Reflecting on my relationship to this forum...

[Inliytened1]

@Emerald you also have to understand you're talking to a buch of guys here. So take it with a grain of salt.   None of us understand the depth of your studies into the Feminine.  How could we. But maybe we should invest in the course if you have one.  I'd like to understand a woman and I'd pay for it haha

Edited 2 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Emerald]

48 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

@Emerald you also have to understand you're talking to a buch of guys here. So take it with a grain of salt.   None of us understand the depth of your studies into the Feminine.  How could we. But maybe we should invest in the course if you have one.  I'd like to understand a woman and I'd pay for it haha

I do understand that. 

And while I do think it's important for men to integrate their Feminine side (which requires some deeper know-how beyond the cultural conception of the female-like-ness), I get that it may not be their top priority to do so.

The main thing, with my conversation with the other poster is that he's focusing on the question of "What's empirically true about cultural conceptions of Femininity according to studies?"

But my focus is, "What is going to be an effective subjective paradigm on Femininity that I can use (and other women can use) to reconnect with the Feminine in a word that is either unaware of or actively devalues deeper expressions of the Feminine principle?"

So, my perspective is "What's effective for integrating the Feminine?"

And his perspective is, "What's empirically true about woman-like-ness and female gender roles on a cultural level?"

But the answer to his question doesn't give me any tools or perspectives to work with that are effective for my own ends.

And to be fair, I did try his way first. I experienced the Feminine directly at age 20. And I tried to shove myself into the traditional female gender role for the first few years of my twenties. And I was with my husband at 20. And I was a mom by 22. So, I was really trying to be just a mom and wife and to carve away my previous identity.

But this diminished me and didn't feel anything like what I experienced at 20... which was this deep peaceful essence pregnant with eroticism and power that existed in the night and the trees. And I had made myself very very small.

Then, at around 22-23, I stumbled into reading some Feminist literature. And for a few months, I got really into that. And it unwired some more surface-level barriers to reconnecting with m Feminine. But it didn't go deep enough.

Then, at 23, I was listening to Tool in my room and pacing around and was in deep contemplation. And the phrase "Masculine and Feminine principle" jumped into my mind. And I hadn't heard those phrases before. But they felt like something interesting to me.

So, I went immediately to Google and typed it in. And I found this woman's blog called Matrignosis. Her name is Jean Raffa and (at the time) she was in her early 70s. And she is a Jungian enthusiast who speaks a lot about Feminine integration... and her experiences with integrating the Feminine.

And as I read her blog, I felt like I was reading the work of a 70 year old version of myself. And she was wise and deeply connected to the Feminine. And the struggles she spoke of with her own polarization into the Masculine was so relatable... and I'm sure many women would find it relatable.

Then, that was my first effective in-road to the path that leads the deep Feminine.

Prior to that I was just looking in ineffective places... first in traditional patriarchal Femininity, which is very man-centered and Masculinity-centered. Then, I looked into Feminist perspectives, which were more helpful... but still very surface level and still very Masculinity-centered.

So, finding deeper perspectives to go on the journey was necessary. It's been my main internal journey over the past 16 years.

[Emerald]

1 hour 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. He's misrepresenting what you've said.

Yes. He's not aware of what my perspective entails. Like I said, it makes sense that he wouldn't be.

He's thinking more about cultural conceptions of woman-like-ness, when I'm speaking more about the Yin polarity and what Femininity is in terms of a direct mystical experience of the subtle energy and the Feminine archetypes.

But the argument on his part is moot, because his paradigm on the Feminine doesn't have any tools for me to use to reconnect with that part of myself.

And this has been a nearly 2 decades-long journey I've been on where I began with his perspective and found it to be an ineffective way of thinking about things for my journey.

So, to my perception, it's just the dilemma of the Dunning-Kreuger... a person who doesn't know how much they don't know.

The Dunning-Kreuger knows enough about the surface-level of a topic to where they believe they're knowledgable... but they don't understand that they're operating off of a dearth of knowledge about that topic.

But when encountering someone has explored the topic at a deeper level, the Dunning-Kreuger is like, "That's not how it's done!" because it doesn't match with their more surface-level knowledge.

For example, when I was 5 years old, I learned that "When you subtract numbers, you take away the smaller number from the bigger number."

And so, because I thought I was in the know about math, it certainly could have happened that child-me interacts with some PhD in a math-related field. And then, I correct their math because "Hey! You're not supposed to subtract bigger numbers from smaller numbers. Silly!"

Edited 1 hour ago by Emerald

[Inliytened1]

27 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I do understand that. 

And while I do think it's important for men to integrate their Feminine side (which requires some deeper know-how beyond the cultural conception of the female-like-ness), I get that it may not be their top priority to do so.

The main thing, with my conversation with the other poster is that he's focusing on the question of "What's empirically true about cultural conceptions of Femininity according to studies?"

But my focus is, "What is going to be an effective subjective paradigm on Femininity that I can use (and other women can use) to reconnect with the Feminine in a word that is either unaware of or actively devalues deeper expressions of the Feminine principle?"

So, my perspective is "What's effective for integrating the Feminine?"

And his perspective is, "What's empirically true about woman-like-ness and female gender roles on a cultural level?"

But the answer to his question doesn't give me any tools or perspectives to work with that are effective for my own ends.

And to be fair, I did try his way first. I experienced the Feminine directly at age 20. And I tried to shove myself into the traditional female gender role for the first few years of my twenties. And I was with my husband at 20. And I was a mom by 22. So, I was really trying to be just a mom and wife and to carve away my previous identity.

But this diminished me and didn't feel anything like what I experienced at 20... which was this deep peaceful essence pregnant with eroticism and power that existed in the night and the trees. And I had made myself very very small.

Then, at around 22-23, I stumbled into reading some Feminist literature. And for a few months, I got really into that. And it unwired some more surface-level barriers to reconnecting with m Feminine. But it didn't go deep enough.

Then, at 23, I was listening to Tool in my room and pacing around and was in deep contemplation. And the phrase "Masculine and Feminine principle" jumped into my mind. And I hadn't heard those phrases before. But they felt like something interesting to me.

So, I went immediately to Google and typed it in. And I found this woman's blog called Matrignosis. Her name is Jean Raffa and (at the time) she was in her early 70s. And she is a Jungian enthusiast who speaks a lot about Feminine integration... and her experiences with integrating the Feminine.

And as I read her blog, I felt like I was reading the work of a 70 year old version of myself. And she was wise and deeply connected to the Feminine. And the struggles she spoke of with her own polarization into the Masculine was so relatable... and I'm sure many women would find it relatable.

Then, that was my first effective in-road to the path that leads the deep Feminine.

Prior to that I was just looking in ineffective places... first in traditional patriarchal Femininity, which is very man-centered and Masculinity-centered. Then, I looked into Feminist perspectives, which were more helpful... but still very surface level and still very Masculinity-centered.

So, finding deeper perspectives to go on the journey was necessary. It's been my main internal journey over the past 16 years.

That's incredible.  As a man I've always had a sensitive side. Heck - I cried a few minutes ago about @Yimpa she brought me to tears because of the warmth she brings here which I've always known.  And now she is making a gender transition.  I guess im one of the lucky ones as a guy that can tap into the Feminine.   But that only truly bloomed  after my enlightenment.   Prior to that I had built up a wall.  To where there was no penetrating it. All of my emotions were tucked behind this wall.  That's what made my enlightenment so liberating.   Now I cry on a dime.  That sensitivity I feel now so freely I would like  your thoughts on how that plays into the deep Feminine. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Inliytened1

[Emerald]

6 hours ago, questionreality said:

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. 

Yes, we're definitely discussing two perspectives on the Feminine.

I'm just not very interested in exploring the anthropological expressions of the Feminine, as the deep Feminine has been buried for many millennia and will not be found very much in culture and anthropology. And it doesn't help me find my own Feminine that I frequently become conscious to in my medicine journeys when the blocks temporarily fall away.

The organizing structures of society (like gender roles) are Masculine-principled. And expressions of woman-like-ness are external structures of persona-expression of the symbolic conception of Femininity within a given cultural container.

What I am calling the deep Feminine is more internal... and doesn't have to do with organizing principles.

Culture, roles (including gender roles), external expressions, categories, and the like are in the Masculine principle. 

The Feminine principle is organic, un-organized, subjective, and internal. It doesn't have much to do with the layer of reality you're speaking about. It's deeply embedded in one's inner world... which is part of the reasons that the deep Feminine is more resemblant of the physical body of the women (who have their reproductive organs on the inside).

But if I were having a discussion about gender roles, cultural patterns, man-like-ness, woman-like-ness, and what's empirically observable... we can certainly have a more Masculine principled conversation on that and explore it through the lens of the Masculine principle. And I'm not opposed to operating from that perspective if that's the right perspective for the job.

But I find the Masculine-principled lens too detached from the direct experience of the Feminine and how I can internally and subjectively reconnect with my own repressed Femininity and how women as a collective can also walk the same internal, subjective path.

You can understand all you want about what women statistically do in a culture, but that gives you no effective tools for the doing the deep excavation work necessary for finding your repressed Feminine sovereignty. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Emerald

[Emerald]

6 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

That's incredible.  As a man I've always had a sensitive side. Heck - I cried a few minutes ago about @Yimpa she brought me to tears because of the warmth she brings here which I've always known.  And now she is making a gender transition.  I guess im one of the lucky ones as a guy that can tap into the Feminine.   But that only truly bloomed  after my enlightenment.   Prior to that I had built up a wall.  To where there was no penetrating it. All of my emotions were tucked behind this wall.  That's what made my enlightenment so liberating.   Now I cry on a dime.  That sensitivity I feel now so freely I would like  your thoughts on how that plays into the deep Feminine. 

Thank you for sharing that.

The deep Feminine definitely isn't just a woman thing. 

It's just that, within the English language, the closest word we have to describing the phenomenon of that polarity is the word "Feminine". But it doesn't derive from human gender.... but it supersedes and informs human gender expressions.

Like, when I went into that first medicine journey, I believed for most of my life that Masculinity and Femininity were only social constructs with nothing real underneath them. And I was nearly 100% certain about that.

But then, when my consciousness expanded in the medicine journey, I experienced this subtle energy all around me and within me in the plants, trees, night, and myself. And the only word in the English language that fit to describe this subtle energy was "Femininity". And it was my first glimpse that there's something real and not socially constructed about the Feminine (and logically that would imply a realness about the Masculine as well). 

But it didn't remotely resemble any of the cultural constructs around the Feminine that I was familiar with. It had nothing to do with pink, dresses, make-up, shopping, etc.

It was dark and quiet and peaceful... and full of life-potential in waiting. And it was me. And I could see what my very Masculine value-system imposed on me by the culture had disconnected me from. 

And years later, I recognized that other languages had better and more accurate words to describe this subtle quality. So, the closest word that I know to describe it is Yin, as in the Taoist perspective... or Shakti from a Hindu perspective.

But the closest word in the English language to describe it is Femininity. But there are problems with this.

And that problem is that it gets confusing for people because colloquially people believe "Femininity = woman-like-ness". And we associate the word Femininity with female gender norms and pop cultural ideas around Femininity... and ideas of what makes a woman attractive.

But the Feminine supersedes human gender expressions and human gender norms.

So, both men and women have this Yin/Feminine polarity within themselves. But it can be noticed that women (as a group) tend to have more Yin in their "energetic signatures" as a collective group.

So, there's a lot of muddying of the waters around this topic because we use the word Femininity to describe several things at once.

And when I suggest for men to integrate their Feminine side, they often believe that I'm telling them to act like a woman.

But all people should integrate their Feminine side and depolarize their values-system and identity, so that one can find their natural energetic signature which is a unique blend of the Masculine and Feminine (Yang and Yin).

[Inliytened1]

18 minutes ago, Emerald said:

The Feminine principle is organic, un-organized, subjective, and internal. It doesn't have much to do with the layer of reality you're speaking about. It's deeply embedded in one's inner world... which is part of the reasons that the deep Feminine is more resemblant of the physical body of the women (who have their reproductive organs on the inside).

 

It's the essence of your being is it not? I'm trying to grasp what it would actually feel like to be a woman.  I fail at this.  But my point is what is this principle of which you speak? Is it a feeling within?

[Emerald]

11 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

It's the essence of your being is it not? I'm trying to grasp what it would actually feel like to be a woman.  I fail at this.  But my point is what is this principle of which you speak? Is it a feeling within?

The way I could describe this phenomenon that I experienced that was clear that the closest word to describe it in the English language is "Femininity"....

I would say that you may be able to get a taste of it by being outside at night near a misty body of water... and feeling calm and serene in the silence. 

But this isn't how it feels to be a woman on a typical basis. The experience of woman-like-ness does overlap with Femininity in many ways... but there's also uniquely human things that are not specifically reflective of the Feminine.

But if you're going for the direct energy of the Feminine subtle quality, I think outside at night in the silence of nature and sensing your interconnection with nature is a good way to get a taste of the Feminine polarity in a non-gender-focused way.

But I have a video where I talk about qualities to integrate if you want to integrate the Feminine...

 

Edited 44 minutes ago by Emerald

[Inliytened1]

8 minutes ago, Emerald said:

The way I could describe this phenomenon that I experienced that was clear that the closest word to describe it in the English language is "Femininity"....

I would say that you may be able to get a taste of it by being outside at night near a misty body of water... and feeling calm and serene in the silence. 

But this isn't how it feels to be a woman on a typical basis. The experience of woman-like-ness does overlap with Femininity in many ways... but there's also uniquely Feminine things that are not specifically reflective of the Feminine.

But if you're going for the direct energy of the Feminine subtle quality, I think outside at night in the silence of nature and sensing your interconnection with nature is a good way to get a taste of the Feminine polarity in a non-gender-focused way.

But I have a video where I talk about qualities to integrate if you want to integrate the Feminine...

 

I don't know if im ready for that i am just glad I can cry now when I feel.  Before that I couldn't cry at all.  I have found that crying is quite liberating.

Edited 36 minutes ago by Inliytened1

[Emerald]

14 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

I don't know if im ready for that i am just glad I can cry now when I feel.  Before that I couldn't cry at all.  I have found that crying is quite liberating.

Yes, that's definitely a good step in the right direction of integration... as feelings are an element of the Feminine principle as it applies to being human.