Object & subject through genderization

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Object & subject through genderization

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

For the sake of this conversation a man will be defined as internally subjective and externally objectifying. Now for the symmetrical counterpart, that what is "not man" or as some would say woman, wife or what is essentially "added" to man: in matrimony, we would get the being that is internally objectifying and externally subjective.

A lot is condensed there so it needs to be fleshed out a little. With internally subjective is meant the realization of emptiness, to be nothing and knowing he is and can be many things. That he's dust in the wind and "free" to move towards the end any given moment, being it in battle or waste it on some glorious wasteful activity. Internally subjective means basically free as much as crazy, heroic, courageous and being an ass, all wrapped up in one.

Externally objectifying is the logical result of the internal subject. The subject projects the world as thing or embodied by things. A world he could lose himself in, waste himself in, marries himself to or even develop a hate and destructive attitude to it. The hate is not a surprise since the objects of desire were only a shadow of his subject and forever escaping his grasp and possession, a form of betrayal and non-stop humiliation. That world is always under pressure, ready to collapse, in need of a fix or a saviour. One can fully accept the truth of the subject or destroy the impossibility of the objects: either in a way will resolve the experience of suffering.

As for the counterpart, the feminine disposition would be the unavoidable mirror image. This form of being is internally objective, holding herself as being, as embodiment and reality of senses. From that position the world arises as completely subjective and fleeting but relative to her or any change. This position needs confirmation in the form of being objectified through the mirror, through spectacle, fashion, the desire of others, social definitions and all things subjective. The objective self, being utterly inconsistent and always under stress, ready to collapse, will remain in need for a fix or saviour. One can accept the truth of impermanence or destroy the impossibility of the self: either will resolve the suffering.

Human beings, ambiguous in their nature, neither here or there, will find themselves acting out in one of the two dispositions and yet also find the clear inability to remain in either. In terms of causality every position will necessarily tend to reverse to the flip side, no matter the struggle, desire or fear.

However wisdom, by its very nature, can only grow out of internal subjectivity.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Object & subject through genderization

Post by Pam Seeback »

Since man is conditioned to the idea of genders separate from and even in opposition to one other needing to come together to 'put out the fire' of this sense of separation and opposition, entering the philosophical/metaphysical world of object and subject via gender identification is a natural (and comfortable) way to ease into the transition from outer looking (desiring) to inner looking (truth seeking). Of course, the most well known story of this transition from outer to inner looking is that of Adam as objective being subjectifying (desiring) the worlds of Eve - "therefore a man shall cleave unto his wife" - transitioning into the Christ as subject of the Father (the causality) - "I am the light of the world".

What bears saying about the transition between wrong view of self as center of the world and right view of world as subject via the use of gender identification is that, as evidenced here at GF, firestorms are often the result of masculine-feminine comparison. Which of course is what is required to cause the necessary breakthrough that ends the sense of two altogether: male/female, inner/outer, subject/object. Is the use of masculine/feminine necessary to realize the truth of world as subject? Probably not, but where there is fire there are ashes, and where there are ashes there is resolution (the end of suffering).
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Object & subject through genderization

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Thanks Pam for the comments. They can serve to improve the exposition and I might rewrite or expand it in due course.
movingalways wrote: the transition from outer looking (desiring) to inner looking (truth seeking).
Outer looking could indeed be called "desiring", the object rises with the desire, while inner looking could be called "seeking", the shadow of truth rising with the truth-seeker. Mind you that truth ends up not being really found in either situation.
Of course, the most well known story of this transition from outer to inner looking is that of Adam as objective being subjectifying (desiring) the worlds of Eve - "therefore a man shall cleave unto his wife" - transitioning into the Christ as subject of the Father (the causality) - "I am the light of the world".
You are describing the fall. But every fall invokes a rise. This is why God "sends" or drops as son-light, falling to Earth which is the same but opposed movement to rising: ascension to heavens. This is about the earthy as well celestial mechanics of breath (pneuma - spirit).
as evidenced here at GF, firestorms are often the result of masculine-feminine comparison. Which of course is what is required to cause the necessary breakthrough that ends the sense of two altogether: male/female, inner/outer, subject/object. Is the use of masculine/feminine necessary to realize the truth of world as subject?
In this context it's not important to me how this exactly relates to gender psychology. Depending on culture this can be represented by the biological genders but it's no must. For example, modern culture I'd call hyper feminine not because of increased female power but because of the rise of self as something internally objective and absolute while external reality becomes increasingly subjective and relative, including truth, religion and viewpoints, resulting in mostly imagery. Historically this is no "feminine" issue at all but considering what path is needed to turn inwards towards the subject, it's no surprise that in many societies the slave, the children, the ill, the uneducated, the low criminal, the lower classes in general and as such also women have become a synonym for the objectifying self (a selfish, depraved, classless being) when talking about this because all these examples would hardly ever receive the needed initiation to flip the orientation around, through war, art, self-denial, faith, guided and unguided journeys and so on. Without seeing this, it all becomes quite hard to understand anything at all about the people around you and in the mirror. But necessary? Possibly not. Although confusion about the world one lives in can become an inhibitor as flee and fight reactions might take over and cloud the sky. Proper understanding of the dynamics of self and other however can bring some peace, which remains beneficial to philosophy.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Object & subject through genderization

Post by Pam Seeback »

movingalways wrote:
the transition from outer looking (desiring) to inner looking (truth seeking).
Outer looking could indeed be called "desiring", the object rises with the desire, while inner looking could be called "seeking", the shadow of truth rising with the truth-seeker. Mind you that truth ends up not being really found in either situation.
When the way is done, all ways to truth realization are realized to be just that, ways to truth realization. Of course, in actuality, truth is ever present as 'us' and is not actually hidden, but until this is realized, 'we' believe truth must be found. The Way, the Truth and the Life cannot be separated as the 'gestalt' of waking up.
Quote:
Of course, the most well known story of this transition from outer to inner looking is that of Adam as objective being subjectifying (desiring) the worlds of Eve - "therefore a man shall cleave unto his wife" - transitioning into the Christ as subject of the Father (the causality) - "I am the light of the world".
You are describing the fall. But every fall invokes a rise. This is why God "sends" or drops as son-light, falling to Earth which is the same but opposed movement to rising: ascension to heavens. This is about the earthy as well celestial mechanics of breath (pneuma - spirit).
The idea of falling/descending and rising/ascending is a Way to truth realization, but what is interesting is that no where in Genesis 2 can I find any reference to the actual idea of falling. I assume the concept of the serpent on the ground suggests a falling from heaven. It would appear that the concept of the fall must have come into language after Jesus' reference to not yet ascending to (going to) the Father.

Kabir, sufi poet, speaks of God as the breath within the breath, that would seem to match up with your concept of pneuma-spirit as being both celestial and earthy. The metaphors of the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil fit well here.
For example, modern culture I'd call hyper feminine not because of increased female power but because of the rise of self as something internally objective and absolute while external reality becomes increasingly subjective and relative, including truth, religion and viewpoints, resulting in mostly imagery.
In order to cause the initiation to flip the orientation from an internal objective self/an external subjective and relative reality to the reverse, is it not necessary to drop subjective/relative concepts such as 'culture' (society, humanity, etc.)? Am 'I' one with culture? No. Can culture be expressed without using imagery (the imagined world)? I don't see how.
Historically this is no "feminine" issue at all but considering what path is needed to turn inwards towards the subject, it's no surprise that in many societies the slave, the children, the ill, the uneducated, the low criminal, the lower classes in general and as such also women have become a synonym for the objectifying self (a selfish, depraved, classless being) when talking about this because all these examples would hardly ever receive the needed initiation to flip the orientation around, through war, art, self-denial, faith, guided and unguided journeys and so on. Without seeing this, it all becomes quite hard to understand anything at all about the people around you and in the mirror.
Rebellion against conditioning to the idea of self/'other' is not a war that is readily embraced. After all, the most highly held ideal of love (most often associated with the feminine) is dependent on clinging to the false concept of self. For most, the thought of killing 'love' (ending attachment) seems unthinkable.
Proper understanding of the dynamics of self and other however can bring some peace, which remains beneficial to philosophy.
The beginnings of awakening.
jufa
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am
Contact:

Re: Object & subject through genderization

Post by jufa »

This topic begins by stating
For the sake of this conversation a man will be defined as internally subjective and externally objectifying. Now for the symmetrical counterpart, that what is "not man" or as some would say woman, wife or what is essentially "added" to man: in matrimony, we would get the being that is internally objectifying and externally subjective.
What drew my attention was the proposition "internally subjective is meant the realization of emptiness, to be nothing and knowing he is and can be many things." To myself, this is another way of saying until man finds his potential, within himself, of his symmetrical counterpart, which is his unavoidable mirror image, but seen, when looking in the mirror which reflects himself, nothing but the back of his head, he cannot identify neither the face of male or female, only a body appearing to be that of man.

The intriguing issue is genderization is not evidence by senses internal nor external, but by subliminal thought indoctrination through the sentient DNA program which, began not in the substance and essence of two, but in one, and could not be distinguished, when projected as thought, that the thought was the same unavoidable mirror image internally, he was externally.

I may be off base here, should I be, forgive my chutzpah.
User avatar
amerika
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 6:14 am

Re: Object & subject through genderization

Post by amerika »

Nothing is subjective.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Object & subject through genderization

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

movingalways wrote:... what is interesting is that no where in Genesis 2 can I find any reference to the actual idea of falling. I assume the concept of the serpent on the ground suggests a falling from heaven. It would appear that the concept of the fall must have come into language after Jesus' reference to not yet ascending to (going to) the Father.
What about.... "So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep"? :-) But really, when "the eyes of both of them were opened" there's certainly something descending -- a light, some insight -- or is it perhaps a rising up from the depths? Anyway, what follows is the proverbial fall - or could it be a primordial uprise?

The first proper reference coming to mind would be Jacob's profound ladder dream. Just inspiring imagery, mind you.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Object & subject through genderization

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jufa wrote:I may be off base here, should I be, forgive my chutzpah.
Certainly I was aiming quite high with all the abstracts (which at the same time are incredibly real and "closer than one thinks") -- so it's understandable it would spark of all kinds of further thoughts and tangential concepts. But I find it hard to parse most of your sentences here or the reference to a "sentient DNA program". It's no problem, just letting you know I have to let it rest for now.

As far as a I know a human is bridge, an interplay between the two. And in particular wisdom develops by the ability to objectify externally while realizing the subjectivity and emptiness (vanity) man is himself. While this is ultimately not the "truth", it is the path.
jufa
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am
Contact:

Re: Object & subject through genderization

Post by jufa »

Diebert, I understand, for abstraction do not present plumlines definable by sentient reason. Abstract deduction is without images, and ones spirit must align itself with a Spirit beyond intellectualism to become the objective ocean of the subjective wave.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Object & subject through genderization

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

A nice example from "mainstream" philosophy: Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority by Emmanuel Levinas.

With Levinas one can see the consequences of a philosophy having the mind as "object" and the world (absolute) as subjective and "other"
  • Levinas places heavy emphasis on the physical presence involved in meeting the other. He argues that only a face-to-face encounter allows true connection with Infinity, because of the incessance of this type of interaction.
  • The I is... the being whose existence consists in identifying itself, in recovering its identity throughout all that happens to it. It is the primal identity, the primordial work of identification ... To think the infinite, the transcendent, the Stranger, is hence not to think an object
  • Hegelian phenomenology, where self-consciousnessis the distinguishing of what is not distinct, expresses the universality of the same identifying itself in the alterity of objects of thought and despite the opposition of self to self... The difference is not a difference; the I, as other, is not an ‘other’
This is the ultimate consequence of philosophy along unmanly (inhuman and alien ultimately!) lines, as if philosophy would be possible here, not love for wisdom, but "wisdom of love" indeed, as he himself prefers to call it. Levinas becomes a case study of the position of an objectified sense of I, part of a completely subjectified world, related to body, the physical and sense chemistry. Hopeless!
jufa
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am
Contact:

Re: Object & subject through genderization

Post by jufa »

I find Levinas guesstimate of identification, possessiveness, non-possessiveness, merging and not merging with another, sidesteps the reality, until man finds his potential, within himself, of his symmetrical counterpart, which is his unavoidable mirror image, but seen, when looking in the mirror which reflects himself, nothing but the back of his head. Men cannot identify neither himself, nor the face of anything else, nor a body appearing to be objectified from that which cannot be subjectively identified.

Perhaps our interpretation of what Levinas is saying split in different direction. I am saying one cannot see their image as their 'I' entity, for all images one project are who they are seen in that projection. The 'I' entity men associate with reflect many images, but in reality live only one. No entity claiming the 'I' identity can say what that 'I' represents in totality and infinitely because they cannot pinpoint who they are. Men cannot see anything of himself in logic and reasoning but what is behind them in thought. Thus, one never sees their face, only what they reflection in the mirror, which is the back of their head. Opposition is always with ones self.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
Locked