While David speaks of the male holding more deep rooted masculine qualities and briefly alluded to men being raised a certain way, are these masculine and feminine qualities inherent or environmentally developed…or both?
In achieving greatness, what is the purpose of achievement and how is this “greatness†not ego driven?
The initial purpose is happiness and security for the self, through self-empowerment.
It is always ego-driven at first.
But if the desire for greatness is maintained, and doesn't dwindle, then the ego ends up consuming itself through its own hunger for power through truth.
I thought you guys weren’t into self-hood…or is this a stage before one migrates to no self? Once consuming itself one becomes truth, one with God? What type of truth instigates a hunger of power? Though power hungry, once you began to realize the truth would you also begin to understand that you were nothing and relinquish your existence to God?
Greatness is not necessarily an ego (ie, delusional) quality. It is just a value. People without egos can still have values.
There I go using generic words again…yes delusional fits better. It is a value that expresses measurement which leads to that which measures and standards of relative measure. So for instance your level of perfect greatness may be lower than what I may deem to be perfect greatness, therefore, you could consider yourself great aka enlightened, when in my estimation you are not.
One person's greatness is another person's failure. A fully enlightened Buddha might think that he has been fortunate in having been able to achieve something great (in having arrived at the Ultimate Understanding), but a rich man with ten wives, or a Christian priest, might think of the Buddha as being no more than a worthless tramp.
Yes, I am fond of that statement: One person's greatness is another person's failure which you used in describing genius where an idea of one could be genius for one but mediocrity for another...it is truly in the application of the idea. The greatness deemed by both men is faulty. It is one thing to have an idea, anyone can come up with them, but true genius is knowing what to do with it...wise living.
Well, you have made it a two part issue: 1) different ideas of what great is, and 2) if given great is the same idea…I am ignorant of Buddhism, so I will use walking as an example. If we establish that great is equivalent to the amount of miles walked by a person…I may decide that walking 70 miles makes one great, while your estimation is 60…but Clyde’s is 82. Then are you not saying that your measure of great is a personal measure validated by yourself and no other? Is greatness something that is self-affirming then and has no affect on others? If so, then you cannot say that you are greater than another because your measure of value is self-imposed versus universal. In the universal sense, though, I may think you greater because I have only walked 15 miles, and even though my level is 70, you still have walked 60 which far exceeds what I have accomplished but in Clyde’s eyes you are deficient still. So, God who is perfection and has walked nth miles sees us all as deficient and none as enlightened.
I would not go so far as to say that a Christian priest (Catholicism) would deem Buddhists worthless tramps, would you? Isn’t that kind of harsh criticism? I realize the nature of priests as I grew up in a Catholic environment, and while some may think such a thing, not all would…they may think he is misguided, but not a worthless tramp. But, then again, I am now thinking for a priest, as I am not one, perhaps I should stop fighting a battle of which I am not a party to.
Because I see all the "feminine" qualities listed above as negative, undesirable, and bad, with respect to my values.
So, are you fully conscious at all times?
Are there never occasions where submission and passivity is the greater road to achieving a goal? For instance, in protesting a form of injustice, would you take:
1) The route of violence, clearly a masculine judgement, without the feminine undertone of absorption in immediacy (if I am interpreting this correctly)…carefully plotted, planned with courage, single-mindedness, rationality…
2) Or the route of passive resistence, a more feminine/masculine balanced approach?
While we are on this issue: clarify absorption in immediacy.
Indulgence in emotional pleasure is something I understand why you might find it undesirable as it is erratic and never fulfilling…yet what of emotional pain, the same? Yet surely pleasure and pain, spiritual love and suffering, are quite masculine as they deal in idealism, yes? So, then it is emotion that is feminine, not necessarily pleasure and pain.
Define scatteredness. Do you think that this scatteredness is due to the numerous roles a woman holds in life versus that of a masculine man?
When desiring to minimize one’s existence is stated does this mean a desire to minimize one’s importance in the scheme of things…being involved versus not being involved?
It is true that without "unconsciousness" we would not be aware of "consciousness". But things like rocks are unconscious, as is my fingernail, and each of the cells in my body. So there are plenty enough unconscious things around without preserving it in our own behaviour as well.
Kevin, even a feminine woman is more conscious than a rock or a fingernail. If you say this isn’t true, you are exaggerating your point. Feminine does not equal rock. Rocks and fingernails do not indulge in pleasure. Rocks and fingernails do not submit to you, it takes will to do that…they have no will. All women have to determine by thought how they will react to any given situation which takes conscious awareness of choice. How they choose determines the masculine or feminine quality within them. If one is enlightened, based on how I interpret the definition, the conscious being knows what to do without any thought, for he understands cause and effect. While I am not ready to concede that a balance of both is not a good thing…I will concede that too much of the feminine is not good…and should not be emulated either.
Yes. Only a person with weaknesses can have a desire to dominate over and eliminate their weaknesses. But once a person has no weaknesses, then there is no need for domination. Such a person can be said to have outgrown their "masculinity" (in the narrow sense).
So masculinity, in a sense, is weakness also…interesting. So the balance and temperance of the masculine with the feminine is just rolling around in the dirt…still physical not spiritual.
As masculinity increases, femininity decreases. As masculinity increases, consciousness increases. But when consciousness is complete, and there is nothing more to conquer (other than the Universe), then in a sense, we can speak of the "masculinity" (which was tainted with ego), being retired, having done its job, and now a superior form of Control takes over all the reigns. (This is of course no more than the pure and untainted form of masculinity)
God. So when Jesus Christ showed compassion and love, these were ideals not feminine characteristics…yes, I think I can see this.
Is this why you guys seem to, but not really, attack women, in order to flesh this godliness out into the open? It is not necessary to answer that question but, you have to know that it sometimes may backfire and have the effect of creating women who are bullies and mean…which to me is not masculine and certainly not Godly. Where I work there are two women in “control†positions. One of them wields power by exerting her employed status as a condition of why she is right, while the other uses wisdom…force over wisdom. It seems to me that the more masculine, the more force…the more Godly, the more wisdom.
Another way it backfires is that you get people on this forum who because they are ignored by women in real life play this ignorant game of women bashing when they have no idea what they are talking about.
Even when women appear to be masculine, and significantly conscious, it is often found to be an illusion brought-on by wishful thinking. The environment in which this illusion happens is a male-created one, and boils down to essentially man creating an image of himself.
So it is the wishful thinking of the man to have a masculine woman? So, by attending to this forum, you are in effect wishfully thinking all women here to become masculine? Is this not one of those “herd†kind of things…in order to fit in, the woman adopts the man’s ideals rather than having any original thought of her own? Isn’t this a bit egotistic to say such a thing? I think one of the mistakes you guys make is generalizing woman too much. Do you think the world would fall apart if there were no men? Other than procreation, I dare say some of us would survive…remember the moon and the happy male scientists? Picture females instead…it could happen. (you most likely are laughing right now)
Its like this…when I am riding in the car with any male, I do not concern myself with directions or maps because I am not driving…unless he asks for assistance, I am just passive. However, when I am driving myself someplace, I am fully cognizant of maps, directions and very proactive. Perhaps this very pre-60’s notion of a woman’s place that is engrained in society, even in women still, as if she is a frail helpless creature whose sole ambition is to marry, have children, and be supported the rest of her days, were to stop today, they may begin to realize their masculine abilities.
I think women should decide for themselves what they want to do, rather than responding passively to external forces, like feminism.
Kevin, you are right there is a distinction between what someone does and what someone is told to do. I recall being a token female at a CPA firm. It’s not that I was forced by feminism to get a job, frankly, I had to eat and pay the rent…necessity was my reason. However, the feminist movement had raged and set a course so it became policy that there must be females on board in upwardly mobile professions lest EEOC would breathe down their neck. Now sexual discrimination is not that big of deal anymore…back then it was. Not that I was in any way threatening (I am not a feminist) to use this against them, with the male/female ratio at the firm it was not surprising why I may have been hired over any other applicant…I was not, at the time, that experienced in accounting, but I had enough of the right qualifications and was a token of good faith to the powers that be.
What made it even more ludicrous, and talk about aping, I had friendships with the secretaries. I was told by one of my female peers that if I knew what was good for me, I wouldn't associate with the secretaries because then the men may think me one and treat me differently. I couldn't believe someone was actually telling me that I needed to pick and choose with whom I conversed based on some man's estimation of my worth. I, of course, ignored her. When the time came for a project I had due and it ran after normal working hours, these ladies stayed late in order to help me get my project out. Who was the more masculine here?
Do you not think that after all the pomp and circumstance surrounding marriage and child-rearing is over that women evolve into something different than your categorical norm for woman?
I don't think they will anytime soon, as it hasn't happened in the past. But there's always hope.
I could bring up a Hume-ism with that statement. How old are you anyhow…I can’t keep up with people around here – some have to be in high school. Just based on what you have written, you have to have lived life a bit, but truly the 70’s generation that burst forth from the pre-60’s mentality type family structure have to be starting to come of age for this development…don’t they?
If you think of women on the scale of humanity and the low level position she has been in since the 19th century, aren't you being a bit judgmental of women? Do you not think that there has been a progression of enlightenment in women? I mean before the vote, they were mere property. So if you take the time that they have had any say in anything which is about 85 years, do you not think the masculine in women has progressed some? Or is it their fault for not being masculine all along that they allowed themselves in this pickle?