yeah right
-
Posts
43 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by yeah right
-
-
1 hour ago, Joseph Maynor said:
There is something to be said for getting to the point in your spirituality where it's hard to get you to lose your cool. You might call this working on your emotional mastery to the extent that you don't blow up. When the ego gets threatened it can explode like a grenade. This is even harder to control when the trigger is something unforeseeable or not noticeable. I've known for a long time now that I've had a problem with this and I've gotten better, but I still explode every now and again when the conditions catch me by surprise. But I work on staying calm and try not to put myself in situations where I might get triggered. It's not good for my health, it makes me look bad to others, etc. It's like the measles, avoid it if you can. Another great word for an explosion is a meltdown.Lol what? You call that an explosion/meltdown?
-
1 hour ago, Joseph Maynor said:
But in acting as an individual in that manner, he/she/it is leading with the Masculine or Yang. It's Yin being channeled thru Yang. Yin is the pure Feminine when it's presented as a monality or alone. If it's presented as Yin vs. Yang as a duality, it's presumed to interplay and the ideal form of this working with is the Divine Marriage. Just my ideas, anyone is free to think differently. I don't want to shove my ideas down anyone's throat as "the truth", it's just my ideas.Lol NOT your ideas. Not even a remotely unique take. Pure parroting.
Why dont you respond in a new post instead of going back and editing a previous post after it has been responded to? That is not how conversation works.
-
4 minutes ago, Mandy said:
❤️👍 Men can and DO create though. Or rather what creates is prior to male or female. We always fear our own light.
Of course, but the archetypal yang energy is pure potential without form until the yin gives it form.
Every individual has the capacity to create because we all have both.
But of course creation of life(babies) is something only women can do, its the microcosmic version of the macrocosmic creation of any form.
@Blessed2everyone is subject to misogynist thinking like this in our culture, women included, internalized misogyny is a big factor, you are doing what most people dont do which is bringing consciousness to what is largely unconscious, so, you are a step ahead from most, and it is only the first step.
-
@Joseph MaynorYin gives form to force, its the way every human being enters this realm. Yin is constantly restricting, refining, forming the formless energy, the pure potential.
But like you said, every human being has both masculine and feminine aspects. A woman who acts with agency is not simply appropriating male behavior. Through most of recorded history women have been scapegoats for what men define as "evil", from the garden of eden, to mara tempting buddha with beatiful women to keep him from becoming enlightened. Desire of women hindering one from transcending the wheel of samsara. The womans knowledge being the reason for the fall of "man". Its men fearing their own desire, limitations, and what they cannot control, and what they cannot do, which is create life(form).
-
2 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:
But in acting as an individual in that manner, she's leading with the masculine or Yang. It's Yin being channeled thru Yang.I dont know where you are getting that...
Look, i dont really know from witches, my understanding is they can be of either gender and originally its basically a catch all term applied to non-christians.
Feminine energy just might extend a bit beyond what your old ass philosophy boys had to say about it.
-
1 hour ago, Joseph Maynor said:
I get a little leery when people start defining categorical grievances. There are plenty of women that are strong who have no problem with sexism. I'm not discounting sexism or other categorical grievances, but sometimes it just comes off as an excuse to blame someone else for not taking personal responsibility to make sure your life as an individual works well. If someone is too weak to do that, well then work on that, but that's a personal problem not a problem with anyone else. It's much easier and ultimately useless to point out some external factor as to why you can't make your life how you want it to be.Sounds like youve been listening to jordan peterson....that pov is all the easy for the priveledged half to hold, much like racism. Do you really think 2000+ years of systemic oppression can just not be a factor for you if you "take personal responsibility"? Sounds like you need to read less and talk to human beings(who arent white males) more.
-
11 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:
I understand. I'm very aware of the masculine bias in philosophy. I actually do follow her work and she is excellent. My videos are temporarily private as I am looking for a job and don't want my online presence to hinder me from getting more work. After I find work and that stabilizes, I'll make my videos and writings public again. It's temporary. Nowadays when you apply for a job the first thing they do is look at your online footprint, especially in the legal profession where I work. And if you have a history of having no filter like me that can ruffle feathers of people who don't want that kind of image in someone they want to hire. So, I need to play defensive for a while until I can open back up when the time is ripe and right. Thanks for asking. Everything will go back up in due time.Interesting....did you lose a job over your content?
-
12 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:
Eve SedgwickOk...one person?
The point stands that you constantly refence the work of men, even in the context of gender theory. I meant it more as something for you to notice and be aware of.
Btw what happened to your content?
-
On 11/25/2022 at 2:46 PM, Joseph Maynor said:
I think you raise a legitimate issue regarding structural preference of the masculine over the feminine in the collective human intellectual ego. I use Man because that's what Spinoza uses in his God vs. Man duality. I'm a student of Spinoza, but I'm trying to use human more lately because I'm more conscious of how this can be seen as a kind of unintended obnoxiousness. Derrida thought the masculine has a foothold on the human collective intellectual ego in his idea of Logocentrism. Logos is the masculine principle which means order and control. So, take the following dualities and notice how the first (the masculine) is privileged over the second (the feminine): Mind vs. body, serious vs. playful, God vs. human (or Man), adult vs. child, Logic vs. feelings, straight vs. gay, sane vs. insane, truth vs. pragmatism, truth vs. aesthetics, calm vs. volatile, fearless vs. fearful, army of one vs. the team player, science vs. art, rational vs. irrational, housed vs. homeless person, control vs. surrender, beauty vs. ugliness, male vs. female, rich vs. poor, meaning vs. nonsense, order (cosmos/logos) vs. chaos, principled vs. intuitive, idealism vs. acceptance, one size fits all vs. unique snowflakes, closed-minded vs. open-minded, selfish vs. social, philosophy vs. mysticism, static vs. change/cyclical, knowledge vs. opinion, objective vs. subjective, being right vs. being good, the individual vs. the collective, nailing things down vs. keeping things flexible, strength vs. weakness, intellect vs consciousness, extension vs. being in the world, big vs. small, ego vs. no ego, masculine vs. feminine, etc. Notice that the first of these is always privileged over the second.So Derrida is following Jung but applying a kind of shadow work to the intellect (the masculine) whereas Jung was applying shadow work to the body or being (the feminine). What Derrida thought is that yes, as humans, we tend to privilege the masculine side when we consider oppositions or dualities. That's a structural problem for Derrida he called logos-centrism or masculine-centrism. What he was trying to do is expand the intellect of humans to take the feminine poles of duality out of the shadow so they can be allowed to be here. So Derrida makes an argument that the human collective intellectual ego naturally or by default does privilege the masculine over the feminine.
But remember, the masculine is not men and the feminine is not women. There are plenty of masculine women and feminine men! So females who are feminists who are very masculine aren't really advocating for the feminine. That's the feminine being channeled through the masculine. So just because you're a woman doesn't mean you're taking the feminine out of the shadow as a feminist. You could be playing the same game as the masculine but as a female. So, we shouldn't confuse gender for the masculine and the feminine. Derrida doesn't really use masculine and feminine, that's my interpretation of Yin vs. Yang metaphysics being superimposed on his thought. But if you look at his concept of logocentrism and how one side of dualities is usually privileged over the other, it's almost always the masculine side being privileged over the feminine side.
So, in conclusion, there's an argument the collective intellectual ego of humans structurally privileges the masculine side of dualities or oppositions over the feminine side.
This is a good introductory video but it doesn't really go into everything I would want it to.But look what you did, you referenced a bunch of guys in your reply, and shared a video of another guy talking. Do you read any female authors? Do you watch any female youtubers? You can talk about gender theory and "integrating" till the cows come home, but what direct experience do you have of actual womens points of view?
-
@Joseph Maynorwhat happened to all your videos?
The Cosmic Joke
in Nonduality, Consciousness, Awakening, Enlightenment, Self-Recognition
Posted
Pretty sure thats not it. Says something about you though...
I think the cosmic joke is you make all your own problems and suffer exactly as much as you desire to. Nothing really to with other people, except that however they "make" you feel is just however you, deep down, want to feel. Something like that, i think.