Hello. I bring a small gift.

[kissaki]

(oh, oh . . . third-person reference-to-self is seldom good form :)

Look up the definition of 'kissaki.'

[yougene]

yougene, could you try to be a bit less vague? I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. An example might help.

Sure Trevor. You can think of the masculine/feminine dynamic as a fractal, a repeating pattern seen on every level. The traditions like to put as the manifest world exists as an expression of the divine. The divine is expressed through the masculine/feminine dynamic. So for example looking on the level of your personal being, the masculine is the formless unborn awareness that is you. The feminine is the radiant world of form that is arising inside the formless awareness. Together in union they are the Tao, the All, or whatever you wish to call it.

Another example, looking at the sciences you have two opposing yet mutually informing views. The reductionists and systems theorists. Now which one is correct? The ones who see the world as reducible to smaller wholes( masculine ) like the reductionists? Or the one that sees a larger whole built up of small parts( feminine )?

Anyways there are many related qualities you can give these two signifiers.
Masculine: wholeness, transcendence, ascension, the beyond
Feminine: partness( being as part of something larger ), embrace, descencion, the here and now

[yougene]

I view masculine and feminine as typologies with male and female as categorical subsets. I'm not sure where you got the idea I do otherwise.

I never claimed you didn't. What I do claim is that you are treading water on the shallow end of the pool. You hint at this essence of the feminine without clearly defining it -- IRONY.

What exactly do you find shallow?

Similar to Pye, I think you are trying to give more credit to woman's physical form than is necessary or useful even.

I never mentioned anything about the physical form. When I speak of form I speak of all observable awareness. If you can be aware of it as an object it is part of the manifest( the feminine ).

I think you shall find that all mysterious properties ascribed to femininity are always vaguely tethered to the female physical form, and that all the supposed good qualities of it, such as compassion, are found just as much in men;

Levels of compassion are dependent on stages of development not mode of being. You're going to find compassion in both modes of being but each mode frames it differently. Masculine compassion expresses itself in terms of rights and freedom. Feminine compassion expresses itself in terms of care and responsibility.

You're going to find all the same TRANSCENDENTAL qualities in male and females. What is going to be different is how these qualities manifest and express themselves.

in fact, it's reasonable to argue that the greatest and most profound examples of the supposed superior feminine qualities were and are manifested in men.

Which men? I can think of alot of examples where some men showed superior feminine qualities, and vice versa. It's too broad of a generalization to portray anything useful.

Masculinity is the vehicle to go beyond masculinity and femininity, not the goal itself.

The Tao( "The Way" ) is the vehicle, destination, and beginning. The masculine in this case is the drive towards ascension. That's if we're still sticking to the traditional conceptions.

Promote the 'different facets of same whole' all you want, that does not mean they all lead to knowledge.

Ofcourse they all lead to knowledge! The sum whole of reality isn't encapsulated by the male perspective.

[Kelly Jones]

There will never be equity as long as people believe a female constitutionally, inherently incapable of transcendent humanhood. This is a self-defeating loop!

A biological female is not necessarily identical with a feminine-minded person (a woman, a womanly person, a person with feminine psychology).

I do my best not to interchange these words to prevent confusion.

Beliefs like these:

Woman: unceasing desire.

That is all she is. I want, I want, I want. I, I, I, I, I.

I am offended, I am offended.

- - - render these things-given pale in comparison.

Woman psychologically, of course.

Kelly: You are demanding from men something.

btw, in response to this, you cannot demand enlightenment from anyone. Men know how to read. They can read what I wrote about oppression as a matter of being confined-to-immanence (same mechanism, by the way, that supports all forms of oppression), and they can think about it for themselves.

No, like Beauvoir (as I already mentioned), it is pure folly to demand from men something that women already possess for themselves (potential human transcendence); pure stupidity to wait around for others to enlighten themselves on the matter of one's own transcendence. But there is no mistaking: that the mechanisms of confinement confine the mechanic of them - fast-to them - just as surely as what they seek to confine.

Let me get this straight.

You are demanding that I stop regarding identifying the majority of biological females as displaying feminine psychology. You are demanding I see biological females as already on the path to Enlightenment (resting on the understanding the nature of Ultimate Reality), and that I see biological males as not already on this path. Thus, you are demanding I become enlightened as to how Enlightenment works.

Rather confining behaviour of you, I'd say.

[Pye]

Kelly, when you see other people here arguing this and that, do you also see them as demanding that the other change their thinking? It is just as I said previously - one cannot demand such a thing!

No, the best we can do is put forth our reasoning - and our strongest reasoning - for the listener to take in and do with what they will. If one's will values a higher thought, one will follow it. But as we see of most all of us here, one tends to will oneself and what one already thinks. I am no different! As soon as I see a higher thought, I'll follow it, though!

Listen, I appreciate you patiently repeating what you mean by masculine/feminine minds - I've knocked about here long enough to understand exactly what it is meant to address. The whole world is full of fuzzy-thinking, less-than-conscious, sensation-loving beings for which I have seen no evidence whatsoever that it falls definitively along gender lines, so there is no meaning to the phrase "feminine psychology" for me. I'm in the trenches of reason-teaching and have this lesson repeated to me everyday. The highly conscious - the exceptional - is exceptional in every case, and in every case, has supported nothing regarding the "gender" of one's mind or body. A highly conscious person is a highly conscious person - not "masculine" or "a man."

You are using - like many here - this immanence-bound distinction (mas/fem) in an attempt to fully transcend. I have pointed out here and elsewhere the built-in fatality of this sexualized little rubric. You want me to start there. I am replying again and again that it is a self-defeating trap. It, in itself needs transcended. Its is scripture and fixture for many here, hence the shape of the forum is exactly as its always been, unable to transcend. And with its assistance, you have a lot of males, thinking themselves by virtue of being males, bronzing over the very egos they mean to disassemble. And you have a lot of females, such as yourself, thinking they must "become" men in order to think. This is a flat-out lie, sunk in the concrete of masculinism. And masculinism is sunk in the concrete of immanence.

Your future thinking will not make it out of this if you believe you have to annihilate what, in the main, is to be integrated. It is not just females who need to transcend their thought-identities as females -- it is males who need to transcend their thought-identities as males, as well. No chance for that here. No chance at all. In this, men are asking their immanency (male-being) to become their transcendency. It is as foolish as the female diving into femininity alone in order to transcend.

I'd be happy to talk with you about levels of consciousness and unconsciousness, though :)

And some day, perhaps a little retrograde mosey into what you call the "feminine" itself. Frankly, of the very few wisest persons I've known in my life, the males among them appear to exhibit a number of the best "feminine" qualities, in their brilliant passivity, gentleness, inwardness and intuition. The equally rare females add to this these "masculine" qualities of concentration, direction, etc. See, I can play this mas/fem features game, too, but I cannot find a single person of wisdom who does not display both. So what's the point in genderizing the qualities when this actually acts to prevent people from integrating them all?

Integration, integration . . . - not annihilation. Annihilation is cowboy-philosophy, guns a'blazing. There is something far more, far better than that . . . when the mist clears, and the mountain re-appears.

[Kelly Jones]

The whole world is full of fuzzy-thinking, less-than-conscious, sensation-loving beings for which I have seen no evidence whatsoever that it falls definitively along gender lines, so there is no meaning to the phrase "feminine psychology" for me.

You must live in a different world to me.

In my world, I observe that most women take a lot longer to park cars, rarely drive with trailers, even more rarely drive semi-trailers or trains or aeroplanes. They seem unable to picture objects fully in their minds, which is a trait of consciousness (cause and effect, change over time).

I observe, in my world, that most women are obsessed about their physical appearance, especially being thin. There is a serious downside to not eating enough food, which is hyperglycaemia, leading to fatigue and lessened brain function. The brain only uses glucose, not fat. Yet most women in my world continue to regard lessened brain function as unimportant compared to conforming to the image of femininity. I observe that most women believe they can remain trim by dieting, rather than regular sports and exercise. I observe that most women want to eat fashionable food, and a mind-boggling variety of different fashionable foods, and do not have much of an idea about metabolism or catabolism.

I observe that most women in my world are always with others, or at least talking with others, or busily engaged in doing something that requires physical movement. I observe that they are rarely quiet when sitting still. Except for the elderly. Yet, from my observations of myself and most men, we are motionless when thinking deeply, and cultivate solitary moments for the love of thinking. So I assume most women do not think deeply.

I observe that the hard jobs requiring mental stamina and unrelenting determination, while keeping up one's ability to solve problems, such as being a fire-fighter, solo drover, miner, remote-area rescuer, are done by men. That is, in my world.

I observe that most women need a lot of props to help them solve problems. I listen to their problem-solving techniques or how they cope with stress. Their tools are putting on makeup and some new clothing, talking to a friend on the telephone, watching a romantic movie, having a bath, eating fashionable foods at fashionable cafes, or burning incense. These sorts of tools rarely have any direct effect on the problem, but are ego-stimulants to make the woman feel good about her abilities. This clearly means the intellectual abilities of women, so far as I can see, are weaker than that of men.

What do you see in your world?

[kissaki]

So what's the point in genderizing the qualities when this actually acts to prevent people from integrating them all?

The point to using comfort-grating gender based words in describing philosophy is precisely set people against themselves and others. The point is to erect huge seemingly impassable barriers so that the person is left singularly alone in the universe with no one and nothing to help or lean on. The point is to make the person FAIL!

Integration, integration . . . - not annihilation.

Annihilation! Annihilation! Annihilation is more spirited and inspiring than integration. The universe feeds off annihilation. I love annihilation, it leaves me with nothing.

Annihilation is cowboy-philosophy, guns a'blazing.

I live in Texas!

[kissaki]

yougene,

I find your philosophy too soft, nice, and all-encompassing. It's too friendly. It something that makes the females pause and say 'awwwww', the same reaction they have to small cute fluffy dogs, and then go back to shopping or reading their magazine. In fact, I think your words belong right at home in their magazines.

I want something hard and clear throughout, something poisonous. Poison me. Give me something useful to sharpen my teeth on, not impressionable putty-substance that can take a mold imprint of my teeth which I can then just admire and say 'How beautiful. It's so beautiful.' Blah.

By the way, males have shown superior aptitude to females in all areas of intellect. The creme-de-la-creme is male. It's been discussed at length elsewhere on this board many times. So your nonsensical statement about 'and vice versa' is bunk.

Enlightenment is spiders, snakes, and scorpions!

[Steven Coyle]

Man, individualization is where its at.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individuation

[yougene]

^ Tip of the hat to you sir.

[Pye]

Okay, Kelly. I see you still want to talk about degrees of consciousness through gender alone.

Yes, I've seen these women, too.

Have you any knowledge of these men?:

The men whose heavy machinery inventions fall shortsighted of the interconnectedness of earthly things? - whose guns and engines are all abstractions of the projectile power of their bodies that they have unconsciously reproduced? Or men expending vast amounts of their time playing video games for the pure sensation of it? - hours and hours engulfed in the consumption of sports? Or hours and hours glued to internet pornography in forensic stupor over female body parts? How about the men organizing the sex-slave trade, treating women and children as thing-commodities for their endless sexual fixations? Men in prison butt-fucking each other and then getting out to pound on a couple of gays? Men sitting in bars endlessly anesthetizing themselves against existence, in fear of their own feelings and anyone else's? Men condemning themselves to the half-life of marriage, walking about like obedient dolts because the prospect of no regular sex terrifies them? Men in blind pursuit of acquisition and power through the forces of capital culture - their animal right of natural selection? How about men in suits and ties, headdress and cowboy hats - for which their clothing signals their "rights" and actions in the world? Men in boardrooms, oval offices, war-rooms moving people about like chess pieces to do their bidding and their fighting - to protect their material interests? [and yes, Leyla, government is immoral!]. Men in gangs of men, unable to go about alone. Men in fraternities and good old boy clubs and teams and packs - for you neglect to account for women going about in groups for safety from these self-same men! And the man I once saw destroy two months-growth of some ["dumb"] woman's food garden in his unconscious pursuit of a football?

How long do you want to play this game?

More importantly, what do these women you describe above have to do with you?

You hate, Kelly. You hate and hate. And you are desperately attached to it, too.

[Kelly Jones]

Pye,

There's no hatred in pointing out differing levels of reasoning, just as a doctor has no hatred for measuring the progress of an illness. He has to do it, to be a good doctor.

I will continue to keep measuring, so long as the illness needs my observing abilities.

I think you have pointed out aspects of the illness in males. How I'd contextualise it is in this way.

The male ego has no lack of self-confidence in its ability to do whatever it takes, but it demands reasonable reward for the effort. When it doesn't get the reward, or not enough, and even punishment, it starts to founder in life. It becomes demoralised, emotional, resentful.

This is what you're observing.

The female ego, by contrast, has significant lack of self-confidence. It demands help to even sort out what its strengths and weaknesses are. It doesn't seem to have a strong enough ego to know what to do, or how to get what it needs for itself.

[Pye]

There's no hatred in pointing out differing levels of reasoning, just as a doctor has no hatred for measuring the progress of an illness. He has to do it, to be a good doctor.

Okay, that's good. If there is no great itch needing scratched in your rather relentless diatribes against women - if, in fact, I misread these as diatribes and fixations - then yes, yes. I'm not in your body when you write and so I only have the words to go by - Words that often appear to me to be expressing a great turmoil and disgust in you when you approach the subject of women. You are the only one who can register the state you are in when you write this way. You're the only one you have to justify it to. But thanks for trying to clear it up with me just the same.

[Carl G]

The men whose heavy machinery inventions fall shortsighted of the interconnectedness of earthly things? - whose guns and engines are all abstractions of the projectile power of their bodies that they have unconsciously reproduced? Or men expending vast amounts of their time playing video games for the pure sensation of it? - hours and hours engulfed in the consumption of sports? Or hours and hours glued to internet pornography in forensic stupor over female body parts? How about the men organizing the sex-slave trade, treating women and children as thing-commodities for their endless sexual fixations? Men in prison butt-fucking each other and then getting out to pound on a couple of gays? Men sitting in bars endlessly anesthetizing themselves against existence, in fear of their own feelings and anyone else's? Men condemning themselves to the half-life of marriage, walking about like obedient dolts because the prospect of no regular sex terrifies them? Men in blind pursuit of acquisition and power through the forces of capital culture - their animal right of natural selection? How about men in suits and ties, headdress and cowboy hats - for which their clothing signals their "rights" and actions in the world? Men in boardrooms, oval offices, war-rooms moving people about like chess pieces to do their bidding and their fighting - to protect their material interests? [and yes, Leyla, government is immoral!]. Men in gangs of men, unable to go about alone. Men in fraternities and good old boy clubs and teams and packs - for you neglect to account for women going about in groups for safety from these self-same men! And the man I once saw destroy two months-growth of some ["dumb"] woman's food garden in his unconscious pursuit of a football?

Pye, that's a pretty damn fine piece of writing.

[Pye]

(thankyou, Carl. Now you make me wish I had taken even greater time with it :)

[Leyla Shen]

Men in boardrooms, oval offices, war-rooms moving people about like chess pieces to do their bidding and their fighting - to protect their material interests? [and yes, Leyla, government is immoral!].

Now, Pye, you didn't really expect me to let this jab go unnoticed, did you? Would like to address my morality/immorality argument as posed in the Crucible, or would you like a right hook, first?