The nature of women and spirituality

[Hojo]

I was thinking what the opposite of logic is. I come to the conclusion that beauty is the opposite to logic.

You can see God via logic and God is logical, women deny this for the purposes of beauty so they cant find it. Beauty clouds the eyes of logic and obsession with being beautiful blocks being able to witness God via logic.

I have also come to conclusion that in order for me to nest myself in truth I need to abandon my logic. I found God with logic and when you do that you need to throw it away and explore beauty. 

Logic after God is useless except to piss you off.

Woman cant see the logical inconsistencies in their arguments and attack when they see the crack, instead of exposing their own hole. Women need morals to exist  to survive with men, they cant look at the fact that everything can dominate them, and they have nothing to help them except the graciousness of man. They use logical inconsistencies like morals to hide the fact that they have no logic.

Logic with a hole in it is not logic at all its fake words and understandings. This means In general women have 0 logic.

None of this is an attack on women its just analysis. I love women I don't hate women I think the things they do are nice and without a woman no one would care about you.

Without beauty you are alone with your logic and its not fun. Women bring life to man without woman man is a robot.

Edited June 20 by Hojo

[Eskilon]

21 minutes ago, zurew said:

Its also not at all like you showed resistance multiple times to the idea that the collected facts should be questioned. The idea that women werent forthcoming with their spirituality and that there were witch trials and the idea that women didnt want to become gurus - those are nonsencial to you and shouldnt even be entertained and you are super confident that the collected facts are an accurate representation on this issue.

If the collected facts should be questioned, why cant I question your questioning of the collected facts? When should the questioning end? Will it end? Who gets to say?

 

21 minutes ago, zurew said:

It would be very hard to say "given the limitation of the data we have, the indication is that men are more oriented/likely to pursue spirituality". No, for some reason we have to say that we have very high quality data on this.

I don't need to specify this kind of stuff, it's all implied. This should be obvious to the people who follow Leo's work. Do I need to teach people of the limitations of knowledge, the questioning of history and assumptions?

Edited June 20 by Eskilon

[OBEler]

41 minutes ago, zurew said:

Since we know that testosterone is what makes you a truth seeker, have you guys seen that highly advanced and conscious guy called Ronnie Coleman?

If you want to advance your spiritual game, you need to take some shots.

Absolutely! Testosterone makes you crave for God:

 

[zurew]

8 minutes ago, Eskilon said:

If the collected facts should be questioned, why cant I question you questioning of the collected facts? When should the questioning end? Will it end? Who gets to say?

You can go with whatever epistemic standard you want to have and you can relativize these things as much as you want and you can question it if you want to , no one is stopping you from doing that.

But dont forget that going meta when someone is questioning you wont impress or persuade anyone. If you want to  - you can have an epistemic stance where drinking poision is as likely to kill you as eating a carrot.

"Ohh , so since we are questioning my standard about drinking poision and eating a carrot, who gets to say when the questioning should end? Will it end ,bro ? Why cant I question you questioning my standard, bro? Do you see how meta I am going here bro?"

 

24 minutes ago, Eskilon said:

Do I need to teach people of the limitations of knowledge, the questioning of history and assumptions?

No you should say "You go on entertaining nonsense possibilities. You can play those games, existence allow for it" as a response when they question your standard.

[Eskilon]

9 minutes ago, zurew said:

You can go with whatever epistemic standard you want to have and you can relativize these things as much as you want and you can question it if you want to , no one is stopping you from doing that.

But dont forget that going meta when someone is questioning you wont impress or persuade anyone. If you want to  - you can have an epistemic stance where drinking poision is as likely to kill you as eating a carrot.

It doesn't impress you because you don't know how deep relativity goes. 

In you example you are taking for granted what a carrot is, what eating is, what a poison is. ALL those things are insanely relative and open to question. If those things are in question everything falls apart. Including your mockery here

Edited June 20 by Eskilon

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, OBEler said:

Most Men are truth seekers.

That's far from true. Most men are bullshitters.

But yes, fewer women care about truth, they are too interested in feelings.

Blunt teachings are going to appeal much more to men than women.

Edited June 20 by Leo Gura

[Eskilon]

8 minutes ago, zurew said:

No you should say "You go on entertaining nonsense possibilities. You can play those games, existence allow for it" as a response when they question your standard.

Remind me to say that to everything you say from now on

Edited June 20 by Eskilon

[Salvijus]

Mind seeks to understand. Heart seeks to merge into. 

[OBEler]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

That's far from true. Most men are bullshitters.

Yeah I should say more men than women are truth seekers in terms of metaphysical truth. Women can be more truth seekers in terms of relationships.

[zurew]

1 minute ago, Eskilon said:

It doesn't impress you because you don't know how deep relativity goes. 

In you example you are taking for granted what an carrot is, what eating is, what a poison is. ALL those things are insanely relative and open to question. If those things are in question everything falls apart. Including your mockery here

Thats right.

Next time I will eat concrete to up my dental health and my nutrition game.

 

 

[Eskilon]

1 minute ago, zurew said:

Thats right.

Next time I will eat concrete to up my dental health and my nutrition game.

Maybe that will help you with your baiting game.

[zurew]

1 minute ago, Eskilon said:

Maybe that will help you with your baiting game.

Im not so sure about that since everything is relative. (I thought you knew this already)

[Eskilon]

Just now, zurew said:

Im not so sure about that since everything is relative. (I thought you knew this already)

How do you know you are not sure? That`s relative.

[zurew]

Just now, Eskilon said:

How do you know you are not sure? That`s relative.

How do you know that me not being sure is actually relative? Thats relative.

Please go on and continue this -  I want to virtue signal how meta I can go to other actualizers as well (its not just you).

[Eskilon]

1 minute ago, zurew said:

I want to virtue signal how meta I can go to other actualizers as well (its not just you).

You, how do you know that you exist? That`s relative.

[Princess Arabia]

I will continue to bask in truth while you continue to seek it. 

[Keryo Koffa]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

You can fuck with conservative Christians with bringing up the argument that since Jesus only had a mother (and no biological father), he probably only had xx chromosomes, so he must have been a trans man.

And if Jesus taken to be God, then God is a trans man.

Jesus is a gender-agnostic anarcho-communist alien demigod hippie virus.

6 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

I will continue to bask in truth while you continue to seek it. 

says the false self 

BUT THAT'S RELATIVE!

Edited June 20 by Keryo Koffa

[Princess Arabia]

Just now, Keryo Koffa said:

says the false self 

There is no 'true self'. False and true are one. Neither exist. If the Absolute is a self, then OK, and it's all the self there is.

[zurew]

51 minutes ago, Eskilon said:

You, how do you know that you exist? That`s relative.

Let me combine neo-advaita with Jordan Peterson to drive home how much I appreciate your intelligence when it comes to going meta.

 

What do you mean by each of the following terms [you, how, do,know,that,exist,thats,relative]?

After you answered that my next questions would be: Who is the you in that question?  What is the 'you' that is knowing? Where is the 'you' that suppose to exist ?

Edited June 20 by zurew

[Eskilon]

6 minutes ago, zurew said:

Let me combine neo-advaita with Jordan Peterson to drive home how much I appreciate your intelligence when it comes to going meta.

 

What do you mean each of the following terms [you, how, do,know,that,exist,thats,relative]?

After you answered that my next questions would be: Who is the you in that question?  What is the 'you' that is knowing? Where is the 'you' that suppose to exist ?

Why should I answer any of this? That`s relative.

That`s relative? That`s relative.

Edited June 20 by Eskilon