What aren't you doing?

Osho was well acquainted with Nietzsche; he was a professor of Philosophy.

Osho liked a lot of Nietzsche’s insights, his indomitable individualism and powerful will, but he saw Nietzsche as simply swapping a dead god for a dead mind.

Osho’s favourite western philosopher was Heraclitus though, here too, he said his insights only took him so far. Heraclitus focused on the river never being the same, whereas Osho was more interested in the ever changing man standing in the river.

PS: Do you like my new avatar?

What aren’t you doing?

What aren’t I doing?
This. (It’s the same guy)

I am not exactly an expert on Osho. I’ve read a book he wrote (“From Sex to Superconsciousness”), read bits of what he wrote here and there, and watched a bunch of videos of him speaking on YouTube. That’s it.

Nonetheless, I can say with confidence that he’s a Nietzschean, albeit not a proper one.

He was a mystic after all. You know what a mystic is? Someone who uses intuition in order to understand what is beyond the material.

Schopenhauer was a mystic, not Nietzsche.

Schopenhauer believed there is a metaphysical will underlying all existence. That’s the basis of every mysticism: the idea that there is some kind of force underlying, and uniting, all of the existence. (There are many other names for it, such as Being, Life Force, Mind Force, Elan Vital, Superconsciousness, God, Qi, Prana, Love, Sympathy, Stillness, Neutral Center, Magnetism, Electricity, Spirit, Essence, Energy, Divinity, and so on and so forth.)

Nietzsche rejected mysticism. He endorsed intuition, that is true, but not that of mystics. Indeed, his entire philosophy was based on this opposition to mysticism.

You can say that Osho was a “good hearted” Nietzschean, though he was not as “good hearted” as other New Age Nietzscheans are (e.g. he thought that homosexuality was a perversion, insisted on absolute birth control, and was pro euthanization of disabled and retarded children.)

Nietzsche wasn’t “bad hearted” as many people think, as you seem to think, but he wasn’t “good hearted” either.

Nietzsche was in essense a revival of the warrior spirit. Osho borrowed a lot from him, but he was opposed to this warrior spirit.

New Agers, in general, whether they are Nietzscheans or not, it should be obvious, are opposed to the warrior spirit.

Their understanding of Nietzsche is nothing but a fantasy that suits their expectations.

Osho speaks of “New Man”. This is supposed to be his Overman, but it isn’t really, since his Overman is literally a new man, i.e. a man without a history.

This is a recurring theme among New Agers, the idea that men should evolve into purely spiritual beings.

Osho endorsed the opposition to Christians, he recognized the problem of sexual repression, he evolved and offered various techniques of sexual meditation, he celebrated freedom, he understood that most people are running away from who they are, but he was nonetheless an ahistorical man.

This is evident from his celebration of the present moment, but most importantly, from his opposition to BOUNDARIES of any sort.

Family unit, marriage, nations . . . these should all disappear, apparently because they are too strict.

Boundaries are always set by who we were in the past. And when I say past I mean past beyond our individual past. I mean the collective past of our ancestors.

You do not become free by transcending the boundaries.

Osho simply transcended the boundaries, and of course, what this led him to is FANTASY LAND.

Whereas Nietzsche endorsed POWER, Osho endorsed LOVE.

Whereas Nietzsche endorsed HARSHNESS, Osho endorsed COMPASSION.

Whereas Nietzsche endorsed PAIN, Osho endorsed JOAH. (“Joah” is how Indians pronounce “joy”, apparently.)

They place too much emphasis on meditation.

Meditation is just a means. A means to decentrate. A means to decentrate in order to enhance concentration.

Osho recognized the problem of EXCESSIVE concentration that was plaguing the modern era (in Nietzsche’s terms, the excessive Apollonian tendency.)

The problem with excessive concentration is that, past a certain point, concentration becomes decentered. The original flow of energies becomes divided into multiple flows. The central flow continues, but the peripheral flows do not. This leads to repression – the accumulation of tension within the body.

What Osho and many other people figured out (among them the school of body psychotherapists that sprung out from the work of Wilhelm Reich) is that, by dissolving the energy flow, by decentering it, one can eliminate this tension.

The mistake they made is that they got addicted to this state.

Instead of decentering in order to gather together the divided flows, they simply decided to remain within, and to celebrate, this diluted state of energies.

They then gave it a name such as GOD.

And thus pacifists were born.

Osho denies being a pacifist, but only for the reason that pacifists are focusing on the future. He is a man who lives wholly inside the present.

So what did Osho do to resolve the excessive Apollonian tendency? To overthrow it with excessive Dionysian tendency.

Concentration must be immediately balanced with decentration. The shorter the periods between the two, the better. The longer, the worse.

Modern age is characterized as bipolar precisely for this: due to the two phases being considerably temporally separated.

One works hard from Monday to Friday in order to party hard from Friday to Sunday. That’s not natural.

There is no natural build up and release of energy.

There is, quite simply, no concentrated energy anymore. All energy is decentered, is decentering continually, until its complete disappearance.

In Baudrillard’s terms, we are living in an age of premature ejaculators.

Osho, thus, should be seen as a grown up spoiled child. He’s impressive precisely because he isn’t merely a spoiled child: he’s also a grown up to a large extent.

Here’s some “good hearted” interpretation of Nietzsche:
oshosearch.net/Convert/Articles_ … 00029.html

And here’s some shamanic “trance dance” ritual:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezPjpMS6OvY[/youtube]

Sorry, you must have a cock in your ear due to your apparent hearing impairment: Nietzsche was also sometimes a mystic.

Thats reassuring. A proper Nietzsche gets killed off at the getgo. Its why I turned so hostile to the ideas he advocated in Iraq.

I’m not under the delusion all his influence will die off, but his main mass has no choice but to, as it is inherently incompatible with long term survival, it is only the philosophy of the dying, of those trying to.

I doubt Osho’s unifying concept of live was that of the Stoics, in which community ethics is founded upon. Might be just as kinky as the earlier varients. I’m guessing Osho just inducted a bunch of tantric assumptions in and informed his top payers they were transcedentally aware.

Before you lecture me on your brilliant insights, read this short essay. I know a hell of a lot more than you think others can know, armed with your three Nietzsche commentaries as a instant expert. At least Sauwelios and Cezar tried to show they were broadly read.

asianreflection.com/superman.shtml

Says everything you said. Fucking amazing…

Not doing that either. Still. Im not eating anymore either. Had a great breakfast and paid the rent in 20’s. Im not not sweating. Its fucking hot here and I have no pool.

Osho was a drug addict too. And what’s a difference between a mystic and a drug addict? Many drug addicts claim to be mystics too.

meditation-handbook.50webs.com/osho2.html

Nietzsche is said to have used hashish, opium, and potassium bromide (nervous system sedative). Note, both of them had ‘valid medical reasons’ for using the drugs.

It didn’t end very well for both of them. Do you want to use them as your role models and do you want to end the same way?

youtube.com/watch?v=ub_a2t0ZfTs

I honestly haven’t come across sources I trust that list Nietzsche’s drug use… one guy here offered some evidence in the past (an example) but I don’t push that issue too much cause physicians were giving out all sorts of crazy addictive shit, even testing it on themselves to see if it was safe. INTJs do admittedly have health obsessions… it can get absurd and Nietzsche tried most everything to rid himself of his syphilius.

Ironically, when he was vat shit crazy storing his own poop and eating it, had they not taken it from him and had it molded over with penicillin, could of cured him.

I am not really too surprised this guy was drugged up though (osho). Half of India is hooked on something… they sing praise of Soma, so don’t really have qualms seeking a substitute. Doesn’t do much for them though… which is why the other half insist on renouncing drugs.

If you need the drugs for actual medical reasons, so be it, but if all the drug is, us a shortcut to a kind of cognition, your better off without it. Better to develop your own internal faculties on your own. I presume LSD and other drugs are very intense to experience, but also observe users more or less die off intellectually as a result. It isn’t good for the mind. A sober and well homed, disciplined mine is capable of doing much more. Drugs meant to provide shortcuts, like the Golden Dawn sometimes advocate, I’m against. You need to know how the modes of mind link up and organically function instead of just arriving through a pill… the end result is a shadow of how the mind should be experienced when it is functionally working. Most mystics with a philosophical bent east and west put in decades of effort in meditation and study to achieve new awareness. They did the hard work, learned the ins and outs of various aspects of one region of the mind before moving on to the next. The drug experience is highly unlikely to get you to a useable spot. People often say they are smarter, but just seem dumber.

Neurosyphilis was successfully treated with malaria induced fever therapy - that is, if one was strong enough to survive the course of treatment.

blogs.discovermagazine.com/bodyh … 6FHTY-cHIU

Ive no doubt Nietzsche used opiates with psychedelic effects, intended or not.

Einstein definitely used coke like all of them in that time, but recently I read that traces of LSD were also found.
The double Helix idea was conceived in an acid trip, and much more has been, but soon after the drug was outlawed. I suspect it being used behind closed doors intensively. More than a suspicion. It’s too useful.

independent.co.uk/news/scien … 79571.html

Read that article Pandora, method wasn’t first tested till 1918.

I suspect had he known if it, he would of tried it though.

And that article was shit FC. It doesn’t make the mind more complete, but overrides natural functions, mixing the processes. Someone having a involuntary trip years after last taking LSD seeing soap in the shower floating before them isn’t in possession of a more advanced Ming, but of a visual apraxia. Motor functions are going to be off in coordinating in such a state.

Our mental mechanisms didn’t evolve for LSD or window licking, they evolved within a framework of specific modes of mind that allow us to complete specific tasks.

When you start fucking with the divides between the various modes, which each use their own neurotransmitter signatures, your ability to process complex information between points A to the intended destination via that chart is thrown off. For starters, a trip fuvks the whole process up… and instead of focusing on completing a natural task, your focused on the trip itself.

Our ability to know where we begin and end, our individuality and relationship to our environment and others are equally crucial.

It may be of use someday in specific injections to a particular segment of a cranial nerve to treat a disorder, but as it us now, it is rotten, makes people less functional and less aware.

It goes back to the Proslogion of St. Anslem… He is developing a ontological definition of God between universal monism and specificity. On one had, God is literally anything and everything in Non-Duality, Indian advaita agreads with this… but on the other he is asserting specificalities of imagined states of the Godhead. His formulations for God are like Magnus Andersons’ for Nietzsche’s overman… The highest form that can be imagined.

Problem is, specificalities buck the oceanic feeling of LSD… LSD doesn’t result in a gull monism, but does break down how the Pythagorean table of opposites is navigated and ascertained, it is how we visualize and know something visually (the haptic aspect causes a paradox, you may know in one but not the other in coordination, meaning when you complete a challenging task you may express disbelief)

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_Opposites

finite, infinite
odd, even
one, many
right, left
rest, motion
straight, crooked
light, darkness
good, evil
square, oblong

How we construct dream images, or merely imagine, is deeply dependent upon this, in a succession (not that order though), to create imagery in a hypnogogic state. When you see a image in your head, your constructing it using aspects integrating those variables… They are variables for a fucking reason, as it is task specific. All our technology, all our senses, are set up to react within certain norms. You fuck with the norms without adapting the other hardware, you put that individual in a potentially less successful situation for successfully completing tasks, and for survival… Not to mention it complicates diagnosis later on in life. A simple sodium imbalance can cause issues parallel to dementia, but you add this to the mix, it can really throw a doctor off in diagnosis, especially when he can’t question the patient about their medical history as they can’t recall shit and turn more childlike. Latent symptoms can really fuck up etiological efforts.

More complete as in more self-referential? It’s dangerous to tinker with mind alteration techniques (whether it’s through psychotropic drugs or self-hypnosis). The danger is that you’d lack an objective/outside perception of what is really going on, unless you video tape yourself or keep a diary in order to keep perspective. Otherwise, you’d lose your self as you’d lose a solid reference point (the reality that was responsible for our evolutionary survival). It is one thing to tinker with an object’s brain, in a study, and completely another to tinker with your own.

Don’t you love how she put me on ignore then completely agrees with everything I say to you?

What’s this all about?

First time you’ve talked directly to me in years. You haven’t talked to me since I told Maia she should put gummy worms and ketchup in her eye sockets and pull them out in the food court of the mall. I was apparently the most evil chauvenist in the world. If I had no eyes, I would straight up do that. You got angry, stopped speaking to me. Just assumed I was on ignored after a while. I would say something, you would then say the exact same thing… And I figured it was because you couldn’t see.

Then I started to get worried, cause your a militant angry feminist, and if your saying everything I’m saying, and aren’t aware of it… that might mean I’m a angry, militant feminist too and never was aware if it, so I became worried that I was secretly gay or some shit. But then I thought… A lot of feminists are dykes, and dykes try to think like guys, so if she is thinking like a guy, then that means I’m not gay, just a stereotypical male. Then I got upset that I was stereotypical, cause it made me feel like I lost my uniqueness, and so started wearing large, oversized hats to stand out. Now, nobody is quite like me.

I just stopped taking you seriously after you took some information from the internet that I knew was not true in real life. But I couldn’t prove it because the official sources on the internet always trump the argument, right? So, to me, only about 10% of what you say now is worth taking seriously.
And a militant feminist dyke doesn’t even make sense to me. If a female tries to think and be like a male, how can she even be a feminist, or anti-male for that matter? That’s like being a militant misogynist gay.

Honestly, your posts are on a alien conspiracy site. Your accusing my of not being trustworthy? Your the star of a news update on one of the most untrustworthy sites on the net.

I can always (usually) source my information. You just look the damn shit up, it’s from books usually, or I give a wiki link.

Hope you like your alien origins attention.

He didn’t say everything I said. For example, he didn’t say he’s a fag, and I implicitly stated that Eastern philosophers are fags.

Sri Aurobindo wants to trick us into believing that his coming man is a balanced man and that the old man is an imbalanced man.

This is not true.

A very seductive proposition it is, but it is not true.

He is trying to portray himself as possessing both masculine energies (Titan, Asura, Power) and feminine energies (God, Deva, Love.) I do not doubt this to be true. But this does not mean that what he’s doing is right.

The relevant question is not whether he possesses both, but rather, which one he values more.

And I think it is pretty clear that he values feminine energies more than he values masculine energies. Thus, we can conclude, he’s a fag. A man-powered woman.

But the problem runs deeper than that.

The relevant question, the truly relevant question, is the question of fundamental dualism. What is the fundamental dualism of life? What is that which underlies our judgment of true and false, right and wrong, good and bad, beautiful and ugly?

That is the relevant question.

Sri Aurobindo does not really think that the opposition between masculine and feminine energies is the fundamental opposition. Rather, he thinks that the fundamental opposition is the one between balance and imbalance of the two energies.

Rather than man/woman he posits balance/imbalance as the fundamental dualism.

This is yet another name for a well known dualism between good/evil, benevolent/malevolent, light/dark, love/hate, spirit/matter, harmony/disharmony, peace/war and so on and so forth. It is also tightly related to pleasure/pain dualism.

Note that this is NOT the same dualism as that between man and woman.

The question is, are there any other tendencies in the universe other than masculine and feminine tendencies?

It breaks a man’s heart to realize that he’s been feminized, that he’s been distracted from his nature, that he no longer stands up to his very own standards of evaluation. Thus it becomes easier to deny that the fundamental dualism is the one between man and woman.

But man/woman is the fundamental dualism.

Man represents the active force of concentration. This is a force of gravitation that attracts, accumulates and generates form. Man is life-affirming.

Woman represents the re-active force of decentration. This is a force of radiation that repels, dissolves and eliminates form. Woman is life-denying.

There are many other names for the same dualism.

Tension/release. Pain/pleasure. Compession/expansion. Generation/radiation. Gravitation/levitation. Accumulation/dissipation. Centripetal/centrifugal. Past/present. Reality/fantasy. Phenomenon/noumenon. Will/instinct. Reason/emotion. Matter/void. Action/reaction. Motion/rest. Energy/lethargy. Speed/slowness. High frequency/low frequency. Power/weakness. Life/death.

It’s a very subtle point.

Osho speaks of the need to be “the center of the cyclone”. This is a seductive proposition. It is seductive because it appeals to our desire to be in control of ourselves. But what kind of center is he speaking of? What kind of spiralling motion is this center of? Does his center attract, and thus defines itself, or does it repel, and thus dilutes itself?

It’s not enough to simply be centered. The center must be a center of centripetal motion.

In the case of Osho, and other mystics, occultists, spiritualists and religious people, this center is a center of centrifugal motion.

These people, borrowing from Nietzsche’s work, pride themselves on having and promoting “power over themselves”, but do they really have this power?

And what do they really mean when they say “power over oneself”?

Their power, properly speaking, is merely a power of a drug addict. Fair enough, drug addicts do not have much power. But these people do. They have the power to drug themselves without using any kind of physical substance. That’s the extent of their power. Their power lies exclusively in meditation. In decentration. In relaxation. Other than that, they have no power.

Indeed, properly speaking, this is no “power over oneself”. They have no “power over themselves”. They are dying. What they have power over is pain.

It wouldn’t really be much of a problem if they were simply dying. The problem is that they are trying to live their death.

Decentration cannot possibly have a considerable effect on the external world. Unless, of course, it becomes concentrated.

Zombies aren’t exactly dead. They are death concentrated.

And there wouldn’t be a problem if they actually tried to resist their decentration through concentration. Indeed, this would be a positive. The problem is that their efforts at concentration never reach completion. Rather, their concentration is always decentered, and this decentration of concentration, it is never decentered.

Their image of the old man as lacking “power over himself” is a projection of their own lack of “power over themselves”.

They picture the old man as suffering from the same kind of decentered concentration that they do, but merely lacking in meditation.

Meditation merely softens their lack of self-control, it does not make it go away.

Nietzsche spoke of this extensively. He called it ressentiment. It’s when people start hating everything that is unlike them, especially that which is better than them.

There is no balancing to be had between concentration and decentration. Rather, one must concentrate, at all times, without interruption.

Sure, the strength of concentration can vary through time, but there must be a domination of concentration over decentration.

The positive aspect of decentration merely lies in its use to counter decentration, to decenter decentered concentration.

My recommendation of decentration is to men, because men are by their nature high on concentration, thus at risk of being decentered in a very rigid manner.

There really is no balancing.

The moment you start balancing is the moment you let decentration dominate concentration.

I will ceed to you the statement all eastern philosophers are fafs, largely because I said the same to George Feuerstein before he died… But the centering… Dude, come on.

If your a Nietzscheans, you abscribe to his egoist theory of how the body operates via reflexes, without aid necessarily of the mind. But he was also a psychologist, and made several statements that par with Osho here… as an INTJ (very regularly typed there, same as me and others… I’ve been called the poster child for Ni) have a great degree of control over our motor functions, the circuit that is the core for our personality type runs right through the right SMA in the mind.

When your like me, Jerome Card an, Aristotle you spend a big chunk of your time hiking and thinking. It is instinctive… we are always in thought, but the increased motor function makes it easier to think. Descartes (not a INTJ, but still sits in the right hemisphere, links up to the other side of that feedback loop, but NOT the SMA end, hence Cartesian Dualism- mind body seperation) thought going into the military as well would free up enoug time to think.

It doesnt free up time to “study” but does give you lots of solitary time to think. Most people go nuts in long guard shifts, not me. Why? I cam stand there, perform my functions robotically, and think simultaneously. External elements behave like extentions of my body. I am my enviroment. My movements are clunky due to a ideo-kenetic apraxia when recieving orders outside my mind from a superior, but like mozart, I can instantly formulate a plan, and set my body into much more elegant and better motion.

Why? All the SMAs do is process body, emotional, and intellectual information… Like the old time operators eho used to plug phones in.

John Boyd was a similar thinker, it is why I push his OODA Loop so much on this forum, some of our best human to AI sensor technology used in F-22s directky descend from his insights.

I made that diagram up to correct the other versions out on the net, noticed they got it backwards at points. Mine is also the most simplified.

In India, the most pure form of monism is the first green arrow on the chart… Pure perceiving, no judgment. What is, is, without the is.

From your extensive analysis, is just using a extended formulation of the Pythagorean table of opposites.

I brought up a few years back the further elaboration of this in Buddhism then Advaita Vedanta in the Uddhava Gita… Goes into much more detail. I put it in a post roughly labeled “Anal Tricks or Psychedelic Drugs”, but the troll named Zinnati got it banned (might still be around, just can’t post in it cause the mods are retards), but I asserted from a better knowledge base what your asserting in part… Did they link this stuff together through drug use like Soma and then later through extreme asceticism, causing neural transmitter extremes, such as the state experienced in starvation? I was dipping back into the older strata of Buddhist texts when the thread was rudely yanked from here by Zinnati’s nationalist ploy.

I pointed out, in the Srimad Bhagavatam (contains the Hamsa Gita, which us also the Uddhava Gita) the Hare Krishnans included in the original editions (but not the online editions, I searched it twice) a picture of a yogi sticking the heel of his foot up his ass, apparently stimulating the Vagus Nerve to kill him, or “transcend” as they put it. So hence my question, anal tricks or psychedelic drugs.

By default, given where the SMAs sit in the mind, the role they have in processing so many different kinds of information, they are the most expansive in terms of raw consciousness… We have the highest IQ ratings period. INTPs try to adjust it for language aptitude at times to get higher, but they generally flop most tests compared to other types. Not a very smart group in terms of raw intelligence.

Someone in my area, capable of “centering” doesn’t have much control over the thalamus. Sauwelios is the posterboy for that. It isn’t that I don’t have access to it, just isn’t a aspect I balance in the mind, coordinating. I mostly run it unconsciously.

They dont balance, but take the careful middle of the road, avoid all risks, take it easy and watch Downton Abbey aporoach to life. Ive seen many get involve easily in social scenes, use drugs, have causual sex, but it is always in the nothing in excess category, and bring rude and impulsive is the worst thing ever. They are all to the last voting for Hillary.

Im told the divisions between make and femake take place here. I can’t see it in my mind. If you notice on the wiki page for the pythagorean table of opposites, not all pythagoreans accepted Male-female as a opposite. Im aware they have a dualistic opposition, but it is a purely intellectual idea… I don’t look at random rocks and declare them Lingas… This stone has a male nature, this stone has a female nature. It is a fucking stone to me. I dont see sexyality in the forces, god is gender neutral… Only call God in the masculine because of English language traditions and indifference to change just because feminist demand me to. So I will call Mannequinn He, as It is insulying, but insist on cling Trixie He… Because that us what he us, I dont have this gender fluidity conscioys in my mind.

Stoucs tried to do this, calling all active forces in natute by their feminine, rewrote the greek gender use in language to do this… Like the song Inama Nushif… Forces of nature, or personal qualities of a female? It does sonething to me, feels beautiful, but I don’t see where at in the mind that occurs. If the others are right, the Thalamus makes a lot if sense, as it is my one cognitive blind spot it could hide in.

Saying you see male and female in everything is like telling a color blind person about colors. After a while, they will get colors exist, can see shades, use colorful expressions, but arent going to be walking around seeing colors.

I cant see sexual forces everywhere. I see it when animals are fucking, or in a pretty woman, or pornography… But everything isnt make and female to me. Englush only yses gender tense to refer to sex organs, and the sexual tense has to matxh to to the genitals in question. We can get artistic and call a ship “she” or name our gun Sally, but that is largely a joke, borrowed from literature.

If Osho was talking about centering the mind, he would of almost certainly been blind to any make-female duality in everything. I can’t see it in either the right or left when I switch. I only see it when it is obviously there. Sometimes in oddly misshapened tree trunks. I can see a cock on a statue. But other than the obvious, I’m not thinking wind is masculine and valley is feminine. I’m thinking in terms of geometric deposition of terrain types, colors, foilage, statistics for kinds of plants and animals, use of land, economy and culture, it’s history… It’s future. Never once have I stooped and said “masculine creek, feminine road”.

It just sounds foolish to me, and I’m prone to usually dismiss it as such… But I’m also read enough in psychology to know no personality type has absolute conscious control of the mind, and this aspect is missing.

Chances are, he just emphasized it so much because he couldn’t see it, but was so prevelant in the tantric thought of india. He theorized it, built up a scheme, found a willing audience for it, and focused of the emotive and motor skills of it, building up relationships. We tend to be very controlling in sex, dictating the nature of it, fantasy wise.

But so does a great many sex cuults, especially in Japan. I’m so far not seeing him step out of generic tantic philosophical assumptions Idia had since the Buddhist era at least. I’m not into it as a Christian, but you can tell by our numbers and birthrates, we fuck and have relationships too. The idea of spiritually bonding isn’t unknown to us, nor alien to christianity… We don’t emphasize it, but it is certainly present.

I’m okay with you not trusting me either. I still think you’re 90% full of shit.

Magnus, I don’t see how femininity is life denying.

I gave up some of the whole masculinity/femininity dichotomy myself, a bit tiring on the brain because there are so many glaring inconsistencies with it. Still, there are some things about it which are true, such as femininity being more loving and sensitive.