Masculinity OR Femininity, which should or could I choose.

[Sapius]

.


I would like to express certain aspects of masculinity and femininity that I have come to realize over the course of experiences, basically from thinking about knowing what existence comprises of, what is it all about, and what am I all about? I am absolutely sure that I am not the first or the last one to see it in that light, irrelevant of knowing how unique each and every thing is, I am really not quite that unique in that respect.

It is logically apparent that each posses traits of the other sex, as humans, no doubt about that. If anyone thinks otherwise, I would ask him to look inside ones own self and speak truthfully to ones self.

Ironically, although it may seem “logical” that whereas the male predominantly works with reasoning, but also posses emotions, and that the female is dominated by emotions, but also does posses the faculty of reasoning, and each uses their individual “intellectual” traits to achieve their individual ends according to their predominant win out balance, but the undeniable fact still remains, that it is generally by and large that emotions win out irrelevant of the sex. Be it a man or a woman. So how is Reasoning necessarily a masculine trait?

However, reason being the most reasonable tool to either side, hence both could use emotions with reason. However, it may be reasonably easier for a man due to his male instincts developed through ions of battling environmental odds being more physically fit to do the job, and had to necessarily use intellectual reasoning day in and day out. On the other had, it may be rather difficult for a female to give the same strength to reasoning since she did not face as much compared to a man, and remained predominantly affected by “emotions”, due to her natural maternal instincts, but nonetheless, uses much reasoning to back her emotional needs. I would say she uses more reason than man, generally.

Hence achieving, say for example, an optimal family balance is her Genius according to her reasoning, which is predominantly driven by her female instincts, which indeed upholds a very important aspect of existence without a doubt. At the same time she is smart enough to evoke strong emotions in a man and then emotionally blackmail him, that’s her Genius too. Displaying much more intelligence than a man who with all his supposed reasoning power generally doesn’t even use it where it really matters. That is, be a master of emotions, rather than a slave, that goes for a woman too. And experience the true nature of existence through logical applications of emotions, which possibly a woman could also achieve, but for the reasons I mentioned above, her Genius is actually of a different kind than man. Hence trying to be what one is not in that context should logically be quite difficult, but not necessarily impossible.


Hence, any person could experience “Truth”, “Tao”, or whatever one calls it, as long as one can make the best use of the “lesser” trait in ones own self, reason being obviously the lesser of the two irrelevant of the sex, for applicable reasons, to build it’s own Genius, irrelevant of sexuality, rest is all ultimate causality.

Hence I would chose reasoning, not for it’s masculinity, for I don’t find much of it in “men”, but because how it helps master emotions, that cannot be eliminated absolutely, but can be mastered.

Having a feminine side does not make one “womanly”, nor having a masculine side necessarily make one “manly”. The optimal balance achieved that makes one a master over emotions, makes one a Human. For then one can make clear unbiased judgments, without any prejudice.

[Nick]

.I would like to express certain aspects of masculinity and femininity that I have come to realize over the course of experiences, basically from thinking about knowing what existence comprises of, what is it all about, and what am I all about? I am absolutely sure that I am not the first or the last one to see it in that light, irrelevant of knowing how unique each and every thing is, I am really not quite that unique in that respect.

You are right, many people have experienced that realization.

.It is logically apparent that each posses traits of the other sex, as humans, no doubt about that. If anyone thinks otherwise, I would ask him to look inside ones own self and speak truthfully to ones self.

Obviously no man or woman automatically posesses every trait of masculinity, or femininity.

.Ironically, although it may seem “logical” that whereas the male predominantly works with reasoning, but also posses emotions, and that the female is dominated by emotions, but also does posses the faculty of reasoning, and each uses their individual “intellectual” traits to achieve their individual ends according to their predominant win out balance, but the undeniable fact still remains, that it is generally by and large that emotions win out irrelevant of the sex. Be it a man or a woman. So how is Reasoning necessarily a masculine trait.

Because only wise men have demonstrated the ability to rise above emotion and primitive thinking through out history, not wise women. Being a wise enough man myself, I see how men have more potential to do this than women do.

.However, reason being the most reasonable tool to either side, hence both could use emotions with reason. However, it may be reasonably easier for a man due to his male instincts developed through ions of battling environmental odds being more physically fit to do the job, and had to necessarily use intellectual reasoning day in and day out. On the other had, it may be rather difficult for a female to give the same strength to reasoning since she did not face as much compared to a man, and remained predominantly affected by “emotions”, due to her natural maternal instincts, but nonetheless, uses much reasoning to back her emotional needs. I would say she uses more reason than man, generally.

You are right, women are actually completely reasonable in their primitive consciousness. Men naturally are more capable of realzing a higher consciousness which makes them look especially stupid and ignorant, compared to women, when they become unaware of this, or disregard it as un-needed or worse.

.Hence achieving, say for example, an optimal family balance is her Genius according to her reasoning, which is predominantly driven by her female instincts, which indeed upholds a very important aspect of existence without a doubt. At the same time she is smart enough to evoke strong emotions in a man and then emotionally blackmail him, that’s her Genius too. Displaying much more intelligence than a man who with all his supposed reasoning power generally doesn’t even use it where it really matters. That is, be a master of emotions, rather than a slave, that goes for a woman too. And experience the true nature of existence through logical applications of emotions, which possibly a woman could also achieve, but for the reasons I mentioned above, her Genius is actually of a different kind than man. Hence trying to be what one is not in that context should logically be quite difficult, but not necessarily impossible.

It is impossible, becase her consciousness is limited to more primitive (feminine) modes of thinking. She may be enlightened in her own eyes because it is litterally impossible for her to see the true nature of WOMAN. Not until she can develop more advanced (masculine) modes of thinking can she escape her primitive nature.

.Hence, any person could experience “Truth”, “Tao”, or whatever one calls it, as long as one can make the best use of the “lesser” trait in ones own self, reason being obviously the lesser of the two irrelevant of the sex, for applicable reasons, to build it’s own Genius, irrelevant of sexuality, rest is all ultimate causality.

You cannot pick and choose which "trait" you are going to serve at different moments in life. One or the other dominates and drives your motives and intutions in life. The ends of a spectrum never meet, they are infinitely divided for eternity.

.Hence I would chose reasoning, not for it’s masculinity, for I don’t find much of it in “men”, but because how it helps master emotions, that cannot be eliminated absolutely, but can be mastered.

Emotion eliminates logic preventing Truth, logic eliminates emotion preventing ignorance. I cannot say it enough, there is NO middle ground.

.Having a feminine side does not make one “womanly”, nor having a masculine side necessarily make one “manly”. The optimal balance achieved that makes one a master over emotions, makes one a Human. For then one can make clear unbiased judgments, without any prejudice.

There can be no balance while mastering something at the same time. Mastering something is the elimination of what is wrong, and practicing and perfecting what is right. Not the balancing act of the two.

[suergaz]

Genius that bears and that which begets. It's funny, I want to say that men and women have the same genius. Yeah I want to pretty badly. Here it goes...they do.

:D


Let all who've dreamt what must come of consciousness, of love, bear all to the contrary, and give themselves to their highest hope!

[Ryan Rudolph]

Sapius wrote:

Hence I would chose reasoning, not for it’s masculinity, for I don’t find much of it in “men”, but because how it helps master emotions, that cannot be eliminated absolutely, but can be mastered.

Nick wrote:

Emotion eliminates logic preventing Truth, logic eliminates emotion preventing ignorance. I cannot say it enough, there is NO middle ground.

I agree, but I need to expand on what you two are saying. It depends on what we mean by emotion. For instance Quinn talks about the possibility of an emotionless state, but the wise man is not without emotion.

For instance: it was emotional discontent that caused Quinn, Solway and the Big R to work together as a means build a website and a messageboard.

No matter how logical the philosopher is he is not free from emotional discontent and desire. It just becomes much more subtle and intelligent.

For instance instead of desiring to go drinking every weekend, one may desire a quiet room instead.

So he is not without desire/emotional discontent.

So the logical man has feminine qualities whether he wants to believe it or not. Some people in this forum seem to be striving towards some sort of pure masculinity which assumes that one can be completely free from all femininity, but perhaps one feminine qualities simply transform into something much more intelligent.

I think Quinn just has to properly define what he means by emotion because on the one had he speaks of an emotionless state, but on the other he vents his hatred (emotional discontent) towards the ignorant.

This needs to be clarified.

Moreover there appears to be justified emotion which is intelligent and necessary, whereas there is childish emotions which are the result of a deluded brain.

[swan]

A man without emotion is not a man, a wise man has to have emotion but he can enter an "emotionless state of mind" to evaluate reality.

Emotion is the prime impulse to do anything, nothing it's done out of pure logic, even then something must have made the logic "move".

[Sapius]

No matter how logical the philosopher is he is not free from emotional discontent and desire. It just becomes much more subtle and intelligent.

So the logical man has feminine qualities whether he wants to believe it or not. Some people in this forum seem to be striving towards some sort of pure masculinity which assumes that one can be completely free from all femininity, but perhaps one feminine qualities simply transform into something much more intelligent.

Moreover there appears to be justified emotion which is intelligent and necessary, whereas there is childish emotions which are the result of a deluded brain.

CP… I couldn’t have said it any better.

[Cory Duchesne]

I have done my best to be open minded about the QRS's belief in pure emotionless masculinity.

And I just dont see it.

I think - where there is masculinity, there is always femininity.

Gross, blundering masculinity(thought, logic) IS gross blundering femininity(emotion, sensuality) - and vice versa.

Subtle masculinity 'is' Subtle femininty.

Besides, the QRS is always preaching the importance of love, hatred and passion in regards to truth.

So basically they are preaching the importance of femininity.

Perhaps there is a state beyond masculinity and femininity......such a state would be a state of absolute unknowing.

As socrates said: "the only thing I know is that I know nothing at all."

Where there is knowledge, there is emotion. The two cannot be seperated.

Perhaps one can go beyond emotion and knowledge?

And perhaps it is going beyond that is important.

Surely one cannot go beyond without a supremely sharpened intellect - and surely the intellect cannot become supremely sharpened without passion.

[tharpa]

Old tantric saying:

The greater the emotion the greater the wisdom.

Quinn's explanation of the masculine reminds me of the emhasis, in daoist yoga, on Yi, or Intent, akin to Will. You have to direct your intention somewhere, like drawing the energy of a bow, directing it at a target, and then letting it loose to pursue its aim. This is true. Certain very precise forces have to be brought together for anything particular to happen.

To fry eggs, you need eggs, pan, fire, time, place etc. Take away any of them and there will be no fried eggs.

Enlightenment doesn't just happen, it has to be made to happen by intent, by mustering together what needs to be mustered. Similarly, leading a conscious life doesn't just happen, it has to be effected deliberately.

This deliberate, focussed, undistracted quality requires independence, the intention and ability to assume full responsiblity for one's being each moment. So any sort of dependency, that sort of relational oscillation, is a destraction, dilution, detour, the maras the historical Buddha had to see through before final enlightenment, which he achieved on his own, with no other support or reference other than himself.

Pointing out the need for this blunt, uncompromising, sober, independent deliberateness, focus and intention seems very helpful.

On a more metaphysical level, one can talk about union or inseparability of masculine and feminine etc. but I don't get the feeling that Quinn is using the topic quite in this way.

[Sapius]

Cory,

I think - where there is masculinity, there is always femininity.

Most assuredly.

Tharpa,

Certain very precise forces have to be brought together for anything particular to happen.

Absolutely.

On a more metaphysical level, one can talk about union or inseparability of masculine and feminine etc. but I don't get the feeling that Quinn is using the topic quite in this way.

You are quite right, in the sense that David never would deny the passion he has for wisdom, which is most definitely a “blind” feminine drive needed to help sink in a logical realization into ones psyche, and in my opinion he knows this, but simply refuses to declare it as such for a simple reason. He considers himself a teacher who is kind of absolutely caused to do whatever he does without any of “his” active contribution so to speak, which in my opinion is quite a deluded thought. On the other hand, he may also be very well aware of this too, but holds back since he considers all others to be “deluded children”, and introducing them to a final realization can be harmful rather than helpful. That is, First let them actually realize the in-depth meaning of A=A, masculinity, femininity, and so on, as separate issues, and then let them think on their own and arrive at how Ultimately even the Self is absolutely dependant on absolutely all that there is, and yet, any or nothing is possible at all without a self-realizing Self, purely from the undeniable fact that nothing is possible wihtout A=A existing first.

I might have not put that very well, and hence may need some further clarifications. However that might have to wait for another week or so. My apologies. But I had to put in a word to remind myself about the context that I’m supposed to take it from.

PS: I’m still on the road but I’m very glad to see, from the little that I have read, some really illuminated minds on the move in Tharpa and B the 14th, among others.

[sue hindmarsh]

Nick wrote:

It is impossible, becase her consciousness is limited to more primitive (feminine) modes of thinking. She may be enlightened in her own eyes because it is litterally impossible for her to see the true nature of WOMAN. Not until she can develop more advanced (masculine) modes of thinking can she escape her primitive nature.

But as you point out, it is “literally impossible” for women to see the “true nature of WOMAN”, and without this ability she cannot develop her thinking.

Obviously no man or woman automatically posesses every trait of masculinity, or femininity.

Of course, females could tap into that masculine side they possess and develop their minds. It seems plausible that this could happen, especially since so many males have happily disposed of every last drop of their masculinity to become women.

Because only wise men have demonstrated the ability to rise above emotion and primitive thinking through out history, not wise women. Being a wise enough man myself, I see how men have more potential to do this than women do.

There is good reason for there never having been a wise woman in all of history, and that is because the concept of ‘wise woman’ is absurd. To be wise, one must be highly conscious. Woman can't be 'wise', because she is unconscious.

Females do have the potential to become wise if they have a mind that values Truth. Jesus spoke of her potential:

*
Simon Peter says to them: "Let Mary go out from our midst, for women are not worthy of life!" Jesus says: "See, I will draw her so as to make her male so that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who has become male will enter the Kingdom of heaven."
*

To become wise, and then to live according to that wisdom, is extremely difficult for anybody, but even more so for a female. The world doesn’t value thinkers of any sex, but they especially detest a female who speaks out against the ignorance of society. They see her as a traitor to all that society stands for, and try to halt her by dragging her back to them by every possible means.

So, even when a female thinker arises, there are no guarantees that she will be able to stand the rigors of a philosophic life. She may well fall by the way side, as so many other men have done before – but only time will tell.
-
Sue

[tharpa]

Well, I don't see why monastic female who has renounced her conventional role as a 'woman' has any great problem necessarily. That said, admitting nuns into the monastic sangha was an extremely contentious issue for the Buddha.

However, in the non-monastic sangha, which existed during his time and since then of course, especially in the so-called 'tantric' lines, women have often played leading roles. Yeshe Tsogyal, for example, is widely regarded in the Tibetan tradition as having achieved 'full/equal realisation' and her teaching reflects this. She did much of the hard work on her own in long, austere retreats, but also benefited from years working with her teacher Padmasambhava as student, assistant and tantric consort, so a role including dependency was in there as well, including no doubt some aspects of her being a physical female. Still, that can be worked with as a vehicle of transformation, just as by contemplating our own stupidity to the point that we see through it, such activity provides basis for superior insight, i.e. non-stupidity. She also took on many male consorts who went on to be fully enlightened, supposedly, many of whose lineages remain intact today with rather brilliant examples living amongst us.

I find the thrust of Quinn's (and your ) statements a bit like a sudden dip into cold water. It is not pleasant, necessarily, but it is refreshing, and makes you sit up and think twice. Shocking. It has encouraged me in a very short space of time to take a look at a whole range of issues and events, including those unfolding right now, in a new way. So although I find some of the generalisations a little unrealistic, the pith of the message resonates somehow.

Because of this, I must agree that it is a very important topic and Quinn has nailed it as such. That he chooses to do so in a highly provocative, even confrontational, manner is also interesting; perhaps to do it any other way, given his own style and character, would be to dilute the message to the point where it would be no longer discernible. But that is not for me to say, of course, since I am just a new witness/reader/student of this approach.

But again: to state - as many do here - that 'no woman' has achieved enlightenment and build whole theories on that is, I think, just a tad extreme. Most of the highly advanced tantric teachers in the old Hindu system, which are highly secret but still around, are women. In such traditions which use inner yogas to speed up the clarification process, women are said to have a distinct advantage over men. The daoist yoga manuals say the same thing. On the animalistic-societal level, the anthropological level, that much of this discussion remains in, there are definite disadvantages. Furthermore, the insights into how modern society has been overpowered by twisted feminism because modern males have lost a clear sense of who they are, is valuable. But this has little to do with enlightenment per se, and a lot to do with how modern society has lost its way. So both males and females are confused as such. When things go well, in any case, women encourage men to be men, and men encourage women to be women. Furthermore, in so doing, their roles in society are more clearly delineated. I believe my teacher was right when he remarked that the mark of decadence in any human society was the degree to which the sexes were no longer separated.

But again, that is on the societal level. In terms of Philosophy, one has to transcend such role-playing, and also dependency on all survival mechanisms. Just as it is possible to achieve enlightenment whilst remaining anchored in conventional human form, so it is possible to live an enlightened life as a conventional human householder, although in many ways, because of distractions and so on, this is more difficult than doing so on one's own in a cave, usually after suitable preparation.

It seems to me that one of the problematic aspects of the gender dynamic that Quinn and others here point to is that because the Masculine is not asserting itself correctly, the feminine has grown like wild ivy all over the place, obscuring the view from the windows, blocking the doors, and even crumbling the very bricks themselves, threatening the integrity of the entire structure. 'Women' get their direction and are channelled, furrowed by the male sense of purpose, focus, penetration. This dynamic is clearly lacking in modern society and has very broad ramifications, both for society and for any would-be and actualised 'Philosophers'. So although I am having to chew on some of what I have read, I respectn - either despite or because of the blunt style of delivery - that the issue has been raised front and centre in the 'Genius' polemic.

[Nick]

So, even when a female thinker arises, there are no guarantees that she will be able to stand the rigors of a philosophic life. She may well fall by the way side, as so many other men have done before – but only time will tell.
-
Sue

In my personal experiences with people, I have yet to meet a Man of either sex. With that said I have had a few discussions with males who care to dabble on the surface of philosophy when I raise some questions for them. They usually end up gettin offended by the deepers issues when I try to bring them up. Whereas females tend to just hear what I have to say and offer no worthy input. At best they try to isoloate the conversation into a psychological or religious conversation rather than a philosophical one. Of course they usually end up gettin offended too, but for reasons other than the philosophy itself.

[bert]

quinn's mistake:
devising wisdom in morals

[tharpa]

still playing with the particular vocabulary here...

How's this: you cannot 'choose' to be 'feminine' because that by definition involves not really choosing at all, rather going with a flow. The action of choosing to be in a certain way, i.e. as in Dao/Way, is itself the masculine state. This is why enlightenment is always a solitary, self-referenced event and an enlightened manifestation needs no credentials to substantiate or evaluate it.

Seemingly according to the polemic here, this exists both on the philosophical (principle) level, but also on the societal-mundane because most women find it almost impossible to regard themselves as anything other than female, and most men find it almost impossible to regard females as anything other than female.

Whether or not conventional men manifest the Way of the Masculine is, as pointed out above, yet another dimension. But in any case, a realised Sage does not manifest as a dependent, other-referential 'female'. Furthermore, paralleling the biological situation, they 'father' insight, wisdom and culture, generating the seed of bodhi-enlightenment from their own inherent nature, rather than bearing another's seed and serving to bring that to fruition/birth.

[Sapius]

still playing with the particular vocabulary here...

How's this: you cannot 'choose' to be 'feminine' because that by definition involves not really choosing at all, rather going with a flow. The action of choosing to be in a certain way, i.e. as in Dao/Way, is itself the masculine state. This is why enlightenment is always a solitary, self-referenced event and an enlightened manifestation needs no credentials to substantiate or evaluate it.

Seemingly according to the polemic here, this exists both on the philosophical (principle) level, but also on the societal-mundane because most women find it almost impossible to regard themselves as anything other than female, and most men find it almost impossible to regard females as anything other than female.

Whether or not conventional men manifest the Way of the Masculine is, as pointed out above, yet another dimension. But in any case, a realised Sage does not manifest as a dependent, other-referential 'female'. Furthermore, paralleling the biological situation, they 'father' insight, wisdom and culture, generating the seed of bodhi-enlightenment from their own inherent nature, rather than bearing another's seed and serving to bring that to fruition/birth.

Well, Tharpa, with all due respects, since you know so much, have you yet chosen to be in a certain way?

[tharpa]

"Well, Tharpa, with all due respects, since you know so much, have you yet chosen to be in a certain way?"

I would have to say that my knowledge remains now mainly only on a conceptual level and that I ducked out of the Masculine Way, so to speak, years ago without realising it, partly because of buying into societal myths coming in through the modernist-feminist movement, but mainly - as is the case with all obstacles fundamentally - due to laziness and cowardice.

At this point, to be honest, I cannot rightly say if I am still a real human being or have already morphed into the ghost of one, still biologically functioning, but spiritually defunct.

As to so-called 'enlightenment', I think Quinn and others here are right to point out that it is more than mere 'thinking' but also a function of intent to manifest as such; one side without the other just doesn't cut it. Castaneda's last book on the ?? of Infinity describes this sort of thing very well, albeit in a very particular vocabulary and within the context of an old shamanic lineage.

But part of the reason I decided, after dipping toes in for a few days, not to post here much is that it is relatively easy to natter about these things, but doing them is something else. To bring one's life together to the point that one can marry thinking with intent represents an extraordinary leap off the cliff of mundane reality, an embrace of death on some level. You can't do this being cluttered up with junk food, junk life, junk TV-mind. Which is pretty much where I am at now and probably will remain this life, having made a serious stab earlier on to do something different, thanks to which I now have the 'knowledge' you reference.

Not a very cheerful statement, but probably more accurate than anything else I could contribute right now.

[Sapius]

Tharpa,

Not a very cheerful statement, but probably more accurate than anything else I could contribute right now.

Allow me to say that you have contributed more than you think, for it is not the contribution that one makes to others, but to ones self that helps see things clearly, in speaking the truth to ones self, and more over to express it openly.

Yes, one definitely needs to reflect on existence in solitude, but that does not necessarily mean cutting off ones self completely from the flow. Mental interaction can be a good help, to be thought over in solitude, keen observations of daily encounters are essential, again to be thought over in solitude.

You are a thinking soul; I wish you all the best.