Etherial Cat

@meow_meow If you're in one of those countries where a degree doesn't cost you 10 years of debt, go for it!

In the relative, yes, masculine and feminine are two polar opposite. We'd not be able to perceive either the masculine without the feminine nor the feminine without the masculine. But in the absolute, it doesn't exist because only oneness exists there. So all dualities crumble. At least, this is what I understand so far.

Thank you.

A common bias that I see when it comes to JP, is that his credentials as a professor and a best-selling other give people the impression that he's an expert in all subject he explores. Which leads to an authority bias. The truth is, he is as qualified to talk on social sciences that I am qualified to talk about nuclear physics, from an "academic proof" standpoint. Peterson is a psychologist. So when he talks about feminism or "post-modern neo-marxism" he's giving an opinion out of his domain. His opinion is therefor as worthwhile as anyone who hasn't the benefit of the doubt to be better because of spending a decade on a field, like a professor do. Now, I don't say that you cannot be self-taught or have a natural talent, but Jordan is simply ignorant and comes off as a Dunning-Kruger to anyone who is able to clock where his thought process falls short. But he comes off as very convincing because the optic is in his favor, and of course, because a lot of people wants him to be right because it serves unconsciously their agenda.

Thank you . Also, I'd like to add that each men also have a significant amount of feminine traits and expressions, since both polarities are to be found in us. So both masculinity and femininity deserve to have its proper place for us to be ourself. Femininity is a path towards wholeness.

Feminism is not only about women though. It's about giving to the entire feminine principle the space it deserves after centuries of repression. It means woman, feminine values (love, compassion, gentleness, tenderness), feminine traits (ex: emotions), feminine perspectives, and basically anything assigned as feminine in the collective unconscious. Society is fucked by an imbalance towards masculine values. If you look around are the collective issues, they all find their roots in the absence of value/fear of something we assign as Feminine. Femininity was dangerous for survival during other social structures, but nowadays it is the cure to a lot of our issues. Global warming, social inequality, excessive competition/zero-sum game mindset, whatever.. = > excess of masculine principle

A good illustration of how our mind can get confused at unusual expression of this duality. Edit: The video is 42 minutes long. It shows the case of a woman who is born with female genitalia but has male chromosome. ?

I would say that yes, gender is a construct. It is a construct comporting all the human biases/shortcut regarding the Feminine and the Masculine. We use them to assign whether someone or something is predominantly from one polarity or another. The fact is, it is often falling short because creation is made of both masculine and feminine characteristics and there isn't any Absolute in the relative. So saying that something is either Feminine or Masculine is going to face limitation. The Feminine and the Masculine are two relative opposite to be found in nature. It is as real as up or down, warm and cold and all other dualities. In that sense, it is very real and part of the DNA of the world. I picture it like the binary codebase of the universe.

Get yourself a copy of the SD book by Beck and Cowan. There is a timeframe p. 50/51. Also, you've got further explanation on how this all works.

Turquoise ≠ being non dual Spiral dynamics is a model which has been developed recently and obeys to a specific time frame. In order to be Turquoise, you'd need to tick the boxes established and have been through all the development phases.

False. Yellow started to emerge in the 20th century (you need modern science and industrialization + the counter movement green + it's transcendence to go to yellow). Feeling safe is pretty much an illusion anyway... Also, Michael Jordan is not immune to a stage red aggression either. Anyone can lose a fight or submit to a stage red psycho. That said, look at the world. Who runs it? Stage red people or stage Orange ones? Stage Red people are under the domination of Stage Orange. Good luck being a gang thug next to the ability of a scientist to create weapons that make your survival strategy obsolete. An aggression through stage Red behavior is an unormative, isolated event, because Orange is stronger as it is more developed.

It's an integrated stage red + blue values + orange ones. Orange CEO have more wisdom and knowledge than Genghis Khan. Aggression and competitiveness are not bad per se. They just need to be counterbalanced with other skills not to be dysfunctional...

There is no need to compete with stage red in first world countries. Masculine strength isn't equal to force or brutality. Strength can be much more holistic than that. It's adding up other virtues on top of just what people traditional sum it up to be. Through being cunning, wise, intelligent or though being compassionate, you can circumvent a lot of the needs for violence.

My assumption is similar to yours. I think that he's trying to protect himself from hurt through one hell of a self-deception mechanism on that one. And that his masculine side is trying to protect his feminine side by erecting walls to prevent it from being devoured by the threats of this world. Which include females failing to love. Obviously, the control given by knowing "how it works" prevents heartbreak. And having such a low bar for what we are capable of prevents disappointment. At least, thinking this way he's "safe" from hurt.

Aren't we proving interest, just by having these conversations? At best, you could say that our way of doing it is faulty because we're not good either in our ability to go meta, or in our ability to do proper epistemology. Sounds like a bunch of unproven assumptions to me. It's also quite difficult to deal with people who will challenge you to prove them that you're capable to search for truth as well as they do. It's the very definition of a probatio diabolica. Also, why would man have more interest than we do? We've already discussed these points in previous threads. I think very solid points to explain the nuances and causation have been made, which makes these statement difficult to accept as a justification for a lack of meta awareness. I don't think so. That's an arbitrary standard. Other ways exist to observe female attraction. Also, you'll attract a specific sample of women which resonate towards a specific methodology and hypothesis. It can lead to a confirmation bias.

I think Leo is afraid of feminine love. ??‍♀️ Please, have the decency to illustrate how, if you're going to comment. Don't drop lazy comments like this to invalidate my perspective after I took the time to write a long post. Take the time to explain why I don't understand , from your perspective, instead of behaving like i'm not cogent enough and you're flying far beyond my head. Thanks.

For someone who teaches how to go meta and epistemology, why are you holding the believe that women are incapable of doing so when it comes to what they are attracted to? I mean, are you a woman yourself? No. So how can you think you know women better than they do, since you are not having the direct experience of it? There are no way that I'd make the claim that I know better than man themself what they are attracted to, even if I'm sometimes at a better place to perceive some blind spot. So I can't take seriously this type of statement. It sounds to me like delusion, and also it doesn't match the standards you hold to your usual philosophy. I'm the same here. I've never contemplated something more than what attracts me, what attracts others, what have been my mistakes, and what are other people's mistake. Of course, I still have blindspot and I keep on figuring out some new elements every other day, but I'm confident that I'm pretty sharp in the domain. To the point that it's mind blowing that someone who isn't even part of the experience dares to tell me that what I know is "false". And that is because I am really motivated to figure out the truth of what makes a romantic relationship work. I want to know the truth, so I can avoid myself wasting time in whatever doesn't work. Here, my mind works actively with my heart on one of my heart's biggest desire, which is to have an intimate, functional relationship with a man. And it's not only a selfish egoic thing, I often touch deep spiritual realms when I explore the love and affection that I can feel. I think this is quite interesting as well as very revealing of what women aspire. I'm also contextual, and based more on heart-centered fantasy. I don't necessarily like things to start platonic as I can pretty fast know that I like someone, but my fantasies would be definitely based on deep and intimate relationship which would need time to build. Passionate, authentic feelings for me aren't built on vaporware. For my heart to fully open ( which is really the center of what these fantasy are), I need to think and feel that this man is beautiful. The more beautiful I think he is, the more deep my love for him will be. And while it's hard to explain the secret formula hiding in cupid's arrow, I've found out that for me it's tied to his ability to move me by incarnating the Good. So in other words, a man's virtue touches me. Sex is more than just two bodies rubbing one another. It's also two soul and personality meeting. You can compare the faculty for deep intimacy as soul sex. At my core, my consciousness doesn't like violence, especially when it is unjustified. Someone who is abusing violence isn't appealing deeply to my soul, nor to my mind/heart because I know how to recognize thanks to my wisdom when it is necessary or not. Also, I like a man to feel and be protective of me and others which is a concurrent virtue to aggression. My heart centered fantasies also include the ability to trust, let go, contemplate inner beauty, and give affection to a male human in his full Divine Masculine who would also be deeply in touch with his feminine side. Having sex with a psychopath/sociopath or a Genghis Khan makes intimacy and this important dimension of sex very difficult, if not to say impossible. . My inner radar would turns on my defense mechanism layers, as I know this person will overstep my boundaries, brutalize me in a matter of time and/or fail to see me, because this is what psychopath do. Also, when you take 5 minutes to dive into their soul what you see is that this person has to deal with a lot of inner poop. Greed, egoic-complexes, traumas... I just don't get any wow effect. And you can feel it from their way of relating to you.

@Leo Gura I disagree regarding cats and dogs being slaves. The examples given to justify that pets are slaves reminds me of my habits of convincing myself that I'm suffering from a disease after I have a few symptoms for it. You certainly have similarities, but similarities doesn't mean that it fits the common definition of what a slave is. Just like it's not because I tick 2/6 symptoms to some rare sickness that I have it. Points of divergences: 1. Slavery is a word which describes an action between humans This one may seem irrelevant because the attempt is to extend it to other beings, but to be a slave, you might need a mind of your own and/or the capacity to understand what your master wants. So having a mind, and a free will which is bended is important. Domestication or taming is the process of getting animal to conform to our needs and standards, but it is never fully achieved. 2. Slaves are given orders, and have to provide services and value. Maybe you can get away with it with dogs, but you ain't gonna get nothing from a cat, for instance. In fact, there are even conspiracy theories which state that cats are the ones using us for their survival. And there are no leashes, no catch and fetch, etc. Points of convergences: 1. Property/Possession is a common factor Pets are owned by their owner like slaves are owned by their masters. It's the legal narrative. Though, I must say that I've always been loathing about the legal status of my animals and wished that we'd be bounded by another legal attachment than property. I'm wondering whether there should be a will to dominate or make of someone a slave in order to be a master. I don't perceive myself as my cat's or fish master. I've always thought myself as its caretaker. 2. Choices made on their behalf The dog, or the cat might not want to get his balls chopped. The female cat might not want to be sterilized. But at the same time, they do not understand the greater picture. If I were a cat, I'd probably chose to be sterilized over getting 15 pregnancies with 5 kittens each time. Also, humans, and especially parents also make choices on the behalf for those whose survival depends on them. Corporal modification goes from vaccines to genital alteration nowadays. But I agree that sterilization itself doesn't happens. 3. Unequal treatment Feeding them with left-overs and cheap foods. Not having as many rights and cares as humans. etc That said, sometimes animals or pets can be treated better than fellow humans 4. Exploitation Circus animals, zoo animals, farm animals. Gruesome mass exploitation for the meat. Few days ago, I compared some type of factory farming and slaughterhouses to concentration camps in a discussion, especially in its industrialization of death.

Yes, I get very well that they have a huge platform, but dating advices like those aren't subversive. I don't agree that women standards are necessarily so high. If so, it's more due to a cultural anomie (https://soztheo.de/theories-of-crime/anomie-strain-theories/anomie-theory-merton/?lang=en) which is prevalent in stage Orange societies. Well, according to the national geographic, this dear Genghis Khan was a prolific lover. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/mongolia-genghis-khan-dna Up to 1/200 men would be descended from him. Aww. You've spoken like a true female devil-angel revealing her true nature.

I'm dizzy from viewing the world through a kaleidoscope. Who needs LSD in these type of situations? Could it be tied on the fact that women are more often staying at home during the day than men are, and they tailor their audience to a female perspective? To be honest, I find this type of of advices to be minutiae with little stakes or leverage in social dynamics.

Yuuuuhu. I'll read his wikipedia page as the most delightful erotica tonight before sleeping.

?

@Emerald Don't deny it, you've been into Charles Manson all these years.

I have no idea. It's really hard for me to juggle between all the cultures I'm soaked in (american, french, british, swiss, german, ). Also, I don't consume much TV, 90% of the time I consume internet shows. Isn't it so hard because females are often sought after for hosting? And is it really fair to say that the View, Wendy Williams are female perspective talk show and say that Fallon, Corden or Trevor Noah are not to be counted? Feminist studies tend to say that women are also leaning towards adopting masculine trait and perspectives, so claiming that they are a bunch of politically correct puss doesn't seem objective.