Critique of the idea of Masculinity before Femininity

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
Sphere70
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:18 am
Location: New York

Critique of the idea of Masculinity before Femininity

Post by Sphere70 »

Studying the Tao Te Ching and the Taoist Way of Lao-Tzu I would directly state that it is not at all a rejection of the feminized spirit in favor of the masculine and then forward into Enlightenment.
The Way addressed by Lao is more aliened to the centered balance between femininity and masculinity in its non-logical attunement to the Tao.

I cite page 6 of the Tao Te Ching (Stephen Addiss and Stanley Lombardo)

--


The Valley Spirit never dies
It is called Mysterious Female

The entrance to the Mysterious Female
Is called the root of Heaven and Earth

Endless flow
Of inexhaustible energy


--

Also at page 28 (in the beginning paragraph)

Know the male, maintain the female
Become the channel of the world

Become the channel of the world
And TE will endure


Return to infancy


--

The disagreement with the Nietzschean approach for a will to power (masculinity) and its natural “killing” of the inherent feminine spirit during times of war is also rejected in the Ching. See page 31 from the same book.

Though, of course, Lao Tzu doesn’t suggest a choice of nurturing only the female spirit – it is clearly the balance that is of outmost importance – that is a 50/50 split. The idea of Quinn – if I haven’t misunderstood – to eliminate the female spirit for the sake of the masculine spirit and then off into the beyond (the prevailing Absolute/Tao) is false. There have to be a true acknowledge and understanding of both without rejection – a peaceful balance – and then beyond (if we were to put up a system which I don’t really believe in).

I’ll end with another quote from the Tao Te Ching (page 18):

Great TAO rejected:
Benevolence and righteousness appear.

Learning and knowledge professed:
Great hypocrites spring up.

Family relations forgotten:
Filial piety and affection arise.

The nation disordered:
Patriots come forth.


--

Best,

Chris
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Critique of the idea of Masculinity before Femininity

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Sphere70 wrote: Though, of course, Lao Tzu doesn’t suggest a choice of nurturing only the female spirit – it is clearly the balance that is of outmost importance – that is a 50/50 split. The idea of Quinn – if I haven’t misunderstood – to eliminate the female spirit for the sake of the masculine spirit and then off into the beyond (the prevailing Absolute/Tao) is false.
Hi Chris, the only problem with your analysis is that you are dealing on one side with a Taoism which divides by definition everything in two opposing forces, somehow genderizing the cosmic, primal powers. On the other hand Quinn does not presume spirit to be divided - spirit, genius, as prime movement is the masculine expression already. In Taoist terms matter would be then the opposite. Or consciousness versus unconsciousness.

I don't think anyone would deny the spirit any receptive or nurturing quality. But I think a whole different kettle of fish is meant with the idea of a "feminized spirit" in most discussions around here.
Sphere70
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:18 am
Location: New York

Re: Critique of the idea of Masculinity before Femininity

Post by Sphere70 »

Thanks Diebert for your reply.

Ok, so according to Tao, as you said, the spirit is in its manifestation divided into two opposites - the male and the female. Though in its abiding form it is none of these (or lets say instead that it’s an even of both mixture). The same amount of black and white create neutral gray - the spirit (the Tao) is therefore symbolically neutral gray
But, if I understand you right, the neutral gray of the undiluted Tao is, according to Quinn, masculine? I thought I read in his essay I found here on the forum that while the undiluted Tao is beyond both, the way there is through the masculine (single-pointed thought, undisturbed dedication and non-attachment)? While I agree with his separation of the female and masculine and what goes into each category, I believe that to dwell in that which is the clear water of the self is to be in a state where you observe both the masculine and the feminine from a non-attached viewpoint. Though this is not enlightenment (complete non-dualism) this is for me the sane point of perspective for further investigation. And if Quinn wants to define this as a masculine viewpoint then so be it, I would instead say that its the viewpoint where the masculine and the feminine gets observed - without choice of value. Therefore it’s neither.
About the conscious and the unconscious. I'm not sure that I can accept these definitions. To me there is no unconscious at all, as everything is observed in the conscious viewpoint. The idea of the unconsciousness is in the consciousness alone and whatever enters into the consciousness is by direct extent consciousness and can only be labeled as coming from the unconsciousness from that point. It is as false as the idea of the past and the present.

Thanks again for taking your time to answer.

Best,

Chris
Sphere70
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:18 am
Location: New York

Re: Critique of the idea of Masculinity before Femininity

Post by Sphere70 »

sorry, I meant of course as false as the past and the future
Sazar
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 5:02 am

Re: Critique of the idea of Masculinity before Femininity

Post by Sazar »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Sphere70 wrote: Though, of course, Lao Tzu doesn’t suggest a choice of nurturing only the female spirit – it is clearly the balance that is of outmost importance – that is a 50/50 split. The idea of Quinn – if I haven’t misunderstood – to eliminate the female spirit for the sake of the masculine spirit and then off into the beyond (the prevailing Absolute/Tao) is false.
Hi Chris, the only problem with your analysis is that you are dealing on one side with a Taoism which divides by definition everything in two opposing forces, somehow genderizing the cosmic, primal powers. On the other hand Quinn does not presume spirit to be divided - spirit, genius, as prime movement is the masculine expression already. In Taoist terms matter would be then the opposite. Or consciousness versus unconsciousness.

I don't think anyone would deny the spirit any receptive or nurturing quality. But I think a whole different kettle of fish is meant with the idea of a "feminized spirit" in most discussions around here.

The Tao does not seek to creat duality. It simply r=recognizes that this is the case when dealing with the forms.

Therefore the Tao teaches that one must combine the "quality" or "duality" which is created in OUR OWN MIND, to arrive at the one.

Like stitching two halves of the same broken heart.
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Critique of the idea of Masculinity before Femininity

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

Sphere70 wrote:...I believe that to dwell in that which is the clear water of the self is to be in a state where you observe both the masculine and the feminine from a non-attached viewpoint. Though this is not enlightenment (complete non-dualism) this is for me the sane point of perspective for further investigation.
When you speak a word, that word is masculine. It has presence. Everything else, everything that is not that word, is feminine. All that is not that word is implicit, and absent, like the nothingness within an empty cup, or the valley between mountains. A word is, thus, the essence of duality.
...if Quinn wants to define this as a masculine viewpoint then so be it, I would instead say that its the viewpoint where the masculine and the feminine gets observed - without choice of value. Therefore it’s neither.
Enlightenment makes no distinctions, even the distinction between enlightenment and non-enlightenment. All of reality is one, and fully present. Only delusions, beliefs about that which does not exist, are absent.

However, truth is absent in one who not only makes no distinctions, but also is empty and feminine. A vacuum is mindless and unconscious; it is not enlightened because it is not anything, really. Nothing exists, not even enlightenment, where there is no presence. Enlightenment is simply not feminine. It is masculine through-and-through, a full-bodied consciousness of reality, absent of nothing.

What happens to language when you abandon the dualities that words create? Think on that, and you may come to understand why enlightenment is truly inexpressible, why that which can be named is not the Tao.
A mindful man needs few words.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Critique of the idea of Masculinity before Femininity

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Sazar, your statements seem conflicting. Do you realize?
Sazar wrote:The Tao does not seek to creat duality. It simply r=recognizes that this is the case when dealing with the forms.
Any act of recognition, of whatever, is a "duality": identity is given when it's contrasted with all that it's not.
Therefore the Tao teaches that one must combine the "quality" or "duality" which is created in OUR OWN MIND, to arrive at the one.
Teaching that one "must combine" qualities is different from seeking in what way?
Like stitching two halves of the same broken heart.
So you're seeking to stitch up, after having declared brokenness? It's a cul-de-sac.
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Critique of the idea of Masculinity before Femininity

Post by cousinbasil »

Trevor wrote:When you speak a word, that word is masculine. It has presence. Everything else, everything that is not that word, is feminine. All that is not that word is implicit, and absent, like the nothingness within an empty cup, or the valley between mountains. A word is, thus, the essence of duality.
When there is a pencil on the desk in front of me.that pencil is masculine. It has presence. Everything else, everything that is not that pencil, is feminine. All that is not that pencil is implicit, and absent, like the nothingness within an empty cup, or the valley between mountains. A pencil is, thus, the essence of duality.
You are pretty much giving an example of A=A.
However, truth is absent in one who not only makes no distinctions, but also is empty and feminine
How does one go about demonstrating emptiness is feminine as opposed to masculine? Not asking for proof, just a demonstration. It's like trying to show that an ordinary pair of socks, there is obviously left and a right sock, and the two cannot (or should not) be switched.
What happens to language when you abandon the dualities that words create? Think on that, and you may come to understand why enlightenment is truly inexpressible, why that which can be named is not the Tao.
Also, that it is truly inexpressible comes in handy when you are called upon to defend the viewpoint that emptiness is more correctly associated with the feminine.

It is like assigning male and female to the electric charges which instead we have labeled positive and negative.

I am not, BTW, claiming there is no psycho-spiritual difference between the sexes; I do believe, however, that neither sex has an intrinsic monopoly on spiritual enlightenment.
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Critique of the idea of Masculinity before Femininity

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

cousinbasil,

Given that you correctly identified the fact that I was using masculinity and femininity as an example of A=A, why did you then immediately forget this, and try to disprove enlightenment is an all-boys club? I'm explaining duality; the specific terms don't really matter, so long as one is the logical complement of the other. Taoism does all the work making femininity empty; personally I don't care what words happen to be used.

Your request for a demonstration was like asking me to prove that A is not not-A, a fact so sufficiently obvious that it requires nothing further be said.

Instead of being so brittle, you should figure out why non-duality is necessarily inexpressible.
A mindful man needs few words.
Sazar
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 5:02 am

Re: Critique of the idea of Masculinity before Femininity

Post by Sazar »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Sazar, your statements seem conflicting. Do you realize?
Sazar wrote:The Tao does not seek to creat duality. It simply r=recognizes that this is the case when dealing with the forms.
Any act of recognition, of whatever, is a "duality": identity is given when it's contrasted with all that it's not.
Therefore the Tao teaches that one must combine the "quality" or "duality" which is created in OUR OWN MIND, to arrive at the one.
Teaching that one "must combine" qualities is different from seeking in what way?
Like stitching two halves of the same broken heart.
So you're seeking to stitch up, after having declared brokenness? It's a cul-de-sac.

Because people already experience/believe duality. Aristotelian logic A=A A=/=B

But most don't even know this is what they're doing. SO the Tao Identifies the error, which allows you to absolve the illusion.
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Critique of the idea of Masculinity before Femininity

Post by cousinbasil »

Trevor you also appear to be a Weiningerian. Each human being is an imperfect expression of either the male or female principle; each is like a half of the Yin-Yang duo, containing its "dot" of the other, as it were. As both principle must be present in ever single organism, we can identify this "other-dot" when it comes to the physical plane, such as the presence of nipples on the male, the relative presence of secondary sexual characteristics and so on. Except for hermaphroditic examples, each individual is marked by the predominance of one principle over the other.

If a person were this outer manifestation, that is, if the person were identical to the body, things would be a lot simpler. But I know you are not claiming that. What you do seem to be saying is that the predominance of one aspect over the other applies to the inner self as well as the outer self, and in the same relatively overwhelming proportion.

It this latter notion I have trouble with. First I do not believe there is a single "inner" self, but rather a series of concentric inner selves or sheathes which are not identical with the ego or "I" which their instantaneous and ever-shifting representative, or liaison with the outer world. Moreover, I think the closer to the surface the body or sheathe is, the more it can be shaped by the experiences which the organism encounters in the existential world. Therefore, the self just below the outer self, or physical body, is more likely to assume female characteristics if the female outer body places the organism in more "feminine" or "receptive" situations. (Or if the outer body is placed in such situations, as the nature of the experience can be masculine and feminine in character as well.)

To my way of interpreting what I observe, these inner sheathes are more balanced expressions of both principles; the innermost are devoid of sexual characteristics and are shaped by spiritual values. For this reason, I do not regard enlightenment, which is spiritual in nature, as intrinsically male or female. Moreover, what we experience "out here" is more tip than iceberg.
Taoism does all the work making femininity empty; personally I don't care what words happen to be used.
Perhaps the Taoist poets make femininity empty. If you really did not care which words were used, you would not feel it necessary to insist on this point.

My gut feeling is that nature does not prefer either male or female, or God does not, if that helps make it clearer, but it probably doesn't. My fear is that since it is precisely the more enlightened that illuminate the way for others to follow, the light will not be raised for women if it is perceived they are relatively less capable of following. They are less capable of throwing fastballs, not of spiritual development.
Last edited by cousinbasil on Sun Apr 10, 2011 7:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Critique of the idea of Masculinity before Femininity

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Sazar wrote:Because people already experience/believe duality. Aristotelian logic A=A A=/=B
Where is the error there exactly? What is always on the move is not standing still. Isn't that the logic which starts of Tao Te Ching? The relative is not the absolute, in wisdom, path, word, method or abstract.
SO the Tao Identifies the error, which allows you to absolve the illusion.
A=A identifies. The Tao is what's left when the illusion is absolved.
Sazar
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 5:02 am

Re: Critique of the idea of Masculinity before Femininity

Post by Sazar »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Sazar wrote:Because people already experience/believe duality. Aristotelian logic A=A A=/=B
Where is the error there exactly? What is always on the move is not standing still. Isn't that the logic which starts of Tao Te Ching? The relative is not the absolute, in wisdom, path, word, method or abstract.
SO the Tao Identifies the error, which allows you to absolve the illusion.
A=A identifies. The Tao is what's left when the illusion is absolved.

Sorry. When I said the Tao, here, I meant the Tao Te Ching.
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Critique of the idea of Masculinity before Femininity

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

cousinbasil wrote:What you do seem to be saying is that the predominance of one aspect over the other applies to the inner self as well as the outer self, and in the same relatively overwhelming proportion.
All of reality is one; the inside is as much the outside as the outside is. The overwhelming proportion of existence, in fact all of existence, is substance. What else could there be?
To my way of interpreting what I observe, these inner sheathes are more balanced expressions of both principles; the innermost are devoid of sexual characteristics and are shaped by spiritual values. For this reason, I do not regard enlightenment, which is spiritual in nature, as intrinsically male or female.
I think the use of these principles implies something different than simple human sexual characteristics. Male and female are but two of countless forms that sexuality can take. That they are treated as binary is to illustrate something completely unrelated to sex. It is a statement about reality and how it is perceived, indeed must be perceived, not about who was born with what.
If you really did not care which words were used, you would not feel it necessary to insist on this point.
Pick your poison:

Male/female
Presence/absence
Fullness/emptiness
Something/nothing
Existence/non-being
A/not-A

What is the logical complement to Tao?
A mindful man needs few words.
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Critique of the idea of Masculinity before Femininity

Post by cousinbasil »

Trevor wrote:I think the use of these principles implies something different than simple human sexual characteristics. Male and female are but two of countless forms that sexuality can take.
You've lost me. Use of these principles by whom? If these other forms are countless, you easily should be able to name ten or twenty of them.
That they are treated as binary is to illustrate something completely unrelated to sex.
Treated as binary by whom? Trevor, I'm sure you know what you mean to say - so that makes one of us.
User avatar
Blair
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: Critique of the idea of Masculinity before Femininity

Post by Blair »

Sazar wrote:Sorry. When I said the Tao, here, I meant the Tao Te Ching.
What about the Flaugh Flea Fling, what does that identify..?
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Critique of the idea of Masculinity before Femininity

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

cousinbasil wrote:You've lost me. Use of these principles by whom?
Since we're talking about Taoism here, I'm speaking of Lao Tzu and similar mystics. I don't believe that the distinction between the male and female is meant to be taken literally: it is, rather, the use of the familiar to explain the unfamiliar. You could always, of course, choose not to give them the benefit of the doubt, and deem Lao Tzu and his followers misogynists. (The only way to miss the point more completely would be to think that Lao Tzu is talking about striking a balance between some kind of "male forces" and "female forces". The first two lines of the Tao te Ching are about obliterating dualities.)
If these other forms are countless, you easily should be able to name ten or twenty of them.
I think you're really missing the forest for the trees, but I'll give examples.

There can be a different number of sexes, as in the case of the asexuality of many plants and microbes, or the parthenogenesis of various polyploid lizard species. Speaking of polyploidy, reproduction in, for instance, a triploid species could theoretically be handled by three different sexes (although it's usually just handled by one). That gives a nice "et cetera" that goes into infinity.

There is also, of course, the case of having no sexes at all: genderless angels (whether you believe in them or not, the concept is there), or God.

Sexually intermediate forms exist, such as in hermaphrodites and diphallics. As well, there is more than one possible gender that a person of a given sex might adopt, such as in the case of homosexuals, transsexuals, and bisexuals. And, there is the complex issue of the gender of those not attracted to either sex: when not attracted to humans, but rather only aroused by pornography, animals, dead bodies, or inanimate objects, it becomes difficult to classify their gender.

That's gotta be at least ten. (I really hope that humouring you didn't cause you to miss the point: there is nothing necessary to the male/female division.)
Treated as binary by whom?
You know what the yin-yang is, right? Yang = masculine; yin = feminine. (Or, you could use Jung's terms, anima and animus.)

I don't think you can really deny that some very great minds have used the binary opposition of male and female forces to explain the workings of mind or universe. What you appear to be missing is the fact that they are not actually talking about males and females: they are, as I've said, using the most commonplace division to say something profound. It's like how the Buddha used Hindu notions of reincarnation to explain causality.

Many people go utterly blank when you talk about how the veil of maya causes us to mistakenly perceive existence as duality. However, the same people are often able to grasp the exact same concept when it is phrased in terms of something they readily understand, like the difference between boys and girls.
A mindful man needs few words.
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Critique of the idea of Masculinity before Femininity

Post by cousinbasil »

Trevor wrote:That's gotta be at least ten. (I really hope that humoring you didn't cause you to miss the point: there is nothing necessary to the male/female division.)
Pretty much what I thought, although throwing angels in there and all those triploid species and necrophiliacs is stretching it a bit. "At least ten" is not exactly the same thing as "countless."

But you'll have to forgive me, since I am not very familiar with your writing, gross exaggeration to make a point is a valid technique, so no harm no foul.

And by all means, humor me at every opportunity.

"...there is nothing necessary to the male/female division" then is your point. The word necessary implies need. Whose need? Necessary for what? Procreation? Or is that also unnecessary? Look, for a vast majority of the mobile living world, the male/female "division" is quite necessary indeed. You know very well that at times it is not the most important thing - it is the only thing. I believe the correct Canadian term for it is vive la différence?
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Critique of the idea of Masculinity before Femininity

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

cousinbasil wrote:The word necessary implies need. Whose need? Necessary for what? Procreation? Or is that also unnecessary?
Okay, I'll add the adjective "ontologically" in front of "necessary". On the one hand, existence is not completely captured (in the sense that "A and not-A" completely captures everything in existence) by the division "masculine and feminine". The male/female division is unnecessary.

On the other hand, even "A and not-A" fails to describe the monism of reality. Again, the male/female division, even if it were a case of "A and not-A", is unnecessary.

Besides which, only sexual procreation requires both male and female; all procreation does not.
A mindful man needs few words.
Locked