The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2026 4:54 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2026 8:25 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2026 2:50 am ...a precise description - the highlights being mine - of the general nature of stupidity and how it manfests, which a few here have demonstrated to perfection in almost every post.

You sound pretty certain about that.

As certain that without oxygen the brain dies and that at least a minimum is required to maintain the brains of the living dead.

You’re apparently saying that you’re certain that stupidity manifests as certainty, i.e., a perfect demonstration of your point.

Ironic, isn't it.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2026 5:11 pm

'tis a glorious day in the marning, but don't claim it all fer your'un.
After all, many people think many things.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2026 5:11 pmI AM fully that, and you should be celebrating it!

Sure, that's an explanation of monofrequency, which I indulge in possibility of expanding your range of apprehension.

Currently, you're focused on disagreeing, and misapprehension.

Women.

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2026 5:16 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2026 4:54 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2026 8:25 am
You sound pretty certain about that.

As certain that without oxygen the brain dies and that at least a minimum is required to maintain the brains of the living dead.

You’re apparently saying that you’re certain that stupidity manifests as certainty, i.e., a perfect demonstration of your point.

Ironic, isn't it.

Not in the least since your demonstrations of it are interminable. In cases like yours and IC, additional layers of proof becomes superfluous, no-longer serving as a useful indicator of fact once grounded which it's been for a very long time.

Dubious wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2026 1:58 am

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2026 5:16 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2026 4:54 pm

As certain that without oxygen the brain dies and that at least a minimum is required to maintain the brains of the living dead.

You’re apparently saying that you’re certain that stupidity manifests as certainty, i.e., a perfect demonstration of your point.

Ironic, isn't it.

Not in the least since your demonstrations of it are interminable. In cases like yours and IC, additional layers of proof becomes superfluous, no-longer serving as a useful indicator of fact once grounded which it's been for a very long time.

Those grounded facts you reference are actually inferences based on the one irrefutable truth, which is ... I AM is true, all else is inference.

What you call grounded fact is an inference of sometimes dubious probability, however when unanswerable questions are in play then bye bye grounded truth and hello reality.

Walker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2026 1:03 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2026 1:58 am

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2026 5:16 pm
You’re apparently saying that you’re certain that stupidity manifests as certainty, i.e., a perfect demonstration of your point.

Ironic, isn't it.

Not in the least since your demonstrations of it are interminable. In cases like yours and IC, additional layers of proof becomes superfluous, no-longer serving as a useful indicator of fact once grounded which it's been for a very long time.

Those grounded facts you reference are actually inferences based on the one irrefutable truth, which is ... I AM is true, all else is inference.

What you call grounded fact is an inference of sometimes dubious probability, however when unanswerable questions are in play then bye bye grounded truth and hello reality.

I AM is true, all else is inference is your position and that of your sidekick, the one who's convinced he can but never could. For instance, among innumerable others, Adam & Eve is the true story; evolution, in comparison, is not evolution but evolutionism, a mere theory while the bible is the word of god, and on it goes.

Those who never give up believing total absurdities will also believe that Trump is a great and honest president with an exceptionally high IQ, if for no other reason because he said so himself!

Every philosophy forum should have a Dunning Kruger corner of rank imbecility and not occasionally near insanity, where each of its practitioners, such as your eminent self, are well inscribed and acknowledged to be exactly what the world is full of, a population which seems to belong to a lower mental order of humanity.

Unfortunately, there is such a thing regardless whether it’s politically or ethically correct to say. These toxins are not in the least negligible especially so as it becomes more endemic.

Hey Guys, I would never have entered into this weird interchange going on now, except that its taking place in my OP so I had to read the posts. I don’t know if I’ve misread or misunderstood some of the exchange, but it seems as though there is a lack of understanding of womanhood. I’m not even sure, since I’m new here, if Lacewing is even a female. But, if I did in fact understand correctly, I see posts that indicate to me, that there are males here that suffer a debilitating male weakness; a view of women that shows me they have never learned the full scope of what the female sex can do for them. I’m not just talking about just sex. Although, from a pretty broad experience, I learned how a mutually shared coupling can titillate every ion in our beings. But for those men who have never seen women as their equals, they go through life never having discovered how a relationship can change their world. Because, such sharing of love, and it is love, and it does require a mutual sharing, when two souls are in harmony, sharing not only the physical, but feeling the full experience of a mutual respect --- and equality.

I only tell you guys, because perhaps I can point out to you the answer to what may be a mystery to you. The mystery prompts many, many men, to cry their unfortunate circumstances the keep the true bond between men and women, out of their reach because they prefer to continue being stupid.

While that may sound harsh, I’m old enough to speak from experience, and you may be young enough to learn. For what it’s worth, I say, you will know if the shoe fits you or not.

Dubious wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2026 12:40 am

Fascinating, however ...

Does the Holy Bible function as a miraculous secular instrument?

Mortalsfool wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2026 6:22 am

That's a major hypothesis with scant evidence, and like most postings in this thread, not linked to the OP.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2026 5:11 pm

Interesting.

Do you consider the Holy Bible to be a miraculous secular instrument?

Mortalsfool wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2026 6:22 am... what the female sex can do for them ...

Speaks volumes. It's not all about you, or "them" who have the female sex doing for "them."

However, you should know ...

Ask not what the fair sex can do for you ... ask what you can do for the fair sex.

This is something men with daughters, and grand daughters, learn.
The result? Strong, independent women who, because you did for them, do for others.

In this realm, this venue, what better to do for a woman, than to give honest attention and feedback?
After all, this is not a domestic situation.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2026 5:11 pm Thankfully there ARE men here who demonstrate their glorious consciousness... and it is a wonderful sight to behold!

Why thank you, Lacewing!
That is kind and gracious of you.
It's enough to make a boy blush!

To continue with the demonstration ...



As an aside to the thread topic, and bowing to inherent conscience for fidelity to inherent order and intent of the thread:

A recent and interesting observation concerning feminine energy recently frequencied into reception's range, and it goes (with a boost from what I know) ...

Women are generally not the pioneers in any given field, as a rule, although there are exceptions.

The example given was news anchors on the telly. Used to be that men were the anchors when telly was a frontier, and for sometime afterwards. Now that the frontier of news-anchor-person has been been settled by men, a lot of the anchors are women. They have set up the housekeeping for the settlement that was established by men, although many of the women refuse to intellectually define what a woman is because the powers that be, decree that is the way of truth and so the women and girlie men say nothing of it.

And, what of the cutting edge male intellects? They’re off to do some new pioneering with AI, a risky frontier where there are no women although there will be, once the frontier is settled.

Of course this logic of women not being pioneers, although amusing in the reasoning, is easily countered by invoking such forces such as “inherent male suppression of women” or “patriarchal society,” broad generalizations about what keeps women out of certain areas of life such as, cutting edge pioneering. However, are those collegiate theories true?

The women who have pioneered with the men in any field, such as maybe Amelia E., likely had a healthy dose of Shiva tipping the scales away from a total “all that” Shakti and into a healthy balance of Shiva and Shakti (healthy for the hormonal advantages and limitations of women), healthy doses of Shiva/Shakti which also apply to men with their extra testosterone to manage the challenges of pioneering, and all individual folks are pioneers when learning something new.

(continued)

This is likely why the great* female sages have been bhakti, and the great male sages have been jnana (Ramakrishna being both).


*great defined as remembered by time

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2026 7:33 am

Mortalsfool wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2026 6:22 am

That's a major hypothesis with scant evidence, and like most postings in this thread, not linked to the OP.

Trust me! Evidence is everything but scant. I have a lifetime of seeing men who had absolutely no idea how to treat a woman. I have found the consensus of opinion among women is, and I have asked many, 'men are assholes'. If you see a man who blames women for his inability to get along with them, you are looking at a man that never listened to a woman.

Mortalsfool wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2026 6:22 am many, many men, to cry their unfortunate circumstances the [that] keep the true bond between men and women out of their reach because they prefer to continue being stupid.

Thank you, Mortalsfool, for your wisdom and understanding. Yes, I am fully female. One of the few on this forum.

It is fascinating to watch such men go through their gyrations to puff themselves up if they fear being bested by a woman... instead of joining their courage and energy with hers to discover new territory. They're like one of those lizards that puff themselves up in a crack in the rock so that you can't pull them out of it.

I give men a lot of bashing on this forum because I wish to point out (and wake everyone up from) the foolishness and destructiveness that is maintained by masculine ideas. It's also cathartic for me in processing all of the shit I've endured at the hands of men all throughout my life, and I figure I might as well make the process fun. Neither men nor religion should be controlling women! The fact that they try to shows their fear of going so much FURTHER in spirit. Many men tend to want to stand on, and reign from, what they think they know.

As you point out, the joining of female and male spirits can lead to the experience of so much more! Nobody reigns!

I have danced with wizards and fools. It appears that I am in this life to do both. I am able to share spiritually euphoric energy with a wizard... as well as wading through sludge to try to wake up fools. At times, I've even managed to lure a wizard out of the fool's cloak... which is wonderful to see, although it's usually brief. We all benefit, I think, from getting peeks of what else there is and can be.