions through will arrive at a definition of the Infinite [sic], is Buddhism the only mental system and language with which you can express it? That seems flawed to me for a number of reasons, not the least of which being: This Wisdom and this Infinite must be linked, organically, with our own roots and 'traditions'. Otherwise you might as well posit the receiving of impulses from ETs or from distant stars...

There is a way that all 'wisdom traditions' dovetail in and out of the cultural matrix that produced them. They do not seem to break away and to separate themselves from that matrix. These are some of the problems 'you' face with your extremist religion it seems to me.

Weininger wrote in Talent and Memory:"The 'timeless' men are those who make history, for history can be made only by those who are not floating in the stream. It is only those who are unconditioned by time who have real value, and whose productions have an enduring force. And the events that become forces of culture become so only because they have an enduring value."

The operative word here is 'value' and this is one that y'all stumble over with a terrible regularity. You wish to value grand things, but the grand things that you value seem to disappear out of your own hands under your very gaze.

[Kunga]

On women being Nothing & men Something:

The myriad creatures in the world are born from Something,
And Something from Nothing.

-Lao Tzu


Nothing=The Nature of Tao

This is part and parcel of the difference between the Taoist view, and the philosophical views we find in the West. In Western tradition, up to the begining of the
present century at least, it has generally been assumed that only what exists, can be real, so much so that when, at one time, universals were denied existence, an "ad hoc' substance had to be invented to give them reality.

With the Taoist, however, whatever has existence cannot be real, for whatever exists also suffers from the limitations of the specific. Hense it is thought far less misleading to say of the Tao that it is like Nothing, though, strictly speaking, the Tao can be no more like Nothing than it is like Something.


The weak, the submissive, the bent, these are important concepts in the Lao Tzu, because these are the qualities the Tao exhibits.

[Pam Seeback]

The underlying organizing structure is, of course, causation. Causation is at the root of all things, metaphysical or otherwise. It is the God of Gods.

Science rests on it, but no scientific theory can ever prove it. It is a purely logic matter - as all genuine knowledge is.

-

The idea of causation is, indeed, a purely logic matter. Ergo, the appearance of the dead/static word "genuine" and not the speaking/demonstrating of a living word of I AM THAT.

[Cory Duchesne]

About the "femaleness" of QRS.

If it's true that they are unconscious of how female they really are, it's interesting to consider in what dimension of biology/psychology that they are female.

As I've been repeatedly been emphasizing, "the heart" has significance in spirituality. You'll notice that the "mother type" in Weininger's philosophy is depicted as "mean", withholding, paranoid, and essentially heartless. For anyone who has done a lot of dating of women, these types exist. They are generally paired up with men who lack passion and heart. These men are also very analytical and devoid of creativity. If they get involved in music, they usually just mimic, rather than create. With these types, the music can often lean towards very aggressive; metal, black metal, death metal, or at other times, a sort of analytical style of Jazz, that while interesting in an abstract sense, it is rather superficial and lacks the depth of feeling that plays a shamanistic function.

Masculinization occurs in two dimensions; it occurs in a purely intellectual sphere, blessing the creature with powers in abstraction, language, and analysis.

However, it also occurs in an endocrinlogical sense, blessing the creature with powers in creativity, love, youthfulness, and social-courage. If you were masculinized in the heart, you manifest as a John Lennon, Jim Morrison, Jimi Hendrix, James Dean, Marlon Brando, or Bob Dylan type. These types of men are receptive to beauty in a super human sense, and with that, comes great social courage, a love for humanity that less masculinized men could not relate to. However, it often happens that men of such hearts have no mind. For instance, the intellectual confusion of John Lennon, or artist in general. With a blessing comes a curse.

This explains the perplexing drama of QRS when Kevin Solway went travelling. Dan Rowden and DQ behaved like possessive, jealous women. It was obvious to everyone watching.

Anyone who does philosophy knows how painful and scary it can be to socialize and put yourself at mercy to ordinary people, and therefore, it's entirely reasonable to admire (or envy) a man for doing some travelling, interacting and making his way through the world socially.

To deepen the analysis, Kevin Solway has always been a more gentle and effective teacher. He started it all. His knowledge base is more thorough, and Poison for the Heart is exquisite. Paired with this appearance, Solway himself has a greater respect and love for folk music. Whether it's Bob Dylan, local Australian folk, or classical, the man just seems more in-tune with what, in my estimation, is a more masculine heart. There is no angry, aggressive metal to be found in his personality, and my guess is he probably has no connection to much of the pretentious theoretical indulgences of Jazz. The adrenal gland may be less prominent.

Rowden is obviously the least balanced man. DQ is the next step up, but there is still a strange shadow cast by him. Finally, Solway emerges higher, but the masculinity of his heart is probably not even close to maximum expression.

All three men exhibit a very advanced capacity for abstraction, and so on account of their productivity alone, all three are to be admired and honoured for their service.

David Quinn in particular, if I were to command a star-ship, would be quite fitting in the role of a surveyor of planets, analysing prospects for colonization or exploration, and a strategist in warfare.

Where David Quinn might want to step down is in matters of psychology of alien species, diplomacy and "first contact" procedures. Someone like Solway would be more fitting for that, and there would be far greater psychologists, such as Carl Jung or J. Krishnamurti to help with establishing a respectful rapport.

David Quinn as Worf on Star Trek | TNG

[Cory Duchesne]

"To the devil, everything, and indeed his power, is only on loan. He knows that (that is why he regards God as his provider; why he revenges himself on God; all evil is annihilation of the believer; the criminal wants to kill God) and does not know it or know otherwise (this is why he is the fool on Judgement Day). At the same time, that he knows this and does not know it is his lie. The devil, you see, is the man who has everything, and yet is not good, while totality only flows from good and only exists through good. The devil knows the whole of heaven, and wants to use God as a means to an end (he is thus essentially a hypocrite): and of course he is used as a means to the same degree." (Otto Weininger)

“All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; Third, it is accepted as self-evident.” (Arthur Schopenhauer)

"Real compassion kicks butt and takes names, and it is not pleasant on certain days. If you are not ready for this fire, then find a new-age, sweetness-and-light, soft-speaking, perpetually smiling teacher, and learn to relabel your ego with spiritual sounding terms. But stay away from those that practice real compassion, because they will fry your ass, my friend." (Ken Wilber)


Core Webworks new client: Musician and philosopher, Patrick Watts | Eros Sings

[Talking Ass]

WARNING! WARNING! Beta infestation detected! All hands required on deck!

Zrrrrrrrt. *crackle* [Siren wail]

"Attention! An attack on the masculinity of members D and Q has been detected! Structural edifice of philosophy in danger of collapse. All who are able, rush immediately to scene of crime and apply bactine. ALERT! Have quotes at the ready. Smokescreen defenses. Uppity retorts. Dismissive humor. Diebert, your help is required. Five thousand posts and now you're really needed!"

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The main problem I have with the posts is that I'm not a fan of Kevin's work and style. Don't care that much for the Poison book and don't get much out of his posts generally with some notable exceptions. But he's less combatant and easier to listen to than most at this forum and good to watch on the video's, some of which I do value. Probably he has a 'father figure' thing going, the "distant god act" perhaps, works on the young and female so well, like a charm every time! His aloof face and mood, the voice and wit of Dan and the penetrating butterfly missiles of David would form the perfect next messiah-chimera.