Reflecting on my relationship to this forum...

[Eskilon]

@NewKidOnTheBlock 

Edited 6 hours ago by Eskilon

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

30 minutes ago, Eskilon said:

@NewKidOnTheBlock 

Damn that's actually really clever not gonna be able to replicate that level of cleverness, but this might suffice - the taste of the fruit would also be fitting

[questionreality]

14 hours ago, Emerald said:

You seem to be under the impression that the only valid perspective on this topic is some evidence-based cultural perspective on it... which would be like if you expected some kind of evidence-based cultural perspective on enlightenment and saw that information as superior to the direct experience of it.

You are looking at the Feminine from a materialist anthropological perspective. But I am looking at the Feminine from the perspective of someone who has had a direct mystical experience of the Feminine. (And Masculine and Feminine is mystical... meaning it cannot be studied empirically)

This is my perspective based on my own direct firsthand experiences of the subtle Feminine polarity in my medicine journeys... and the symbolic understanding of Yin and the Feminine principle that I gained through exploring archetypal and mythological conceptualizations of the Feminine to make better sense of these experiences when culture offers so little understanding of the Feminine beyond simply what's attractive to men.

And this deeper exploration of the Feminine has been necessary for me personally to connect to the Feminine, as there is no outlet for me to connect with my own Feminine energy through the cultural lenses... as those simply aren't boxes that I fit into. And they just moved me further away from the Feminine power when I tried to find my Femininity there.

And you can't find deep Femininity in those cultural boxes anyway... as boxes and categories are archetypally Masculine. The Masculine is always trying to put an organizing principle around the Feminine and to conceptualize of the Feminine through the categorical box. And the deep Feminine cannot be boxed.

So, the deeper energetic polarity and the Feminine principle (archetypally) is what I mean when I speak of integrating the Feminine. 

So, you can stick with the cultural definition of Femininity and what men generally find attractive about women. It's fine that that's your perspective. 

But simply figuring out how to appear Feminine doesn't go deep enough for my own purposes of integrating the Feminine, as those are fairly surface-level ways of conceptualizing of Femininity that has more to do with Femininity as a costume to be seen as Feminine in society and to attract men.

Culture offers very little of the deep Feminine that I had a direct experiences of for the first time at the age of 20. Culture just hasn't developed a deep enough understanding of this principle.

So, I have had to look beyond cultural perspective and into the energetic and archetypal perspective... like Jungian psychology, depth psychology, Taoism, and other perspectives that offer a lens for exploration of the Feminine and Masculine principles.

First of all, you keep describing your ayahuasca visions and symbolic interpretations as "direct firsthand experiences of the Feminine" but that’s not actually what "direct experience" means.

What you experienced was internal imagery and emotional states, which you interpreted through the lenses of Yin/Yang, Jungian archetypes, mythology, Taoism, and your existing ideas about the feminine.

That's a personal spiritual experience but it is not direct experience of some external metaphysical feminine principle. You interpreted the symbolic content (that your mind produced) through the frameworks you already believe in. 

This is no different than members of Santo Daime who claim to see and meet Jesus during their ayahuasca trips. They all interpret it as direct experience and contact with Jesus.

In both these cases, the experience is internal, generated by the mind and is shaped by pre-existing beliefs and cultural symbols.

The issue is that you are mixing an internal experience with an external metaphysical claim.

(Just in case, I am not a materialist, have done my share of psychedelics including 5-meo, etc) 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And now back to the main point.

You keep redefining "femininity" itself in a way that removes it entirely from the real world.

You’ve shifted femininity from something observable in human behavior into a cosmic, mystical, archetypal force that only exists in symbolic visions and psychedelic states.

That’s your personal metaphysical belief, and you’re free to hold it.

But once you define femininity as:

- non-empirical

-unmeasurable

-inaccessible to observation

-rooted in altered states and mythology

-something "culture gets wrong" by default

-something only available through symbolic interpretation

Then you’re no longer talking about femininity as it actually exists in human societies. You’re talking about a private spiritual cosmology.

And that cosmology has no ability to explain or even acknowledge the very real cultural differences in feminine expression that my original point was about.

It’s metaphysical, personal, and symbolic, which is fine, but it can’t be used to dismiss or override real-world patterns of femininity.

So when you label cultural, behavioral femininity as "patriarchy costumes", what you’re really doing is rejecting anything that doesn’t fit your mystical model.

I was talking about femininity as it shows up in actual women in actual cultures.

You’re talking about femininity as an archetypal force that you experienced in your psychedelic journeys.

Those two things are completely different, and it just means we’re discussing different subjects entirely - with respect. 

[Elliott]

15 minutes ago, questionreality said:

 

I was talking about femininity as it shows up in actual women in actual cultures.

 

Can you give examples of feminine traits?

[Inliytened1]

1 hour ago, questionreality said:

And now back to the main point.

You keep redefining "femininity" itself in a way that removes it entirely from the real world.

 

I pointed this out to her with the steps.  Ease up

 

Edited 4 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Inliytened1]

1 hour ago, Elliott said:

Can you give examples of feminine traits?

Should he have to?  

[Carl-Richard]

7 hours ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

Ofc you agree with her lmao. Strip away the Shakti/Logos name dropping and it’s just the same mystical smoke as a tribe puffing on herbs and declaring the stars their cousins. Fancy words don’t make it less magical thinking, they just make it look academic.

You just haven't read enough.

 

2 hours ago, questionreality said:

You’ve shifted femininity from something observable in human behavior into a cosmic, mystical, archetypal force that only exists in symbolic visions and psychedelic states.

You just haven't read enough. I did not come to a similar understanding through Ayahuasca. I've mostly read and listened to what other people have said about femininity and used my logical mind to connect the dots. Your cultural perspective is just limited; 21st century, social science. There are more perspectives out there. Emerald referred to some of them, for example depth psychology, mystical traditions, religious traditions. And yes, mystical traditions are not separate from culture either, mostly just your 21st century neopositivist culture.

Edited 3 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Inliytened1]

1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

You just haven't read enough.

 

You just haven't read enough. I did not come to a similar understanding through Ayahuasca. I've mostly read and listened to what other people have said about femininity and used my logical mind to connect the dots. Your cultural perspective is just limited; 21st century, social science. There are more perspectives out there. Emerald referred to some of them, for example depth psychology, mystical traditions. And yes, mystical traditions are not separate from culture either, mostly just your 21st century neopositivist culture.

Emerald is basically saying that women don't get a chance to express themselves fully because of society.  But this isn't a femininity issue it is a society issue.  I do believe there is something that is just ingrained into the woman that makes her feminine.   And a man that makes him masculine.  In worldly terms we call this testosterone and estrogen. 

[Carl-Richard]

36 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Emerald is basically saying that women don't get a chance to express themselves fully because of society.  But this isn't a femininity issue it is a society issue.  I do believe there is something that is just ingrained into the woman that makes her feminine.   And a man that makes him masculine.  In worldly terms we call this testosterone and estrogen. 

That's a different discussion. I'm doing conceptual janitorial work.

 

2 hours ago, Elliott said:

Can you give examples of feminine traits?

He is certainly confident telling other people they are unable to describe what femininity is when he is apparently entirely unable to do the same. Rather go on another tangent making a distinction between non-dual direct experience and personal experience which is again not relevant to the discussion, just purely pedantic "my 21st century science is the only valid perspective" pigeonholing.

Edited 3 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Elliott]

1 hour ago, Inliytened1 said:

Should he have to?  

He's trolled 3 pages spreading blackpilled misogyny, evading a basic question that he obviously knows proves him a liar.

Edited 2 hours ago by Elliott

[Elliott]

8 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

He is certainly confident telling other people they are unable to describe what femininity is when he is apparently entirely unable to do the same.

He claims Russian women are more feminine, listing only one trait; agreeableness, of which Russian women rank the LOWEST in agreeableness compared to all western nations.

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

1 hour ago, Inliytened1 said:

In worldly terms we call this testosterone and estrogen. 

This is the point at which all these squables over definitions could end, but yall would just never let it go lol. That goes for almost everyone by the way, even my past self used to think and listen and give way too much credence to all these made up definitions. These 2 hormones make all the actual differences, but despite them of course men and woman can exhibit unlimited range of behaviours - but still will likely be predisposed to acting in certain ranges of behavior in accordance with these hormones and according to whether they are a man or a woman, which is just a slightly different way of saying it

[Inliytened1]

50 minutes ago, Elliott said:

He claims Russian women are more feminine, listing only one trait; agreeableness, of which Russian women rank the LOWEST in agreeableness compared to all western nations.

Yeah he kinda crossed himself up there..but in reading his writing  I don't think he was trolling at all.  He was looking at both the psychological angle towards femininity and the metaphysical angle or the essence.  I think its a worthy discussion but ultimately in my opinion it is very much metaphysical.  What isn't. 

 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Elliott]

9 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Yeah he kinda crossed himself up there..but in reading his writing  I don't think he was trolling at all.  He was looking at both the psychological angle towards femininity and the metaphysical angle or the essence.  I think its a worthy discussion but ultimately in my opinion it is very much metaphysical.  What isn't. 

 

 

That was just him trying to muddy the water when he got called out on his claim. The ol' Jordan Peterson "what is meant by is?" Motte-and-Bailey fallacy. The incel playbook.

Edited 2 hours ago by Elliott

[Inliytened1]

21 minutes ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

This is the point at which all these squables over definitions could end, but yall would just never let it go lol. That goes for almost everyone by the way, even my past self used to think and listen and give way too much credence to all these made up definitions. These 2 hormones make all the actual differences, but despite them of course men and woman can exhibit unlimited range of behaviours - but still will likely be predisposed to acting in certain ranges of behavior in accordance with these hormones and according to whether they are a man or a woman, which is just a slightly different way of saying it

Yep

 

[Inliytened1]

41 minutes ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

Th but despite them of course men and woman can exhibit unlimited range of behaviours - 

That's the mystical aspect coming through.  That's the thing science doesn't cover. 

Otherwise we would be robots 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Inliytened1

[Emerald]

5 hours ago, Eskilon said:

@NewKidOnTheBlock 

Yep.

[Emerald]

@questionreality is an ironic name for you, for one. I just realize that it's funny that someone with your perspective has that username.

But I understand if you don't recognize the depth or validity of my perspective on the Feminine... because you haven't had the direct experience of it that I have. So, you'd have to simply believe me because these were direct phenomenological experiences... and it's fine that you're skeptical. 

And perhaps your more materialist cultural definition of the Feminine works for your purposes.

But for me, I have had to dive VERY deep into this topic and do tons of inner work and contemplation and study various disciplines to reconnect with my Feminine side.

And simply using the cultural costumes of Femininity would not be sufficient for my purposes.

So, you can believe what you wan. But the materialist viewpoint that you're paradigm locked on has no efficacy for my purposes.

[Elliott]

@Emerald you guys are arguing about nothing, you probably even agree on what feminity looks like. He's just trying to dismiss your perspective with semantical arguments about something completely inconsequential to the topic.

Edited 40 minutes ago by Elliott

[Inliytened1]

14 minutes ago, Elliott said:

@Emerald you guys are arguing about nothing, you probably even agree on what feminity looks like. He's just trying to dismiss your perspective with semantical arguments about something completely inconsequential to the topic.

It's the very thing @Emerald wanted to escape with this thread.

@Emerald did we derail this tbread or are you good?

Edited 27 minutes ago by Inliytened1