Mind is Mind. It can be diminished.Carl G wrote:Wisdom is wisdom. It cannot be diminished.
Wisdom depends on a mind.
Therefore, wisdom can be diminished.
Mind is Mind. It can be diminished.Carl G wrote:Wisdom is wisdom. It cannot be diminished.
People who are really into orgies would say so.Carl G wrote:Can Sex be diminished by fewer bodies?
I guess my question is, why would a guy who knows this game, and is spiritually minded, want to play it? If the finish line is, as you say, "to lay her easily," that's not much of a prize. Unless he has designs of starting a family with her. One way or another, it makes him a sort of reverse cow, doesn't it? It makes him a bitch's bitch. The mating game doesn't have a whole lot going for it, unless that is what one is suited for.skipair wrote:
To be clear, to a seducer who knows the mating dance sequence, it does not matter if the girl is low or high drama. She may indeed attract a particular type of guy who is oblivious to seduction principles, but a seducer needs only to make slight alterations on the theme to lay her easily. It doesn't matter what the psychological makeup of a girl is, they all LOVE seducers. Shocking, but true.
Again, the mating dance. Making babies. One in ten is by the seducer in the woodshed. Sixty years old, seventy, she's married, doesn't matter. "Easiest to lay." Fascinating, this sordid body of knowledge with which you preoccupy yourself, isn't it.What I meant was that these buttons a man can push to quickly advance the mating dance sequence are in place for the sake of creating babies. It doesn't matter how old the woman is, or how close she is in her decision to have a baby, she cannot transcend her conditioning. There are countless field reports to prove this. Actually, older women with children are among the easiest for a seducer to lay. She is bored as hell with her husband.
Carl G wrote:Sex depends on Body. Can Sex be diminished by fewer bodies?
No, all things are caused.Elizabeth wrote:Wisdom is a discrete thing unto itself.
A match burning, causes light. If the match becomes entirely consumed by the flame, then the flame ends, and thus the light ends.Elizabeth wrote: If there is no mind to hold wisdom, it can be debated whether or not wisdom actually exists.
The mind doesn't hold wisdom as if it's some object to be discovered and grasped onto: the mind simply becomes wise.Elizabeth wrote: If there is no mind to hold wisdom, there would be no manifestation of wisdom in that time - but in the scope of the Totality, there would still be wisdom - waiting (so to speak) for a mind to discover it.
I didn't say, the amount of people. I said Sex. Can Sex be diminished? Obviously it cannot, since Sex is not a quantity. Nor is Wisdom a quantity. But perhaps we are getting stuck in semantics.Cory Duchesne wrote:Carl: Sex depends on Body. Can Sex be diminished by fewer bodies?
Cory: The amount of people who can have sex is diminished by fewer bodies.
Again, we are speaking not of people but of Wisdom. Wisdom itself cannot diminish anymore than the Truth can diminish. You are speaking of the spread of Wisdom, which is another thing altogether.Likewise, when bodies become fewer, the amount of people who can have wisdom diminishes.
Wisdom is more or less widely spread, but this does not affect Wisdom itself or its survival.Imagine visiting a variety of planets harboring beings that vary in intelligence. Naturally, as you study a planet's beings, you might ask; "How much wisdom is there on this planet?"
For one planet, there might be so much wisdom that the entire species is regarded as wise, with the odd foolish exceptions.
On another planet, there might be so little wisdom that the entire species is regarded as foolish, with the odd wise exceptions.
I did not say that wisdom was uncaused, and I agree that there must be conditions for a mind to become wise. I'm talking A=A here.Cory Duchesne wrote:Elizabeth,
No, all things are caused.Elizabeth wrote:Wisdom is a discrete thing unto itself.
That particular light in that particular space in time ends at the end of that time period. In the scope of the Totality, light still exists - although in the scope of the Absolute, the light never existed.Cory Duchesne wrote:A match burning, causes light. If the match becomes entirely consumed by the flame, then the flame ends, and thus the light ends.
Yes, the mind becomes wise with the causative factors just as a woman becomes pregnant with the right causative factors. Pregnancy is not the fetus, although the fetus is a necessary cause of pregnancy. After a woman has her baby, her pregnancy terminates, but there is still such thing as pregnancy.Cory Duchesne wrote:The mind doesn't hold wisdom as if it's some object to be discovered and grasped onto: the mind simply becomes wise.
This is a generalization, and it implies to some women. Mostly teenage girls, and young women in their twenties. However, a woman’s mind changes as she gets older. She does mature quite a bit. For instance: many older women don’t want drama from a guy any longer, they grow tired of it, and they’re no longer as concerned with mating, so they simply want a stable routine with a stable guy.Ryan, what you may not realize is that when these females tell you about their sorrows, they are LOVING the drama. And when they leave you and go out with their girlfriends right after they are chipper, giggling, and acting as if NOTHING bad had ever happened to them their whole lives. And after that they go directly back to the seducer she "hates" so much, fucks his brains out, tells him she has never loved anyone more in her entire life, and has unbelievable respect for him.
Carl G wrote:I didn't say, the amount of people. I said Sex. Can Sex be diminished? Obviously it cannot, since Sex is not a quantity.Cory Duchesne wrote:Carl: Sex depends on Body. Can Sex be diminished by fewer bodies?
Cory: The amount of people who can have sex is diminished by fewer bodies.
No, this is an issue worth tackling. Wisdom is a quality of a quantity. To be concerned with the survival of wisdom, you must be concerned with the survival of particular quantities, which inexorably have certain qualities. For instance, an individual may be concerned with preserving some cooking recipes. This involves, among other things, being concerned with preserving one or more books filled with quantities of words.Nor is Wisdom a quantity. But perhaps we are getting stuck in semantics.
It's perfectly correct to concern yourself with the survival of a quality, whether it is truth, wisdom or light from a flame.Carl wrote:Again, we are speaking not of people but of Wisdom. Wisdom itself cannot diminish anymore than the Truth can diminish. You are speaking of the spread of Wisdom, which is another thing altogether.Likewise, when bodies become fewer, the amount of people who can have wisdom diminishes.
That's just like saying, "the human race can be more or less widely spread, but this does not affect it's survival." Wrong!carl wrote: Wisdom is more or less widely spread, but this does not affect Wisdom itself or its survival.
As I've stated before, there are thousands of field reports that show this is false. They do not get tired of drama or mating whether they are 15 or 50.S: Ryan, what you may not realize is that when these females tell you about their sorrows, they are LOVING the drama. And when they leave you and go out with their girlfriends right after they are chipper, giggling, and acting as if NOTHING bad had ever happened to them their whole lives. And after that they go directly back to the seducer she "hates" so much, fucks his brains out, tells him she has never loved anyone more in her entire life, and has unbelievable respect for him.
R: This is a generalization, and it implies to some women. Mostly teenage girls, and young women in their twenties. However, a woman’s mind changes as she gets older. She does mature quite a bit. For instance: many older women don’t want drama from a guy any longer, they grow tired of it, and they’re no longer as concerned with mating,
Yes, all women want a stable relationship more than anything. The problem with this is that whenever they rope a guy into a stable and commited relationship, she is almost inevitably bored as hell. He doesn't understand her need for conflict, and she loses her attraction for him almost universally. You're right in the respect that not all women put themselves out there looking for one night stands as more younger girls do, but that does not mean ALL women don't appreciate a one night stand no matter what their age or how much they make themselves available, and it doesn't mean that ALL women don't hope that some day a man will come and extend that one night stand into a secure marriage, where she can have all the crazy and wonderful emotional fluctuations for a lifetime.R: so they simply want a stable routine with a stable guy.
As I stated earlier psychological landscape can vary, but this ultimately does not effect the bottom line mechanisms of the mating dance sequence. This also applies to intelligence. All women are more or less "equally smart" when it comes to these matters.R: Another thing you are not considering is that women vary in intelligence as well. Some are more intellectual than others, and some prefer less emotionally charged conversations over drama.
Self esteem is an important issue. If a girl has a relatively high self esteem, she will not put up with an abusive man. If she has low self esteem, she will not put up with an unabusive man! That being said, her self esteem is larely determined in her childhood, and will simply continue to affirm her either positive or negative thought patterns as her life continues. And sure, even high self esteem women do suffer, but as you say they have emotional mood swings, and soon after the suffering is over and she is loving life. Guys should not fool themselves into thinking she is capable of being happy on an even keel. She has two primary emotional needs: to feel like a queen and a fucking cunt. She enjoys both.R: And women do in fact suffer, they get really attached to men, they suffer heart breaks, they go through emotional mood swings, they have all sorts of negative thought patterns, and all the rest of it. She isn’t totally incoherent to the point where her suffering is insubstantial like you are suggesting.
Men could use this knowledge to be abusive. That ultimately depends on their fundamental character, not on whether they have this knowledge or not. I'm not actually talking so much about ethics right now. This is a thread about the world of women, and I'm sharing information about a very large chunk of female life that is fact. Most men simply don't know it to be true, and I do hope they use this info wisely.R: The problem with your thinking is that you can use this generalized knowledge of women it to justify treating her in any way you deem fit. You can conclude that because she is so inferior, a man can manipulate her and do whatever he likes. However, such a view is not considering the subtlety of her suffering, and the consequences of treating her like her suffering doesn’t matter.
Do you think wisdom is some objective 'thing' apart from the mind being wise? Isn't wisdom a quality of mind?Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:I did not say that wisdom was uncaused, and I agree that there must be conditions for a mind to become wise. I'm talking A=A here.Cory Duchesne wrote:Elizabeth,
No, all things are caused.Elizabeth wrote:Wisdom is a discrete thing unto itself.
You mean as an idea, right? Can there be ideas without a mind?Eliz wrote:Yes, the mind becomes wise with the causative factors just as a woman becomes pregnant with the right causative factors. Pregnancy is not the fetus, although the fetus is a necessary cause of pregnancy. After a woman has her baby, her pregnancy terminates, but there is still such thing as pregnancy.Cory Duchesne wrote:The mind doesn't hold wisdom as if it's some object to be discovered and grasped onto: the mind simply becomes wise.
Since all things are Ultimately one thing, where you choose to draw your boundaries is, to an extent, your choice.Cory Duchesne wrote:Do you think wisdom is some objective 'thing' apart from the mind being wise? Isn't wisdom a quality of mind?
Cory Duchesne wrote:You mean as an idea, right? Can there be ideas without a mind?
Cory Duchesne wrote: You can't divide quality from quantity, if you remove or change one, you remove or change the other. To be concerned with the survival of quality, (wittingly or not) is to be concerned with the survival of the quantity....this is an issue worth tackling. Wisdom is a quality of a quantity.
You sound like the production manager at a widget factory.To be concerned with the survival of wisdom, you must be concerned with the survival of particular quantities, which inexorably have certain qualities.
This metaphor fucking doesn't work. Sorry.For instance, an individual may be concerned with preserving some cooking recipes. This involves, among other things, being concerned with preserving one or more books filled with quantities of words.
A chef is careful not to add too much or too little, in order to achieve the desired quality. Likewise, he is careful not to add too much or too little of 'a particular quality of' additive.
Again, it is correct to concern yourself with the "survival" of those things in as much as they live or do not live within yourself.It's perfectly correct to concern yourself with the survival of a quality, whether it is truth, wisdom
And with the light from a flame, fine, but it is foolish to concern yourself with the state of the Sun.or light from a flame.
Very good. Making it personal is good. And cultivating wisdom in oneself is very good.For instance, if I want my campfire to survive over the course of a night, I don't want a small narrow flame in the middle of the hearth, but rather, I want to fuel my flame with quantities of (a particular quality) of wood to ensure the fire spreads out and fills the whole hearth. Because I desire the survival of a particular quality, I concern myself with establishing and maintaining the presence of a certain quantity.
But where is the boundary of "you".Carl G wrote: To Cory:
Your concerns for the survival of Wisdom are misplaced, unless you refer specifically to its survival in you
I'm not sure I know what this is intended to mean. There are many areas of life where gender should make exactly zero difference.Here are my suggestions for this accommodation. Eliminate "mandated sexual equality".
Yes, which is something I find interesting. Men are becoming aware that whilst there exists a prevailing myth that women are the family minded ones, their idea of family is generally "me and my kids in a secure environment". Replace the father "protector/provider" role in a relationship that has passed the romance phase and the man is readily seen as redundant. Bizarrely, he may even be seen as a failure due to his forced redundancy. Society expresses a strange sort of multiple personality syndrome when it comes to its view of the role of men as parents. It will uphold their role stridently when there's some sort of responsibility involved on his behalf. But in circumstances where the only thing on offer is his own soul as a father, it amounts to not much at all a lot of the time. His parenting is seen within very limited parameters both by his wife and society. I don't think mothers or society even see men's relationship to their children as being a natural thing, as it is with women. Men "play" at being dads; women are natural mothers. There's actually a bit of truth to this, but the problem arises wherein parenting is judged almost exclusively through the filter of female parenting and nurturance. Male parenting and nurturance is basically judged by this female parenting template, which is stupid as men and women parent differently.Get the government out of our sex relations with the same vigor that conservatives want them out of our economic relations. Our families are now being teared apart mostly by women. They are initiating divorce at a 70% rate and it correlates with increased economic independence.
It's not just that, of course, it's also the idea of women as the natural and rightful and best parent. Now that women and indeed couples dump their kids in childcare for most of their childhood it's hard to make that argument anymore.The trouble is the divorce and custody laws are based on a by gone era of the male's earning power.
Sure, but the best way to encourage stable families is to encourage sanity, before and after marriage, but preferably before.With women now making more money than men and with them owning 55% of the wealth and it climbing fast, we need a new legal paradigm in custody and divorce to balance things better and encourage stable families.
Well, see, that's a problem. Part of how feminism plied its trade was by characterising itself as a remedy for injustices. Turns out in many cases it simply replaced a perceived injustice with another one. I don't think it's a sound response for men to just do the same. Personally I think the spouse that initiates divorce (wherein a relationship has simply broken down without other serious considerations) should be the one to move out and custody arrangements made from there.My suggestion is assumption of father's custody to replace our present assumption of mother's custody.
Seems rather punitive and vengeful to me. I think this is exactly the sort of thing we should be trying to avoid. Isn't this the sort of mentality that makes divorces messy and bad for children? If there are no extenuating circumstances the non-initiator should get custody, if only to allow the children to remain in their home environment. I do not believe people should remain in bad marriages because of swords hanging over their heads.This will make women think twice before filing for divorce and if they do, they will get their just deserts...visitation with the kids and non custodial parenthood.
That could actually be quite beneficial to society but it won't happen in our lifetime.Other solutions I have suggested are converting the welfare system into a "manfare" system that guarantees a stipend to men to do with whatever they want.
I think you just got punitive and vengeful again!This would be funded by a higher income tax on women.
That will never happen in our lifetime either. Most people view the genuine spiritual life as harmful, not helpfulThe money could be used to supplement family income or bankroll learning how to be Buddha or Jesus thereby encouraging a spiritual life for men that will also buttress our helping professions.
I don't think I agree with that unless those interests benefit society generally, which one would imagine would be one of men's interests. Unless you mean redressing feminist injustices, in which case I'd agree, but I would think that falls within the parameters of what I just said.Men also need to organize politically for male specific interests.
The problem you have there is much of it is driven by men and their own false thinking and ideations. It's men giving women what they cry out for, as per usual.It's ridiculous having this huge exclusive and ideologically driven female advocacy and none for men.
This can only change if men change their own thinking. Let's start there, shall we.That is why things are so unfair to men and why there is now huge injustices to them and it's increasing exponentially as time goes on.
the male dominated model is not obsolete. That is, the real patriarchy, not the one that is pandering to women. I'm talking about where fathers controlled the money and owned the property, so as not to be squandered by female materialism.daybrown wrote:they were still socialized to an obsolete male dominated model.
I can't see Zarathustra doing that.Pye wrote:To own is to have been/still be Nietzsche's originally noble man: the one who had the strength and wit to pick up the first stick and fend everything weaker away from it with the cry, "This is mine!"
It's about identity
As Freud pointed out and many after him : there is only one sexuality, one libido: a masculine one. When she is labeled with being "sex-obsessed" it's mostly meant that she is into ongoing cravings for small pleasure (re-leases) but even more the never-ending seduction; in a way answers given to the masculine rule of sexuality and power.Pye wrote: It's about identity - this most and more fundamental of things around which civilization's sex practices are closely held. Lasciviousness is assumed a naturally easier thing for women for she has less of this identity/ownership biologically at stake. In this, she is mistaken as the sex-obsessed, rather than the men who are in unremitting need to control procreative practices (and hence, access to civilization's very resources, withheld or made difficult for her depending on his capacity to control her sexual behaviour).
More from Sex Seduction Dating: "In this sense, the masculine has always been but a residual, secondary and fragile formation, one that must be defended by retrenchments, institutions, and artifices. The phallic fortress offers all the signs of a fortress, that is to say, of weakness. It can defend itself only from the ramparts of a manifest sexuality, of a finality of sex that exhausts itself in reproduction, or in the orgasm . (...) One can hypothesize that the feminine is the only sex, and that the masculine only exists by a superhuman effort to leave it. A moment's distraction, and one falls back into the feminine ."Pye wrote:False emphasis is put upon women's unconscious can't-help-it love drive in favor of forgetting man's unremitting own, complicated with this business of having to be in women's business all the time and affecting in the social and political real that finds ways to track and punish female transgression from this loose order. 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.
No matter the transparently clear natural reasons for such a need as to secure a world of "mine," it is equally transparent a thought to others how fundamentally false such a security is.