Masculine Spiritualities and the Problem of Patriarchy
In my new book Numen, Old Men: Contemporary Masculine Spiritualities and the Problem of Patriarchy (Equinox Publishing) I take a critical look at men and spirituality. Since the early 1990s there have been various waves of interest in what is often described as "masculine spirituality." While diverse, a commonality among these interests has been a concern that spirituality has become too feminine, and that men's experiences of the spiritual are being marginalized. Masculine spirituality is therefore about promoting what it perceives to be authentic masculine characteristics within a spiritual context.
By examining the nature of these characteristics, Numen, Old Men argues that masculine spirituality is little more than a thinly veiled patriarchal spirituality. The mythopoetic, evangelical, and to a lesser extent Catholic men's movements all promote a patriarchal spirituality by appealing to neo-Jungian archetypes of a combative and oppressive nature, or understanding men's role as biblically ordained leader of the family. Numen, Old Men then examines integral spirituality which aims to honour and transcend both the masculine and feminine, but which privileges the former to the extent where it becomes another masculine spirituality, with all its inherent patriarchal problems. Gay spirituality is then offered as a form of masculine spirituality which to a large degree resists patriarchal tendencies, suggesting a queering of spirituality could be useful for all men, both gay and straight.
In the following edited excerpt I look at how Ken Wilber's brand of integral spirituality plays out in the writings of another author, David Deida, who is a founding member of Integral Institute. Deida is selected not because he develops Wilber's thoughts in any particular way, but because he communicates them in a more distilled fashion, free from the density and scholastic aspirations of Wilber's writing. In a sense, Deida is the "real face" of integral thought. He does not employ any Wilberian theory as such in his books, but he does use notions of masculine and feminine in much the same way. Should anyone be in doubt of his feelings, Deida writes in one essay that Wilber is the most beautiful philosopher of our time who authenticates genius and is glorious in almost every way.
The title of his most popular book says a lot: The Way of the Superior Man: A Spiritual Guide to Mastering the Challenges of Women, Work and Sexual Desire. Wilber's blurb on the back cover, returning the above compliment, says the book is "a guide for the noncastrated male. . . . Few are the books that discuss strong sexuality within strong spirituality, instead of tepid sexuality diluted by a mediocre spiritual stance." The muscular motivational speaker, Tony Robbins, is also quoted on the cover, praising the book for helping men "fulfil their true purpose and to be authentically masculine." Language such as the "noncastrated male," "strong," and "authentically masculine" immediately reminds one of mythopoetic literature, and Deida continues in this vein.
Deida sets up the masculine and feminine as polar in the same way as Wilber and the mythopoets: "sexual attraction is based on sexual polarity, which is the force of passion that arcs between masculine and feminine." Deida claims people with a masculine sexual essence are driven by mission and "unless you discover this deep purpose and live it fully, your life will feel empty to the core." People with a feminine sexual essence, however professionally successful, "won't be fulfilled unless love is flowing fully in your family or intimate life."
Deida makes the appropriate noises about disconnecting sex and gender, noting that the masculine essence can belong to a woman, and vice versa, but he is clearly talking about men, or as Wilber says, "the noncastrated male." Similarly, Deida claims to be starting from a position of respect, where all genders and sexual orientations are treated as equals, moving into a new stage of sexual awareness, rather than reverting back to an old one. But repeatedly Deida makes statements which make it difficult to interpret his thoughts on gender as being anything other than a step backwards, another example of a supposedly integral presentation of gender falling foul of the pre/trans fallacy.
Throughout The Way of the Superior Man Deida repeatedly uses the phrase "your woman" which immediately sends first-tier alarm bells ringing. A significant amount of his claims about the nature of gender would be laughable if they were not so serious, such as "the feminine always seems chaotic and complicated from the perspective of the masculine." But more than this, other passages take on a rather sinister and misogynistic flavour: "for the feminine truth is a thin concept." Elsewhere Deida holds little sympathy with "no means no" campaigns: "what she wants is not what she says."
Deida also sets up a familiar distinction where women are connected with the earth (and, given his polar logic, presumably with men transcending it). Indeed, woman and the earth (world) seem to be synonymous for Deida: "Neither woman nor world are predictable. . . . Neither woman nor world can be second-guessed, or fooled." Deida suggests there are only two ways to deal with woman and world: either renounce sexuality and "the seemingly constant demands of woman and world" or "'fuck' both to smithereens, to ravish them with your love unsheathed."
Despite Deida's impassioned pleas for loving women in all their authentic femininity, the whiff of misogyny continues. Sounding particularly mythopoetic, Deida notes of a man's ability to take criticism, "if he doesn't have a good relationship to masculine energy (e.g., his father), then he will act like a woman and be hurt or defensive." Charging someone with "acting like a woman" hardly honours authentic femininity. Continuing this path, Deida begins to take on the unhinged persona of Tom Cruise's character Frank T. J. Mackey in the movie Magnolia, "You've had tit. You've had pussy. . . . It wasn't even that good, as long as it did last. Your need is far deeper than any woman can provide." It is simply unreasonable to claim, as Deida does, that he starts from a position of respect and gender equality, to then come out with such disrespectful and hostile statements, second-tier or otherwise.
In some less frenzied passages Deida could be mistaken for a Promise Keeper. Earlier we read of Tony Evans's suggesting to his evangelical brothers that they should turn to their wives and say, "Honey, I've made a terrible mistake. I've given you my role. I gave up leading this family, and I forced you to take my place. Now I must reclaim that role." The evangelical call to "servant leadership" was built on the idea that many men have abdicated their role as leader in the family. Deida writes, "If you want your woman to be able to relax into her feminine and shine her natural radiance, then you must relieve her of the necessity to be in charge. This doesn't mean you need to boss her around. It means you need to know where you are heading and how you are going to get there, in every way, including financially and spiritually."
This ability to make decisions (to be the servant leader) is what Deida describes as "the masculine gift." Deida asks us to accept that men making the decisions about money and God is a gift to "your" woman, so she is "able to relax." This is yet another reworking of patriarchy, this time saying, "don't you worry about a thing, let me make the decisions while you enjoy your natural radiance." The "superior man" is evidently an evangelical mythopoetic soft patriarch attempting to pass himself off as a sexual-spiritual radical by saying naughty words like "fuck," "tit" and "pussy."
- 5-20-09
- Joseph Gelfer's blog
- Login or register to post comments
ShareThis- Printer-friendly version
Comments
Satyana & Damanhur on Gender & Sexuality
The wisest words I have read on gender and sexuality, I read in Damanhur: The Story of the Extraordinary Italian Artistic and Spiritual Community, by Jeff Merrifield, and he was quoting a Damanhurian book, "The Millennium Quest." Damanhurians collectively spent, if I understand right, about 10 years meditating on the feminine, masculine, and masculine & feminine principles (in series.)
He (or they) wrote:
Men and women are different, but every human being has a masculine and a feminine part. People, who do not limit themselves to only developing those characteristics which their culture attributes to their gender, but who try to really know themselves and to explore their every wish and inclination, realize they possess much greater riches than those considered by the media and social convention to be typically masculine or feminine.
The difficulties in communication between the genders cannot be solved by trying to create uniformity of behavior, ways of thinking and attitudes, but only by welcoming the difference of the 'other.'
'Equality of dignity' does not mean to be the same, but to accept the wealth that diversity brings, because it reflects a part of ourselves. If we do not respect difference in the other gender, we kill a part of ourselves too, in interactions between partners, in the family, and in society. It is a game where there can be no winners, only losers.
I do not want to overquote, but if you are intrigued, I highly recommend the book and reading further on.
Also, I have not investigated it yet, but I have heard many good things about The Satyana Institute's "Divine Duality" from many people whom I know locally, and share deeply with about gender and sexuality.
When I was at Damanhur -- I was totally at peace about gender & sexuality. Normally, the subject completely agitates me. At Damanhur, I felt a tremendous peace. I have never been anywhere in the world where I felt that the energies were so harmonious with one another. "Balance" is not the right word for it: There was a balance of forces, but not a destruction or nullification or leveling of forces. It is as if there were currents of masculine and feminine power dancing in the very air, making, transforming, guiding, helping. The people -- the people! They were so amazing! Men were not afraid to have feminine personality, and women were not afraid to have masculine personality, and men were not afraid to have masculine personality, and women were not afraid to have feminine personality. The people were themselves, and they were all strong, all beautiful, all unique. Such love, solidarity, and hope.
Very good, but not sure about queering of spirituality
I think that there is a lot of good stuff and might actually buy the book itself, but I'm not sure of the following point.
"Gay spirituality is then offered as a form of masculine spirituality which to a large degree resists patriarchal tendencies, suggesting a queering of spirituality could be useful for all men, both gay and straight. "
I think that setting up gay spirituality as something prefered for people if they are straight or gay is problematic as people may not be comfortable enough with gayness to apply it to something that is in many cases much more intimate than sexuality.
C23
Would he were fatter! But I fear him not:
Yet if my name were liable to fear,
I do not know the man I should avoid
So soon as that spare Cassius. He reads much;
He is a great observer
queering
Normal 0 "They are not, by nature, territorially aggressive and do not impose their political claims on others. They are not, by nature, competitive but are passionately interested in sharing with others. They are not interested in conquering nature but are interested in harmonious living with all of nature. They are not interested in denying bodiliness and carnality but are passionately involved in celebrating all aspects of human sexuality."
This is the schema Harry Hay, founder of the modern "gay men's spirituality" movement offered around gay men. What I find interesting is that there's nothing inherently gay about it: just an alternative way of doing masculinity.
When I say "queer" I'm referring to the theoretical usage of the word, which is separate to a gay orientation. Queer theory is simply about the breaking down and troubling of categories. We queer pretty much anything when we question the categories we are talking about and the power structures that hold them in place.
spirituality
The mythopoetic, evangelical, and to a lesser extent Catholic men's movements all promote a patriarchal spirituality
Its been a while since i've seen a Catholic or evangelic movement referred to as "spirituality" .
Religion ≠ spirituality
Gender and sexual roles are pretty irrelevant to an expanded consciousness, unless they're consciously adapted as part of tantric work...
"a guide for the noncastrated male. . . . "
What we really need today is a guide for the castrated male. Men are kind of obsolete in the New Age. Officially obsolete in the UK! (gayest nation on earth)
To be a man in the New Age is to be suspect, a potential rapist or wife-beater.
If you're soft, you don't get any attention, if you're hard, you're macho. Men have been done in big-style, and love is pushed even further away. Now women are masculine, and they don't seem to be faring too well out of that either.
Religion ≠ spirituality
A different perspective about David Deida
I too have been involved in the Men's consciousness movement since the early 90's. Reading the works of Robert Bly,Sam Keen, and other then contemporaries. I was also in a long standing Men's group as well. In 2002 I again became involved in Men's work through the wittings of David Deida. I was also a 4 year member of another Men's group that sprang up directly from his work.
I can only offer up my personal experience of the teachings. I would have to say that reading the Way of the Superior Man and being involved in a "Deida Community" and taking some of his workshops, has been one key positive experiences of my life. I am forever grateful for Deida's wisdom. It has truly transformed me in a positive way. Deida's work has not been the only process i have engaged in by a long shot. But with it I did discover the missing key that supercharged everything else.
For me his teaching distills into one word, PRESENCE. I heard that word used in the context of other spiritual and motivational practices, but really got it through his teachings. I believe that one of the great gifts of Deida is his ability to distill philosophies and wisdom. Like Joseph Campbell in relation the Jung and Thomas Moore in Relationship to James Hillman, Deida does the same with the teachings of Adi Da and Osho. He takes the work and makes it street.
Hence his comments about "Tits and Pussy" out of context sounds like the wittings of a arrested teenager. But what Deida is talking about is the transient nature of this world and pleasure. Woman is the personification of Life,the Earth, The Goddess and Shakti. Enjoy the experience but look deeper into the essence. How a man treats and is treated by women is a reflection of how he treats and is treated by the world. Deida teaches that past the surface of personality we are the essence of one of the forces of Duality. Call it Yin/Yang, Masculine/Feminine, Shakti/Shiva it does not matter. Sexual union and life force with a partner or within one self if the path to transcending the duality and becoming ONE.
I could go on and on about how important I believe his work is, and how deeply practical and spiritual his work is. People , check it out yourself.
Lastly for me the proof of this pudding is that every single woman who is , or has been in my life since being introduced to the work has reflected back how I have a deeper understanding of women. I am a better lover,friend, listener, and husband because of what I learned. That is not because I say so, but because the Goddess's in my life say so. Peace....
write a rebuttal ?
hi dante,
thanks for your comments. maybe you should go deeper and write a rebuttal or counter-argument for RS ? I think some of Gelfer's criticisms make sense, but some are a bit too easy as they ignore the context of Deida's words (as you note). I find Deida's work helpful, but also feel some of the same concerns that Gelfer describes. I would like to see more articles going deeper into the nuances of the ideas of Deida and other intimacy gurus.
"Will the transformation."-Rilke
context
Oh I thought I did....
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Daniel.
My main point is that people should experience the Man's work , wittings and teachings directly and make up their own mind. As someone who grew up and came of age during as Deida would describe "second stage consciousness" of equality but neutering of sexual energy , his work was a breath of fresh air and a good kick in the pants. I would not be in the loving relationship that I am in without his work.
The basic focus of his work is Tantric/Taoist Erotic based spirituality. Negative and Positive polarity. Do your prefer being ravished or ravishing your partner with love ,is the main question I believe Deida's work stems from. It is a personal journey within ones self, first, then outwardly one has to take.
From there you can navigate all other questions of social,economic,political, and cultural discussions.
Again don't take my word , read his work directly and then feel into your heart and see if it has relevancy. If not , let it go and find something truer.
Peace
"Gender and sexual roles are pretty irrelevant..."
I know for a fact, that anybody who isn't fat, mongoloid, left-handed and type-A personality, has not a prayer of passing through the eye of the needle...(it just so happens that I am all of those)... so, eat your hearts out if you don't measure up... and better luck next lifetime... i'll leave a candle burning...
uncle rudy
uncle rudy's very big tent
Trigger Happy
I think David Deida is one of the supreme wizards of the age, however his transmission comes across better either in person or through audio, and especially in video of his workshops. This is partly because we are so damaged around the notion of relationship that the words he uses are triggering major detonations in our brain, so much so that subtlety of the meaning is lost. In the spoken word the depth of his understanding and compassion comes through...his written works are more likely to be minefields for people.
There is a good video series on the current backswing to patriarchy in the Christian church on youtube “Patriarchy Lecture Part I of VII” "The Development and Practice for Patriarchy: Cure for Cultural Decline or New Gnostic Disease" presented by Cynthia Kunsman,
Robert Masters has a more advanced model on relationship...mature monogamy.
I am so conflicted...have stored up so much deprivation...screwed up my one chance etc...when it comes to relationship that I have stopped the desire to learn and grow in this area. However if anyone wants to get together and do some groundwork for opening up to relationship potential then come meet me over at the heartmind.us/ forum for a discussion. Even when there is potential for relationship I find I am 80% in resistance and spending my energy in negativity and pushing away. I am thinking that perhaps I need to fast to detox my nervous system and that this suppression of healthy impulse might be a form of somatic depression.
Hold on a minute
For several years now, I've been involved with the Mankind Project, one of the organizations that grew out of the early 90's men's movement. Characterizing MKP as "appealing to neo-Jungian archetypes of a combative and oppressive nature" is a confused distortion at best. While there may be products of the men's movement that fit your description, your generalizations go way too far. MKP does, in fact, do work around the notion of a warrior archetype. There is good reason for this: in this world, warriors are so frequently violent, malicious and bent on domination. Think US colonialism, think Putin etc, the list goes on and on. This is the shadow side of the warrior archetype and MKP seeks to help men develop a sense of themselves as good warriors (fights for justice, serves good causes, faces fears etc) as well as good lovers, magicians and kings.
According to mkp.org:
The ManKind Project® is a progressive men's organization striving to be increasingly inclusive and affirming of cultural differences, especially with respect to color, class, sexual orientation, faith, age, ability, ethnicity, and nationality. The ManKind Project® is an educational organization committed to empowering men to missions of service. Our trainings support men in developing lives of integrity, accountability, and connection to feeling. We challenge men to develop their abilities as leaders, partners, fathers, and elders in order to offer their deepest gifts in service to the world. The ManKind Project's New Warrior Training Adventure® is an intense, transformative men's initiation which invites men to forge a deep conscious connection between head and heart. The NWTA offers men a powerful, challenging educational experience to look at all aspects of their lives in a richly supportive environment.
Does this sound "combative and oppressive" as you say? MKP has, in my estimation, changed the lives of so many men I know and love. It has taught them to heal and live lives of mission and beauty. So please, before you trash the men's movement in its entirety, take a look at MKP, talk to some of the men, then talk to their friends and families, and THEN tell me what you think.
Blessings.
archetypes
Yin/Yang
It seems perfectly evident that we live in a world of polarity and duality. Every particle has an antiparticle – equal, but opposite. Yin and yang are two aspects of a whole, but they are as different as different comes.
As a man who is actively involved in spiritual practice, I am interested in the masculine and feminine principles in our society coming into balance, but not being washed away. We don't live in a flat world, nor do I think we want to.
Though I don't think Deida is perfect or has all the answers, I think his message is extremely valuable to spiritually oriented men in these times. Perhaps moreso to heterosexual men, but that does not invalidate his message. Clearly, all people are a combination of various masculine and feminine traits, but most of us lean more to one pole. In an intimate relationship, of whatever sexual orientation, having one person play more of a masculine and the other more of a feminine role seems to be the winning equation. I know many highly conscious and critically thinking women who enjoy playing the feminine role and "their man" playing the masculine role. It is what feels natural and comfortable and supportive for most of us. Why deny nature simply because society has perverted its principles?
It seems that many people, with a justified distaste for patriarchy, want to nullify the gender differences, assuming that any claims to masculinity and its traits are somehow patriarchal. Of course, every trait has a positive and negative side and what Deida is teaching is for men (or the masculinely oriented) to use their aggression, lust, and desire to control with awareness and compassion, for positive and productive ends.
It really feels like you have distorted Deida's (and perhaps Wilber's) message to support your dislike of what many would consider classically masculine traits. I don't think it is fair to continually pick on Deida's use of the phrase, "your woman", as he also uses the phrase "your man" when addressing the feminine.
Responsible Masculinity
Your perspective really resonates with me. It does feel natural to have a more dominate figure and a more submissive figure when having an intimate encounter. It is all just play that both men and women can transcend if wanted. The masculine and the feminine are just roles that we play from time to time.
How much masculinity and femininity one displays hardly defines them as a person indefinitely. I think masculine spirituality has a lot to do with coming to accept the masculine tendencies and characteristics within us as a part of who we are. I haven't read any of the source material so I can only offer my opinion based off of what I've seen here, but I think Gelfer is too critical and is generally sending off a vibe of someone that is threatened by masculinity. Patriarchy has these nasty negative connotations for most people because of how we experience it when growing up through fathers or father figures. The overbearing sense of having no control and learning about masculinity by being on the brunt end of the dynamic can make an impression for the rest of a lifetime.
What you said that really sticks with me is that for the masculinely inclined "to use their aggression, lust, and desire to control with awareness and compassion, for positive and productive ends." It is this kind of self-responsibility and self-control over (though not complete suppression of) male-oriented tendencies that is necessary for being spiritual while accessing the masculinity which comes naturally within. Use those energies in the best way you can and you will quickly find they aren't intrinsically tyrannical/heartless.
polarity and ambiguity
on the other hand, I did read somewhere, and find the idea resonates with my experiences, that, in many cases, the man chases the woman until she catches him.
"Will the transformation."-Rilke
yin yang gender roles
Working with both the yin (receptive) and yang (assertive) energies in yourself requires honesty, because you need to know their standing before strategically employing them for anything, including reconcilliation and transcendence of the opposites. If one is YX chromosomed, their soul's starting place has a wang that is evolutionarily designed for going inside, (and being enveloped in!), a lady's cunt; women's ovaries and men's testes secrete radically different ratios of hormones that effect our impulses and contribute in shaping our personality into who we become to seem like. Guys will be guys until they learn to be otherwise. What else could we be?
Also think, Kinsey scale when I say that guys on average have more yang than yin and vica versa. Sure guys can take it in the butt, from their female partners with strap-ons or other guys, but we have a propensity rather to insert ourselves into our most special friends. Can we really assert that, based on the result of historical, testosterone-fueled power tripping, a "gay spirituality" is the answer to patriarchy for most guys? I feel like that would invalidate the pleasurable physical mechanics (and subsequent circulation and harmonization of energy between hetero pairs of people) that most of us seem to have inherited, on the basis that the gender roles cannot be truly committed to in freedom because we supposedly don't get to choose or design which biological binary we start from. It's really pushing it. It totally disregards transmigration of souls and offerings of the queer community. Mutually consensual relationships that work with what we have are not by nature patriarichal, they are anarchist, though not particularly revolutionary. Maybe this is where the trannies and transhumans should come in and say their piece. Let's see if they come up with some new plays for the collective's handbook.
According to Taoist teaching, transcending the grip of this duality of the sexes requires these forces to become balanced. One can do it through sacred sex. During vaginal intercourse, a male may abandon their energy into her safekeeping, and thereby the guy parts are the key for letting the guy's feminine soul express itself and the female is in charge, she's not just channeling her own energy but she's holding her beau's. Somatic bliss overwhelms any head bound conception of identity and the guy just feels, which according to Dreida is the expression of feminine energy. As one goes from hard to soft and she contracts, the roles appear reversed. Male's melted form remembers itself in hers, as she remains. The trust that forms with the other accepting both parts of you is complimentary to inner marriage of your sun and moon. In fact, having someone bare witness to both sides of you from such an intense position of love is incredibly cathartic and healing. It's like shamanic soul retrieval or something. Barriers break down and the less prominent side might get new perspective on itself, probably realizing it has a bigger role to play than before. I can speak from that experience and am eager for accounts of this happening with gay couples. I honestly don't know exactly how it works with homosexual couples. I've speculated that they have a different starting position for the yin yang jing ratios than is typical for heteros; I hear that typically people still start out feeling they have more yin or yang, but the imbalance that initially allows for the creation of polarities are not so uniform across their personalities.
To bring it around to the experience of Mr. Pinchbeck, we see that these females have a yang aspect to their behavior, it just needed to be matched up front with yang energy on the guy's part before they would put those cards on the table. Perhaps it goes something like "You have to want the woman of me enough for me to introduce the little man inside of me".
Polarity
Hey, don't take him tooooooooooo seriously ....
What makes me a bit suspicious of YOUR way of reading the book is the following quote: >But more than this, other passages take on a rather sinister and misogynistic flavour: "for the feminine truth is a thin concept."< Originally, the whole sentence reads like this: >But, for the feminine, truth is a thin concept compared to the thickness of her flow of feeling.< ... which he calls a feminine quality lacking in the male essence, and that's been pretty much my experience during the recent nine years of living together with my beloved goddess.
Hm. Come to think of it (and reading your article again), I'm afraid you don't really get what Deida's about, but then of course one doesn't have to like him. Personally, I admire him for being (somewhat) enlightened AND being (quite) cool ...
my word!...
this is beginning to look like the old battle of the sexes revived for 21st century viewing... myself, I prefer to judge people as pairs... for example:
Michelle and Barak Obama; Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt; Nancy and Ronald Reagan; Olive-oyl and Popeye; Harriet and Ozzie Nelson; Sarah and Todd Palin; Jacqueline (or was it Marilyn?) and John F. Kennedy; Marge and Homer Simpson...
gives a better perception of who really wears the pants...
uncle rudy
uncle rudy's very big tent
Too critical, too serious?
One of the things I talk about in the book in regard to all types of problematic masculine spirituality is the difference between intention and effect. Hardly anyone involved intends to perpetuate a problematic masculine spirituality: indeed their conscious involvement in such a thing indicates their desire for change. However, good intentions do not necessarily result in good effects. What often happens is simply a retreat into old ways of doing masculinity rather than opening up the new. Why does this happen? It happens because the people involved are not looking with a sufficiently critical eye at their underlying assumptions, they are not taking them seriously enough. So I don't believe, as some comments here suggest, that I am being too critical or taking it too seriously, rather there is not enough of being critical and being serious.
This distinction between intention and effect is not just about the participants of masculine spiritualities, but also the literature. Authors often moan that their work is being "distorted" by critics. It is certainly possible that a critic can genuinely distort a text, but it is more likely that the critic exposes in the text underlying assumptions that the author never realized in the first place. In this way, ostensibly liberal (even "radical" and "enlightened") authors are shown to have deeply conservative roots which have remained obscured by a lack of critical thinking, and reinforced by an audience in the same position. To acknowledge and move beyond this position is a genuinely radical gesture.
Ideals & Values > Gender
I can relate with doubts about "masculine spirituality;" But also doubt "feminine spirituality" as well (Starhawk: "God, an aspect of the Goddess.") I have come to believe that segregated research is behind much of our strife.
My main idea is that we shouldn't talk about gender, without first talking about ideals & values.
When we state our ideals & values up front, how we think about men & women falls out. (And: I think men & women can share many ideals & values.)
I'd love to read a book on gender written by two people - a man & a women - as a team - who share values & ideals I can relate with, and relate their book in those terms.
As much as I'd like to like Raine Eisler's ideas, and Anodea Judith's ideas, I just can't walk with them. Whenever there is something of the "Triumph of the Feminine" in the narrative, ("We're now in the age of women," or "Women are the saviors now," or "What is needed is the feminine,") I know: "This is not the human future I believe in."
We go forward together, or not at all; I can't understand any other way.
hominid experimentation
When you think about it our socialized preconceptions regarding gender, roles, attributes, abilities and relationships are not going to take us into the future and create a world for the development of the whole human. As visionaries we must therefore create the language, the ideas, the ideals and imagine the potentials never conceived of in the millions of years of hominid experimentation thus far.
potentials never conceived of
"As visionaries we must therefore create the language, the ideas, the ideals and imagine the potentials never conceived of in the millions of years of hominid experimentation thus far".
This is a very good point. One of my concerns with archetypal models is that they do precisely the opposite. Rather than imagining new potentials, they revert to the old: most of the men's movement literature (such as Robert Bly and Robert Moore) locates archetypes within the depths of the psyche (Bly) or reptilian brain (Moore). However, as you say, we need potentials never conceived of rather than drawing upon this dry well, even if in a metaphorical sense.
My only concern is that before these new potentials can be realized, we must fully deal with the problems of the past and the now, rather than glossing them over. This is a stumbling block for a good deal of allegedly "integral" thought: it aspires to new modes of second tier thinking without fully working through the full business of the first tier; often it does not, as we are told, "transcend and include" rather "bypass and include" which leaves those "negative forces of dominance and submission" which you rightly refer to festering away in the heart of the second tier, only this time more potent than ever before as the faulty assumption is they have been transcended. Let's not forget the warning of Baudelaire, "the Devil's cleverest wile is to convince us that he does not exist".
Good Parent Superegos
Hi Joseph,
I am not one to transcend and exclude...I am the one to write the dirty books. I am presently writing a self help manual for recovery from patriarchy/pyramid civilization. You can read some of my workings out ithe latest posts on the How To Save the World thread on Heartmind.us
In pyramidal structured, non-egalitarian societies, which is pretty much all human societies that we know of to date, the super-ego (prefrontal lobes) develops under original sin, punitive, authoritarian conditions. This means our wiring for the inner-parent or “regulator” is not geared towards sovereignty and autonomy, but is built for varying degrees of dominance or submission. In this way pyramid structured societies are based on a dominant/submission neuropsychology which leads to the compartmentalized ego…the conditioned, schismed self cut off from body, soul and God. This inner dominant/submissive wiring prevents the inner security and self esteem that is the signature of sovereignty or self-possession. The entire fabric of society is thus built on inharmonious relationship arising from the inner violence and the inner divisiveness of the isolated, separate-self-sense. Submission represents a suppression of the inner violence, and dominance is the expression of the inner violence.
These patterns of dominance and submission are contagious and ubiquitous and reflect the lack of whole-brain function and inability to be in touch with or express ones truth. The enlightened, integrated, whole person naturally flows with the Tao, is open to truth and is not engaged in power and force, because they are ultimately empowered from source. Thus we see that the entire structure of pyramid civilizations, and the make up of the individuals within them, are generated by a miscommunication or mismarriage between the poles, hemispheres, charges and sexes. To build whole people and a mystic culture we need get out of the inner sadomasicistic bind of negative self-reflexivity. Transcending inner violence, and developing inner security builds the brain centers for the Good Parent and Original Blessing…beyond reactivity to good and evil. Through the neurology of the sovereign individual with well developed Good Parent centers in the brain we can build the world anew, in a circle culture model.
Ideals & Values > Gender
I can relate with doubts about "masculine spirituality;" But also doubt "feminine spirituality" as well (Starhawk: "God, an aspect of the Goddess.") I have come to believe that segregated research is behind much of our strife.
My main idea is that we shouldn't talk about gender, without first talking about ideals & values.
When we state our ideals & values up front, how we think about men & women falls out. (And: I think men & women can share many ideals & values.)
I'd love to read a book on gender written by two people - a man & a women - as a team - who share values & ideals I can relate with, and relate their book in those terms.
As much as I'd like to like Raine Eisler's ideas, and Anodea Judith's ideas, I just can't walk with them. Whenever there is something of the "Triumph of the Feminine" in the narrative, ("We're now in the age of women," or "Women are the saviors now," or "What is needed is the feminine,") I know: "This is not the human future I believe in."
We go forward together, or not at all; I can't understand any other way.
"We go forward together, or not at all": absolutely
This is a good point. If we take, as I propose, a genuinely queer crtique on spirituality, feminine spirituality is just as problematic as masculine spirituality, as both trade upon a normative understanding of gender. I'm not sure there is a need to do away with gender altogether, but there is a need to revision it away from duality into multiplicity: as Deleuze says, "a thousand tiny sexes".
multiplicity AND duality
While multiplicity (and "queering" of spirituality) is absolutely a valid perspective, I think it unwise to try and divorce ourselves from the binary reproductive sexuality that Nature has developed: male and female.
Thus, I would like to echo a post above that the ManKind Project, which I have been involved with as well, is potent and worthy work for men. Sure, it could be potent work for ANY individual (man or woman), but isn't it useful to explore evolving archetypes of male/female duality?
Thanks for this article, and to all the commenters.
"Don't believe everything that you think."
Hmmmm
another way of looking at it...
All this talk of polarities and specific spiritual lobbying (male/female/gay) seems to me quite beside the point..."one law for the lion and the ox is oppression" as Blake said: and also to have the lion and ox trade places won't work either. Maybe we should talk more about what it means to be HUMAN before we start talking about all these different species of spirituality that are ultimately just our own mental constructs and support and manifest seperation. Duality exists in nature, but when we start talking about it as a ground of reality that we must 'understand' and 'work with' or whatever, we just strengthen it even more, as several other people on this thread have talked about.
If ya ask me, I think the fundamental problem is that we still don't have any solid idea of what it even means to be 'human'. We have plenty of theories, but not a one of them has truly satisfied us. This doesn't mean that all, or any, of them are simply 'wrong', but they are all just theories. I feel the problem with the men's movement, as with the women's and gay's, is that we are trying to push the complicated nature of reality into a system, and reality, like the spirit, will do anything to escape from our attempts to 'explain' or constrain it. We wind up confusing ourselves and hurting each other when someone fails to live up our own notion of what masculine or feminine are. This explains why so many people live such lonely lives.
As for so-called gay spirituality...Ha! Gay men are still, at the end of the day, just men, and do all the same things that straight men do, just to other men instead of women. Our constucts are the problem, in my opinion.
I imagine that when we can let go of our constructs, even for a moment, and begin to deal with each other as we truly are as humans, that change moment to moment and sometimes stay the same, that are complex and irreducible and all things at any time, then we will make some progress.
One last thought--the yin yang is not strictly speaking anything about duality, for the opposite is contained within its complement, always. Those little dots? Remember those? I argue that the y-y is more about a kind of logic that contains duality yet goes straight beyond it. I think that is the important part of it, not any apparent but not-quite-so duality. That's just my opinion. Enjoy!
"God sends meat, the Devil sends cooks."
Re: Jana and Jeff
Enjoyed your posts, as they in my opinion seem to get closer to essentials, i.e. the fundamental structure of existence. The maybe most central point on this issue (of a possible 'grand unified theory' of existence) is the whys and hows of manifestation of polarity/dualism in the cosmic blueprint, and what Jeff said about the theories about being human can also on a bigger scale be said about theories about polarity/dualism. Even the best of such theories are not quite good enough to be considered final truth.
As I formerly have posted on other threads, one answer can be, that dualism can exclusively be seen as an intrinsic part of the perception process of complex beings (not only humans. I'm quite sure that other animals and the various ETs, interdimensional beings etc also perceive dualism). This is a point in e.g. Mahayana, Tao'ism and zen. Cosmos as such isn't dualistic, perception only makes is look this way.
Or:
Dualism is a cosmic phenomenon, meaning that the cosmic blueprint, from the whole down to less complex structures as single energies or elements, is dualistic. Non-dualism thereby removed to a kind of transcendent 'reality' in an ultimate creator 'god' or 'gods' (whether cosmos is 'inside' or 'outside' such a 'god is in this connection irrelevant). Most Abramic religions and creator 'gods' mythologies.
Or:
Non-duality in the same way (as in the creator 'god' model) only exists in a non-mundane 'reality', but this version doesn't imply an ultimate creator 'god', but is pure 'mind' (the void/ultimate chaos). The Hinayana model.
Or:
A combination of the above theories, including a somewhat ultimate non-creator 'god', containing elements of 'pure mind' (void/pure chaos), but also a cosmic creator 'god' (the demiurge), who him/her/itself is a victim of dualism. Pre-christian gnosticism.
To my knowledge all religions/theologies and most non-religious ideologies and cultures are based on one or more of these models.
E.g: US culture contains two prominent aspects. Fundamentalist Abramic religion and a rugged individualism, bordering on social Darwinism. It doesn't matter, if the individual US citizen is 'for' or 'against' these aspects of US culture, it saturates them anyway. As a north-western european I stand on the side and observe this and am both amazed and slightly amused by the result. The basic ideological debates are valid, but are more often than not carried to such heated and polarised extremes, that it it becomes meaningless. Belief-system behaviour takes over, and the inherent Darwinistic dynamics turn it into crusades.
So in my opinion, the present discussion (and many similar ones) is way out of proportion and is more about US social-psychology based on ideological ivory-tower belief-system constructions, than about the manifestations of polarity/dualism in ' reality'.
Metaview synthesis
Awesome post bogomil,
You sound like a metaview synthesizer...a Zeus kinda guy.
Words mean different things depending on the complexity from which they are used and understood. Nonduality may be the most misunderstood word in the English language, rivaled only by the word God. I think what is ultimately meant by "transcending duality" is that we give up our "negative impulsive reactivity" to it...not that duality ever goes away, but that we stop being undone by our unskillful passions or impassioned aversions. Richard Maurice Bucke points out that in cosmic consciousness there is no condemnation, no sin, no evil and no death. I would like to amend that by saying, though these things still exist, in unity consciousness there is no fearful reactivity to them through transcending identification with form.
Perhaps you might like to write an article on the nature of the current American psych. I am a Kiwi in the US and I have noticed that things have shifted since the end of the Bush regime, but there has not been much healing or progress from there yet as far as I can see. Part of the problem being that altho America is touted as the land of the rugged individual I found people to be more compliant, fearful and non-agentic...less likely to rally against evil and the abuses of power than in my own country even. I thought during the Bush era that I lived in a land of rats or bunnies or something...I was thinking, where did the American spirit go, I have more American spirit in me than Americans. Granted I didn't go looking for the self-ignited people, but generally I found very few.
http://declineandfallofwesterncivilization.blogspot.com/2004/12/romantic...
This perhaps might give you some ideas on writing an overview piece...Meta-analysis of our current zeitgeist is radically important to orientate us and to figure out the "work" that needs to be done...beyond..." US social-psychology based on ideological ivory-tower belief-system constructions, than about the manifestations of polarity/dualism in ' reality'."
"not that duality ever goes away..."
au contraire... as surely as the morning mists clear in the full light of day... Gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha...
uncle rudy
uncle rudy's very big tent
Thank you for some sanity and depth in this inane discussion
For years I've had similar criticisms of Deida that have fallen on deaf ears within the integral community. The "integral men's movement" commits many of the pre-feminist errors in new-and-improved AQAL language, from what I've seen and experienced of those who are deeply into Deida's work.
The ManKind Project seems somewhat more robust and diverse in it's philosophy, but I have not examined it very deeply. I enjoyed King, Warrior, Magician, Lover as a starting point for thinking about varieties of masculinity. I found it much more robust a model in fewer pages than Deida's "Way of the Superior Man"--a book that became popular due to its recommendations from notable pick-up artists in the "seduction community" (where Deida now gives trainings).
I immediately went to Amazon and have ordered your book. I can't wait to read it. I am especially interested in your suggestion that post-patriarchal masculine spirituality could find clues in gay men's spirituality.
Yours,
~Duff
http://twitter.com/duffmcduffee http://precisionchange.com
Phew
laissez-faire regime
Today’s society is marked by conditions of reification, that is when an abstract concept describing a relationship or context is treated as a concrete "thing." The general trend of our descent into a plastic delusion is lack of groundedness, increased abstraction, fantastical metaphysics, laissez-faire logic, movies are more real than life, we have lost touch with nature, and lost touch with our own Daimon-body and soul. We must go back to the axiom of Solon, who said that it was the citizens responsibility to “not be an idiot” and to attend to the affairs of the democratic state. I expound on this and say that it is the citizen’s responsibility to “wake up,” and assume responsibility for the nature of the world we are cocreating. If we are sheeple, there is no alternative but being led by wolves.
The main problem condensed down to its essentials as far as I see it is a retreat to the apparent safety of form...all form that is part of a system of credentialed orthodoxy. That if, if the Matrix condones it, it must be truth...therefore I don't have to think about it, I just have to obey and big daddy will look after little me. This collapse of personhood into reliance on form rather than sensed truth and ones own processed opinion...is the nut that holds the entire tower of Babel of the current age in place.
We must all be somewhat concerned because the shutdown of sovereignty...of freedom of thought and engaged communication may be an inevitable slide of the entire species in post industrial society...having being adequately irradiated with EMFs, fake food, fake media, fake religion, and fake survival pressures ...what we are seeing in America may be a loss of human spirit and entrenchment of the obliging yes-men fascist masses. A wave of the loss of humanism that could spread globally in the bulk of the easily conditioned population...for if there is no significant center of self the individual is open to dictatorship from the outside. Growth of sovereignty and recovering our senses is the order of the age.
The scenario is wrapped up on all levels beginning with a rote learned classroom-prison education and continuing with corporate-bought media. The dire lack of education of the average Joe Plummer in the US is the greatest danger to the globe...there needs to be more advanced material out there like realitysandwhich and redicecreations.org
I have a new media list should anyone want it and perhaps we could build on a list that could be widely distributed for advanced media.
Machinations of Power
At the risk of being too perfuse...I will offer the following to show how the pyramid is kept in place by bullying, bribery and coercion... (if anyone has anything more to add to this list of mine please do so...
Machinations of Power Imbalance Under the Reign of the Negative Father Archetype:
• Thought stopping contradictions, anti-intellectual logic and insults that undermine a sense of a rational universe and establish verticality in social structures.
• Alternating flattery and mockery to break confidence and undermine resourcefulness and independence.
• Without an aware self-center morality has no foundation or soul. Instead we are concerned with observing proprieties and living in accordance to the expectation of others.
• Shock-trauma to the brain reduces the center of self through which the sense of truth, conscience and consequence are generated to establish the autonomous individual.
• Verbal attack with the use of rapid-fire projection and reductionism without allowing for complexity, nuance and reasonableness.
• Ridicule of ones person rather than ones argument in order to confound cognition and bring about a sense of hopelessness and futility.
•Attack ones right to an opinion for opinions are only allowed by professionals whom everyone else must monkey by rote.
• In order to gain authority to speak one needs credentials from institutes run by the power elite that are party to the thought system and practices that are destroying the planet.
• Your point of view is irrelevant unless it corresponds to that of the orthodoxy, authority or credentialed institutions.
• Resistance is futile—for illogic and right by might is the common denominator that binds our humanity.
• Subordinate ones individuality to authority and deny equality, and submit to mediocrity and homogeneity at all costs.
• Do not even hint at a direct link to God or you will be ridiculed, ostracized and called a heretic.
• You will be cut off without livelihood or sustenance if you demand the respect and rights of your sovereignty.
• Your sexuality and personhood belongs to the patriarch, state and the church rather than to your autonomous self.
• Enemies imagined and false threats conjured in order for “him” to step forward and offer protection and “security.”
• The subjected citizens financially support armies that subdue the very people the armies are pretending to protect.
On differences
As I obviously won't interrupt any flow, I'll enlarge a bit on my latest post on this thread, in which I tried to position the various theoretical models of duality.
With the exception of a few idealists, most of us navigate through daily life from a basic form of threedimensional physical 'reality', and on this level duality is percieved as 'difference'. Plus-minus, man-woman, black-white etc.
'Differences' can, depending on the underlying cultural norms, be related to in two different ways. Predatory or symbiotically. I flee/fight you, or I co-operate with you. Apart from describing a Darwinistic food/powerchain, predation also implies the presence of reptilian, territorial alpha behaviour inside a species.
A general acceptance of models, which stress the point of predation combined with the undeniable fact, that 'nature' DOES manifest more predation than symbiosis, leads to that some cultures consider predation THE realistic model.
But for some strange reason the abstract concept of 'dualism' has become unfashionable recently, and ideas like democracy, tolerance and egality have emerged. These ideas are painted as a thin veneer over the fundamental predatory system, and everybody give lipservice to them. Ofcourse the rich/powerful continue getting richer and more powerful behind this screen, the selfappointed elitists (present days new-agers etc) now outbid each other for leadership by having duels about who's the most non-dualistic, and even religious fundamentalists are forced to consider, that people with a different skinpigmentation possible can have souls. But actually it's the same old **** in new wrappings, and only adds a dimesion of hypocracy on top of all, making it more difficult to find workable answers, because nobody can talk straight about anything anymore.
The only thing which hasn't changed are the learned, academic scholars, who as always discuss who said what about those, who had commented on some hypothetical abstraction from some other guy, and if this should be elevated to truth. Is Leary right about Reich's interpretation of Freudianism (was Freud right in any case?), or is Jung your man? Does the american male need a crash course led by a 'specialist' to discover how to get his plumbing geared and operational, should he ever meet an american female away from a shopping mall?
Surpriiiise. I'm all for symbiosis. But being intolerant, grumpy, dominant and a besser-wisser, I haven't turned into a politically correct, mish-mash grey, neither this-nor-that wimp. I'm moderately macho, with a sympathy for moderate feminists. I despise invasive religious fundamentalists, but I don't start physical fights with them, and I wouldn't like to see my surroundings flooded with cultural groups aggressively rejecting our national culturul values, but I'm not a racist.
Differences meet and exchange. They don't merge.
So I'm a utilitarian symbiotic, because symbiosis functions. Not from hypocracy, but from a pragmatic and fair give and take.
Jana. I have tried to turn the above into a more extensive version, containing aspects on epistemology, belief-systems, cosmology, syncretism and symbiosis, but my first article was rejected by the editors of this site. So I did try.
No blame, though.
predation/symbiosis
Bogomil,
I, for one, would be very interested in reading more of your thoughts re: the duality of predation and symbiosis, and how symbiosis can become the leading model if predation continues to exist (as it probably must).
"Don't believe everything that you think."
"So I'm a utilitarian
"So I'm a utilitarian symbiotic, because symbiosis functions. Not from hypocracy, but from a pragmatic and fair give and take."
Yea my socalled spiritual system is called POO...pragmatic outstanding operations. However I find it hard if not impossible to get symbiotic on an intimate level with even one human. This is so in a Darwinian society where mere life support takes the majority of ones time and energy and wastes soulmind almost completely. I want to become a billioneer so I can create a village where the human experiment can go on without wholesale bankrupcy.
Symbiosis and innate generosity occur in conditions where the basic lower levels of Maslows pyramid are already taken care of so people can relax out of PTSD and survival fear and start to commune on higher levels of being.
From Hercules to Athena/Aphrodite/Hekate:"Ecstatic Beauty & Joy"
"The myth of Hercules exemplifies the heroic quest in Western culture. Accompanied by his nephew Iolaus, Hercules goes to the lake of Lerna, where the Hydra, a nine-headed water serpent, has been attacking innocent passersby. Hercules and Iolaus fire flaming arrows at the beast to draw it from its lair. After it emerges, Hercules discovers that every time he destroys one of the Hydra’s heads, two more grow back in its place.
Iolaus uses a burning branch to cauterize the necks at the base of the heads as Hercules lops them off, successfully preventing the Hydra from growing more. Eventually only one head remains. This head is immortal, but Hercules cuts through the mortal neck that supports it. The head lies before him, hissing. Finally, he buries the immortal head under a large boulder, considering the monster vanquished.
But what kind of victory has Hercules achieved? Has he actually eliminated the enemy, or merely suppressed it? The Hydra’s immortal head, the governing force of its energy, is still seething under the boulder and could reemerge if circumstances permitted. What does this say about the monster-slaying heroic mentality that so enthralls and permeates our society?
Although the positive aspects of the myth can lead to important battles against hatred, disease, and poverty, it also poses terrible and largely unacknowledged dangers. Among these is the ego inflation of those who identify themselves with the role of the dragon-slaying warrior hero. Another is projecting evil onto our opponents, demonizing them, and justifying their murder, while we claim to be wholly identified with good. The tendency to kill—rather than engage—the monster prevents us from knowing our own monsters and transforming them into allies."
Tsultrim Allione, former Tibetan Buddhist nun and author of Women of Wisdom.
http://www.tricycle.com/-practice/feeding-your-demons
*****
"I had moved from peak to peak in the mountain range of my spiritual journey, conquering the heights, touching the sky, basking in the light. I did not realize there was another side to spirituality. The scriptures I read did not mention it. My teachers did not talk about it, because they themselves did not know. It had to do with the wisdom not of the mountain, but of the valley. It was the journey into the depths, not the heights of the human soul. It moved me not into the sky, but reconnected me back to the earth. I no longer just basked in the light, but also dissolved into the darkness. It was beyond the realm of the masculine hero's conquests. It was none other than the feminine dimension of life."
(...)
"The way of the Hero was seen as a natural process of spiritual maturation. He does not fear desire. He does not reject or suppress his sexual energy. He does not set out on a path of conquest.
Because he moves from a place of his own security and personal power, he is able to surrender to the feminine principles of pleasure and desire. He is strong enough to surrender to the Mystery of Life. He is not seeking to escape Life or control it. Rather, he is moved to embrace Life more completely.":
http://www.kamakala.com/tantra3.htm
"Wanderer, there is no road,
the road is made by walking". Antonio Machado
Pasito a pasito,Todo quiere ser querido.
Journal of Men, Masculinities and Spirituality
For those who are interested in reading a bit more about this broad topic, you might want to check out the online journal I edit, Journal of Men, Masculinities and Spirituality: http://www.jmmsweb.org
This is an academic journal, but there are some articles and book reviews there which appeal to a wide spectrum of readers.
Happy reading, J.
Projection of evil and the
Projection of evil and the need to find an enemy comes directly out of the brain damage to the prefrontal lobes created by power-over, punitive, fear and damnation systems. If we are not engaged in solutions consciousness and original blessing, then we are resisting and fighting with life on many levels. Evidence of our inability to love and unify ourselves will arise throughout our daily life. The demons and dragons could be big or small, but they will be many until we change our neurochemistry and do so in social groups that reinforce our cognitive gains toward positive psychology.
Perhaps we need to do a series of movies that result in a turn around, where the apparent antihero or evil force turns out to be the good guy.
Isolated bubbles/broader context?
My point is, that a major part of humanity functions from an attitude of living in a world of 'differences' (polarities, dualities). Whether such a perspective turns out to approximate ultimate 'truth' or not, it is the background-canvas of discussions such as the present one on this thread, and should maybe be considered as a necessary part of the discussion, however lightly approached: DO differences (polarities, dualities) exist as a 'reality' on some levels of existence?
Though the subject of 'differences' is very broad, and an examination of it probably wouldn't lead to any conclusive answers, it's nonetheless important even in a cursory way, as it would state the basic position of 'later' opinions or theories. IF differences (polarities, dualities) are 'real', we must acknowledge this and react accordingly. I.e. not consider the specific outcomes of polarization as isolated phenomena, which can be met exclusively inside the parameters of their own manifestations. E.g. considering racism, religious intolerance, sexism etc as problems which can be solved from inside the sphere of the separate (belief)system (leaving religion to theological analysis, racism to genetics or socialpsychology etc), instead of looking at the fundamental dynamics of differences (polarities, dualities) as such.
Personally I postulate the 'reality' of differences in the world I can percieve and grasp. From this angle I do not question, that the, in my opinion, existing 'real' differences (polarities, dualities), have been used as ideological excuses for all kinds of predatory behaviour. Churches, political power-grabbing, racial superiority ideas down to this guy, who is desparate to keep his position as chairman of the stampcollecting club (fighting those whose approach to watermarks is heretic). But such misuse is no reason to discard the possibilty of 'real' differences.
To return to this thread, my comments are, that the article correctly points out a misuse of difference, but that the author doesn't present much argument about a possible 'real' male-female duality.
My impression (admittedly subjective) is that this omission leaves the problem with two possible answers.
'Real differences' are non-existing and only originate in cultural myths, and the solution is to create a cultural counter-myth proposing homogenity. Non-dualists usually support their views by reducing the question to a narrative level, 'defining' their 'truth' verbally (an exception is my friend/enemy 'Pipalayana', who on this site on another thread demonstrated an impressive ability to communicate) and that's that. In my opinion only another -ism.
Or, and much worse: Just going along with the historically demonstrated human tendency to go from one extreme to the opposite, which in this case would mean, that instead of an oppressive patriarchy, the pendulum now swings towards mother goddesses and matriarchy as a way to eternal bliss.
I do not consider any of these solutions as valid.
Re: John X
Thanks for your interest John.
While I certainly have personal opinions on the policy, agenda or direction of this site, I do not question the editors' right to administer it, as they see fit.
Should I at one time find a suitable outlet for my ruminations, I'll place a link.
For the time being I can only recommend early John Lash on 'MetaHistory' on his beliefsystem criticism.
The model arises in situ of
The model arises in situ of the daily experience through trying to be true to oneself. The pain and suffering around encroachment or abdication of our freedom is the compass pointing to the sovereign ideal. We have little idea how diminished, convoluted and codependent we are until we try and exercise our full rights as an individual. Often we have been sacrificing our truth and dignity for a petty security and comfort. As we do our core-building practices and extend our soul-mind out into daily life we begin to have a spacious forever evolving vision of what higher relationship and community could look like.
The development of the soul-mind can only occur in a community that is committed to trying to develop a container for the growth of the sovereign individual...Considering our bad habits and automatic programs of predation and sacrifice it is likely to take many generations. If you study the early American anarchists and libertarians like Josiah Warren you get some hints on how an enlightened society is structured.
Josiah Warren and the Sovereignty of the Individual* In "New Social Arrangements" (1840) Josiah Warren insisted that our own happiness depends upon a proper respect for the happiness of others and that therefore we should not make social arrangements which require compulsion or the violation of the natural freedom of any individual. Warren claimed.' The great mistake of all society is the compromise or surrender of the sovereignty of the individual. This must not be. Society must be remodelled without this surrender. The sovereignty of each individual over his own person and property in all cases was the great idea that must work out the problem of happiness. This was the keystone of Warren's thought. http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:3cfPL50su-IJ:mises.org/journals/jls...
Re Jana: Utopia
Since my middle teens I have lived 50 years in the hope of seeing an emergence of what you suggest. But I've learned two sad facts about such a possibilty. In spite of humanity's surprising potential for handling abstractions, a majority still reacts from a kind of low-grade alpha-territorial behaviour, where leadership from a dominant fe/male is passively accepted, often even wished for. Any theoretical model for Utopia, no matter how sensible and attractive it may be, can at the present not bypass such instinctive herd mentality.
Only practical demonstration, showing functional, manifested alternatives to our present hierachy systems, could possibly topple the power-sociopaths' grip on us, and ofcourse our leaders are aware of this, so any effort in the direction of creating viable alternative systems meets massive resistance at every point. Sometimes social engineering, sometimes shady legislation and sometimes open violence.
I'm at the present not advocating any specific alternative model, I think it should be a growth-process of trial and error, though I can mention a few examples with a certain amount of success. In spite of my general dislike of fundamentalistic christianity, I have a positive feeling about the Amish group and the quakers. Likewise has Holland, to my knowledge, sofar succeeded in staying out of the more extreme aspects of the insane 'war against drugs', Denmark has a steadily growing windmill-powerproduction and -industry and a general european resistance movement against electronic surveillance is forming.
But no matter what alternative experiment anyone is venturing into, every step must be fought for through insistence.
Sorry about sidetracking the topic of this thread, but if a later opportunity turns up, I will hopefully be able to tie this post unto a general examination of patriarchy and similar hierachy systems. After all the various facets of power-hierachies turn around the same point and are interwoven. There's no singular aspect, which alone can bring deeper change.
Yes, and the amazing thing
Yes, and the amazing thing is we have no idea how sick we are until we try and walk another road beyond our social or genetic programing. It is all very well to dream up models of Utopia, but it is our daily efforts towards enlightened community that matter. In this regard, the first stages especially, involve shoveling alot of shit. An integrated approach from soil to soul is the only way of making any lasting progress at all.
I propose experimental evolutionary pods that serve as educational units and then a considerable fleshing out of the eventual master culture. One needs to consider the present culture as if it was a bacterial infection of the earth. In this way you can see that by creating centers of healthy antibody growth...the gnostic wisdom would spread from these centers...the centers would need to be all over the world...first one in New Zealand for the deepest work.
Some of my initial work on this is the Amarnia pods and the Permanent culture is described in Solaris Solar City on this site.
myfacilitate.net/jana/Armarnia.htm
I am nearly thru the John Lash youtube videos...truly awesome humanity! Thanks.
Open Source Society
Here's my vision, (and I think, the Damanhurian vision,) as I understand it, put most plainly and baldly:
1. Communities of transformation form all over the place. They're all different. They can be hierarchical, consensus based, whatever-have-you.
2. People identify which communities "they can see their own face in," representing their own ideals and values.
3. People join and develop towards those ends.
In developing towards a society like this, we develop towards a society wherein everyone can flourish.
Teilhard De Chardin outlined pretty similar, in his letters to UNESCO. (1: The absolute *duty* of the individual to develop themselves. 2: The relative right to be placed in circumstances to support such development. 3: The absolute *protection from* forces impinging upon the individual's free thought.)
The question is, "What does freedom mean?"
Does it mean, "doing whatever I want, when I want?"
To develop freedom requires discipline: not only the exterior right-of-way, but also interior change.
I call the vision "Open Source Society," because it's based in how Open Source software development works. Nobody *forces* anybody to work on a Free Software project: You just choose one. Once you're in one, there's a hierarchy, because developers have to make decisions, things have to be either kept or cut, and so on. Each project is different, though, in terms of size, work methods, organization, etc.,. And, by and large, Open Source projects thrive and get benefit from the presence of other Open Source projects.
(So as for: "Any theoretical model for Utopia, no matter how sensible and attractive it may be, can at the present not bypass such instinctive herd mentality.", I just don't see the problem. I do not contemplate my toe as I walk. I do not contemplate my knees as they walk. And they do not question, "Gee, I wonder if I should rebel against the brain now." Similarly, any instant in our life, whatever we consciously work on, we are not spontanesouly and simultaneously envisioning the whole chain of why's and wherefore's. That's where we get our "herd mentality" from, and I frankly don't see how it could be any other way, or even what the problem is. Herds oriented towards harmful ends is the problem.)
Relevance to Gender/Sexuality: If we truly want to try out different gender/sexual norms/ideals/patterns, then we need peers who will tango with us. Consider Zegg, for example.
I do not see hierarchy as "the enemy." (Nor do I see it as "the solution." ...) It's an organizing principle in life. I imagine that there will be patriarchies, matriarchies, complex constitutional democracies, overtly authoritarian groups dedicated to specific tasks (similar to a corporation,) etc.,. All kinds of things, a vast diversity.
I imagine there will be spiritually based communities, transhumanist based communities, communities based on shamanistic visions, communities based in space-faring, communities based in ecology, communities focused on global piece, communities based in what have you.
"Will we reach the vast majority of the population?"
I think no. Not soon.
I think it will grow like Open Source Software grows.
People will see people living differently. On the Internet, they'll see people living differently in a visceral way.
After a time, people ask, "Why not I? What are my ideals? What is important to me? What do I believe in?"
Some portion will decide to join a community, others will stay in the outside world. Preserving the outside world is very important: That way, there is a ground for the formation of new communities, and a way for people to leave communities that they no longer hold with.
We aren't being held down by the thumb of an oppressing government; We're held down by our lack of knowledge about how to form communities, and hesitation.
If you want to see a working community, look to Damanhur, roughly 1000 people in number in Italy.
Attitudes
This is not a digression, I will eventually get to the present topic.
"A Beliefsystem consists of a belief, embedded in a system of methodologies and epistemology-model(s) meant to self-reinforce and protect said belief against other beliefsystems".
What a belief is, is selfevident.
The 'system'-part are methodologies and epistemology-model(s) functioning as a screen for filtering in- and outgoing communication and also as how to 'process' information. I.e. if logic, science, empiricism, pragmatism, faith or dogmatism etc is to be the favoured tool.
An individual who for a long period has been deeply invólved in a Beliefsystem, will gradually start to exclude all methodologies and epistemology-model(s) not originally included in the beliefsystem, and not only will beliefs contrary to this Beliefsystem be considered heretic, but the methodology and epistemology-model(s) used by other beliefsystems will also be heretic. E.g. fundamentalism based on 'faith' as a methodology and 'intuition of the divine' as epistemology will not accept logic or intellect as valid.
A Beliefsystem can be at the level of individuals, smaller groups, nations or bigger ideologies (religion, politics) and in gnosticism and hinayana even encompass cosmos.
Beliefsystem adherers CAN sometimes change their allegiance from one belief to another, be it religious or not, but the 'system-part' of a Beliefsystem is more difficult to change. The system methodologies and epistemology-model(s) will have become an integrated part of individual or group psychology. E.g. a fervent religious fundamentalist can become an atheist, but usually an atheist with the same fervour as when s/he was religious. To change the systempart of a beliefsystem requires an inner psychological springcleaning so to speak.
Contrary to RAW I don't mind using generalisations occasionally, and I strongly feel, that US, european, russian and far east cultures have each their own distinctive brands of national/cultural beliefsystems, which are so integrated in the local culture, that it has become automatic. I will here concentrate on the US variety, as a considerable part of internet forums mainly consist of US citizens and US attitudes. I will point out the weaknesses od US culture, but this does not mean, that I'm a european 'nationalist', being 'superior'. Europeans, as russians and far easterners also have their own shortcomings.
In my opinion, the rather messy blend of US fundamentalism, commercialism and fake individualism has created an attitude in most americans, which can best be described as 'bombastic'. It's difficult for americans to be relaxed, relating to existence is extreme, overdone and hectic (this is more or less the words of an american friend of mine).
And now finally to the topic. According to my reflexions above, my impression is, that the author of the present article demonstrates a serious intent to change a negative beliefsystem, patriarchal spirituality, but while he succeeds with a criticism of male supremacy, he goes further and grossly identifies male spirituality per se with beliefsystems of male supremacy. In other words, he discards the belief, but keeps the 'americanism'-attitudes by implying that both the problem and its solution is a global phenomenon, while it actually is american. In Europe most of the male supremacy beliefsystems are declining, AND there is a general acceptance of genderbased spirituality, about which there isn't much fuss.
So please don't project american problems, solutions and attitudes as universal. 'Americanism' (both mainstream and subcultural) is a 'beliefsystem' as bad as ideas of male/patriarchial spirituality, and superimposing it on the rest of the planet only creates bigger problems.