ImTheDoubleGreatest!
Master Don Juan
On The Secret of the Jerk, there is something that caught my eye:
Does anyone know or have an idea about what he meant by this?
Here is the post that Deep Dish is referring to:
And here is Pook's response:Pook,
In your original post you wrote about Otto Weininger.
Otto came to the conclusion that women are amoral, soulless beings; that of her value system being molded by her environment; that she behaves 'good' not because such goodness is inherent of her, but because it is expected by her environment (e.g. party girl value system while in a party environment, mother value system upon having children), of society (e.g. social proof, the Slut Dilemma). That don't try figuring out the female mind because how can you figure out nothing? (Something I remember you commenting). Yet, isn't all this just getting inside the female mind?
I remember long ago you commenting on Female Nature, saying what you found is so black you wished you never knew. Yet if there is no philosophy of women, isn't the conclusion women are soulless and when you look upon the female mind, nothing is there, philosophy? Or is it simply the sum of observations, thereby empirical, simply put in philsophical terms?
Any thoughts? This is one subject that elaboration would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
What is so "black" about female nature that someone could want to unlearn it or wish to never have learnt it? He said how older women especially know this. For some reason, I feel this ties into the other thread where a poster said an older woman said to him that she never dreamed of being a wife, only a mother and having a big wedding. But never a wife. Though I am not sure if it is or not, just a guess.I don't WANT to think back to those old days, Deep Dish. Why return to them? It's depressing as it is and I don't want to think about it.
There is such a thing as knowing more then one should. It was a line I crossed and I hurriedly ran back over it. I'm not going over it again.
You'll figure it out if you keep looking. And you'll know it when it hits. I'd advise to stop thinking about women and just go get them in real life. Women are not meant to be understood, only loved.
Look at it in this way. The chicken's destiny is to be on my barbeque grill. The chicken will never know this. It goes about its life quite happily. But what if the chicken DID realize this? Or take the dog who happily runs around on its leash. The dog thinks itself a comrade to its master, a friend. It knows the hand that feeds it. It does not think of himself as a 'pet'. He doesn't realize how much control YOU really have. But, alas, his destiny will forever be 'pet' because THAT is the way Nature framed it!
Now consider the destiny of the Human male...
And yes, women do realize it. Especially the older ones.
Does anyone know or have an idea about what he meant by this?
Here is the post that Deep Dish is referring to:
Good piece, DarkDream. The beauty of it is that you focused on what is going on inside the head of a MAN instead of a WOMAN.
Though, I think sexuality is too big for evolution to handle. Why would a woman pass up the guy inventing the airplane to go for the guy who is boldly hopping around the hillside? Why is genius and all its varieties totally ignored by women? Why do women respond to decadent acts? Evolution doesn't really have an answer.
The HOW TOs of getting women and being successful with women are now generally known. What I've been curious about these past few months is not the HOW but the WHY. WHY do women act like they do? What dark secret of nature compels them too? The answer is so... black that I wish I never knew. And I thought the paradigm-shift from the AFC fairyland was shattering.
Best of luck and keep posting!
------------------
Pook
Anti-Dump, Big Don, ATNA, Adonis, Allen Thompson, and others- thanks a million.
Last edited: