The Feminine and the Rehabilitation of the West

Post Reply New Topic

This is a long-winded post, if you want to TL/DR it maybe scroll down to the last paragraph. I also might be touching on a bit of a third rail here, as a guy talking about the feminine. Part of what peeks my interest is thinking about some of my experiences again from several years ago (Isis/Mary/Sophia) as well as thinking about some of the sorts of 'return of the divine feminine' prophecies and memes and what they might mean as reflected against our current cultural moment.


I found myself thinking about a lot of things tonight - everything from the way our world seems to be heading toward a sort of destruction by dutiful logic set to recalling some of my encounters from maybe four or five years ago with what I might consider an aspect of the greater unknown.

What I'm curious about is this - we seem to have a really clear grasp on what the masculine looks like. It's set the bpm for our culture for a long time, as Jordan Peterson often points out it's shaped the nature of our hierarchies for thousands of years and in the pre-human sense hundreds of millions of years. What I'm somewhat confused on is that while there is a feminine, I feel like I've run into it in certain ways and half of humanity has relatively strong overlap with it, it hardly ever gets spoken of as a specific thing so much as a scatter diagram (which doesn't exactly fit based on my own experience). Our grasp of psychology is still so primitive/early that we barely can make anything of religious experiences, people like Jung and William James maybe made some of the most gallant efforts, and I might consider the likelihood that when your in a particularly dark place your most brilliant untapped resources will tap you on your shoulder - poignant and loud - in such a manner that they awaken you from your perceptions and send you on a new path.

Our culture seems to need that. We're worried about shredding ourselves with our puritan work ethic combining with automation in such a way where we might come to the opinion that only the most freakishly talented 5% are needed and the other 95% are perfectly welcome to find some way to vanish or die. Similarly we're looking down the pipeline at the likelihood of data algorithms being held in higher esteem than human faculties - at a human rights level. All of this is beating the subjective, the source of our motivational reserves for living and performing, and treating it like an evolutionary spandrel or accident; something that's simply a waste product to be discarded.

This is where I'm getting a feeling that we're missing something very fundamental here, and I almost get the sense that it could be best described as the archetypal feminine. The challenge with bringing it out as an organizing principle is that, at least historically, it's been regarded as that which was organized by the masculine or that which sort of existed around the periphery but didn't really hold attention. In a lot of historical traditions the masculine and feminine have mapped onto order and chaos (writ large as concepts in both cases) as well as passive and feminine. Thelema has a very visual depiction of this in Book of the Law by Crowley's particular qabalistic approach to Nuit (the Goddess that is all of space) and Hadit (the serpent God who is the infinitely small point). The more I think about that the more I think humanity's really missing a lesson here - ie. the feminine shouldn't necessarily be considered passive, or secondary to the masculine since both of these may very well be accident of history and circumstance, but perhaps a sort of perpendicular axis of activity to the masculine in that it is a motive power that has its own principles and has yielded balance since time immemorial. I think this needs to be meditated on even more seriously than in the past because the map of what's humanly possible has changed so much, especially in recent years, that we've already taken the lid off of that and we're going through the sort of creative destruction that comes from tidal shifts in culture but I think it ultimately should settle into something really positive once the stored stresses are spent.

This is where, as nature abhors a vacuum, I can't help but think that we're due to hear something - not equal and opposite to Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, Jonathan Haidt, etc. - but complimentary, ie. a really deep and sophisticated articulation of the archetypal feminine. Something that at least gave me a glimmer of hope that there was a 'there' to be opened up along these lines was Rebel Wisdom's interview with Louise Mazanti, she seemed like she was absolutely nailing something that doesn't get talked about much and it was the first time in a long time that I'd heard a really direct account of an abstract but critically important territory. From what she was saying it sounds like there's a lot of history that needs to be healed, but I'm also wondering - as that happens - will we see as well, finally, the blossoming of humanity in more directions than we'd previously thought possible or in positive directions that hadn't previously occurred to us? We've had a lot of politics in the last few decades geared at gender but it seems like a really shallow, one-dimensional caricature of what's actually possible. If there's anything about modern feminism that I think serves modern women the most poorly its the tendency to actually exalt the masculine too much, pushing women toward rejecting their femininity, and while I do realize that they need to test their capabilities full stop against the world - it's that time in history where that's what should be happening - I worry that they're being cut off from a very valuable resource if they take the hype too seriously. As a species we are indeed trying to do our due diligence and figure out how much men and women are alike, how much we're different, and as this sort of thing goes through phases of progress there's a full run at achievement which in previous eras of history wasn't as available as it is now, yet at the same time there has to be a recognition that the actual feminine is co-equal and is every bit as much a priceless asset as masculinity.


The question becomes - how will the feminine be recovered and reorganized by our culture? Do you think it's likely that we'll see a major organized approach to philosophy from the feminine perspective in the next few decades that will be additive and culture-producing in nature? Also - is it possible that someone will come along, in the next few decades or even next few years if we're lucky, who will articulate it so well that they'll be able to give the current world we live in a counter-valance to the sorts of technocrats who are set to, by reason, declare humanity superfluous to machines? I worry about where we're at and to say the least it's imbalanced.

I know it's kind of a weird post but I can't help but think - out of all of our problems we currently have - that there aren't matching antidotes for the poisons (IMHO ultimately broad collective mistakes) that are ailing culture, but we have to start somewhere.

Hopefully this won't eviscerate or displace my OP but this is Louse Mazanti and Dave Fuller having this conversation in a great way. I'll add - they're both really aiming for constructive application of the masculine and feminine, any critique of #metoo is really attempting to be constructive, figure out 'where do both men and women go from here', and start the reconstruction/cleanup (it's difficult to deny that we've been in an incredibly chaotic/destructive phase).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqAauanvEew

Social Roles that Fulfill the Basic Need for Balanced Neurohormones and
Neurochemicals of Mind and Body are a Requirement for all Social Animals
to Maintain Animal Homeostasis with of Course Food and Drink and Shelter
And Matching up with Reproductive Mates actually attracted to each other too;
otherwise, the Social Unit Falls apart; particularly, in the Case of Human Beings where there is no overall Religion and
Politics of Life Shared in Common that folks will coalesce together in Common Bonds and Binds of Life that Keep Order From Seeming Like Chaos. I actually get around the World in the Flesh and Blood World too, to get a Measure of the
Heart Beat of the Soul of Being Human and while it's a whole lot of Fun for me; most People are just Dragging by
through Life; particularly, if they have attained Working Age and are in a Job without Much Meaning and Purpose.
One can see this in the Average 'Walmart Worker' as they Literally Rot in about a Decade of Automation in
Being a Cog in a Commercial for 'Every Day Low Prices' and every day Soul Rot too as that pertains to
a life that is Fulfilling and Growing instead of Stagnate and Empty. While it's nice to be in these
Ivory Towers in College/Etc., Discussing Philosophical and Social Labels for Categories in Life;
the 'Real World' is just one for getting by; getting whatever Job one can and basically
Just Surviving with even a more Difficult Struggle to Raise Children. The Choice to not have
Children; and the Emotional Intelligence to Keep the Same Wife and Pay off a Home/Car without Feeling
the Need to Move up to A Better Home and Car every Five Years has been the Emotional Intelligence in Self-Discipline
that has worked for me for basic success in life now with Much struggle too. And as far as the Patriarchy goes while
again I enjoy the emphasis put on Meaning and Purpose in Life, Jordan Peterson and others are rather Disingenuous
to skip over the Real Toxic Patriarchy that is Currently Running the United States and Perhaps that is because they
don't live here; but how they are missing it is a little Hard for me to Believe. I mean really; there is a Sexual
Assault Accusation Leveled against a Supreme Court Nominee where the Head of the Republican Senate
says this Nominee is a sure thing before the Testimonies of Accused and Accuser are even Given and
a Former Spokesperson for the Governor of Georgia related on the News today that Getting on
Top of a Woman Groping Her and Covering Her Mouth was just Bad Boy Behavior and should
not be a reason to preclude one from Gaining a spot on the Supreme Court where Honor and Integrity
and Character is of upmost importance. Perhaps, there is no Toxic Patriarchy now where some of 'these
Folks' Live but at Highest Levels of Government we are still Saturated with it in the US Government on
both sides of the Aisle, Still; As Trump finally broke his silence and put the Blame on the Victim too. But it's
true in the 'Real World' where the Majority of Folks have no Desire to hear Political News; in the 'Real World' where
Folks are Struggling by each day to make ends meet; there is no Ivory Tower for them or Basement or Retired Room
to Peruse the Intellectual Dark Web YouTube Literature; there is Survive, some Electronic Entertainment and for the really
Lucky ones a participation in some kind of 'Third Place' Away from Home and Work where they Bond with a Group of
People over Similar Bonds that Bind where Religion still plays a Major Role for that for sure where I live without doubt
although it is mostly becoming a Grey Haired Endeavor as the More of Folks Get engaged with Electronic Life the more
Folks Lose the most Basic Elements of even Being Flesh and Blood Human who relate to each other with even
acknowledging another Human Being's Presence; and even if they are getting Paid to do that in a Customer
Service Position too.

As Far as the Divine Feminine and Masculine in Grace of Poise in Balance and Love in a Foundation of Emotional
Intelligence where Emotions are Regulated and Senses are Integrated for the Greatest Strength of Will; that's an
an issue Far Beyond the Bottom of Maslow's Pyramid as that takes Self-Reflection and a Religion and or Politics
in Life of Rituals and Rules that do understand the Importance of Being Human with Divine Feminine and
Masculine Elements of Life where Women are 'Real Women' and Men are 'Real Men' who understand their
Similarities allowing them to Enjoy the Fruits of the Benefits of their Differences too as they Work together
as they Have For Thousands of Years to make Survival Happen. That takes more hours of the Day
than most have to spend in tools they make that are increasingly becoming more of what their Soul
is in Electronic Devices of Life.

Human has been out of Balance Consuming More of the Entire Environment than they Replenish for Centuries
now. Nature's Balance Returns with Less Humans and of course Humans are Nature who are Naturally now Culling
their Populations. Males not Getting along with Females and the Vice Versa of that Means less Reproduction and more
Misery and Suffering with Additional Frowns Shuffling By in SuperWalmart; but as one Drives up the Road to the Mall there are Still more Economically Privileged Folks, obviously Enjoying the Hell and Heaven out of Life. It's a game of Merit; those
who win win; and those who lose lose. Some of us figure out how to win and some of us don't. And some of us turn a
Blind eye and a Deaf ear to Folks who might other wise Help us; while some of us Just don't get Life and Suffer
the all Natural Consequences. Nature as always is currently Balancing out the World, including us; some folks
will enjoy the Ride and some folks won't; particularly for those who don't develop any Locus of Control; in
other words Relative Free Will that Lifts the Individual out of Places and Groups and Individuals of Hell.
Meanwhile, Folks Fill up their Garage with Walmart Droppings to the Max. If a person is struggling to make
Ends Meet all the rest of this is mostly a Moot Point; as every day is just a Game of Survival and that's about it and
a Few Punches and much more than that on a 5 inch Scream of life. Anyway; those of us who've really made it can
and will tell what works for Us; whether anyone else wants to listen or not; Just another way of Oral Tradition that lives
on; whether heard or not by others way Down Deep or up Shallow in a Think Feel and Sense Tank of life that and who
Swims
or
Sinks.

I have a Naturally Optimistic View of Life now and that's almost entirely a result of how one is Sinking or Swimming Life now. Before, for Many Years I had a Naturally Pessimistic View of Life Just Tired; Just Tired of it all. Anyway, just goes to
Show that the So-called 'Golden Age' ain't no myth for those who do rise up and enjoy Life Reborn in Joy once again.

Our Whole Education Process and Work Ethic has little to do with Really Living and Enjoying Life in Balance.

Our Whole Education Process and Work Ethic is about Filling a Cog in the Money Machine to buy Material Goods.

I no longer 'live' in 'that Place' and at least for now the United States still allows a Golden Age for those who come to Attain 'Neo' Different that Works.

For me at least that has nothing to do with Buying or Selling additional Material Goods; for my Rewards come from Within
most. Chances are, If I didn't Mix Free Style Ballet with Free Style Martial Arts Public Dance, I would not Nearly Have the Heaven I have now. Exploring and Finding the Divine Feminine in Grace and Love in Emotional and Physical much Greater Intelligences in Balance have Provided me Empirical Measures of Will and Strength in Double of what I acquired as a Much Younger Man. Many Folks think that Emotional and Physical Intelligences are not as important as Rational Think in Neo Cortical Ways of Being; even still, when Science Shows now that our Rational Mind is Servant to Our Limbic/Reptilian Mind.

Master 'the Shadow' and Master Life in all the ways that comes, Divine Feminine and Masculine too. Just the
Fact that 'it' is called 'The Shadow' Speaks Reams of Clarity on the Ignorance of So-called Modern Humanity.

Long ago One of my Stepmother's Husbands read what I wrote and said I wasn't likely gonna Solve the World's Problems.
Ha! Like Solving 'Our' Problems doesn't take a Superman and or Superwoman Effort 'these days'; that's enough for me;
it has to be; and hopefully for other Folks who Solve their Issues too for every Single Other Human Being is an Entire UniVerse away for what will work for them. Particularly now that there are no longer Just 3 Black and White Channels
on TV. We Live in a Post Modern World now where folks are going their own ways; And that's a Problem that Jordan
Peterson and others just don't get in their "Ivory Towers". Humans Do Group Identity; duh; that's what Social Animals do when Healthy at least and Surviving and Thriving. The Biggest Problem with Post Modernism is precisely Opposite from
Group Identity. And if the Fact that Trump won President is not Proof of it; 'they' are missing the Human Ship and the
Ocean Whole of what it even means to be a SOCIAL ANIMAL now. Anyway; the IDW is 'Church' for those who attend and
that's Just Human Nature and to be expected too; and that has everything to do with Group Identity too. It's funny;
it's almost like one really has to be separated from any Real Group to understand; Anyway, yes, it's true more folks
Notice you Public Dancing than if you are Bowling Alone; and it's truly amazing what 'a' Human Being will do now
to Create their own Social Role, if Necessary, as an oldest Archetypal Story of A Village Clown/Fool, still now too;
Some folks really really really like Clowns and Some Folks Don't. And it doesn't really take that many Friends
and Acquaintances to be what we are at core, a Social not only Surviving but Thriving with others too..

Last edited by aghogday on 22 Sep 2018, 1:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I think we need to scrap this idea that men need to pursue and that women are to be passive. Following this logic; the women's role is to play hard, and that mans role is to push and persevere.

These are the roles heterosexuals are expected to play in American society. Then people wonder why there there are so many rapists. Well the rules of the game favor men who push boundaries. The game is rigged.

Not talking relationships though, I talking survival of the west and whether we'll vape ourselves with an incomplete set of instincts at the ready.

The complementarity of the two sexes - "gender" is an incorrect term borrowed from linguistics - has been well established throughout history; this is the origin of dichotomies such as yin and yang which are present in all civilizations. The idea that woman is considered or ever was considered subordinate is a piece of mendacious Marxist historical revisionism.

It's interesting, because I too am keenly aware of the absence of feminine qualities in the contemporary world. The result of this constant barrage of masculinity, I agree, has serious repercussions for the world and, in particular the West, where the imbalance between the two qualities is most pronounced. The idea that everyone is in competition with everyone else for active, positive achievement creates a disharmony which cannot be sustained for much longer. The external consequence of this attitude is the destruction of the natural environment; the internal consequence is the sense of fragmentation within man's soul and his isolation from his fellows.

I think this imbalance is the reason why the West is falling and the East - in particular the civilizations of China and India are rising.

I remember reading in one of Bertrand Russell's essays a remark pointing out that the Chinese mind is incapable of understanding the idea of war for its own sake - or any other kind of exertion. He states that the Chinese are, and I quote, "lazy", though he means it as a compliment. Their capacity for leisure is far greater than our own. This, I think is due to their greater harmony between masculinity and femininity.

It's my turn to be receptive, the West must be falling.

As long as there is a group of people who believe that no one should have any rights or authority except wealthy conservative white males, the West is doomed.

I could just be living in a particularly good place for this but it seems like those are increasingly - quite thankfully - irrelevant dinosaurs. The trick I think will be figuring out what each group has to give back in building a dynamically stable society that's better than what was destroyed before it.

I think Jordan Peterson speaks accurately to the notion that both men and women were horribly oppressed by nature before the 19th and 20th centuries (and in many places still oppressed up through these times). This brought about a division of activity and in certain ways I think most abuses that occurred were by deterioration or decadence within circumstance (for example you'll always have people who want to exploit others and in a steady state of rolls they'll establish a way of doing that) rather than by any broader sort of evolutionary design.

Peterson's views are highly consistent, sensible, and among the set I recommend most on this challenging issue.

I was raised conservative Christian, yet with an older brother, and with parents who weren't averse or overly corrective to my tomboy nature. Nowadays, patriarchal Christians, or progressive type people, would probably go crazy over my tomboy tendencies -- trying to force me to either be June Cleaver, or else a transgendered woman-to-man.

But I'm neither, and I don't think either of these kinds of women are the ideal Biblical feminine anyway.

I've since grown to wear dresses on occasion. I do almost all the household chores in my marriage.

But I also like sports, abstract thought, strategy games, theology, and systemizing. I don't think a woman has to be a mindless, emotional, fashion-obsessed chatterbox. Again, that's not ideal femininity; that's stereotypical femininity. Biblical femininity is best displayed by the NT Marys and the OT Proverbs 31 women, who are industrious, listen well, and are quiet and no-nonsense. June Cleaver is more of the Martha sort; those women do important work, but they are not all women are supposed to be, nor are they the best kinds of women. Those are the Marys, who listen as well as do useful work.

The issue here is too much choice. I refer again to one of the few men I admire, Mr Bertrand Russell (himself an atheist and feminist, by the way, when feminism still meant something other than habitual attention seeking). Russell points out in another of his books something which has only recently gained attention in the field of psychology - the concept of decision fatigue.

Having to make decisions at work, and at home, and with respect to one's children, and with respect to one's car, and with respect to what groceries to buy, and with respect to what to wear... And so on and so forth. Gradually it takes its toll on one. We all evolved to concern ourselves with only a few important decisions every here and there. This is the motivation behind assigning specific tasks to the two sexes, and behind much else that crude cultural revisionists have "deconstructed"; it's simply efficient. Whether people like it or not, we can't all be Nietzschean Übermenschen with preternatural power of will. This is why some decisions are better made in advance rather than having to plague us continually. That said, every previous society has had outlets for those few exceptional persons (both male and female) who were capable of forging their own destiny to its fullest. There are very few such people however, and this is the fallacy inherent in individualism and the "enlightenment" as a whole: it assumes that everybody is one of Nietzsche's Supermen or one of the Rousseaus, Montesquies, Voltaires and so forth who forged the enlightenment. This is obviously not true, and even less so today: the overwhelming majority of people are incapable of making even the most trivial of decisions for themselves, let alone designing their entire lives in accordance with their own solitary will. People don't want to be independent - they want anything but - they only want the appearance of independence. And logically, it has to be this way - we evolved as social animals, whereby a greater probability of success is to be had in conformity than in pertinacity. And of course the conventions of former ages haven't disappeared altogether, anyway, but have merely been replaced with new ones. Christopher Lasch - I recommend reading him - put it this way:

The advertising industry ... encourages the pseudo emancipation of women ... disguising the right to consume as genuine autonomy.

This seems to be another axis along which such things are happening in politics.

In theory, per Enlightenment ideals, you're something like a posterchild for the type of person who should have free reign to grow and thrive, exactly as you are, and use your unique insights, talents, and abilities to cast light on the world you live in. In a way the Enlightenment has a somewhat kinder/gentler version of Ayn Rand's 'Get the heck out of the way of the unique and successful - they carried us out of the jungle!'.

The ideologies of the 20th century, vascillating between fascism, communism, and in their own way neoconservatism and neoliberalism, seemed to cut back to varying degrees on this vision. They got problem-focused, in doing so groups of people were clustered and either used as political means-to-ends or were held as some sort of standardized model of what people could be sort of factory-pressed into by our Prussian education system.

This is where the Intellectual Dark Web gets interesting, ie. that they're liberals who are trying to reassert John Stuart Mill and reassert focus on Enlightenment ideals. At the same time I think a lot of people, Douglas Murray perhaps one of the most eloquent, do a great job of ruminating over the likelihood that the Enlightenment didn't soak in nearly as deeply as we might have once hoped, that what the West has is highly special and abnormal, likely to decay/atrophy without specific protection, and to a degree Jonathan Haidt (someone else whose very worth listening to) echoes the concern that human nature loves cognitive bias and that we can't even solve this problem ourselves other than by institutional disconformation - ie. setting ideologies against eachother professionally to keep peer review and similar gold-standards of truth in working order.

It seems like collectivists are the people who know that they can't win in a marketplace of ideas and tend to resent those who have them. In a way perhaps they're a sign of how badly managed our 'meritocracy' became, ie. when dog has to eat dog to pay bills or live in a desired way that will generate a pretty big pool of malcontent. The trick seems to be figuring out ways to solve that problem, not crushing the poor or the average under heel but giving them a dignified place in life - knowing that none of us chose our talents, abilities, etc., we're as responsible for those as our height, hair, or eye color, and solve for those problems in such ways that don't provoke the destruction of civilization and the turn toward something like tyranny those who can't stand the system a minute longer turn themselves loose.

Imperialism is a feminine force.
Whores are our soldiers.
Divided we shall rule,
One foot in front of the other.
Split into fractions, add and subtract.
The sum of the sexes pi.
Round and round she goes again,
Where she stops, no one can see.
Blind to the details the devil conspired.
Nico and the Niners are at war with
Mother Nature and Father Time.

Realizing I had a bit of a gap in my knowledge, I started reading Freud, Jung and Joseph Campbell.

And I was wondering, Techstep, which of these have you engaged with?
I'm asking, because these are the people that Jordan Peterson refers to a lot when he interprets mythology and talks about archetypes.

But here's the catch: Freud was extremely sloppy, generalizing, picking-and-choosing, to form a grand narrative of his own. And his interpretations of dreams, on which Jung's interpretation of myths, his archetypes and Campbell's hero's journey are based on, is .... I can't help but call it ridiculous.
My favourite example of dream symbols: a building in dreams *always* stands in for people. If they have balconies, they symbolize a woman.
*All* cylindrical objects symbolize penises. *all* landscapes, individual features of landscapes, countryside, symbolize individual female body parts.
(somewhere in the second half of the "general introduction to psychoanalysis, 1917)
After engaging with Freud, I can safely say that Freud is worth reading to understand how shaky and tainted by the views of the time they were written in the fundaments are.

Jung - and Campbell, and Peterson - are working in a similar fashion when interpreting myths, jumping from one example to the next, generalizing until details fit their pattern ....

I'd hold up the example of snakes in mythology: Peterson explains they stand for danger, sudden death etc.
Well .... they do in modern stories. And there are destructive snakes.
But there also are friendly snakes, and snakes often are ascribed healing powers - the staff of asclepius has a snake wrapped around it, because in ancient greece, they actually held snakes in hospitals, for their mythical healing powers.
Unlike Jung, Campbell and the Petrson, when he wrote his book on mythology, I have access to the internet, and therefore, a much, much larger sample size of mythology, extremely easily available.
(Freud was talking a lot about the customs of "primitive people" - particularly in totem and taboo, 1913, of course- , solely relying on secondary sources, and jumping from examples from Australia to Africa to South America in one paragraph, discarding the larger cultural frameworks. It's ethnologically, psychologically - scientifically - useless mythmaking)

Having read all three, I think archetypes are something they made up to establish order -any order - in the vast, chaotic weirdness of mythology (actual myths are sooo weird, and fit the patterns only insofar as they have some similarities with each other).

So, what I'm argueing is that psychoanalytic interpretation of dreams and mythology is a basically subset of astrology (you know ... sometimes horoscopes make good sense, and sometimes they need to be interpreted a bit looser...).
I would therefore like to stress that Freud, Jung and Campbell interpreted mythologies from their 19th/early 20th century viewpoint on societies, men, and women.
Therefore, a divine female archetype from these sources will be a divine female archetype from the 19th/early 20th century.

I'm not sure if this going to be of much use - event he Hero myth, made up by Campbell in 1948, is of limited use in the 21st century. We don't have to go out to dangerous lands to gather vital new knowledge. we have universities.