Men are just happier

[Denis]

daco, as a reminder for you, here's one simple undeniable fact: without women there would be no men and vice versa. We both NEED each other here and hence, we should respect each other as equals. Who cares what Gurdjieff's and other "giants'" view on women was? Times are changing, and subsequently our understandings are updated.

Respect is the foundation for healthy relationships (between ALL beings irrespective of their gender).

Cheers! ;)

edit: misspelling the forum name

 

[SeekinTruth]

Daco, if you want to get over this rut you seem to be in, you really need to read the recommended material in whole and with an open and clear mind because they are difficult readings.

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.

That is the whole foundation of the idea of networking with collinear people. No one can be right in all instances, everyone can have blind spots or just see a situation in a distorted way without noticing the distortion, etc. Having many eyes and minds inspect and analyze, etc. issues gives something close to a 360 degree view that no one by themselves can have on this level.

And the side stepping Hesper pointed out is really important for you to see. I mean how could it be an advantage for you to have Laura (or many of the other [best] EE teachers) to guide you and help you when you feel that women have a lower potential in spiritual matters / potential for growth and development. Do you see the disconnect? It is really striking that you keep insisting that there is something intrinsic about why women are viewed this way and then you make that statement. That's what lies and confusion do to the thought process if you do not "think with a hammer."

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.

None of those "giants" had "the whole banana." Nobody does. That's part of the human condition here. Plus some of them were ponerized in obvious ways particularly with this issue, e.g. Plato. If you read the books and threads you've been pointed to you'll see this, especially "Caricature of Love." Besides, Gurdjieff spent quite a lot of time in the later years working with a group composed exclusively of women.

Boris Mouravieff also had distorted the teachings in other ways and added his own biases and subjective influences, etc., as usual. But there are details in his 3 volumes of "Gnosis" that are not found anywhere else in 4th Way literature. And he emphasized the importance of women in all domains and especially the spiritual and at important times in history and evolution. So there's another "giant" saying just the opposite.

You don't seem to understand the full meaning of "ponerization." You, me, Gurdjieff, Mouravieff, Plato, the women who've been dominated for millenia, etc. -- we are all ponerized in different ways and to varying degrees. Even women's own attitudes about being women in many cases are ponerized.

daco, as a reminder for you, here's one simple undeniable fact: without women there would be no men and vice versa. We both NEED each other here and hence, we should respect each other as equals. Who cares what Gurdjieff's and other "giants'" view on women was? Times are changing, and subsequently our understandings are updated.

Respect is the foundation for healthy relationships (between ALL beings irrespective of their gender).

Cheers! ;)

edit: misspelling the forum name

Do you see this simple, undeniable fact? (And I'd like to add understanding to respect.) What Denis and Hesper have pointed out CAN be as obvious to you if you are willing to work on removing your filters and biases. I mean it was pointed out to you that Laura (a woman) HAS created a (TRUE) religion, but you never stopped to look at your line of argument.

There are literally hundreds of volumes of very good research that show the important role of women in the very ancient past. It took many thousands of years to both diminish women and the forms of worship related to "The Goddess" which was replaced with the ponerized male dominated patriarchal system eventually and with a "Male" vengeful, jealous, wrathful, dominating "god."

We ARE trying to help you (and others who may read this and have to grapple with their issues on this matter), do you see that? If you are sincere, you'll do the necessary reading and most importantly question your beliefs, attitudes, opinions, thoughts, knowledge, etc. That IS what this forum is all about. We have put time, effort, and energy in pointing you (and anyone else that may come across this) to educate yourself. Now it's up to you to put time, effort, and energy into doing what it takes. It's up to you, as always.

 

[Sol Logos]

It's worth noting too what the result of pitting the sexes against each other is. The result is direct disharmony - the perfect environment for a psychopath to flourish. And so if male and female qualities are not just exterior but are interior too within both men and women, major parts if our individual psychology are pitted against each other as well. This equals probably the most significant human fragmentation i feel there is. If we are fragmented, we are far less capable than we otherwise would be and so much more open to external control as individuals as well as humanity as a whole. Psychopathology benefits in this environment but not much else.

 

[shellycheval]

Daco

You can see clearly that "negative" view of women is not because of psychopaths or man dominated culture, there is something more to it.

No. I see clearly that there is nothing more to this idea than it is a circular, false logical fallacy promoted for the purpose of perpetuating patriarchy and Pathocracy. You cannot prove an assumption with another false assumption.
Hesper

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.

I clearly see that the dominate negative view of women exist because most people, male and female, are conditioned (ponorized) from birth to accept that women are innately inferior to men and therefore it is only “natural” that men are entitled to access to power and especially power over women. Growing and maintaining Patriarchy cultures is a method of ponerizing societies for the purposes of division, conquest, and control—of both men and women. To keep us divided and Food for the Moon.

SeekinTruth

None of those "giants" had "the whole banana." Nobody does. That's part of the human condition here. Plus some of them were ponerized in obvious ways particularly with this issue, e.g. Plato. If you read the books and threads you've been pointed to you'll see this, especially "Caricature of Love." Besides, Gurdjieff spent quite a lot of time in the later years working with a group composed exclusively of women.

Indeed, Gurdjieff was as much a victim of his Patriarchal cultural conditioning as the rest of us.
The wisdom and truths that he was able to see and teach still came to him through his filtering system created by ponerized acculturation. Gurdjieff and all of us have compromised perceptions of reality, limited and biased, due to the physical limitations of our senses and the limited and biased thinking we have all been subjected to.

Please consider the saying, “We don’t know what we don’t know.” and really try to grasp the fact that what you do know has been forced upon you without your knowing it—consider that you need to question all your assumptions about women and begin again with an open mind. Good Luck.
shellycheval

 

[ana]

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.

So what the C's say can't be proven... How about what you are buying regarding the inferior spiritual capacity of women, can you prove that?

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

daco maybe at this point you don't need to continue hidding your own view of women as innocent concerns to find the truth on what external "authorities" say or did say about them.

The question is, What inside you, pushes towards this distorted view of reality?

 

[Sol Logos]

Ok thought my earlier post didn't go through (having major internet connection issues) so I expanded on it as reread and thought I'd make it clearer. It's a general comment, not so much to Daco or the guy who wrote the original post, so perhaps I'm just beating the same drum and adding nothing, in that case skip over but so not to let it go to waste, here's the revision:

It's worth noting too what the result of pitting the sexes against each other is. If male and female qualities are not just exterior but are interior too within both men and women, major parts of our individual psychology are pitted against each other. This equals probably the most significant human fragmentation there is because our primary qualities are male and female. So the result is direct and major disharmony as individuals as well as humanity as a whole.

So who benefits?

Psychopathology benefits in this environment and not much else because the simple tactic is divide and conquer and gender is just a tool to achieve this. The point being though is it's proved to be a very powerful tool to this end. There's no wonder that there's a huge investment in this battle of the sexes thing - Hollywood loves it for example and while we partake in it and act out it's many scripts mindlessly like the 'joke' that started this, we're actually serving 'the dark side' unbeknownst to ourselves.

Maybe that sounds alarmist but I believe it's a big deal and far from trivial.

 

[truth seeker]

daco maybe at this point you don't need to continue hidding your own view of women as innocent concerns to find the truth on what external "authorities" say or did say about them.

The question is, What inside you, pushes towards this distorted view of reality?

I agree and good question.

Daco,

You're trying to support your own thoughts/reasons for why you feel women are inferior through the usage of sources that support your current world view. Basically "Others think this way so that makes it okay for me (daco) to think this way too".

The real question, I think, comes down to how does the need to feel "superior" to women serve you? If you're really willing to take a look at that, this can be a valuable lesson. If you're not interested in taking a deeper look at this, it would be great if you were willing to at least be honest enough with yourself to admit it. That's pretty much what it comes down to, in my opinion.

 

[SeekinTruth]

Very good points, alkhemst and shellycheval. It is really important to dissect this issue thoroughly, not only for daco, but for everyone, especially those who aren't aware of how much conditioning / ponerization unconsciously influences us. This deeper analysis is much more important, in my humble opinion, even than the discussion and reactions to the opening jokes. The discussion has developed and turned us to the crux of the matter, creating another great opportunity to learn.

It's worth noting too what the result of pitting the sexes against each other is. The result is direct disharmony - the perfect environment for a psychopath to flourish. And so if male and female qualities are not just exterior but are interior too within both men and women, major parts if our individual psychology are pitted against each other as well. This equals probably the most significant human fragmentation i feel there is. If we are fragmented, we are far less capable than we otherwise would be and so much more open to external control as individuals as well as humanity as a whole. Psychopathology benefits in this environment but not much else.

There is the crucial issue that male and female have both aspects in themselves (physically, psychologically, etc.) and the functioning of these opposites in each person is seriously diminished and leads to the dysfunctional relationships between male and female and all other relationships because of these lies, these totally distorted representations of women and all things feminine. We cannot fulfill our potential without healing, activating and balancing both sides in ourselves -- with the acknowledgment that these are naturally more strongly expressed according to gender/sex. I, as a man, am and feel diminished by these lies and manipulations, cut off from a vital part of myself AND of Life and Cosmos, if I don't reject these noxious lies and distortions. This is really a hugely important thing to look at deeper. Energetically and spiritually, this is even more true. The flowing and expressions of male and female energies, their relationship and the third force are the only way ANY creative process can be accomplished, ANY creative process can succeed and become manifest, ANYTHING new can be created, from the biological to the cosmic level. This has been known forever in true, undistorted esoteric and wisdom teachings of all ages and places. Moreover, Spiritually, there ARE no genders.

In a certain sense, you can also compare it to the relationship of STS and STO -- but do not misunderstand what I'm saying here (there's no connection between the concepts of STS/STO and male/female aspects/energies - STS and STO can be channeled / flow / expressed through / chosen by both, obviously). Both STS and STO are legitimate and needed for anything to come into existence at all, with the supremacy of Free Will -- again, the Law of Three. And not only as "Thought Centers" at the highest levels of Consciousness, but also for individual beings. For some, their true nature IS STS, and finding and developing themselves will put them on the path of evolving to higher levels of STS. There's nothing wrong with that, it's only "wrong" if it's NOT an individual's inherent nature / polarization, and they are robbed of the True Free Will to choose which path they will follow.

And finally, daco, you don't seem to have read much of Laura's research and work or at least have not understood anything if you have (such as Secret History, The Wave series, The Grail series, and the rest of her writings on shamanism, alchemy, "hermeticism," esoteric traditions, etc.). If you really want to have many pieces of the puzzle put together you aught to read or reread this material and really think hard about the issues / questions raised and probable solutions to some of the deepest mysteries of the human condition, its "past," "present," and "future," etc. Again it's up to you, if you are sincere and willing to put in the effort. It may turn out that you just don't WANT to accept any of this and not put any effort into Working on yourself. But, again, that's up to you, and all of what's being pointed out to you is for the benefit of others, as well.


ADDED: Just saw your post, Ana.

Yeah, how could the supposed "inferior spiritual capacity" of women be proven, without ponerized circular "logic" and citing ponerized "authorities"?

daco maybe at this point you don't need to continue hidding your own view of women as innocent concerns to find the truth on what external "authorities" say or did say about them.

The question is, What inside you, pushes towards this distorted view of reality?

This is the real question. And, again, if you find you're not collinear and don't agree with the purposes of this forum, there's always the option to go find a forum more to you're liking and going in the same direction you'd like to go. After all, as has been pointed out, this forum IS owed by a women who is the most active in terms of researching, experimenting, and sharing her findings, as well as guiding the activities here, besides all the other remarkable women playing very important roles and making observable progress in the Work, not to take anything away from all the men doing the same.

 

[cubbex]

Ok. :)

 

[daco]

daco maybe at this point you don't need to continue hidding your own view of women as innocent concerns to find the truth on what external "authorities" say or did say about them.

After reading what you wrote I got strange imprresion but nvm about it.

Why I would hide something, If I hide something then I will never bring that what stuck with me.
I wrote before in this topic that I wanted some help because I see that maybe I m on wrong track when it comes to women. I was writing before about that in some sense but in that time I doesnt have courage to write because that what I read (in this case Weininger book, but many others philosophers too) is really difficult and bringing it here would be hard because of reactions of people.
I dont know what you will think about me if I am stucked with some views, and there is danger of being misunderstand and third thing is my knowledge of English language when it comes to writing.

The question is, What inside you, pushes towards this distorted view of reality?

That is really one good question, not only for me, everyone should think about that.

I cannot describe it. I would admit it, for me it is somehow irrational, I dont identified with some ideas because like you see I dont defend something and there is other thing: instinct.
I dont believe in that views I feel some of them inside me, it is like reading Gurdjieff for first time, the same imprression.
In that sense when you say ponerization, am I ponerized in some way by instinctivly feeling that some views are true? How instict can be distorted?
Maybe the better word will be that some or all people is programed (DNA) for something that in hes or hers life is taking for granted or belief or way of life someone is leading, in my case that can be some views on women in other that can be something else.
If our DNA is programed then no one can be on the right track when it comes to view of reality.
I got only small, small pieces of reality (from reading for example or for just for being in nature) I dont know the hole picture but let be honest no one has the hole picture of reality in this density and never will. I can be wrong, we all can be wrong about something, in my case that is some views on women (I know that it can be wrong but instinct tells me other way) in your case that can be something else, we all have and make mistakes, someone make little one (ideas for example) someone big one (non ethical-unethical sort of things) it is part of learning process. I think that for me that will be one of the biggest learning process.

Our views are not objective and never will be (in this life) because humans are programed to not see hole picture. That is sad if you think about that.



EDIT:

You're trying to support your own thoughts/reasons for why you feel women are inferior through the usage of sources that support your current world view. Basically "Others think this way so that makes it okay for me (daco) to think this way too".

I think that I gave the answer in this post.
I dont want to support mine own thoughts-reasons, I dont even feel or think that women is inferior it is just when I read some authors I want to understand why someone think in that way. And then I got confused. Then it comes instinctivly feel that some views can be true, but I not accepted it I dont believe in it, that views just stuck somehow in me, it is hard to explain. Without accepting it some of them are in me.
I want to clear one think, for me women is not inferior and it is capable of doing the work. It is just when it comes to philosophers and other authors I just dont understand why they share similiar views and in that sense ponerization is one simple answer to all of that which is not sufficiant because it is too simple. There must be more to it.

And again

You're trying to support your own thoughts/reasons for why you feel women are inferior through the usage of sources that support your current world view

That what you wrote is not true. I just wanted help, Ive see that I m maybe on the wrong track.

@truth seeker
Yes, I read some books from r.list but not too much, from Laura I didnt read Secret History, 9/11 The Ultimate Truth, High Strangeness, Amazing Grace but I read others books like one of them an important one Wave series.
I "understand" English when read it but when it comes to real understanding for me it is difficult it is slow process. For example that new book from Kahneman I have in English but for deeper understanding of it I prefer to wait when that book will be translated to my native language.

 

[tom32071]

sometimes people just take things much too seriously.

 

[truth seeker]

Daco,

Have you gotten an opportunity to do some of the reading suggested to you in this thread?

edit: clarification

 

[ana]

daco maybe at this point you don't need to continue hidding your own view of women as innocent concerns to find the truth on what external "authorities" say or did say about them.

After reading what you wrote I got strange imprresion but nvm about it.

Why I would hide something, If I hide something then I will never bring that what stuck with me.
I wrote before in this topic that I wanted some help because I see that maybe I m on wrong track when it comes to women.

If someone is really interested in learning, then before continuing pushing the same argument over and over, starts to explore the material offered by others.

I dont know what you will think about me if I am stucked with some views, and there is danger of being misunderstand and third thing is my knowledge of English language when it comes to writing.

Your english is well enough, it's not being a problem, as far as I can see your points are clearly understood by others.

The question is, What inside you, pushes towards this distorted view of reality?

That is really one good question, not only for me, everyone should think about that.

I cannot describe it. I would admit it, for me it is somehow irrational, I dont identified with some ideas because like you see I dont defend something and there is other thing: instinct.
I dont believe in that views I feel some of them inside me, it is like reading Gurdjieff for first time, the same imprression.
In that sense when you say ponerization, am I ponerized in some way by instinctivly feeling that some views are true? How instict can be distorted?

How do you differenciate between true instinct and programs?

I got only small, small pieces of reality (from reading for example or for just for being in nature) I dont know the hole picture but let be honest no one has the hole picture of reality in this density and never will. I can be wrong, we all can be wrong about something, in my case that is some views on women (I know that it can be wrong but instinct tells me other way) in your case that can be something else, we all have and make mistakes, someone make little one (ideas for example) someone big one (non ethical-unethical sort of things) it is part of learning process. I think that for me that will be one of the biggest learning process.

That's why the network must enter the picture, and so far you've received a lot of feedback from the network about this subject, now it's up to you what you do about it.

 

[SeekinTruth]

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.

So what the C's say can't be proven... How about what you are buying regarding the inferior spiritual capacity of women, can you prove that?

One more thing. The accumulated evidence from all the reliable research shows that psychopaths have been dominant in positions of power since there are any surviving written records. And just from archeological and paleontological records, it goes back further than that to the time of small communities of hunter gathers being replaced by large settlements / city states, agriculture, ownership, surpluses and armies to defend them, hording, etc. What are now considered the signs and definitions of "civilization."

There IS actual research done on the issue of psychopathy, hypotheses about different strains and how and when they come about by Laura and others (just starting with the sources Laura cites). These can be read on SOTT, cassiopaea.org, in the forum, in Dot Connector Magazine, etc. Just some examples of a very in depth articles: https://www.sott.net/articles/show/227222-The-Golden-Age-Psychopathy-and-the-Sixth-Extinction and http://cassiopaea.org/2012/03/10/witches-comets-and-planetary-cataclysms/

daco maybe at this point you don't need to continue hidding your own view of women as innocent concerns to find the truth on what external "authorities" say or did say about them.

After reading what you wrote I got strange imprresion but nvm about it.

Why I would hide something, If I hide something then I will never bring that what stuck with me.
I wrote before in this topic that I wanted some help because I see that maybe I m on wrong track when it comes to women. I was writing before about that in some sense but in that time I doesnt have courage to write because that what I read (in this case Weininger book, but many others philosophers too) is really difficult and bringing it here would be hard because of reactions of people.
I dont know what you will think about me if I am stucked with some views, and there is danger of being misunderstand and third thing is my knowledge of English language when it comes to writing.

Regarding what I've highlighted, if you're familiar with this forum, with Gurdjieff's work, etc., why are you surprised that you "would be hiding something" firstly from yourself? You are not one, you are many little "i's." And the point is not what others will think about you (or anybody else), it's about finding the truth, including finding the truth about yourself -- if you're sincere and willing, because it's very hard and painful. And as we keep pointing out when you say you wanted some help to see if your on the wrong track, we all ARE trying to help you, if you're willing to take advantage of that help.

The question is, What inside you, pushes towards this distorted view of reality?

That is really one good question, not only for me, everyone should think about that.

I cannot describe it. I would admit it, for me it is somehow irrational, I dont identified with some ideas because like you see I dont defend something and there is other thing: instinct.
I dont believe in that views I feel some of them inside me, it is like reading Gurdjieff for first time, the same imprression.
In that sense when you say ponerization, am I ponerized in some way by instinctivly feeling that some views are true? How instict can be distorted?

First, stick with the fact that it IS a good question. Don't deflect it to everyone else, it goes without saying that everyone else should always ask these questions about themselves. Second, of course "instinct" can be distorted and ponerized; that's what has been pointed out in every aspect of the human condition on this forum, as well as 4th Way teachings in general. From what we "like" to eat, to everything else, we are a mess, if you haven't noticed. These "instincts" in no way point us in the direction of our well being.

Maybe the better word will be that some or all people is programed (DNA) for something that in hes or hers life is taking for granted or belief or way of life someone is leading, in my case that can be some views on women in other that can be something else.
If our DNA is programed then no one can be on the right track when it comes to view of reality.
I got only small, small pieces of reality (from reading for example or for just for being in nature) I dont know the hole picture but let be honest no one has the hole picture of reality in this density and never will. I can be wrong, we all can be wrong about something, in my case that is some views on women (I know that it can be wrong but instinct tells me other way) in your case that can be something else, we all have and make mistakes, someone make little one (ideas for example) someone big one (non ethical-unethical sort of things) it is part of learning process. I think that for me that will be one of the biggest learning process.

Yes, it's connected with the issue of our DNA being restricted and unable to access more of our consciousness and thus more of objective reality. But DNA is dynamic and epigenetic factors play a HUGE role -- from what we eat, to all sorts of environmental factors, to the quality of impressions and what we occupy our minds with, etc. -- on genetic expression, which genes get turned on and which get turned off. The actual genetic differences between people (and even people and monkeys and other species) is MUCH less than the actual differences, from anatomy (in the case of different species) to behavior. It's the regulatory genes and epigenetics that make up such big differences.

There's different levels of subjectivity - it's a continuum on a wide spectrum. This has already been covered in this thread by me and others. That's why a collinear network is so critical, it allows us to have the greater objectivity of everyone's combined efforts, experiences, knowledge and understanding to be shared by all who sincerely participate. We can see and access more than any of us alone.

And, as you say, making mistakes, being wrong, being misinformed ARE part of the learning process. IF we are willing and able to learn from the lessons of our mistakes, if not we'll repeat the same mistakes until we learn them. :)

Our views are not objective and never will be (in this life) because humans are programed to not see hole picture. That is sad if you think about that.

See above. And not only in this life, absolute objectivity is SO far away from us. It's the domain of the Absolute in Gurdjieff's terminology. Even levels above us still can't access complete objectivity. And I don't know if it's sad. That's subjective, it depends on how you look at it. Sad for us, in a sense? Maybe. How about it's not sad, it is what it is, part of our lessons to graduate to greater access to objectivity when we've learned those lessons....

 

[Mr. Premise]

sometimes people just take things much too seriously.

Tom, what does this post mean? What topic could be more important than this one?