GENIUS FORUMS

What do you think?

http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j ... ifr=hp-edt

In new age lexicon this is the path of the goddess, in native terms the path of the wise woman. Unfortunately there are next to no women in the U.S. interested in such a path, such are the current times.

No, this has nothing to do with 'the Goddess' since it comes out of Andrew Cohen's circle of influence. The people who have conceived this book are his followers (they used to call him Master, now he is their 'spiritual teacher').

Apparently, there are women interested in some sort of liberation---and what they say is not at all far away from what QRS recommend---and here is a book written by some of them, plotting a course away from biological determinism to something less determined.

As a starting point of investigation of this 'spiritual path', I would start in the context, that is, with Andrew Cohen. You could also branch out to Ken Wilber.

Soon, it all turns into a madhouse of spiritual confusion, power-tripping, money-making, spiritual hierarchies, etc.

On the same site from which Is. posted, is this:

24 Women Describe What They Think Female Liberation Is

Nancy Bauer: "I’d rather ask: What is personhood or desire for women today? Women are deeply out of touch with their own desires. Everything in the culture is encouraging them not to think about what they really want. For this reason, the situation for young women today is possibly worse than it was for the housewife of the 1940s and ’50s, who cleaned the toilet in a cinched-waist dress and high heels while the culture told her she was happy. Young women’s consciousness is extremely sophisticated, but they are just as constrained and deluded because they continue to believe they’re exercising freedom when they do what the culture tells them to do. Showing your breasts to men on Fort Lauderdale Beach is no more freeing than cleaning the toilet in high heels! More than wagging a finger, I’m concerned about the way my generation has failed young women in a disastrous way. Part of the women’s liberation movement was about loosening the constraints that gender roles impose on both women and men so we have a different picture of what it is to be a human being and what is morally best for us to live decent lives. It seems to me that we have utterly lost a sense of this."

I agree, this is not goddess based. this sounds to me like the feminine version of awakening, to the masculine one posed in these forums.

In Truth, awakening to the Truth is awakening.

I, also, am a female, and my ongoing awakening has been precipitated from Truth, within. Truth knows not masculine or feminine. While there are many maps for reaching the Infinite, it's all Infinite, personal perceived bias aside.

In order to develop wholeness, balance, unity, Oneness...I have had to balance my masculine nature (as in Jung's animus concept) and, interestingly was helped along by this board's "Animus". I've reprogrammed my "biology", over and over, in myriad transcendent ways.

to add, I personally feel to align to and identify with either masculine or feminine concepts limits the Truth. that said, I can definitely see the relevance for doing so. It's just not something I personally subscribe to.


edit: to add further, I can understand teaching from the masculine or feminine perspective, however, it can become dogmatic, as seekers may take the teachings--the words and constructs, rather than the energy which underlies them-- to be the truth. It then can create scenarios where those learning are identifying with the finger pointing to the moon, not understanding the moon. This can read as individuals who take a sexist tone.

syzygy wrote:In Truth, awakening to the Truth is awakening.

I, also, am a female, and my ongoing awakening has been precipitated from Truth, within. Truth knows not masculine or feminine. While there are many maps for reaching the Infinite, it's all Infinite, personal perceived bias aside.

In order to develop wholeness, balance, unity, Oneness...I have had to balance my masculine nature (as in Jung's animus concept) and, interestingly was helped along by this board's "Animus". I've reprogrammed my "biology", over and over, in myriad transcendent ways.

Oh boy, do we got animus. We got animus comin' out the yahoo!

As you may have guessed, I don't have a great deal of use for the idea of Truth as some sort of universal constant. I know this is a big part of Eastern teachings, the Vedas, etc., and is an attractive idea for many reasons. It always seems to me we have to speak of approximate truths within contexts. I know that this forum often attracts people who like to think in terms of absolutes, and I respect it insofar as I can. But it always rings a little questionable to me. What purpose does the idea serve, I ask?

So, for example, you say that you don't want to align to one or the other gender identification, which is good for abstract conversation or conceptualization, but such a chemically pure conversation or conceptualization simply never occurs. We are either men or women, in a biological context. We are our context. Any way that we weasel out of that fact always puts us, it seems to me, on an unreal platform.

This can read as individuals who take a sexist tone.

Well, that word has a pretty clear history, born of second wave 60s and 70s feminism. It has to be pretty carefully defined, which you have done of course to a degree. I am inclined to say---if it is not obvious already---that to judge and assess on the basis of sex differences is just good thinking, a good use of the mind. To deny sex differences (sexism) is to wilfully cover one's eyes. It is to insist that reality be what it is not.

Now, you know and I know that I am just an donkey in a barn out in the middle of nowhere. My opinions really can't have much weight, and I don't presume they do. After all, a mere ass cannot and should not have philosophical or literary pretensions, and yet I clearly do, which must, I think, disqualify me from the start...

Here's a shot of me in a thoughtful moment. (You can see the amount of work I've done on my Anima. Individuation just pours off of me.
A shot of my Spiritual Master, a 14-degree Enrolled Shaman from the Bolivian High Lands. Thirty percent or so my most profound wisdom I owe to him...

Talking Ass wrote:

syzygy wrote:In Truth, awakening to the Truth is awakening.

I, also, am a female, and my ongoing awakening has been precipitated from Truth, within. Truth knows not masculine or feminine. While there are many maps for reaching the Infinite, it's all Infinite, personal perceived bias aside.

In order to develop wholeness, balance, unity, Oneness...I have had to balance my masculine nature (as in Jung's animus concept) and, interestingly was helped along by this board's "Animus". I've reprogrammed my "biology", over and over, in myriad transcendent ways.

Oh boy, do we got animus. We got animus comin' out the yahoo!

As you may have guessed, I don't have a great deal of use for the idea of Truth as some sort of universal constant. I know this is a big part of Eastern teachings, the Vedas, etc., and is an attractive idea for many reasons. It always seems to me we have to speak of approximate truths within contexts. I know that this forum often attracts people who like to think in terms of absolutes, and I respect it insofar as I can. But it always rings a little questionable to me. What purpose does the idea serve, I ask?

So, for example, you say that you don't want to align to one or the other gender identification, which is good for abstract conversation or conceptualization, but such a chemically pure conversation or conceptualization simply never occurs. We are either men or women, in a biological context. We are our context. Any way that we weasel out of that fact always puts us, it seems to me, on an unreal platform.

Universal Truth, as a term or indicator, is another map, indicating a territory we perceive of. Therefore within such territory, whereupon those you refer to on this board, who have an "attachment" to it, they describe a context. Which is valid.

At the same time, I also agree with what you're saying, and think your question is pivotal: "what does the idea serve?"

to me, masculine and feminine concepts have validity, of course. and then they have their limits. For example, although I'm very much female, in many fun and interesting ways, I have many traits and tendencies that go against stereotypical feminine ones. Again, it's back to context. And still, the indicators one uses does not necessarily define the energy it points to.

Talking Ass wrote:

syzygy wrote:This can read as individuals who take a sexist tone.

Well, that word has a pretty clear history, born of second wave 60s and 70s feminism. It has to be pretty carefully defined, which you have done of course to a degree. I am inclined to say---if it is not obvious already---that to judge and assess on the basis of sex differences is just good thinking, a good use of the mind. To deny sex differences (sexism) is to wilfully cover one's eyes. It is to insist that reality be what it is not.

Now, you know and I know that I am just an donkey in a barn out in the middle of nowhere. My opinions really can't have much weight, and I don't presume they do. After all, a mere ass cannot and should not have philosophical or literary pretensions, and yet I clearly do, which must, I think, disqualify me from the start...

There are many words that indicate one who is caught up in definitions/labels, etc. and is not freed to understand the concept such indicators point to.

I'm the first person to acknowledge sex differences. And then the first to acknowledge that which lies beyond that. I used the word sexism, after erasing the word "misogyny". a predominantly male or female based view holds a shadow potential for "followers"/"seekers" who do not exactly "get it", to get caught up in the masculine/feminine lines drawn, to the detriment of their growth at times, when, imo, masculine/feminine principles are two sides of the same coin, and equally valid in complementary ways.

I will go so far as to say that when one presents a balanced "masculine" perspective, it is due to underlying (possibly unconscious, or at least unrepresented on the surface) feminine balance. This feminine balance is implied. It works vice-versa for a balanced "feminine" perspective.

When the feminine is disdained, it is not being perceived for what it is, but is rather confused for lacking human behaviour. The same goes for the bad name masculinity has gotten in society. With the result being feministic backlashes, and erosion of the actually masculine, to our further imbalance.

From what I've seen of the "liberated woman" this thread is about, it is similar to heart of the the masculine concepts perpetuated on this forum: they are about balanced awakening, and when the feminine or masculine is indicated, in it's balance, it implies it's opposite. And both slants/approaches are relevant in our society, given the crippled senses of femininity and masculinity abound.

For a truth-seeker like, say, David Quinn, (that is if I understand correctly), 'misogyny' is a necessary trait or attitude. The feminine and the female represents---nay, is---everything that 'we' must fight against, resist, overcome. The battle is brutal and mortal.

How it can be that a woman could come along and serve transcendental ascent from all that restrains us (the female, the feminine, the biological and physiological drive that underpins what we are, this tiny little head of consciousness), is beyond me. In the sense that the male-female polarity is defined, men have to be ruthless in rejecting 'woman'. The 'truth' is she cannot be anything other than what she was designed, by Nature, to be. What in the heck could we ask her to turn into?

The notion of misogyny---which relatively recently was more or less a given: it was considered sane and appropriate to see women as inferior in aptitude, desire and intention---has relatively recently come under attack. Now, such an attitude is seen as regressive, backward.

One of the reasons why the Goddess cults of recent feminist history were relevant was because it offered a way for women to identify with an embodied, physical femininity; with motherhood, social connection, a connection with nature. All of this contrasted against a male God-gone-wild. Cruel, disconnected patriarchy. The conquering male, clubbing to death all that opposes him.

I don't think female liberation can ever be about what male concepts of liberation are about. Women can never detach (both as a positive and a negative trait) in the way that men can. When women do 'detach', they lose their bearings. The stress just makes them 'crack'.
________________________________________________________

Some little-known donkey-care tips. I am interested in raising consciousness about issues that pertain to my species. While I do not conceive of a 'donkey-liberation' I do think our terrestrial lot can--and should---be improved.

Number 8 is apt:

"Provide your donkey with companionship. Donkeys are herd animals and they enjoy company. If you can afford to keep two donkeys, this is highly recommended and will provide each donkey with constant companionship. However, a donkey will be content with your companionship if you attend to its needs regularly and spend time with it. Other animals such as horses or cattle in the same field will likely also occupy it happily; donkeys are not overly stressed at not being with their own kind if there are other animals to be around. One big exception is dogs; keep them away from donkeys as dogs tend to scare them (dogs are too similar to wolves). They’re not overly fond of sheep or goats either, but you might be lucky."

That part about being content with cows and horses is flatly false, let me tell you. Cows are incredibly booooring, and horses are devilishly egotistical and puffed-up. And they bite. Oddly enough, one of the finest companions I ever had was a duck. That's right, a plain old white waddling duck with an orange beak. Talkative in the extreme, yes. Domineering and possessive, I grant you that. But a finer companion one could not ask for. Now, here's another little-known fact: Rats make great companions, but it takes a loooong time to get to know one, they are suspicious as all heck. I have a rat friend here in the stable---Montesquieu by name---and our friendship has really blossomed in the last 6 months.

Well, don't mean to keep you. But here is a picture of my erstwhile duck friend. That's a face you can trust, am I right or what?

Talking Ass wrote:For a truth-seeker like, say, David Quinn, (that is if I understand correctly), 'misogyny' is a necessary trait or attitude. The feminine and the female represents---nay, is---everything that 'we' must fight against, resist, overcome. The battle is brutal and mortal.

Independent of David Quinn and what he actually believes, this concept itself, as presented, indicates that one holding it has some inner conflicts to overcome in order to be at a realistic sense of at-One-ment with All. (realistic as defined as accepting "what is") In Jungian psychology, one holding such a view would not be integrated with their anima, to the detriment of psychological balance, meaning they would not be in a holistic/whole place.

In terms of David Quinn, himself, my awareness is by no means exhaustive, or comprehensive. I have read him using emotionally charged (which, to some equates with biased) means of making a point on more than one occasion. He may be doing this with conscious intent as a deliberate tool, or unconsciously. The intent, degree of consciousness and awareness behind such choices creates the outcome and consequence.

How it can be that a woman could come along and serve transcendental ascent from all that restrains us (the female, the feminine, the biological and physiological drive that underpins what we are, this tiny little head of consciousness), is beyond me. In the sense that the male-female polarity is defined, men have to be ruthless in rejecting 'woman'. The 'truth' is she cannot be anything other than what she was designed, by Nature, to be. What in the heck could we ask her to turn into?

denial of what is inherent to one's self--such as the feminine--creates that which one seeks to overcome. Sure, we can set ourselves upon some exciting adventures laced with meaning attempting to overcome the inner conflicts we create and maintain from within. We're willful beings who seem to enjoy doing this! Or, we can wake up in each moment, accepting All. Thereby REALizing All. RE-COGNIZE-ing All. Being awake. It's All good. the choice is ours.

The notion of misogyny---which relatively recently was more or less a given: it was considered sane and appropriate to see women as inferior in aptitude, desire and intention---has relatively recently come under attack. Now, such an attitude is seen as regressive, backward.

One of the reasons why the Goddess cults of recent feminist history were relevant was because it offered a way for women to identify with an embodied, physical femininity; with motherhood, social connection, a connection with nature. All of this contrasted against a male God-gone-wild. Cruel, disconnected patriarchy. The conquering male, clubbing to death all that opposes him.

The God and Goddess concepts are also two sides of the duality-coin. They are a product of our super-ego, and of the world of matter. And as such, they are both relevant within their contexts. The real Truth, if you will, (and maybe you won't ... without a fight....) is the essence that underlies it all, and is One. All. From this essence we all arise and exist, right now, as energy. As we flow from the Infinite, into denser and grosser 'levels' we are defined as human, then as male/female, then with ascribed traits of both, etc.

We can identify with the super-ego version of God or Goddess, or we can identify with the Infinite, or All, which is inclusive. Or whichever one serves the needs of the given context.

I don't think female liberation can ever be about what male concepts of liberation are about. Women can never detach (both as a positive and a negative trait) in the way that men can. When women do 'detach', they lose their bearings. The stress just makes them 'crack'.

Liberation for males and females is about liberation. Sure, the content of liberating one's self from one's own self-imposed limits will be different, given varying contexts. And still liberation remains liberation.

While I see the masculine or feminine paths I speak of here as valid ways to the truth, and at heart, as being somewhat balanced (relative to more traditional male/female awareness roles)...the ways they play out will reflect the one-side-of-the-coin-ness of them. When there is presented lack of feminine integration with the animus, imbalance is the result. And when there is lacking masculine integration with the anima, likewise, imbalance is the result.

ultimately, these are just glorified ways of speaking of the 98% of the population who display inner fragmentation with regularity, and project it onto the world "out there".

A true story.
C.G. Jung on youtube!
The Feminine Archetype
von Franz on Dreams

Becoming a god or a goddess is precisely about liberation and awakening. In my book anyway. For that is how one gains one's true power.

Apart from the Jungian cosmic consciousness flavoured language the 10 points are pretty good advice.

LOLZ at some of those other articles, though. Eg. http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j ... ifr=hp-edt

Carl G wrote:Becoming a god or a goddess is precisely about liberation and awakening. In my book anyway. For that is how one gains one's true power.

When god or goddess-based philosophies exist in a hierarchical sense, meaning a masculine or feminine entity/force is considered supreme, above the complementary masculine/feminine forces, there is a natural slant towards imbalance. My personal run ins with various goddess based views revealed them as having been hierarchical, favouring the symbolically feminine over the symbolically masculine.

I agree that one can find their God/Goddess nature and it can be about awakening.

Also, I understand that many refer to God as an androgynous force, which transcends masculine/feminine differentiation.

Feminine integration with animus?

I was told that was bad, err was it the other way around, something about a complete circuit and semen in the brain.

Anyway, I can't allow people to start integrating with me, not without an initial get-to-know-you session.

Animus wrote:Feminine integration with animus?

I was told that was bad, err was it the other way around, something about a complete circuit and semen in the brain.

Anyway, I can't allow people to start integrating with me, not without an initial get-to-know-you session.

I think in our case, years of ongoing intellectual intercourse probably accounts for something in terms of getting-to-know-one-another...

syzygy wrote:Also, I understand that many refer to God as an androgynous force, which transcends masculine/feminine differentiation.

No, God is absolutely and perfectly masculine, who created the feminine for contrast to reflect the shadow self. All that Not Is.

Well, there is a wrench or two that could be thrown in the touchy-feely Jungian balance arguments, despite the fact that I genuinely admire a great deal of his work.

One thing in particular, and it is something I appreciated from the start about this forum, is the decision to deliberately privilege the masculine as against the feminine. In the sense that this division is presented, the female is not much more than biological function. The feminine is the body, adapted in environment, the maternal-centered survival unit. The women is always about safe choices and the strategic decision to avoid risk-taking.

What arises as a rebellion against this, both as the status quo of the body, the merely physical, and as rebellion against the cruel dictates of Nature, is the masculine mind and will. The masculine mind and will is something that stands out from Nature, stands apart from Nature, and represents a dangerous deviation (dangerous because it can go awry or ascend to 'genius') from the circle of restricted, material life: Nature's survival strategy.

In many senses Jung's dichotomies, his sexual divisions, reflect this prejudice toward the masculine (as feminist Jungians have insisted). He embedded the standard prejudices in his psychological cosmologies. But Jungian feminists take it in a very different direction.

Where the QRS can be respected, I think (though I don't agree with them in all) is that men need to 'defend' themselves against an onslaught of the female, an assault that is unconscious on one hand and, possibly, inspired by resentment and jealousy on the other. The genius of men has completely modified the situation of human protoplasm, and brings us to a point of manipulation of matter and circumstance in a degree that could not ever be conceived by women, by 'woman'. Women become relevant to the degree that they come under the influence of creative, masculine power. In one way or another---in their service to 'man' or in their rebellion from it, they will still serve or reflect that masculine, moulding power.

In short, it is the masculine that defines woman and assigns a role to her, a role that she simply must fulfill. It is the supreme dictate of Nature. There is an alternative argument though, the one brought forward by Esther Vilar: that the female, through supremely evolved survival strategies, fundamentally controls the male; directs all his activities to her service. This is not achieved through mentation but by other means. Naturalism at its finest.

What is a man who no longer serves the female? Does such a man exist? (Perfect set-up for David Quinn to appear...)

Now, I've got to get some shut-eye so would you-all please keep it down?

prince wrote:

syzygy wrote:Also, I understand that many refer to God as an androgynous force, which transcends masculine/feminine differentiation.

No, God is absolutely and perfectly masculine, who created the feminine for contrast to reflect the shadow self. All that Not Is.

I understand this is how you see it.

At the same time, there remains those who see God as an androgynous force which 'precedes' dualistic concepts, such as masculine/feminine.

God was masculine first (I am), there was no androgeny.

God created the dualism to reflect unto itself its glory.

I am speaking english, dickweed.

You think God doesn't have an aesthetic? Oh he does, and its fine as can be.

[You shouldn't pay too much attention to Prince, syzergy. Nothing he says makes any sense. I don't think he intends sensibility. All the other 549 posts of his are pretty much in the same category.]

Talking Ass wrote:[You shouldn't pay too much attention to Prince, syzergy. Nothing he says makes any sense. I don't think he intends sensibility. All the other 549 posts of his are pretty much in the same category.]

What he said made perfect sense to me, and I know what he says represents a view held by many, whatever his intentions are.

prince wrote:God was masculine first (I am), there was no androgeny.

God created the dualism to reflect unto itself its glory.

I agree with this in general (except about I Am being masculine. I see I AM as preceding masculine/feminine splits). However, the "dualism" and thusly the feminine that "God" created in which to act upon in time came from this Infinite force to begin with--it is not actually separate from it except in appearance/experience throughout time. Therefore the Infinite force contained the masculine and feminine forces before the separation took place, hence it being seen as androgynous.