Masculinity & Femininity

[Cory Duchesne]

Greg,

CP: Do you agree that the signifier(the symbol) is not the signified(sensation, chemical reaction, quality)?


GS: Yes. They are two different things. But they can both be called symbols.

CP: Can you give me an example of how this is so? I don’t quite follow.

CP: When you say subjective - - do you mean: ‘thought-based’?


GS: I mean something appearing to an individual mind.

CP: Ok, now - - in order for something to be perceived by a creature, does that creature need ‘thought’, ‘memory’, ‘symbol’?
Or can there be perception without subjectivity?


Do all animals, insects, microorganisms have individual minds that sense appearances?

[Leyla Shen]

I've had a really quick look over that link, Cory. From what I can tell so far, and this may change, I don't think she even considers herself a sage.

In this era, to become a spiritual inquirer without social consciousness is a luxury that we can ill afford, and to be a social activist without a scientific understanding of the inner workings of the mind is the worst folly.

What is this "scientific understanding" that she alludes to here, do you think?

[Greg Shantz]

Cory,

CP: Do you agree that the signifier(the symbol) is not the signified(sensation, chemical reaction, quality)?

GS: Yes. They are two different things. But they can both be called symbols.

CP: Can you give me an example of how this is so? I don’t quite follow.

Well, a concept or a sensation are both things appearing to mind. You may have the concept or symbol of pain, say, and know what it is and try to avoid it, and then there is the actual experience of pain, which is something other than the concept you have in your mind and can also be called a symbol.

Does that make it clearer for you? You were asking whether a symbol and a sensation are two different things, weren't you?

CP: When you say subjective - - do you mean: ‘thought-based’?

GS: I mean something appearing to an individual mind.

CP: Ok, now - - in order for something to be perceived by a creature, does that creature need ‘thought’, ‘memory’, ‘symbol’?
Or can there be perception without subjectivity?

I think you can percieve something without thought, or memory, but your perception of it won't be as complex as if you were percieving it with thought or memory. For example, insects and animals have instinctual reactions to stimuli, but that doesn't mean that they have thoughts or memory. They are responding to something, so there must be some perception there, but their response is not based on thought or memory. It is instinctual.

There can be no perception without subjectivity because perception is a subjective process. That is, perceptions are percieved by a subject.

CP: Do all animals, insects, microorganisms have individual minds that sense appearances?

I don't think they have minds in the sense that humans do, that is to say, are capable of abstract reasoning, but they instead have instinctual reactions to stimuli.

[Leyla Shen]

Cory,

Although I was emphasizing how my 'jolt' from the loud music was not 'egotistical worry' which is a whole other bag of worms. (although i might have been doing music out of egotistical worry) It is this 'worry' that is the problem. Whereas, Instinctive fear is only necessary when one is not fully conscious of conditions around oneself. (egotistical worry may cause conditions where one is inattentive and unaware and thus ‘jolted’ by an error they made)

Still sounds like two different perspectives of the same thing, to me.

Egotistical fear (worry), therefore unconsciousness.
Not fully conscious, therefore instinctive fear.

Aside from degree, what’s the difference between not being fully conscious of the conditions around oneself and unconsciousness? Does egotistical fear compromise total unconsciousness?

[Cory Duchesne]

Matt,

MG: [sages] decide to [be sages] [to] the degree that they want to make a change to what they are.

CP: Yes but ‘wanting’ to change what one is, is not a choice. It is an involuntary response to suffering/discontent - -which is not a choice. One ‘is’ negative (involuntarily) and from this negative state there in an involuntarily urge, a ‘want’ for the positive. What is the positive? It is whatever one is conditioned to believe it is. Conditioning is an involuntary process as well. The process of conditioning involves certain degrees of doubt, worry, anxiety, awareness and belief, all of which are not choices, they are simply symptoms of what we are, and what we are is not a choice.
There is no decision, no choice. Only an involuntary process that we call living.

MG: Nevertheless, he chooses to be a sage and this distinguishes him from someone who doesn't make that choice.

I wouldn’t say that ones choice is the distinguishing factor. If I am anxious and bewildered when faced with difficulty than that anxiousness and bewilderment is not a choice. Instead of ‘facing a decision’ I say ‘facing difficulty’. When one understands one has no choice, then there is no difficulty. Difficulties arise when notions of choice arise, and notions of choice arise when realization is absent.
The fork in the road circumstance that is in part causing my anxiety is also not a choice. From this panicky un-relaxed state that I am involuntarily in, I am eventually forced to act whether it be high or low. My action is wise or it is unwise. My ‘choice’ is not what causes distinctions. I would say the quality or/and presence of awareness, emotion, fear and conditioning is/are the distinguishing factor(s). One does not choose to be aware, frightened, emotional and/or conditioned. It is an involuntary thing. As is being un-aware.

MG: His choice may be caused, leaving him no choice but to make the choice, but I'm not talking about the choice, I'm using the choice to describe the type of person I'm talking about.

What is the difference between the action and the actor? You can get tautological about it, but that alone is superficial. One needs to realize the action and the actor are one in the same. I am not denying one should not make distinctions and be tautological, but one needs an awareness that can cut through the fragmentation of mere tautology.
Ultimately, I don’t see a division between the person and the person’s actions, or so called ‘choices’ (besides the illusionary one caused by over-emphasis on abstraction). One must realize that one ‘is’ the whole body of cause and effect and from that realization, one is of an energy that has no cause, no beginning, no end.
I say the action and the actor are the same. The actor is the action. Labels alone are superficial, one must see the indivisibility and end the dualistic attitude which accompanies a limited tautological outlook. I’m not saying tautology is not necessary, it certainly is helpful, but there’s more to being aware then merely indulging in tautology, labeling parts.

MG: Well, I was trying to focus on one particular attribute, physical aggression, without having to consider other ones, like what the impulse is.

CP: Isn’t that just like trying to understand a tree by only studying its branches while ignoring its roots? You cannot understand the branches of a tree without seeing them as undivided from the roots.
If you divide aggression from what is essentially its essence (impulse) then you are not understanding aggression. Instead one is simply fooling oneself in to thinking one knows, when really one is confused.

MG: I'm not trying to understand aggression; I'm trying to distinguish between masculinity and femininity.

Are you making distinctions for the sake of making distinctions? Or are you making distinctions in order to understand the problem of living/how to live? I do realize that the person who makes distinctions just for the sake of making distinctions thinks he is understanding something by mere categorization alone.
Surely holistic understanding is the primary importance, and surely making distinctions can aid the process of holistic understanding. However, if tautology is taken too far, or if emphasized too much, it can surely hinder understanding as well. And one is surely hopeless if they engage in making distinctions solely to derive self-gratification (an illusionary sense of orientation) rather than to understand.

MG: if all of the impulse is removed from the concept of aggression, it basically means "active", so just substitute the word "active" when I use "aggression" and I think that will clarify what I'm trying to say.

Do you agree that 99.9 percent of the world is ‘active’ in the sense you use the word? That means only the smallest fraction of the population is close to being passive and feminine (wise), while the rest is masculine.
For this very reason, I think what your saying has a kernel of reasonableness to it.
I think the QRS would say 99.9 percent of the world’s activity is rooted in femininity and the smallest, smallest fraction of this mass is close to being (purely?) masculine (rational, genius).
My previous threads were an attempt to go into the details of this assertion.
I agree ‘passivity’ is important, and masculinity and passivity seem to be contrary to each other. I’m going to attempt to resolve this in the paragraphs below:
Do you see passivity as a requisite for true rationality and genius?
Surely there are forms of passivity which are not-rational, stupid, vegative, foolish. No?
I think it would be most reasonable to say that the activity of 99.9% of humanity is both feminine and masculine, and that femininity is undivided from masculinity. Where you have a quality of masculinity you have a corresponding measure and quality of femininity. Therefore the whole of humanity is masculine and feminine and the genius/rational person is one who has been freed from the vicious cycle of femininity/masculinity (or he functions at an unprecedented or extremely high level of sophistication, which still is under-girded by the fundamental principles masculinity/femininity).
I heard a Jesus story once that went something like:
Jesus and a disciple were talking alone, and a woman approached them. The disciple tried to shoo the woman away. Jesus stopped and declared: a woman can enter the kingdom of heaven if she is both female ‘and’ male within.
I read the same story on Quinn’s site: which limited the becoming of the woman to strictly ‘male’. Was this difference the result of Quinn’s fanciful (perhaps emotional minded) meddling?

MG: But I was thinking, you could take it further and judge each individual action as masculine and feminine instead of lumping them all together and judging them, in which case you would have aggressive actions and passive actions.

CP: Don’t fool yourself into thinking your ‘taking things further’. What your calling for is a very conventional way of understanding masculinity and femininity.
You are urging us to understand that the urge to flee is passive & female and the urge to fight is aggressive & male.

MG: No, I didn't mean it in that way because I was thinking of the concept of aggression without the impulse.

What would be the point of thinking about the concept of branches without the roots. It would be fruitless empty thinking.
How can there be aggression without impulse/emotion? How can there be branches without roots?

MG: If the impulse is removed from consideration, then fighting and fleeing would both be considered "aggressive" because action is being taken and activity is masculine

How about saying: fighting and fleeing are opposites that are undivided and dependent upon each other?

MG: The opposite would be to just passively stand there and do nothing.

Isn’t that just like saying that neutrality is the opposite of positive and negative?
It doesn’t really make sense does it?
Positive[attacking, aggression] and negative[fleeing, defending] are opposites that are rooted in each other, no? And passivity, like neutrality, is simply passivity. Neutrality has no opposite. It is just like our exchange of words on this thread. Lets just say (hypothetically) you any I are in opposition. You are attacking my comments, and I am defending and even somewhat retreating from the debate. We are opposites, however we are defined and shaped by each other. We are essentially undivided from each other, we are simply one undivided process that consists of thesis and anti-thesis. Now, lets just say there are other members of the form passively watching our exchange. Is the passive on-looker the opposite of the two entities engaged in a one on one debate?
Did you know that the essence of light (the photon) has no opposite? Light, goodness has no opposite. Evil is to be caught in duality (samsara).

MG: for example, take a person who sits around and thinks a lot, trying very hard to understand reality. Sitting around is passive, so I would label that "feminine". Thinking is active, so I would label that "masculine".

Another example: a woman shopping for a dress, searching every store in town for one that doesn't make her look fat. Her searching would be active, trying on many dresses and judging each one to see if she looks fat in it, so her running around would be active and masculine.

But the mental process behind her search are the vague notions of "looking fat", "will so-and-so like it", "does it look too much like so-and-so's", "this one reminds me of such-and-such" and things like that. So the thought process that arrived at these criteria would be passive, because they're vague and ill-formed ideas.

Matt, I do see where you are going, and I like the points you’re making. It is interesting. However, I want you to consider the following:

Do you agree that the ‘thought process’ is best considered feminine if you omit the emotions, fears, and impulses from consideration? If you were to consider the role emotion, fear and impulse play ‘in relationship’ to the thought process, then you might want to call the emotions, fears and impulses ‘feminine’ and the thought process (as vague as it is) masculine. In your opinion her thought process may seem illogical, vague, ill-formed, however, her thinking has a logic of its own. She logically guided herself to the shopping mall and judged, weighed and appropriated based on her value of looking pleasing to people.

You can say that her desire to ‘look nice’ is illogical, but based on what she knows and how she feels, her thought process was ‘relatively’ logical.

Perhaps we could consider the phenomenon of her thinking as: masculinity crippled and twisted by femininity? So, if emotion/impulse/fear is feminine, and logic/thought masculine…..then what should we call this woman’s actions?

Her action is a whole. What is the quality of the action as a whole? I would say both masculine and feminine, however, clearly it is masculinity that is the slave, and femininity the master.

MG: [her thoughts and ideas are] not even ideas really, they're just feelings. So the thought process would be feminine.

Why do you examine her thought process separately from her actions, but not her feelings separately from her thoughts? If you were to divide her feelings from her thoughts, then the feelings would have to be considered feminine and the thought process masculine. And then her actual action could be regarded simply as ‘a whole’ - - -- - - - part masculine, but dominated and crippled by femininity (impulse, emotion, fear).

MG: How about one more: a man who needs a gray suit and goes out and buys the first gray suit he sees.

His search for the suit would be feminine, since he just passively went with the first one.

I don’t agree. He simply went for the one that fit properly. If he simply grabbed the first one he saw he would be behaving irrationally. I think dividing the thought process from the action is superfluous, whereas, examining the thought process separately from the emotions maybe a bit more helpful.

He discriminated between the grey suits he wanted based on practical concerns. The acting and the thinking (even the feeling/impulse involved) are simply one whole. The whole is either tainted by femininity or it is not. He made sure what he took fit properly. He might not have been ‘as’ active as the female shopper going too and fro from one colorful garb to the next worried about looking fat, but he was active. The amount of energy he expended was more minimal, whereas, she was more wasteful. The distinguishing factor here is emotion/fear.

She was more emotional and frightened than him. Thus his action was simpler, more minimal; less wasteful. He wanted a grey suit for a reason. His behavior was based on a logic that perhaps was not as, or not at all emotional, but simply based on what made sense to him. And she did what made sense to her. The difference is that one was more ‘frightened/clouded/emotional/feminine’ than the other.

MG: Even though [his desire for a grey suit] was general, it wasn't vague or ill-formed because it allowed him to clearly distinguish between the suits he wanted to buy and suits he didn't want to buy, so the criteria for the suit was actively thought-out and clarified

He wasn’t as emotional as her, his thinking was thus not as clouded, and thus his actions were less consuming, wasteful. He was more masculine (if not totally masculine), whereas, she was more feminine.

[Leyla Shen]

And as for the question: what exactly does it take to live truth every single moment of your life rather than finding it appealing from a distance?……well……there are some very basic things that most people foolishly don’t bother with. Eating properly.

Insofar as eating goes, I thiink there is validity in this idea. The amount of energy required to have a single, rational thought is directly propotional to the emotional state of the individual. (Kind of a different way to look at the aptness of the word "enlightenment.") One who is severely emotional requires much more care and attention to diet than one who isn't. It's like comparing a rock in a snow storm to a feather gliding on the breeze.

[Cory Duchesne]

Leyla,

CP: Do you think the Greek society was less feminine than our societies today? What are some examples of ‘not-as-feminized’ cultures, past and present?

LS: Whilst those are interesting questions, and I may indeed investigate them out of such an interest, I don’t think they will produce anything philosophically fruitful. An historic account of events is not necessary to the point, which was a philosophical demonstration of how the feminization of society is possible.

What is so fruitful about ‘philosophically demonstrating’ how feminization is possible without pointing to an actual phenomenon of feminization happening?
I can string together a bunch of intellectual words in order to ‘philosophically demonstrate’ something that exist only in my imagination, but unless I can actually point to concrete examples that exist apart from my imagination, then obviously my philosophical demonstrations have very little use. What am I demonstrating? Something that only exists in my imagination? Or something that exists impersonally, collectively, actually? There is the theoretical (the map) and there is the actual (the territory). What is the good of a map if I haven’t got a territory to match it up to? If you give me a map, give me a landscape to observe, otherwise the map is of no use.

CP: I heard that in Switzerland, women voted against their right to vote. Is this true?
Switzerland is a very well run place. While America on the other hand…….

LS: As far as I know, women won the right to vote there in the 70s and those voting against it were women who believed that their place was in the home.

Yes, that is probably true.

LS: Would you say it is less well run since then and, if so, in what ways?

CP: I live in Canada, so I wouldn’t know much about the evolution of Switzerland since the 70’s. Two years ago I traveled through Switzerland (Schonreid, Saneen, and a few other places in between). It was a very clean, fresh feeling place. The laws there were very strict. No driving motorboats in lakes, very high fines for littering, all the houses were the same design (kind of like cottages). The advantage of enforcing the population to conform to a design of house plans is that you prevent the population from getting too competitive and individualistic about something so shallow and stupid as to who has the flashier, bigger more luxurious house. (I’m not sure if they really understood that clearly before they restricted builders – but it has such an effect) Whereas in America, and even here in Canada, there is clearly a terrible desire to out-do the other man materialistically, and of course this causes a lot of unnecessary suffering and wastefulness. Not that the Swiss are not proud and competitive, they are just more restricted in the ways in which they can have pissing contests. As far as I could tell the Swiss appear to take strict measures to conserve the environment and of course they do not get involved in wars. Not to mention their very low or even lack of poverty and abundance of wealth. I’m not saying it is perfect there of course.
I guess what makes Switzerland strong is their neutrality and their sensible laws.
They are quite a passive country, very rational, and very sensual in regards to nature. So, I think ‘balanced’ is a good word for them. I don’t know much about their agriculture. I think one should study the quality of a cultures agriclture if one wants to understand the quality and destiny of a culture.

I don’t know if you have ever seen Bowling for Columbine. Michael Moore pitched the angle that ‘America was the ‘culture of fear’ and that their obsession with guns was proof of this.

He compared the squalor and violence of America to the mellowness of Canada. His conclusion was that: America is obsessed with guns and Canada isn’t because America is more afraid. The solution? End Fear.

This Bowling for Columbine movie circumvents one major difference between Canada and America. Canada has gun control laws, America doesn’t. One should not overlook the significance of this fact.

Not that I don’t agree that its important to end fear, but if your looking for a more practical solution, one that’s not based on hoping your fellow man is going to have the tremendous initiative, passion and intelligence to end his fear – well, look no further than implementing more strict laws. (Not that I think that is such an easy task)

Another interesting thing is if you compare the average City Street in Hong Kong to the average City Street in Canada or even America. The average City street in Hong Kong has a hierarchy of advertisements so severe that every cubic space is covered with some color of neon, sometimes three times over. Why not in Canada, US? Laws, regulations, and limits prevent business and political campaign from doing what it inevitably will if you don’t limit the extent to which one can propagate.

Why is Switzerland so clean and well run? Well, it is has strict, sensible laws.

So I think Switzerland is a relatively well run Country due to its sensible and strict laws. The child of femininity is given some safe healthy boundaries to play in. The femininity of canada is too, for the same reasons.

There is hardly anywhere you can smoke a cigarette indoors, not even in some bars. In cleaner, less violent countries, reason seems to be more of a master, than impulse. Not to say that they do not live on impulse and emotion in the more well run countries, just not nearly as bad as much of the rest of the world. As for how the swiss have evolved since women had gotten more power, I couldn’t tell you.

LS: But, though you have written much, I don’t feel like you’ve answered my question. Perhaps I answered it for myself, or did I miss something? If I have missed something, just say so and I'll be happy to review.

CP: You had two main questions.

1) LS: Do you mean that such a woman is masculine (rational) enough to be attracted to a more than average rational male but not quite rational enough to be attracted to sage-hood itself? I mean, how rational would she be if she were attracted instinctively/impulsively to a sage (and I assume you are alluding to a manifested sexual attraction, here, when you say, "their femininity will avoid/be turned off by a sage).

Besides what I’ve already said regarding this question, I can only add: a human being, man or woman, wants self esteem, a sense of superiority. Sexual impulse and the desire to survive is not the only motivating factor. The desire for Self-Esteem is one of the major factors differentiating humans from chimpanzees.

A woman or a man will be attracted to a sage simply because he or she has explored a heart-breaking number of avenues in search of self esteem and has failed to find any lasting emotion of self-worth (superiority). Since then, by chance, the failure has stumbled upon the words of a sage. If he or she had actually manged to establish a form success previous to the discovery of sage-hood, then that very success would have ended up binding him or her to an obliviousness toward anything beyond the pleasures and pains of that particlar success, and thus an interest in sage-hood or sage-hood itself would have remained out of ones field of vision/interest.

So, it is generally only the poorly adjusted, the misfits, the worldly failures who are attracted to religion, sages, radical thoughts and ways of living.

The thoughts of a spiritual man, a radical, or a sage is usually a desperate last resort for those on the quest for a sense of superiority and self-esteem (which is basically all human beings).

The sages words are such an effective means to feel relieved about oneself because the sage destroys the validity of all the conventional, ‘praise-able’, and ‘so-called’ respectable things that one had ‘comparatively failed at doing, (whether it was marriage, doing well at a career, having the capacity to love, being loved by others, establishing a lucrative talent, being liked by people, parenting, etc…) and the pain of ones failures thus seems to be somewhat removed or appeased by the so called sages dismissal of worldly success. Everything that once seemed strong, suddenly, through the words of a sage, can be seen as weak.

All of those people who seemed stronger than you (after experiencing and believing the words of the sage) can now be seen as weaker than you.

If they were so strong, why can’t they handle the philosophy ‘I’ can handle? So one may conclude “I am nothing, there is only nothing” but in the mean time, one has found a very secure source of self esteem, a sense of superiority – ‘comparatively’.

So this is why men become sages, and women become attracted to them. Does a sage have ‘high self-esteem’? He says he has no sense of self, and therefore no esteem, however, that is doubtful – but of course possible.

You’ll probably find a lot of the people on this board are very bi-polar. Not all of course, but a significant number. This is because their only chance at having the burden of their exceptional irrationality, misery, their low-self esteem, and low sense of self worth lifted is through the words and lessons of the sage. The sage, mystic, guru is a great person to learn from and identify with if you buy into the possibility that he is superior to all human endeavors. If this is true, than by masochistically identifying with him, or endeavoring to be his equal or go beyond him, you are among the elite.

It is just as much about self-esteem as it is about sexual impulse. Is there another major factor besides those two?

Your other question was:

2) LS: What exactly does it take to live truth every single moment of your life rather than find it appealing from a distance?

Attention, rather than focus, is the key. How often does one day-dream? How often does one pay attention to ones involuntary thoughts, ones chattering? And what is the relationship between this involuntary flow of thoughts and ones desire to understand life and how to live? Is one focused on an abstract concept of truth, worshiping cause and effect as an abstract concept while oblivious to much of what is actually happening within and outside of oneself?

I think the truth is something that one is, rather than something one lives. The truth is everything including ones awareness of it, the awareness of sensation, vanity, ambition, fear, jealousy, ones chattering thoughts, ones hatred, ones health, habits, addictions, cravings, ones sorrow, the patriotism of the people, the idolatry, the preoccupation with becoming famous, a great person, the sense of inferiority, the relationship that all of these things and much more have with each other is what’s important. The truth is not an idea, an abstraction. Anyone who tells you so is unconsciously or consciously trying to exploit you and thus become exploited by you.

And of course, we all like to be exploited and exploit. It is much more preferable to freedom.

CP: A sage can easily become perceived as a rock star if he generates a big enough following. Only when a sage has attracted numbers, will a female be drawn to him.

LS: Don’t you mean to say that only when a sage has attracted numbers, will a feminine person be drawn to him?

Yes, I should definitely avoid the habit of saying female or woman. Yes, a feminine person is drawn only to something that has ‘numbers’ behind it. Otherwise, it is too scary, too small.

The most amusing human is the one who puts on a posture of masculinity, but who is essentially rooted in femininity.
The person who puts on a posture of masculinity (but is essentially feminine) is like the elephant afraid of the mouse - they flaunt big generalizations proudly, while they are afraid of the small, subtle details. Sometimes one may also indulge in a fantasy of masculinity by indulging and becoming enthralled by very complicated, detailed theories (sometimes new-age, sometimes post modern Derrida crap). They do this of course for purely sensual feminine reasons, not because they want to be honest, clear minded, truthful.

LS: I would also say that [drawing large numbers] is a sure sign that this man is not, in fact, a sage. Sages are not interested in “generating a big enough following.” Since sage-hood is precisely about solitude and reflection, this would be a sure sign of his impiety. True sages do not attract followers, though they may suffer them on occasion.

I guess that would make David Quinn and Solway ‘non-sages’?

The reason being of course is the length they go in order to draw attention to the themselves (posting pictures of themselves on their websites, doing radio shows, establishing message forums, etc….)

Personally, I don’t think a sage is a perfect man to the extent that the people on this forum seem to believe he is. But thats what keeps everyone motivated! As humans, we like to worship the mere idea of a perfect human being - because without that image of a perfect human being, we have no motivation, self-esteem, or means to admire ourselves as great. That is not to say there have not been extremely stoic, wise, noble individuals, but certainly they are not as pefect as we childishly fancy them to be.

It is the sages shunning of popularity that makes him so appealing to those who have managed to get it lodged in their heads that popularity is a sign of inferiority. I suspect that the sage is he who could not be popular with large numbers even if he tried. Perhaps he had tried, and failed, and thus sought refuge from his misery and envy in the words of another sage, a father figure. A so called wise man is the way he is involuntarily. He turns to rationality and wisdom in order to make life more bearable, to appease is misery.

Luckily, ‘wisdom is’, otherwise, the suicide rate would be much higher.

Superiority by means of unpopularity is what makes the sage appealing, especially in an age that worships numbers to the extent that we do. The words of a sage are quite a relief indeed. These factors combined with the obvious truths and simple practicality of what he preaches and practices are what give a wise man the opportunity to exist.

CP: Women like numbers. Men too of course. But men become miserable a lot more easier than women, and thus will have more passion to go beyond the ways of the world.

LS: Men are, in fact, both more feminine and masculine than women?

Well it seems that the femininity they do have (probably in an equal, milder or even sometimes greater measure) is suppressed by their ‘be a strong man’ conditioning.

This conditioning functions to suppress more feminine urges and thus man is quite often miserable and ungraceful, where the women usually fares a bit better. Perhaps this could shed light on why man has committed such terrible acts (look at the amount of serial killers that have existed in America – a very macho country).

I think the anthropological history of humans (for a good consensus as of late, see: Ernest Becker (the birth and death of meaning for great examples) shed some light on the whys and how’s of Man’s propensity for truth compared to woman’s.

CP: Of course there are other reasons why men seem to be more inclined to aspire for understanding.

LS: Like what?

Greater analytical skills - - the root origins of mans greater propensity for analyses goes back to when man first started hunting. The phenomenon of hunting produced the phenomenon of making weapons, and those two phenomenon (hunting and making weapons) served as a great playground for man to develop his mind. Hunting in groups for larger and larger game required great physical sensitivity and analytic ability. The woman’s minds of course evolved as well, but it was in a way where unknown horizons and alien challenges were not of much concern. She was dealing with matters more familiar and close to home - child rearing, cooking, sowing, some aesthetic arts.

CP: Overall, I am saying that the more athletic, more brutal jocks and air-headed ditzy women are cursed by what appears to be a fortune – raw sexual appeal.

LS: So, you are saying that those who have this raw sexual appeal need make no effort at all to think and reason as their survival is guaranteed - since the very thing which drives the masculine, that is - femininity (impulse/instinct) - has been so successfully encoded in their DNA that the faculty of reason and the ability to think has been almost entirely coded out?

No, it’s not that. It is the way the world treats the more sexual attractive starting from a young age that prevents them from becoming more rational and profoundly inquisitive. The vampire of humanity is more attracted and kinder to people who are more aesthetically pleasing, and/or eager to entertain and please. Aesthetically pleasing people can also be very intelligent, but this is due to unusual environmental conditions or exceptional personal tragedies – and even those factors are unlikely to produce a person who not only sees most of humanity as a corpse, but lives peacefully and wisely with that realization.

LS: What percentage of society would they comprise? If such people are a minority, what is it that truly grants them such an accursed fortune? The suffering of ugliness?

Not that alone. Wealth is another factor. Always having money and luxury inculcates a fear of having less. Having a keenness to do well in school and please the teacher is also a hinderance. The child who prides himself by what he has done in school will be conditioned by praise he receives by teachers and parents and his ego will have become coagulated into a proud dull state leaving him capable only of jumping through the hoops that further schooling and institutions would have him jump.

Having a disposition that makes you unattractive, not exceptionally wealthy, uninspired to achieve scholastically and thus to be ultimately un-useful to the world certainly helps, although, after grade school, one might be irreparably emotionally damaged and bitter.

There have been many and there will be many more who are born poor and ugly and live in envy and servility to the rich and beautiful.

And there have been some who have been born aesthetically ‘some-what’ pleasing, with wealth and good grades and have gone on to be radicals. Nature is not so predictable. But being aware of all the factors that can potentially shape a human being is interesting and perhaps useful.

CP: There aesthetic sexual attractiveness keeps them animalistic………..whereas the not so physically attractive have no choice to become more rational.

LS: Well, not necessarily. There is scientific rationalism, which is feminine outside of an understanding of Absolute Truth.

I agree, but this scientific rationalism I’m sure is some sort of shibboleth invented and worshipped by nerds desperate to appease their envy of those who aren’t as forced to think more truthfully. The scientific rationalism of these academic types is actually used for more sensual, self gratifying and glorifying purposes - - envy is the foundation of this. So yes it is feminine, but it is indulged in as a means to escape ones envy of those who can get by easily without becoming an intellectual wanker. The ones that get by easily do so by means of their aesthetically pleasing appearance or even by their desperation to entertain or become exceptional in a talent.

CP: And as for beautiful people who are rational? Perhaps their unusual intellectual ability combined with good looks is due do highly unusual environmental influences (basically - - just plain luck).

LS: Well, causality, yes. It’s only luck from the perspective of one who is attached to the idea of physical beauty.

Yes, true enough.

LS: On what grounds exactly do you consider Vimala Thakar a sage?

Definition of Sage: A mentor in spiritual and philosophical topics who is renowned for profound wisdom.

She would be this.

Although I know there are different degrees of Wisdom, some are of course more wise than others. She is among the best.

[Cory Duchesne]

Greg,

CP: Do you agree that the signifier(the symbol) is not the signified(sensation, chemical reaction, quality)?

GS: Yes. They are two different things. But they can both be called symbols.

CP: Can you give me an example of how this is so? I don’t quite follow.


GS: Well, a concept or a sensation are both things appearing to mind. You may have the concept or symbol of pain, say, and know what it is and try to avoid it, and then there is the actual experience of pain, which is something other than the concept you have in your mind and can also be called a symbol.
Does that make it clearer for you? You were asking whether a symbol and a sensation are two different things, weren't you?

Ok, as long as we can agree that sensation is not a symbol. We have symbols which describe sensations, but sensations are not symbols.
The point I was trying to make in my original post was that humans can be addicted to symbols directly (image of Christ, an idol, patriotism) and humans can be addicted to sensations derived from non-symbolic goods (drug, sex, food).
However, now that I’ve given it more thought, I doubt that one can become addicted to something like a drug, sex, or food, without first become emotionally involved with symbols and images.
Regardless, it is the sensation that is addicting, and the symbol can be misused to produce a sensation (via belief).

That is why I do not see much difference between the alcoholic and the devout catholic, muslim, etc….

CP: When you say subjective - - do you mean: ‘thought-based’?

GS: I mean something appearing to an individual mind.

CP: Ok, now - - in order for something to be perceived by a creature, does that creature need ‘thought’, ‘memory’, ‘symbol’?
Or can there be perception without subjectivity?


GS: I think you can percieve something without thought, or memory, but your perception of it won't be as complex as if you were percieving it with thought or memory. For example, insects and animals have instinctual reactions to stimuli, but that doesn't mean that they have thoughts or memory. They are responding to something, so there must be some perception there, but their response is not based on thought or memory. It is instinctual.

That word ‘instinctual’ covers over something quite odd. I am not able to rest contentedly with the explanations we have for conscious life. Matter, at one point, became sensitive. I would like to pinpoint exactly where this first started. For matter to become sensitive, reactive, responsive to light is a mystery to me at this point. The origins of instinct is what I want to examine. Not necessarily right now on this thread – If you have some interesting thoughts, go for it, but otherwise, I’m just saying.

GS: There can be no perception without subjectivity because perception is a subjective process. That is, perceptions are percieved by a subject.

Ok, agreed.

CP: Do all animals, insects, microorganisms have individual minds that sense appearances?


I don't think they have minds in the sense that humans do, that is to say, are capable of abstract reasoning, but they instead have instinctual reactions to stimuli

Good enough for now.

Thanks Greg,

-Cory

[Blair]

Few misfits become sages, but no sage is a misfit.

[Greg Shantz]

Cory Partick wrote:

Ok, as long as we can agree that sensation is not a symbol.

I can agree that a sensation is not a symbol if you can acknowledge that it doesn't matter which words we use to call these things.

Thanks Greg, -Cory

No problem.

[Leyla Shen]

Cory,

What is so fruitful about ‘philosophically demonstrating’ how feminization is possible without pointing to an actual phenomenon of feminization happening?

Well, I figured we already had the actual phenomenon through the words “less feminine than our society today.” That seems to imply an actual phenomenon of femininity, no?

On reason being the master: dogs, pigs - three different kinds, sheep and other animals.

Well, they are dealing with the same issues much more successfully on a certain level. For instance, since the mid-70s, they have introduced drug reform based on decriminalising the use of that category of drugs that are currently considered criminal only enough to ensure public health and safety. They have implemented safe-houses for their junkies and provide needle exchange all in the interests of public health. Apparently, the stats are good. Yes, discipline and the law definitely have their place. But, lo and behold, the Swiss right wing are making a large fuss over it attempting to overturn such policies.

More to my point, however, is that this is a clear demonstration of scientific analysis applied to a situation already gone wrong. To me, a purely reasoning individual is clairvoyant. He reads minds. He predicts. He is a prophet. Not because of or through some nebulous divine and mystical inspiration (although, it is really by comparison!) but purely because he can reason. Purely because of the power of his ability to reason. If you think about it, you would not be hard pressed to understand such a thing. I am sure that a few people have been able to make very accurate predictions at some point in their lives about one thing or another simply because they understood it so well, fundamentally, much to the surprise of others around them.

What could it mean to understand human nature so well, then?

On Self-Esteem

Cory: So this is why men become sages, and women become attracted to them. Does a sage have ‘high self-esteem’? He says he has no sense of self, and therefore no esteem, however, that is doubtful – but of course possible.

Of course it’s possible not to be an emotional misfit. It’s possible to be reasonable. It’s possible to see beyond “self-esteem.”

I remember when I was 11, agonising over the meaning of life in my room alone at night. I never understood anyone! The whole world seemed insane to me (still does, as a matter of fact [smile]). Then, when I was 14, I still agonised. Course, I didn’t really arrive anywhere until some 15 years later by my estimation.

My big sister is an interesting specimen. She will tell you she has excellent self-esteem. No doubt, any stock, standard psych would say the same thing. See, her and my middle sister were chatting one day and big sister was carrying on about this problem and that problem. In an uncharacteristic fit of compassion for big sis (which all the members of my family have learned to avoid because you just know that it will be taken as an admission of guilt and you’ll be in for it), mid sis says something on the order of, “Yeah, I know. Sometimes I hate myself so much, too, that I feel like absolute shit.” To which big sis replied, straight faced, “Oh, no. I don’t hate myself. I hate everybody else.”

I’m not sure if I ended up posting a post that I wanted to last week. In it, I began to detail how my cousin had said to me that she felt I had low self-esteem because I didn’t socialise and that I should, therefore, dye my hair more often -- or something. I burst out laughing. She used to call me every day for a chat and ask me to come over and visit. After a few days of this I told her that I had no interest in regular visits and chats. Not my thing, you know? Told her that I rather like being alone, just thinking. She spends more time with my mother than I do. And, boy, when I turn up and they’re together…

The problem I have with this self-esteem thing (or any self thing, actually) is that in order to evaluate whether or not I have it I would have to take myself out and look. I have to say that I think that is impossible. Consequently, I reckon, those who seek to find self-esteem seek it in a thing other than self. You see, this ego thing -- the emotional, impulsive being -- is like a (hm, trying to think of an appropriate simile…); well, it’s like someone asks you what you think about something and you then have to consult this thing -- a bundle of characteristics and labels and pre-conditioned qualities and fixed ideas -- that is considered “you” before you can answer. It’s like a filter that goes both ways. So, when someone asks you who you are or what you think, the question goes in through this filter and instantly you have your answer; entirely on automatic. “That’s me, and that‘s what I think,” when it’s likely you haven’t actually thought at all. In fact, given that, it’s possible that some people have never had an actual thought their whole lives. Now that’s unconscious. Just like an alarm sensor.

How do you define self, Cory?

[Cory Duchesne]

Leyla,

CS: What is so fruitful about ‘philosophically demonstrating’ how feminization is possible without pointing to an actual phenomenon of feminization happening?


LS: Well, I figured we already had the actual phenomenon through the words “less feminine than our society today.” That seems to imply an actual phenomenon of femininity, no?

Well, what you actually said was:

LS: A feminine woman has a preference for (what is defined within the context of this discussion as) a feminine man; that is, one who acts on instinct/impulse. “This also explains how the feminization of a society is possible.”

I responded to this thing you said by asking you if you thought the more ancient cultures were feminized. You said you didn’t know. The reason I questioned you on this matter was because I was trying to demonstrate how all culture is in essence feminine by nature. I should have just cut to the chase. But anyway, basically what I was getting at was this: how can something essentially feminine - be feminized? Femininity; theatre, music, sensual appetites, lies are what hold a culture together. The closest thing to a masculine culture…..perhaps the Omish? Although they are quite sensual about God, and so, without that kernel of femininity, the system wouldn’t hold together. The execution of Socrates and Jesus, and the marginalization of any deep thinker are good examples of how rationality is corrosive to culture.
Hey, what if everybody on this forum put their money together and bought a nice place in the country and tried to start a super-culture? How long would we last before we all hated each other? Anyway, if we are, as a species, anymore feminine then we were....100, 500, 1000, 3000 years ago, then that is only because we have become equally more masculine.

We dont treat philosophers and deep thinkers nearly as bad as we used to.

LS: I am sure that a few people have been able to make very accurate predictions at some point in their lives about one thing or another simply because they understood it so well, fundamentally, much to the surprise of others around them.

What could it mean to understand human nature so well, then?

What do you think it means Leyla?

I don’t believing that anything has any meaning. Words have meaning insofar as they point to a particular quality, but the particular actuality itself that the word points to, whether it is an apple, water, a clown, a king, a religious philosopher, has no meaning. There are ‘implications, relationships, metaphors, developments, ironies………but meaning? I’m not so sure……

For me, there is only a desire to avoid suffering (not that I am afraid to suffer), but all of my actions are rooted in a desire to not suffer. I have even subjected myself to physically and emotionally uncomfortable or painful situations with the motive of ‘beating’ suffering in a near future. So I have subjected myself to suffering to beat suffering. So, for me, that is the most fundamental factor driving all human becoming; the desire to beat suffering and anxiety. Some of us try to beat our suffering and anxiety by trying to belong to a group which is held together by certain insidious habits of thinking and consuming. Some of us try to beat suffering and anxiety through marriage, through having children, through weight-lifting - -usual we use a combination of many different activities in order to get a balance. We spend a lot of money on Christmas, we decorate, we get drunk, we flatter, we do drugs, we become ambitious for something that we think will make us feel better. Sometimes we even go so far as to try and become Geniuses. Some of us believe we already are geniuses based on how a few weak-minded people have treated us combined with our latent fancy to be so great.

Sooner or later, reality undermines our abode of comfort and we become like a fresh open wound. So when we attribute meaning to life, we are just doing it to appease the anxiety and suffering that comes with having brief glimpses of lifes stark meaninglessness.

Of course, just because life has no meaning, doesn’t mean wisdom doesn’t exist. Perhaps living with a realization of life’s meaninglessness is a part of wisdom.

Cory: So this is why men become sages, and women become attracted to them. Does a sage have ‘high self-esteem’? He says he has no sense of self, and therefore no esteem, however, that is doubtful – but of course possible.


LS: Of course it’s possible not to be an emotional misfit. It’s possible to be reasonable. It’s possible to see beyond “self-esteem.”

I agree, it’s possible, and I am devoting my life to being reasonable and going beyond self esteem, but it’s only because I involuntarily understand that the only way for me to not suffer is to live beyond low and high self esteem, which ironically is a pleasure-based movement. Seeking the approval and applause of others either in the now, or posthumously, has become totally out of the question for me. Most people live their lives solely for the sake of 1) surviving, and 2) confusing their will to survive with the desire to maintain a sense of self that signals high self worth comparatively…………sometimes they even do this by adopting a philosophy of detachment, nothingness, no-self, wisdom, etc….

How many people have lived and are alive today who preach wisdom, no-self, no-attatchement, no fear, etc, yet live their lives with a great deal of fear, jealously, hatred, and attachment? Is there an honest, clear minded person out there? Why do I desire to know? Can I know for certain? Of course not. Why does it matter whether or not I know for certain whether so and so is actually honest and clear? It really doesn’t matter! But, if inspiration and motivation are something I value, then it matters very much. It then becomes very important whether I know if so and so is such and such a person……..this is because I depend on inspiration and motivation to move me toward what I think is a state of superiority but is ultimately a mirage. I am thus unwise.

LS: The problem I have with this self-esteem thing (or any self thing actually) is that in order to evaluate whether or not I have it I would have to take myself out and look. I have to say that I think that is impossible.

Do you not agree that it is possible for one to acknowledge ones own fear? Is it not possible to acknowledge ones envy, jealously, ones hatred, lust, ones painful or pleasurable reaction to various memories, ones desire for recognition? Is it not possible to be aware of my fantasies? Surely that is possible, and if that is possible, then ones desire and attempts at higher self esteem, because such a movement is comprised of everything listed above - is possible to be aware of and thus destroyed.

LS: Consequently, I reckon, those who seek to find self-esteem seek it in a thing other than self.

Yes, those who seek higher self-esteem, do so by escaping from an awareness of what they actually are. ‘A Brief glimpse of what one actually is’ is probably a good definition of low self-esteem. One hopes to feel better about oneself by using the present moment as a passage way to reach a future where one has achieved something commendable by people with money and by ones mother or father. To have high-self esteem is to value being regarded as a strong, brave, talented, smart, etc, individual.

So, a brief glimpse of what one actually is; is to feel low self esteem, and of course, a total realization of what one actually is; is of course wisdom.

LS: You see, this ego thing -- the emotional, impulsive being -- is like a (hm, trying to think of an appropriate simile…); well, it’s like someone asks you what you think about something and you then have to consult this thing -- a bundle of characteristics and labels and pre-conditioned qualities and fixed ideas -- that is considered “you” before you can answer. It’s like a filter that goes both ways. So, when someone asks you who you are or what you think, the question goes in through this filter and instantly you have your answer; entirely on automatic.

Yes, I hate being asked unwise questions, I can only reply with a lie.

LS: In fact, given that, it’s possible that some people have never had an actual thought their whole lives. Now that’s unconscious. Just like an alarm sensor.

I would say that all people have thoughts, not just a deep thinker. The difference between a wise person(a rare individual) and a fool(the majority) is that the wise person depends only on his observation, whereas the fool is blinded by thought/belief. For example, there was a period of time when people believed that the earth was the center of the universe. These people were lost in thought. They were not able to observe beyond the boundaries created by their thoughts.

Then along came Galileo who unbiasly observed that the earth was not in fact the center. What made Galileo different was his ability to 'put thought aside', and observe actual relationships as they really were. Of course, he couldnt do this without the help of thought and logic, but thought and logic were tools, whereas the freedom of observation was the essence. People prefer to be limited to maps rather than to actually explore beyond maps freely. Once they get comfortable with a map, they live in it. They become frightened of the unknown, or even deny its existence.

LS: How do you define self, Cory?

First of all, (I’m hoping you know this, but just in case I’ll emphasize it strongly) Definitions are not to be taken at face value. A definition should be treated like a map. Consult the map, but only to bring your eyes upon the actual.

What is the self? It is an extremely complicated thing. A brief definition of it seems silly. Like you said, it is a bundle of characteristics and labels and pre-conditioned qualities and fixed ideas ‘in relationship’ to a biological process – there are feelings, discomfort, anxieties, fear, a sense of inferiority, a desire for greater comfort, jealousy, envy, pride, absurd fantasies, desires for magic, power, boredom, lust, facination, dullness, adoration, hatred, hope, despair, guilt, sympathy, wonderment, sorrow, desire for heaven, to be approved by ones mother, father, peers, desire to be good, smart, sedated……..shall I go on? As far as I can tell, the self is bile.

If one is truely wise, then I dont think there is a self there, there is an awareness operating that understands each moment to be the same. Ultimately the division between moments comes to an end, and uniqueness is revealed to be a superfical garb covering over the sameness in all things.

Perhaps?

[Leyla Shen]

Cory, I have not had the time to address your post. For the moment, I shall just say this:

If one is truely wise, then I dont think there is a self there, there is an awareness operating that understands each moment to be the same. Ultimately the division between moments comes to an end, and uniqueness is revealed to be a superfical garb covering over the sameness in all things.

The condition of enlightenment is one thing. The objective of enlightenment is the ability to think clearly and act directly through reason rather than emotion.

If the objective of enlightenment were to do nothing, be nothing and say nothing in recognition of meaninglessness and sameness, there would be no difference between it and the idea of the absolute woman.

[Cory Duchesne]

leyla shen wrote:

If the objective of enlightenment were to do nothing, be nothing and say nothing in recognition of meaninglessness and sameness, there would be no difference between it and the idea of the absolute woman.

Well, its impossible to do nothing - we are always, quite involuntarily, doing something. It's the ammount of contriving, calculating, and effort that distinguishes ignorance, and it is the lack of contriving, calculating, and effort that distinguishes enlightenment.

The feminine person is more active, warm, high.

The masculine person more silent, cold, and low.

[the following had been inserted a day after this was posted]

Ah, I see what you mean when you said that the condition of enlightenment that I had described was no different than the absolute woman.

You said this in response to my suggestion that an enlightened being ceases to make distinctions between moments and understands each moment to be fundamentally the same as the previous moment.

This you would call 'absolute womanly-ness'

I can see why you would think that.

Animals function in a similar way. They do not make distinctions between one moment and the next.

The difference is, is they do not understand.

The enlightened being understands each moment to be essentially the same as the previous moment. The appearance of differences is rooted in principles that are always present and always the same. Each moment is fundamentally the same, the differences are only a mask, behind the mask lies the sameness.

That is why the etymological root meaning of the word individual is 'undivided'. Most people think being an individual means placing importance on being unique and different just for the sake of it. Really, to be an individual, is to realize you are the same as everyone else.