GENIUS FORUMS

The Way for individuals to manifest the Oneness of All, or of the Infinite, is to re-cognize the masculine/feminine unity in each moment. This is represented in the yin-yang symbol. This unity is the synapse of creation.

In this sense, "God" (as in the Infinite Source) is Love. Oneness. Unity. This precedes the split into creation, whereupon we perceive a creator separate from that which is created.

When we re-cognize our wholeness, the equal and opposite (masculine/feminine) are understood in dynamic interplay in wholeness, in the image of our Oneness. The concept of Oneness precedes that of creator. Creator is a term that is of cause/effect and of separation.

Denial of aspects of our Oneness, or the identification with better/worse dualities are not of the Love or Unity of the Source. What we create in imagined-separation from our Source, or from distortion/degradation of our creative potential which stems from the Unity of the opposites is what is known as our sinful or fallacious nature. Imbalance is the result.

Eve, herself, was not the flaw--rather, buying into the concept of right/wrong and duality represented by the snake and apple, and perceiving the need for "more", while overlooking the glory of garden of Eden and the sumptuous of the Truth they were immersed in, was the flaw.

here we have the vesica piscis: http://shamanelder.com/myPictures/vesica%20piscis.jpg

Imagine one circle to represent spirit, and the other to represent matter. When we can live from and walk in the connected area between the two, and when doing so, we are living as our awakened being template.

As such, we create through the sacred synapse of unity.

When we wake up to and act from our birthright of Oneness, unity and Love, our creations take on the pristine nature of the Sacred. From this place of union and Divine interplay, we enact our birthright power of the ongoing moment of creation in the image of our Creator/Source.

On the other hand, when we are out of union, out of relationship, etc, we create in the commonly enacted manner of degradation. There is no justification to do so. When we create in a degraded manner, which is common, on a level most of us are unconscious of, we are evolutionarily held to account, and a death or a falling away occurs. We create the degradation of our Garden of Eden.

With all due respects, the view expressed above is classically Newage (for want of a better word perhaps). It reads as just a bunch of unstudied theory of a feel-good variety. As a narrative it is a kind of sit-com. Or perhaps a shallow, Hollywood view of the strange reality we find ourselves in. It actually takes away mystery and reduces conflict. It is a flat, vegetative view. I say that we actually need conflict: vital definitions, a sense of mission, and something to struggle against.

When we wake up to and act from our birthright of Oneness, unity and Love, our creations take on the pristine nature of the Sacred. From this place of union and Divine interplay, we enact our birthright power of the ongoing moment of creation in the image of our Creator/Source.

Huh? I just don't have any more use for such formulations. I think we need dynamic narratives, not narcotic cotton-candy.

On the other hand, when we are out of union, out of relationship, etc, we create in the commonly enacted manner of degradation. There is no justification to do so. When we create in a degraded manner, which is common, on a level most of us are unconscious of, we are evolutionarily held to account, and a death or a falling away occurs. We create the degradation of our Garden of Eden.

This is vague stuff, syzegy. Newage fluffiness. You'd have to describe something concrete and recognizable to demonstrate your theory, your art-work.

This is not vague stuff: (An ass who quotes himself only reveals himself as more of an ass):

"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."

Talking Ass wrote:With all due respects, the view expressed above is classically Newage (for want of a better word perhaps). It reads as just a bunch of unstudied theory of a feel-good variety. As a narrative it is a kind of sit-com. Or perhaps a shallow, Hollywood view of the strange reality we find ourselves in. It actually takes away mystery and reduces conflict. It is a flat, vegetative view. I say that we actually need conflict: vital definitions, a sense of mission, and something to struggle against.

When we wake up to and act from our birthright of Oneness, unity and Love, our creations take on the pristine nature of the Sacred. From this place of union and Divine interplay, we enact our birthright power of the ongoing moment of creation in the image of our Creator/Source.

Huh? I just don't have any more use for such formulations. I think we need dynamic narratives, not narcotic cotton-candy.

On the other hand, when we are out of union, out of relationship, etc, we create in the commonly enacted manner of degradation. There is no justification to do so. When we create in a degraded manner, which is common, on a level most of us are unconscious of, we are evolutionarily held to account, and a death or a falling away occurs. We create the degradation of our Garden of Eden.

This is vague stuff, syzegy. Newage fluffiness. You'd have to describe something concrete and recognizable to demonstrate your theory, your art-work.

This is not vague stuff: (An ass who quotes himself only reveals himself as more of an ass):

"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."

it's natural that you and I have different perspectives. you're not debating my view; you're debating the map I've presented indicating some aspects of said view, which is based on the context of the moment.

syzygy wrote:Therefore the Infinite force contained the masculine and feminine forces before the separation took place, hence it being seen as androgynous.

The problem with this, Syzyzgy, is that the moment one would conceive of any force or infinite, the masculine wave is ridden. Therefore from a human perspective the 'one', the father, or anything you want to put at the top of any pyramid will be in effect masculine by the very effort itself. Masculinity is unifying in essence and any attempt to approach non-dualism will have to go through it.

Since the masculine force is already the unifying direction, it cannot "contain" anything but itself: unity. In similar vein a feminine force will contain a myriad of sprawling diversity, it contains only the other. Beyond this there cannot lie any other force unless you want to redefine "force" and make it mean something else entirely.

it's natural that you and I have different perspectives. you're not debating my view; you're debating the map I've presented indicating some aspects of said view, which is based on the context of the moment.

Well, just like others here I am only exteriorizing ideas, looking for creative opposition, and at the same time trying to hone my ideas, arrive at a 'correct perspective'. It can be fun to do all these things, and I am essentially in it for the fun. Whatever your ideas are, I respect them. With that said though, I notice that you haven't really responded to the main points I put forward. You can see that I am differentiating 'man' from 'woman' and I am saying that---quite significantly---it is men and men's style of handling the mental world that has created the world we now live in, the advances in manipulation of matter and handling abstract ideas. This is a very bold thing to say. I sometimes wonder: What would women create on their own? Would you care to speculate? Also, so much hinges on an understanding of this male-female dynamic. It is not at all a joke. This is pretty serious stuff. I'd like to hear more of your thoughts.

You spoke of ideas 'in a moment'. In another moment, do your ideas change?

syzygy wrote:

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...

I believe "discourse" is a more appropriate term since I've never been able to penetrate your thoughts in any way.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

syzygy wrote:Therefore the Infinite force contained the masculine and feminine forces before the separation took place, hence it being seen as androgynous.

The problem with this, Syzyzgy, is that the moment one would conceive of any force or infinite, the masculine wave is ridden. Therefore from a human perspective the 'one', the father, or anything you want to put at the top of any pyramid will be in effect masculine by the very effort itself. Masculinity is unifying in essence and any attempt to approach non-dualism will have to go through it.

Since the masculine force is already the unifying direction, it cannot "contain" anything but itself: unity. In similar vein a feminine force will contain a myriad of sprawling diversity, it contains only the other. Beyond this there cannot lie any other force unless you want to redefine "force" and make it mean something else entirely.

If you or I are conceiving of this force, it is through the vehicle of the feminine. Depending on how you are defining feminine: as through the receptive dark force of the yin-yang, or through the matter that we are in time/space, or through the symbolically feminine intelligences necessary to ponder such truths--being the direct knowing nature of emotion and intution. In human form, we cannot escape our avenues of conception. As in the yin-yang symbol, the two are in interaction and cannot be separated. Just as two sides of a coin cannot be separated. Our ideas of what lie beyond the masculine and feminine cannot define what lies beyond. Once we define it, we are no longer talking of that which lies beyond. When we project "masculine" on this Force, it is akin to projecting human traits onto God. It's a product of the super-ego, rather than of the superconsciousness.

I don't see the All or infinite at the top of a pyramid. It is present in absolutely everything, hence my seeing it as All.

When the concept of this all inclusive force does not appreciate the feminine as is, I see denial. The feminine clearly Is. as part of the All.

Animus wrote:

syzygy wrote:

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...

I believe "discourse" is a more appropriate term since I've never been able to penetrate your thoughts in any way.

I use intercourse, as in interaction. of course you're entitled to your own perspective.

intercourse: 1.dealings or communication between individuals, groups, countries, etc.
2.interchange of thoughts, feelings, etc.

Talking Ass wrote:

it's natural that you and I have different perspectives. you're not debating my view; you're debating the map I've presented indicating some aspects of said view, which is based on the context of the moment.

Well, just like others here I am only exteriorizing ideas, looking for creative opposition, and at the same time trying to hone my ideas, arrive at a 'correct perspective'. It can be fun to do all these things, and I am essentially in it for the fun. Whatever your ideas are, I respect them. With that said though, I notice that you haven't really responded to the main points I put forward. You can see that I am differentiating 'man' from 'woman' and I am saying that---quite significantly---it is men and men's style of handling the mental world that has created the world we now live in, the advances in manipulation of matter and handling abstract ideas. This is a very bold thing to say. I sometimes wonder: What would women create on their own? Would you care to speculate? Also, so much hinges on an understanding of this male-female dynamic. It is not at all a joke. This is pretty serious stuff. I'd like to hear more of your thoughts.

You spoke of ideas 'in a moment'. In another moment, do your ideas change?

Of course you perspective is valid. I merely make the point that your impressions of what I say doesn't define what I say. And ultimately, different views are an aspect of separation, when the underlying energy we all are flows quite nicely, despite our conflicts about it.

However we conceptualize the male/female dynamics, imo, indicates our underlying life issues. Our agendas. Unconsciously, and beyond our egos, we're all in synch and in harmony in the dynamic interplay.

What you say about men has truth to it. There is much value with the masculine way of dealing with the mental world. At the same time, it has also created much imbalance. By dominator hierarchies of the linear/rational intelligences, and by denial of that which is complementary to them--such as other brain functions (considered symbolically feminine, and which are natural preferences for the majority of women), we continue to create imbalance and problem after problem. Then, due to our denial, we are unconscious of the consequences of our (imbalanced) actions. Therefore we create irresponsibly, and unaware.

in terms of natural hierarchy (as opposed to power imbalanced dominator hierarchy), the symbolically male intelligence, when used in concert with the prior evolved brain functions, which have a feminine slant to them, by being "feeling-oriented" (limbic system/mammalian brain, reptillian brain) the logical brain function IS to be aspired to! Which is why the 10 challenges of liberated women refer to being objectively emotional, among the many other ways such challenges indicate integrated or holistic intelligence.

I'm a firm believer that the general going feministic ways in our society are to our great detriment. I see them as the result of our denial of the validity of the evolutionary relevance of the feminine, though. So, I see such denial as a perpetuation of that which we don't want to see--perpetuated unconsciously for most people who perpetuate this, of course.

In terms of context, with the confines of words, while I present one point of harmony, I am unable to address other points re: conflict at the same exact time. This is not a flaw inherent to my view, but one of the linear format of communication. Hopefully people can keep an open mind and not be so quick to judge the finger pointing to the moon.

For me the masculine is the will and desire for freedom, as it manifests in humans. It is the ignorant human being striving for Truth. The feminine is the will to relate, to share, to take part, to dance, to flow, to radiate, to communicate. So God manifesting itself through apparent dualism is a feminine act.

God (the Totality, the Infinite) in itself is indeed beyond masculine or feminine, yet contains both. God as Such is masculine, God as expressing diversity through structure is feminine. A fully enlightened being is God; he knows himself as fully free and empty of all characteristics (masculine), yet knows deeply that that emptiness is not separate from dependently co-arisen flow-forms or appearances (feminine). Emptiness = Dependent Arising & Dependent Arising = Emptiness.

Is. wrote:For me the masculine is the will and desire for freedom, as it manifests in humans. It is the ignorant human being striving for Truth. The feminine is the will to relate, to share, to take part, to dance, to flow, to radiate, to communicate. So God manifesting itself through apparent dualism is a feminine act.

God (the Totality, the Infinite) in itself is indeed beyond masculine or feminine, yet contains both. God as Such is masculine, God as expressing diversity through structure is feminine. A fully enlightened being is God; he knows himself as fully free and empty of all characteristics (masculine), yet knows deeply that that emptiness is not separate from dependently co-arisen flow-forms or appearances (feminine). Emptiness = Dependent Arising & Dependent Arising = Emptiness.

I can essentially agree with this.

Either prince has turned into a new age poet, or he's losing his grip on reality. Not too sure if there's a difference between these two...anyways...

The masculine and feminine are terms best used to describe an individual's psychological composition. Using these terms to describe the Totality, the Infinite, or if you want God, is at best impractical, and at worst misleading.

syzygy wrote: When we project "masculine" on this Force, it is akin to projecting human traits onto God.

It's the projecting and the whole conception of "force" that in itself is masculine. It doesn't matter what you project on it or not project at all. It will still be masculine because of the nature of your act.

I don't see the All or infinite at the top of a pyramid. It is present in absolutely everything, hence my seeing it as All.

The funny thing with the pyramid shape is that the top forms the whole structure. In itself a mini-pyramid with similar dimensions, it represents as well as defines, "unifies" the whole, where all angles comes to gather after all. No other part of the structure does that. A fine symbol indeed!

When the concept of this all inclusive force does not appreciate the feminine as is, I see denial.

Since masculinity is in essence the truly unifying directive, it cannot do else than appreciate it and all else as is.

Is. wrote:The feminine is the will to relate, to share, to take part, to dance, to flow, to radiate, to communicate.

Which is nothing but submitting to the will of nature, the impulses of the social animal. This is why it are often men who, driven by some degree of masculine will & desire - often of the petty small type - who try to resist this sharing and communication and somewhat opposes the flow and merely clunks ahead for a while. It's not necessarily a pretty sight but it's the way the process works and a seed of truth might be planted.

Nick Treklis wrote:The masculine and feminine are terms best used to describe an individual's psychological composition. Using these terms to describe the Totality, the Infinite, or if you want God, is at best impractical, and at worst misleading.

All terms are misleading. Especially the feminine ones :)

I can essentially agree with this.

Hmmmm. Why does that not surprise me? ;-)

I think it makes sense not to speak of masculine and feminine as abstract concepts, but to always try to speak of male and female, in an embodied, factual way. The problem with using---and syzygy does this---the cosmological conceptions of the Chinese (yin and yang, and all that that represents) is that the Chinese concepts are also intimately tied to a way of representing the social order. For example, in the Chinese concept, just as there is sun and moon, night and day, hot and damp, ebb and flow, so these divisions of polar opposites are reflected at a microcosmic level: in the family, men and women, elder son and younger son, elder daughter and younger daughter. Very strict roles are assigned to each, and this is all a reflection of the 'cosmic order'. Not only that, but social hierarchies also must conform to the natural hierarchies, so Chinese thought defines a ruler and the masses, the lord and the servant of the lord. There is an attempt to imitate on a social, microcosmic level, the grand order that 'sages' observe in the cosmos.

On a certain level, if the truth were told, my ideas follow these lines. And such books as The Female Brain, based as they are in physiological naturalism, seem to back up this assertion. The female of the species plays a very specific role in the natural order. There is no question of deviation from it, and no attempt to deviate. Only when we come to the human social order, and only in advanced culture, could anyone, male or female, even dream of 'disobedience', rebellion: fashioning dissenting narratives to upset or change the dominant paradigm.

Huge portions of feminist discourse---the really over the top, lesbian-driven, furiously angry at men narratives with the resolute decision to operate against man, to upset his plans, to determinedly thwart his exclusive exercise of his will, to devise an alternative reality, or--and these narratives exist---to reduce him to a level where he can be maintained, like a sperm donor---stem from pure, hysterical and even mindless anger. You could spend some time asking 'Why?' and the answers are complex. Nature---terrible, cruel, uncaring Goddess---has utterly fucked women, and that 'fucked' was not a pun. Fucking is the ultimate, and the basic, violence against women. Not only are they tricked by the Devil Goddess to want that phallus more than almost anything else in the world, which might not be so bad in itself, but out of that desire arises human life. It is a terrible and even wicked quandary, looked at form a certain angle.

It is only in sophisticated culture where level-headed people (whatever that means. and it is by no means simple) can even begin to dream-up alternatives to what the 'Goddess of All' has devised for us, and to which we are wedded, now and for all time. (Just as an aside, it is funny, almost, to speak of at-one-ment with this sort of dramatic backdrop...)

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

syzygy wrote: When we project "masculine" on this Force, it is akin to projecting human traits onto God.

It's the projecting and the whole conception of "force" that in itself is masculine. It doesn't matter what you project on it or not project at all. It will still be masculine because of the nature of your act.

I agree with you. force, act, projection, etc, happens on the 'level' described in David Bohm's implicate order--the level from which the explicate order of physical matter arises. This is still a "realm" that entails time/space, duality, dimension, etc. It is not what I (or David Bohm) call the Eternal, Holy(whole) or Infinite, and which I see as being beyond duality.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

syzygy wrote:I don't see the All or infinite at the top of a pyramid. It is present in absolutely everything, hence my seeing it as All.

The funny thing with the pyramid shape is that the top forms the whole structure. In itself a mini-pyramid with similar dimensions, it represents as well as defines, "unifies" the whole, where all angles comes to gather after all. No other part of the structure does that. A fine symbol indeed!

interesting.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

syzygy wrote:When the concept of this all inclusive force does not appreciate the feminine as is, I see denial.

Since masculinity is in essence the truly unifying directive, it cannot do else than appreciate it and all else as is.

I do appreciate this concept (which I differentiate from that which is eternal, and thusly cannot be defined), and what you're saying. Human beings can do else than appreciate it, however, on varying levels, in denial, at cost, even though fundamentally, "we" are One with the concept.

Isn't there better terminology for describing this stuff?

I feel short-changed, syzygy: you didn't address any of the more poignant parts of this whole exchange.

Talking Ass wrote:I feel short-changed, syzygy: you didn't address any of the more poignant parts of this whole exchange.

I've enjoyed reading all points of view in this thread. I take much in and keep my mind open.

If there is any specific point/question you'd like me to respond to, I'd be more than happy to, my friend.

Animus wrote:Isn't there better terminology for describing this stuff?

What do you suggest, Animus?

Are you referring to the terms masculine/feminine? To some people, the underlying energies of the universe are masculine/feminine, as in positive/negative. Some see them occuring in absolutely everything. They are said to be the basis of all Creation...Will/consciousness coming together with the field of potential, so to speak. Consciousness acting upon itself. Love-making, if you will... (I know how you love the symbolic view of reality...)

I say there's an eleventh challenge, which is to spell the word challenge correctly.

syzygy wrote:

Animus wrote:Isn't there better terminology for describing this stuff?

What do you suggest, Animus?

Are you referring to the terms masculine/feminine? To some people, the underlying energies of the universe are masculine/feminine, as in positive/negative. Some see them occuring in absolutely everything. They are said to be the basis of all Creation...Will/consciousness coming together with the field of potential, so to speak. Consciousness acting upon itself. Love-making, if you will... (I know how you love the symbolic view of reality...)

It just gets too obscure at some point and loses all definitive quality. In terms of doing philosophy its probably a sloppy way to do it, it is one step removed from more accurate terms.

You can define "feminine" and "masculine" according to definitive properties of consciousness, but why not deal directly with those properties? When you begin lumping things together into vaguer and vaguer arbitrations, then you begin to commit grosser and grosser errors of perception.

If you take something like "intuition" or "reason" as are used in modern vernacular and equate those with "light" or "glory" or something, then you've unwittingly constructed a wall to communication with those who won't understand the metaphor. It's also unnecessary, and strikes me as poetic vanity more than anything else.

If you are writing a poem I suppose that would be the way to write it. But when you are having a discussion and you are waxing poetic, it just comes across like fantasy, delusion, ignorance and/or intellectual elitism. The more direct and definitive the terms are, the less opportunity for misinterpretation and disagreement. Knowing this, when one uses vague metaphor deliberately, its doesn't seem to be for the purpose of communication, but for the purpose of...