Date

 Quality Posts

 

Marsha Faizi

(American, late forties, nurse) 

Taken from Genius-l (mailing list): 1997-1998

 

Foreword

People have strong resentment for anything that is spoken with a strong voice. So sheltered do we keep ourselves within the confining vaults of fear. Indeed, instead of ranting like a cowardly turtle in its shell, do help me to come up with some ideas to alleviate human problems and do so without naming established groups. Tell me of individuals and what they can do. I think that the first step is speaking out and, if part of that means that I will be accused of insanity and ranting like a soap box minister, then, I can withstand it. Many, with far more enlightened minds than my own, have endured far greater punishment for their resolve to speak. I have no further fear. I will say what I think.

- Marsha Faizi
  15 Feb 1998

 


 

Contents

Daring to be an Individual 

On Being Creative

Masculine Women

Assorted Observations

 


 

Daring to be an Individual

This is one of the earliest appearances of Marsha Faizi on Genius-L, and the first time I had any dealings with her.   She made it plain from the outset that she was here for a fight.  She came out with all guns blazing and woe betide anyone who got in her way.    But she could write well and had a bit of depth to her, which made her unique and interesting.   

Not that she has entirely disappeared from the planet.   You can still catch her occasionally on Genius Forum, spewing her malodorous filth.

***

Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 07:54:10 +1000
From: David Quinn <dquinn@pemail.net>
Subject: The feminine mind (II)


Hello all,

I realize that it is ungentlemenly of me to take women seriously and criticize what they say, but an important point has to be made.

A few days ago, I described the way in which Claudia Grinnell [a former member of Genius-l] lacked the abstract powers to do any genuine philosophy. I will now concentrate my attention upon Irena and Valerie, both of whom also lack these powers. All three women are identical in that they have no capacity whatsoever for spiritual life. For knowledge of Truth is the necessary prerequisite for all spiritual activity, and without the ability to think in an abstract manner a person can no more comprehend the Truth than can a bird or a chimp.

Both Irena and Valerie reject the idea of a permanent truth on the grounds that everything in the Universe is in flux:

 "Truth is therefore immediate and fleeting. One feels it to be truth, as in poetry as in humour. Two hours later one wonders what the heck was funny or wise."   - Irena

"Closing your mind off to others & passing judgements on their relative positionings towards THE TRUTH never ever works because THE TRUTH is always in flux, like an amoeba or paramecium in a petri dish; dividing & changing, again & again, so that no 2 moments are ever exactly the same ... you cannot pursue THE TRUTH & not allow IT it's ability to change & mutate."  - Valerie

This view are very characteristic of the feminine mind and virtually every women I meet espouses it with passion. It is the view of people whose minds are firmly enchained to the immediate world and are unable to step back and place things into perspective.

The view that "everything is in flux" is either permanently true or it isn't. If it isn't, then neither Irena nor Valerie have said anything meaningful. If, on the other hand, it is permanently true, then their argument immediately contradicts itself and becomes as equally meaningless.

A more masculine mind - that is, one with the capacity for abstract thought - is dialectical enough to realize that all meaningful views rest on a permanent truth of some kind. A Christian, for example, believes in the existence of a timeless super-being and all his views gain meaning from this
"permanent truth".

Similarly, the attack on the very concept of permanent truth by Irena and Valerie can only find meaning by being based on the "permanent truth" that everything is in flux - which of course immediately undermines the attack and renders it nonsensical. (Indeed, if Irena and Valerie possessed more consciousness than they actually have and if they still continued to espouse this view, then they would have to be classed as being insane. But as it is, they are not conscious enough for insanity. They are merely women.)

I have said in the past that permanent (or logical) truths are the rungs of a ladder upon which one can climp up into the Infinite. The logical truth that everything is in flux is one such rung. Indeed, it forms the very first rung upon which others are based. It is by following the *logical implications* of the truth that "everything is in flux" which leads one closer and closer to Ultimate Truth. But this is a path which cannot be followed by the feminine mind, for such a mind is incapable of recognizing the significance of a logical truth in the first place. Indeed, it believes that "everything is in flux" is the highest viewpoint of all and that all abstract thought is useless.

This is why the renowned Buddhist master, Nichiren, once remarked that a woman can no more attain Buddhahood than can a dried-up seed sprout.

(To her credit, Valerie does possess some awareness that there is something wrong with resting in the idea that everything is in flux, for she wrote:

"The only true stable concept contained in the ingrained kernal of THE TRUTH is the element provided for chaos & change."

Here a small flash of consciousness has arisen, albeit vague and undeveloped. It remains to be seen whether Valerie has the strength to bring it into sharper focus and to act upon it. I have my doubts.)

The fact that the feminine mind is incapable of abstract thought is demonstrated repeatedly, day in and day out, for those who have the eyes to see it and nearly all women are inflicted with this incapacity.

Another example is contained in an exchange that Irena and Kevin had recently:


>>Irena:
>>>Spiritual learning is one thing. A conculsion to spiritual learning?
>>>A cul d sac.
>>
>Kevin:
>>You've been there and determined that it's a cul de sac I suppose? Or is
>>that another one of your guesses?
>
Irena:
>Is it a guess? Of course it is. What else could it be?


Now Irena could well have been humbly referring to her own ignorance here, in which case everything I say below is of no relevance, but somehow I don't think so. I get the impression that she was dogmatically putting forth that *everyone* was in the same boat as her and that we are all condemned for the rest of eternity to the realm of guessing. In other words, Irena doesn't believe that absolute certainty in one's understanding of Truth can be attained by the human mind.

However, again, the idea that "everyone is guessing" is either absolutely true or it isn't. If it isn't, then it has no meaning and it opens up the possibility that absolute certainty is attainable. If, on the other hand,
it is absolutely true then the statement is immediately undermined and rendered meaningless. Thus, Irena has contributed nothing at all to humanity's knowledge and wisdom with her comments; if anything, she has merely distracted people away from the search for Truth. Or in Christian language, she has assumed the role of the devil.

Another example:

"Search for the truth is an impossible, hopelessly romantic, futile grail hunt." -  Irena

And:

"Of course there are things that ring true, at the time, but forevermore? That's just impossible to say, logically and rationally because you will not be forever more."  -Irena

And so it goes on. The list of female stupidity is endless.


David Quinn
 

***

 

Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 01:16:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Marsha Faizi <mfaizi@rbnet.com>
Subject: Re: The Feminine Mind

 

Replying to David Quinn's remarks:

You state that you realize that it is ungentlemanly of you to take women seriously.

What concerns you about your gentlemanliness or lack of it? For what do you apologize? Taking women seriously or your lack of gentility? Indeed, what does gentlemanly or ungentlemanly behavior have to do with taking women seriously? If you are professing to take women seriously, then, why the kid gloves? Why preface your comments with a shroud of repentence? What of your own femininity? Do you also apologize for that?

"Knowledge of Truth is the necessary prerequisite for all spiritual activity..."

Too feminine a premise for my taste. I have no tolerance for that much daintiness. I believe nothing; accept no truth, recognize no knowledge as truth. What may be termed "spiritual" is the product of imagination and nothing more. All right while it lasts but nothing beyond that. What I may deduce as
useful information is specific to my reasoning only and nothing more. If it became more, it would become a part of group-truth, a matter of conformity and subjugation; man as master/slave. I will not be party to that sort of thinking. It is weakness.

"This view is very characteristic of the feminine mind and virtually every woman I meet espouses it with passion."

Irena states that truth is "fleeting." Indeed, there is much that flees from a feminine mind.

Valerie states that truth is in flux, ever changing.

I see that distortions change constantly and what is said to be truth one moment changes to hateful lie as the need of whatever group rises to whatever occasion that requires distortion. Truth is neither permanent nor in flux. It simply does not exist. More feminine minds have difficulty in coming to terms with this untruth because femininity has need of truth to perpetuate its particular fabrications, i.e., that marriage is a blissful state or that one must produce children to feel complete or that sexual love
is the only real truth.

Many men espouse the same things as Valerie and Irena or they say things that are equally craven.

The thing that most women have never been able to do is to drop the factor of their gender entirely. That is more the issue here than their philosophical beliefs.

If you will criticize, then, do so from that end. Why argue arcane philosophical issues with a woman? Why not be more direct?

You state that the more masculine mind is dialectical enough to realize that all meaningful views rest on a permanent truth of some kind. Then, you mention Christianity. Truth and Christianity in the same breath? You reveal your femininity.

You say that Irena and Valerie are not conscious enough for insanity. They are merely women. In saying so, how conscious are you of your own capricious feminine side? What flees from your mind? What, exactly, is your capacity for abstract thought when you insist upon the value of a permanent truth?

Indeed, what is abstraction more than an ability to adroitly craft? One constructs Truth or Wisdom as a fine web over an abyss. If you have no fear, then, why not fall through? What are your set limits? Do you shrink from the opening into chaos?

Permanent truths or fixed limits are set to be torn down. Do you plan to adhere to the same values for the rest of your life? If you believe in certitude, then, you cannot have lived. If you believe in certitude, then, you have no will to life. You have placed yourself inside a permanent tomb of permanent truth for all time. Are you so immobile? So encased? Have you no experience?

You said that the feminine belief that truth is in flux is the belief that this is the highest viewpoint of all. What of your belief in certitude and permanence of truth: Do you believe that these are the highest pinnacle? Have you taken a look below your own safety net? What is your fear of exposure?

You take refuge behind the remark of the Buddhist boy who said that woman can no more attain Buddahood than can a dried up seed sprout. I reckon I can imagine the seed sprout to which he may have been referring. I have little more respect for Buddhism than I have for Christianity and that only because it is an Asian religion and I rather like Asians in general.

I do not care that a woman cannot attain Buddahood nor do I care that a man can attain it or not attain it because I see no value in religion of any kind. I loathe its pomposity and hypocrisy. It is disdainful and deceitful.

You conclude with one or two other examples of feminine thought that happened to be written on these posts by women. Not much of a challenge for  you, David. How much more interesting and convincing your remarks might have been had you also paid heed to the femininity of the men on the list. There
is plenty of it.

You said, "The list of female stupidity is endless."

Indeed. Take a closer look. I dare you.

Faizi

 

***

 

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 04:16:43 +1000
From: David Quinn <dquinn@pemail.net>
Subject: Re: The Feminine Mind


Marsha Faizi wrote:

>Replying to David Quinn's remarks:
>
>You state that you realize that it is ungentlemanly of you to take women
>seriously.
>
>What concerns you about your gentlemanliness or lack of it? For what do you
>apologize? Taking women seriously or your lack of gentility? Indeed, what
>does gentlemanly or ungentlemanly behavior have to do with taking women
>seriously? If you are professing to take women seriously, then, why the kid
>gloves? Why preface your comments with a shroud of repentence? What of your
>own femininity? Do you also apologize for that?


It was just a bit of light humour on my part. I was playing with the common perception that a "gentleman" is a man who takes women seriously and looks after their needs, while a misogynist is a man who hates women and tries to keep them in their place. As with most common perceptions, this is
completely false.

Although I am often called a misogynist, I actually treat women as equals and judge them by the same standards that I apply to men. This explains why I think so lowly of them.


>"Knowledge of Truth is the necessary prerequisite for all spiritual
> activity..."
>
>Too feminine a premise for my taste. I have no tolerance for that much
>daintiness. I believe nothing; accept no truth, recognize no knowledge as
>truth.

Is it true, then, that people who recognize truth are deluded?


>What may be termed "spiritual" is the product of imagination and nothing
>more. All right while it lasts but nothing beyond that.

What is termed "non-spiritual" is also the product of the imagination and nothing more. As long as we are conscious we can never escape our imagination. What we can do, however, is ensure that we are never fooled by it.


>What I may deduce as
>useful information is specific to my reasoning only and nothing more. If it
>became more, it would become a part of group-truth, a matter of conformity
>and subjugation; man as master/slave. I will not be party to that sort of
>thinking. It is weakness.


Good to hear. You interest me greatly.


>Truth is neither permanent nor in flux. It simply does not exist.

Is this the truth, eh?  Interesting.    You cannot escape the concept of truth, Marsha, except by dishonest evasion. Not even your abyss can save you here.


>More feminine minds have difficulty in
>coming to terms with this untruth because femininity has need of truth to
>perpetuate its particular fabrications, i.e., that marriage is a blissful
>state or that one must produce children to feel complete or that sexual love
>is the only real truth.

Yes, this is true. But what of the masculine mind? Do you think that the masculine mind's search for Truth is motivated in the same depraved way?


>Many men espouse the same things as Valerie and Irena or they say things
>that are equally craven.


Agreed. In fact, when a man says the same thing as a woman he is actually being far more craven, for he should know better.


>The thing that most women have never been able to do is to drop the factor
>of their gender entirely. That is more the issue here than their
>philosophical beliefs.
>
>If you will criticize, then, do so from that end. Why argue arcane
>philosophical issues with a woman? Why not be more direct?


Well, what I was really doing was articulating a fundamental flaw in the mental processes of the feminine mind. I have no real interest in the beliefs it happens to hold.

Kevin Solway and I have had many discussions in the past concerning the pros and cons of discussing philosophy with a woman. The problem is that, unless she is a truly extraordinary specimen, women have no ability to recognize and absorb great truths. So by discussing truth with them one is not only
wasting one's time, but one also runs the risk of feeding their delusions of grandeur that they actually know what they are talking about. On the other hand, it is sometimes useful on a public forum such as this to converse with women every so often simply to highlight the massive differences between
masculinity and femininity.


>You state that the more masculine mind is dialectical enough to realize that
>all meaningful views rest on a permanent truth of some kind. Then, you
>mention Christianity. Truth and Christianity in the same breath? You reveal
>your femininity.

I address this in my post to Eric Westberg and so I refer you there.


>You say that Irena and Valerie are not conscious enough for insanity. They
>are merely women. In saying so, how conscious are you of your own capricious
>feminine side? What flees from your mind? What, exactly, is your capacity
>for abstract thought when you insist upon the value of a permanent truth?
>Indeed, what is abstraction more than an ability to adroitly craft? One
>constructs Truth or Wisdom as a fine web over an abyss. If you have no fear,
>then, why not fall through? What are your set limits? Do you shrink from the
>opening into chaos?


What is this abyss that you talk about? I am familiar with four kinds of abysses: (a) the abyss of mindlessness (embracing most of humanity), (b) the abyss of clinical madness (often the refuge of those poor deluded fools who mistake it for Reality), (c) the abyss of total uncertainty (the prelude to
enlightenment), and (d) the abyss of enlightenment/Truth.

I've met quite a few people in my time who attach themselves to abysses (b) and/or (c) while believing them to be the ultimate state. Nietzsche himself was seduced by these chaotic states and subconsciously turned to them as a refuge from the terrifying glory of Truth. It's possible that his descent into imbecility was ultimately caused by his overpowering need to escape.


>Permanent truths or fixed limits are set to be torn down. Do you plan to
>adhere to the same values for the rest of your life? If you believe in
>certitude, then, you cannot have lived. If you believe in certitude, then,
>you have no will to life. You have placed yourself inside a permanent tomb
>of permanent truth for all time. Are you so immobile? So encased? Have you
>no experience?


The certainty I have in mind is different to the certainty you are thinking about here. I am not talking about the clinging to a set of axioms or other similar forms of limited activity. I advocate the full opening up of one's mind to the Infinite, an awesome endeavour. Logical truths are simply a
means to this end.

Consciousness of the Infinite is the natural result of applying A=A, without
compromise, to utterly everything.


>You conclude with one or two other examples of feminine thought that
>happened to be written on these posts by women. Not much of a challenge for
>you, David. How much more interesting and convincing your remarks might have
>been had you also paid heed to the femininity of the men on the list. There
>is plenty of it.


Agreed. I could have just as easily quoted Scot Close or Dieter Diembic as examples of feminine thinking. But I made use of Irena and Valerie in this particular instance simply because they happen to be more purely feminine. Femininity is more concentrated in them and thus it is easier to use them as
examples to illustrate the nature of femininity. However, if you've been following the discussions I've been involved in over the past few months,you'd know that I concentrate my attention upon the men of this list far more than I do the women.

David Quinn

 

***

 

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 12:19:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Marsha Faizi <mfaizi@rbnet.com>
Subject: Open Letter to David Quinn


Dear David,

I considered sending this letter to you privately because I do not really communicate well in a group forum. I do better one on one. However, I decided that, since I agreed to be a part of this list, I should write to you openly. It hardly matters that I write openly because my comments are largely ignored and I am accustomed to that and I expect it. Indeed, I would be disappointed if I was not ignored. I have come to count on it. I rather treasure being ignored. It is a delight, actually, because it assures me that I am expressing something that is not altogether well received and I should hate it if anything I said was well received by any for whom I have little respect.

It is, despite these misgivings, pleasant to be understood by those who can understand. I thank you for your response to my writing about your letter.

I have also been accused of misogyny and I am a woman. I think that is quite funny since, having worked with large groups of females, I have had the chance to observe their self hatred and the hypocrisy that abides with that. Women, in groups, will destroy one another without a bit of remorse and, indeed, feel quite justified in so doing. I used to find myself in the position of defending some hapless victim of female group hate but I gave it up. Once a group of women has decided that some other of them is unworthy of acceptance, they will destroy her and I have never seen any stopping of it. I have long considered myself fortunate to have been blessed with a tough exterior that is hard to crack, the product of my adolescence among girls.

Obviously to you, because you share a similar perspective, I do not hate women. I hate no human being. However, I do also judge women by my standards, the same that I judge men, and I have met few independent women, i.e., those who function without the help or support of a man or anyone else. My life does not compare to the life of a woman who depends on anything from a man. I have relationships but I have lived alone long enough to know that I will not compromise anything for anyone. Most women live with strong faith in compromise and the value of it. They do not mind at all that they cut themselves in half or quarters or eighths. They are willing to split themselves and abide in something that, to me, is far less than life. I call it half-life or still-life. Men do this, too, but they usually, at
least, pay their own bills.

You said that, since you judge women by the same standards that you judge a man, you think lowly of them. My point exactly. It is hard for me to have respect for a woman when she has selected to sell herself over to this or that thing. Many women seem to rather like being pets; things that are cared
for and pampered and coddled. Yet, they also want to be able to cry, "Victim!" when things do not suit them and to seek law for protection. Not a bad life, if you can get it, but, just as you sell, you will pay and, to my thinking, the pay is too great an expense. Certainly, I learned that lesson more than once.

You asked me, "Is it true that people who recognize truth are deluded?" I reckon that I should first know your definition of truth. Language is different for everyone. I suspect that you may mean the same thing with the word, truth, as I mean with the word, resolve. Resolve is the conclusion one comes to after introspection and self interrogation and doubt. One does not merely think: One knows. He knows not a utilitarian truth for use against others but he knows his own resolve strictly in relation to himself, as he thinks, as he sees, as he touches and perceives by sensorial impulses that he will not debase with agreement or disagreement or belief. One has no need of faith when one lives in resolve. You could say that this is a path of enlightenment. I call it sadness and it is a profound sadness when you witness what could be, "in the twinkling of an eye", against what is--the business of life and its mindless consumers; its adherents; true believers; the unquestioning hoards who take what is meted out, all manner of plastic
promise of pleasure and the ensuing hysteria. This bears the implant of progress and progress is nothing short of self-annihilation. Belief and agreement are the weaponry of progress. I have no belief and I will not agree. Therefore, I select to live and I live with my nerves exposed and have no fear.

So, if truth be the same as resolve, then, no, I am not deluded nor could anyone be deluded in his own resolve or what you call truth.

I need to only see or hear the word, truth, and it is like a red flag before the face of a bull. I consider the word a sort of blaspheme against all that could be but is not. However, having read your thoughtfulness, I can see that you could not mean truth in that sense.

I said that what may be termed spiritual is the product of imagination and nothing more. You said that what may be non-spiritual is also the product of imagination. Be that as it may, I have no need of spirituality. I prefer substance in the form of what I can perceive through my senses and some things have resonance and depth and persistence to become part of resolve.

I mentioned group-truth and my unwillingness to conform to it; to become either master or slave by contention or agreement. The development of the individual is paramount in importance if the human species is to survive the ages intact and whole. The more that we give over to agreement and blind
faith in institutions and corporations and governments, the more that we relinquish what might remain of our humanity. What we give up for safety will be our undoing. There are very few people even capable of any sort of (more or less) original thought that has no basis in what we are told to believe or made to believe. All originality of thought is largely discouraged and, even, maligned and denigrated or drugged into stuporous apathy or compliance.

Yes, it is good to hear that there are a few people who are capable of thought.   I said that truth is neither permanent nor in flux: It simply does not exist.

In my definition of truth as group truth and allegiance, truth does not exist because it is all intentional prevarication. If we are speaking of truth as a matter of mental resolve, then, it exists or not, as I know it or do not know it. I have come to regard the word, truth, as a signal for the most heinous crimes against humanity, the taking away of self; the substitution for self with lesser self.

Dishonest evasion, you say. Not even my abyss can save me.  I do not expect to be saved. Redemption is now. I am not in a state of disregard and what I have termed an abyss is not my means to escape. Rather, it is a long, hard look at turmoil and struggle; a willing douse into a chaotic undercurrent below symbolic thought from which I can bring some elements for my inspection and use. Writing is an art and it is a craft but art and craft are nothing without thought. I have no use for thinking done as a high wire act. I have no need for balance. Construction of reason without reason to resolve is too thin a thread for me, too fine a web. Many people struggle to stay above the sea that you have named truth. They
construct reasons to avoid the falling into self resolve or, in your language, truth. They will not confront themselves, either coming or going. I have no fear in confrontation. I have no theory to test, no tender lie to protect; no self effacing value to harbor.

You asked me if I think that the masculine mind's search for truth is motivated in the same depraved way as woman's.

Man does not have to sublimate his gender in the same way as a woman. His masculinity does not interfere with his mental quest because gender is not an issue with him. Women make their gender their identity. This is a block for them. All feminine thought centers around femininity.

In writing a chapter for a book, I decided that I wanted to use a quote from a woman with the chapter heading. I searched and I searched for a suitable quote and could find none. All that I found were remarks on femininity. Until women can think beyond the factor of their gender, there will be no thinkers among them.

I make no apology that there are no women quoted in the book that I am writing. I could find none worth quoting. In fact, the author is not even female. I am ghost writer and editor for a man. I have done a couple of books for men. I will never write as a woman. I am not a female writer.

You mentioned that you and Kevin Solway have had many discussions concerning the pros and cons of discussing philosophy with a woman. There are no pros to it. If you discuss philosophy with me, it will not be the discussion of it with a woman. I have no such delicate covering. I have spent years recognizing and absorbing what you call great truths and what I call things removed from all doubt.

Run the risk of feeding their delusions of grandeur, you say.

I am not deluded.

Useful to discuss philosophy with women on a public forum in order to point up the massive differences between masculinity and femininity.

So be it. I hope that you continue.

I have respect for the work that Kevin does. He is much more brave than myself.

You ask me again about what I mean by abyss. I mean the mental sea of doubt and resolve; the mental sea of what you call truth. I see all constructs above that as frail scaffolding that will sink into the "terrifying glory of truth."

Indeed. That is the beauty of it.

You write that you advocate the opening of one's mind to the infinite, an awesome endeavor.   Opening is an awesome endeavor and one that requires solitude and the chance to look inward. One relinquishes much in favor of so harsh an endeavor. However, once it is started, I can see no turning from it because the reward is oneself. Nothing surpasses that.

"Consciousness of the infinite is the result of applying A=A, without compromise, to utterly everything," you write.

The key words are "without compromise." Never giving over of self for shallow reason that is reason-dictate; to sustain the benefaction of all that you have distinguished, through doubt, to resolve.

There is no greater truth than self and what is relinquished to behold the gift of self is of no consequence--not gender, not societal sanction, not safety.

Thanks for your letter.

Faizi
 

***

 

Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 09:17:06 +1000
From: David Quinn <dquinn@pemail.net>
Subject: Re: Open Letter to David Quinn


Faizi wrote:

>Dear David,
>
>I considered sending this letter to you privately because I do not really
>communicate well in a group forum. I do better one on one. However, I
>decided that, since I agreed to be a part of this list, I should write to
>you openly. It hardly matters that I write openly because my comments are
>largely ignored and I am accustomed to that and I expect it. Indeed, I would
>be disappointed if I was not ignored. I have come to count on it. I rather
>treasure being ignored. It is a delight, actually, because it assures me
>that I am expressing something that is not altogether well received and I
>should hate it if anything I said was well received by any for whom I have
>little respect.


Diogenes from ancient Greece is one of my favourite sages:

Whenever people complimented Diogenes, he would slap himself hard  across the face and in self-reproach would cry, "Shame! I must have done something terribly wicked!"

I read recently that the female director of the movie "Kissed" (about a woman who enjoys having sex with corpses) was surprised that the film didn't generate much controversy in the larger community. She took this lack of reaction to mean that she must have made something really subversive. (Although her idea that true subversion goes almost unnoticed in the world is spot on, I think she was wrong in thinking that her own film was subversive. Even in our great feminist age, women are still looked down
upon by everyone as being aimless and harmless, so it is no big deal to hearabout a woman making love to corpses.)

I can certainly relate to your comments. It has been my experience that my truly great truths are all but universally ignored, while my smaller, less-important truths are the ones which often cause an uproar.


>I have also been accused of misogyny and I am a woman. I think that is quite
>funny since, having worked with large groups of females, I have had the
>chance to observe their self hatred and the hypocrisy that abides with that.
>Women, in groups, will destroy one another without a bit of remorse and,
>indeed, feel quite justified in so doing. I used to find myself in the
>position of defending some hapless victim of female group hate but I gave it
>up. Once a group of women has decided that some other of them is unworthy of
>acceptance, they will destroy her and I have never seen any stopping of it.


Yes, this aspect of female behaviour is almost never talked about in society at large, yet it reveals their character most clearly. Their mental lives are ruled by envy, jealousy and deep-seated insecurity.

At bottom, a woman has absolutely no idea who she is, for her perception of herself is constantly changing depending on outside circumstances and her own emotional state. She continually has to reach out to others for some sort of grounding. This is why women continually feel a need to physically
touch one another so much; they need emotional contact with others in order to define themselves, or perhaps more accurately they constantly need to gain relief from the anxiety involved in being permanently ill-defined. The force with which they readily pour hate upon other women is a testament to how deep this need really is.


>Obviously to you, because you share a similar perspective, I do not hate
>women. I hate no human being.


Yes. Most people have no conception of how magnaminous and compassionate a "misogynist" really is.


>You asked me, "Is it true that people who recognize truth are deluded?" I
>reckon that I should first know your definition of truth. Language is
>different for everyone. I suspect that you may mean the same thing with the
>word, truth, as I mean with the word, resolve. Resolve is the conclusion one
>comes to after introspection and self interrogation and doubt.


Is this "resolve" that you speak of a resolving of timeless issues? In other words, do your resolutions involve the realization that the knowledge gained is absolutely and timelessly true? Or do you still feel they are doubtful from the perspective of the ultimate standpoint? You see, I don't accept any knowledge as being true knowledge unless I know for certain that it will be true forever.

You have described your attainment as "knowledge of self", which is fair enough. But can such a knowledge truly be termed "knowledge" if there exists a possibility that it can be undermined in ten minutes, or a million years, time?

Allow me to say at this point that the knowledge gained in enlightenment is a special kind of knowledge and is totally unlike all other forms of knowledge. One goes to the source of all knowledge, so to speak. It is a knowledge which embraces the uncertainty of utterly everything in the Universe and yet at the same time involves an absolute certainty which underpins and comprises this all-pervasive uncertainty. And it is this certainty behind the total uncertainty of everything which is timeless and the source of all wisdom.

Socrates was once asked whether he knew himself and he replied, "I don't know, but I know this 'don't know'."


>I said that what may be termed spiritual is the product of imagination and
>nothing more. You said that what may be non-spiritual is also the product of
>imagination. Be that as it may, I have no need of spirituality. I prefer
>substance in the form of what I can perceive through my senses and some
>things have resonance and depth and persistence to become part of resolve.


"Spirituality" is just a word, albeit a useful word. I make use of it because most people in the world believe it refers to something important. It is this sense of importance which I play upon and make use of in order to turn people's attention to the need to find the Infinite.

As you're probably aware, the Infinite is neither spiritual nor non-spiritual. Nor is it material, sensual, conceptual, abstract, or concrete. All such labels are infinitely off the mark.


>You asked me if I think that the masculine mind's search for truth is
>motivated in the same depraved way as woman's.
>
>Man does not have to sublimate his gender in the same way as a woman. His
>masculinity does not interfere with his mental quest because gender is not
>an issue with him. Women make their gender their identity. This is a block
>for them. All feminine thought centers around femininity.


Yes, that is a big problem for women. I've personally only met a couple of women in my lifetime who were able to step outside of their femininity and look at it from the outside. Unfortunately, women become trapped in a closed loop without them knowing it - they find it very difficult in the first place to think abstractly enough to even momentarily escape femininity, which persuades them to the view that there is nothing beyond it, and this in turn greatly warps whatever desire for greatness they may have originally had as youths.


>In writing a chapter for a book, I decided that I wanted to use a quote from
>a woman with the chapter heading. I searched and I searched for a suitable
>quote and could find none. All that I found were remarks on femininity.
>Until women can think beyond the factor of their gender, there will be no
>thinkers among them.
>
>I make no apology that there are no women quoted in the book that I am
>writing. I could find none worth quoting. In fact, the author is not even
>female. I am ghost writer and editor for a man. I have done a couple of
>books for men. I will never write as a woman. I am not a female writer.

I'm very curious. You say that you've written a couple of books for men. What did this involve? Were they philosophical books? Did the books comprise your own views or their views? What are your reasons for not wanting to write in your own name?


>You mentioned that you and Kevin Solway have had many discussions concerning
>the pros and cons of discussing philosophy with a woman. There are no pros
>to it. If you discuss philosophy with me, it will not be the discussion of
>it with a woman. I have no such delicate covering. I have spent years
>recognizing and absorbing what you call great truths and what I call things
>removed from all doubt.


Yes, I realize this. Although I haven't made up my mind about you yet, all the signs are there that you fall into the category of the truly extraordinary woman. This would place you into the category of "man" - or better yet, in the category of "human", a rare and lofty attainment.

One of the reasons why I would be willing to class you as extraordinary is the way you are able to accept my comments on women for the generalizations that they are. One hardly meets a woman who is capable of doing this. They invariably take any criticism of womankind as a personal attack upon them and respond accordingly.

But you on the other hand seem to be intelligent and secure enough to know that my comments on women don't apply to you, even though you are, biologically speaking, a woman. It implies that you have already mentally divorced yourself from womankind and have entered into genuine individuality. And the fact that you are able to clearly perceive the true nature of woman is very encouraging as well.


>You ask me again about what I mean by abyss. I mean the mental sea of doubt
>and resolve; the mental sea of what you call truth. I see all constructs
>above that as frail scaffolding that will sink into the "terrifying glory of
>truth."
>
>Indeed. That is the beauty of it.
>
>You write that you advocate the opening of one's mind to the infinite, an
>awesome endeavor.
>
>Opening is an awesome endeavor and one that requires solitude and the chance
>to look inward. One relinquishes much in favor of so harsh an endeavor.
>However, once it is started, I can see no turning from it because the reward
>is oneself. Nothing surpasses that.
>
>"Consciousness of the infinite is the result of applying A=A, without
>compromise, to utterly everything," you write.
>
>The key words are "without compromise." Never giving over of self for
>shallow reason that is reason-dictate; to sustain the benefaction of all
>that you have distinguished, through doubt, to resolve.
>
>There is no greater truth than self and what is relinquished to behold the
>gift of self is of no consequence--not gender, not societal sanction, not
>safety.


You express yourself very well. I'm very pleased to have met you.

David Quinn

 

***

 

Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 09:04:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Marsha Faizi <mfaizi@rbnet.com>
Subject: Beyond the feminine mind: To Hell and back.


Dear David

You asked me if the resolve of which I write is resolving of timeless issues. Yes, it is resolving of timeless issues. The knowledge gained is absolutely and timelessly valid through doubt. It is the knowledge of self; the knowledge that one will not compromise with entity for any reason. Resolve is the bottom that one achieves when one has fallen through the flimsiness that precedes it; the facade of refusal; the thin membrane that covers it; the will to ignorance; the present disregard. It is the coming face to face "through a glass darkly." It is the definitive vision of the eyes behind the eyes that is the substantial vision of one's humanity. It is the knowing of substance that is dense but not opaque. Resolve is awakening of volition and it is the knowing that there is no turning back. It cannot be undone. It is forever.

Resolve is the knowing of one's purpose. Once known, there can be no un-knowing. In resolve of one's will, there can be no return to ignorance.

You asked me if such a thing as knowledge of self can be termed knowledge if it can be undermined in ten minutes; in a million years or ever in time. It cannot be undermined in ten minutes nor in a million years nor ever. Resolve is exact and precise and unyielding to time and its distractions; its legacies; its insistence on future promise; its prizes; its bondage.

I did not dream this stuff up overnight nor even in a fortnight. I have lived it over years. There were times when I lived the life of an idiot even when I knew better; when I understood more than I was willing to admit, even to myself. I have lived lives that were without regard for anything. It was my good fortune to have those lives turned to ash. I say "lives" because I have had many guises; all with some similarities but quite separate. I have been a Christian and a Muslim and I have been a wife and a mistress. I have been a soldier and I have been a shipyard welder and a knife salesman. I have been a poet and a painter and I have been a bookseller and publisher. I have been a nurse and a waitress and a driver. I have placed myself in situations where my mouth was the only thing that saved me from harm.

Well, masks are masks and nothing more. They serve no purpose except to shield us and, by shielding, they serve to hide us from us. They serve to keep us from knowing what we are beneath them. We sell ourselves with no thought of the injury we inflict on the thing that lives inside us; our innate dignity; our greatness that is without artifact and cleverness; the frail creature that is human beyond all set parameters. We are willing to kill and be killed for the sakes of political and religious right. We are
willing to live a lie and a death in exchange for safety and false comfort.

Through facade and the selling of self for facade, we agree to live in agreement to fail. There is safety in numbers. Our fear is bought and sold back to us as promise and value and habit and we are sucked in and lose ourselves. We become numbers and faint dots on a screen. We are parodies of ourselves. We think nothing and we speak nothing.

Beyond any taking on of any further false life, part of my resolve is that I will communicate. I will chronicle and it does not matter the vehicle. Books, letters, stories, articles--makes no difference.

I have no vendetta. I have no need to avenge. My need is to tell and, by telling, to release. I see the selling of human misery every day. Misery is worth a fortune and the premiums are getting higher.

Masculinity, my ass! Where is there a man among us? No man, NO HUMAN BEING could tolerate what we have made. No woman, replete in her beauty--the beauty of her humanity--could succumb to self hate and malice. What have we become for stale reason? What have we agreed to become?

You tell me that knowledge gained in enlightenment is a special kind of knowledge, one that goes to the source of knowledge. What do you doubt of me, David? My femininity that I do not find emblematic nor exemplary of myhumanity? The fair underpinning of nature is the source of knowledge. What is held together in darkness is the source of knowledge. I can find it in a blade of grass or in the lichen and moss that takes nourishment from thin air. I can find it in properties of light and in smoke and fog. There is no shortness of it except as we mark and I have seen it in birth and in death because I have watched many births and deaths.

The source of all knowledge is within our reach if we will think it; know it; question it; resolve it. To know it, we must live. To live, we must surpass ourselves. Life is before us always as present regard.

The source of all knowledge is the frail thing that lives inside our bodies: Intelligence, The Creature. The source of all knowledge is our humanity. We can have no need of redemption. We can have no need of enlightenment. Those things are but promise of something we already have at our disposal.

I see things in visual terms. You speak of absolute certainty and of truth that changes and, yet, does not change. There are dualities. I can only say what I see and what I see is a thing that turns on an axis. It moves and it presents. Its perceptual presentations change but the thing that turns does not change. It yields chaos while it is static and orderly and calm.

Is there not something in that? Something of intelligence? That the order of chaos is innate in the human being? That such things as the perceptions of order (certain truths) and chaos (constant change) can co-exist?

Enlightenment is a religious term. Religion offends me. I loathe its every tenet as ultimate ignorance.

I call the journey to the source of knowledge sadness. Ultimate knowing is a sadness. Nietzsche could not have written much of what he wrote without sadness. Jesus achieved profound sadness and paid the price for his will to it with his will. Certainly, he knew the journey into Hell and more than once; and knew it beyond the scaly offerings of sin and repentance and goodness and evil or enlightenment as awakening to vanity or power; sloughed off bits of tainted legacy, left behind by wise men for use by the unwise.

The list has speculated what killed Nietzsche. He died of syphilis. (Wishful thinking.) He died because he sank into abysmal fantasies. (Wishful thinking again.) I reckon he slipped into invalidism and death from the sadness of knowing sadness. To use the words of one American poet, "No one can sustain those kinds of trips forever."

Not in this world. There are limits. You move beyond set boundaries far enough and you will succumb by pummelling, by beating and accusation. The business of life is a sad repetition of birth, sex and death. We are all born dead. It is up to us to breathe life into the corpses into which we are born: The will to life; the transition into Hell and the transition back; knowledge of self; ordeal accomplished; the boundaries of certain truths set against the capacity for change that is not the caprice of solicited,
enacted reason for reason alone.

You wrote that you have not made up your mind about me yet; that all the signs are there that I may fall into the category of extraordinary woman or man or human being.

I am a strong bitch. Nothing more. I have talent, of sorts.

You said that one of the reasons that you could be willing to class me as extraordinary is that I am able to accept comments on women as generalizations; that most women take such comments on womankind as a personal attack.

My femininity or lack of it makes no difference to me. If femininity is daintiness, I have that at my disposal. If femininity is loving, I am capable of great love. If femininity is incapacitating, I am capable of
incapacitating. If femininity is prettiness, I can call that up. If masculinity is force, I have it. If masculinity is overt power, I can call that up. If masculinity is taking control, I have control. If masculinity is physical adroitness, I can muster it.

The question was raised about woman's propensity for killing. I would never want to kill anything. Yet, I was trained to kill and I performed well.

Not a question of androgyny. The blending of the sexes has always been apparent. The differences are part of historical agreement. The differences are superficial and woman is as much to blame as man for her shortcomings. She is more so to blame by her willingness to blame.

Divorced myself from womankind and entered genuine individuality, you wrote.

I have divorced myself from the business of life; the complete selling of self for reason. I recognize the thinness of the facade that I must put forth in order to survive.

You asked me what my writing of books for men involved. I wrote one book of philosophy for one person using his original ideas. This work took two years for me to write. In writing it, I learned much and I wrote much of what I learned in the pages of his book. I am writing a second volume but I may be
more editor than writer this time. He is waxing and waning about how much input he wants from me. I tend to take over. My writing is much harder than his writing. He sees hope where I see none.

He needs me but he wants the work to be more his own and I am not sure that I am willing to do that, i.e., there is no middle ground. I either write it as I see fit or I edit it for structure and grammar and punctuation only, work it up for the typesetter and proofread.

If I am to part ways with this author, then, I will write my own book and I will use what I have taken from him and I will expound on it to my own specifications. I am not his secretary.

The other book is by another author who is a very strong writer. I edited for him and part of editing was to show him his strengths of which he was largely unaware and to help him to draw those things out as key points in his book. It is an introspective study of the work of one modern poet. The author is looking for publication and I think that he has a chance simply because he managed to get someone who used to know this poet to endorse the book. If no one will publish it, he will publish it himself.

You asked me why I would not want to write in my name.

I am not a female writer.

I am also pleased to have met you, David.

Thank you.

Faizi

 

***

 

Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 08:28:33 +1000
From: David Quinn <dquinn@pemail.net>
Subject: re: Beyond the feminine mind: To Hell and back.


Faizi wrote:

>I call the journey to the source of knowledge sadness. Ultimate knowing is a
>sadness. Nietzsche could not have written much of what he wrote without
>sadness. Jesus achieved profound sadness and paid the price for his will to
>it with his will.


I completely disagree with this. While it may be true that the *journey* to the source of knowledge involves incredible sadness and melancholy, even depression, ultimate knowing in itself doesn't. For all sadness (and happiness for that matter) is a product of egotism, and egotism is something which vanishes with the onset of ultimate knowing. When the ego vanishes all feelings of sadness (and happiness) also vanish.

Basically, we feel sad when our egos are not getting the happiness and pleasure it feels it deserves. When we're not getting what we want and there appears to be little we can do about it, we feel frustrated and/or sad.

At bottom, all sadness boils down to self-pity. We pity ourselves when we recognize ourselves to be helpless victims of a fate which is not giving us what we desire. (Many people, of course, gain much pleasure from self-pity and become very attached to their sadness - romantic poets, for example.
Theirs is not a genuine sadness.)

Philosophically advanced people can experience sadness when their egos are no longer being satisfied by their wisdom and can no longer find any relief in mindless distractions. In other words, all sources of happiness are suddenly denied them. Here it can become tempting to lose all faith in life itself and to regard everything as utterly worthless - even knowledge, even Truth, even happiness.

However, all this is still in the realm of ignorance. Sadness arises whenever we engage in an unsuccessful search for happiness. An enlightened person no longer seeks happiness in anything at all and has abandoned all attachment to it entirely. Thus, so long as he continues to abide in the enlightened state, it is impossible for him to ever experience sadness.
 

>Certainly, he knew the journey into Hell and more than
>once; and knew it beyond the scaly offerings of sin and repentance and
>goodness and evil or enlightenment as awakening to vanity or power; sloughed
>off bits of tainted legacy, left behind by wise men for use by the unwise.
>
>The list has speculated what killed Nietzsche. He died of syphilis. (Wishful
>thinking.) He died because he sank into abyssmal fantasies. (Wishful
>thinking again.) I reckon he slipped into invalidism and death from the
>sadness of knowing sadness. To use the words of one American poet, "No one
>can sustain those kinds of trips forever."


In my opinion, it was the burden of consciousness itself which undid him. Any sadness he may have experienced was merely a symptom of this burden.

There was a lot of impurity in Nietzsche; a significant part of him hated philosophy. To the degree that he hated philosophy to that degree he found consciousness a loathsome burden. In short, he overreached himself and was torn apart by powerfully conflicting desires.


>Enlightment is a religious term. Religion offends me. I loathe its every
>tenet as ultimate ignorance.

I certainly can't disagree with you here. It's impossible to conceive of any group of people who are further away from Truth than religious people. Scientists do come a close second, though.


>The blending of the sexes has always been
>apparent. The differences are part of historical agreement. The differences
>are superficial and woman is as much to blame as man for her shortcomings.
>She is more so to blame by her willingness to blame.

I reckon that men are more to blame for they are much better positioned to do something about it. Women have basically been moulded by hedonistic men over the centuries, so if women are to change then men themselves will have to change first. Of course, any women who breaks the mould herself is a
welcome bonus.


>You asked me why I would not want to write in my name.
>
>I am not a female writer.


You don't see any value in setting the world an example of what a woman is capable of should she set her mind to it? I reckon it would be fantastic to come across a hard, no-nonsense book written by a woman. Not only would it be inspiring in itself, but it would surely open up the horizons of future
generations of women.

David Quinn
 

***

 

Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 00:51:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Marsha Faizi <mfaizi@rbnet.com>
Subject: Definitive Sadness and The Woman Wall


David,

Thank you for your insight into my writing and for your complete and dutiful disagreement.

The definition of the sadness of which I wrote has nothing to do with any minor unhappiness from lack of gratification or satisfaction of want. Those things are quite small and unworthy of all but the most cursory attention. A death or a loss here and there are inherent particles of life. I can only barely conceive of the word, ego. It is something that has little weight on anything except as I choose to make it bear weight or have substance. My wants and desires are substantial as I determine. It has been many years since I wept for myself or for anyone or anything.

The sadness of knowing beyond doubt is not a melancholy nor is it depression because those things are for singularly determined reason; for marked borders; for set parameters of mental traverse. Melancholy and depression are mental impasse for last reason held; blind end thrust unto blind end.

When the ego vanishes, all feelings of sadness and happiness also vanish, you wrote.

Happiness, as preference over sadness, is always false. How could I be happy? How could I find happiness? Such a thing is bound over to false suffering and is limited. As a human being, I will not suffer limits.

Sadness that is knowledge beyond doubt has no such falseness of suffering; is not part of the common fortuitous misery; that which is bought and sold; the combative symbiosis of master and slave; the mutualism of the masculine and the feminine; or the purposeful dualistic multiples of this power to
that power, compounded into mad display for fantastic reason--intentional infliction of poverty and hunger and pestilence and war--that is the rip in the fabric of what was once the integrity of the human creature.

We feel sad when our egos are not getting the happiness and pleasure it feels it deserves, you wrote.

I am not this small person, David. You will have to speak up if you expect me to understand you and to respond. I have no melancholic concern with happiness or pleasure. If I want pleasure, I can have it and in ample portion and often. I have a large capacity for pleasure beyond all reason.

Sadness boils down to self pity, you wrote.

How I love pity! I love it precisely because I have so little of it--either for myself or for anything. Pity is what adulterers and romantics call love. Pity is for those who are deserving of it--the minions and masses, those who participate in tightly consigned societal circles of blame; those who can be provoked to function, either through fear of loss or want of favor. There exists, in civilized entity, bottom feeders who are sustained by pity and thrive on the pitiable misery that is the business of life.

Blessed are the meek, indeed! They have inherited the earth and are entitled to all manner of pity.

I did not create myself for pity.

Some people become attached to their sadness--romantic poets, for example, you wrote.

Anais Nin was an adroit writer. She could make you taste and see and touch through words but nothing beyond that--sensations with only tiny droplets of substance; enough to tantalize but mere drizzle and froth glazed over nothing; for entertainment, melodrama, emptiness; self-effacing vainglorious pity; emotive delusion; effeminate bartering and the peculiar hope for promise always: Words for words set in tiny linguistic casements; tightly sealed; and, though delicate in their juxtaposition, unremarkable beyond the telling.

Philosophically advanced people can experience sadness when their egos are no longer satisfied by their wisdom and can no longer find relief in mindless distractions, you wrote. All sources of happiness are suddenly denied them, you wrote.

Then, they could not have been much given to wisdom if they came upon this denial suddenly and expressly. There must have been expectations. If they were philosophically advanced, what was the nature of their advancement? Scholarly advancement? The fearful academic path to tenured proof?
Enlightened professorship? Redemptive hope through Kant and Spinoza? The rickety stairway to Heaven by theory and argument; agreement and disagreement; belief and disbelief; love and hate; abstraction by opposition; right and wrong; moral value?

Or the cute philosophically advanced path of an innocent Buddha, the fool who stumbles over his own feet and mumbles a few words in the form of parable and lesson in stumbling but who offers nothing beyond trust?

How could one have wisdom and feel disappointment and sadness for reason of disappointment?

All this is still in the realm of ignorance, you wrote.

My contention precisely: One abandons hope who enters the realm of certain truth that is mental resolve; relinquishes attachment to expectation of happiness. Sadness is the inverse of ego and has no want of gratification. Such sadness is profound and complete in its magnitude of silence; its virginal white noise; its breadth of frequency and alternation that cannot be contained or lessened.

One finds joy in sadness for there is much to see and do: Infinite possibility. I prefer the consciouness of sadness to the happiness of certain death: Limits.

In my opinion, it was the burden of consciousness which undid him (Nietzsche), you wrote. There was a lot of impurity in Nietzsche; a significant part of him hated philosophy, you wrote.

Consciousness is a burden. It could be tempting to forego it; to abandon self; to become the petty wife of a petty man for petty reason; to sell oneself in exchange for heavy armor; to advance one's facade in progressive agreement to fail. The trade of life for certain death can be easily accomplished.

Consciousness is a burden but it is my selection always. There is sadness in that. One does not change one's habits or one's skin without some measure of remorse for what is left behind; some longing that is a permanent part of certain truth that is resolve of self.

If there was impurity in Nietzsche, then, I love him for that. If he overreached himself, then, I love him for that also. What finer memorial could there be for a man than for others to say of him, "He overreached himself and surpassed himself and was surpassed again?"

I thank God for such impurity.

Certainly, I shall overreach myself and I will succumb. For what else could I live? Continuance?

I reckon that he hated philosophy. He had ample reason for hating it.

You don't see any value in setting the world an example of what a woman is capable of should she set her mind to it, you wrote.

I see little value in that attempt. I have some experience: There are things that no one will accept from a woman or will accept only as part of deception or only after some condition is set. I have been told these things by writers of some renown and I have had direct experience of it.

This is the woman wall; the wall that is erected as soon as one reveals her gender and it is put up by women as well as men, if not more so by women; for, at this historical junction, woman, in facade, has far more to lose by revelation. Indeed, in this century, man has already been stripped bare.

Is this baring detriment or is it a point to his valor? What of the valor of woman? What does she hide? Will she not reveal her treasure? I would love to see it.

I can penetrate barriers and draw forth thought and feeling from man so long as he has retained some raw seed of individuality; some small shard of his humanity; some narrow sliver of intelligence, the creature.

Woman erects her wall and disappears behind it. I think that she is afraid of pure thought and reason because she fears that thought and reason will undermine her femininity, lessen her force of cunning as a woman; demean her propensity for caring; for nurturing. She fears dishonor in disrobing, even mentally; or she especially fears a mental baring far more than she fears physical nakedness. She fears violence even when none is forthcoming. She fears her own softness and cannot accept softness from a man. She expects to be victim of masculinity and she intends it; perpetuates the myth of her helplessness. She raises herself in law and in politics and, yet, lowers herself to a level of weakness that reviles her quite formidible strengths. She seriously doubts her capacity and seeks protection when none is needed. Woman is quite capable of protecting herself and others.

It has been my experience with women that they will not approach thought or contemplation. It has been my experience that they become afraid or disgusted or otherwise repulsed. Women have always been appalled by what some of them have referred to as my bitterness and negativity which I do not see as bitterness or negativity--in the usual sense--at all. Even when I have made effort at politeness and employed every manner of gentility, I have offended women and it has not been my desire to do so.

It is also true that women are in controlling positions in publishing. How can one hope for reward from those whom one has offended?

Frankly, I do not believe that any publisher in his/her right mind would ever publish what I write. Harvard University Press considered closely one book that I wrote for a man but, in the end, they decided against it. Self publishing requires much money and the marketing obstacles of such a book
are so that it is all but impossible to ever see it on the shelves of stores. I have had that experience.

I may yet write a book of thought beyond the feminine.

Imagine a world where no mask over one's humanity is necessary and no wall of gender need ever be erected.

What of your sadness, David? What is your purpose? What do you proclaim? What happiness have you relinquished? What have you bartered? What have you sold? How solemn and how deep is your capacity for creative thought beyond what has been thought and published as thought?

Tell me of your walls: I love intricate exteriors.

I dare you.

Faizi
 

***

 

Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 04:41:24 +1000
From: David Quinn <dquinn@pemail.net>
Subject: re Definitive Sadness and The Woman Wall


Faizi wrote:

>When the ego vanishes, all feelings of sadness and happiness also vanish,
>you wrote.
>
>Happiness, as preference over sadness, is always false. How could I be
>happy? How could I find happiness? Such a thing is bound over to false
>suffering and is limited. As a human being, I will not suffer limits.


Sadness, as preference over happiness, is as equally false. Why suffer the limits of sadness?


>We feel sad when our egos are not getting the happiness and pleasure it
>feels it deserves, you wrote.
>
>I am not this small person, David. You will have to speak up if you expect
>me to understand you and to respond. I have no melancholic concern with
>happiness or pleasure. If I want pleasure, I can have it and in ample
>portion and often. I have a large capacity for pleasure beyond all reason.


I realize that you refer to a more profound kind of sadness than ordinary grief or melancholy, but even so, it still remains true that *all* sadness, no matter what its form, is created by an attachment to happiness. Any feeling of displeasure or dissatisfaction or weightiness or lack is ultimately caused by a craving for satisfaction of some kind. The two always go together.


>Some people become attached to their sadness--romantic poets, for example,
>you wrote.
>
>Anais Nin was an adroit writer. She could make you taste and see and touch
>through words but nothing beyond that--sensations with only tiny droplets of
>substance; enough to tantalize but mere drizzle and froth glazed over
>nothing; for entertainment, melodrama, emptiness; self-effacing vainglorious
>pity; emotive delusion; effeminate bartering and the peculiar hope for
>promise always: Words for words set in tiny linguistic casements; tightly
>sealed; and, though delicate in their juxtaposition, unremarkable beyond the
>telling.


Yes, she embodied the ugliness of romanticism to a very high degree. And she wasn't even being romantic about the Truth! That would at least be something. Alas, all her yearnings were sexual in nature.


>Philosophically advanced people can experience sadness when their egos are
>no longer satisfied by their wisdom and can no longer find relief in
>mindless distractions, you wrote. All sources of happiness are suddenly
>denied them, you wrote.
>
>Then, they could not have been much given to wisdom if they came upon this
>denial suddenly and expressly. There must have been expectations. If they
>were philosophically advanced, what was the nature of their advancement?
>Scholarly advancement? The fearful academic path to tenured proof?
>Enlightened professorship? Redemptive hope through Kant and Spinoza? The
>rickety stairway to Heaven by theory and argument; agreement and
>disagreement; belief and disbelief; love and hate; abstraction by
>opposition; right and wrong; moral value?


I certainly don't equate wisdom with scholarship. No, I had something altogether different in mind.

Imagine a man who falls so deeply in love with a woman such that he cannot bear to be apart from her and that he perceives everything else in the world to be colourless and sterile in comparison to her. What would happen if this woman suddenly spurned this man's attentions and left him for another
man? His despair would be total. This is similar to what a lover of wisdom experiences when his ego is no longer capable of gaining pleasure from wisdom, and indeed begins to experience real suffering instead. It's as if wisdom had suddenly turned traitor and became his enemy instead.

This is always a critical time for the philosopher. It provides a powerful test of how much he truly loves wisdom. Fortunate is he who has planted deep spiritual roots!

Fortunate is he who is able to move on to a higher relationship with Truth, one that is not based on happiness or sadness.


>All this is still in the realm of ignorance, you wrote.
>
>My contention precisely: One abandons hope who enters the realm of certain
>truth that is mental resolve; relinquishes attachment to expectation of
>happiness. Sadness is the inverse of ego and has no want of gratification.
>Such sadness is profound and complete in its magnitude of silence; its
>virginal white noise; its breadth of frequency and alternation that cannot
>be contained or lessened.


Sadness is not a word I would use to describe the experience of Truth. It is so infinitely removed from either happiness or sadness. I reckon that the sadness you experience is the result of subconscious yearnings for happiness which still linger inside you. The yearning for happiness goes to the very core of our psyches and takes many, many years of conscious work to eliminate altogether.

Because your yearning for happiness is subconscious and ever-present, there need not be any obvious external event to trigger off an experience of sadness. Perhaps just a single half-formed thought about the emptiness of all things is enough to generate a 'mysterious' feeling of sadness.


>If there was impurity in Nietzsche, then, I love him for that. If he
>overreached himself, then, I love him for that also. What finer memorial
>could there be for a man than for others to say of him, "He overreached
>himself and surpassed himself and was surpassed again?"
>
>I thank God for such impurity.


Would you have loved him if he had succeeded in becoming totally pure?


>Certainly, I shall overreach myself and I will succumb. For what else could
>I live? Continuance?
>
>I reckon that he hated philosophy. He had ample reason for hating it.


By "philosophy" I meant the purity of cultivating wisdom. Nietzsche's impurity was his significant attachment to ignorance, madness, emotional pleasure, unconsciousness, etc - that is to say, mediocrity.


>You don't see any value in setting the world an example of what a woman is
>capable of should she set her mind to it, you wrote.
>
>I see little value in that attempt. I have some experience: There are things
>that no one will accept from a woman or will accept only as part of
>deception or only after some condition is set. I have been told these things
>by writers of some renown and I have had direct experience of it.


What of it? Whether it be within a man or a woman, genius is obstructed in every moment of the day by society. Yet it is never fazed or distracted from what it has set out to do. It accepts the fact that genius and mediocrity will always clash. It is only natural they should do so.


>This is the woman wall; the wall that is erected as soon as one reveals her
>gender and it is put up by women as well as men, if not more so by women;
>for, at this historical junction, woman, in facade, has far more to lose by
>revelation. Indeed, in this century, man has already been stripped bare.
>
>Is this baring detriment or is it a point to his valor? What of the valor of
>woman? What does she hide? Will she not reveal her treasure? I would love to
>see it.


She has no treasure to her hide. Behind all her glitter, woman is an emptiness which goes nowhere. They are sphinxes without secrets, as Oscar Wilde put it.


>It is also true that women are in controlling positions in publishing. How
>can one hope for reward from those whom one has offended?


This is a valid point. Kevin Solway's "Poison for the Heart" is a spiritual and philosophical masterpiece yet the chances of him getting it published before he dies are almost nil.


>Imagine a world where no mask over one's humanity is necessary and no wall
>of gender need ever be erected.


I reckon that women will have to be eliminated altogether before that will happen.


>What of your sadness, David?

My sadness is that the human race, of which I'm supposed to be a part, is so incredibly deluded. My sadness is that I am too weak to change the situation in any significant way. My sadness is that I continue to get sad over these things.


>What is your purpose? What do you proclaim?

The wisdom of the infinite.


>What happiness have you relinquished?

The warmth of the human race.


>What have you bartered? What have you sold?

A woman's soft embrace. A man's congratulatory hand.


>How solemn and how deep is your capacity for creative thought beyond
>what has been thought and published as thought?


Sometimes I think thoughts that no one else, to my knowledge, has ever thought before. At other times, I shamelessly borrow the ideas of others and make them my own.


>Tell me of your walls: I love intricate exteriors.

Are you flirting with me, Marsha?


David Quinn

 

***

 

Date: Sun, 4 Jan 1998 15:16:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Marsha Faizi <mfaizi@rbnet.com>
Subject: Self Annihilation and The Permanence of Grief


Thank God that we disagree! What could be the merit of agreement? Self annihilation?

Sadness, as preference over happiness, is as equally false. Why suffer the limits of sadness, you wrote.

I suffer no limits whatsoever. I have no bounds. I suffer nothing.

All sadness, no matter what its form, is created from an attachment to happiness. Any feeling of displeasure or dissatisfaction or weightiness or lack is caused by a craving for satisfaction of some kind. The two always go together, you wrote.

I lack for nothing. I have everything. Pleasure is always at my disposal. Sadness is not for some lack.

As if wisdom had suddenly turned traitor and become his enemy instead, you wrote. The lover of wisdom experiences total despair when his ego is no longer capable of gaining pleasure from wisdom, you wrote.

Then, this lover of wisdom is a fool and his wisdom is false and he will procure his suffering until he comes to see the falseness of both his wisdom and his suffering for it.

A test of how he truly loves wisdom, you wrote.

A test for ladies, no doubt. No resolute lover of wisdom could ever require such a test. For a human being of substance, every breath he draws is a test of strength and valor and courage. You pass a certain point, David, and every moment is of consequence and purpose. The fight of a losing battle is beside the point. You fight it because, to turn from it, means destruction. If you struggle unto your death, then, at least, it is your death and your will to it. I will die by my own hand just as I have created myself by my own hand. There is no merciful God of Creation. I am my own being and my own death.

A test that must be withstood by the planting of firm spiritual roots, you wrote.

The roots that I have planted are made from my own flesh and blood. I have paid dearly for the fleshy tentacles that reach from my mind clear down to my bones. There is no division in me. My mind and my body are the same. It is a continuum of one without recurrence.

Can you dare call me a woman?

I may be a madman but it is a madness with reason! It is madness that has worth beyond moral value that is deceit. I deceive no one because I am not deceived. I do not allow that in my life.

Life without delusion is a tough way to live. I have no placation. I want life no other way. I will have it no other way.

A higher relationship with Truth, you wrote.

What separation of Truth? I have no relationship with Truth because Truth is not separate from me. I am not a thing divided.

The sadness that you experience is the result of subconscious yearnings for happiness which still linger inside you...many, many years of conscious work to eliminate altogether, you wrote.

What subconscious yearnings? There is no split in me. I have but one mind and it is exacting. What I want, I have.

The sadness is outside and of its own accord. Sadness is the force of life itself; the business of life; its inequities; its pretense to justice; its brittle fallibility that is made to be infallible; its setting of law for
profit; its robbery of the human essence that is substance by the pitting of human against human for reason of political and religious significance; its atonement and call to repentance; its hatred in the pale guise of love and compassion; its duty as a call to arms; its reduction of man and woman to chattel for remembrance of love; its production of human refuse mired in fear and made aloof from itself by calculated rage; its cunning want for superior position; rats in a narrow cage, their minds poisoned from induced phantasms and implants, who besiege one another and kill for mastery that is the seal on their bondage; who consume themselves and are themselves consumed for completion of the common good.

Have you no faith in progress? Have you no faith in an agreement process enacted for the progression of time? What of your individuality? How do you atone for that? How are you made to atone? With every breath you take?

Even the air that we breathe is not ours to breathe freely. It bears a price.

Sadness is not some small feeling. Not mere feeling at all. It is the permanence of grief that is the deliberate and intended infliction of sadness upon the human creatures of this world; upon themselves by themselves.

Enlightenment, you say. One cannot be carried away on some pink cloud of bliss without beholding the sadness that is the legacy of a world turned upon itself; the asp that swallows its own tail; the recurrence of consumption that could be stopped; the will to ignorance; self annihilation in present disregard; the measure of hope when there is no hope.

In the sense that you define enlightenment, I dare say that it would require a fool to become that. I will not turn my back on humanity for pretense of a higher ground. There is no higher ground. I am flesh and blood and descendant of a creature from a primordial swamp. I find no shame in that. I seek nothing better than that for there is none better than that. If there was God, I would seek him. I have no need of tenuous, perishable belief. What turns gently on an axis, I am free to see and touch and unfold. There
are no barriers to quell me.

I just read from Kierkegaard: "You may as well eliminate the cloister, for after all it is only a direct expression of spirituality and as such but a vain endeavor to express it in direct terms. It makes no difference whether you use gold, or silver or paper money; but he who does not spend a farthing, but is counterfeit, he will comprehend me. He to whom every direct expression is but a fraud, he and he only is safeguarded better than if he lived in a cloister cell--he will be hermit even if he travelled in an omnibus day and night."

Affirmation comes from the dead. The living undead offer nothing, for they are too close to death. Living is wasted upon the living. The dead and dying come closest to life for they are at its pinnacle or beyond.

Half-formed thoughts, you wrote.

Half-formed, indeed! Show me your wholeness.

Mysterious feeling of sadness, you wrote.

There is no mystery. Everything is discernible and plain.

Could I have loved Nietzsche had he succeeded in becoming totally pure, you
wrote.

No. I would detest his purity as hypocrisy.

His significant attachment to ignorance, madness, emotional pleasure, unconsciousness, etc.--that is to say, mediocrity, you wrote.

You could not have read his work. Read it and understand its inversions. Then, tell me of his mediocrity. He was not speaking to the purely undead.

Genius is obstructed in every moment of the day by society. Yet it is never fazed or distracted from what it has set out to do. It accepts the fact that mediocrity and genius will always clash. It is only natural that they should do so, you wrote.

I am not fazed or distracted. I have but one purpose in life. Punch holes in all that I write. I will acknowledge my own hypocrisy and I will hold my ground on what is not.

Behind all her glitter, woman is an emptiness which goes nowhere; sphinxes without secrets, you wrote.

Damn dazzling glitter though, ain't it? One could become lost in glitter alone. To hell with the mystery. Imagine having that much beauty at your disposal for use. Would you not use it? There are women who live in palaces and with more than one man at their beck and call.

Solway's Poison For The Heart is a philosophical masterpiece...the chances of it being published before he dies are almost nil, you wrote.

The chances of it being published even after his death are almost nil.

My sadness is that the human race is so incredibly deluded, you wrote.

They delude themselves, David. It is their selection; the common will to power that is ignorance.

My sadness is that I am too weak to change the situation in any significant way, you wrote.

There is no weakness in you. You have only to get past your beliefs, as have we all only to get past our beliefs. You can effect change and you do, even when people protest it. Often, the more they protest, the more profound are the changes. A losing battle, yes, but would you not fight it?

My sadness is that I continue to get sad over these things, you wrote.

How else could you know that you are alive?

The wisdom of the infinite, you wrote.

Then, continue and see.

Relinquished the warmth of the human race, you wrote.

Yes, some but not all.

A woman's soft embrace, you wrote. A man's congratulatory hand.

You forfeit much but you could not stand even yourself if you succumbed, for
even one red cent.

Are you flirting with me, Marsha, you wrote.

Of course, I flirt; though it is not a girl's flirtation for mere sexual seduction. My flirtation is timeless and without want for end.

Tell me of your infinite that you say you proclaim. I want to know it. How must it be to live there? What of expansion? What is the infinite beyond all that has been said before? I will not go down the paths previously trodden, the ways of this word for that and that thought for this and the placing of one against another in an endless game of tit for tat.

Tell me of the wilderness, the desert, the sea and the sky. Tell me what you see and know.

Faizi

 

***

 

Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 04:10:19 +1000
From: David Quinn <dquinn@pemail.net>
Subject: re: Self Annihilation and The Permanence of Grief


I have to confess that, as I get older, I'm finding it increasingly more difficult to get motivated to talk to women in any capacity at all. I mean, what is the point?

Marsha Faizi wrote:

>Sadness, as preference over happiness, is as equally false. Why suffer the
>limits of sadness, you wrote.
>
>I suffer no limits whatsoever. I have no bounds. I suffer nothing.
>
>All sadness, no matter what its form, is created from an attachment to
>happiness. Any feeling of displeasure or dissatisfaction or weightiness or
>lack is caused by a craving for satisfaction of some kind. The two always go
>together, you wrote.
>
>I lack for nothing. I have everything. Pleasure is always at my disposal.
>Sadness is not for some lack.


I understand that you have a couple of children. I assume that if one of them were to be kidnapped and tortured, you wouldn't experience any feelings of lack?
 

>Can you dare call me a woman?

I've thought about this carefully over the past couple of weeks and have come to the conclusion that you're extremely womanly. You may not be as womanly as most other women, but you're still very womanly nonetheless.

Your writing, for example, is filled with bluff and bluster, gushing tones, girlish bravado, emotional knee-jerking, romantic sentimentalism, all wrapped up with an overly-high opinion of yourself. If this is not womanliness, then I don't know what is.

As further evidence of my point, I ask the list-members to consider the following two passages from Faizi's last post to me:

>A higher relationship with Truth, you wrote.
>
>What separation of Truth? I have no relationship with Truth because Truth is
>not separate from me. I am not a thing divided.

and:

>The sadness that you experience is the result of subconscious yearnings for
>happiness which still linger inside you...many, many years of conscious work
>to eliminate altogether, you wrote.
>
>What subconscious yearnings? There is no split in me. I have but one mind
>and it is exacting. What I want, I have.
>
>The sadness is outside and of its own accord. Sadness is the force of life
>itself; the business of life; its inequities; its pretense to justice; its
>brittle fallibility that is made to be infallible; its setting of law for
>profit; its robbery of the human essence that is substance by the pitting of
>human against human for reason of political and religious significance; its
>atonement and call to repentance; its hatred in the pale guise of love and
>compassion; its duty as a call to arms; its reduction of man and woman to
>chattel for remembrance of love; its production of human refuse mired in
>fear and made aloof from itself by calculated rage; its cunning want for
>superior position; rats in a narrow cage, their minds poisoned from induced
>phantasms and implants, who besiege one another and kill for mastery that is
>the seal on their bondage; who consume themselves and are themselves
>consumed for completion of the common good.


I doubt that a man could hold these two strands of thought for any length of time without going totally insane. A woman, however, finds it the easiest thing in the world to do.


>Could I have loved Nietzsche had he succeeded in becoming totally pure, you
>wrote.
>
>No. I would detest his purity as hypocrisy.


If purity is hypocrisy, then it is not really purity.

To me, Nietzsche really only expressed purity in "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" and even then only in the first half of it. His other books were tainted by the impurities of his own cleverness, his desire to be entertaining, his wish to gain approval in the eyes of academics, his lengthy and irrelevant passages on politics and art, and an underlying aimlessness in general.  "Zarathustra" manages to transcend all of this and is his only work of greatness.

David Quinn

 

***

 

Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 01:53:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Marsha Faizi <mfaizi@rbnet.com>
Subject: Re: re: Self Annihilation and The Permanence of Grief


Jealousy is the most paltry of feminine traits and you exhibit it well, even to the point of asking the list to chastise me for originality of thought. I reckon that they will do it.

I have no compunction about that. I know my purpose well. I understand well group incrimination of anyone who dares to disagree with its agreement to not think. Groups hate individuality because it is threatening to the cohesion of a group. You may tear me down completely and, yet, I will stand.

You pass judgment on me and you judge yourself. 

You thought on my writing for weeks. Yet, you cannot match it.

You mention my children and the possibility that one of them could find themselves tortured and how I could feel some lack at his/her demise.

I was married to a Pakistani Muslim extremist. The possibility of my children suffering at his hands was never far from my mind. I always knew that this could happen. There was always the threat. I withstood it and he died.

I have been nurse to hundreds of dying children. I know well what it means to watch a child die. Children have died in my arms. I know well the loss that the mothers and fathers felt because I felt it for them also as I am capable of feeling--as a man, as a woman. Things progress to a point that gender makes no difference. How many children have you watched die before they had a chance to live? Hundreds? One? The death of any human being at all? I have worked as a paid witness to death. I reckon that I have seen a thousand deaths.

Death is everything and it is nothing. The mystery of death is life itself.

I know well the brevity of life. I love my children because, through my body, I gave them life. But my children are not me. I have purpose beyond them. I can live beyond the loss of them.

I will lose them anyway. Children are meant to be lost. They grow and they vanish. That is their beauty, just like flowers of the field.

I reckon that you are a cunning bitch, David. You use my womanhood to devalue me while I adore manhood completely. I have no gender. Gender is a useless badge.

If you were a man, you could have no fear of answering my questions.

More later.

I promise.

As far as I can see, you give me nothing for stimulation of thought. I could have expected more from a woman.

Faizi
 


On Being Creative

 

Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 22:37:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Marsha Faizi <mfaizi@rbnet.com>
Subject: Re: Significance


I cannot imagine not being creative. Creativity is something that is an inherent part of me. I cannot imagine having a mind that is not like that. I cannot imagine being a whole self without that. Without that segment of my mind which is creation, I cannot imagine myself as more than this very dim thing; this very dull vessel of chemicals and metal and water. Indeed, there would be nothing there--more than material--beyond mere symbols that have no meaning and no sense of a larger self. There is a gargantuan split between parallel worlds--one side that is the world of the known and the other a world that, for a lack of self, I would, in my selection of half life, refuse to know from fear or for the pretense of untested reason but is the world that is ours to create if we are willing.

I am my own creator. There is no existence beyond that.

The painter, perched between parallel worlds, said, "This must be something what a good insanity is like."

Indeed. Why settle for a world made by others for others when there are the endless possibilities of self moved by creation?

A=A until it does not. The proof of it makes no difference.

Faizi

 

***

 

Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 20:02:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Marsha Faizi <mfaizi@rbnet.com>
Subject: Re: re: How many of you are geniuses?


I had a letter today from a friend of mine who is a painter. In that one letter, he touches on things that no one who has made a claim to genius thus far on this list has ever come close. His thought is not wisdom but a push into himself to a place where all things are possible. We speak of enlightenment but we have no idea of the depth of our minds until we probe--what things live there and what riches we hold there--images beyond imagination and time. It is truly amazing all that we have at our fingertips
but fail to see and use; and fail miserably merely for the want of our falseness.

Faizi
 

***

 

Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 11:02:40 +1000
From: David Quinn <dquinn@pemail.net>
Subject: Significance


Marsha Faizi wrote:

>I had a letter today from a friend of mine who is a painter. In that one
>letter, he touches on things that no one who has made a claim to genius thus
>far on this list has ever come close. His thought is not wisdom but a push
>into himself to a place where all things are possible.


Perhaps you could elaborate on this. I, for one, would like to hear some more details of what your friend did that was so significant.

David Quinn

 

***

 

Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:16:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Marsha Faizi <mfaizi@rbnet.com>
Subject: Re: Significance

 David Quinn wrote:

> Faizi:
>>I had a letter today from a friend of mine who is a painter. In that one
>>letter, he touches on things that no one who has made a claim to genius thus
>>far on this list has ever come close. His thought is not wisdom but a push
>>into himself to a place where all things are possible.
>
>Perhaps you could elaborate on this. I, for one, would like to hear some
>more details of what your friend did that was so significant.
>
>
>David Quinn


Creativity. Something ya'll don't want to understand. Too illogical.

And, it is not so significant. It is as insignificant as A=A but less boring.

 

***

 

Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 04:19:17 +1000
From: David Quinn <dquinn@pemail.net>
Subject: re: Significance

Marsha Faizi wrote:

>>MF:
>>>I had a letter today from a friend of mine who is a painter. In that one
>>>letter, he touches on things that no one who has made a claim to genius thus
>>>far on this list has ever come close. His thought is not wisdom but a push
>>>into himself to a place where all things are possible.
>>
>DQ:
>>Perhaps you could elaborate on this. I, for one, would like to hear some
>>more details of what your friend did that was so significant.
>
MF:
>Creativity. Something ya'll don't want to understand. Too illogical.
>And, it is not so significant. It is as insignificant as A=A but less boring.


"Creativity" is a pretty vague term, as it means different things to different people. There are many women, for example, who believe that giving birth is an act of creative genius, whereas I think it is probably one of the most uncreative acts that a human could possibly perform.

I'd like to know what creativity means to you personally, Marsha. I'm sure you have something specific in mind. Do you value creativity just for its own sake? Or do you use it as a tool for more important purposes?

You'll have to forgive my scepticism, but I honestly can't think of a painter in all of history who has actually benefited the human race in any substantial way.

>And, it is not so significant. It is as insignificant as A=A but less boring.

It's all a matter of taste. I'm usually bored senseless with meaningless creativity (i.e. creativity with no conscious purpose behind it), which means there exists very little art in the world that I can enjoy.

It strikes me that you value a certain state of mind that is flexible, intuitive, insightful, and "alive" - something akin to what a person experiences after smoking a joint or swallowing a tab of acid. After all,
these drugs usually produce a state of "good insanity". So how does your "creativity" differ from a drug-induced state?

David Quinn
 

***

 

Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 20:30:08 -0500 (EST)
From: Marsha Faizi <mfaizi@rbnet.com>
Subject: Re: re: Significance

David Quinn wrote:

>Creativity is a pretty vague term, as it means different things to
>different people. There are many women, for example, who believe that
>giving birth is an act of creative genius, whereas I think it is probably
>one of the most uncreative acts that a human could possibly perform.


Creativity means nothing to people incapable of creation of more than nothing. Some people make little things and others say of them that they are creative. On a more academic and practiced level, the fine artist paints as he has been taught to paint or paints in such a manner as has been inferred to him that he should paint by those moneyed dictators of fashion who form an artistic elite. You paint as they see fit or your paintings will not be sold. One who agrees to paint as others prescribe are commercial artists.
Commerce may foster invention and serve a purpose in that way but commercial success does not support what I call creativity--a mental process that leads down a path to the original self of the human creature--that part of the human being that is immovable and certain and absolute.

I do hope that the people who subscribe to this list are above the base level of actually believing that childbirth has anything to do with creativity. That is pretty base, David. It does not require a ton of introspection to find out, with certainty, that giving birth is the death of the human self. Marriage and family have been encouraged by cultures precisely because child-rearing kills creative thought. I see no government that truly could want a population composed of individuals capable of thought and, here, by thought, I mean the mental processes that, through clear resolve, preserve individual will at all costs.

Birth is death. Instantly.

So, no, giving birth is certainly not what I mean by creation. Creation is the bringing of self into life from death. We are all stillborn. Life is not a given merely because we have been born. Life is a clear choice.

>I'd like to know what creativity means to you personally, Marsha. I'm sure
>you have something specific in mind. Do you value creativity just for its
>own sake? Or do you use it as a tool for more important purposes?


Creativity is creation of self. It is the molding of one's self into the being that one wills. Will, as a creative act, is far more certain than intention. Intention is inexact and flexible and subject to caprice. Will is resolve and cannot be changed, no matter the changes that occur around it daily.

To create one's self as a complete being unto itself that cannot be bent to the intentions of others is an act of supreme creation.

Creation is the tool that brings us to life.

>You'll have to forgive my scepticism, but I honestly can't think of a
>painter in all of history who has actually benefited the human race in any
>substantial way.


Art, as we know it, is beside the point. With the exception of one or two paintings, I could no more find stimulating a walk through a gallery than I can an endless discussion of A=A or .9999999 being anything at all. Commercial art is as meaningless as fashion. Painting, like thought itself, is a mental process or it is nothing at all.

Individual thinkers have given benefit to the human race. Unfortunately,
though we pay lip service to their thought, few of us, in turn, are willing
to do the work to think originally on our own without inhibition and without
petty influence.

I said: It is as insignificant as A=A but less boring.

>It's all a matter of taste. I'm usually bored senseless with meaningless
>creativity (i.e. creativity with no conscious purpose behind it), which
>means there exists very little art in the world that I can enjoy.


There is very little of art in the world that I can enjoy either and I thank God that I am not so small and trifling that I could enjoy it. I thank God that I can discern and understand beyond fashion and taste and silliness, not to mention complete boredom.

I do understand color and I do understand form and I understand visual stimulus as a trigger to the process of thought. But, generally, I have no need to look at pictures because I have enough pictures in my own mind.

>It strikes me that you value a certain state of mind that is flexible,
>intuitive, insightful, and "alive" - something akin to what a person
>experiences after smoking a joint or swallowing a tab of acid. After all,
>these drugs usually produce a state of "good insanity". So how does your
>"creativity" differ from a drug-induced state?


I do not believe in the distortion of the senses. How can one see if one's vision is distorted? A good insanity is always at our disposal for use and I see that as benefit. Insanity, in this sense, does not mean that one is in an altered state of mind. I see what we all agree to be most sane as an altered state of reality. We have allowed our cultures to distort our senses and to give precedence of one or two senses over the others. A good insanity occurs when the senses are clear and unimpeded by social graces or drugs or by what is good or evil or what is ocnsidered to be sane or insane.

It strikes you that I must value a certain state of mind that is flexible, intuitive, insightful and alive. It always does strike you that I must be something quite smarmy and threatening; some sickening and maddening wad of femininity that can be explained safely away by intellectual insult or gouging.

Gender means nothing to me, David. Intellectual capacity for growth that is change has meaning for me. In that certainty, I have no need to insult.

Was your mother a prostitute? Mine was.

Change is certain. Certain truth does not change.

LSD and marijuana do not induce a state of good insanity. Drugs distort and, in the end, no matter the spectacle of feeling or vision or sound, one will find that the drug has lied as it was intended to lie.

Drugs are condoned in our culture. Crime is condoned. The ability to self create is not condoned and is less and less tolerated every day. Corporation is fast becoming government. I know that the days of the human creature are numbered. Those few left who care about it are being fazed out; finalized.

Unless people can learn to think for themselves and with all human cantankerousness, we will be replaced. We are being replaced.

Creative thought is important.

Faizi
 

***

 

Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 01:04:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Marsha Faizi <mfaizi@rbnet.com>
Subject: RE: Significance


What I call creativity is a mental process that is the same as thought. Some people think visually or in tonal qualities or other sensorial forms. I tend to think visually and through texture most of the time. I no longer paint or draw but my thought is still visual and that is evident in most of what I write--my ranting and raving that I cannot see as ranting and raving but that is offensive to those tender minions who cannot bear human strength because it daunts them; so timid are they of their own humanity. Such soft creatures must hide themselves in shells for protection from the harm of a possible coming to life and, while hiding, they will find that they will yet have to face the light of day in due time but they do put it off for as long as possible--until the very minute of their death--and, then, it is too late. Such pitiable creatures are deserving of pity and they certainly have mine.

Completely incapable of original thought, they are incapable of creation of themselves and, thus, incapable of creation of a world where there could be no such thing as hate. The closer one comes to his true nature, the less possibility there is of hate or of any malicious thought or action or feeling.

That is what I mean by creation or creativity, Leo. One creates--through questioning and self doubt--an image of himself that is his true or original self; the self stripped of all social or cultural barriers; the self that is completely barren of all implanted bigotry; the self that is without gender; the self that can surpass ego; the self that can have no need to embellish that which can need no embellishment; the human being that can stand alone without fear; the human being who can withstand the wrath of others who follow the paths of group imposition and pack mentality.

Creation is the innate ability of the human creature to see with his eyes and to hear with his ears and to feel with his touch of things and to taste with his tongue and to perceive smell through his nose. When the senses are open--not distorted by chemical or television or imposed morality or other impediment--one can begin to open to his own humanity and to create oneself from the ashes and dust at his disposal for use.

Self creation brings us to mental resolve and the want to express that; to speak one's mind despite opposition. Crossing over some mental impasse, one comes to a point in resolve that fear is vanquished. Once fear is vanquished and conquered; once fear is made small enough to become one's friend, there
are no limits to what one wishes to accomplish. Anything is possible because there is endless possibility. One has a clear view; a clear field of vision.

Because I realize that there are those who have fear to reckon with, I do hasten to add that none of this means that you jump quickly to gather an army to conquer the world. Not at all and, actually, much to the contrary. One who has truly conquered his fear has no need of the world, much less a wicked desire to conquer it or to inflict pain on others.

Creation is endless possibility. It is the world of the infinite. Creation is the place where one journeys when all else has failed; when there is no hope; when bounty has been depleted; when one has no mental choice but to see falseness. Stripped of vanity and pretense to good, one comes to infinite possibility unimpeded by social pressure and restriction.

I confess that it does bring me pain that the human being is self deluded and destructive of his true nature. It does bring me pain that, in a world of infinite possibility, we choose the most base measures for value. We deliberately select misery in lieu of paradise.

We can have heaven and select much less.

The other day, I went to a place on the creek that is most spectacular in its unspoiled beauty. The water is very clear there and forceful; so clear that the stones can be easily seen on the creek bottom, each stone outlined in light and shadow; each stone set against another and another in endless array of color and nuance of color--faded oranges and umbers and grays and blues and blacks and greens. The smack of winter in the air set down upon the water and made it rapid and vigorous in its flow; its descent over
boulders and falls in its midst.

I liked to see the water like this--powerful in its winter fullness from snow and ice and somewhat frenzied in its fullness, making its own way and cutting its own path; pushing itself out of its banks and taking with it all in its way. There were a few trees uprooted and the creek bank was eroded and torn.

I put my hands in the water and the temperature was surprisingly warm. If I had not had to go back to work, I would have walked into it up to my thighs. I would have swam all the way out to the large rock in the middle and I would not have regretted the cold because I know that I can be part of that large strength. I belong there as much as the stones and the boulders and rocks.

I do not belong to the world of commerce and duty. Yet, it was to commerce and duty that I had to return without the swim in winter water.

In a world of infinite possibility, our choices are often small and meager but our selection always; our disposition to failure. Yet, the day may come when I will make that winter swim and not look back.

Creation is an awakening to life, and a resistance to mental death.

How can you say that you are not creative in a world of infinite possibility? There is much to see and do.

Faizi
 


The Masculine Woman 

 

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 12:51:43 +1000
From: David Quinn <dquinn@pemail.net>
Subject: The scream


Dan Rowden and Marsha Faizi wrote:

>DR:
>>Define for me the content of this "intrinsic human will".
>
MF:
>The content of intrinsic or inherent human will is the original voice of the
>human being; its first voice that has nothing to do with reason implants
>encountered in parental instruction or school. The first voice of the human
>being is nonverbal. It has no pretense. It is a scream.

There are certain types of women who have a relatively large masculine side to them which is in constant conflict with their larger, more deep-rooted feminine sides. Marsha Faizi is such an example.

The masculine side values individuality, independence, domination, courage and will to consciousness, while the feminine side values connectedness with others, submission, freedom from pain and suffering, and will to unconsciousness. Naturally, the two sides are incompatible with one another and therefore always locked together in war.

Because Marsha has a large feminine component to her, her masculine side has to put in a tremendous amount of effort towards dominating it and keeping it quiet.  For the feminine side of her *hates* individuality and independence. It is terrified of the vulnerability, responsibility and risk of exposure involved in being an existing individual, and deeply yearns to dissolve itself in the loving arms of other people.

This explains why Marsha is so forceful with her use of words and is overly-passionate, even hysterical, in her mode of expression. Her feminine side is forever *screaming* with fear and anxiety at the doings of her masculine side. Her feminine side is like a scared child being dragged against its will to some place deeply terrifying, while her masculine side is grim and focused with the effort of trying to win this relentless tug-o-war.

It also explains why Marsha is so vehemently against anything that even hints of religious wisdom and consistently rejects terms like "enlightenment", "spirituality", "Truth", and so on. For any move on her part to face these kinds of issues in a direct and conscious manner would only inflict great pain to her feminine side and dramatically increase its screaming. Marsha already has enough on her hands without the stakes being raised in this way.

Because of this, Marsha subconsciously limits her horizons. She is no longer able to conceive of life beyond the current battle between her masculine and feminine sides. It is a battle that totally consumes her. And as a result, she has come to believe that she is engaged in the mother of all battles, and that her feminine screaming and her masculine will to overcome the screaming is the most authentic activity possible in life.

In my own case, the battle occurs on a much smaller scale. I have a feminine side to me, but it is relatively small, and therefore my endeavour to dominate it and slowly eliminate it requires far less effort. The screams of my feminine side are weaker and less influential in regards my overall behaviour, which enables me conceive of a mode of existence in which the feminine screaming has disappeared altogether.

This is not to say the war that Marsha is involved in is not an important one. On the contrary, it is literally a matter of life and death for her, and I wish her all the very best in it. I'm a bit concerned, however, that she has lost sight of the bigger picture and the purpose of the entire war in the first place.

David Quinn
 

***

 

Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 08:43:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Marsha Faizi <mfaizi@rbnet.com>
Subject: Re: The scream

Dear David,

I am deeply honored to see an entire post devoted to my thought. This has been a long time coming and, God knows, I have, through my relentless hammering, earned such honor.

It has been some time since you and I have done battle directly, David. I reckon you need a challenge. In addition to that need, I also recognize your need to thoroughly eliminate me--easier to eliminate than to come to terms and it would be much easier for you, emotionally and intellectually, to think that you have sufficiently down-sized me so that you can have no reason whatsoever to doubt yourself.

As you know, this cannot be accomplished. I can topple you on the basis of our similarities alone. You are an easy target and I love you for it.

I will write to you, in detail, shortly.

Thanks,
Faizi
 

***

 

Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 23:24:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Marsha Faizi <mfaizi@rbnet.com>
Subject: Re: The scream


David Quinn wrote:

>There are certain types of women who have a relatively large masculine side
>to them which is in constant conflict with their larger, more deep-rooted
>feminine sides. Marsha Faizi is such an example.

It is an honor to serve as your example, David. Thank you. I am, indeed, a certain type of woman: A type that is not so easily reckoned with; a type that will not be placated; a type that will not be mollified; a type that has sufficient intellect at her disposal for use far beyond any launching of a petty defense against a petty offense.

However, despite your obvious want to please me, I see no recourse except to tell you: Suck on your own words, bitch.

You use what you refer to as my femininity as a shield to cover yourself; even as a defense against what you might be tempted to think of me, if you ever dared to let yourself.

>The masculine side values individuality, independence, domination, courage
>and will to consciousness,


I act on these things every single day of my life. I am dominating all that I encounter. There is no one who can dominate me, neither by profession nor by position. I will not walk down someone else's well trod path. I take initiative. I have no need to fear anyone. I am starting to dominate through my voiced opinions in situations from which many would shrink. My serenity in doing so is startling. I have no compunction at all.

People are blind to what is most obvious. I use their blindness to my advantage and for the advantage of those whom I will defend and for whom I advocate--the truly weak and disadvantaged. I will get them what they need by virtue of my will that they shall have it.

>while the feminine side values connectedness with
>others,


Do you feel left out, David?

>submission,

Can you imagine a being enclosed in a womanly body who will submit to nothing? Can you even imagine what that would entail? A woman who will prompt and initiate? Who will not either control or be controlled?  Who will dominate by force of her personality and ability to create and who will accept nothing from anyone more than what she can herself conceive?

>freedom from pain and suffering,

You will have to give me more credit than that, David. I certainly do not have freedom from pain and suffering through any connection with any others. I was not born to that sort of easy life. The few I select for my connections benefit from me. They benefit because I am not some cardboard prop of a woman. There is substance and I use that substance as I see fit. I push people through their delusions, the same that I have been pushed and as I push myself.

I have freedom of pain and suffering as I choose it.

>and will to unconsciousness.

Willingness to make love to another human being is not a will to unconsciousness. It is a will to open oneself as it is a will to open another. To completely--and without discrimination--close oneself off from the varied segments of life is a true will to unconsciousness. One denies and ignores. One shuts himself down. One dwindles and fades. One shrinks.

I like the sensation of touch and I will not ignore that fact. I can have it and I will have it. I will have it with no reason for having it, other than my desire for it that is without attachment.

>Naturally, the two sides are incompatible with one
>another and therefore always locked together in war.


There is no split in me. I am more negative than positive; more silver than gold; more moonlight than sunlight; more figuratively abstract than geometrically solid; more western than eastern and, yet, as fitting to the east as the west; more demanding than I am accommodating.

There are no two sides to me. All of my sides are one and the same.  Femininity and masculinity as one. I am complete. There is no mystery; no illusion.

>Because Marsha has a large feminine component to her,

It makes you feel better to say so. I understand that. It is the nature of your own feminine side which you greatly fear and with ample and specific reason to fear.

My large feminine components are my face and my breasts; my ovaries; my uterus; my vagina; my tongue; my fingers; my lips; my skin; my hips; my waist; my softness; my touch. What is masculine in me has no war with these features. My masculinity adores my breasts; adores my skin; my lips; my tongue. My masculinity seeks the masculine. I love the body of a man as I love my own body. I do not touch with my physical attributes only. I love with my mind. I touch with my mind; a matter of what is masculine to what is masculine as much as it is a matter of what is feminine to what is feminine or what is female to male. I love the body of a man as it touches my femininity as I touch his masculinity. Inwardly, my masculinity touches his femininity. Ultimately, I touch him to the quick of his innermost reason; his most secret self; his spiritual essence.

How like a woman is a man when he is opened up and lays out his vulnerability. A woman is never so deeply penetrated as a man when he has been touched enough, physically and mentally, to open. He is like a frail flower with which one must use care not to rend or hurt. Man, much more than woman, is quite tender and slim. How fragile is his ego and his need. How easily broken is his sense of self; his value; his ideal.

A woman, through the strength of her conviction or the weight of her moral burden, can break him easily. All that she must do is to plant a seed of doubt; a question of his validity; his sadness in duty; his sense of right and wrong; his will to comply with her through want to please her; his desire that is not strength but weakness; his virtue that is not hollow but serious in its need for isolation and responsibility.

Many men are isolated and responsible while their women are protected and dependent. Such a pity. Such an abuse of power. Being ever conscious and vigilant of the masculine and feminine, I would never hurt a creature as vulnerable to hurt as a man. I know the stern reprobation of my femininity
and I do not wield it. 

Most human beings are largely feminine, i.e., spiritually impotent.

Men need and want but they are not willing to need and want because their needs and wants are elusive. Women are more static. They will take and take and never look back. A man is constantly measuring and testing. He must because his needs are great. Yet, he ultimately settles for little and as a matter of conscience. From a matter of guilt and duty, he will give over to his considerable conscience that which he knows will benefit him most. Obviously, he pays a heavy price for this.

My body may be wholly feminine but my mind is masculine to masculine. I pay a price for that.

>her masculine side has
>to put in a tremendous amount of effort towards dominating it and keeping it
>quiet.


Such effort is no longer necessary. I have made every effort and the return on my effort has been more than bountiful. I have no need in me to keep anything quiet. I am not quiet. Such quiet would be, for me, an impossibility.

>For the feminine side of her *hates* individuality and independence.

There is nothing in me that can hate individuality and independence. How could I hate what I impart? There is no split in me, either of reason or emotion. The whole of me reveres individuality and independence.

>It is terrified of the vulnerability,

I am quite aware of masculine vulnerability and masculine fear. It may sadden me from time to time but I do well understand it. It saddens me when I see the suffering of the creature when its subliminal segment will not give up his bondage to duty and sacrifice to duty.

When there is nothing to hide, there is no fear. That is ultimate vulnerability. I have nothing to hide, David.

>responsibility

I am completely responsible. There is no one else who can assume responsibility for me. Impossible. Too large a task. I am responsible for many others.

>and risk of exposure involved in being an existing individual,

You would truly be amazed at the risk of exposure I undertake on a daily basis. Trust me: I am an existing human being. One does wonder at the near complete unconsciousness of others who seem to exist as these black holes. I do not express this as arrogance but as pure astonishment and awe.

>and deeply yearns to dissolve itself in the loving arms of other people.

I have a definite sexuality that has nothing to do with any dissolving of anything. Two does not, by a long shot, become one but, rather, the one becomes two. Sex, that is mature and conscious, is expansive.

>This explains why Marsha is so forceful with her use of words

Nothing explains why Marsha is so forceful with her use of words. What is it, David, about forcefulness that is intimidating to you? Are you not also forceful with words? You and I are not dissimilar in some respects except that I will come to terms with my sexuality while you declare yourself above it. How can you be above that which you have little experience? Where is your own vulnerability?

>and is overly-passionate, even hysterical, in her mode of expression.

Overly passionate: Are you certain of that? Since when are you not an admirer of zealotry when it suits your purpose?

Hysteria seems to be my calling card on this list. I will not deny what has been called my hysteria. I shall, certainly, become more hysterical. That is my clear challenge.

Your squeamishness prevents you from clear understanding. Your fear pushes you toward what you consider to be enlightenment and spirituality. It is easy to point the finger at me and to declare me hysterical. Tell me how refusal is better than hysteria.

>Her feminine side is forever *screaming* with fear and anxiety at the doings of
>her masculine side.

I have nerves of steel or, more precisely, I can say that I am practically nerve-less. I have lived my life so exposed to things that my nerves have been long ago ripped from me. I rather drag them behind--loosened synapses, aural spaces, neurons and all--blowing in the breezes. I am free of anxiety and fear because I have known all anxiety and fear. I listen well to the screams of others--their anxieties and their burdens. I understand and I magnify those things for them so that they might see and hear and touch them as well--to reckon with fear that is in the realm of what is unknown. That is my gift and my desire.

>Her feminine side is like a scared child being dragged
>against its will to some place deeply terrifying,


I have no terror. What could be terror is joy in mental place that has no limits. Is not the image of a scared child being dragged against its will to some place deeply terrifying a pitiable image? I would not do that to myself. I have no need to do that to myself. I am not my own taskmaster. I am quite beyond that sort of self abuse and self pity.

A place that is deeply terrifying is the place that I purposely seek. Otherwise, I would be complacent. What you name as deeply terrifying does not provoke fear in me. Terror provokes need to know; need to understand; need to witness.

>while her masculine side is grim and focused with the effort of trying to win this relentless
>tug-o-war.


Grim and focused. How can one who is hysterical ever be grim and focused? Even for one who is said to be battling her femininity, this would be impossible. You credit me, David.

>It also explains why Marsha is so vehemently against anything that even
>hints of religious wisdom and consistently rejects terms like
>"enlightenment", "spirituality", "Truth", and so on.


And will continue to reject them without wavering. On this one point you are very wrong, David, and I will fight you tooth and nail on this.

Religion is entirely the realm of the feminine. I do not see how the terms religious and wisdom can ever be congruous. Psychology is also inside the realm of the feminine.

Philosophy, even in its present decline, is entirely the realm of the masculine. How is it that you give yourself over to religious thought that is feminine? How can you confuse original thought with that which is its antithesis? Religious and philosophical consciousness are not the same. Ask Kierkegaard, whose work is often and deliberately taken to be on the side of religion.

Shardrol proselytizes religion on this list while she yet denies that such is her intention. Yet, I see that she is allowed to expound about Buddhism and there is little objection, either to her feminine wiliness or to the purposeful intent of her religion. Does one need only to profess the faith of the Buddhist?

One who adheres to any tenet of any religion is no more than a hand puppet for a group of believers. I cannot see what religion could have to do with enlightenment unless it is enlightenment outlined in strict measures for group favor and intention.

>For any move on her
>part to face these kinds of issues in a direct and conscious manner would
>only inflict great pain to her feminine side and dramtically increase its
>screaming.


This does not apply to me. You may apply it to those religious converts who have pretense to philosophy. I face everything directly and consciously. The religiosity that you favor is unconscious and indirect and quite cunning. You speak to chastise me for my religious failure that cannot be failure while you use historical tenets of religion as your crutch.

What is more spiritual than a path to self knowledge without use of supporting devices? Without support of principles to sanctify it? Could I need my conscious thought made sanctionable by a deity; by a shallow reference to religious, not philosophical, legacy--no matter its pretense to good; to right; to betterment? And do not tell me of Buddhism nor Tantric this or that. It is no different than Christianity or Islam except that it is even more surreptitious in its relentless pursuit of practitioners and believers; with its facade of superior intellect and sophisticated promise for highbrow and tasteful enlightenment as a kind of palatable redemption for those who would deem themselves intellectually superior to Christianity but who will still seek its brand of group favor within the safe strictures of another group's sanctions.

Buddhism sells fear as surely as the rest. I have no stomach for it.

There is no such thing as redemption. It is false promise. Redemption is now. Enlightenment is now. How can there be any hesitation? Therefore, I do not seek it nor do I seek to uncover it nor to reveal it. I will neither buy it nor sell it. I know its price and I know its exaction of my will; of this being inside me which I deliver of my own volition without benefit of instruction or method beyond nature.

My loyalty is to philosophy and religion be damned.

>Marsha already has enough on her hands without the stakes being
>raised in this way.


Raise the stakes. I need the challenge. Are you up to it? Can you drop this enlightenment crap and meet me head on; word for word; measure for measure; false ideation for direct assult on your ego?

>Because of this,

Indeed, because of this! When are you going to open your eyes to the false values that you adopt and borrow from religion--that effeminate and controlling device--the agreeable place of the very feminine and altered state of mind that you give adamant service to abhor? If you have no original thought of your own, then, what is there to your masculinity? What is there to your self beside this split that you know is the parallel of the feminine and the masculine; the infinite and the finite; the will to be and the will that has no place in time?

>Marsha subconsciously limits her horizons.

I subconsciously do nothing. My mind is one. I have persevered to the point that I have brought myself to that. Can you say the same from within your tight confine for tagged and labelled enlightenment? Enlightenment for blind end? Enlightenment that is spiritual impasse?

>She is no longer able to conceive of life beyond the current battle between her
>masculine and feminine sides.


I do realize that, if I was a man, it would be far easier for me to be taken seriously. There would be little question of my validity and method. That is a clear fact of life and I accept that. This is one of the reasons that I have always written for men--because I know that there are some things that cannot be accepted from a woman; that have been historically unacceptable from a woman and, certainly, unacceptable from a woman to other women. Yet, I know that my insistence will pay off. I am not some Jane Austen writing about timely manners nor even Ayn Rand disguising her mind within the contexts of fiction. I have no ploy and neither do I have precedent nor example.

>It is a battle that totally consumes her.
>And as a result, she has come to believe that she is engaged in the mother
>of all battles,


I have no need for such a belief. It is both stale and indifferent to what is at hand. The mother of all battles is the giving back to the human being that which has been robbed from him for centuries of reason pretense to reason that is no more than a vile misrepresentation and misuse of reason.

>and that her feminine screaming and her masculine will to
>overcome the screaming is the most authentic activity possible in life.


Feminine screaming and masculine will, precisely. What is it that enables this scream? What provokes it?

>In my own case, the battle occurs on a much smaller scale.

I can so imagine that.

>I have a feminine side to me, but it is relatively small,

Please, do not set off my sarcastic tongue, David. I am trying to be nice. Do you really want me to throttle you on this one? You know that I can.

>and therefore my endeavour to dominate it and slowly eliminate it requires far less effort.

Try touching it.

>The screams of my feminine side are weaker

Very weak.

>and less influential in regards my overall behaviour,

Well, no, I would say that your weaknesses influence you greatly and motivate you. Otherwise, you could have no need for me.

>which enables me to conceive of a mode of existence in which
>the feminine screaming has disappeared altogether.


Poor boy. You will destroy yourself. All that backed-up semen. Is there not some repository for it? Some holy dumping ground? Some consecrated slab of earth? Some temple?

>This is not to say the war that Marsha is involved in is not an important
>one.


All wars are important until they are not.

>On the contrary, it is literally a matter of life and death for her,
>and I wish her all the very best in it.


Well, yes, you do like me. I am not without my charms.

>I'm a bit concerned, however, that
>she has lost sight of the bigger picture and the purpose of the entire war
>in the first place.


Not in the least. I know my purpose quite well.

Surpass me. Invoke my wrath. Are you yet capable of it or have you become too religious?

Faizi

***

 

Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 14:38:04 +1000
From: David Quinn <dquinn@pemail.net>
Subject: Woolf, Thatcher, and Faizi

>Marsha:
>>Hysteria seems to be my calling card on this list. I will not deny what
>>has been called my hysteria. I shall, certainly, become more hysterical. That
>>is my clear challenge.
>
Bob Willis:
>And brother, what a challenge!
>
>I think I've figured out what this stuff is. It's "stream of consciousness"
>style. Basically it goes: mash your eyes shut, plug up your ears and let
>your jaws flap at 80 miles per hour about anything that enters that void you call
>your head.
>
>We've got a real Virginia Woolfe on our hands.


I think there is more to Marsha than that. She has connected with something profound in a way that Virginia Woolf never did. At the same time, Marsha hasn't yet allowed this profundity to really take a hold of her and propel her upwards out of the hellish battles that she consistently involves herself in.

I remember once reading what German Chancellor Kohl had to say about Margaret Thatcher. He said that it was very difficult to have a fruitful discussion with Thatcher because she would always dominate the discussion with monologues and would never let anyone else get a word in edgewise. Whenever he tried to put his own two cents worth in, she would immediately berate him for interrupting her.

I see this as a sign of weakness on Thatcher's part. Her masculine strength is so flimsy that she cannot allow anything to pass through her outer defenses and has to continually blast all perceived threats to kingdom come. For she knew subconsciously that if she just let one little thing past, then the damn walls could very well break and *everything* could swamp her completely. To my mind, Marsha operates in a similar vein.

For example, Marsha likes to insist that she is perfect, whole, undivided, non-delusional, and all the rest of it. This suggests to me that she is really very fragile underneath her hard-hitting persona and that if she were to so much as admit that she had just one little flaw then her entire world could very well come crashing down in a heap. Because of this, I believe that Marsha constantly exists in a state of denial.

A truly masculine, individual thinker doesn't behave in this way.   He has no outer defenses and is strong enough to accept the reality of his flaws and weaknesses. He possesses the tranquillity of Nature itself - calm, deep and immoveable. Nothing can ever really shake him for his roots are too firmly planted in eternity.

Marsha has an inkling of eternity, and this alone places her far above the common run of humanity. But she has yet to really establish herself in it. Because of this, she still seeks her identity by placing herself in opposition to the human race, rather than seeking it through an ever-developing relationship with Truth.

David Quinn
 

***

 

Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 00:21:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Marsha Faizi <mfaizi@rbnet.com>
Subject: Re: re: The scream [long] Part II


>There is nothing wrong with being at odds with humanity. After all, those
>magnificent qualities of genius, individuality and wisdom cannot arise
>without such a schism. But your words lack the serenity and power that
>comes with drinking deeply of the waters of wisdom.

Of course, my words are lacking. You would never acknowledge me. Acknowledgment of me would take away from you and your bead-game of this wisdom for that wisdom and the elusive quality of enlightenment. By your rules, it could never be said that I could drink deeply from the waters of wisdom. To admit that would be to admit that there is no blueprint to spiritual calm and, if such a thing existed, you cannot supply it. To acknowledge me would mean the end of an era for your list. Biologically, I am a woman. By token of my breasts and my vagina, you cannot heed my genius.
There is no precedent for female genius. The closest that you can come to that is a bleak and miniaturized comparison to Margaret Thatcher or to Virginia Wolfe.

You could assume that it could be easy to quell me on the fragile borders of my ego in the form of shame. I can say that I am shame-proof. I do not know shame. My ego cannot be bruised. I will not stop. You cannot stop me.

I offer no defense. I am offensive purely.

If genius and individuality cannot arise without a schism between an individual and his society and time, then, on what meager grounds do you fault me except that I am not in agreement with you; that I will not comply; that I do not defer to your values? Do you honestly believe that I could concur with all that you say or with anything that you purport to be truth? Did you honestly believe that there could be no schism between you and me except one based on your values alone? I base nothing of my thought on the values of others.

I do not require you nor anyone to define me. I am my own creation.

Defy me, David. You should. I am a most worthy opponent. Test me and challenge me all that you will. I could never leave you in want for more.

Faizi
 


Assorted Observations

 

On the Leap of Faith
 

Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 09:28:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Marsha Faizi <mfaizi@rbnet.com>


Someone said something about a leap of faith.

Tell me, please, what you know about a leap of faith.

A leap of faith is when one is willing to let go of all that he has believed and known and interpreted. A leap of faith is a journey through a fleshy wilderness on the way to coming face to face with oneself; with one's own anxieties and one's own placating reasons and pretenses. A leap of faith is the taking of a mental scalpel to one's own throat, holding it there against the carotid for the pressing of blood; ischemic release; liquid volume rising and falling in undulating rhythmic patterns until one knows, through sight and touch and sound, that one has breath and light and taste; is fully alive despite certain resistance to living; sensorily aware, despite one's instilled proclivity for the settling into grayness and living death; the half-life to which we succumb and for which we betray.

A leap of faith is the walking away from paralyzing self deception that is honor-bound and duty-bound. A leap of faith is the giving up, for all eternity, one's induced hope for reason that is not hope at all but falseness.

We are not born with faith for we need no faith. We are born impoverished and without want beyond need. Belief is introduction to disbelief. All is before us at every interval of our lives and there for our taking. Our failure to take the bounty of life is our disregard for life and our refusal of life. Except as we have forced and have been forced, we are false beings. Our failure to exist is our refusal to create.

A leap of faith is a thrust of self into being. It is containment of want and desire against all odds. It is the taking of poison for warmth. A leap of faith is a gamble always but a gamble with the oddsmaker that is one's own intrinsic self, the being that is humbled by reason but enabled by its own sensitivity to eternity that is truth, unblemished and untarnished. A leap of faith goes against one's teachings and lessons. A leap of faith is a tumble into the unknown. It is the single risk that is worth the trouble--if only for the leap--that moment in midair when we know that we are somewhere in flight between heaven and earth and fire and ice; time and timelessness; history and nothing at all; the moment of seeing and touching and knowing beyond all knowledge; for simple, solitary pleasure; for silence; for entreaty into complete silence; for compelling darkness beyond all ritual of meaning.

A leap of faith is the loss of composure. It is the proof of faith that is the shattering of faith and proof beyond reason.

Faizi

 

On Knowing the Self

Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 23:30:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Marsha Faizi <mfaizi@rbnet.com>


I cannot pull self out of a paper bag or suitcase and say, "Here it is. This is it." Since it is not something that can be defined in concrete terms or envisioned or transported, I will explain what I mean when I use the word.

Self is that part of the human being that is not always apparent or, indeed, as we approach the beginning of another century of time, is seldom apparent. Yet, it is this thing that is left to us when nothing else is left. It is most apparent when we are near death. The more fragile the body becomes, the more evident is this frail being called human. Bodies break down and crumble but there is this thing that stays and lasts and it is near death that most people must reckon with it. Near death, people make judgments that they could never have made while living in the world. They must make judgments to come to terms with themselves--to say that this is this or that is that. They cast aside. They relinquish. They discern.

In this way, it has been my observation that most people come to life only as they die. Only near death are most people able to relinquish the mask of life that they have worn since acquiring it in childhood as a kind of forced legacy.

It is far more interesting to me to do this before I am near my death. I do not want to go through life with blinders in place. I want to be aware and conscious through all phases. It is my desire to know the creature that lives inside me before my body begins to crumble. I feel fortunate that circumstances that I intended in my life have failed. The failure of circumstances served as a catalyst to awareness.

I cannot tell you that self is a thing as demonstrably solid as the formulaic A=A. Yet, I know that it is that solid even if it defies belief; is a logic so impenetrable that it defies common logic and proof. The human being does not require faith because, broken down past false promises and hope, it knows truth that requires no faith. Faith is falseness; a pretense to good. One who has broken himself down to self cannot be the bearer of such falseness.

A mind can be horribly deluded and insane. The being of the creature that is self cannot be deluded or insane. It lives beyond mind. Organically deranged or insane people often become quite lucid just before death as the mind and body crumble and the self becomes apparent.

Absolute truth is self--as solid as A=A. No doubt and no faith. Neither required. A reduction to zero.

>Does the knowledge of this Absolute truth give you knowledge of life and
>death, the nature of existence, the purpose of life, the nature of
>consciousness, what Jesus means by "God", what the Buddha means by
>"Nirvana", etc?


Knowledge of absolute truth does give me knowledge of life and death. I understand the connections of life and death and birth very well.

The nature of existence. I see little nature of existence because there is little of existence to see. I see a lot of splendid things in forest and water. What I see and touch surfaces in my surmise of things.

The purpose of life. Purpose is as we make it. I think that we could do a bit better than this world of commerce that we have made. A few people enjoy the pleasures that can be bought in the world while the rest live in squalor or want. That is how we insist on things. Life is a clear choice always. We are all precisely where we want to be.

The purpose of life for me is to open things.

The nature of consciousness. To see and understand by relinquishing--the coming to zero continuously. Breaking down to self.

What Jesus means by God; what Buddha means by Nirvana. The continuous breaking down to zero. The lifting of a veil or film. Consciousness beyond all imagination and just on the other side. The revelation of life that is beyond the common notions of it. Light. Reason. Regard. Full vision. Existence in an unaltered state of being. Realization that redemption is now.

Etc. There is always more. Break it down and sliver it and see what is revealed.

Thank you kindly.

Faizi
 

On the Feminine Enjoyment of Being Penetrated

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 00:10:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Marsha Faizi <mfaizi@rbnet.com>


Women do find great pleasure in having needles stuck into their veins. Since I do a lot of venipuncture, I am aware of this needle predilection in women. I keep my needles well hidden from view and I am aware of what particular women have an especially strong needle fetish so that I can warn the doctors against prescribing unnecessary tests and intramuscular medications just for the satisfaction of a woman's insatiable need to be penetrated in any fashion and by anything. All men have a healthy disdain of needles and prostate or colon examinations; sigmoidoscopies and the like. All women look forward with much passion and emotion to their Pap exams and the fine pleasure of a cold, metallic speculum up their vaginas and a gloved finger in their rectums. I have yet to see one whose pulse was not bounding from
the sheer anticipation of it.

Physically, I am a woman. My sexuality is that of a woman. I like sex immensely. I would like it as much as a man as I do as a woman. How is it reviling to be penetrated physically but all right to do the penetrating? If I was a lesbian and loved other women, would that make it all right because I would not be penetrated by a penis or is it that I am supposed to abstain from sex entirely because it is impure? I do not believe that it is necessary to deny the infinite delicacy of one's human feeling--and the willingness to express it--in order to become enlightened in the style of some monk who spends his life in contemplation of that which he refuses to experience. If that is the path to enlightenment, then, I could not want to reach that dullness of self denial. I would much prefer death. At least, in death, I could no longer repudiate myself.

Because a man is the one who does the physical penetrating does not mean that he is not mentally penetrated. Domination is not merely physical. I dominate and equal.

Faizi
 

On Love

Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 01:06:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Marsha Faizi <mfaizi@rbnet.com>


I am not an enlightened creature nor will I be enlightened. I have no such intention. My intention is to understand the worlds inside worlds that comprise the human mind and spirit. There are no rules for that. There is no superiority in that. There is no satisfaction of ego in that. There is no want for anything better in that. There is no religion in that; no social agenda to dictate what sex may do it and what sex may not. There is no rule that says, "Thou shalt not understand anything because you enjoy sex with
another human being and your sexual organ is a vagina and clitoris and not the Holy Penis of God-man."

If there was such a rule, can you honestly think that I could be ignorant enough to obey it? I do not have to obey rules. I have no fear whatsoever in taking risks. The act of making a sexual overture toward a man is nothing to me. I reckon that I can honestly say that I have put myself on an emotional and intellectual ledge more times than most people would ever be willing to ever put themselves. I have questioned myself and I have tested myself. I have no fear in confronting anything that I must confront because I can do that. I can do it because I have proven to myself that I can do it, time and time again.

What is woman? Do you honestly kid yourself that she is this facsimile of humanity made from plastic and foam? If so, then, you are as ignorant as any woman. Woman is not so different from man except as we have made her different; except as we have kept her different; encouraged her to be different in ways that are detrimental to herself. If woman is not worth knowing, then, how can the stars and the galaxies be worth knowing? If we will keep one sex down as cattle, then, what does that say of the other sex? Master and slave? I will not buy that bullshit! Not for one minute. The sex of man and woman is meant for the understanding of one another; meant to bring pleasure to one another; to enhance and to stimulate one another mentally and spiritually. The pairing of man and woman is not meant for perpetuation of a species, though that has been the unfortunate by-product of most sexual unions. We have been taught that babies are love. Babies are wonderful creatures within their limits but they have nothing whatsoever to do with love between a man and woman. Any numskull can reproduce and,
obviously, numskulls do so vigorously. That explains the proclivity for sustaining ignorance in our species.

The failure of our births is the failure of our realization of the fact of our immediate deaths. We are born dead. Life is an exacting of pure will. You either come to life by your own hand or you live the life of the living dead. You either live by rule or you live by will. To come to life by an act of will is to live on thin air. You thrive on nothing, the same as lichen and moss.

Fool that I certainly am, I have learned my lessons well. There is no reason on earth for any human being to love another. No reason at all. Yet, to love beyond all reason is the most satisfying thing that I have ever known. We look to Buddha and Jesus and Nietzsche and Kierkegaard and Paglia for enlightenment when the knowledge of paradise is always just there before us; in the peripheries of our vision, if we would only see it. In the darkened realm of possibility, anything is possible. How can we continue to ignore that fact? How can we so debase ourselves with games of ego and conjecture while we willfully ignore the light of day? When does the quest for truth and purity become a mere act of ego?

There is no reason for uncommon love; therefore, how could we not love? If we are so daunted by rule and convention and obeyance of legacy and history, can we ever hope to become what we are and what we were, in origin-- the most gentle creature on the face of the earth? How can we be so sensitive without intelligence?

Intelligence begins with the stirrings of the heart toward self realization. Realization of self that is the realization of self beyond atonement for gender has no parallel in either history or philosophy.

I have no fear of progress because I can see it before me and its truth is undeniable. While we so annihilate ourselves, why not love? In the end of things, is not love an act of heroism?

Sexual loving of another human being--beyond common reason, beyond the want of placation of the so called ego; beyond this world; beyond common feeling that is no more than anxiety and caprice--is a rare gift.

I am not so foolish as to ignore what is most obvious.

Faizi

 

On  the Act of Deferring

Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 00:23:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Marsha Faizi <mfaizi@rbnet.com>


How could anyone agree to defer to reason? How would one defer to reason? How could I defer to anything?

I do not bend the matter of my will for anything, neither for justice nor for morality nor for reason. I defer nothing.

Defer? And you pump yourselves up as men. Your claim to your sex is hypocrisy. You dishonor yourselves. You are content to prattle here on this list. You say nothing.

Who is unsuited to philosophic life? One who will defer his intrinsic will to placation for reason? Is one who is suited to philosophic life one who will chastise himself and weaken his will in favor of reason dictate?

You are cowardly. You speak of woman while, yet, you are women. You speak of women while you speak to defer. How dare you criticize that which you, yourselves, stoop to become!

You defer. I call such deference repentance. Repentance is the dominion of the creature who must crawl upon the earth on its belly. One who crawls is one who defers. He defers without question and he blames. He repents his own humanity. He consumes himself.

You call yourselves men and, yet, you defer to any command. You cannot stand. You are low to the ground and quite weak. Your venom is without potency. As soon as you defer to anything, you have lost the deadliness of your bite.

Defer? One who is suited to the philosophic life will defer to reason? Then, how do you expect to stand on your own two feet? Can you make a claim to any act of your own volition?

You are no more than cattle. You cannot think.

Before you decide who and who is not suited to a philosophic life, take a long hard look inside a mental mirror and do not merely stand there and look. An introspective plunge would, no doubt, do you both a world of good.

Faizi



Our Future Progress as a Species
 

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 01:23:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Marsha Faizi <mfaizi@rbnet.com>


We are approaching the end of the twentieth century. Is it not time that someone dared to bring western thought beyond Nietzsche? Nietzsche wrote in inversive threads. Much of his work was not meant to be taken literally or at face value. His work was provocative of the inner realms of the human being. It was not theoretical but abstract in reason and thought. Certainly, he knew what he was saying and the impact of his words but he could not have been as cognitive of the import of what he was saying--and how it would apply much more directly to the late twentieth century than to the late nineteenth century--than we who are living here now and who may have the clarity of purpose to perceive it.

Therefore, it is time to get beyond some things; to directly name some things for what they are and to examine the inversive nature of things; to become aware of the destruction of progress--not destruction of the earth, though that is a concern, but the destruction of the human being itself.

I do not expect your agreement with me. I am quite accustomed to being told that I am insane or psychotic or idiotic or stupid. I understand that and I respect that. However, my purpose is strong enough that I will not stop.

We can discuss Buddhism and enlightenment all that we want but none of it changes a thing. Unless people can understand fully the meaning of individuality, we will all be absorbed to become a part of the block in which one's individual reason is lost......

There are those who will tell me that the human animal is the most successful species that has ever walked the earth; that we have achieved much; that we have gained much in knowledge. This is so. Yet, by our inversive nature, our progress is the tool of our destruction.

No one likes to hear this. We would much rather think that things will go on as they have gone on for the past two thousand years; that we can yet afford to discuss, at length the differences between man and woman and the possibility of some sort of enlightenment and the dreadful logic of A=A and
Buddhism and all that. Yet, I can see that there will be an end to the false reason that has so grown in its scope that it has become absurd or fantastic; that we so carefully avoid discussing by the usual diversionary tactics that are no more than gratification of egos. I can gratify my ego by taking a look in a mirror. I see that as no more egotistical than flattering oneself that he is enlightened.