Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

On George Fox's 'awakening'.....

Expand Messages
  • new_trail_blazer
    I fasted much, Fox says, walked abroad in solitary places many days, and often took my Bible, and sat in hollow trees and lonesome places until night came
    Message 1 of 14 , Oct 5, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      "I fasted much," Fox says, "walked abroad in solitary places many
      days, and often took my Bible, and sat in hollow trees and lonesome
      places until night came on; and frequently in the night walked
      mournfully about by myself; for I was a man of sorrows in the time of
      the first workings of the Lord in me."

      "During all this time I was never joined in profession of religion
      with any, but gave up myself to the Lord, having forsaken all evil
      company, taking leave of father and mother, and all other relations,
      and traveled up and down as a stranger on the earth, which way the
      Lord inclined my heart; taking a chamber to myself in the town where
      I came, and tarrying sometimes more, sometimes less in a place: for I
      durst not stay long in a place, being afraid both of professor and
      profane, lest, being a tender young man, I should be hurt by
      conversing much with either. For which reason I kept much as a
      stranger, seeking heavenly wisdom and getting knowledge from the
      Lord; and was brought off from outward things, to rely on the Lord
      alone. As I had forsaken the priests, so I left the separate
      preachers also, and those called the most experienced people; for I
      saw there was none among them all that could speak to my condition.
      And when all my hopes in them and in all men were gone so that I had
      nothing outwardly to help me, nor could tell what to do; then, oh
      then, I heard a voice which said, 'There is one, even Jesus Christ,
      that can speak to thy condition.' When I heard it, my heart did leap
      for joy. Then the Lord let me see why there was none upon the earth
      that could speak to my condition. I had not fellowship with any
      people, priests, nor professors, nor any sort of separated people. I
      was afraid of all carnal talk and talkers, for I could see nothing
      but corruptions. When I was in the deep, under all shut up, I could
      not believe that I should ever overcome; my troubles, my sorrows, and
      my temptations were so great that I often thought I should have
      despaired, I was so tempted. But when Christ opened to me how he was
      tempted by the same devil, and had overcome him, and had bruised his
      head; and that through him and his power, life, grace, and spirit, I
      should overcome also, I had confidence in him. If I had had a king's
      diet, palace, and attendance, all would have been as nothing, for
      nothing gave me comfort but the Lord by his power. I saw professors,
      priests, and people were whole and at ease in that condition which
      was my misery, and they loved that which I would have been rid of.
      But the Lord did stay my desires upon himself, and my care was cast
      upon him alone."

      George Fox: 'Varieties of Religious Experience' by William James,
      pgs. 328-30

      Bob M.
    • right2neil
      Thanks very much Bob for taking the time and effort in tracking down this marvelous piece. Walt Whitman s comment: It is not far, it is within reach.
      Message 2 of 14 , Oct 6, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks very much Bob for taking the time and effort in tracking down
        this marvelous piece. Walt Whitman's comment: "It is not far, it
        is within reach. Perhaps you have been on the path to inner newness
        since you were born and did not know it." comes to mind.

        And sheds light on Schopenhauer's: "A man can be himself only so
        long as he is alone, and if he does not love solitude, he will not
        freedom, for it is only when he is alone that he is really free.
        Restraint is always present in society, like a companion of whom
        there is no riddance, and in proportion to the greatness of a man's
        individuality, it will be hard for him to bear the sacrifices which
        all contact with other demands.

        as well as Vivekananda's: It is only when everything, even love,
        fails, that, with a flash, man finds out vain, how dream-like is
        this world. Then he catches a glimpse … of the beyond. It is only
        by giving up this world that the other comes; never through holding
        on to this one.

        Thanks again

        --- In theexistentialsociety@yahoogroups.com, new_trail_blazer
        <no_reply@y...> wrote:
        >
        > "I fasted much," Fox says, "walked abroad in solitary places many
        > days, and often took my Bible, and sat in hollow trees and lonesome
        > places until night came on; and frequently in the night walked
        > mournfully about by myself; for I was a man of sorrows in the time
        of > the first workings of the Lord in me."
        >
        > "During all this time I was never joined in profession of religion
        > with any, but gave up myself to the Lord, having forsaken all evil
        > company, taking leave of father and mother, and all other
        relations,
        > and traveled up and down as a stranger on the earth, which way the
        > Lord inclined my heart; taking a chamber to myself in the town
        where
        > I came, and tarrying sometimes more, sometimes less in a place:
        for I
        > durst not stay long in a place, being afraid both of professor and
        > profane, lest, being a tender young man, I should be hurt by
        > conversing much with either. For which reason I kept much as a
        > stranger, seeking heavenly wisdom and getting knowledge from the
        > Lord; and was brought off from outward things, to rely on the Lord
        > alone. As I had forsaken the priests, so I left the separate
        > preachers also, and those called the most experienced people; for I
        > saw there was none among them all that could speak to my condition.
        > And when all my hopes in them and in all men were gone so that I
        had
        > nothing outwardly to help me, nor could tell what to do; then, oh
        > then, I heard a voice which said, 'There is one, even Jesus Christ,
        > that can speak to thy condition.' When I heard it, my heart did
        leap
        > for joy. Then the Lord let me see why there was none upon the earth
        > that could speak to my condition. I had not fellowship with any
        > people, priests, nor professors, nor any sort of separated people.
        I
        > was afraid of all carnal talk and talkers, for I could see nothing
        > but corruptions. When I was in the deep, under all shut up, I could
        > not believe that I should ever overcome; my troubles, my sorrows,
        and
        > my temptations were so great that I often thought I should have
        > despaired, I was so tempted. But when Christ opened to me how he
        was
        > tempted by the same devil, and had overcome him, and had bruised
        his
        > head; and that through him and his power, life, grace, and spirit,
        I
        > should overcome also, I had confidence in him. If I had had a
        king's
        > diet, palace, and attendance, all would have been as nothing, for
        > nothing gave me comfort but the Lord by his power. I saw
        professors,
        > priests, and people were whole and at ease in that condition which
        > was my misery, and they loved that which I would have been rid of.
        > But the Lord did stay my desires upon himself, and my care was cast
        > upon him alone."
        >
        > George Fox: 'Varieties of Religious Experience' by William James,
        > pgs. 328-30
        >
        > Bob M.
      • new_trail_blazer
        Hello again Neil, I think the aloneness that comes with transformation or rebirth serves to encourage the enlightened one onward to earnestly encourage or push
        Message 3 of 14 , Oct 8, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello again Neil,

          I think the aloneness that comes with transformation or rebirth
          serves to encourage the enlightened one onward to earnestly encourage
          or push others also onward themselves to self-abandonment and God-
          reaslization. And I also believe that a keen discernment for the
          capacity, or lack thereof, in certain others to achieve breakthrough
          is too developed. Though not without many trials and tribulations.
          And I would add that any attempt at typical organization has no place
          here either, since most often the age old monkey business enters and
          corrupts with the second man in, so to speak.

          What I find interesting in Fox's story is the following:

          "I saw professors, priests, and people were whole and at ease in that
          condition which was my misery, and they loved that which I would have
          been rid of. But the Lord did stay my desires upon himself, and my
          care was cast upon him alone."

          Seeing here not only the contrast between the many de-sensitized
          or hard-hearted souls and the few sensitive or far more finely-formed
          ones, but also the fact that only the Lord will steer us perfectly
          straight, and nearly all people will lead us astray, and often very
          far astray. And especially priests, ministers, counsellors,
          therapists, and the drug-dealing 'shrinks'.

          Regarding Schopenhauer, I feel far more fortunate having a good
          wife for a companion, rather than a poodle.

          And old Vivekananda sure had his fill of that which was all
          around him when he mahasamadhi-ed himself 'home' at an early age.

          "I have seen life and it is all self-life is for self, love is
          for self, everything is for self. I look back and scarcely find any
          action I have done for self-so I am content." (Vivekananda) I've had
          this quote framed and hanging up on a wall for many years, along with
          another favorite one of his as follows: "This sort of nervous body is
          just an instrument to play great music at times, and at times to moan
          in darkness."

          Take no wooden nickels,

          Bob M.

          P.S. The book 'Varieties of Religious Experience' by William James is
          here on the net in its entirety. Seek and ye shall find!

          ****************************************************

          --- In theexistentialsociety@yahoogroups.com, "right2neil"
          <right2neil@y...> wrote:
          >
          > Thanks very much Bob for taking the time and effort in tracking
          down
          > this marvelous piece. Walt Whitman's comment: "It is not far, it
          > is within reach. Perhaps you have been on the path to inner
          newness
          > since you were born and did not know it." comes to mind.
          >
          > And sheds light on Schopenhauer's: "A man can be himself only so
          > long as he is alone, and if he does not love solitude, he will not
          > freedom, for it is only when he is alone that he is really free.
          > Restraint is always present in society, like a companion of whom
          > there is no riddance, and in proportion to the greatness of a man's
          > individuality, it will be hard for him to bear the sacrifices which
          > all contact with other demands.
          >
          > as well as Vivekananda's: It is only when everything, even love,
          > fails, that, with a flash, man finds out vain, how dream-like is
          > this world. Then he catches a glimpse … of the beyond. It is only
          > by giving up this world that the other comes; never through holding
          > on to this one.
          >
          > Thanks again
        • helen steen
          Hello Bob, Please could you explain the following... see I m not sure that I understand what you are saying. And I also believe that a keen discernment for
          Message 4 of 14 , Oct 8, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Hello Bob,

            Please could you explain the following... see I'm not sure that I understand what you are saying.

            'And I also believe that a keen discernment for the
            capacity, or lack thereof, in certain others to achieve breakthrough is too developed. Though not without many trials and tribulations'.

            Do you mean.... that the expectation of 'the enlightened one' that others can achieve 'self-abandonment and God-realization' is too high?... for some reason....and therefore their encouragement often fails? Is that it?

            I have to get back to you soon about women's enlightenment and the difficulties thereof...I have been working on this and have some thoughts that I'd like perhaps to share/discuss with you...

            In a nut shell
            ...menkind's not to blame otherwise we're done for...
            but there's more

            Helen


            new_trail_blazer <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

            Hello again Neil,

            I think the aloneness that comes with transformation or rebirth
            serves to encourage the enlightened one onward to earnestly encourage
            or push others also onward themselves to self-abandonment and God-
            reaslization. And I also believe that a keen discernment for the
            capacity, or lack thereof, in certain others to achieve breakthrough
            is too developed. Though not without many trials and tribulations.
            And I would add that any attempt at typical organization has no place
            here either, since most often the age old monkey business enters and
            corrupts with the second man in, so to speak.

            What I find interesting in Fox's story is the following:

            "I saw professors, priests, and people were whole and at ease in that
            condition which was my misery, and they loved that which I would have
            been rid of. But the Lord did stay my desires upon himself, and my
            care was cast upon him alone."

            Seeing here not only the contrast between the many de-sensitized
            or hard-hearted souls and the few sensitive or far more finely-formed
            ones, but also the fact that only the Lord will steer us perfectly
            straight, and nearly all people will lead us astray, and often very
            far astray. And especially priests, ministers, counsellors,
            therapists, and the drug-dealing 'shrinks'.

            Regarding Schopenhauer, I feel far more fortunate having a good
            wife for a companion, rather than a poodle.

            And old Vivekananda sure had his fill of that which was all
            around him when he mahasamadhi-ed himself 'home' at an early age.

            "I have seen life and it is all self-life is for self, love is
            for self, everything is for self. I look back and scarcely find any
            action I have done for self-so I am content." (Vivekananda) I've had
            this quote framed and hanging up on a wall for many years, along with
            another favorite one of his as follows: "This sort of nervous body is
            just an instrument to play great music at times, and at times to moan
            in darkness."

            Take no wooden nickels,

            Bob M.

            P.S. The book 'Varieties of Religious Experience' by William James is
            here on the net in its entirety. Seek and ye shall find!

            ****************************************************

            --- In theexistentialsociety@yahoogroups.com, "right2neil"
            <right2neil@y...> wrote:
            >
            > Thanks very much Bob for taking the time and effort in tracking
            down
            > this marvelous piece. Walt Whitman's comment: "It is not far, it
            > is within reach. Perhaps you have been on the path to inner
            newness
            > since you were born and did not know it." comes to mind.
            >
            > And sheds light on Schopenhauer's: "A man can be himself only so
            > long as he is alone, and if he does not love solitude, he will not
            > freedom, for it is only when he is alone that he is really free.
            > Restraint is always present in society, like a companion of whom
            > there is no riddance, and in proportion to the greatness of a man's
            > individuality, it will be hard for him to bear the sacrifices which
            > all contact with other demands.
            >
            > as well as Vivekananda's: It is only when everything, even love,
            > fails, that, with a flash, man finds out vain, how dream-like is
            > this world. Then he catches a glimpse � of the beyond. It is only
            > by giving up this world that the other comes; never through holding
            > on to this one.
            >
            > Thanks again





            Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


            ---------------------------------
            Yahoo! Groups Links

            To visit your group on the web, go to:
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theexistentialsociety/

            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            theexistentialsociety-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
            http://mail.yahoo.com

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • new_trail_blazer
            Hi Helen, Further along in that message I feel I ve made myself clear regarding the acquisition and utilization of a keen intuitive discernment of the innate
            Message 5 of 14 , Oct 8, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Helen,

              Further along in that message I feel I've made myself clear
              regarding the acquisition and utilization of a keen intuitive
              discernment of the innate capacity, or lack thereof, in others for
              self or God-realization.

              (i.e.)"Seeing here not only the contrast between the many
              desensitized or hard-hearted souls (cold, calculating, intellectual)
              and the few sensitive or far more finely-formed (warm, caring, wise)
              ones, but....."

              Or more simply put, "many are called-few are chosen" [capable].
              And of course there are those too who are capable, but refuse to give
              up their friendship with the world and heed the call in earnest and
              with complete abandon.

              Granted though one must have been on the journey of fraudulently-
              conditioned 'self'-immolation for a time and thereby once again in
              possession of a keen sense of his or her own self-transparency in
              order to no longer be hoodwinked by others, nor by himself either.

              http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Soar_Like_An_Eagle/message/53

              http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Soar_Like_An_Eagle/message/41

              Happy trails Helen,

              Bob M.

              ********************************************

              --- In theexistentialsociety@yahoogroups.com, helen steen
              <hjsgermany2000@y...> wrote:
              > Hello Bob,
              >
              > Please could you explain the following... see I'm not sure that I
              understand what you are saying.
              >
              > 'And I also believe that a keen discernment for the
              > capacity, or lack thereof, in certain others to achieve
              breakthrough is too developed. Though not without many trials and
              tribulations'.
              >
              > Do you mean.... that the expectation of 'the enlightened one' that
              others can achieve 'self-abandonment and God-realization' is too
              high?... for some reason....and therefore their encouragement often
              fails? Is that it?
              >
              > I have to get back to you soon about women's enlightenment and the
              difficulties thereof...I have been working on this and have some
              thoughts that I'd like perhaps to share/discuss with you...
              >
              > In a nut shell
              > ...menkind's not to blame otherwise we're done for...
              > but there's more
              >
              > Helen
            • neurom9999
              Helen, I d very much like to hear your thoughts about women s enlightenment, and the difficulties thereof. ... understand what you are saying. ... is too
              Message 6 of 14 , Oct 9, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Helen,

                I'd very much like to hear your thoughts about women's enlightenment,
                and the difficulties thereof.

                ----Dennis




                --- In theexistentialsociety@yahoogroups.com, helen steen
                <hjsgermany2000@y...> wrote:
                > Hello Bob,
                >
                > Please could you explain the following... see I'm not sure that I
                understand what you are saying.
                >
                > 'And I also believe that a keen discernment for the
                > capacity, or lack thereof, in certain others to achieve breakthrough
                is too developed. Though not without many trials and tribulations'.
                >
                > Do you mean.... that the expectation of 'the enlightened one' that
                others can achieve 'self-abandonment and God-realization' is too
                high?... for some reason....and therefore their encouragement often
                fails? Is that it?
                >
                > I have to get back to you soon about women's enlightenment and the
                difficulties thereof...I have been working on this and have some
                thoughts that I'd like perhaps to share/discuss with you...
                >
                > In a nut shell
                > ...menkind's not to blame otherwise we're done for...
                > but there's more
                >
                > Helen
                >
                >
                > new_trail_blazer <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                >
                > Hello again Neil,
                >
                > I think the aloneness that comes with transformation or rebirth
                > serves to encourage the enlightened one onward to earnestly encourage
                > or push others also onward themselves to self-abandonment and God-
                > reaslization. And I also believe that a keen discernment for the
                > capacity, or lack thereof, in certain others to achieve breakthrough
                > is too developed. Though not without many trials and tribulations.
                > And I would add that any attempt at typical organization has no place
                > here either, since most often the age old monkey business enters and
                > corrupts with the second man in, so to speak.
                >
                > What I find interesting in Fox's story is the following:
                >
                > "I saw professors, priests, and people were whole and at ease in that
                > condition which was my misery, and they loved that which I would have
                > been rid of. But the Lord did stay my desires upon himself, and my
                > care was cast upon him alone."
                >
                > Seeing here not only the contrast between the many de-sensitized
                > or hard-hearted souls and the few sensitive or far more finely-formed
                > ones, but also the fact that only the Lord will steer us perfectly
                > straight, and nearly all people will lead us astray, and often very
                > far astray. And especially priests, ministers, counsellors,
                > therapists, and the drug-dealing 'shrinks'.
                >
                > Regarding Schopenhauer, I feel far more fortunate having a good
                > wife for a companion, rather than a poodle.
                >
                > And old Vivekananda sure had his fill of that which was all
                > around him when he mahasamadhi-ed himself 'home' at an early age.
                >
                > "I have seen life and it is all self-life is for self, love is
                > for self, everything is for self. I look back and scarcely find any
                > action I have done for self-so I am content." (Vivekananda) I've had
                > this quote framed and hanging up on a wall for many years, along with
                > another favorite one of his as follows: "This sort of nervous body is
                > just an instrument to play great music at times, and at times to moan
                > in darkness."
                >
                > Take no wooden nickels,
                >
                > Bob M.
                >
                > P.S. The book 'Varieties of Religious Experience' by William James is
                > here on the net in its entirety. Seek and ye shall find!
                >
                > ****************************************************
                >
                > --- In theexistentialsociety@yahoogroups.com, "right2neil"
                > <right2neil@y...> wrote:
                > >
                > > Thanks very much Bob for taking the time and effort in tracking
                > down
                > > this marvelous piece. Walt Whitman's comment: "It is not far, it
                > > is within reach. Perhaps you have been on the path to inner
                > newness
                > > since you were born and did not know it." comes to mind.
                > >
                > > And sheds light on Schopenhauer's: "A man can be himself only so
                > > long as he is alone, and if he does not love solitude, he will not
                > > freedom, for it is only when he is alone that he is really free.
                > > Restraint is always present in society, like a companion of whom
                > > there is no riddance, and in proportion to the greatness of a man's
                > > individuality, it will be hard for him to bear the sacrifices which
                > > all contact with other demands.
                > >
                > > as well as Vivekananda's: It is only when everything, even love,
                > > fails, that, with a flash, man finds out vain, how dream-like is
                > > this world. Then he catches a glimpse … of the beyond. It is only
                > > by giving up this world that the other comes; never through holding
                > > on to this one.
                > >
                > > Thanks again
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
                >
                >
                > ---------------------------------
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theexistentialsociety/
                >
                > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                > theexistentialsociety-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                >
                >
                >
                > __________________________________________________
                > Do You Yahoo!?
                > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                > http://mail.yahoo.com
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • helen steen
                Hello Dennis, One of the reasons often proposed to explain the difficulties women encounter in this area is our objectivity or rather our lack of it and it may
                Message 7 of 14 , Oct 11, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hello Dennis,

                  One of the reasons often proposed to explain the difficulties women encounter in this area is our objectivity or rather our lack of it and it may well be a valid point but if one can try to overlook this (which I will) then what other factors could hinder our enlightenment?

                  One thing I began to suspect, when I explored behind the scenes, was that where Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and even Sartre were concerned they probably were not in fact addressing me (in their philosophical works) or any other women for that matter. Nietzsche for example said 'Woman has so much reason for shame; so much pedantry, superficiality, schoolmarmishness, petty presumption, petty licentiousness, and immodesty lies concealed in woman'

                  Whether I am right about this or not is irrelevant because the doubt is disconcerting. Anyway below are some questions I found in Towards the Spiritual Liberation of Women on the web...



                  Seen in the context of enlightenment can absolute truth really be identified with a particular gender? Isn't enlightenment a perspective that is nondual and that is therefore beyond all limits or identity�even sexual identity? If so, what role does gender play in spirituality? Can one gender really have, in this arena, an advantage over the other?



                  This case below was put by the women-centered psychological theory�s which include Nancy Chodorow's �Reproduction of Mothering�, about which I will say more later.
                  �Although women do not enjoy the same social and economic freedoms as men do and women�s lives may not necessarily always run smoothly, they are raised to be selves-in-community, thus potentially live more fulfilling lives than men. Men on the other hand are invariably raised to be autonomous, contained selves sometimes becoming alienated and unhappy�.


                  Due to 5,000 years of patriarchal religion women find themselves within a society where male sexuality is venerated while female sexuality is denigrated, however despite this fact and their socioeconomic disadvantages they succeed in fulfilling their innate genetic function of reproduction and nurturing.



                  Does the �Reproduction of Mothering� Theory perhaps illustrates the inadequacy of traditional male-centered psychology's idea of the self? Could it, for example, expose the flawed intellectual rigidity of Sartre�s analysis?



                  His analysis was from the view point of individual freedom, �beginning with the assumption that relations with others are based on objectification and that through our objectification of others and ourselves, either the body reigns as flesh, in which case domination or submission follow or consciousness puts its body and that of others at a distance and freedoms are preserved�.



                  Sartre in effect concluded that women could only achieve fulfillment through the vehicle of their mate and Simone de Beauvoir only slightly expanded his theory with her idea �erotic generosity�. Whereby a woman, �who thinks she has little freedom to relinquish, will give herself entirely to a man in the faith that he, through his projects, his freedom, will justify her existence�.



                  Both seemingly missing the point and taking no account of women�s fulfillment through reproduction and nurturing. Unfortunately, they both highly influenced the course of the feminist movement that followed.



                  Nancy Chodorow's �Reproduction of Mothering� Theory �rests on child�s relationship with the mother and the role she plays in the child�s development of the �self� and provides the basis which women-centered psychologists have used to discuss the origins of gender-identity differences between men and women. Her theory also rests on the social fact that women have been the primary caretakers of children and sees the construction of an individual, gendered self as the result of social context�.



                  Could this theory in conjunction with the study of individuals and species through evolutionary psychology help span the boundary between science and spirituality (or moral philosophy) thereby provide a key for women to enlightenment?



                  I'm intersted to hear your thoughts



                  Helen



                  PS

                  I assume overlap here between the terms self-fulfillment, self-actualization and spiritual awakening and enlightenment�


                  neurom9999 <neurom9999@...> wrote:
                  Helen,

                  I'd very much like to hear your thoughts about women's enlightenment,
                  and the difficulties thereof.

                  ----Dennis




                  --- In theexistentialsociety@yahoogroups.com, helen steen
                  <hjsgermany2000@y...> wrote:
                  > Hello Bob,
                  >
                  > Please could you explain the following... see I'm not sure that I
                  understand what you are saying.
                  >
                  > 'And I also believe that a keen discernment for the
                  > capacity, or lack thereof, in certain others to achieve breakthrough
                  is too developed. Though not without many trials and tribulations'.
                  >
                  > Do you mean.... that the expectation of 'the enlightened one' that
                  others can achieve 'self-abandonment and God-realization' is too
                  high?... for some reason....and therefore their encouragement often
                  fails? Is that it?
                  >
                  > I have to get back to you soon about women's enlightenment and the
                  difficulties thereof...I have been working on this and have some
                  thoughts that I'd like perhaps to share/discuss with you...
                  >
                  > In a nut shell
                  > ...menkind's not to blame otherwise we're done for...
                  > but there's more
                  >
                  > Helen
                  >
                  >
                  > new_trail_blazer <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                  >
                  > Hello again Neil,
                  >
                  > I think the aloneness that comes with transformation or rebirth
                  > serves to encourage the enlightened one onward to earnestly encourage
                  > or push others also onward themselves to self-abandonment and God-
                  > reaslization. And I also believe that a keen discernment for the
                  > capacity, or lack thereof, in certain others to achieve breakthrough
                  > is too developed. Though not without many trials and tribulations.
                  > And I would add that any attempt at typical organization has no place
                  > here either, since most often the age old monkey business enters and
                  > corrupts with the second man in, so to speak.
                  >
                  > What I find interesting in Fox's story is the following:
                  >
                  > "I saw professors, priests, and people were whole and at ease in that
                  > condition which was my misery, and they loved that which I would have
                  > been rid of. But the Lord did stay my desires upon himself, and my
                  > care was cast upon him alone."
                  >
                  > Seeing here not only the contrast between the many de-sensitized
                  > or hard-hearted souls and the few sensitive or far more finely-formed
                  > ones, but also the fact that only the Lord will steer us perfectly
                  > straight, and nearly all people will lead us astray, and often very
                  > far astray. And especially priests, ministers, counsellors,
                  > therapists, and the drug-dealing 'shrinks'.
                  >
                  > Regarding Schopenhauer, I feel far more fortunate having a good
                  > wife for a companion, rather than a poodle.
                  >
                  > And old Vivekananda sure had his fill of that which was all
                  > around him when he mahasamadhi-ed himself 'home' at an early age.
                  >
                  > "I have seen life and it is all self-life is for self, love is
                  > for self, everything is for self. I look back and scarcely find any
                  > action I have done for self-so I am content." (Vivekananda) I've had
                  > this quote framed and hanging up on a wall for many years, along with
                  > another favorite one of his as follows: "This sort of nervous body is
                  > just an instrument to play great music at times, and at times to moan
                  > in darkness."
                  >
                  > Take no wooden nickels,
                  >
                  > Bob M.
                  >
                  > P.S. The book 'Varieties of Religious Experience' by William James is
                  > here on the net in its entirety. Seek and ye shall find!
                  >
                  > ****************************************************
                  >
                  > --- In theexistentialsociety@yahoogroups.com, "right2neil"
                  > <right2neil@y...> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Thanks very much Bob for taking the time and effort in tracking
                  > down
                  > > this marvelous piece. Walt Whitman's comment: "It is not far, it
                  > > is within reach. Perhaps you have been on the path to inner
                  > newness
                  > > since you were born and did not know it." comes to mind.
                  > >
                  > > And sheds light on Schopenhauer's: "A man can be himself only so
                  > > long as he is alone, and if he does not love solitude, he will not
                  > > freedom, for it is only when he is alone that he is really free.
                  > > Restraint is always present in society, like a companion of whom
                  > > there is no riddance, and in proportion to the greatness of a man's
                  > > individuality, it will be hard for him to bear the sacrifices which
                  > > all contact with other demands.
                  > >
                  > > as well as Vivekananda's: It is only when everything, even love,
                  > > fails, that, with a flash, man finds out vain, how dream-like is
                  > > this world. Then he catches a glimpse � of the beyond. It is only
                  > > by giving up this world that the other comes; never through holding
                  > > on to this one.
                  > >
                  > > Thanks again
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
                  >
                  >
                  > ---------------------------------
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theexistentialsociety/
                  >
                  > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  > theexistentialsociety-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > __________________________________________________
                  > Do You Yahoo!?
                  > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                  > http://mail.yahoo.com
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                  Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


                  ---------------------------------
                  Yahoo! Groups Links

                  To visit your group on the web, go to:
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theexistentialsociety/

                  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  theexistentialsociety-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.






                  ---------------------------------
                  Do you Yahoo!?
                  Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • new_trail_blazer
                  http://www.prints.co.nz/The_Angelus_Jean_Millet.jsp Bob M. ... encounter in this area is our objectivity or rather our lack of it and it may well be a valid
                  Message 8 of 14 , Oct 12, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    http://www.prints.co.nz/The_Angelus_Jean_Millet.jsp

                    Bob M.

                    ************************************************

                    --- In theexistentialsociety@yahoogroups.com, helen steen
                    <hjsgermany2000@y...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Hello Dennis,
                    >
                    > One of the reasons often proposed to explain the difficulties women
                    encounter in this area is our objectivity or rather our lack of it
                    and it may well be a valid point but if one can try to overlook this
                    (which I will) then what other factors could hinder our
                    enlightenment?
                    >
                    > One thing I began to suspect, when I explored behind the scenes,
                    was that where Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and even Sartre were concerned
                    they probably were not in fact addressing me (in their philosophical
                    works) or any other women for that matter. Nietzsche for example
                    said 'Woman has so much reason for shame; so much pedantry,
                    superficiality, schoolmarmishness, petty presumption, petty
                    licentiousness, and immodesty lies concealed in woman'
                    >
                    > Whether I am right about this or not is irrelevant because the
                    doubt is disconcerting. Anyway below are some questions I found in
                    Towards the Spiritual Liberation of Women on the web...
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Seen in the context of enlightenment can absolute truth really be
                    identified with a particular gender? Isn't enlightenment a
                    perspective that is nondual and that is therefore beyond all limits
                    or identity—even sexual identity? If so, what role does gender play
                    in spirituality? Can one gender really have, in this arena, an
                    advantage over the other?
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > This case below was put by the women-centered psychological
                    theory's which include Nancy Chodorow's `Reproduction of Mothering',
                    about which I will say more later.
                    > `Although women do not enjoy the same social and economic freedoms
                    as men do and women's lives may not necessarily always run smoothly,
                    they are raised to be selves-in-community, thus potentially live
                    more fulfilling lives than men. Men on the other hand are invariably
                    raised to be autonomous, contained selves sometimes becoming
                    alienated and unhappy'.
                    >
                    >
                    > Due to 5,000 years of patriarchal religion women find themselves
                    within a society where male sexuality is venerated while female
                    sexuality is denigrated, however despite this fact and their
                    socioeconomic disadvantages they succeed in fulfilling their innate
                    genetic function of reproduction and nurturing.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Does the `Reproduction of Mothering' Theory perhaps illustrates the
                    inadequacy of traditional male-centered psychology's idea of the
                    self? Could it, for example, expose the flawed intellectual rigidity
                    of Sartre's analysis?
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > His analysis was from the view point of individual
                    freedom, `beginning with the assumption that relations with others
                    are based on objectification and that through our objectification of
                    others and ourselves, either the body reigns as flesh, in which case
                    domination or submission follow or consciousness puts its body and
                    that of others at a distance and freedoms are preserved'.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Sartre in effect concluded that women could only achieve
                    fulfillment through the vehicle of their mate and Simone de Beauvoir
                    only slightly expanded his theory with her idea `erotic generosity'.
                    Whereby a woman, `who thinks she has little freedom to relinquish,
                    will give herself entirely to a man in the faith that he, through his
                    projects, his freedom, will justify her existence'.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Both seemingly missing the point and taking no account of women's
                    fulfillment through reproduction and nurturing. Unfortunately, they
                    both highly influenced the course of the feminist movement that
                    followed.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Nancy Chodorow's `Reproduction of Mothering' Theory `rests on
                    child's relationship with the mother and the role she plays in the
                    child's development of the "self" and provides the basis which women-
                    centered psychologists have used to discuss the origins of gender-
                    identity differences between men and women. Her theory also rests on
                    the social fact that women have been the primary caretakers of
                    children and sees the construction of an individual, gendered self as
                    the result of social context'.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Could this theory in conjunction with the study of individuals and
                    species through evolutionary psychology help span the boundary
                    between science and spirituality (or moral philosophy) thereby
                    provide a key for women to enlightenment?
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > I'm intersted to hear your thoughts
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Helen
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > PS
                    >
                    > I assume overlap here between the terms self-fulfillment, self-
                    actualization and spiritual awakening and enlightenment…
                  • Samara Mindel
                    Helen- Not sure if this is what you are looking for, but try this: Gilligan, Carol. [(1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women s
                    Message 9 of 14 , Oct 15, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Helen-

                      Not sure if this is what you are looking for, but try this: Gilligan, Carol. [(1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.]

                      -Samara






                      helen steen <hjsgermany2000@...> wrote:


                      Hello Dennis,

                      One of the reasons often proposed to explain the difficulties women encounter in this area is our objectivity or rather our lack of it and it may well be a valid point but if one can try to overlook this (which I will) then what other factors could hinder our enlightenment?

                      One thing I began to suspect, when I explored behind the scenes, was that where Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and even Sartre were concerned they probably were not in fact addressing me (in their philosophical works) or any other women for that matter. Nietzsche for example said 'Woman has so much reason for shame; so much pedantry, superficiality, schoolmarmishness, petty presumption, petty licentiousness, and immodesty lies concealed in woman'

                      Whether I am right about this or not is irrelevant because the doubt is disconcerting. Anyway below are some questions I found in Towards the Spiritual Liberation of Women on the web...



                      Seen in the context of enlightenment can absolute truth really be identified with a particular gender? Isn't enlightenment a perspective that is nondual and that is therefore beyond all limits or identity�even sexual identity? If so, what role does gender play in spirituality? Can one gender really have, in this arena, an advantage over the other?



                      This case below was put by the women-centered psychological theory�s which include Nancy Chodorow's �Reproduction of Mothering�, about which I will say more later.
                      �Although women do not enjoy the same social and economic freedoms as men do and women�s lives may not necessarily always run smoothly, they are raised to be selves-in-community, thus potentially live more fulfilling lives than men. Men on the other hand are invariably raised to be autonomous, contained selves sometimes becoming alienated and unhappy�.


                      Due to 5,000 years of patriarchal religion women find themselves within a society where male sexuality is venerated while female sexuality is denigrated, however despite this fact and their socioeconomic disadvantages they succeed in fulfilling their innate genetic function of reproduction and nurturing.



                      Does the �Reproduction of Mothering� Theory perhaps illustrates the inadequacy of traditional male-centered psychology's idea of the self? Could it, for example, expose the flawed intellectual rigidity of Sartre�s analysis?



                      His analysis was from the view point of individual freedom, �beginning with the assumption that relations with others are based on objectification and that through our objectification of others and ourselves, either the body reigns as flesh, in which case domination or submission follow or consciousness puts its body and that of others at a distance and freedoms are preserved�.



                      Sartre in effect concluded that women could only achieve fulfillment through the vehicle of their mate and Simone de Beauvoir only slightly expanded his theory with her idea �erotic generosity�. Whereby a woman, �who thinks she has little freedom to relinquish, will give herself entirely to a man in the faith that he, through his projects, his freedom, will justify her existence�.



                      Both seemingly missing the point and taking no account of women�s fulfillment through reproduction and nurturing. Unfortunately, they both highly influenced the course of the feminist movement that followed.



                      Nancy Chodorow's �Reproduction of Mothering� Theory �rests on child�s relationship with the mother and the role she plays in the child�s development of the �self� and provides the basis which women-centered psychologists have used to discuss the origins of gender-identity differences between men and women. Her theory also rests on the social fact that women have been the primary caretakers of children and sees the construction of an individual, gendered self as the result of social context�.



                      Could this theory in conjunction with the study of individuals and species through evolutionary psychology help span the boundary between science and spirituality (or moral philosophy) thereby provide a key for women to enlightenment?



                      I'm intersted to hear your thoughts



                      Helen



                      PS

                      I assume overlap here between the terms self-fulfillment, self-actualization and spiritual awakening and enlightenment�


                      neurom9999 wrote:
                      Helen,

                      I'd very much like to hear your thoughts about women's enlightenment,
                      and the difficulties thereof.

                      ----Dennis




                      --- In theexistentialsociety@yahoogroups.com, helen steen
                      wrote:
                      > Hello Bob,
                      >
                      > Please could you explain the following... see I'm not sure that I
                      understand what you are saying.
                      >
                      > 'And I also believe that a keen discernment for the
                      > capacity, or lack thereof, in certain others to achieve breakthrough
                      is too developed. Though not without many trials and tribulations'.
                      >
                      > Do you mean.... that the expectation of 'the enlightened one' that
                      others can achieve 'self-abandonment and God-realization' is too
                      high?... for some reason....and therefore their encouragement often
                      fails? Is that it?
                      >
                      > I have to get back to you soon about women's enlightenment and the
                      difficulties thereof...I have been working on this and have some
                      thoughts that I'd like perhaps to share/discuss with you...
                      >
                      > In a nut shell
                      > ...menkind's not to blame otherwise we're done for...
                      > but there's more
                      >
                      > Helen
                      >
                      >
                      > new_trail_blazer wrote:
                      >
                      > Hello again Neil,
                      >
                      > I think the aloneness that comes with transformation or rebirth
                      > serves to encourage the enlightened one onward to earnestly encourage
                      > or push others also onward themselves to self-abandonment and God-
                      > reaslization. And I also believe that a keen discernment for the
                      > capacity, or lack thereof, in certain others to achieve breakthrough
                      > is too developed. Though not without many trials and tribulations.
                      > And I would add that any attempt at typical organization has no place
                      > here either, since most often the age old monkey business enters and
                      > corrupts with the second man in, so to speak.
                      >
                      > What I find interesting in Fox's story is the following:
                      >
                      > "I saw professors, priests, and people were whole and at ease in that
                      > condition which was my misery, and they loved that which I would have
                      > been rid of. But the Lord did stay my desires upon himself, and my
                      > care was cast upon him alone."
                      >
                      > Seeing here not only the contrast between the many de-sensitized
                      > or hard-hearted souls and the few sensitive or far more finely-formed
                      > ones, but also the fact that only the Lord will steer us perfectly
                      > straight, and nearly all people will lead us astray, and often very
                      > far astray. And especially priests, ministers, counsellors,
                      > therapists, and the drug-dealing 'shrinks'.
                      >
                      > Regarding Schopenhauer, I feel far more fortunate having a good
                      > wife for a companion, rather than a poodle.
                      >
                      > And old Vivekananda sure had his fill of that which was all
                      > around him when he mahasamadhi-ed himself 'home' at an early age.
                      >
                      > "I have seen life and it is all self-life is for self, love is
                      > for self, everything is for self. I look back and scarcely find any
                      > action I have done for self-so I am content." (Vivekananda) I've had
                      > this quote framed and hanging up on a wall for many years, along with
                      > another favorite one of his as follows: "This sort of nervous body is
                      > just an instrument to play great music at times, and at times to moan
                      > in darkness."
                      >
                      > Take no wooden nickels,
                      >
                      > Bob M.
                      >
                      > P.S. The book 'Varieties of Religious Experience' by William James is
                      > here on the net in its entirety. Seek and ye shall find!
                      >
                      > ****************************************************
                      >
                      > --- In theexistentialsociety@yahoogroups.com, "right2neil"
                      > wrote:
                      > >
                      > > Thanks very much Bob for taking the time and effort in tracking
                      > down
                      > > this marvelous piece. Walt Whitman's comment: "It is not far, it
                      > > is within reach. Perhaps you have been on the path to inner
                      > newness
                      > > since you were born and did not know it." comes to mind.
                      > >
                      > > And sheds light on Schopenhauer's: "A man can be himself only so
                      > > long as he is alone, and if he does not love solitude, he will not
                      > > freedom, for it is only when he is alone that he is really free.
                      > > Restraint is always present in society, like a companion of whom
                      > > there is no riddance, and in proportion to the greatness of a man's
                      > > individuality, it will be hard for him to bear the sacrifices which
                      > > all contact with other demands.
                      > >
                      > > as well as Vivekananda's: It is only when everything, even love,
                      > > fails, that, with a flash, man finds out vain, how dream-like is
                      > > this world. Then he catches a glimpse � of the beyond. It is only
                      > > by giving up this world that the other comes; never through holding
                      > > on to this one.
                      > >
                      > > Thanks again
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
                      >
                      >
                      > ---------------------------------
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theexistentialsociety/
                      >
                      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      > theexistentialsociety-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      >
                      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > __________________________________________________
                      > Do You Yahoo!?
                      > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                      > http://mail.yahoo.com
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                      Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


                      ---------------------------------
                      Yahoo! Groups Links

                      To visit your group on the web, go to:
                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theexistentialsociety/

                      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      theexistentialsociety-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.






                      ---------------------------------
                      Do you Yahoo!?
                      Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                      Yahoo! Groups Links









                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • helen steen
                      Thanks Samara I ll look into that Helen Samara Mindel wrote: Helen- Not sure if this is what you are looking for, but try this:
                      Message 10 of 14 , Oct 16, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Thanks Samara

                        I'll look into that

                        Helen

                        Samara Mindel <smindel@...> wrote:

                        Helen-

                        Not sure if this is what you are looking for, but try this: Gilligan, Carol. [(1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.]

                        -Samara






                        helen steen wrote:


                        Hello Dennis,

                        One of the reasons often proposed to explain the difficulties women encounter in this area is our objectivity or rather our lack of it and it may well be a valid point but if one can try to overlook this (which I will) then what other factors could hinder our enlightenment?

                        One thing I began to suspect, when I explored behind the scenes, was that where Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and even Sartre were concerned they probably were not in fact addressing me (in their philosophical works) or any other women for that matter. Nietzsche for example said 'Woman has so much reason for shame; so much pedantry, superficiality, schoolmarmishness, petty presumption, petty licentiousness, and immodesty lies concealed in woman'

                        Whether I am right about this or not is irrelevant because the doubt is disconcerting. Anyway below are some questions I found in Towards the Spiritual Liberation of Women on the web...



                        Seen in the context of enlightenment can absolute truth really be identified with a particular gender? Isn't enlightenment a perspective that is nondual and that is therefore beyond all limits or identity�even sexual identity? If so, what role does gender play in spirituality? Can one gender really have, in this arena, an advantage over the other?



                        This case below was put by the women-centered psychological theory�s which include Nancy Chodorow's �Reproduction of Mothering�, about which I will say more later.
                        �Although women do not enjoy the same social and economic freedoms as men do and women�s lives may not necessarily always run smoothly, they are raised to be selves-in-community, thus potentially live more fulfilling lives than men. Men on the other hand are invariably raised to be autonomous, contained selves sometimes becoming alienated and unhappy�.


                        Due to 5,000 years of patriarchal religion women find themselves within a society where male sexuality is venerated while female sexuality is denigrated, however despite this fact and their socioeconomic disadvantages they succeed in fulfilling their innate genetic function of reproduction and nurturing.



                        Does the �Reproduction of Mothering� Theory perhaps illustrates the inadequacy of traditional male-centered psychology's idea of the self? Could it, for example, expose the flawed intellectual rigidity of Sartre�s analysis?



                        His analysis was from the view point of individual freedom, �beginning with the assumption that relations with others are based on objectification and that through our objectification of others and ourselves, either the body reigns as flesh, in which case domination or submission follow or consciousness puts its body and that of others at a distance and freedoms are preserved�.



                        Sartre in effect concluded that women could only achieve fulfillment through the vehicle of their mate and Simone de Beauvoir only slightly expanded his theory with her idea �erotic generosity�. Whereby a woman, �who thinks she has little freedom to relinquish, will give herself entirely to a man in the faith that he, through his projects, his freedom, will justify her existence�.



                        Both seemingly missing the point and taking no account of women�s fulfillment through reproduction and nurturing. Unfortunately, they both highly influenced the course of the feminist movement that followed.



                        Nancy Chodorow's �Reproduction of Mothering� Theory �rests on child�s relationship with the mother and the role she plays in the child�s development of the �self� and provides the basis which women-centered psychologists have used to discuss the origins of gender-identity differences between men and women. Her theory also rests on the social fact that women have been the primary caretakers of children and sees the construction of an individual, gendered self as the result of social context�.



                        Could this theory in conjunction with the study of individuals and species through evolutionary psychology help span the boundary between science and spirituality (or moral philosophy) thereby provide a key for women to enlightenment?



                        I'm intersted to hear your thoughts



                        Helen



                        PS

                        I assume overlap here between the terms self-fulfillment, self-actualization and spiritual awakening and enlightenment�


                        neurom9999 wrote:
                        Helen,

                        I'd very much like to hear your thoughts about women's enlightenment,
                        and the difficulties thereof.

                        ----Dennis




                        --- In theexistentialsociety@yahoogroups.com, helen steen
                        wrote:
                        > Hello Bob,
                        >
                        > Please could you explain the following... see I'm not sure that I
                        understand what you are saying.
                        >
                        > 'And I also believe that a keen discernment for the
                        > capacity, or lack thereof, in certain others to achieve breakthrough
                        is too developed. Though not without many trials and tribulations'.
                        >
                        > Do you mean.... that the expectation of 'the enlightened one' that
                        others can achieve 'self-abandonment and God-realization' is too
                        high?... for some reason....and therefore their encouragement often
                        fails? Is that it?
                        >
                        > I have to get back to you soon about women's enlightenment and the
                        difficulties thereof...I have been working on this and have some
                        thoughts that I'd like perhaps to share/discuss with you...
                        >
                        > In a nut shell
                        > ...menkind's not to blame otherwise we're done for...
                        > but there's more
                        >
                        > Helen
                        >
                        >
                        > new_trail_blazer wrote:
                        >
                        > Hello again Neil,
                        >
                        > I think the aloneness that comes with transformation or rebirth
                        > serves to encourage the enlightened one onward to earnestly encourage
                        > or push others also onward themselves to self-abandonment and God-
                        > reaslization. And I also believe that a keen discernment for the
                        > capacity, or lack thereof, in certain others to achieve breakthrough
                        > is too developed. Though not without many trials and tribulations.
                        > And I would add that any attempt at typical organization has no place
                        > here either, since most often the age old monkey business enters and
                        > corrupts with the second man in, so to speak.
                        >
                        > What I find interesting in Fox's story is the following:
                        >
                        > "I saw professors, priests, and people were whole and at ease in that
                        > condition which was my misery, and they loved that which I would have
                        > been rid of. But the Lord did stay my desires upon himself, and my
                        > care was cast upon him alone."
                        >
                        > Seeing here not only the contrast between the many de-sensitized
                        > or hard-hearted souls and the few sensitive or far more finely-formed
                        > ones, but also the fact that only the Lord will steer us perfectly
                        > straight, and nearly all people will lead us astray, and often very
                        > far astray. And especially priests, ministers, counsellors,
                        > therapists, and the drug-dealing 'shrinks'.
                        >
                        > Regarding Schopenhauer, I feel far more fortunate having a good
                        > wife for a companion, rather than a poodle.
                        >
                        > And old Vivekananda sure had his fill of that which was all
                        > around him when he mahasamadhi-ed himself 'home' at an early age.
                        >
                        > "I have seen life and it is all self-life is for self, love is
                        > for self, everything is for self. I look back and scarcely find any
                        > action I have done for self-so I am content." (Vivekananda) I've had
                        > this quote framed and hanging up on a wall for many years, along with
                        > another favorite one of his as follows: "This sort of nervous body is
                        > just an instrument to play great music at times, and at times to moan
                        > in darkness."
                        >
                        > Take no wooden nickels,
                        >
                        > Bob M.
                        >
                        > P.S. The book 'Varieties of Religious Experience' by William James is
                        > here on the net in its entirety. Seek and ye shall find!
                        >
                        > ****************************************************
                        >
                        > --- In theexistentialsociety@yahoogroups.com, "right2neil"
                        > wrote:
                        > >
                        > > Thanks very much Bob for taking the time and effort in tracking
                        > down
                        > > this marvelous piece. Walt Whitman's comment: "It is not far, it
                        > > is within reach. Perhaps you have been on the path to inner
                        > newness
                        > > since you were born and did not know it." comes to mind.
                        > >
                        > > And sheds light on Schopenhauer's: "A man can be himself only so
                        > > long as he is alone, and if he does not love solitude, he will not
                        > > freedom, for it is only when he is alone that he is really free.
                        > > Restraint is always present in society, like a companion of whom
                        > > there is no riddance, and in proportion to the greatness of a man's
                        > > individuality, it will be hard for him to bear the sacrifices which
                        > > all contact with other demands.
                        > >
                        > > as well as Vivekananda's: It is only when everything, even love,
                        > > fails, that, with a flash, man finds out vain, how dream-like is
                        > > this world. Then he catches a glimpse � of the beyond. It is only
                        > > by giving up this world that the other comes; never through holding
                        > > on to this one.
                        > >
                        > > Thanks again
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
                        >
                        >
                        > ---------------------------------
                        > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theexistentialsociety/
                        >
                        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        > theexistentialsociety-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        >
                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > __________________________________________________
                        > Do You Yahoo!?
                        > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                        > http://mail.yahoo.com
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                        Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


                        ---------------------------------
                        Yahoo! Groups Links

                        To visit your group on the web, go to:
                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theexistentialsociety/

                        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        theexistentialsociety-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.






                        ---------------------------------
                        Do you Yahoo!?
                        Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                        Yahoo! Groups Links









                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                        Yahoo! Groups Links









                        ---------------------------------
                        Do you Yahoo!?
                        vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • neurom9999
                        Message 11 of 14 , Oct 17, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          <<That we are bound to the earth does not mean that we cannot grow; on
                          the contrary it is the sine qua non of growth. No noble, well-grown
                          tree ever disowned its dark root, for it grows not only upwards but
                          downwards as well.>>

                          --------Carl Jung



                          Hi, Helen,

                          Books written by feminists have not occupied a very high position on
                          my reading list throughout my life. I feel I can very well understand
                          how you could come to doubt whether the works of some male
                          existentialists (and other male writers) are, in fact, addressing you,
                          and other women. I possess similar doubts about whether the works of
                          many feminists are addressing me, and other men.

                          When Susan Brownmiller asserts, in *Against Our Will*, that rape is
                          not a crime committed by a minority of disturbed males but rather
                          "nothing more or less than a conscious process by which *all* men keep
                          *all* women in a state of fear;" when the leading feminist
                          publication, Ms Magazine, foments a rampant hysteria regarding incest
                          and Satanic ritual abuse via the instrument of "recovered memory
                          therapy;" when I encounter drivel such as the pronouncements that
                          "every act of sexual intercourse is rape;" when Susan McClary
                          describes Beethoven's Ninth Symphony as a rape fantasy, and pronounces
                          most classical music as bad because of its "phallic violence" and
                          "pelvic pounding;" when Robin Morgan writes, in *The Demon Lover: On
                          the Sexuality of Terrorism*, that men "dwell in a state of political
                          savagery," and that only women are peaceful—I begin to see that a
                          salient goal of many feminists is to erect and attack a fungible
                          abstraction: "the male," and that the individual characteristics of
                          any actual man have no relevance in their reality tunnel.

                          If feminist writings have been addressed to me, then most of them have
                          sorely missed their mark. Nevertheless, I have been a faithful reader
                          of some women writers, and, in many cases, consider their works to be
                          definitive.

                          On first take, I could very well conclude that Nietzsche's
                          generalization about women applies most especially to himself:
                          *Nietzsche has so much reason for shame; so much pedantry,
                          superficiality, schoolmarmishness, petty presumption, petty
                          licentiousness, and immodesty lies concealed in Nietzsche.*
                          Projection exists.

                          Nietzsche expresses a generalization—but it sounds personal and
                          reactionary to me. I would want to know the antecedent
                          events/experiences that occasioned such a genius to make such a
                          hostile remark. It sounds like something I might say, after spending
                          half an hour with Patricia Ireland.

                          Some observant man once concluded: Most of the problems in the world
                          can be traced to the inability of a man to sit still in a chair.

                          It is an established fact that men of great wealth have historically
                          tended to want to band together with other men of great wealth—in
                          order to control the course of events in the world. But, for some
                          strange reason, society has assumed that great wealth equals great
                          intelligence. Money makes the world go round, but the members of
                          these men's clubs are not necessarily the sharpest knives in the drawer.

                          I admit that all facets of society—religious, social, economic—have
                          been invariably patriarchal in established form, and that much effort
                          has been expended by some men to systematically hold women down. But
                          I don't see where establishment/academic feminism, with its tools of
                          misanthropy, political correctness, collectivism, and conformity has
                          done much to improve the quality of existence for individuals of
                          either gender. The abuse of wealth and power has kept most men in
                          chains, along with women.

                          Neurologists have concluded that men and women differ in the "wiring"
                          of brain and nervous system. Cognitive psychologists have concluded
                          that most men tend to objectify, and that most women tend to project.
                          Shown a photograph or illustration of a man and woman in an intimate
                          encounter, a woman will tend to project herself into the female
                          depicted, whereas a man will tend to block out the male in the picture
                          entirely, and fantasize about the woman depicted as "doing tricks for
                          him."

                          In actual existence, gender does not seem to be an either/or category.
                          For both men and women, the evidence seems to indicate that there is
                          a spectrum, a range of gender. Many studies have dealt with the
                          borderline conditions.

                          A biology professor once informed me, matter-of-factly, that the
                          screen actress, Mae West, possessed a "male" brain, and that that was
                          the reason she knew exactly what to say and do, in her unique way, in
                          order to excite the erotic imagination of a man.

                          As I've stated on a previous occasion, I came to Existentialism
                          through the back door, as it were—intrigued by the cogent associations
                          and root similarities I perceived during my study of Gnosticism. I'm
                          not a member of the wealthy elite, and I'm not very interested in
                          politics—sexual politics, or other. I feel I can plainly see that all
                          or most gains in human freedom have come from the disenfranchised, the
                          counter-culture, the artists and writers who are constantly engaged in
                          a struggle with the establishment, and hampered by the fact that most
                          of humanity is, as Bob M. might say, asleep.

                          Some of what attracted me to Existentialism was its focus on
                          authenticity, its tolerance for subjective commitments, its respect
                          for individuality, and its extreme reluctance to assign a dogmatic
                          essence to human beings—as if the nature of existence were completely
                          comprehended.

                          Many academic critics have concluded that the Nineteenth Century was
                          "silly." I don't find the following silly:

                          <<There shall be poets! When woman's unmeasured bondage shall be
                          broken, when she shall live for and through herself, man--hitherto
                          detestable--having let her go, she, too, will be poet! Woman will find
                          the unknown! Will her ideational worlds be different from ours? She
                          will come upon strange, unfathomable, repellent, delightful things; we
                          shall take them, we shall comprehend them.>>


                          ----Arthur Rimbaud




                          Rimbaud also stated: <<I believe that I am in hell, therefore I am
                          there.>>

                          I accept the basic premises of the theory of evolution, and therefore
                          I accept that both men and women possess the legacy of a reptilian
                          brain—a vessel of dark, raw, almost unspeakable impulses. But thought
                          and impulse is not action. For me, the first step on the path of
                          enlightenment is withdrawing one's projections. Perhaps the Homo
                          Superior will not be burdened with having to exercise conscience,
                          will, and self-control.

                          I believe that the path of enlightenment for both men and women lies
                          in an authentic and intimate union of a man and a woman. I believe
                          that women tend to be psychologically more stable, and that they are
                          better adapted for existence. I believe that men tend to be
                          psychologically more fragile—more prone to veer outward in tenuous,
                          eccentric attempts to conquer the unknown—and, perhaps, end up
                          stranded out on a limb.

                          I am certain of very few things, but of this I am sure:

                          Encountering my Barbara was the best thing that ever happened to me.
                          I never felt the need to insist she support my projects in order to
                          justify her existence. We never had the goal of making babies. But
                          we had many synchronicities, many magic moments, and many
                          breakthroughs. She immeasurably enriched my existence. Barbara loved
                          her family, and nurtured her nieces and nephews, and cared about
                          tending to the welfare of stray cats on the street. Her death was the
                          worst thing that ever happened to me.

                          I guess I can't be a true Existentialist, because I woke up one day
                          and discovered that I'm a mystic.


                          ----Dennis





                          --- In theexistentialsociety@yahoogroups.com, helen steen
                          <hjsgermany2000@y...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Hello Dennis,
                          >
                          > One of the reasons often proposed to explain the difficulties women
                          encounter in this area is our objectivity or rather our lack of it and
                          it may well be a valid point but if one can try to overlook this
                          (which I will) then what other factors could hinder our enlightenment?
                          >
                          > One thing I began to suspect, when I explored behind the scenes, was
                          that where Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and even Sartre were concerned they
                          probably were not in fact addressing me (in their philosophical works)
                          or any other women for that matter. Nietzsche for example said 'Woman
                          has so much reason for shame; so much pedantry, superficiality,
                          schoolmarmishness, petty presumption, petty licentiousness, and
                          immodesty lies concealed in woman'
                          >
                          > Whether I am right about this or not is irrelevant because the doubt
                          is disconcerting. Anyway below are some questions I found in Towards
                          the Spiritual Liberation of Women on the web...
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Seen in the context of enlightenment can absolute truth really be
                          identified with a particular gender? Isn't enlightenment a perspective
                          that is nondual and that is therefore beyond all limits or
                          identity—even sexual identity? If so, what role does gender play in
                          spirituality? Can one gender really have, in this arena, an advantage
                          over the other?
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > This case below was put by the women-centered psychological
                          theory's which include Nancy Chodorow's `Reproduction of Mothering',
                          about which I will say more later.
                          > `Although women do not enjoy the same social and economic freedoms
                          as men do and women's lives may not necessarily always run smoothly,
                          they are raised to be selves-in-community, thus potentially live more
                          fulfilling lives than men. Men on the other hand are invariably raised
                          to be autonomous, contained selves sometimes becoming alienated and
                          unhappy'.
                          >
                          >
                          > Due to 5,000 years of patriarchal religion women find themselves
                          within a society where male sexuality is venerated while female
                          sexuality is denigrated, however despite this fact and their
                          socioeconomic disadvantages they succeed in fulfilling their innate
                          genetic function of reproduction and nurturing.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Does the `Reproduction of Mothering' Theory perhaps illustrates the
                          inadequacy of traditional male-centered psychology's idea of the self?
                          Could it, for example, expose the flawed intellectual rigidity of
                          Sartre's analysis?
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > His analysis was from the view point of individual freedom,
                          `beginning with the assumption that relations with others are based on
                          objectification and that through our objectification of others and
                          ourselves, either the body reigns as flesh, in which case domination
                          or submission follow or consciousness puts its body and that of others
                          at a distance and freedoms are preserved'.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Sartre in effect concluded that women could only achieve fulfillment
                          through the vehicle of their mate and Simone de Beauvoir only slightly
                          expanded his theory with her idea `erotic generosity'. Whereby a
                          woman, `who thinks she has little freedom to relinquish, will give
                          herself entirely to a man in the faith that he, through his projects,
                          his freedom, will justify her existence'.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Both seemingly missing the point and taking no account of women's
                          fulfillment through reproduction and nurturing. Unfortunately, they
                          both highly influenced the course of the feminist movement that followed.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Nancy Chodorow's `Reproduction of Mothering' Theory `rests on
                          child's relationship with the mother and the role she plays in the
                          child's development of the "self" and provides the basis which
                          women-centered psychologists have used to discuss the origins of
                          gender-identity differences between men and women. Her theory also
                          rests on the social fact that women have been the primary caretakers
                          of children and sees the construction of an individual, gendered self
                          as the result of social context'.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Could this theory in conjunction with the study of individuals and
                          species through evolutionary psychology help span the boundary between
                          science and spirituality (or moral philosophy) thereby provide a key
                          for women to enlightenment?
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > I'm intersted to hear your thoughts
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Helen
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > PS
                          >
                          > I assume overlap here between the terms self-fulfillment,
                          self-actualization and spiritual awakening and enlightenment…
                          >
                          >
                          > neurom9999 <neurom9999@y...> wrote:
                          > Helen,
                          >
                          > I'd very much like to hear your thoughts about women's enlightenment,
                          > and the difficulties thereof.
                          >
                          > ----Dennis
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In theexistentialsociety@yahoogroups.com, helen steen
                          > <hjsgermany2000@y...> wrote:
                          > > Hello Bob,
                          > >
                          > > Please could you explain the following... see I'm not sure that I
                          > understand what you are saying.
                          > >
                          > > 'And I also believe that a keen discernment for the
                          > > capacity, or lack thereof, in certain others to achieve breakthrough
                          > is too developed. Though not without many trials and tribulations'.
                          > >
                          > > Do you mean.... that the expectation of 'the enlightened one' that
                          > others can achieve 'self-abandonment and God-realization' is too
                          > high?... for some reason....and therefore their encouragement often
                          > fails? Is that it?
                          > >
                          > > I have to get back to you soon about women's enlightenment and the
                          > difficulties thereof...I have been working on this and have some
                          > thoughts that I'd like perhaps to share/discuss with you...
                          > >
                          > > In a nut shell
                          > > ...menkind's not to blame otherwise we're done for...
                          > > but there's more
                          > >
                          > > Helen
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > new_trail_blazer <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > Hello again Neil,
                          > >
                          > > I think the aloneness that comes with transformation or rebirth
                          > > serves to encourage the enlightened one onward to earnestly encourage
                          > > or push others also onward themselves to self-abandonment and God-
                          > > reaslization. And I also believe that a keen discernment for the
                          > > capacity, or lack thereof, in certain others to achieve breakthrough
                          > > is too developed. Though not without many trials and tribulations.
                          > > And I would add that any attempt at typical organization has no place
                          > > here either, since most often the age old monkey business enters and
                          > > corrupts with the second man in, so to speak.
                          > >
                          > > What I find interesting in Fox's story is the following:
                          > >
                          > > "I saw professors, priests, and people were whole and at ease in that
                          > > condition which was my misery, and they loved that which I would have
                          > > been rid of. But the Lord did stay my desires upon himself, and my
                          > > care was cast upon him alone."
                          > >
                          > > Seeing here not only the contrast between the many de-sensitized
                          > > or hard-hearted souls and the few sensitive or far more finely-formed
                          > > ones, but also the fact that only the Lord will steer us perfectly
                          > > straight, and nearly all people will lead us astray, and often very
                          > > far astray. And especially priests, ministers, counsellors,
                          > > therapists, and the drug-dealing 'shrinks'.
                          > >
                          > > Regarding Schopenhauer, I feel far more fortunate having a good
                          > > wife for a companion, rather than a poodle.
                          > >
                          > > And old Vivekananda sure had his fill of that which was all
                          > > around him when he mahasamadhi-ed himself 'home' at an early age.
                          > >
                          > > "I have seen life and it is all self-life is for self, love is
                          > > for self, everything is for self. I look back and scarcely find any
                          > > action I have done for self-so I am content." (Vivekananda) I've had
                          > > this quote framed and hanging up on a wall for many years, along with
                          > > another favorite one of his as follows: "This sort of nervous body is
                          > > just an instrument to play great music at times, and at times to moan
                          > > in darkness."
                          > >
                          > > Take no wooden nickels,
                          > >
                          > > Bob M.
                          > >
                          > > P.S. The book 'Varieties of Religious Experience' by William James is
                          > > here on the net in its entirety. Seek and ye shall find!
                          > >
                          > > ****************************************************
                          > >
                          > > --- In theexistentialsociety@yahoogroups.com, "right2neil"
                          > > <right2neil@y...> wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > > Thanks very much Bob for taking the time and effort in tracking
                          > > down
                          > > > this marvelous piece. Walt Whitman's comment: "It is not far, it
                          > > > is within reach. Perhaps you have been on the path to inner
                          > > newness
                          > > > since you were born and did not know it." comes to mind.
                          > > >
                          > > > And sheds light on Schopenhauer's: "A man can be himself only so
                          > > > long as he is alone, and if he does not love solitude, he will not
                          > > > freedom, for it is only when he is alone that he is really free.
                          > > > Restraint is always present in society, like a companion of whom
                          > > > there is no riddance, and in proportion to the greatness of a man's
                          > > > individuality, it will be hard for him to bear the sacrifices which
                          > > > all contact with other demands.
                          > > >
                          > > > as well as Vivekananda's: It is only when everything, even love,
                          > > > fails, that, with a flash, man finds out vain, how dream-like is
                          > > > this world. Then he catches a glimpse … of the beyond. It is only
                          > > > by giving up this world that the other comes; never through holding
                          > > > on to this one.
                          > > >
                          > > > Thanks again
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > ---------------------------------
                          > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                          > >
                          > > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                          > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theexistentialsociety/
                          > >
                          > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          > > theexistentialsociety-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          > >
                          > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                          Service.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > __________________________________________________
                          > > Do You Yahoo!?
                          > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                          > > http://mail.yahoo.com
                          > >
                          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
                          >
                          >
                          > ---------------------------------
                          > Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theexistentialsociety/
                          >
                          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          > theexistentialsociety-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          >
                          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > ---------------------------------
                          > Do you Yahoo!?
                          > Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • helen steen
                          Hello Dennis, Thanks very much for your reply..there’s a lot of interesting and helpful stuff in there. Actually books written by feminists have not occupied
                          Message 12 of 14 , Oct 20, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hello Dennis,

                            Thanks very much for your reply..there�s a lot of interesting and helpful stuff in there.



                            Actually books written by feminists have not occupied a very high position on my reading list throughout my life either, in fact I had to look up all those ladies you referred to, as I�d never heard of any of them.



                            Perhaps I was being naive but it never (up till a few weeks ago) even occurred to me that the works of male existentialists might not be addressing me on all fronts, so to speak but on the other hand there�s no doubt in my mind that feminist writings are aimed at a mainly female audience...and so I�m not sure they equate (genres and gender of audiences in these cases.. that is)?



                            I didn�t intend making a feminist statement, in fact as I said it never occurred to me that this might be a gender issue until I started to look into it, however I now think that it almost certainly is.



                            Consequently, I conclude that it�s advisable for women (like me, for example) to investigate more modern women-centered ideas along with the old existential �masters� and for a bit of healthy skepticism to take into account (what one can glean, authoritative or otherwise about) the MEN behind the ideas, thereby 'staying flexible, and leaving the concrete on the highway'.. stealing one of Bob�s sayings.



                            What you say here about Nietzsche� �expressing a generalization��...yes, this is what�s so interesting for me ...does H.L. Mencken in The Philosophy of FN have the answer.........



                            .>>NIETZSCHE'S faithful sister, with almost comical and essentially feminine disgust, bewails the fact that, as a very young man, the philosopher became acquainted with the baleful truths set forth in Schopenhauer's immortal essay "On Women." That this daring work greatly influenced him is true, and that he subscribed to its chief arguments all the rest of his days is also true, but it is far from true to say that his view of the fair sex was borrowed bodily from Schopenhauer or that he would have written otherwise than as he did if Schopenhauer had never lived. Nietzsche's conclusions regarding women were the inevitable result, indeed, of his own philosophical system. It is impossible to conceive a man who held his opinions of morality and society laying down any other doctrines of femininity and matrimony than those he scattered through his books.<<<



                            Or does Deborah Hayden in Pox ...

                            of course we�ll never know......



                            There are other things you comment on that I will think about�and get back to you�but I�m a little wary about discussion of feminist issues in this forum.



                            Helen



                            PS

                            Could you explain why the book .. In pursiut of Valis.... costs $92, is it printed with gold leaf lettering or somthing?


                            neurom9999 <neurom9999@...> wrote:

                            <<That we are bound to the earth does not mean that we cannot grow; on
                            the contrary it is the sine qua non of growth. No noble, well-grown
                            tree ever disowned its dark root, for it grows not only upwards but
                            downwards as well.>>

                            --------Carl Jung



                            Hi, Helen,

                            Books written by feminists have not occupied a very high position on
                            my reading list throughout my life. I feel I can very well understand
                            how you could come to doubt whether the works of some male
                            existentialists (and other male writers) are, in fact, addressing you,
                            and other women. I possess similar doubts about whether the works of
                            many feminists are addressing me, and other men.

                            When Susan Brownmiller asserts, in *Against Our Will*, that rape is
                            not a crime committed by a minority of disturbed males but rather
                            "nothing more or less than a conscious process by which *all* men keep
                            *all* women in a state of fear;" when the leading feminist
                            publication, Ms Magazine, foments a rampant hysteria regarding incest
                            and Satanic ritual abuse via the instrument of "recovered memory
                            therapy;" when I encounter drivel such as the pronouncements that
                            "every act of sexual intercourse is rape;" when Susan McClary
                            describes Beethoven's Ninth Symphony as a rape fantasy, and pronounces
                            most classical music as bad because of its "phallic violence" and
                            "pelvic pounding;" when Robin Morgan writes, in *The Demon Lover: On
                            the Sexuality of Terrorism*, that men "dwell in a state of political
                            savagery," and that only women are peaceful�I begin to see that a
                            salient goal of many feminists is to erect and attack a fungible
                            abstraction: "the male," and that the individual characteristics of
                            any actual man have no relevance in their reality tunnel.

                            If feminist writings have been addressed to me, then most of them have
                            sorely missed their mark. Nevertheless, I have been a faithful reader
                            of some women writers, and, in many cases, consider their works to be
                            definitive.

                            On first take, I could very well conclude that Nietzsche's
                            generalization about women applies most especially to himself:
                            *Nietzsche has so much reason for shame; so much pedantry,
                            superficiality, schoolmarmishness, petty presumption, petty
                            licentiousness, and immodesty lies concealed in Nietzsche.*
                            Projection exists.

                            Nietzsche expresses a generalization�but it sounds personal and
                            reactionary to me. I would want to know the antecedent
                            events/experiences that occasioned such a genius to make such a
                            hostile remark. It sounds like something I might say, after spending
                            half an hour with Patricia Ireland.

                            Some observant man once concluded: Most of the problems in the world
                            can be traced to the inability of a man to sit still in a chair.

                            It is an established fact that men of great wealth have historically
                            tended to want to band together with other men of great wealth�in
                            order to control the course of events in the world. But, for some
                            strange reason, society has assumed that great wealth equals great
                            intelligence. Money makes the world go round, but the members of
                            these men's clubs are not necessarily the sharpest knives in the drawer.

                            I admit that all facets of society�religious, social, economic�have
                            been invariably patriarchal in established form, and that much effort
                            has been expended by some men to systematically hold women down. But
                            I don't see where establishment/academic feminism, with its tools of
                            misanthropy, political correctness, collectivism, and conformity has
                            done much to improve the quality of existence for individuals of
                            either gender. The abuse of wealth and power has kept most men in
                            chains, along with women.

                            Neurologists have concluded that men and women differ in the "wiring"
                            of brain and nervous system. Cognitive psychologists have concluded
                            that most men tend to objectify, and that most women tend to project.
                            Shown a photograph or illustration of a man and woman in an intimate
                            encounter, a woman will tend to project herself into the female
                            depicted, whereas a man will tend to block out the male in the picture
                            entirely, and fantasize about the woman depicted as "doing tricks for
                            him."

                            In actual existence, gender does not seem to be an either/or category.
                            For both men and women, the evidence seems to indicate that there is
                            a spectrum, a range of gender. Many studies have dealt with the
                            borderline conditions.

                            A biology professor once informed me, matter-of-factly, that the
                            screen actress, Mae West, possessed a "male" brain, and that that was
                            the reason she knew exactly what to say and do, in her unique way, in
                            order to excite the erotic imagination of a man.

                            As I've stated on a previous occasion, I came to Existentialism
                            through the back door, as it were�intrigued by the cogent associations
                            and root similarities I perceived during my study of Gnosticism. I'm
                            not a member of the wealthy elite, and I'm not very interested in
                            politics�sexual politics, or other. I feel I can plainly see that all
                            or most gains in human freedom have come from the disenfranchised, the
                            counter-culture, the artists and writers who are constantly engaged in
                            a struggle with the establishment, and hampered by the fact that most
                            of humanity is, as Bob M. might say, asleep.

                            Some of what attracted me to Existentialism was its focus on
                            authenticity, its tolerance for subjective commitments, its respect
                            for individuality, and its extreme reluctance to assign a dogmatic
                            essence to human beings�as if the nature of existence were completely
                            comprehended.

                            Many academic critics have concluded that the Nineteenth Century was
                            "silly." I don't find the following silly:

                            <<There shall be poets! When woman's unmeasured bondage shall be
                            broken, when she shall live for and through herself, man--hitherto
                            detestable--having let her go, she, too, will be poet! Woman will find
                            the unknown! Will her ideational worlds be different from ours? She
                            will come upon strange, unfathomable, repellent, delightful things; we
                            shall take them, we shall comprehend them.>>


                            ----Arthur Rimbaud




                            Rimbaud also stated: <<I believe that I am in hell, therefore I am
                            there.>>

                            I accept the basic premises of the theory of evolution, and therefore
                            I accept that both men and women possess the legacy of a reptilian
                            brain�a vessel of dark, raw, almost unspeakable impulses. But thought
                            and impulse is not action. For me, the first step on the path of
                            enlightenment is withdrawing one's projections. Perhaps the Homo
                            Superior will not be burdened with having to exercise conscience,
                            will, and self-control.

                            I believe that the path of enlightenment for both men and women lies
                            in an authentic and intimate union of a man and a woman. I believe
                            that women tend to be psychologically more stable, and that they are
                            better adapted for existence. I believe that men tend to be
                            psychologically more fragile�more prone to veer outward in tenuous,
                            eccentric attempts to conquer the unknown�and, perhaps, end up
                            stranded out on a limb.

                            I am certain of very few things, but of this I am sure:

                            Encountering my Barbara was the best thing that ever happened to me.
                            I never felt the need to insist she support my projects in order to
                            justify her existence. We never had the goal of making babies. But
                            we had many synchronicities, many magic moments, and many
                            breakthroughs. She immeasurably enriched my existence. Barbara loved
                            her family, and nurtured her nieces and nephews, and cared about
                            tending to the welfare of stray cats on the street. Her death was the
                            worst thing that ever happened to me.

                            I guess I can't be a true Existentialist, because I woke up one day
                            and discovered that I'm a mystic.


                            ----Dennis





                            --- In theexistentialsociety@yahoogroups.com, helen steen
                            <hjsgermany2000@y...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Hello Dennis,
                            >
                            > One of the reasons often proposed to explain the difficulties women
                            encounter in this area is our objectivity or rather our lack of it and
                            it may well be a valid point but if one can try to overlook this
                            (which I will) then what other factors could hinder our enlightenment?
                            >
                            > One thing I began to suspect, when I explored behind the scenes, was
                            that where Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and even Sartre were concerned they
                            probably were not in fact addressing me (in their philosophical works)
                            or any other women for that matter. Nietzsche for example said 'Woman
                            has so much reason for shame; so much pedantry, superficiality,
                            schoolmarmishness, petty presumption, petty licentiousness, and
                            immodesty lies concealed in woman'
                            >
                            > Whether I am right about this or not is irrelevant because the doubt
                            is disconcerting. Anyway below are some questions I found in Towards
                            the Spiritual Liberation of Women on the web...
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Seen in the context of enlightenment can absolute truth really be
                            identified with a particular gender? Isn't enlightenment a perspective
                            that is nondual and that is therefore beyond all limits or
                            identity�even sexual identity? If so, what role does gender play in
                            spirituality? Can one gender really have, in this arena, an advantage
                            over the other?
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > This case below was put by the women-centered psychological
                            theory's which include Nancy Chodorow's `Reproduction of Mothering',
                            about which I will say more later.
                            > `Although women do not enjoy the same social and economic freedoms
                            as men do and women's lives may not necessarily always run smoothly,
                            they are raised to be selves-in-community, thus potentially live more
                            fulfilling lives than men. Men on the other hand are invariably raised
                            to be autonomous, contained selves sometimes becoming alienated and
                            unhappy'.
                            >
                            >
                            > Due to 5,000 years of patriarchal religion women find themselves
                            within a society where male sexuality is venerated while female
                            sexuality is denigrated, however despite this fact and their
                            socioeconomic disadvantages they succeed in fulfilling their innate
                            genetic function of reproduction and nurturing.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Does the `Reproduction of Mothering' Theory perhaps illustrates the
                            inadequacy of traditional male-centered psychology's idea of the self?
                            Could it, for example, expose the flawed intellectual rigidity of
                            Sartre's analysis?
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > His analysis was from the view point of individual freedom,
                            `beginning with the assumption that relations with others are based on
                            objectification and that through our objectification of others and
                            ourselves, either the body reigns as flesh, in which case domination
                            or submission follow or consciousness puts its body and that of others
                            at a distance and freedoms are preserved'.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Sartre in effect concluded that women could only achieve fulfillment
                            through the vehicle of their mate and Simone de Beauvoir only slightly
                            expanded his theory with her idea `erotic generosity'. Whereby a
                            woman, `who thinks she has little freedom to relinquish, will give
                            herself entirely to a man in the faith that he, through his projects,
                            his freedom, will justify her existence'.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Both seemingly missing the point and taking no account of women's
                            fulfillment through reproduction and nurturing. Unfortunately, they
                            both highly influenced the course of the feminist movement that followed.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Nancy Chodorow's `Reproduction of Mothering' Theory `rests on
                            child's relationship with the mother and the role she plays in the
                            child's development of the "self" and provides the basis which
                            women-centered psychologists have used to discuss the origins of
                            gender-identity differences between men and women. Her theory also
                            rests on the social fact that women have been the primary caretakers
                            of children and sees the construction of an individual, gendered self
                            as the result of social context'.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Could this theory in conjunction with the study of individuals and
                            species through evolutionary psychology help span the boundary between
                            science and spirituality (or moral philosophy) thereby provide a key
                            for women to enlightenment?
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > I'm intersted to hear your thoughts
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Helen
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > PS
                            >
                            > I assume overlap here between the terms self-fulfillment,
                            self-actualization and spiritual awakening and enlightenment�
                            >
                            >
                            > neurom9999 <neurom9999@y...> wrote:
                            > Helen,
                            >
                            > I'd very much like to hear your thoughts about women's enlightenment,
                            > and the difficulties thereof.
                            >
                            > ----Dennis
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > --- In theexistentialsociety@yahoogroups.com, helen steen
                            > <hjsgermany2000@y...> wrote:
                            > > Hello Bob,
                            > >
                            > > Please could you explain the following... see I'm not sure that I
                            > understand what you are saying.
                            > >
                            > > 'And I also believe that a keen discernment for the
                            > > capacity, or lack thereof, in certain others to achieve breakthrough
                            > is too developed. Though not without many trials and tribulations'.
                            > >
                            > > Do you mean.... that the expectation of 'the enlightened one' that
                            > others can achieve 'self-abandonment and God-realization' is too
                            > high?... for some reason....and therefore their encouragement often
                            > fails? Is that it?
                            > >
                            > > I have to get back to you soon about women's enlightenment and the
                            > difficulties thereof...I have been working on this and have some
                            > thoughts that I'd like perhaps to share/discuss with you...
                            > >
                            > > In a nut shell
                            > > ...menkind's not to blame otherwise we're done for...
                            > > but there's more
                            > >
                            > > Helen
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > new_trail_blazer <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > Hello again Neil,
                            > >
                            > > I think the aloneness that comes with transformation or rebirth
                            > > serves to encourage the enlightened one onward to earnestly encourage
                            > > or push others also onward themselves to self-abandonment and God-
                            > > reaslization. And I also believe that a keen discernment for the
                            > > capacity, or lack thereof, in certain others to achieve breakthrough
                            > > is too developed. Though not without many trials and tribulations.
                            > > And I would add that any attempt at typical organization has no place
                            > > here either, since most often the age old monkey business enters and
                            > > corrupts with the second man in, so to speak.
                            > >
                            > > What I find interesting in Fox's story is the following:
                            > >
                            > > "I saw professors, priests, and people were whole and at ease in that
                            > > condition which was my misery, and they loved that which I would have
                            > > been rid of. But the Lord did stay my desires upon himself, and my
                            > > care was cast upon him alone."
                            > >
                            > > Seeing here not only the contrast between the many de-sensitized
                            > > or hard-hearted souls and the few sensitive or far more finely-formed
                            > > ones, but also the fact that only the Lord will steer us perfectly
                            > > straight, and nearly all people will lead us astray, and often very
                            > > far astray. And especially priests, ministers, counsellors,
                            > > therapists, and the drug-dealing 'shrinks'.
                            > >
                            > > Regarding Schopenhauer, I feel far more fortunate having a good
                            > > wife for a companion, rather than a poodle.
                            > >
                            > > And old Vivekananda sure had his fill of that which was all
                            > > around him when he mahasamadhi-ed himself 'home' at an early age.
                            > >
                            > > "I have seen life and it is all self-life is for self, love is
                            > > for self, everything is for self. I look back and scarcely find any
                            > > action I have done for self-so I am content." (Vivekananda) I've had
                            > > this quote framed and hanging up on a wall for many years, along with
                            > > another favorite one of his as follows: "This sort of nervous body is
                            > > just an instrument to play great music at times, and at times to moan
                            > > in darkness."
                            > >
                            > > Take no wooden nickels,
                            > >
                            > > Bob M.
                            > >
                            > > P.S. The book 'Varieties of Religious Experience' by William James is
                            > > here on the net in its entirety. Seek and ye shall find!
                            > >
                            > > ****************************************************
                            > >
                            > > --- In theexistentialsociety@yahoogroups.com, "right2neil"
                            > > <right2neil@y...> wrote:
                            > > >
                            > > > Thanks very much Bob for taking the time and effort in tracking
                            > > down
                            > > > this marvelous piece. Walt Whitman's comment: "It is not far, it
                            > > > is within reach. Perhaps you have been on the path to inner
                            > > newness
                            > > > since you were born and did not know it." comes to mind.
                            > > >
                            > > > And sheds light on Schopenhauer's: "A man can be himself only so
                            > > > long as he is alone, and if he does not love solitude, he will not
                            > > > freedom, for it is only when he is alone that he is really free.
                            > > > Restraint is always present in society, like a companion of whom
                            > > > there is no riddance, and in proportion to the greatness of a man's
                            > > > individuality, it will be hard for him to bear the sacrifices which
                            > > > all contact with other demands.
                            > > >
                            > > > as well as Vivekananda's: It is only when everything, even love,
                            > > > fails, that, with a flash, man finds out vain, how dream-like is
                            > > > this world. Then he catches a glimpse � of the beyond. It is only
                            > > > by giving up this world that the other comes; never through holding
                            > > > on to this one.
                            > > >
                            > > > Thanks again
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > ---------------------------------
                            > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            > >
                            > > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                            > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theexistentialsociety/
                            > >
                            > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            > > theexistentialsociety-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            > >
                            > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                            Service.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > __________________________________________________
                            > > Do You Yahoo!?
                            > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                            > > http://mail.yahoo.com
                            > >
                            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
                            >
                            >
                            > ---------------------------------
                            > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >
                            > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theexistentialsociety/
                            >
                            > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            > theexistentialsociety-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            >
                            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > ---------------------------------
                            > Do you Yahoo!?
                            > Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.
                            >
                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                            Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


                            ---------------------------------
                            Yahoo! Groups Links

                            To visit your group on the web, go to:
                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theexistentialsociety/

                            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            theexistentialsociety-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                            __________________________________________________
                            Do You Yahoo!?
                            Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                            http://mail.yahoo.com

                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • neurom9999
                            Wow! I am so sorry about the current price of *In Pursuit of Valis.* I had no idea. I purchased the 1st edition trade paperback when it launched at the list
                            Message 13 of 14 , Oct 21, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Wow! I am so sorry about the current price of *In Pursuit of Valis.*
                              I had no idea. I purchased the 1st edition trade paperback when it
                              launched at the list price of $14.95. If I had known the work was
                              going to soar to such extremes, I would have bought a case, at least,
                              of the edition. Apparently the publisher didn't think there'd be
                              sufficient mass appeal to justify a 2nd edition.

                              Actually, I've been dealing with similar situations my whole life--
                              spending time, effort, and money to track down and obtain certain
                              obscure books. I've even driven librarians to their wit's end with my
                              esoteric requests. I find that I usually need to pay a premium to
                              obtain works that attract my interest & imagination (because the
                              majority of people don't share my good taste. LOL).

                              I would not spend $92 to purchase a used copy of *In Pursuit of
                              Valis,* despite the fact that I value Dick's ratiocinations. I paid a
                              premium price for editions of Aleister Crowley's *Magick* and Charles
                              Baudelaire's *Fleurs de mal*--but there were considerations of quality
                              of binding and physical construction, and some subjective priorities
                              involved.

                              I will keep a lookout on any developments, and alert you on any
                              opportunities to purchase *In Pursuit of Valis* at a reasonable price.

                              Fortunately, the Beat literature is now fairly well available. I
                              don't believe that Kerouac had any inkling of what the impact of *On
                              the Road* would have on the 'Sixties generation. He wasn't a coach
                              like Ginsberg. He was a quarterback, throwing a pass. Surprise! The
                              pitch was caught by the hippies.

                              I don't particularly want to discuss feminist issues in this forum
                              either--especially since you have confirmed that feminist writings
                              have no relevance to me as a man.

                              If you feel so inclined, you can check out *The Shifting Realities of
                              Philip K. Dick: Selected literary and philosophical writings,* edited
                              by Sutin. Listing at $13, it seems to be available at Amazon for
                              $10.50. There are gems in the mix.

                              ----Dennis




                              --- In theexistentialsociety@yahoogroups.com, helen steen
                              <hjsgermany2000@y...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Hello Dennis,
                              >
                              > Thanks very much for your reply..there's a lot of interesting and
                              helpful stuff in there.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Actually books written by feminists have not occupied a very high
                              position on my reading list throughout my life either, in fact I had
                              to look up all those ladies you referred to, as I'd never heard of any
                              of them.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Perhaps I was being naive but it never (up till a few weeks ago)
                              even occurred to me that the works of male existentialists might not
                              be addressing me on all fronts, so to speak but on the other hand
                              there's no doubt in my mind that feminist writings are aimed at a
                              mainly female audience...and so I'm not sure they equate (genres and
                              gender of audiences in these cases.. that is)?
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > I didn't intend making a feminist statement, in fact as I said it
                              never occurred to me that this might be a gender issue until I started
                              to look into it, however I now think that it almost certainly is.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Consequently, I conclude that it's advisable for women (like me, for
                              example) to investigate more modern women-centered ideas along with
                              the old existential `masters' and for a bit of healthy skepticism to
                              take into account (what one can glean, authoritative or otherwise
                              about) the MEN behind the ideas, thereby 'staying flexible, and
                              leaving the concrete on the highway'.. stealing one of Bob's sayings.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > What you say here about Nietzsche… `expressing a
                              generalization—`...yes, this is what's so interesting for me ...does
                              H.L. Mencken in The Philosophy of FN have the answer.........
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > .>>NIETZSCHE'S faithful sister, with almost comical and essentially
                              feminine disgust, bewails the fact that, as a very young man, the
                              philosopher became acquainted with the baleful truths set forth in
                              Schopenhauer's immortal essay "On Women." That this daring work
                              greatly influenced him is true, and that he subscribed to its chief
                              arguments all the rest of his days is also true, but it is far from
                              true to say that his view of the fair sex was borrowed bodily from
                              Schopenhauer or that he would have written otherwise than as he did if
                              Schopenhauer had never lived. Nietzsche's conclusions regarding women
                              were the inevitable result, indeed, of his own philosophical system.
                              It is impossible to conceive a man who held his opinions of morality
                              and society laying down any other doctrines of femininity and
                              matrimony than those he scattered through his books.<<<
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Or does Deborah Hayden in Pox ...
                              >
                              > of course we'll never know......
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > There are other things you comment on that I will think about…and
                              get back to you…but I'm a little wary about discussion of feminist
                              issues in this forum.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Helen
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > PS
                              >
                              > Could you explain why the book .. In pursiut of Valis.... costs $92,
                              is it printed with gold leaf lettering or somthing?
                              >
                              >
                              > neurom9999 <neurom9999@y...> wrote:
                              >
                              > <<That we are bound to the earth does not mean that we cannot grow; on
                              > the contrary it is the sine qua non of growth. No noble, well-grown
                              > tree ever disowned its dark root, for it grows not only upwards but
                              > downwards as well.>>
                              >
                              > --------Carl Jung
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Hi, Helen,
                              >
                              > Books written by feminists have not occupied a very high position on
                              > my reading list throughout my life. I feel I can very well understand
                              > how you could come to doubt whether the works of some male
                              > existentialists (and other male writers) are, in fact, addressing you,
                              > and other women. I possess similar doubts about whether the works of
                              > many feminists are addressing me, and other men.
                              >
                              > When Susan Brownmiller asserts, in *Against Our Will*, that rape is
                              > not a crime committed by a minority of disturbed males but rather
                              > "nothing more or less than a conscious process by which *all* men keep
                              > *all* women in a state of fear;" when the leading feminist
                              > publication, Ms Magazine, foments a rampant hysteria regarding incest
                              > and Satanic ritual abuse via the instrument of "recovered memory
                              > therapy;" when I encounter drivel such as the pronouncements that
                              > "every act of sexual intercourse is rape;" when Susan McClary
                              > describes Beethoven's Ninth Symphony as a rape fantasy, and pronounces
                              > most classical music as bad because of its "phallic violence" and
                              > "pelvic pounding;" when Robin Morgan writes, in *The Demon Lover: On
                              > the Sexuality of Terrorism*, that men "dwell in a state of political
                              > savagery," and that only women are peaceful—I begin to see that a
                              > salient goal of many feminists is to erect and attack a fungible
                              > abstraction: "the male," and that the individual characteristics of
                              > any actual man have no relevance in their reality tunnel.
                              >
                              > If feminist writings have been addressed to me, then most of them have
                              > sorely missed their mark. Nevertheless, I have been a faithful reader
                              > of some women writers, and, in many cases, consider their works to be
                              > definitive.
                              >
                              > On first take, I could very well conclude that Nietzsche's
                              > generalization about women applies most especially to himself:
                              > *Nietzsche has so much reason for shame; so much pedantry,
                              > superficiality, schoolmarmishness, petty presumption, petty
                              > licentiousness, and immodesty lies concealed in Nietzsche.*
                              > Projection exists.
                              >
                              > Nietzsche expresses a generalization—but it sounds personal and
                              > reactionary to me. I would want to know the antecedent
                              > events/experiences that occasioned such a genius to make such a
                              > hostile remark. It sounds like something I might say, after spending
                              > half an hour with Patricia Ireland.
                              >
                              > Some observant man once concluded: Most of the problems in the world
                              > can be traced to the inability of a man to sit still in a chair.
                              >
                              > It is an established fact that men of great wealth have historically
                              > tended to want to band together with other men of great wealth—in
                              > order to control the course of events in the world. But, for some
                              > strange reason, society has assumed that great wealth equals great
                              > intelligence. Money makes the world go round, but the members of
                              > these men's clubs are not necessarily the sharpest knives in the drawer.
                              >
                              > I admit that all facets of society—religious, social, economic—have
                              > been invariably patriarchal in established form, and that much effort
                              > has been expended by some men to systematically hold women down. But
                              > I don't see where establishment/academic feminism, with its tools of
                              > misanthropy, political correctness, collectivism, and conformity has
                              > done much to improve the quality of existence for individuals of
                              > either gender. The abuse of wealth and power has kept most men in
                              > chains, along with women.
                              >
                              > Neurologists have concluded that men and women differ in the "wiring"
                              > of brain and nervous system. Cognitive psychologists have concluded
                              > that most men tend to objectify, and that most women tend to project.
                              > Shown a photograph or illustration of a man and woman in an intimate
                              > encounter, a woman will tend to project herself into the female
                              > depicted, whereas a man will tend to block out the male in the picture
                              > entirely, and fantasize about the woman depicted as "doing tricks for
                              > him."
                              >
                              > In actual existence, gender does not seem to be an either/or category.
                              > For both men and women, the evidence seems to indicate that there is
                              > a spectrum, a range of gender. Many studies have dealt with the
                              > borderline conditions.
                              >
                              > A biology professor once informed me, matter-of-factly, that the
                              > screen actress, Mae West, possessed a "male" brain, and that that was
                              > the reason she knew exactly what to say and do, in her unique way, in
                              > order to excite the erotic imagination of a man.
                              >
                              > As I've stated on a previous occasion, I came to Existentialism
                              > through the back door, as it were—intrigued by the cogent associations
                              > and root similarities I perceived during my study of Gnosticism. I'm
                              > not a member of the wealthy elite, and I'm not very interested in
                              > politics—sexual politics, or other. I feel I can plainly see that all
                              > or most gains in human freedom have come from the disenfranchised, the
                              > counter-culture, the artists and writers who are constantly engaged in
                              > a struggle with the establishment, and hampered by the fact that most
                              > of humanity is, as Bob M. might say, asleep.
                              >
                              > Some of what attracted me to Existentialism was its focus on
                              > authenticity, its tolerance for subjective commitments, its respect
                              > for individuality, and its extreme reluctance to assign a dogmatic
                              > essence to human beings—as if the nature of existence were completely
                              > comprehended.
                              >
                              > Many academic critics have concluded that the Nineteenth Century was
                              > "silly." I don't find the following silly:
                              >
                              > <<There shall be poets! When woman's unmeasured bondage shall be
                              > broken, when she shall live for and through herself, man--hitherto
                              > detestable--having let her go, she, too, will be poet! Woman will find
                              > the unknown! Will her ideational worlds be different from ours? She
                              > will come upon strange, unfathomable, repellent, delightful things; we
                              > shall take them, we shall comprehend them.>>
                              >
                              >
                              > ----Arthur Rimbaud
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Rimbaud also stated: <<I believe that I am in hell, therefore I am
                              > there.>>
                              >
                              > I accept the basic premises of the theory of evolution, and therefore
                              > I accept that both men and women possess the legacy of a reptilian
                              > brain—a vessel of dark, raw, almost unspeakable impulses. But thought
                              > and impulse is not action. For me, the first step on the path of
                              > enlightenment is withdrawing one's projections. Perhaps the Homo
                              > Superior will not be burdened with having to exercise conscience,
                              > will, and self-control.
                              >
                              > I believe that the path of enlightenment for both men and women lies
                              > in an authentic and intimate union of a man and a woman. I believe
                              > that women tend to be psychologically more stable, and that they are
                              > better adapted for existence. I believe that men tend to be
                              > psychologically more fragile—more prone to veer outward in tenuous,
                              > eccentric attempts to conquer the unknown—and, perhaps, end up
                              > stranded out on a limb.
                              >
                              > I am certain of very few things, but of this I am sure:
                              >
                              > Encountering my Barbara was the best thing that ever happened to me.
                              > I never felt the need to insist she support my projects in order to
                              > justify her existence. We never had the goal of making babies. But
                              > we had many synchronicities, many magic moments, and many
                              > breakthroughs. She immeasurably enriched my existence. Barbara loved
                              > her family, and nurtured her nieces and nephews, and cared about
                              > tending to the welfare of stray cats on the street. Her death was the
                              > worst thing that ever happened to me.
                              >
                              > I guess I can't be a true Existentialist, because I woke up one day
                              > and discovered that I'm a mystic.
                              >
                              >
                              > ----Dennis
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > --- In theexistentialsociety@yahoogroups.com, helen steen
                              > <hjsgermany2000@y...> wrote:
                              > >
                              > > Hello Dennis,
                              > >
                              > > One of the reasons often proposed to explain the difficulties women
                              > encounter in this area is our objectivity or rather our lack of it and
                              > it may well be a valid point but if one can try to overlook this
                              > (which I will) then what other factors could hinder our enlightenment?
                              > >
                              > > One thing I began to suspect, when I explored behind the scenes, was
                              > that where Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and even Sartre were concerned they
                              > probably were not in fact addressing me (in their philosophical works)
                              > or any other women for that matter. Nietzsche for example said 'Woman
                              > has so much reason for shame; so much pedantry, superficiality,
                              > schoolmarmishness, petty presumption, petty licentiousness, and
                              > immodesty lies concealed in woman'
                              > >
                              > > Whether I am right about this or not is irrelevant because the doubt
                              > is disconcerting. Anyway below are some questions I found in Towards
                              > the Spiritual Liberation of Women on the web...
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Seen in the context of enlightenment can absolute truth really be
                              > identified with a particular gender? Isn't enlightenment a perspective
                              > that is nondual and that is therefore beyond all limits or
                              > identity—even sexual identity? If so, what role does gender play in
                              > spirituality? Can one gender really have, in this arena, an advantage
                              > over the other?
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > This case below was put by the women-centered psychological
                              > theory's which include Nancy Chodorow's `Reproduction of Mothering',
                              > about which I will say more later.
                              > > `Although women do not enjoy the same social and economic freedoms
                              > as men do and women's lives may not necessarily always run smoothly,
                              > they are raised to be selves-in-community, thus potentially live more
                              > fulfilling lives than men. Men on the other hand are invariably raised
                              > to be autonomous, contained selves sometimes becoming alienated and
                              > unhappy'.
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Due to 5,000 years of patriarchal religion women find themselves
                              > within a society where male sexuality is venerated while female
                              > sexuality is denigrated, however despite this fact and their
                              > socioeconomic disadvantages they succeed in fulfilling their innate
                              > genetic function of reproduction and nurturing.
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Does the `Reproduction of Mothering' Theory perhaps illustrates the
                              > inadequacy of traditional male-centered psychology's idea of the self?
                              > Could it, for example, expose the flawed intellectual rigidity of
                              > Sartre's analysis?
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > His analysis was from the view point of individual freedom,
                              > `beginning with the assumption that relations with others are based on
                              > objectification and that through our objectification of others and
                              > ourselves, either the body reigns as flesh, in which case domination
                              > or submission follow or consciousness puts its body and that of others
                              > at a distance and freedoms are preserved'.
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Sartre in effect concluded that women could only achieve fulfillment
                              > through the vehicle of their mate and Simone de Beauvoir only slightly
                              > expanded his theory with her idea `erotic generosity'. Whereby a
                              > woman, `who thinks she has little freedom to relinquish, will give
                              > herself entirely to a man in the faith that he, through his projects,
                              > his freedom, will justify her existence'.
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Both seemingly missing the point and taking no account of women's
                              > fulfillment through reproduction and nurturing. Unfortunately, they
                              > both highly influenced the course of the feminist movement that
                              followed.
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Nancy Chodorow's `Reproduction of Mothering' Theory `rests on
                              > child's relationship with the mother and the role she plays in the
                              > child's development of the "self" and provides the basis which
                              > women-centered psychologists have used to discuss the origins of
                              > gender-identity differences between men and women. Her theory also
                              > rests on the social fact that women have been the primary caretakers
                              > of children and sees the construction of an individual, gendered self
                              > as the result of social context'.
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Could this theory in conjunction with the study of individuals and
                              > species through evolutionary psychology help span the boundary between
                              > science and spirituality (or moral philosophy) thereby provide a key
                              > for women to enlightenment?
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > I'm intersted to hear your thoughts
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Helen
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > PS
                              > >
                              > > I assume overlap here between the terms self-fulfillment,
                              > self-actualization and spiritual awakening and enlightenment…
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > neurom9999 <neurom9999@y...> wrote:
                              > > Helen,
                              > >
                              > > I'd very much like to hear your thoughts about women's enlightenment,
                              > > and the difficulties thereof.
                              > >
                              > > ----Dennis
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > --- In theexistentialsociety@yahoogroups.com, helen steen
                              > > <hjsgermany2000@y...> wrote:
                              > > > Hello Bob,
                              > > >
                              > > > Please could you explain the following... see I'm not sure that I
                              > > understand what you are saying.
                              > > >
                              > > > 'And I also believe that a keen discernment for the
                              > > > capacity, or lack thereof, in certain others to achieve breakthrough
                              > > is too developed. Though not without many trials and tribulations'.
                              > > >
                              > > > Do you mean.... that the expectation of 'the enlightened one' that
                              > > others can achieve 'self-abandonment and God-realization' is too
                              > > high?... for some reason....and therefore their encouragement often
                              > > fails? Is that it?
                              > > >
                              > > > I have to get back to you soon about women's enlightenment and the
                              > > difficulties thereof...I have been working on this and have some
                              > > thoughts that I'd like perhaps to share/discuss with you...
                              > > >
                              > > > In a nut shell
                              > > > ...menkind's not to blame otherwise we're done for...
                              > > > but there's more
                              > > >
                              > > > Helen
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > new_trail_blazer <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                              > > >
                              > > > Hello again Neil,
                              > > >
                              > > > I think the aloneness that comes with transformation or rebirth
                              > > > serves to encourage the enlightened one onward to earnestly
                              encourage
                              > > > or push others also onward themselves to self-abandonment and God-
                              > > > reaslization. And I also believe that a keen discernment for the
                              > > > capacity, or lack thereof, in certain others to achieve
                              breakthrough
                              > > > is too developed. Though not without many trials and tribulations.
                              > > > And I would add that any attempt at typical organization has no
                              place
                              > > > here either, since most often the age old monkey business enters
                              and
                              > > > corrupts with the second man in, so to speak.
                              > > >
                              > > > What I find interesting in Fox's story is the following:
                              > > >
                              > > > "I saw professors, priests, and people were whole and at ease in
                              that
                              > > > condition which was my misery, and they loved that which I would
                              have
                              > > > been rid of. But the Lord did stay my desires upon himself, and my
                              > > > care was cast upon him alone."
                              > > >
                              > > > Seeing here not only the contrast between the many
                              de-sensitized
                              > > > or hard-hearted souls and the few sensitive or far more
                              finely-formed
                              > > > ones, but also the fact that only the Lord will steer us perfectly
                              > > > straight, and nearly all people will lead us astray, and often very
                              > > > far astray. And especially priests, ministers, counsellors,
                              > > > therapists, and the drug-dealing 'shrinks'.
                              > > >
                              > > > Regarding Schopenhauer, I feel far more fortunate having a good
                              > > > wife for a companion, rather than a poodle.
                              > > >
                              > > > And old Vivekananda sure had his fill of that which was all
                              > > > around him when he mahasamadhi-ed himself 'home' at an early age.
                              > > >
                              > > > "I have seen life and it is all self-life is for self, love is
                              > > > for self, everything is for self. I look back and scarcely find any
                              > > > action I have done for self-so I am content." (Vivekananda) I've
                              had
                              > > > this quote framed and hanging up on a wall for many years, along
                              with
                              > > > another favorite one of his as follows: "This sort of nervous
                              body is
                              > > > just an instrument to play great music at times, and at times to
                              moan
                              > > > in darkness."
                              > > >
                              > > > Take no wooden nickels,
                              > > >
                              > > > Bob M.
                              > > >
                              > > > P.S. The book 'Varieties of Religious Experience' by William
                              James is
                              > > > here on the net in its entirety. Seek and ye shall find!
                              > > >
                              > > > ****************************************************
                              > > >
                              > > > --- In theexistentialsociety@yahoogroups.com, "right2neil"
                              > > > <right2neil@y...> wrote:
                              > > > >
                              > > > > Thanks very much Bob for taking the time and effort in tracking
                              > > > down
                              > > > > this marvelous piece. Walt Whitman's comment: "It is not
                              far, it
                              > > > > is within reach. Perhaps you have been on the path to inner
                              > > > newness
                              > > > > since you were born and did not know it." comes to mind.
                              > > > >
                              > > > > And sheds light on Schopenhauer's: "A man can be himself only so
                              > > > > long as he is alone, and if he does not love solitude, he will
                              not
                              > > > > freedom, for it is only when he is alone that he is really free.
                              > > > > Restraint is always present in society, like a companion of whom
                              > > > > there is no riddance, and in proportion to the greatness of a
                              man's
                              > > > > individuality, it will be hard for him to bear the sacrifices
                              which
                              > > > > all contact with other demands.
                              > > > >
                              > > > > as well as Vivekananda's: It is only when everything, even love,
                              > > > > fails, that, with a flash, man finds out vain, how dream-like is
                              > > > > this world. Then he catches a glimpse … of the beyond. It is
                              only
                              > > > > by giving up this world that the other comes; never through
                              holding
                              > > > > on to this one.
                              > > > >
                              > > > > Thanks again
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > ---------------------------------
                              > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                              > > >
                              > > > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                              > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theexistentialsociety/
                              > > >
                              > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                              > > > theexistentialsociety-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                              > > >
                              > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                              > Service.
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > __________________________________________________
                              > > > Do You Yahoo!?
                              > > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                              > > > http://mail.yahoo.com
                              > > >
                              > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > ---------------------------------
                              > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                              > >
                              > > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                              > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theexistentialsociety/
                              > >
                              > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                              > > theexistentialsociety-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                              > >
                              > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                              Service.
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > ---------------------------------
                              > > Do you Yahoo!?
                              > > Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.
                              > >
                              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
                              >
                              >
                              > ---------------------------------
                              > Yahoo! Groups Links
                              >
                              > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theexistentialsociety/
                              >
                              > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                              > theexistentialsociety-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                              >
                              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > __________________________________________________
                              > Do You Yahoo!?
                              > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                              > http://mail.yahoo.com
                              >
                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • helen steen
                              Hello Dennis, Yes, obtaining books of all kinds is a major problem, except for the relatively short time when I lived in the US, where I found the library
                              Message 14 of 14 , Oct 22, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hello Dennis,
                                Yes, obtaining books of all kinds is a major problem, except for the relatively short time when I lived in the US, where I found the library system fantastic. The service opened up a whole new possibilities for me and then the arrival of Amazon was a major revolution for people like me, that is until they reorganized their sourcing arrangements and although prices on the face of it appear more attractive, reliability has been drastically reduced with delivery costs probably outweigh any apparent price advantages ...
                                But buying books is only half the battle and I very much appreciate good recommendations of which I have had quite a number though interchange on this site.
                                Thanks Helen


                                neurom9999 <neurom9999@...> wrote:

                                Wow! I am so sorry about the current price of *In Pursuit of Valis.*
                                I had no idea. I purchased the 1st edition trade paperback when it
                                launched at the list price of $14.95. If I had known the work was
                                going to soar to such extremes, I would have bought a case, at least,
                                of the edition. Apparently the publisher didn't think there'd be
                                sufficient mass appeal to justify a 2nd edition.

                                Actually, I've been dealing with similar situations my whole life--
                                spending time, effort, and money to track down and obtain certain
                                obscure books. I've even driven librarians to their wit's end with my
                                esoteric requests. I find that I usually need to pay a premium to
                                obtain works that attract my interest & imagination (because the
                                majority of people don't share my good taste. LOL).

                                I would not spend $92 to purchase a used copy of *In Pursuit of
                                Valis,* despite the fact that I value Dick's ratiocinations. I paid a
                                premium price for editions of Aleister Crowley's *Magick* and Charles
                                Baudelaire's *Fleurs de mal*--but there were considerations of quality
                                of binding and physical construction, and some subjective priorities
                                involved.

                                I will keep a lookout on any developments, and alert you on any
                                opportunities to purchase *In Pursuit of Valis* at a reasonable price.

                                Fortunately, the Beat literature is now fairly well available. I
                                don't believe that Kerouac had any inkling of what the impact of *On
                                the Road* would have on the 'Sixties generation. He wasn't a coach
                                like Ginsberg. He was a quarterback, throwing a pass. Surprise! The
                                pitch was caught by the hippies.

                                I don't particularly want to discuss feminist issues in this forum
                                either--especially since you have confirmed that feminist writings
                                have no relevance to me as a man.

                                If you feel so inclined, you can check out *The Shifting Realities of
                                Philip K. Dick: Selected literary and philosophical writings,* edited
                                by Sutin. Listing at $13, it seems to be available at Amazon for
                                $10.50. There are gems in the mix.

                                ----Dennis




                                --- In theexistentialsociety@yahoogroups.com, helen steen
                                <hjsgermany2000@y...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Hello Dennis,
                                >
                                > Thanks very much for your reply..there's a lot of interesting and
                                helpful stuff in there.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Actually books written by feminists have not occupied a very high
                                position on my reading list throughout my life either, in fact I had
                                to look up all those ladies you referred to, as I'd never heard of any
                                of them.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Perhaps I was being naive but it never (up till a few weeks ago)
                                even occurred to me that the works of male existentialists might not
                                be addressing me on all fronts, so to speak but on the other hand
                                there's no doubt in my mind that feminist writings are aimed at a
                                mainly female audience...and so I'm not sure they equate (genres and
                                gender of audiences in these cases.. that is)?
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > I didn't intend making a feminist statement, in fact as I said it
                                never occurred to me that this might be a gender issue until I started
                                to look into it, however I now think that it almost certainly is.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Consequently, I conclude that it's advisable for women (like me, for
                                example) to investigate more modern women-centered ideas along with
                                the old existential `masters' and for a bit of healthy skepticism to
                                take into account (what one can glean, authoritative or otherwise
                                about) the MEN behind the ideas, thereby 'staying flexible, and
                                leaving the concrete on the highway'.. stealing one of Bob's sayings.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > What you say here about Nietzsche� `expressing a
                                generalization�`...yes, this is what's so interesting for me ...does
                                H.L. Mencken in The Philosophy of FN have the answer.........
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > .>>NIETZSCHE'S faithful sister, with almost comical and essentially
                                feminine disgust, bewails the fact that, as a very young man, the
                                philosopher became acquainted with the baleful truths set forth in
                                Schopenhauer's immortal essay "On Women." That this daring work
                                greatly influenced him is true, and that he subscribed to its chief
                                arguments all the rest of his days is also true, but it is far from
                                true to say that his view of the fair sex was borrowed bodily from
                                Schopenhauer or that he would have written otherwise than as he did if
                                Schopenhauer had never lived. Nietzsche's conclusions regarding women
                                were the inevitable result, indeed, of his own philosophical system.
                                It is impossible to conceive a man who held his opinions of morality
                                and society laying down any other doctrines of femininity and
                                matrimony than those he scattered through his books.<<<
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Or does Deborah Hayden in Pox ...
                                >
                                > of course we'll never know......
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > There are other things you comment on that I will think about�and
                                get back to you�but I'm a little wary about discussion of feminist
                                issues in this forum.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Helen
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > PS
                                >
                                > Could you explain why the book .. In pursiut of Valis.... costs $92,
                                is it printed with gold leaf lettering or somthing?
                                >
                                >
                                > neurom9999 <neurom9999@y...> wrote:
                                >
                                > <<That we are bound to the earth does not mean that we cannot grow; on
                                > the contrary it is the sine qua non of growth. No noble, well-grown
                                > tree ever disowned its dark root, for it grows not only upwards but
                                > downwards as well.>>
                                >
                                > --------Carl Jung
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Hi, Helen,
                                >
                                > Books written by feminists have not occupied a very high position on
                                > my reading list throughout my life. I feel I can very well understand
                                > how you could come to doubt whether the works of some male
                                > existentialists (and other male writers) are, in fact, addressing you,
                                > and other women. I possess similar doubts about whether the works of
                                > many feminists are addressing me, and other men.
                                >
                                > When Susan Brownmiller asserts, in *Against Our Will*, that rape is
                                > not a crime committed by a minority of disturbed males but rather
                                > "nothing more or less than a conscious process by which *all* men keep
                                > *all* women in a state of fear;" when the leading feminist
                                > publication, Ms Magazine, foments a rampant hysteria regarding incest
                                > and Satanic ritual abuse via the instrument of "recovered memory
                                > therapy;" when I encounter drivel such as the pronouncements that
                                > "every act of sexual intercourse is rape;" when Susan McClary
                                > describes Beethoven's Ninth Symphony as a rape fantasy, and pronounces
                                > most classical music as bad because of its "phallic violence" and
                                > "pelvic pounding;" when Robin Morgan writes, in *The Demon Lover: On
                                > the Sexuality of Terrorism*, that men "dwell in a state of political
                                > savagery," and that only women are peaceful�I begin to see that a
                                > salient goal of many feminists is to erect and attack a fungible
                                > abstraction: "the male," and that the individual characteristics of
                                > any actual man have no relevance in their reality tunnel.
                                >
                                > If feminist writings have been addressed to me, then most of them have
                                > sorely missed their mark. Nevertheless, I have been a faithful reader
                                > of some women writers, and, in many cases, consider their works to be
                                > definitive.
                                >
                                > On first take, I could very well conclude that Nietzsche's
                                > generalization about women applies most especially to himself:
                                > *Nietzsche has so much reason for shame; so much pedantry,
                                > superficiality, schoolmarmishness, petty presumption, petty
                                > licentiousness, and immodesty lies concealed in Nietzsche.*
                                > Projection exists.
                                >
                                > Nietzsche expresses a generalization�but it sounds personal and
                                > reactionary to me. I would want to know the antecedent
                                > events/experiences that occasioned such a genius to make such a
                                > hostile remark. It sounds like something I might say, after spending
                                > half an hour with Patricia Ireland.
                                >
                                > Some observant man once concluded: Most of the problems in the world
                                > can be traced to the inability of a man to sit still in a chair.
                                >
                                > It is an established fact that men of great wealth have historically
                                > tended to want to band together with other men of great wealth�in
                                > order to control the course of events in the world. But, for some
                                > strange reason, society has assumed that great wealth equals great
                                > intelligence. Money makes the world go round, but the members of
                                > these men's clubs are not necessarily the sharpest knives in the drawer.
                                >
                                > I admit that all facets of society�religious, social, economic�have
                                > been invariably patriarchal in established form, and that much effort
                                > has been expended by some men to systematically hold women down. But
                                > I don't see where establishment/academic feminism, with its tools of
                                > misanthropy, political correctness, collectivism, and conformity has
                                > done much to improve the quality of existence for individuals of
                                > either gender. The abuse of wealth and power has kept most men in
                                > chains, along with women.
                                >
                                > Neurologists have concluded that men and women differ in the "wiring"
                                > of brain and nervous system. Cognitive psychologists have concluded
                                > that most men tend to objectify, and that most women tend to project.
                                > Shown a photograph or illustration of a man and woman in an intimate
                                > encounter, a woman will tend to project herself into the female
                                > depicted, whereas a man will tend to block out the male in the picture
                                > entirely, and fantasize about the woman depicted as "doing tricks for
                                > him."
                                >
                                > In actual existence, gender does not seem to be an either/or category.
                                > For both men and women, the evidence seems to indicate that there is
                                > a spectrum, a range of gender. Many studies have dealt with the
                                > borderline conditions.
                                >
                                > A biology professor once informed me, matter-of-factly, that the
                                > screen actress, Mae West, possessed a "male" brain, and that that was
                                > the reason she knew exactly what to say and do, in her unique way, in
                                > order to excite the erotic imagination of a man.
                                >
                                > As I've stated on a previous occasion, I came to Existentialism
                                > through the back door, as it were�intrigued by the cogent associations
                                > and root similarities I perceived during my study of Gnosticism. I'm
                                > not a member of the wealthy elite, and I'm not very interested in
                                > politics�sexual politics, or other. I feel I can plainly see that all
                                > or most gains in human freedom have come from the disenfranchised, the
                                > counter-culture, the artists and writers who are constantly engaged in
                                > a struggle with the establishment, and hampered by the fact that most
                                > of humanity is, as Bob M. might say, asleep.
                                >
                                > Some of what attracted me to Existentialism was its focus on
                                > authenticity, its tolerance for subjective commitments, its respect
                                > for individuality, and its extreme reluctance to assign a dogmatic
                                > essence to human beings�as if the nature of existence were completely
                                > comprehended.
                                >
                                > Many academic critics have concluded that the Nineteenth Century was
                                > "silly." I don't find the following silly:
                                >
                                > <<There shall be poets! When woman's unmeasured bondage shall be
                                > broken, when she shall live for and through herself, man--hitherto
                                > detestable--having let her go, she, too, will be poet! Woman will find
                                > the unknown! Will her ideational worlds be different from ours? She
                                > will come upon strange, unfathomable, repellent, delightful things; we
                                > shall take them, we shall comprehend them.>>
                                >
                                >
                                > ----Arthur Rimbaud
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Rimbaud also stated: <<I believe that I am in hell, therefore I am
                                > there.>>
                                >
                                > I accept the basic premises of the theory of evolution, and therefore
                                > I accept that both men and women possess the legacy of a reptilian
                                > brain�a vessel of dark, raw, almost unspeakable impulses. But thought
                                > and impulse is not action. For me, the first step on the path of
                                > enlightenment is withdrawing one's projections. Perhaps the Homo
                                > Superior will not be burdened with having to exercise conscience,
                                > will, and self-control.
                                >
                                > I believe that the path of enlightenment for both men and women lies
                                > in an authentic and intimate union of a man and a woman. I believe
                                > that women tend to be psychologically more stable, and that they are
                                > better adapted for existence. I believe that men tend to be
                                > psychologically more fragile�more prone to veer outward in tenuous,
                                > eccentric attempts to conquer the unknown�and, perhaps, end up
                                > stranded out on a limb.
                                >
                                > I am certain of very few things, but of this I am sure:
                                >
                                > Encountering my Barbara was the best thing that ever happened to me.
                                > I never felt the need to insist she support my projects in order to
                                > justify her existence. We never had the goal of making babies. But
                                > we had many synchronicities, many magic moments, and many
                                > breakthroughs. She immeasurably enriched my existence. Barbara loved
                                > her family, and nurtured her nieces and nephews, and cared about
                                > tending to the welfare of stray cats on the street. Her death was the
                                > worst thing that ever happened to me.
                                >
                                > I guess I can't be a true Existentialist, because I woke up one day
                                > and discovered that I'm a mystic.
                                >
                                >
                                > ----Dennis
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > --- In theexistentialsociety@yahoogroups.com, helen steen
                                > <hjsgermany2000@y...> wrote:
                                > >
                                > > Hello Dennis,
                                > >
                                > > One of the reasons often proposed to explain the difficulties women
                                > encounter in this area is our objectivity or rather our lack of it and
                                > it may well be a valid point but if one can try to overlook this
                                > (which I will) then what other factors could hinder our enlightenment?
                                > >
                                > > One thing I began to suspect, when I explored behind the scenes, was
                                > that where Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and even Sartre were concerned they
                                > probably were not in fact addressing me (in their philosophical works)
                                > or any other women for that matter. Nietzsche for example said 'Woman
                                > has so much reason for shame; so much pedantry, superficiality,
                                > schoolmarmishness, petty presumption, petty licentiousness, and
                                > immodesty lies concealed in woman'
                                > >
                                > > Whether I am right about this or not is irrelevant because the doubt
                                > is disconcerting. Anyway below are some questions I found in Towards
                                > the Spiritual Liberation of Women on the web...
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > Seen in the context of enlightenment can absolute truth really be
                                > identified with a particular gender? Isn't enlightenment a perspective
                                > that is nondual and that is therefore beyond all limits or
                                > identity�even sexual identity? If so, what role does gender play in
                                > spirituality? Can one gender really have, in this arena, an advantage
                                > over the other?
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > This case below was put by the women-centered psychological
                                > theory's which include Nancy Chodorow's `Reproduction of Mothering',
                                > about which I will say more later.
                                > > `Although women do not enjoy the same social and economic freedoms
                                > as men do and women's lives may not necessarily always run smoothly,
                                > they are raised to be selves-in-community, thus potentially live more
                                > fulfilling lives than men. Men on the other hand are invariably raised
                                > to be autonomous, contained selves sometimes becoming alienated and
                                > unhappy'.
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > Due to 5,000 years of patriarchal religion women find themselves
                                > within a society where male sexuality is venerated while female
                                > sexuality is denigrated, however despite this fact and their
                                > socioeconomic disadvantages they succeed in fulfilling their innate
                                > genetic function of reproduction and nurturing.
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > Does the `Reproduction of Mothering' Theory perhaps illustrates the
                                > inadequacy of traditional male-centered psychology's idea of the self?
                                > Could it, for example, expose the flawed intellectual rigidity of
                                > Sartre's analysis?
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > His analysis was from the view point of individual freedom,
                                > `beginning with the assumption that relations with others are based on
                                > objectification and that through our objectification of others and
                                > ourselves, either the body reigns as flesh, in which case domination
                                > or submission follow or consciousness puts its body and that of others
                                > at a distance and freedoms are preserved'.
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > Sartre in effect concluded that women could only achieve fulfillment
                                > through the vehicle of their mate and Simone de Beauvoir only slightly
                                > expanded his theory with her idea `erotic generosity'. Whereby a
                                > woman, `who thinks she has little freedom to relinquish, will give
                                > herself entirely to a man in the faith that he, through his projects,
                                > his freedom, will justify her existence'.
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > Both seemingly missing the point and taking no account of women's
                                > fulfillment through reproduction and nurturing. Unfortunately, they
                                > both highly influenced the course of the feminist movement that
                                followed.
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > Nancy Chodorow's `Reproduction of Mothering' Theory `rests on
                                > child's relationship with the mother and the role she plays in the
                                > child's development of the "self" and provides the basis which
                                > women-centered psychologists have used to discuss the origins of
                                > gender-identity differences between men and women. Her theory also
                                > rests on the social fact that women have been the primary caretakers
                                > of children and sees the construction of an individual, gendered self
                                > as the result of social context'.
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > Could this theory in conjunction with the study of individuals and
                                > species through evolutionary psychology help span the boundary between
                                > science and spirituality (or moral philosophy) thereby provide a key
                                > for women to enlightenment?
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > I'm intersted to hear your thoughts
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > Helen
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > PS
                                > >
                                > > I assume overlap here between the terms self-fulfillment,
                                > self-actualization and spiritual awakening and enlightenment�
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > neurom9999 <neurom9999@y...> wrote:
                                > > Helen,
                                > >
                                > > I'd very much like to hear your thoughts about women's enlightenment,
                                > > and the difficulties thereof.
                                > >
                                > > ----Dennis
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > --- In theexistentialsociety@yahoogroups.com, helen steen
                                > > <hjsgermany2000@y...> wrote:
                                > > > Hello Bob,
                                > > >
                                > > > Please could you explain the following... see I'm not sure that I
                                > > understand what you are saying.
                                > > >
                                > > > 'And I also believe that a keen discernment for the
                                > > > capacity, or lack thereof, in certain others to achieve breakthrough
                                > > is too developed. Though not without many trials and tribulations'.
                                > > >
                                > > > Do you mean.... that the expectation of 'the enlightened one' that
                                > > others can achieve 'self-abandonment and God-realization' is too
                                > > high?... for some reason....and therefore their encouragement often
                                > > fails? Is that it?
                                > > >
                                > > > I have to get back to you soon about women's enlightenment and the
                                > > difficulties thereof...I have been working on this and have some
                                > > thoughts that I'd like perhaps to share/discuss with you...
                                > > >
                                > > > In a nut shell
                                > > > ...menkind's not to blame otherwise we're done for...
                                > > > but there's more
                                > > >
                                > > > Helen
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > > new_trail_blazer <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                                > > >
                                > > > Hello again Neil,
                                > > >
                                > > > I think the aloneness that comes with transformation or rebirth
                                > > > serves to encourage the enlightened one onward to earnestly
                                encourage
                                > > > or push others also onward themselves to self-abandonment and God-
                                > > > reaslization. And I also believe that a keen discernment for the
                                > > > capacity, or lack thereof, in certain others to achieve
                                breakthrough
                                > > > is too developed. Though not without many trials and tribulations.
                                > > > And I would add that any attempt at typical organization has no
                                place
                                > > > here either, since most often the age old monkey business enters
                                and
                                > > > corrupts with the second man in, so to speak.
                                > > >
                                > > > What I find interesting in Fox's story is the following:
                                > > >
                                > > > "I saw professors, priests, and people were whole and at ease in
                                that
                                > > > condition which was my misery, and they loved that which I would
                                have
                                > > > been rid of. But the Lord did stay my desires upon himself, and my
                                > > > care was cast upon him alone."
                                > > >
                                > > > Seeing here not only the contrast between the many
                                de-sensitized
                                > > > or hard-hearted souls and the few sensitive or far more
                                finely-formed
                                > > > ones, but also the fact that only the Lord will steer us perfectly
                                > > > straight, and nearly all people will lead us astray, and often very
                                > > > far astray. And especially priests, ministers, counsellors,
                                > > > therapists, and the drug-dealing 'shrinks'.
                                > > >
                                > > > Regarding Schopenhauer, I feel far more fortunate having a good
                                > > > wife for a companion, rather than a poodle.
                                > > >
                                > > > And old Vivekananda sure had his fill of that which was all
                                > > > around him when he mahasamadhi-ed himself 'home' at an early age.
                                > > >
                                > > > "I have seen life and it is all self-life is for self, love is
                                > > > for self, everything is for self. I look back and scarcely find any
                                > > > action I have done for self-so I am content." (Vivekananda) I've
                                had
                                > > > this quote framed and hanging up on a wall for many years, along
                                with
                                > > > another favorite one of his as follows: "This sort of nervous
                                body is
                                > > > just an instrument to play great music at times, and at times to
                                moan
                                > > > in darkness."
                                > > >
                                > > > Take no wooden nickels,
                                > > >
                                > > > Bob M.
                                > > >
                                > > > P.S. The book 'Varieties of Religious Experience' by William
                                James is
                                > > > here on the net in its entirety. Seek and ye shall find!
                                > > >
                                > > > ****************************************************
                                > > >
                                > > > --- In theexistentialsociety@yahoogroups.com, "right2neil"
                                > > > <right2neil@y...> wrote:
                                > > > >
                                > > > > Thanks very much Bob for taking the time and effort in tracking
                                > > > down
                                > > > > this marvelous piece. Walt Whitman's comment: "It is not
                                far, it
                                > > > > is within reach. Perhaps you have been on the path to inner
                                > > > newness
                                > > > > since you were born and did not know it." comes to mind.
                                > > > >
                                > > > > And sheds light on Schopenhauer's: "A man can be himself only so
                                > > > > long as he is alone, and if he does not love solitude, he will
                                not
                                > > > > freedom, for it is only when he is alone that he is really free.
                                > > > > Restraint is always present in society, like a companion of whom
                                > > > > there is no riddance, and in proportion to the greatness of a
                                man's
                                > > > > individuality, it will be hard for him to bear the sacrifices
                                which
                                > > > > all contact with other demands.
                                > > > >
                                > > > > as well as Vivekananda's: It is only when everything, even love,
                                > > > > fails, that, with a flash, man finds out vain, how dream-like is
                                > > > > this world. Then he catches a glimpse � of the beyond. It is
                                only
                                > > > > by giving up this world that the other comes; never through
                                holding
                                > > > > on to this one.
                                > > > >
                                > > > > Thanks again
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > > ---------------------------------
                                > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                > > >
                                > > > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theexistentialsociety/
                                > > >
                                > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                > > > theexistentialsociety-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                > > >
                                > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                                > Service.
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > > __________________________________________________
                                > > > Do You Yahoo!?
                                > > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                                > > > http://mail.yahoo.com
                                > > >
                                > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > ---------------------------------
                                > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                > >
                                > > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theexistentialsociety/
                                > >
                                > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                > > theexistentialsociety-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                > >
                                > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                                Service.
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > ---------------------------------
                                > > Do you Yahoo!?
                                > > Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.
                                > >
                                > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
                                >
                                >
                                > ---------------------------------
                                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                >
                                > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theexistentialsociety/
                                >
                                > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                > theexistentialsociety-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                >
                                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > __________________________________________________
                                > Do You Yahoo!?
                                > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                                > http://mail.yahoo.com
                                >
                                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                                Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


                                ---------------------------------
                                Yahoo! Groups Links

                                To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theexistentialsociety/

                                To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                theexistentialsociety-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.





                                ---------------------------------
                                Do you Yahoo!?
                                vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!

                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.