Men are just happier

Yes, there's a distinct aspect of selecting what supports your preconceived ideas, daco. It is entirely up to you to do anything about that. If you're willing to set aside your preconceived ideas and habitual patterns of "thinking," you will have great opportunities to learn and grow. The material that you're being pointed to is the result of a great amount of research and disinterested efforts to get at the truth -- for its own sake, with no other agendas.

As I said, it's up to you. Questioning our thoughts and beliefs IS what we do here, after all. In this and every other issue/area. Assuming all you know is wrong and making sincere efforts to learn/unlearn is a hugely rewarding exercise for those ready for it.
 
But maybe Daco has a special taste regarding religion and he prefers commandments and instructions instead of knowledge?
That is not truth for me because I m agnostic-atheist but I have interest in all major "topics" on this forum which is really good.

Second, from where you got the idea that its easier for men to develop or do anything spiritualy related? It can be a good exercise to retrace from where you got such Ideas.

Mainly from Otto Weininger book called Sex and Character which can be found online, here is all book _http://www.theabsolute.net/ottow/geschlecht.pdf
Well I am admit for myself I m a bit confused. That book is excellent but for some can be really frightening. I dont want to be on wrong track soo to say...
I agree with some views by Weininger and with some not, that is all. From that book I started look somehow different on women and btw. In Israel hes book is banned (one of the chapters is Judaism, negative view) because he was jew, but later he converted to Christianity (Protestantism).


Mod note: Since the book is plenty of misogynistic propaganda the link was deactivated.
 
Just so you know daco, the fact that you think this book is excellent shows on the one hand that you don't understand the basic concepts of this forum and on the other an abismal lack of common sense.

An excerpt from the book:
The proof of the soullessness of woman is closely connected with much of what was contained in the earlier chapters. The third chapter explained that woman has her experiences in the form of henids, whilst those of men are in an organised form, so that the consciousness of the female is lower in grade than that of the male.

Any man or woman of conscience would reject and abhor the above statement.

So, or you are in the wrong bar or you really need to speed up dear, since you lack the main foundations to interact here, that is, a minimun common sense and knowledge.
 
Daco,

I notice from reviewing your posts that you are quite attached to the ideas in this reprehensible book, as you have posted a reference to it in several threads. I also find it quite interesting that you would come here of all places and promote such a book. Do you not realize that the WOMAN who wrote "The Wave" runs this website? Do you realize that it is an esoteric text, and is more "organised" in it's delivery, as well as sourced , than the airy fairy dichotomous ramblings of most other ones out there that do nothing but produce subjective mental meanderings? Or ,worse yet, the divide and conquer, "us" vs "them" mentality?


I wonder if you are sincere, or if there is a different motive afoot here?
 
Thank you, Daenerys, that's very sweet!

I am a bit dismayed to see an individual so abysmally ignorant of the true role of women in spiritual matters. My suggestion would be a few reading assignments and then let's all start over again.
 
What about it Daco? :) Are you willing to read the books and recommended threads and make a fresh start with more information? You've expressed your interest in many of the topics here, but it looks like the Universe has given you a hint that this is where you need to start. Dive in, the water is fine!
 
Adding to Daenerys post above:

Daco said:
We dont have religion women author not because of patochracy or because they was suppressed in history by psychopaths like everyone will think, it is because of nature of women; they cant be religion authors because of they nature, in some sense women must become man.

Daco, do you realize that Laura, again, a woman, has created a religion? See: http://paleochristianity.org/ and http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/board,65.0.html
 
I would like to add that, after having a brief, gagging, look at Otto Weininger, I can only say that his writings display all the characteristics of the schizoidal psychopath.
 
Laura said:
I would like to add that, after having a brief, gagging, look at Otto Weininger, I can only say that his writings display all the characteristics of the schizoidal psychopath.

And Draco, just so you have an understanding of what a schizoidal psychopath is, as well as to inform anyone else who does not know that may be reading this thread, I will include an excerpt from Political Ponerology here for you:

Carriers of this anomaly are hypersensitive and distrustful, but they pay little attention to the feelings of others, tend to assume extreme positions, and are eager to retaliate for minor offenses. Sometimes they are eccentric and odd. Their poor sense of psychological situation and reality leads them to superimpose erroneous, pejorative interpretations upon other people’s intentions. They easy become involved in activities which are ostensibly moral, but which actually inflict damage upon themselves and others. [...]Because of their one-sidedness, they tend to consider themselves intellectually superior to “ordinary� people. [...]Their tendency to see human reality in the doctrinaire and simplistic manner they consider “proper� , transforms their frequently good intentions into bad results.[...]...doctrinaire people believe they have found a simple solution to fix such a world. [...]These doctrinaire individuals characteristically manifest a certain contempt with regard to moralists then preaching the need to rediscover lost human values and to develop a richer, more appropriate psychological world-view. Schizoid characters aim to impose their own conceptual world upon other people or social groups, using relatively controlled pathological egotism and the exceptional tenacity derived from their persistent nature. They are thus eventually able to overpower another individual’s personality, which causes the latter’s behavior to turn desperately illogical. They may also exert a similar influence upon the group of people they have joined. They are psychological loners who feel better in some human organization, wherein they become zealots for some ideology, religious bigots, materialists, or adherents of an ideology with satanic features.
If their activities consist of direct contact on a small social scale, their acquaintances easily perceive them to be eccentric, which limits their ponerogenic role. However, if they manage to hide their own personality behind the written word, their influence may poison the minds of society in a wide scale and for a long time.
 
daco said:
That is not truth for me because I m agnostic-atheist but I have interest in all major "topics" on this forum which is really good.

I just want add that to be a agnostic atheist, a honest one, you have to cut out the possibility about the existence of some kind of spiritual plane from where "god like" activities can take place. And more, you have to assume that you never can know if such a plane may exist and therefore, to do research in such a field is futile from the beginning. What leads to blind spots in your perception and the grip of your belief system let you never touch those blind spots. It's simple, I don't believe in god but I don't know if he exist, so why should I ever start to assume anything what my believe system don't cover and why should I try to know more than my self inflicted knowledge-borders allow?

Why hold on to such tight thinking patterns? Belief nothing, assume that everything is possible and check in every direction (that is what we call research). When you say that you have interest in all major topics covered here on the forum and state that you are an agnostic atheist, the topics here are just, in the best case, some kind of intellectual exercise for you and in the worst case you are looking for new toys you need for some hard'n heavy intellectual masturbation.

May I suggest that you, beside the recommended readings, also try to really understand what this forum is about? You may be surprised.
 
You all misunderstood me, I bringed that author because I want to know what you guys have to say on him and hes book, not because I want promote him it is because I am on similiar track like you guys here on this forum and I want to know what you think about that book or author because I admit some ideas in hes book is good and because of that I wanted to see your thoughts and in other hand I can mislead myself and want help in some sense, mainly because of that. Or better to say: if this is network then people must help each other, if someone is stucked on something then people help. I understand it that way.

When reading characteristic of schizoidal psychopath I doubted that Weininger was one.
That author do have problems, he make suicide after all (it would be interesting if there is some study on how many in this case schizoid psychopaths do suicide, it is rare ratio I guess). I agree that he have serious problems but I dont want to declare someone as schizoidal psychopath just by writings it is somehow too easy to do that it is more likely that he was schizoid (SPD) but not schizoidal psychopath. For example Kafka was schizoid too but when you read him you dont get that expression.

How to explain that Weininger influence two of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century, Karl Popper and Ludwig Wittgenstein, two normal human beings not psychopaths (I got it from here. Look what Allan Janik a philosopher and professor of the history of ideas says about Weininger http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2003-10-06-janik-en.html).

I am familiar with forum topics I know that this forum is most based on resarch of psychopathy (I didnt yet read all r.books but I got the expression) this is MAIN field soo to say. In other hand Cs communication is experiment and I look it that way (skepticaly, dont have full trust in it and again there is 70%-30% ratio and critics, as an agnostic-atheist what to say more).


Daco, do you realize that Laura, again, a woman, has created a religion? See: http://paleochristianity.org/ and http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/board,65.0.html
I know. I practice EE when it comes out for some time or couple of months got some experience (always zonning out and one time seeing some lights I wrote about that in EE topic) but give up because of one thing. Your group in France can teach and do EE with full dedication to it. You have Laura-teacher who guides you, you are all in contact that is all good but in my case I am alone, I dont have any teacher, any contact and I dont want to practice EE if there is only me because I alone cant do nothing. I give up because of that. Contact between teacher and student is important for develop in spiritual or any else term.

ps. In English language there is soo many I in almost every sentence :)
 
Daco:
You all misunderstood me, I bringed that author because I want to know what you guys have to say on him and hes book, not because I want promote him it is because I am on similiar track like you guys here on this forum and I want to know what you think about that book or author because I admit some ideas in hes book is good and because of that I wanted to see your thoughts and in other hand I can mislead myself and want help in some sense, mainly because of that. Or better to say: if this is network then people must help each other, if someone is stucked on something then people help. I understand it that way.

We are all trying to help. :)


Daco:
When reading characteristic of schizoidal psychopath I doubted that Weininger was one.
That author do have problems, he make suicide after all (it would be interesting if there is some study on how many in this case schizoid psychopaths do suicide, it is rare ratio I guess). I agree that he have serious problems but I dont want to declare someone as schizoidal psychopath just by writings it is somehow too easy to do that it is more likely that he was schizoid (SPD) but not schizoidal psychopath. For example Kafka was schizoid too but when you read him you dont get that expression.


Without reading and understanding the whole of Political Ponerology, it is easy to be confused. But let me ask you a question, Daco. If you can admit that even if you do not agree, but that you can clearly see this man has serious problems, regardless of what it actually may be, should that not be enough to make you pause and question the sanity of his writings?


Daco:
How to explain that Weininger influence two of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century, Karl Popper and Ludwig Wittgenstein, two normal human beings not psychopaths (I got it from here. Look what Allan Janik a philosopher and professor of the history of ideas says about Weininger


That explanation is easy- it is called Ponerization. Again, you must read and understand Political Ponerology. There is a process called "selection and substitution of data" that occur in normal human beings when exposed to pathology. They cannot see the pathology clearly, so they unconsciously substitute their more normal take on what is being said. Their blind spot allows their infection of the pathological material.

Daco:
I know. I practice EE when it comes out for some time or couple of months got some experience (always zonning out and one time seeing some lights I wrote about that in EE topic) but give up because of one thing. Your group in France can teach and do EE with full dedication to it. You have Laura-teacher who guides you, you are all in contact that is all good but in my case I am alone, I dont have any teacher, any contact and I dont want to practice EE if there is only me because I alone cant do nothing. I give up because of that. Contact between teacher and student is important for develop in spiritual or any else term


Most of us here I would guess work alone , Daco. I personally have never met Laura, or anyone here in person. I would say that is true for many of the members here.
 
Yes, you really need to read Political Ponerology and digest it to understand what is being pointed out to you, Daco. And "Caricature of Love" by Cleckley too (also read the thread on the forum). All this will become MUCH more clear to you if you do.

And most of us do EE alone, as Daenerys mentioned. Although I've met Laura and the crew and a large group of forum members once, I was doing the EE alone for more than a year and a half before I participated in a couple of group EE sessions. Sure it would be great to be able to have such EE sessions all the time -- and there is definitely an enhanced quality to doing it in a good group (but it may vary if I was doing group EE all the time, like doing it alone) -- but because for me that's not possible, I've still gotten huge benefits from doing it alone with the audio and also pipe breathing and doing POTS before sleep.
 
One thing is bother me I just cant understand that; Gurdjieff, Nietzsche, Kant, Hegel, Plato and other "giants" every one of those share - if you read them - somehow negative view on women or that women dont have chance if there is no man with her.
The question is why, where is there ponerization?
For example, Gurdjieff (who wasnt stupid he know for psychopaths) writings prove that ponerization is not always the answer when he wrote: "He said that the nature of women was such that self development in his sense of the phrase was something that they could not achieve...he said, 'Woman is from ground, and only hope for her to arise to another stage of development - to go to Heaven as you say - is WITH man."
From where he got that and ideas too? I assume that source of it (group of people) doesnt have any contact with psychopaths at all, it is not possible that man number 4-5-6 or just to say man with higher understandings or being can have any contact with such individuals. Gurdjieff know that and that group of people know that too. That group of people tells Gurdjieff all what he want to know and from that group he took that view on women like I cited before. You can see clearly that "negative" view of women is not because of psychopaths or man dominated culture, there is something more to it.

That Gurdjieff saying for sure tells something important but I canot fully grasp it or understand it, I just think that hes saying is not pure coincidence there must be some meaning to it. There is only two options, he was right or wrong about that. What you think why Gurdjieff says that.
And just for sake of knowledge, Weininger share similiar views with Gurdjieff and many others but in its extremes. The only difference is some of them have sick or ill (psyche) and in other hand Gurdjieff and many others have healthy psyche but they all share similiar view on women and in this sense ponerization become just a word and nothing else.
Ponerization do exist, but I try to tell that in that what I wrote ponerization is wrong assumption.


My point is (I can be wrong, dont know how old is psychopathy in human history and how they comes here expect what Cs tells about that which canot be proved) how people sees women is somehow much much older view and in that times psychopathy didnt exist at all. If in that times they have "negative" (it is not negative, word different would be better) view on women, then what is the cause of it.

Thank you for answers, I agree with some comments it make sense but still some things is unclear. Like that I wrote.


@no-man's-land
I m not a honest one agnostic-atheist or better to say I m not a strong one (will-power, everyone even strong atheists believe in something but not in deity) in that sense I m more agnostic then atheist. But in definition agnostic-atheist.
For example; I dont believe in density which is suggested by Cs, but I choose it like an viable option in that sense I m agnostic-atheist, atheist because "I dont believe in it" and agnostic "I choose it like an viable option".
That is apsurd situation, but we are all somehow in absurd position.

@SeekinTruth
I read Political Ponerology 3 years ago but not hole book.
 
daco said:
Daco, do you realize that Laura, again, a woman, has created a religion? See: http://paleochristianity.org/ and http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/board,65.0.html
I know. I practice EE when it comes out for some time or couple of months got some experience (always zonning out and one time seeing some lights I wrote about that in EE topic) but give up because of one thing. Your group in France can teach and do EE with full dedication to it. You have Laura-teacher who guides you, you are all in contact that is all good but in my case I am alone, I dont have any teacher,

I think many forum members see the forum itself as the teacher. It's like having a multitude of minds become one, which makes for a pretty good relationship because we can be both teacher and student at the same time.

Also, I think bringing up EE is side-stepping the issue of whether or not you truly understand the disconnect being pointed out to you.

One thing is bother me I just cant understand that; Gurdjieff, Nietzsche, Kant, Hegel, Plato and other "giants" every one of those share - if you read them - somehow negative view on women or that women dont have chance if there is no man with her.

Ok I am going to rant a little bit. This is not against you, it is against the lie. You don't see how silly this lie is, though. Lies do that to us. I know. That may be what's bothering you, ultimately.

Who cares what the "giants" said about this topic, if it's a lie? We have to separate the wheat from the chaff. This is an abusive argument; it is a lie that promotes the manipulation and abuse of women, because somehow just the fact that they are women makes them lesser beings! Why are they lesser beings? Because they're women. Why are they women? Because they're lesser beings. Is this in any way useful for anything other than the subjugation of women? Oh sure we'll take everything they give; we'll take their love as mothers, we'll take their healing as healers, their sexuality to sell products, oh and we'll use their forums too; we will take it all while blaming women for lacking such a lofty spirituality! It is a lie, and it is sucking the life out of you like it has me and the rest of us, man and woman alike.

The suggested readings explain what you are confused about. It does seem like this is an area that you could delve into that would be a great learning experience.
 
Back
Top Bottom