Brad and Elizabeth

Post questions or suggestions here.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Mon Jan 02, 2006 3:16 am

Sue,
you wrote: Before we go any further - could you please tell me what you think "the feminine" is?

Then - can you describe what you think I mean by "the feminine"?
To really define femininity, what an undertaking! Because it was you who described her as mirage, hiding anywhere in the universe, constantly shifting and changing benchmarks, not having a direct relation with anything: nothing but a puff of air. Don't you see that hunting her down to 'dislodge' her from minds, to 'eliminate her' can turn into a ghost hunt? Like warning for 'the devil' on our left shoulder. It would become another Don Quichotte story, the brave knight endlessly chasing windmills.

But let me repeat some of the things I've posted so far in this thread about the feminine and the feminine type. I wrote about the 'slave type', a 'superficial being', a more visible form or a brighter spark of egotism. I quoted Nietzsche's "woman is personified egotism". And I said that while the feminine needs the masculine, the masculine mind doesn't need the feminine, or even specific awareness of her, to be masculine. Like the body doesn't need much of an ego to function properly. It does not have that dependency. What I tried to say is that a masculine mind is able to recognize the phenomenon, to describe the feminine, to define her but that this is not needed to do so for obtaining a masculine mind. Such mind will see these things as a result of being masculine, when there's a need to do so. One cannot 'build' masculinity by just examining the feminine. Which doesn't mean that examining or demonstrating the nature of some mirage is not wise in certain contexts. But there are so many different mirages, mirrors and mazes that one can end up in, anywhere on the path to understanding reality.

So now I come back to my original question but rephrased. Can we sketch a more defined relation between femininity, the ego, delusion, 'Maya' and the self? It seems to me we could define femininity as another outcropping of ego or the deluded mind. A manifestation, like 'the thing in itself'. And also I wonder what their function might be for life, for instinct, for survival of the human race. They might be deceptive for a mind striving to become wise, but the deception seem to do very well for the human race: six and half billion, suffering or not, can testify. Mass technology, mass consumerism made the human race spread like a plague. This line of thought brought me to ask finally:
But, how many ignorant people would be needed to breed one genius? Is he rare by definition or because of circumstances?

User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Post by sue hindmarsh » Mon Jan 02, 2006 11:32 pm

Leyla wrote:
Those who exhibit true masculinity (Consciousness of Truth) use their level of living in accordance with Truth as their benchmark in discerning their levels of masculinity (consciousness) and femininity (unconsciousness).

Those who could be considered truly masculine (Conscious of Truth) yet contain the element of/potential for femininity (unconsciousness), since not living in accordance with Truth is the measure for their own masculinity/femininity, aka consciousness/unconsciousness -- or, are we entering in a different definition for the two terms here? Something such as, maybe, mental/intellectual characteristics usually identified with one or the other biological sex?

This is the very same contradiction I see all over again. Is it because I am emotional, or because it actually does not make sense?
The point you are interested in can be a difficult one to grasp, so much so that the little skill I have in explaining it may not be enough to help you understand - but I will try all the same.

* * *

Understanding Truth is a big ‘first step’, but there are more steps to take – steps that deepen that understanding. Your life becomes an outward example of that deepening, as your attachments become weakened and your inner life strengthened. But because you are still developing, you may still fall under the sway of illusion, but only for a moment or two. You are not lost in the feminine, like ignorant people are – you can pass through it, with very little consequence. You are aware of your feminine qualities, but are able to amend them.

It’s like a tradesman who, though he learnt his trade well during his apprenticeship years, still has to ‘find his feet’ once he begins his working life. As each year passes he gains more confidence as his understanding and abilities grow. So, from his very first day as an apprentice, to a career spanning forty years, he has been a ‘tradesman’ possessing varying degrees of skill.

The same with understanding Truth – there are the early years, when your understanding grows and matures, and then the later years, when you are able to rest more in your deeper understanding. All that time, you understand Truth, and during that time, you are continually making slight corrections to your behaviour, based on the dept of your understanding.

Diogenes may be able to shed more light on the subject:

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

Passing a stream, Diogenes saw a boy drinking out of his hands. "A child has beaten me in simplicity," he said, throwing away his cup.


I wrote:
Most prerequisites for becoming a Great Philosopher are already present in many males; that hardly any of them will go on to become philosophers gives us a clear indication of how difficult philosophy is for most men. Women who have thoughts of becoming philosophers have to factor in that they will be constantly tugged back to the realms of the feminine not only by other women, but by men also. Of course men have these same pressures on them, but the reason some are able to break away more easily than others, is that they are able to direct all their energies to that one goal, and not be distracted by worldly concerns.
Leyla wrote:
Yes, that is the reason. But, obviously, the statement that "some…more than others" is a gross understatement when Great Philosophy is used as the benchmark. I mean, out of all the people on Earth, you have mentioned -- what? -- 5-ish.
It is ‘faith’ that creates the deep chasm between the ‘world of man’ and the ‘Man of God’.

That there are five or ten men that possess this faith is a blessing to the world. The reason there aren’t more, isn’t because Truth is too difficult to understand – no, the reason is that most people lack faith.

Having a great passion for something helps you put into it the hard work and perseverance needed to become expert at it. Understanding life and death takes not only passion, but also faith. When your understanding is still in the early stages of development, passion is helpful to spur you forward, but it is faith that takes you onwards, ever closer to your goal of becoming pure spirit.

I wrote:
For others they want to do more than understand Truth, they want to live it. They possess an unquenchable thirst for Truth, giving them the strength of giants and the courage of lions. It is these few that everyone else is judged against – so when you are considering your own development, size yourself up beside the likes of say; Diogenes or Hakuin; Kierkegaard or Solway, and then you will know what needs to be done in your own life. Use their strength and their courage to push your own life forward.
Leyla wrote:
A fair comment, in general. But whilst I obviously understand the demands on me due to the fact of being a single mother of three children, and the effect that has on any immediate ability to produce a work of philosophical significance, it does by no means bar me from such an ideal as Truth. For example, once my children have become independent individuals I do not intend to embrace this “new freedom” to indulge in any egotistical fancy that may be so desired. In fact, I simply see myself spending more time doing what I am doing at this very moment. and the effect that has on any immediate ability to produce a work of philosophical significance, it does by no means bar me from such an ideal as Truth.
Not all the Great Men wrote books. Many of them had their lives, and their words recorded by others. Most of these men knew nothing of one another, nor did many of them have any encouragement, or help from anyone – yet they still progressed on the philosophical path.

My suggestion to look to the Great Men of philosophy for encouragement and guidance, by making them your “benchmark”, makes perfect sense. They have done what you may want to do – they have attempted, and to varying degrees, succeeded in freeing themselves from suffering. Why not use them to make your way easier.

Leyla wrote:
And if the mark of a Great Philosopher is the number of people he reaches after his death and not his living in accordance with Truth -- then I may never be one.


A Great Philosopher is, by definition, someone that lives according to Truth. He doesn’t employ his time making a ‘name’ for himself, he just does what he can to help others attain freedom from the hell in which they live.

Leyla wrote:
That's not going to make a difference to anything I'm doing right now, however. I am not after the Great Philosopher goal. I am not interested in personal titles. To me, that's secondary -- a potential by-product.
The goal of the Great Philosopher is perfection. Is that your goal?

Leyla wrote:
I am only after Truth. And what and how I know of it is passed to my children and those who encounter me.
If you think it appropriate, would you tell me what your children think of the truths you tell them? For example, do you talk to them about how love is evil, or how there is no such thing as life and death? Or, are they too young to be introduced to those subjects?

Sue

User avatar
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen » Tue Jan 03, 2006 11:16 am

sue hindmarsh asked:
Or, are they too young to be introduced to those subjects?
Heaven forbid! Are they ever too young to breathe?
For example, do you talk to them about how love is evil,…
How can I not when, from beneath its grand proclamations of virtue, it is the subtle whisper of its fallacious nature that resounds in my ears?

Of course, my sons have progressed a little more along this line than my daughter. They are older, and also do not have the politics of being female to deal with. Thus, recently, my daughter reignited the passions of love and hate through her desire for friendship, directly against my advice. At eleven, it took her much less time to understand a good part of it this time round than it did when she was five -- though she still has a considerable way to go.

For and through the love of her friend, we were again graced with a full demonstration of human love for the fellow man.

I have always been amused by the fact that such a physically small woman as myself can draw so much attention. Whenever I have gone out and said, “No” to a child or their parent with respect to an act of violence committed by their children, the doors of almost every household swing open and I see whole families watching the proceedings. This recent event came to a head when I was confronted by my next door neighbour whose son, according to my daughter, had thrown rocks at my daughter. Even the guy living at top of the street came down and involved himself. The physical location of their property tells me that either they keep a constant watch on my end of the street, their children act as spies who report such events to them, or someone closer to my home telephoned them advising them of the unfolding drama.

The details beyond that are unnecessarily mundane in relation to your question, really. So, I’ll wrap it up. Aside from the comments made and questions posed to the other parents -- later in my own house, I said: “That, my children [for dramatic effect], was an example of ordinarily love and friendship. Do you still wish to have and to hold it?”

I already know what they think of it from their actions and, through mine, I intend to keep them thinking of it for as long as it is willed to be that way.
…or how there is no such thing as life and death?


Yes, we have discussed that, as well as Emptiness.

My middle son (14) was a self-declared atheist at the age of 10. He asked me about the meaning of life at the age of four. My eldest son (15) -- the quieter of the two -- and my daughter both are involved in refining their notions of God in contrast to the common conception.

The last discussion we had related to the subject was in the car on the way to somewhere on sense perception and the notion of illusion using the trees flitting by as an example.

User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Post by sue hindmarsh » Tue Jan 03, 2006 2:47 pm

Leyla,

I’m a bit confused – your three children are taught by you to not be involved with other people – for what reason?

If the “rock throwing” episode was an example of “ordinarily love and friendship” - how would you describe family life to them?

Sue

User avatar
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen » Tue Jan 03, 2006 3:23 pm

Sue,

I was trying to avoid launching into the details of the discussion that ensued. Still am, for practical reasons. Perhaps I should record them when they occur?

I do not teach my children not to be involved with others. My objective is to teach them about the nature of that involvement.

They go to school and have their own friends. More importantly, they have their own minds.

The decision is ultimately their own.
If the “rock throwing” episode was an example of “ordinarily love and friendship” - how would you describe family life to them?
Pretty much the same way when it unfolds in a similar manner. Attachment is a subject always on the table under such circumstances.

User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Post by sue hindmarsh » Thu Jan 12, 2006 7:41 pm

Diebert wrote:
To really define femininity, what an undertaking! Because it was you who described her as mirage, hiding anywhere in the universe, constantly shifting and changing benchmarks, not having a direct relation with anything: nothing but a puff of air. Don't you see that hunting her down to 'dislodge' her from minds, to 'eliminate her' can turn into a ghost hunt? Like warning for 'the devil' on our left shoulder. It would become another Don Quichotte story, the brave knight endlessly chasing windmills.
The reason the old “Don” ran around chasing windmills, was because he did not stop to question the rationality of his quest, (and fighting windmills is pretty irrational) therefore any masculine qualities he may have brought to that quest were rendered impotent and absurd.

It is the same for most men; they run around building their lives, finding happiness in the fruits of their toil, sadness and frustration in their mistakes and losses, and basically being silly fools like Don.

This is the feminine at play - not the masculine.

So the feminine is easy to find if you’re prepared to look, but it takes a strong mind, and an even stronger will to look closely.
And I said that while the feminine needs the masculine, the masculine mind doesn't need the feminine or even specific awareness of her, to be masculine.
It is true that the feminine mind depends for its existence on the masculine mind, but what you’re missing Diebert, is that most men depend on the feminine to also exist - and when I say “most men” I mean 99.9% of them. Men who have not turned their minds to the discovery of wisdom are living a mostly feminine existence, because their motivations and actions are dedicated to the feminine.

Everyday, most men go to work. By doing so they are contributing to the ignorance in the world, because work is fundamentally a feminine activity. For example, say a man spends eight hours every day working down a mine – why is he doing this? One reason would be so that he can afford food and shelter, as well as some beer and cigarettes. Another reason would be to attract a woman to marry, and raise a family with. All these activities make him feel successful, because he is building a life and a future for himself. All these activities are attachments; which means, he is not living a life dedicated to Truth.

So even though men carry the seed of masculinity within them, most squander it on enjoying life in the feminine. There are a few men that have made understanding Reality their job – so it is those few that are keeping masculinity alive. These men can rightly be called 'masculine'.
One cannot 'build' masculinity by just examining the feminine.
Yes, that is true, but it does make it easier to divide the 'sheep from the goats'. Men that are 'sheep' are attached to the feminine and will do all they can to protect it; whereas the men that are more 'goat' like, are willing to tear femininity apart to take a look inside.

The sheep will never understand anything about Truth, because their egos are focused on extracting happiness and comfort from everyday things like; work, sport, women, mates, war, science, cars, money and creating a future for themselves. Sheep like to ask questions of themselves (when they’re not to busy doing something more interesting) like; “Who am I?”, “What is the world really all about?”, “Why is there so much hate and sadness in the world?”, “Where is my life going?”, “When will I be truly happy and satisfied?” And the one answer they come up with for all of these questions is, “Life’s a mystery, so just make the best of it.” And they do – mindlessly adding to the horrors and hardships of themselves and billions of people now, as well as innumerable people in the future. At bottom, their egos are too weak to ever be dissatisfied enough to ever honestly question themselves, or the world in which they live.

The goats have larger egos and are prepared to sacrifice their own immediate happiness and security for the chance of a life free from all turmoil, and all falsity. They often start by questioning their own existence, asking, “What am I?” Or they may start investigating the true value of traditions and beliefs. They are also not afraid to attack their own thinking; doubting their conclusions and not letting up on themselves until they’re sure they have reached ‘bed rock’ truth. These men have the potential to understand everything that was, is and will be.
Can we sketch a more defined relation between femininity, the ego, delusion, 'Maya' and the self?
Yes. The feminine is falsity – the stuff of normal life; love, hope, sadness, striving, wishing, dreaming, longing, hate, loneliness, boredom, excitement, etc. Most men and women are feminine, living in a feminine world.
And also I wonder what their function might be for life, for instinct, for survival of the human race. They might be deceptive for a mind striving to become wise, but the deception seem to do very well for the human race: six and half billion, suffering or not, can testify. Mass technology, mass consumerism made the human race spread like a plague.
“Plague” seems an apt term when describing the consequences of the herd mentality. We may have computers and space travel, but we are still burdened by hatred and suffering.

Progress is fine if it is connected to Truth, but otherwise it is just supporting and fostering all the feminine lies and nonsense that people enslave their lives to. For example; evolution is closer to the Truth than religion, but there are still billions of people on the planet that don’t know anything about it, or worse still, say that it is “just a theory”. Religion, on the other hand, is doing very well due to the stupidity and laziness of the masses.

Like I said – the feminine underpins society in so many ways, it really isn’t hard to find her.
This line of thought brought me to ask finally: But, how many ignorant people would be needed to breed one genius? Is he rare by definition or because of circumstances?
In a recent post on this thread, Leyla asked a similar question. My answer to her began, “It is ‘faith’ that creates the deep chasm between the ‘world of man’ and the ‘Man of God’”.

To drag yourself out of ignorance takes a keen mind and a strong will. Once you have a taste of wisdom, you then need a ‘leap of faith’ to take you on further. Hardly anyone ever uses their mind, will, or faith to try and understand anything about Reality – they instead like to cling to what they believe to be their nice, safe lives.

Genius is rare, because ignorance is abundant.

Sue

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

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sun Jan 15, 2006 8:56 am

Sue,
you wrote:It is true that the feminine mind depends for its existence on the masculine mind, but what you’re missing Diebert, is that most men depend on the feminine to also exist - and when I say “most men” I mean 99.9% of them. Men who have not turned their minds to the discovery of wisdom are living a mostly feminine existence, because their motivations and actions are dedicated to the feminine.
This seems a category error. The 'feminine mind' or a mind ruled by feminine values is not in the same category as what you call 'feminine existence', the world, the common life. That there's a strong relation I won't dispute.
So even though men carry the seed of masculinity within them, most squander it on enjoying life in the feminine. There are a few men that have made understanding Reality their job – so it is those few that are keeping masculinity alive. These men can rightly be called 'masculine'.
I disagree with your redefining of 'masculinity' as something only related to wisdom and philosophy. One can talk about masculinity in matters of the world or about masculinity in thought or philosophy. That you value the more inward masculinity, conquering oneself as infinitely more important than outward masculinity, does in my opinion not change the definition of it in terms of psychology or activities in general.

By using your terms, masculinity would not exist in the animal world, which would make describing their behavior difficult unless we find a new word for that.
The sheep will never understand anything about Truth, because their egos are focused on extracting happiness and comfort from everyday things like; work, sport, women, mates, war, science, cars, money and creating a future for themselves.
Yeah, life is by default preoccupied with life. That's what makes it grow and spread.
And the one answer they come up with for all of these questions is, “Life’s a mystery, so just make the best of it.” And they do – mindlessly adding to the horrors and hardships of themselves and billions of people now, as well as innumerable people in the future.
Human life seems to function in general at its best when it keeps hiding its scary truths for its barely conscious vehicles. This is my observation.
Diebert wrote:Can we sketch a more defined relation between femininity, the ego, delusion, 'Maya' and the self?
Yes. The feminine is falsity – the stuff of normal life; love, hope, sadness, striving, wishing, dreaming, longing, hate, loneliness, boredom, excitement, etc. Most men and women are feminine, living in a feminine world.
Existence as people normally experience it can just as well be called the 'false': the gods at play. There is some merit calling life itself the feminine. The same reasoning that made Nietzsche say: truth cuts into life. Still the wise, while having to cut into their life, never turn anti-life.
Progress is fine if it is connected to Truth, but otherwise it is just supporting and fostering all the feminine lies and nonsense that people enslave their lives to.
But life in most of its stages is about some mixture of lie and nonsense. It's the very mechanism it used to come this far!
Religion, on the other hand, is doing very well due to the stupidity and laziness of the masses.
Religion is in a way a celebration of life and its divine ignorance. At the same time the esoteric tradition behind many religious traditions show a deep, mainly forgotten understanding of life and the inevitable ignorance and suffering that seems to come with it.
Like I said – the feminine underpins society in so many ways, it really isn’t hard to find her.
Yes, I even dare to say that society embodies her in many ways.
Genius is rare, because ignorance is abundant.
Genius can only exist as rarity. The forces of the common, establishment, the group, the system will always work against him. 'Enlightened society' is therefore in my view a contradiction in terms.

User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Post by sue hindmarsh » Mon Jan 23, 2006 7:20 pm

Diebert wrote:
This seems a category error. The 'feminine mind' or a mind ruled by feminine values is not in the same category as what you call 'feminine existence', the world, the common life. That there's a strong relation I won't dispute.
In what ways aren’t they related?
I disagree with your redefining of 'masculinity' as something only related to wisdom and philosophy. One can talk about masculinity in matters of the world or about masculinity in thought or philosophy. That you value the more inward masculinity, conquering oneself as infinitely more important than outward masculinity, does in my opinion not change the definition of it in terms of psychology or activities in general.
By using your terms, masculinity would not exist in the animal world, which would make describing their behavior difficult unless we find a new word for that.
Men would still be called men even if fashion dictated that they have plastic surgery to look exactly the same as women.

Men are sadly still called men even though fashion dictates that they think exactly the same as women.

The domestication of men was inevitable – they want women.

The domestication of masculinity has been a battle – these days masculinity is losing out to femininity – big time. The only way to preserve it is by studying and developing it in a pristine environment, which of course is Philosophy. It really is the only place to truly understand masculinity, because it is the only place that femininity can't get a foot in the door.
Yeah, life is by default preoccupied with life. That's what makes it grow and spread.
Or - 'life' is preoccupied with bullshit – that’s what makes it grow and spread. :)
Human life seems to function in general at its best when it keeps hiding its scary truths for its barely conscious vehicles. This is my observation.
Function – yes, but how well and for how long? Irrational people make irrational decisions. Having a few more rational people around could therefore be quite useful.
Existence as people normally experience it can just as well be called the 'false': the gods at play. There is some merit calling life itself the feminine. The same reasoning that made Nietzsche say: truth cuts into life. Still the wise, while having to cut into their life, never turn anti-life.
I’m not sure what you mean by that last sentence?
But life in most of its stages is about some mixture of lie and nonsense. It's the very mechanism it used to come this far!
Breast feeding is really good for helping babies grow strong and healthy, but if you feed it to a grown man as his only source of food, he’d soon grow weak and ill.

I think mankind has had long enough in its infancy stage – isn’t it time he grew up?
Religion is in a way a celebration of life and its divine ignorance.
Are you saying that this is a good thing, or a bad thing?
At the same time the esoteric tradition behind many religious traditions show a deep, mainly forgotten understanding of life and the inevitable ignorance and suffering that seems to come with it.
Yes, there are many religious texts devoted to Wisdom, but as you say, it is inevitable that the unwise will misunderstand these texts and instead use them to increase ignorance and suffering.
Genius can only exist as rarity. The forces of the common, establishment, the group, the system will always work against him. 'Enlightened society' is therefore in my view a contradiction in terms.
Not necessarily. It is not implausible to imagine a society which considers Truth a worthwhile basis for it to develop upon. We’ve used lies and nonsense as the basis for society for a long time – why not give Truth a go?

Sue

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

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:45 pm

sue hindmarsh wrote:Diebert wrote:
This seems a category error. The 'feminine mind' or a mind ruled by feminine values is not in the same category as what you call 'feminine existence', the world, the common life. That there's a strong relation I won't dispute.
In what ways aren’t they related?
In the way you wrote yourself earlier: "women have no direct relationship with anything". But it might be clear by now I do not accept your position that activities like working long hard days in a mine are feminine because it's "building a life" instead of digging for truth. What is feminine is the modern world where we trade in goods and words, ignoring the realities that make them possible, the real price tag that is mostly unconsciously agreed with while losing any form of direct relationship along the way.
The only way to preserve it [masculinity] is by studying and developing it in a pristine environment, which of course is Philosophy. It really is the only place to truly understand masculinity, because it is the only place that femininity can't get a foot in the door.
Philosophy is the only place to 'truly understand' anything, period. Masculinity outside philosophy doesn't seem more under threat than usual. Living on the brink of extinction, this is the usual habitat for any truely masculine value.
Diebert wrote:Human life seems to function in general at its best when it keeps hiding its scary truths for its barely conscious vehicles. This is my observation.
Function – yes, but how well and for how long? Irrational people make irrational decisions. Having a few more rational people around could therefore be quite useful.
As long as they won't organize into rational committees, it will be fine :)
Diebert wrote:Existence as people normally experience it can just as well be called the 'false': the gods at play. There is some merit calling life itself the feminine. The same reasoning that made Nietzsche say: truth cuts into life. Still the wise, while having to cut into their life, never turn anti-life.
I’m not sure what you mean by that last sentence?
It's the same as in that Nietzsche quote we talked about before, the sage, the youth and the crowd. A sage accepts the 'innocent' life and understands how it functions and is kind toward it. But to be able to begin thinking truthfully himself he has to damage, curtail his own life through masculinity.
Diebert wrote:Religion is in a way a celebration of life and its divine ignorance.
Are you saying that this is a good thing, or a bad thing?
Innocent and unavoidable. But a philosopher steers nevertheless clear from it.
Diebert wrote:Genius can only exist as rarity. The forces of the common, establishment, the group, the system will always work against him. 'Enlightened society' is therefore in my view a contradiction in terms.
Not necessarily. It is not implausible to imagine a society which considers Truth a worthwhile basis for it to develop upon. We’ve used lies and nonsense as the basis for society for a long time – why not give Truth a go?
To me that sounds too idealistic and slightly ignorant of the basic mechanisms of life itself. Society is nothing more than a self-ordering mechanism rising out of the complexity of larger human groups. Masculine thought will destroy the coherency.

But of course it plausible to imagine for example a different lower populated world with small units and groups roaming its surface.

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by David Quinn » Tue Jan 24, 2006 9:40 am

Diebert wrote:
But it might be clear by now I do not accept your position that activities like working long hard days in a mine are feminine because it's "building a life" instead of digging for truth. What is feminine is the modern world where we trade in goods and words, ignoring the realities that make them possible, the real price tag that is mostly unconsciously agreed with while losing any form of direct relationship along the way.
At the very least, we can say that the coal miners are directing whatever masculine energies they possess towards feminine aims - e.g. funding the activities of their wives and kids, and helping sustain the feminine modern world. Their masculinity is not very well-developed and easily deflected towards the preservation of feminine values.

The masculinity of a philosopher, by contrast, is developed enough to withstand this constant pressure by society to submit to the feminine, and can even be actively deployed to the further destruction of feminine thinking and the promotion of higher aims. The masculine philosopher is the true revolutionary.

-

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

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Fri Jan 27, 2006 8:42 am

David Quinn wrote:The masculinity of a philosopher, by contrast, is developed enough to withstand this constant pressure by society to submit to the feminine, and can even be actively deployed to the further destruction of feminine thinking and the promotion of higher aims. The masculine philosopher is the true revolutionary.
Promotion of higher aims, like the survival, spread and growth of wisdom? But isn't this still aimed toward an ignorant world, a desire to 'sow the seeds'? Thus in a sense still aimed toward the feminine? Their is no 'higher aim' without a target, no masculinity without some feminine reception. Though for completeness sake: masculinity is self-creative but within dualism creates the feminine as his own shadow to be grasped.

Post Reply