Androgyny

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 852
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Androgyny

Post by Russell Parr » Fri Dec 30, 2016 5:19 am

Androgyny is normally defined to be the combination, or blending, of the feminine and masculine, in physicality and/or behavior. For the sake of this discussion, I offer a variation to definition:

Androgyny:
The blending of, or the lack of distinction between, subject and object.

Furthermore, from this, I also offer a variation to the understanding of the opposition between the feminine and the masculine. That being:

Femininity - regression towards androgyny
Masculinity - progression/expansion away from androgyny

This is compatible with the submissive/dominate dichotomy that we are used to dealing with. Where I think we (or perhaps just me personally) go wrong sometimes is in associating the subjectivity with the feminine and objectivity with the masculine. In reality, you cannot separate the two. Just as where there is up, there is down; where there is objectivity, there is subjectiveness. But it doesn't stop there: where there is more up, there is also more down. Enhanced objectivity brings about enhanced subjectivity. To help further explain this, consider this scale for reference:

0——|——5——|——10

0 represents absolute subjectivity, 5 is utter androgyny, and 10 is absolute objectivity. The vertical lines represent the state of an individual within this spectrum. Femininity is the gravitational pull, a narrowing, towards the middle (5), while masculinity expands in scope and reaches towards the extremes. Using this model helps explain a plethora of phenomena:

—Men lean more towards exploring, expansion, and explosions, while women are more attracted to gossip, group hugs, and gallantry in men.
—Masculine rulership leans towards more freedom, but also anarchy; while feminine rulership results in more equality, but also communism.
—Men are more flamboyant in both homo and heterosexuality, while women tend to be more bisexual.
—The bell curve in IQ test results show that most women preside around average intelligence, while men are more likely to be either remarkably dumb or exceedingly smart.

etc.

In regards to Enlightenment

Enlightenment is a masculine pursuit due to the tendency in men to experience a more broad dichotomy between subject/object. Full Enlightenment is the perfect reconciliation between the two ends of the spectrum. Women have less a need for such a pursuit because, dare I say it, they already reside in a more Nirvanic experience by default. Man is more likely to be confused and conflicted in his masculinity, whereas women experience a more natural harmony in femininity. The most feminine of women have little to no need for the conceptual dichotomy of Samsara(fluctuation)/Nirvana(stillness) (or any conceptual dichotomizing, for that matter), and are thus unable to fathom why men even bother with such long-winded thinking. The most masculine of men are capable of the worst kinds of insanity, but also the greatest wisdom.

Your thoughts and suggestions are welcome.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Androgyny

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Fri Dec 30, 2016 7:36 am

Ha Russ,

The masculine then as a more unsettled and restless mode? Extremes, higher and lower ways to climb or sink would be the consequence of some higher degree of general dumbness, dreaming, off-beat behavior: a kind of deviant pattern which when left unchecked usually would lead to utter stupidity or at least annoying behavior. And with that one captures already a large part of the male population :-)

But to be dumb, rude and clumsy in the social aspects especially, must be some form of gift as well. Not just animalistic. Are wild animals loud without reason? The instincts function smoothly and by god, fully embodied women, in the classical sense, are like water that way.

My question would be: why introducing androgyny as term at all? How you use it seems more like averaging, with the purpose to be "tuned" in ones habitat to increase survival. Historically the physically weaker individuals had more to gain with tuning in, behaving and adapting. For survival. Perhaps the human race as a whole has the "feminine" captured here: the utterly disguised animal with it's intriguing camouflage, one that serves first and foremost to hide himself for himself and to reflect a whole other being in place...

As for "the blending of, or the lack of distinction between, subject and object". Isn't the distinction making already a form of objectifying, to create Me and IT in the process, which then, and only then needs relating again? In the thread object & subject through generalization I wrote that when:
  • .. a man will be defined as internally subjective and externally objectifying ... [while] ... in matrimony, we would get the being that is internally objectifying and externally subjective.
As an attempt to relate this to your definition, I'd suggest that the blending of subject and object occurs when the subjective is being objectified (eg self) and the objective is being subjectified. It's an image which only can be upheld by spending extraordinary amounts of effort. And destruction in its wake since truth is the first casualty in war, strife, the collision of irresolvable contradictions. And all other horrors only follow after. Then again, for most that would be essentially life. If only that would be realized: some degree of peace would be achieved at least.

User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 852
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Androgyny

Post by Russell Parr » Fri Dec 30, 2016 12:52 pm

Hey Diebs,
The masculine then as a more unsettled and restless mode? Extremes, higher and lower ways to climb or sink would be the consequence of some higher degree of general dumbness, dreaming, off-beat behavior: a kind of deviant pattern which when left unchecked usually would lead to utter stupidity or at least annoying behavior. And with that one captures already a large part of the male population :-)

But to be dumb, rude and clumsy in the social aspects especially, must be some form of gift as well. Not just animalistic. Are wild animals loud without reason? The instincts function smoothly and by god, fully embodied women, in the classical sense, are like water that way.
Agreed. Though I would add that the masculine isn't necessarily, or always, unsettled and restless. Masculinity finds peace/stillness in successful reconciliation between subject and object, whether it be in simplistic problem solving, such as in video games or crossword puzzles, as well as within the more advanced realms of science, all the way up to the highest masculine pursuit of Enlightenment. The loftiness of one's pursuits is dependent upon the limits of one's masculinity. The alternative way for finding peace is in confiding with the feminine, therefore embracing an ignorance towards the dichotomy of subject/object.
My question would be: why introducing androgyny as term at all? How you use it seems more like averaging, with the purpose to be "tuned" in ones habitat to increase survival. Historically the physically weaker individuals had more to gain with tuning in, behaving and adapting. For survival. Perhaps the human race as a whole has the "feminine" captured here: the utterly disguised animal with it's intriguing camouflage, one that serves first and foremost to hide himself for himself and to reflect a whole other being in place...
I chose androgyny as the concept to explore for two reasons; one being that it alludes to an obscuring (as opposed to blending; see below) of opposing concepts, and also because androgyny (by the official definition) becomes more prevalent and accepted within a feminizing society. That said, I would agree that changing definitions to words can be problematic. I find it to be justified for this discussion, at least.
As for "the blending of, or the lack of distinction between, subject and object". Isn't the distinction making already a form of objectifying, to create Me and IT in the process, which then, and only then needs relating again? In the thread object & subject through generalization I wrote that when:
  • .. a man will be defined as internally subjective and externally objectifying ... [while] ... in matrimony, we would get the being that is internally objectifying and externally subjective.
As an attempt to relate this to your definition, I'd suggest that the blending of subject and object occurs when the subjective is being objectified (eg self) and the objective is being subjectified. It's an image which only can be upheld by spending extraordinary amounts of effort. And destruction in its wake since truth is the first casualty in war, strife, the collision of irresolvable contradictions. And all other horrors only follow after. Then again, for most that would be essentially life. If only that would be realized: some degree of peace would be achieved at least.
Yes, blending is not the best word; obscuring, or making vague, is closer to what I am looking for.

That said, I believe your model works great in and of itself, and illustrates the driving motives behind the genders that makes them compatible in matrimony. Mine is moreso an observation and comparison of the quality of consciousness (or lack thereof) exhibited by the genders.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Androgyny

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Fri Dec 30, 2016 9:36 pm

Russell Parr wrote:... I would add that the masculine isn't necessarily, or always, unsettled and restless. Masculinity finds peace/stillness in successful reconciliation between subject and object, whether it be in simplistic problem solving, such as in video games or crossword puzzles, as well as within the more advanced realms of science, all the way up to the highest masculine pursuit of Enlightenment. The loftiness of one's pursuits is dependent upon the limits of one's masculinity. The alternative way for finding peace is in confiding with the feminine, therefore embracing an ignorance towards the dichotomy of subject/object.
To me that sounds more like an attempt to equate process with state or outcome. Which to some extent is true enough. But at the essence masculinity never finds peace if we'd define its nature as restlessness of the eternal, to stay in tune with Kierkegaard's idea of essential Christianity. That brings to mind a Gospel phrase from the ox: foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head. More complex human beings however, will at times find solutions and resting places, although none of it will be kept or owned.
I chose androgyny as the concept to explore for two reasons; one being that it alludes to an obscuring (as opposed to blending; see below) of opposing concepts, and also because androgyny (by the official definition) becomes more prevalent and accepted within a feminizing society. That said, I would agree that changing definitions to words can be problematic. I find it to be justified for this discussion, at least.
Fair enough. With androgyny the image that pops in my mind is actor Keanu Reeves. Especially his attempt to portray a unified "one" as a type of Christ software program in the popular Matrix movie. It's interesting to see the idea fail under the contradictions caused by the literal, material (objectified) interests of the movie makers, who both converted to physical womanhood later on, as to illustrate the issue more perfectly than any movie could: the male desire to "embody" (objectify) existence. This is normally expressed by ownership or attaching to things like objectified women. From a pure masculine perspective there's nothing personal or relative to matrimony. Only when he becomes feminine or starts to embody the type, as "husband". It's not something I see as some kind of perversive influence of a partner, it's more the perversive mistake of a misguided but male principle: he find he cannot really own so he end up embodying, wearing a different skin to get as close to owning as he can. But that doesn't change the core masculine fever, it justs channels the force for (originally) reproductive and tribal purposes.
That said, I believe your model works great in and of itself, and illustrates the driving motives behind the genders that makes them compatible in matrimony. Mine is more so an observation and comparison of the quality of consciousness (or lack thereof) exhibited by the genders.
Compatible and yet "they never really meet". For it to work it needs a degree of illusion (spells, potions, mirrors, performances) but even more so it requires one to starts emboding the other. It's not different on a larger scale with invasive cultures or countries. The alternative is war, terrorism, exposion of suffering and so on. But that's always the result of the denial of the way, to mistake the nature of things and the nature of our own.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2003
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Androgyny

Post by jupiviv » Sat Dec 31, 2016 5:56 am

Russell Parr wrote:The blending of, or the lack of distinction between, subject and object.
Women are unable, and unwilling, to *create* distinctions in general. They can, however, use distinctions which make them happy or serve their ends. The lack, or presence, of any particular distinction is therefore a non-issue.
—Men lean more towards exploring, expansion, and explosions, while women are more attracted to gossip, group hugs, and gallantry in men.
Yes, but again it's not about any specific distinction.
Masculine rulership leans towards more freedom, but also anarchy; while feminine rulership results in more equality, but also communism.
Not really, especially considering the sheer quantity and complexity of the actual subject. But I would say that male leaders usually don't believe their own BS (Trump & Bernie as champions of the disenfranchised), whereas feminine leaders do (Hillary as preferred candidate of sane humans).
—The bell curve in IQ test results show that most women preside around average intelligence, while men are more likely to be either remarkably dumb or exceedingly smart.
That's a myth. In reality the IQ studies where men and women demonstrate equivalent IQ are actually done on boys and girls. Men score higher than women both on verbal and logical/numerical tests after the age of 16 or so when the female developmental advantage wanes. The reason for the wider standard deviation in boys (not men) is likely the disparity in puberty onset. Since I'm a fat cheetos addicted mammy's boy with an inguinal hernia the size of a tit, I have enough spare time on New Year's Eve eve to look up this link which partially substantiates the aforesaid.
Enlightenment is a masculine pursuit due to the tendency in men to experience a more broad dichotomy between subject/object.
Or rather, to experience any dichotomy at all. But I see you do mention this later on.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Androgyny

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sat Dec 31, 2016 7:12 am

jupiviv wrote: Since I'm a fat cheetos addicted mammy's boy with an inguinal hernia the size of a tit, I have enough spare time on New Year's Eve eve to look up this link which partially substantiates the aforesaid.
That's actually quite humorous, even, or especially when true :-)

User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 852
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Androgyny

Post by Russell Parr » Sat Dec 31, 2016 8:47 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:To me that sounds more like an attempt to equate process with state or outcome. Which to some extent is true enough. But at the essence masculinity never finds peace if we'd define its nature as restlessness of the eternal, to stay in tune with Kierkegaard's idea of essential Christianity. That brings to mind a Gospel phrase from the ox: foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head. More complex human beings however, will at times find solutions and resting places, although none of it will be kept or owned.
Ah, yes, you got me. The masculine is never settled. Settlement is a feminine desire and state. Instead, in reconciliation, the process and the outcome[edited] (the subject and the object) are recognized to be inseparable, like two sides of a coin. Nirvana and Samsara are one and the same. The peace of Nature resides in its restlessness.
Fair enough. With androgyny the image that pops in my mind is actor Keanu Reeves. Especially his attempt to portray a unified "one" as a type of Christ software program in the popular Matrix movie. It's interesting to see the idea fail under the contradictions caused by the literal, material (objectified) interests of the movie makers, who both converted to physical womanhood later on, as to illustrate the issue more perfectly than any movie could: the male desire to "embody" (objectify) existence.
It is very interesting to see this happen with them. Those matrix movies, as well as V for Vendetta, had a big influence over me in my late teens. It's as if they exhaust their masculinity through artistic expression. Perhaps that is their downfall, in exuding masculinity rather than embracing it. Perhaps it is also the cost of success, a sort of settlement that leads to feminine reversion. To the extent that they express masculine principles in theatrics, they've adapted femininity into their personal lives. When Lao Tzu said to "Know a man's strength, but keep a woman's care," I don't think he meant chop off your penis.
This is normally expressed by ownership or attaching to things like objectified women. From a pure masculine perspective there's nothing personal or relative to matrimony. Only when he becomes feminine or starts to embody the type, as "husband". It's not something I see as some kind of perversive influence of a partner, it's more the perversive mistake of a misguided but male principle: he find he cannot really own so he end up embodying, wearing a different skin to get as close to owning as he can. But that doesn't change the core masculine fever, it justs channels the force for (originally) reproductive and tribal purposes.

[...]Compatible and yet "they never really meet". For it to work it needs a degree of illusion (spells, potions, mirrors, performances) but even more so it requires one to starts emboding the other. It's not different on a larger scale with invasive cultures or countries. The alternative is war, terrorism, exposion of suffering and so on. But that's always the result of the denial of the way, to mistake the nature of things and the nature of our own.
So matrimony, as does any form of bonding or grouping, results in an inversion of masculinity. The act of bonding itself is rooted in femininity. Marriage, in a sense, androgynizes the couple into a singular unit.

User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 852
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Androgyny

Post by Russell Parr » Sat Dec 31, 2016 9:11 am

jupiviv wrote:Not really, especially considering the sheer quantity and complexity of the actual subject. But I would say that male leaders usually don't believe their own BS (Trump & Bernie as champions of the disenfranchised), whereas feminine leaders do (Hillary as preferred candidate of sane humans).
I'll admit to not putting a considerable amount of thought into those bullet points, but hopefully they get the gist across. I do think that feminism and socialism go hand in hand though, and communism is the epitomic outcome of socialism.
That's a myth. In reality the IQ studies where men and women demonstrate equivalent IQ are actually done on boys and girls. Men score higher than women both on verbal and logical/numerical tests after the age of 16 or so when the female developmental advantage wanes. The reason for the wider standard deviation in boys (not men) is likely the disparity in puberty onset. Since I'm a fat cheetos addicted mammy's boy with an inguinal hernia the size of a tit, I have enough spare time on New Year's Eve eve to look up this link which partially substantiates the aforesaid.
Thanks for clarifying. I hesitated when adding that point, as I'm familiar with the PC crap that is usually involved when it comes to IQ tests. And sorry about your hernia..maybe you could try attracting some fine hynas with that bulge in your pants? :P

User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 852
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Androgyny

Post by Russell Parr » Sat Dec 31, 2016 10:08 am

A bit more on androgyny.

The natural hierarchy of the family unit ascends from the child, to the mother, to the father (beneath children are pets, and above man is God). The child submits its will to the parents, and the wife to the husband. As the woman is sandwiched in between the two, she must be flexible enough to change her role as dominant or submissive, depending on who she's dealing with. This gives way to her androgynous nature.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2003
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Androgyny

Post by jupiviv » Sat Dec 31, 2016 10:37 pm

Russell Parr wrote:I do think that feminism and socialism go hand in hand though, and communism is the epitomic outcome of socialism.
I disagree. Feminism is ideologically & intellectually amorphous. It fits into whatever niche is available. For example, if feminists cared about socialist doctrine, they wouldn't be bothered about serving in national armies. Nor would they focus their attention on attaining power within companies. Their campaigns for "equal pay" would aim for the levelling of wages across society, instead of breaking the glass ceiling which is supposedly (i.e., not) preventing a small number of women from earning a lot more money than 95+% of the population.

Do you really think the millenial SJWs care a jot for actual socialist doctrine? You might as well say that feminism and Christianity or white nationalism go hand-in-hand, because nowadays anti-Islamic and nationalist sentiment is a major political force in many nations with significant feminist cultures.
And sorry about your hernia..maybe you could try attracting some fine hynas with that bulge in your pants? :P
I have tried, but apparently a massive hernia bulge in the pants isn't all it's made out to be!

User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 852
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Androgyny

Post by Russell Parr » Sun Jan 01, 2017 2:31 am

jupiviv wrote:Feminism is ideologically & intellectually amorphous. It fits into whatever niche is available.
*cough* androgyny *cough*
For example, if feminists cared about socialist doctrine, they wouldn't be bothered about serving in national armies. Nor would they focus their attention on attaining power within companies. Their campaigns for "equal pay" would aim for the levelling of wages across society, instead of breaking the glass ceiling which is supposedly (i.e., not) preventing a small number of women from earning a lot more money than 95+% of the population.
Feminists joining the army, climbing the corporate ranks, and crying for equal pay, is precisely in line with their goal, which is "evening the playing field."
Do you really think the millenial SJWs care a jot for actual socialist doctrine?
Yes! They even have the word in their title. Or, at least, their goals are in line with it even if they are ignorant of the "socialist doctrine." Socialism itself isn't much of a doctrine as it is an ignorant outcry for equality. It becomes a doctrine once masculine forces formulate it into one. Communism is the epitomic masculine doctrine that aims to enforce socialist ideology.
You might as well say that feminism and Christianity or white nationalism go hand-in-hand, because nowadays anti-Islamic and nationalist sentiment is a major political force in many nations with significant feminist cultures.
Feminism and Christianity, yes. Look how heavily women are involved in both. White nationalism is a masculine endeavor because it deals with a strict dichotomy between whites and the rest. And, of course, it is dominated by men.

[edit:forgot to address your last statement]You may find this to be too much on the "conspiracy theorist" side, but anti-Islamicism and nationalist sentiment are responses to the global elitists' agenda of bringing in massive amounts of low quality immigrants into Western societies (plus the use of false flag terrorism) in order to 1)increase the leftist foundation in society (as lefties are more subservient) and 2)cause civil unrest which leads to more governmental control (order out of chaos).

User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 852
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Androgyny

Post by Russell Parr » Sun Jan 01, 2017 3:03 am

The biggest problem with the "men are masculine, women are feminine" paradigm is that it ignores the fact that women are incredibly masculine. In fact, they are the second most masculine creatures on earth.

As individuals, men and women are both masculine (internally subjective). Indeed, individualism is masculine. In their individualism, women are capable of gaining vasts amounts of knowledge in which she uses to improve her lifestyle. However, women, deep down, know (and are taught) that she cannot compete with a man in individuality. Therefore she uses her masculine drives to embrace and perfect her image of femininity, in order to attract, and latch onto a man. Why? Because opposites attract. Thus she becomes internally objective.

You see this in children as well. In growth, children are masculine, but will revert to femininity in response to authority as a survival mechanism. Once puberty arrives, boys continue the growth and expansion of their minds, while girls, seeing that this is both troublesome and unnecessary (seeing that boys are both better at it, and are encouraged to take on this burden), stunt their growth, and instead develop and perfect themselves in the art of femininity, in order to give her the best chance at manipulating men into serving her. A woman putting on makeup is masculine. It is a skill that she has developed over many years. But once the mask is on, boom, out comes the feminine personality.

The feminist movement is the effort of women who are unsuccessful at (and/or tired of) pulling off femininity. They're either fat and ugly, or are simply more masculine naturally. That is the root of their anger. In response to this, they attempt to re-embrace their masculinity, which they had put off long ago.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2003
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Androgyny

Post by jupiviv » Sun Jan 01, 2017 8:27 pm

Russell Parr wrote:
jupiviv wrote:Feminism is ideologically & intellectually amorphous. It fits into whatever niche is available.
*cough* androgyny *cough*
I see it as a manifestation of female nature.
For example, if feminists cared about socialist doctrine, they wouldn't be bothered about serving in national armies. Nor would they focus their attention on attaining power within companies. Their campaigns for "equal pay" would aim for the levelling of wages across society, instead of breaking the glass ceiling which is supposedly (i.e., not) preventing a small number of women from earning a lot more money than 95+% of the population.
Feminists joining the army, climbing the corporate ranks, and crying for equal pay, is precisely in line with their goal, which is "evening the playing field."
You're missing the point and concentrating only on the phrase "equal". When was the last time you heard a feminist talk about the working class taking back the jobs outsourced to China? Instead, you have Trump and Bernie talking about that! The former is not a feminist and the latter is so only tangentially.

For that matter, name me one popular US feminist that denounced the ME wars for what they are - sources of profit for the captains of military industry, bulwarks against the forces that would topple the petro-dollar and plain old geopolitical power projection. Here in India, not a single feminist campaigning for letting teh wimminz into various military roles has ever pointed out the quite obvious fact that the Indian army is a .gov vanity project lead by pompous old fossils and largely equipped with Soviet/Soviet-era tech. So no, the feminist clamour for equality can't simply be reduced to "socialism" or any other such catchall term.
Do you really think the millenial SJWs care a jot for actual socialist doctrine?
Yes! They even have the word in their title. Or, at least, their goals are in line with it even if they are ignorant of the "socialist doctrine." Socialism itself isn't much of a doctrine as it is an ignorant outcry for equality. It becomes a doctrine once masculine forces formulate it into one. Communism is the epitomic masculine doctrine that aims to enforce socialist ideology.
No, communism is a type of socialist doctrine. Socialism is a much more general term that refers to all ideas addressing socio-economic or political inequality. "SJW" is actually a slur for a wide swath of people, and nowadays is thrown around so much that in general it has just come to mean "left-leaning freak". However, both prominent SJWs and anti-SJWs are freaks, since they wish to profit from the exposition and discussion of controversial (distasteful) and esoteric (irrelevant) subjects. Trannies or Trump - all the same to me.
You might as well say that feminism and Christianity or white nationalism go hand-in-hand, because nowadays anti-Islamic and nationalist sentiment is a major political force in many nations with significant feminist cultures.
Feminism and Christianity, yes. Look how heavily women are involved in both. White nationalism is a masculine endeavor because it deals with a strict dichotomy between whites and the rest. And, of course, it is dominated by men.
White nationalism is not dominated by men, except at the radical fringes; and of course, the latter is true for virtually *all* movements. Nor is the dichotomy assumed by white nationalists any stricter than those assumed by devotees of movements in general. So pretty much all movements are masculine according to your notion - which is of course true, but where does it really get us within the current context?
[edit:forgot to address your last statement]You may find this to be too much on the "conspiracy theorist" side, but anti-Islamicism and nationalist sentiment are responses to the global elitists' agenda of bringing in massive amounts of low quality immigrants into Western societies (plus the use of false flag terrorism) in order to 1)increase the leftist foundation in society (as lefties are more subservient) and 2)cause civil unrest which leads to more governmental control (order out of chaos).
The immigrants are coming in because their homes are being ravaged by wars created/managed by the same people who are letting them in. Beyond that, it is impossible for me to speculate about what is really going on, save that nationalist and anti-immigration sentiments are natural consequences of troubled times and people not having enough for themselves to tolerate strangers.

I don't think there is a "global" elite, but I do think there are elites who sometimes cooperate with each other when it's in their interest to do so. One has merely to study the feudal systems of the past to get a simplified version of the events happening today. The two massive changes in complexity that distinguishes our own age are increased population and ubiquitous telecommunication technology.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2003
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Androgyny

Post by jupiviv » Sun Jan 01, 2017 8:54 pm

Russell Parr wrote:The biggest problem with the "men are masculine, women are feminine" paradigm is that it ignores the fact that women are incredibly masculine. In fact, they are the second most masculine creatures on earth.
If the paradigm defines masculinity as consciousness and femininity as unconsciousness, then there is no problem. Women are closer to other animals in their femininity/unconsciousness.
As individuals, men and women are both masculine (internally subjective). Indeed, individualism is masculine. In their individualism, women are capable of gaining vasts amounts of knowledge in which she uses to improve her lifestyle. However, women, deep down, know (and are taught) that she cannot compete with a man in individuality. Therefore she uses her masculine drives to embrace and perfect her image of femininity, in order to attract, and latch onto a man. Why? Because opposites attract. Thus she becomes internally objective.
You are imagining a psychological layer in women that doesn't exist or even make sense for that matter. The desire to attract a man is the natural feminine urge in most women, which underpins the desire to make herself attractive. It's not merely "opposites attract"! The internally subjective vs objective dichotomy doesn't seem useful, at least in the way you presented it above. I suggest that you look at the subject matter per se instead of burdening your thoughts with unnecessary vocabulary and concepts.
The feminist movement is the effort of women who are unsuccessful at (and/or tired of) pulling off femininity. They're either fat and ugly, or are simply more masculine naturally. That is the root of their anger. In response to this, they attempt to re-embrace their masculinity, which they had put off long ago.
"Feminist" can mean a lot of things, and all of them except one apply to typical women. The exception is feminism as the desire to *be* a man, which only exists in sufficiently masculine women.

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Androgyny

Post by Pam Seeback » Mon Jan 02, 2017 10:41 pm

To me, your idea of androgyny relates to the idea that spirit or the moving force of the causality is without gender. Not only without gender but being the distinction maker, is itself, without distinction. The following saying from the Gospel of Thomas comes to mind:

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]."

As the saying implies, while the mind is still occupied with ideas of self (masculine/feminine), even when they are perceived as distinctions of principle rather than of biology, there is present in consciousness the dukkha-producing idea of a subject/object dichotomy, the dichotomy that demands (for the truth seeker) to be resolved or reconciled, or as you say, 'blended.' Of course, what the truth seeker ultimately discovers is the subject/object dichotomy is naught but an illusion with belief in its existence being the core delusion to be removed or lifted.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Androgyny

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Mon Jan 02, 2017 10:48 pm

Russell Parr wrote:Instead, in reconciliation, the process and the outcome (the subject and the object) are recognized to be inseparable, like two sides of a coin. Nirvana and Samsara are one and the same. The peace of Nature resides in its restlessness.
Indeed. But in such non-dualistic context one cannot speak anymore truthfully about masculinity or femininity. It's only with any further description, any teaching of aspects designed to elevate ignorance into understanding which will have to polarize, even to the extreme. Therefore the masculine thinker has the external objectivity, not as to end up believing in a material, objective world - but to contrast it with his own subjective being. This I'd suggest is like the maximum expansion or "broad dichotomy' between subject and object, like you mention in your first post. Enlightenment is the perfect reconciliation and yet there is no merge. The two ends never meet, they do not blend. It's with this maximized expansion the human mud, deep under water, becomes actually fertile enough for a certain rare Lotus flower to take root.
Perhaps that is their [Wachowskis'] downfall, in exuding masculinity rather than embracing it. Perhaps it is also the cost of success, a sort of settlement that leads to feminine reversion. To the extent that they express masculine principles in theatrics, they've adapted femininity into their personal lives.
It must be some strange, distant relation to masculine figures in their early life, if I look at the figure of the Architect. Over time I started to see that the Matrix was meant to be a movie about the body as much as it's about the mind. For example the hovercraft as a journey inside the human body, reaching the heart, the seat of raw emotion and dance rhythms (machinery "downstairs"). It's not a surprise that pushing and changing the limitations of the body (image) became a real option for the writers themselves. I guess my issue, if any, is how mundane and petty those desires seem. But that's perhaps in itself an interesting spectacle to see: the medium they used perhaps being feminine, being steeped into plurality, superficiality and illusions, with its costumes, light and mirrors or appeal to emotion, perhaps the medium haunts the maker, possesses him with every movie he makes? Until he becomes like flimsy film, like a play, like a show himself. The desire to embody the biological female might not be far behind. Or some heroin(e) addiction as many Hollywood stars would admit to feel attracted to, to counter this hollowness their profession of hollowing out left them.
So matrimony, as does any form of bonding or grouping, results in an inversion of masculinity. The act of bonding itself is rooted in femininity. Marriage, in a sense, androgynizes the couple into a singular unit.
In the abstract this is the most clear to see. And the process is unavoidable once it's seen that in reality the two can never really meet, unless it's in some ritualized, fantasized setting, like a stage play. This is all the easier if one starts embodying the other, mimicking as it were. Of course the masculine will always break away or at least protest against the unit, undermining it, after the show is over. Sometimes you see relations become relatively successful as a continuous push and pull, break-ups and make-ups. That itself can become the fuel for the engine. In all other cases there's one submitting. Ideally the woman starts to develop masculine traits, ending up with two people deep down not desiring the relationship at all. At last agreement!

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Androgyny

Post by Pam Seeback » Mon Jan 02, 2017 10:59 pm

Diebert: That brings to mind a Gospel phrase from the ox: foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head. More complex human beings however, will at times find solutions and resting places, although none of it will be kept or owned.
As I understand the concept of the Son of Man, it is contrasted with the concept of the Son of God (the Son that enters the Kingdom). Both Sons experience eternal motion of spirit, however, the Son of Man's experience of motion is that of being a circular pattern of human relativism due to belief that it is the subject/object dualism (concept of self) that causes thought, not the eternal/infinite causality. The restlessness of the Son of Man then is related to the Buddhist idea of dukkha (movement of spirit experienced as restlessness - anxiety, doubt, confusion).

The Son of God experiences no such self-conscious restlessness. Awareness of perpetual (silent) motion, yes, but this motion is experienced by consciousness as a stillness, not movement.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Androgyny

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Mon Jan 02, 2017 11:17 pm

movingalways wrote:
Diebert: That brings to mind a Gospel phrase from the ox: foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head. More complex human beings however, will at times find solutions and resting places, although none of it will be kept or owned.
As I understand the concept of the Son of Man, it is contrasted with the concept of the Son of God (the Son that enters the Kingdom). Both Sons experience eternal motion of spirit, however, the Son of Man's experience of motion is that of being a circular pattern of human relativism due to belief that it is the subject/object dualism (concept of self) that causes thought, not the eternal/infinite causality. The restlessness of the Son of Man then is related to the Buddhist idea of dukkha (movement of spirit experienced as restlessness - anxiety, doubt, confusion).

The Son of God experiences no such self-conscious restlessness. Awareness of perpetual (silent) motion, yes, but this motion is experienced by consciousness as a stillness, not movement.
But it's the Son of Man which here is the truth, the life and way. The same story perspective calls himself all of that in the same breath.

Theological dispute on the nature of the Son of God or any other aspect is naturally riddled with error as It functions as a highly abstract symbol in a very confined context. There's not even a contrast possible really. The Son of God for all ends and purposes does not even exist. The Son of Man, when engaging into conversations on life and suffering, appears as very real and fundamental to the issue.

A son is born. All birth is suffering and joy. The son, the sun, its birth, its death, is dukkha, a story of dukkha, our daily breath. But the Son of God is never born. It's the realm of the eternal which he does not enter since he never left. Or if he left, he's leaving all the time - and entering every moment. That's how eternity would look like to mortality and the temporary: as never-ending repeat. How it looks like from the eternal would be a riddle, not an answer.

User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 852
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Androgyny

Post by Russell Parr » Tue Jan 03, 2017 4:49 am

As I read through the comments and think about it more, it becomes apparent to me that androgyny exists within reality in an infinitude of ways, within scopes of all sizes. I'm going to retract my offered definition of androgyny and instead leave it as is, originally. Androgyny is the combination, or presence, of masculine and feminine dynamics within any subject and scope. Masculinity remains as the outward/splitting/dichotomizing principle, femininity is inward/gravitational/gathering. We can see the contrast of these principles in play in the posts of MA and of the men in this thread.
jupiviv wrote: You are imagining a psychological layer in women that doesn't exist or even make sense for that matter. The desire to attract a man is the natural feminine urge in most women, which underpins the desire to make herself attractive. It's not merely "opposites attract"! The internally subjective vs objective dichotomy doesn't seem useful, at least in the way you presented it above. I suggest that you look at the subject matter per se instead of burdening your thoughts with unnecessary vocabulary and concepts.
You are speaking of the masculine/feminine dynamic strictly within the relationship between man and woman, which makes sense within that realm. The way I have been speaking of the dynamic makes more sense in consideration of the family unit.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Indeed. But in such non-dualistic context one cannot speak anymore truthfully about masculinity or femininity. It's only with any further description, any teaching of aspects designed to elevate ignorance into understanding which will have to polarize, even to the extreme. Therefore the masculine thinker has the external objectivity, not as to end up believing in a material, objective world - but to contrast it with his own subjective being. This I'd suggest is like the maximum expansion or "broad dichotomy' between subject and object, like you mention in your first post. Enlightenment is the perfect reconciliation and yet there is no merge. The two ends never meet, they do not blend. It's with this maximized expansion the human mud, deep under water, becomes actually fertile enough for a certain rare Lotus flower to take root.
Here you are expressing Enlightenment as it deals with the androgynous relationship between self and God. One must embrace one's masculinity in order to pearce outward and broaden one's scope towards the outer limits of reality, while opening oneself up in order receive and accept God into one's whole being.
In the abstract this is the most clear to see. And the process is unavoidable once it's seen that in reality the two can never really meet, unless it's in some ritualized, fantasized setting, like a stage play. This is all the easier if one starts embodying the other, mimicking as it were. Of course the masculine will always break away or at least protest against the unit, undermining it, after the show is over. Sometimes you see relations become relatively successful as a continuous push and pull, break-ups and make-ups. That itself can become the fuel for the engine. In all other cases there's one submitting. Ideally the woman starts to develop masculine traits, ending up with two people deep down not desiring the relationship at all. At last agreement!
Nice. Male and female will remain in attraction as long as sex, the opportunity and desire, is in play. Proceeding the union, as the couple mold each other into mirror images of themselves, they begin to repel.
movingalways wrote:To me, your idea of androgyny relates to the idea that spirit or the moving force of the causality is without gender. Not only without gender but being the distinction maker, is itself, without distinction. The following saying from the Gospel of Thomas comes to mind:

Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]."

As the saying implies, while the mind is still occupied with ideas of self (masculine/feminine), even when they are perceived as distinctions of principle rather than of biology, there is present in consciousness the dukkha-producing idea of a subject/object dichotomy, the dichotomy that demands (for the truth seeker) to be resolved or reconciled, or as you say, 'blended.' Of course, what the truth seeker ultimately discovers is the subject/object dichotomy is naught but an illusion with belief in its existence being the core delusion to be removed or lifted.
It is both an illusion and real. Reconciliation does not happen when one side of the paradigm is clung to. The separation is there precisely because we perceive it, and it is illusory because it exists only within, and because of, perception.

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Androgyny

Post by Pam Seeback » Tue Jan 03, 2017 11:02 pm

Diebert: But it's the Son of Man which here is the truth, the life and way. The same story perspective calls himself all of that in the same breath.

Theological dispute on the nature of the Son of God or any other aspect is naturally riddled with error as It functions as a highly abstract symbol in a very confined context. There's not even a contrast possible really. The Son of God for all ends and purposes does not even exist. The Son of Man, when engaging into conversations on life and suffering, appears as very real and fundamental to the issue.
Since it is an absolute truth that a thing exists co-dependently and can only be asserted by way of what it is not, then the Son Man, if it exists as you say, cannot be exempted from this truth. Therefore, if the Son of Man is defined as the truth, the way and the life of assertions on life and suffering, then there must exist a definition of something that is free of this suffering.
A son is born. All birth is suffering and joy. The son, the sun, its birth, its death, is dukkha, a story of dukkha, our daily breath. But the Son of God is never born. It's the realm of the eternal which he does not enter since he never left. Or if he left, he's leaving all the time - and entering every moment. That's how eternity would look like to mortality and the temporary: as never-ending repeat. How it looks like from the eternal would be a riddle, not an answer.
Going with my assertion that the Son of Man must be contrasted with something in order to exist, and being in agreement with your assertion that a son is born, the Son of God is born of wisdom, not woman. Metaphorically, using Christian terminology, the Son of Man (Ignorance) is crucified so the Son of God (Wisdom) may be born. As for suffering of the Son, where the Son of Man suffers his ignorance of believing finite things to have inherent existence, the Son of God suffers no such ignorance.Instead, he knows he is of the eternal wherein things have no beginning and no ending.

You are correct, the Son does not literally or actually leave the Kingdom of Everything, the Kingdom of the Eternal, it only appears that way to the Son of Man. And, staying true to my definition of the Son of Man (born of woman, the temporal or mortal) as being in contrast to the Son of God (born of wisdom of the eternal) to the Son of Man the eternal does indeed appear to be a never-ending repeat (of birth and death and good and evil). However, to the Son of God, no such repeat of relativism exists, instead, it is as you say, a riddle, not an answer. Another way of putting it would be that the Son of God stands in infinite potentiality of interdependent, hidden things ‘waiting’ to be revealed.

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Androgyny

Post by Pam Seeback » Tue Jan 03, 2017 11:17 pm

Russell: One must embrace one's masculinity in order to pearce outward and broaden one's scope towards the outer limits of reality, while opening oneself up in order receive and accept God into one's whole being.
Beautifully put! As I read it, expansion then belongs to both the masculine and the feminine with the only difference being the perceived 'direction' and/or nature of the expansion. I.e., where the masculine is the expansion that allows for possession of the wisdom of the eternal (or to use a sexual metaphor, the masculine penetrates truth), the feminine is the expansion (opening) that allows for wisdom's receptivity and absorption.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2003
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Androgyny

Post by jupiviv » Wed Jan 04, 2017 5:00 am

Russell Parr wrote:The way I have been speaking of the dynamic makes more sense in consideration of the family unit.
But the male-female dynamic essentially *is* family unit. What other reason does it have for existing? Anyways, my point was that couching this dynamic in terms of subject vs object doesn't help to understand it.
Russell Parr wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:In the abstract this is the most clear to see. And the process is unavoidable once it's seen that in reality the two can never really meet, unless it's in some ritualized, fantasized setting, like a stage play. This is all the easier if one starts embodying the other, mimicking as it were. Of course the masculine will always break away or at least protest against the unit, undermining it, after the show is over. Sometimes you see relations become relatively successful as a continuous push and pull, break-ups and make-ups. That itself can become the fuel for the engine. In all other cases there's one submitting. Ideally the woman starts to develop masculine traits, ending up with two people deep down not desiring the relationship at all. At last agreement!
Nice. Male and female will remain in attraction as long as sex, the opportunity and desire, is in play. Proceeding the union, as the couple mold each other into mirror images of themselves, they begin to repel.
Men are to blame. Men want women to be feminine enough to imitate their images of loveliness, while being masculine enough to prefer the image to its imitation. The poor dears try their best to imitate their man's image of themselves, then proceed to do what comes naturally to them. This, however, doesn't sit well with men, because they still want the image. Therefore, first she imitates him because she loves him and then hates him because he loves the imitation and not her. Finally she relents and transforms herself into the imitation, or defies him by imitating others but not him. The solution to all of this is a child, which loves both her and her imitation of it.

I think Dave Sim gives the best advice for married men:

"Just be happy every waking minute of your life and you've got her for as long as you want her."

Is there any husband who wouldn't shudder if he is told this?

User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 852
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Androgyny

Post by Russell Parr » Wed Jan 04, 2017 12:16 pm

jupiviv wrote:
Russell Parr wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:In the abstract this is the most clear to see. And the process is unavoidable once it's seen that in reality the two can never really meet, unless it's in some ritualized, fantasized setting, like a stage play. This is all the easier if one starts embodying the other, mimicking as it were. Of course the masculine will always break away or at least protest against the unit, undermining it, after the show is over. Sometimes you see relations become relatively successful as a continuous push and pull, break-ups and make-ups. That itself can become the fuel for the engine. In all other cases there's one submitting. Ideally the woman starts to develop masculine traits, ending up with two people deep down not desiring the relationship at all. At last agreement!
Nice. Male and female will remain in attraction as long as sex, the opportunity and desire, is in play. Proceeding the union, as the couple mold each other into mirror images of themselves, they begin to repel.
Men are to blame. Men want women to be feminine enough to imitate their images of loveliness, while being masculine enough to prefer the image to its imitation. The poor dears try their best to imitate their man's image of themselves, then proceed to do what comes naturally to them. This, however, doesn't sit well with men, because they still want the image. Therefore, first she imitates him because she loves him and then hates him because he loves the imitation and not her. Finally she relents and transforms herself into the imitation, or defies him by imitating others but not him. The solution to all of this is a child, which loves both her and her imitation of it.
Men are certainly to blame, due primarily to their ignorance of the masculine/feminine dynamics in play. Man, to the degree that he is masculine, desires a woman precisely for her femininity, and vice versa. She does indeed mold herself by the image he presents, but only because she can sense the higher quality of ideology and structure behind his actions, which she can never fully reproduce. Men are attracted to women because they have their feet better planted on the earth. That is to say, it is more natural for women to "go with the flow".

Men don't really give two shits that women imitate them. They care more that other men imitate them, to the extent that they believe they are wiser than their brothers.

Women love having kids in part because it allows them to feel and embrace their own masculinity towards children.
I think Dave Sim gives the best advice for married men:

"Just be happy every waking minute of your life and you've got her for as long as you want her."

Is there any husband who wouldn't shudder if he is told this?
Nice quote. And of course, it takes a spiritually wise man to be truly happy.

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Androgyny

Post by Pam Seeback » Thu Jan 05, 2017 1:45 am

Russell: Women love having kids in part because it allows them to feel and embrace their own masculinity towards children.
In that it is usually the mother who takes responsibility for making children aware of cause and effect, both physically and morally. Even if a mother is not consciously aware that this is what she is doing, it is what is happening moment by moment during those formative years. The enlightened mother of course is consciously aware of this most important parenting task, specifically of how critical it is that the child is encouraged/permitted to think causally/logically for themselves.

Wisdom of causality, be it of the limited version of self-consciousness or the more expansive version of infinite-consciousness, doesn't 'just happen.' It begins the moment the human baby cries for milk (effect of hunger, cause of hunger's release) and the breast or bottle is offered.

It is my experience that this most important aspect of parenthood is overlooked both by the parents and their children, most likely because of the focus on self-consciousness rather than on consciousness as a whole.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2003
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Androgyny

Post by jupiviv » Fri Jan 06, 2017 2:06 am

Russell Parr wrote:She does indeed mold herself by the image he presents, but only because she can sense the higher quality of ideology and structure behind his actions, which she can never fully reproduce.
No. Woman in reciprocation to Man's projection delivers him appearance, which is the substance of all the reality which Man with his projectile illusions wishes to sunder! She being closer to the divine in the moiety of gender uses her power to pivot man from tumescence to holiness while herself following the same circumference that redeems Man to his former province of painful, bulging shame - which she with her grace circumscribes.
Men are attracted to women because they have their feet better planted on the earth. That is to say, it is more natural for women to "go with the flow".
Women naturally go with the flow because the flow *is* Nature. Because men are foolish, they stand up against that which eternally passes them by. Women in their wisdom and generosity mount men's stands so that even defiance against passers-by may still be made to fare them well with fresh allies!
Men don't really give two shits that women imitate them. They care more that other men imitate them, to the extent that they believe they are wiser than their brothers.
Women imitate the ideals and fantasies of men because it makes men worship them. Therefore, the wisdom that instructs men to seek imitation by those less wise also makes them fools. And since women can turn men's wisdom upon itself, it follows that they are wiser.
Nice quote. And of course, it takes a spiritually wise man to be truly happy.
A spiritual man is one who, like Kierkegaard and David Quinn, decides that he shall marry the woman he cannot marry by virtue of the fact that to God nothing is impossible. Of course David Quinn took that decision further than Kierkegaard, but I digress.
Pam Seeback wrote:In that it is usually the mother who takes responsibility for making children aware of cause and effect, both physically and morally. Even if a mother is not consciously aware that this is what she is doing, it is what is happening moment by moment during those formative years. The enlightened mother of course is consciously aware of this most important parenting task, specifically of how critical it is that the child is encouraged/permitted to think causally/logically for themselves.
Yes, who else can better teach a child about causes than She who alone causes that child! How will that child learn self-reflection other than by Her who reflects its joy and absorbs its pain!
Wisdom of causality, be it of the limited version of self-consciousness or the more expansive version of infinite-consciousness, doesn't 'just happen.' It begins the moment the human baby cries for milk (effect of hunger, cause of hunger's release) and the breast or bottle is offered.
Oh rosy fount of insight... Indeed, "infinite-consciousness" is itself a giant soul that suckles us malnourished monads. If only babies were wise enough to distinguish their finite milk from the milky honey of eternity! If only adults were as wise as babies, and recognised the ascendancy of Eternal Milk's earthly representative over her countless subjects!

Post Reply