The Psychedelic Revolution

Ain't that the truth.

Puns aside; everyone is convinced they know the Truth. How things are, how things should be. There is no consensus, which makes me to believe there is no single Truth at all.

I As much as I respect strong women, 'femininity' seems to represent weakness and emotionality, which subverts rationality. I struggle to respect the truly feminine aspect of women. It's sorta annoying.

 

She's gonna tell you that you don't know what femininity really is and you're only going off of some negative bias crap that most people have been exposed to.

 

Fffffffffffffffffffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

there I edited my post so I sound more like a badass

 

The only thing that can be threatened are our illusions. Nothing contradicts knowledge. What do you have that needs defending?

 

We could have neither, but an unending string of sensation, one followed by the other, some of which we call pleasant and some not so.

 

There is what is real or so. Neither local nor remote, reality is everywhere at once.

Femininity is a kind of social currency which influences people, hardly weakness.

 

i think that you can't fully disqualify someone or something because it is flawed. for example if there was someone that was totally hypocritical but yet they still had a smidgeon of truth in their charachter then you should instead of ignoring the whole picture be able to see the things they are saying which actually have some bearing. this can be related to concepts of truth. you don't want to throw out the whole deal just because it was slightly wrong. that is part of what letting go of the ego is, accepting things at face value and being able to see the light in them. the universe is flowing in other directions because we are allowing the ego to take over.

the power/equality arguement between the genders is really pretty stupid if you think about it. power isn't something that is great to have. power is a burden, and it comes with a need for responsibility and grace, and an ability to be able to use that power in the right manner. it doesn't matter so much who is doing what, as long as things are being done in the right manner, and the power isn't being abused.

because i can apply them to my life and see real difference in my world compared to otherwise.

 

that statement coming from you contradicts the vast majority of everything else you have said throughoutthis thread

The universe doesn't give a rat's ass what your ego is doing.
Again it comes down to YOUR PERCEPTIONS.

What is the ego any way Desos?
The concept of ego didn't even take shape until Freud coined the term and defined what it is. And considering the he was actually a pretty fucked up individual himself ain't saying much for his theories about ego.

I really wish the hell he never came up with the idea, because all it seems to do is cloud peoples interpretation of themselves, and can someone please tell where, why, and when ego became same "bad" negative entity that needs to be vanquished and killed????????

 

there's a big difference between acceptance and complacency.

actually, i'm pretty sure it matters a great deal to the universe what every individual is doing.

then maybe instead of ego i should have used selfishness, although it's not too hard to infer what i meant. nor is the use of the word very incorrect.

 

To kill or vanquish can have motivations other than "the ego". In the respect of the ego being unhelpful, it is to the extent that we cultivate vain understanding of the environment. This element of "ego" is a type of social currency which relies on deception to protect "value". We project those things we think might add to our esteem in the eyes of others, and attempt to conceal those things which we think might find us unworthy. None of these considerations have anything to do with physical reality, we make it all up, while neglecting the environment.

 

It makes a difference to the extent that a sun and an asteroid are different. These are not matters of doing, but of constituency, the atmosphere that you vibrationally cultivate in real time.

 

So, I guess I'm going to be slightly predictable. And say that what is termed 'feminine' has nothing at all to do with women. It's a social construct, an idea about what women are, and what we are like. Created as part of a social order that had a separate place for the genders. And defined masculine as unemotional and strong, assertive and dominant. And feminine as weak, emotional, submissive and accommodating.

In my interaction with actual human beings, I've noted that women don't actually seem any more emotional then men, nor any more irrational or swayed out of reason by emotion. Guys do seem to be more skilled at repressing their emotions, particularly more tender ones, though I'd guess this has more to do with upbringing then anything else. Men seem more likely to be irrationally affected, especially over time, by 'powerful' emotions like anger and frustration. Women more likely to have their emotions wash over them, intensely affect them, and then move back to rationality. And more able to express distress in the forms that are 'vulnerable', and therefor less likely to be harmful to others.

Again, this seems very likely to have a -huge- social component. I watched my younger brother get beaten by peers for crying. That's going to make an impression. Slowly he learned that anger was the more acceptable emotion, and even better, a slow burning anger, one that didn't flare up, but also lasted much longer, affecting far more decisions. I watched it happen.

Even within the distorted social constructs of what is feminine though, there is value in 'weakness'. Value that is found in your ability to be open to others. Submission, vulnerability, real emotionality, these aren't bad things. Nor are they more harmful to the much vaunted 'rationality' that you prize then what is classically termed masculine. In fact, the biggest downside of them is that living in that kind of space, if you're not used to it, is scary as hell. Most guys simply don't have the courage it takes, too many bad experiences to allow themselves that kind of openness.

And there actually are some positives to classical masculinity. Assertiveness is really important. Lacking in it can really suck, and mess up social interaction all across the board. If someone wants to please you, wants to help you, wants to offer you a service, and you can't get past the blocks in your head that prevent you from speaking up about what it is you actually want, you both lose out. Little girls often have real assertiveness sort of emotionally beaten out of them, much like boys have vulnerability take away.

Anyway, this is way off-topic, sorry.

 

Desos make sense

rettyplease:

 

I really doubt it. You are anthropomorphizing the idea of "universe".

Again basing your definitive statements and ideas on erroneous and incorrect assumptions.

The universe does not, according to all evidence to date, think or even have the capacity to do such as we know the concept of thinking.

Desos, you REALLY need to lay off the weed and everything for a few months to clear the cobwebs out of your thought process's.

 

lol, i responded to your personification of the universe. your the one that gave it a personification.

are you just getting hung up on my words or why do you think that i am basing things off erreneous and incomplete assumptions?

what am i saying that doesn't make sense?

 

Well, yes. If there is a slight flaw in something, that is no reason to discount the entire thing. However, if something that is a tiny sliver of the Truth is bred with lesser ideas, and then the mix is mistaken for the -Whole Truth-, and then used as an excuse to claim some sort of primacy in determining how others should live their lives...that is problematic. It's anti-social behavior at best, and tends to be quite harmful to others, even when done with the best possible intentions.

I do allow my ego to take over sometimes, and I do see the harm it does. I know that my ideas, my beliefs, my notions of right and wrong are far from infallible. And I leave myself quite open to them being shown to be wrong. Or incomplete. And I hold them loosely. In fact I hold several contradictory ideas at the same time, just to keep anything that I am uncertain of from calcifying into dogma. I add new ideas from time to time to the list of things that I am willing to consider as possible.

All this is because...I have had revelations. I've seen the whole of the mystery, all the glory laid out before me. I've been in a state where I simply understood. But I couldn't hold it, any of it but the tiniest of slivers. I couldn't comprehend it. When I first had such visions I thought... I knew the Truth now! And I met others, others who'd had similar understandings, or at least were willing to parrot mine back to me.

But the thing is, I only brought back fragments, tiny shards, and even those didn't stay for more then moments, fading like a dream at the dawn. I held them for the time I could, burned their images into my mind. I described them to myself, telling myself what the secret was, or writing it down while the image was still fresh. But I lost even those tiny shards, replaced by words. Replaced by ideas about misty images of tiny shards of the experience. That's all. They are tokens of hope, and sometimes guideposts. They are tools and lessons. They are not Truth though. That doesn't fit within this frame of being, not yet if ever.

And when you mix those ideas with fairy tales told by religious organizations who exist solely to maintain their own power... Or when you build them into dogmatic structures that make the means more important then the ends, make following a set of rules more important then love... You fall into problems. You cause hurt. And when you use it as an excuse to decide for others what their life should be, you run the risk of robbing others of their freedom to choose.

I find it ironic that you use an argument that so closely mirrors many used to justify slavery. I've also -always- found it ironic that those so eager to preach that power is a burden are also so often the most eager to state that such a burden should be held by them, or those most like them.

You really don't see how being treated like a child, for -life-, could be it's own burden? How having others, who don't understand you or your needs or desires, decide what is best for you would chafe?

I don't think the power/equality argument is stupid at all, and believe me I've thought about it quite a bit. Likely thought about it a fair amount more then you, all things considered. Sure, having responsibility is a burden. But without it, there is no free will. Something you, yourself spoke of in such positive light. Without it, there is no freedom. There will never be equality without equal power.

 

What evidence do your cells have that -you- have the capacity to think. There's no evidence at all available that says the universe is -not- sentient. From a scientific POV, the evidence we have says nothing one way or another. Also, from a semi-solipsistic POV, all the evidence makes it quite possible. From most any mystical perspective, the evidence we have is well in line with the possibility.

I've looked at the evidence myself, and think some sort of non-human sentience in direct communication with me seems more likely then the big bang(a concept I've personally mathematically proven to be unnecessary, though obviously not disproven). There's no evidence that -proves- either idea. Simply evidence that suggests the possibility, and a lack of evidence that disproves, in both cases. It's simply that the source of the evidence in each case is different.

 

The measure you give is the measure you get. Relative power is not power at all but varying degrees of vulnerability.

 

Shrug. There are many levels to existence. On one level this is true, and thought creates reality. There is always a perfect balance and reality is what you make it. And while speaking on such a level, distinctions like male/female dissolve and become meaningless.

But when people start talking about distinctions, start saying -this- group will have more responsibility, will have a greater say... That is a different level of reality. That itself is an act of withholding, of refusing to give. Each level interpenetrates the others, each one is merely a metaphor for the others.

Vulnerability itself is not the sole good though. We have will. We have creativity. We have curiosity and the ability to learn. We have ambition. And all these, when balanced with vulnerability, with acceptance, and tempered with compassion, these are themselves good.

And it is imbalance, it is broken, when one group through an act of will claims will, claims ambition, claims decision, as their 'responsibility'. And declares that the other group should be responsible for vulnerability, for acceptance, for compassion.

It seems this is what has occurred. And in the process, those things that are on the 'feminine' side have been devalued. Vulnerability and emotion are not weaknesses, they are a form of strength. But women are starting to avoid them, due to them being too tied to the limits of the female role. And men avoid them, because they are associated again with loss of power. With being lesser. With being female.

Vulnerability is important, emotionality is important. They are needed within each individual to temper and balance will and ambition. It's not enough to set women aside as powerless moral compasses and emotional muses. Men themselves must learn how to incorporate the aspects of humanity that they have cast out and externalized from themselves. And to share those aspects that they have claimed as their own. And vice versa! Many are the women who are comfortable floating on the tides of life, taking no responsibility for anything. This leads to no maturity, no growth, and leads them into failing those for whom they care. And were the roles to be switched, the problems would be the same.

 

You seem to be expressing a lot of personal opinions as if they are fact on an absolute scale