GENIUS FORUMS

Mind is Mind. It can be diminished.
Wisdom depends on a mind.

Therefore, wisdom can be diminished.

_________________
Core Webworks

Sex depends on Body. Can Sex be diminished by fewer bodies?

_________________
Good Citizen Carl

A person's capacity to hold wisdom can diminish, but the substance of the disembodied concept "wisdom" can not be diminished, does not need to be saved nor need anything else. Wisdom is a discrete thing unto itself.

If there is no mind to hold wisdom, it can be debated whether or not wisdom actually exists. 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.

People who are really into orgies would say so.

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.


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.

_________________
Good Citizen Carl

The amount of people who can have sex is diminished by fewer bodies. Likewise, when bodies become fewer, the amount of people who can have wisdom diminishes. Two wise people equate to more wisdom than only one wise person. Likewise, two lit candles generate more light than only one lit candle.

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.

_________________
Core Webworks

Elizabeth,



No, all things are caused.



A match burning, causes light. If the match becomes entirely consumed by the flame, then the flame ends, and thus the light ends.



The mind doesn't hold wisdom as if it's some object to be discovered and grasped onto: the mind simply becomes wise.

Likewise, wine isn't some object to be discovered by grapes. The grapes become wine.

Consider the branch of a tree that can produce a fruit. If there is no tree, that doesn't mean the fruit is 'out there' waiting to be discovered by the next tree that comes along.

The fruit of the tree unfolds from the tree, because the tree is caused to convert certain parts of itself into fruit.

Consider a caterpillar. The butterfly is not some thing separate from the caterpillar to discover. A butterfly is simply a being that had been caused to transform from a caterpillar into a butterfly.

Likewise, wisdom is simply the result of a mind that had been caused to transform into a wise mind. Wisdom is a type of mind. If the mind ends, wisdom ends.

All things lack inherent existence: things depend on causes.

_________________
Core Webworks

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.


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.


Wisdom is more or less widely spread, but this does not affect Wisdom itself or its survival.

_________________
Good Citizen Carl

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.



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.



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.

Skipair wrote:



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.

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.

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.

Her suffering can be relatively more shallow than a man, but she is capable of suffering deeply as well.

Here are two music videos from women who seemed to have suffered quite a bit after been left by a man who she was attached to deeply.

Example One. Example Two.

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.

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.



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.

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.



It's perfectly correct to concern yourself with the survival of a quality, whether it is truth, wisdom or light from a flame.

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.



That's just like saying, "the human race can be more or less widely spread, but this does not affect it's survival." Wrong!

The more widely spread the human race is, the greater the chance of it's survival. The less widely spread it is, the lower the chances of it's survival. The human race, like anything, is a quality composed of quantities of certain qualities.

Quality and Quantity are two sides of the same coin.

_________________
Core Webworks

Ryan,



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.

Do you think wisdom is some objective 'thing' apart from the mind being wise? Isn't wisdom a quality of mind?



You mean as an idea, right? Can there be ideas without a mind?

_________________
Core Webworks

Since all things are Ultimately one thing, where you choose to draw your boundaries is, to an extent, your choice.



Yes, there can be ideas without a mind, but there can not be ideas without Mind. I am drawing a boundary between the commonly perceived world and Ultimate Reality.

Cory, I find you becoming more and more confused, but will try one more time:


Wisdom is a quality. A quality is not a quantity.

The fine smell of charbroiled beef is a quality. How much of that smell is emanating from the grill does not influence that quality one bit.


You sound like the production manager at a widget factory.

Your concerns for the survival of Wisdom are misplaced, unless you refer specifically to its survival in you; then this can be a useful and effective concern. With yourself is where you can have influence rather than only concerns. Regarding the world, regarding the universe, spare yourself. It is idealism at its foolish worst. Wisdom doesn't need you. Sex doesn't need you. The smell of roasting meat doesn't need you.


This metaphor fucking doesn't work. Sorry.


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.


And with the light from a flame, fine, but it is foolish to concern yourself with the state of the Sun.


Very good. Making it personal is good. And cultivating wisdom in oneself is very good.

_________________
Good Citizen Carl

But where is the boundary of "you".

Everything you do has an effect on everything else.

If you wanted to, you could regard the whole Universe as "you".

We've deviated away from the topic of the thread quite a bit: maybe this might be worth exploring on a new one - the survivial of wisdom

_________________
Core Webworks

Catching up on a few things:

Tom suggested:



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.



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.

The qualifier to the above observations which ought not go unmentioned is that part of the problem here is that men can sometimes themselves exhibit the aforementioned multiple personality syndrome with respect to their own status as parent. This makes taking their protests about how they are treated as parents slightly more difficult. But then men always seem to have to defend and justify their role through the female filter and template. The solution, really, if for society to wake to to the nature of male parenting and nurturance and see its value.



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.



Sure, but the best way to encourage stable families is to encourage sanity, before and after marriage, but preferably before.



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.



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.



That could actually be quite beneficial to society but it won't happen in our lifetime.



I think you just got punitive and vengeful again!



That will never happen in our lifetime either. Most people view the genuine spiritual life as harmful, not helpful



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.



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.



This can only change if men change their own thinking. Let's start there, shall we.

The New Husbands

One of the themes explored in the podcast and to some extent here in this thread, is that of the insatiable nature of desire, unconsciously expressed in the flowing, spontaneous, immediate and emotional nature of women (and feminine men). When this theme is intermingled with marriage dynamics and certain modern social realities created by the efforts of feminists, one can point to an interesting overall theme: woman as desire memes.

As has been noted, one of the difficulties faced by men in their relations with women is that of the seemingly endless nature of their desires, wants and needs. This is far more prevalent in western democracies and nations where "freedom" is a significant social feature (I'll have more to say on that in a thread elsewhere) but is nevertheless a general theme one can point to due to the psychological nature of the feminine. As feminism pushed the barrow of female independence and self-sufficiency we saw a gradual diminution of traditional males roles of provider and protector. Prime facie, this to me is an excellent development, or it would be if it were real. But it isn't. We haven't seen a significant paradigm shift in social thinking, but merely one in organisation. Individual males have, on many fronts, been replaced by the paternalism of government, bureaucracy and institution. These are the new husbands, the new providers and protectors - the new targets of endless feminine desire. What we see in the relationship between feminism (and women generally as a result) and these new husbands is the same as that which we've seen with the old: an endless river of desire, demand, moral and emotional exploitation, against the tide of which these organisations find themselves swimming. Modern politicians are like pussy-obsessed men fighting each other to get into women's pants.

Nothing has really changed. Women have broken away from the limitations of traditional roles, and in principle that is a fantastic thing, but in practice it is just women trying on new dresses and expecting everyone to redesign them if they don't "fit". Worse still, we live in a generation where women don't even know how to take up a hem. The so-called "Superwoman" is really a Supermoron. She cannot choose where choosing means "one but not the other", she cannot be left wanting, she cannot be left out of anything that presents itself as a trend of Woman. Since this automatically creates enormous logistical difficulties she is forced to look to the aforementioned organisations to not only create the circumstances by which she can appear to have everything, but also build the social mores that cause society to accept that it is right and proper that she should. The end result is a mad kerfuffle of dissatisfaction and aimlessness. Hardly anyone has the gumption to deny women anything. This is detrimental to everyone, especially women since the freedom to have everything, unmatched by a logistically practical ability to do so, is a recipe for chaos and despair.

We cannot expect either men or women, raised on sugar cereals, junkfood, & soda to be maximally rational. Nor, can we expect children raised in nuclear families of only 1-2 kids to be taught the coping skills found in the hominid villages we all evolved in, where kids lived with other older & younger kids, and exposed to that competition. Moreover, their immune systems, which evolved in the villages cant cope with all the pathogens that have evolved in modern urban life, and we know these sometimes have devastating effects like autism.

Then too, all these larger organizations, the transnationals, religions, and government, want the women to have kids, but not husbands, so as to make the women more dependent on them.

Its interesting to note that so many of the oldest coupled figurines yet fround, in SE Europe, 7000 BP, are either sexually ambiguous, or both are *female*. "familytrp.gif" and "theradok.gif" seen at http://dc-pc.org/artifax/artifax.html show us two Minoan works, over 3600 years old. The former is the standard mother & child, but that's clearly not daddy with them. And the fresco fround at thera shows us women on the penthouse balconies watching ships come in, but again, not one balcony has the expected heterosexual couple.

But in both cases, the chalcolithic cultures of 7000 years ago, or the Minoan 3600 BP, were the most innovative and technologically advanced cultures on the planet at the time, and- both were run by women.

Women are now being freed of the traditional nuclear family romantic model, but have yet to discover these examples of how cultures evolved socially when women were empowered. So- besides the neurological damage they suffered during childhood development, they were still socialized to an obsolete male dominated model. The cognitive dissonance creates stress and neurosis.

_________________
Goddess made sex for company.

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.

_________________
Amor fati

A better understanding of patriarchy would be this: for just as Nietzsche reminds, mankind loves to put aside the thought of origins, for it is out of base things that spring our greatest adornment of ideas. The base condition from which patriarchy springs forth is one of identity, for a woman can always know her offspring is at least hers, and a man cannot.

It has little to do with the subsequent obligations of nurturing responsibilities, as a great many men are stilted or uninvolved in this - no, it has to do straight up with who's who. DNA testing is one of patriarchal science's greatest triumphs, as are all points in between: a fidelity demand exercised with punishing vigor for women, wherein marriage (historically) is the only acceptable state; fidelity is assumed and demanded or her out-off-wedlock children carry the original sin of bastardization, and a wayward woman is the paragon of evil, hence the ease with which the 'ho, slut, animal-style ("unconscious") social derogatories persist and flourish and remain the lowest of the blows; it is all about control that stems from a fundamental lack of nature's dealing for men; it is about his fields, his food, his woman/women, his status, and his children, identity, about whose is whose, but more fundamentally, about the notion of ownership of things, people, resources, at all. 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 - 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). 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.


.

I can't see Zarathustra doing that.


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

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.

Well said by Jean Baudrillard: "[The opposite hypothesis is] [that] the feminine has never been dominated, but has always been dominant. The feminine considered not as a sex, but as the form transversal to every sex, as well as to every power, as the secret, virulent form of in-sexuality. The feminine as a challenge whose devastation can be experienced today throughout the entire expanse of sexuality. And hasn't this challenge, which is also that of seduction, always been triumphant? " - From Sex Seduction Dating.



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 ."

Not sure how to say it better than that, yet.

Diebert, I'm not convinced that this "slip back into the feminine" by spending sexually-minded time with women is any different from not having a perfect diet or exercise routine, or indeed not having perfection from ANYTHING in life. From what I can see the foundation of "this site's philosophy", if you will allow me the phrase, is the non-inherent existence of the self, and I can see how this advanced intellectual understanding is of the utmost importance. That, of course, doesn't mean that ALL other delusions are cast aside, or that even such a perfection should be considered at all. Its blatantly obvious how impossible it is.

That being said, I don't think it is illegitimate to put a little extra butter on a potato and cut my life a little shorter because of it, or to not go for a run today because its a bit cold and I'd really rather sit on my ass and read a book, or instead of helping all the countless people who need philosophical advice to talk to a cute girl instead. Yes, all these decisions may give me a little bad karma, and the majority of time one should try to avoid them. But thats life, and I'm ok with that. Comments welcome.