Random Messages
-
@milkBoxx said
"I objectively recorded my experiences in my journal. Women have been the ones who mostly channel to me.
I never said a man cannot channel, only that these are my experiences. If I develop a hypothesis as to why
this is and decide to share that hypothesis I expect it to be respected as a valid point in relation to my own
unique experience and not those of others. Every path is unique to the individual and I made it clear to you that I have no gender slant. I'm not speaking
universally only to my specific experience. Also, it has nothing to do with what having a womb means! I only said that it seemed relevant.
What is so difficult to understand that each individuals path is unique? I respect if you have seen both. I'm not arguing that. I only see
an individual who is blatantly trying to deform my original statements to reflect a gender bias. I see both men and women as equal and yet they are unique, otherwise Thelema would not be of interest to me for obvious reasons. When you insinuate that I have a gender bias you are merely distorting my original statement
to start an argument for your own ego. I obviously can respect your own experience, I don't understand why you fail to understand mine? I've never
heard of a man being a High Priestess if you want to live in a PC world where that exists by all means do so but don't berate me with eye rolling and cherry picking
parts of my statement to turn this into a sexist issue."93 Milkbox,
I for one Milkbox understood perfectly what you were trying to say. If I'm correct, you were simply describing these women in your life that were symbolic reflections of the feminine principle. Yin and Yang isn't sexist etc., its active/projecting, and passive/receiving. Binah as Nuit the receptive feminine principle, that gives form. So, in your experiences these women were the vehicles of a message.
Thanks for sharing, I wish I could hear more details but I understand. Sorry if your sharing led to any misunderstanding etc. Certain subjects do seem to press buttons for people. I appreciate your input!
93 93/93
J -
@Pattana Gita said
"
@milkBoxx said
"Just correcting your arrogant and dismissive assumption. I don't expect anyone else cares."You project your own arrogance on to other people a lot. Quite frankly, It bores me."
93 Dara,
I think your over reacting, and being a little snotty. Why do we have to jump on people? Its obvious Milkbox wasn't being "sexist" or biased. Come on.
93 93/93
J -
@J L Romer said
"
@Pattana Gita said
"
@milkBoxx said
"Just correcting your arrogant and dismissive assumption. I don't expect anyone else cares."You project your own arrogance on to other people a lot. Quite frankly, It bores me."
93 Dara,
I think your over reacting, and being a little snotty. Why do we have to jump on people? Its obvious Milkbox wasn't being "sexist" or biased. Come on.
93 93/93
J"Thank you!
-
@J L Romer said
"93 Milkbox,
I for one Milkbox understood perfectly what you were trying to say. If I'm correct, you were simply describing these women in your life that were symbolic reflections of the feminine principle. Yin and Yang isn't sexist etc., its active/projecting, and passive/receiving. Binah as Nuit the receptive feminine principle, that gives form. So, in your experiences these women were the vehicles of a message.
Thanks for sharing, I wish I could hear more details but I understand. Sorry if your sharing led to any misunderstanding etc. Certain subjects do seem to press buttons for people. I appreciate your input!
93 93/93
J"Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to say! Thank you! =D
-
@Pattana Gita said
"
@milkBoxx said
"Just correcting your arrogant and dismissive assumption. I don't expect anyone else cares."You project your own arrogance on to other people a lot. Quite frankly, It bores me."
I think you are demonstrating that you are the one with arrogance. I never wish to impede or be rude on this forum
to anyone. I respect everyone's opinion, even yours. We can all learn from each other, that's why we are here right?
So instead of resorting to childish behavior, let's all retain some humility instead of transforming a simple view that someone
may have based upon their own experience into some kind of pissing contest. If that's how you want to be, you will find that
you wont make it far, as far as acquiring knowledge and wisdom are concerned. -
To my surprise, I agree with everyone and disagree with everybody.
That is: I totally get that you weren't trying to be mean or bigoted, and were just trying to express what you've observed.
At the same time, what you wrote WAS sexist, and it seems pretty likely that this is because you have sexist filters over your perceptions.
Intending objective, fair, and unprejudiced communication is a superb first step en route to actually shaking prejudiced points of view - especiallyy because it invites other people to give you feedback about how your're coming across.
-
I'm sorry Jim, I don't believe my post was sexist at all. I only stated what I have witnessed first hand
and made it clear that my experience is unique just like everyone else has a unique path. If tomorrow
a man walked up to me and channeled to me, I would log it into my journal and share it with the board
just like I shared this. Now, if I draw a hypothesis based upon my experiences I don't see it as sexist
simply stating the facts as they happened to be. If I had said anything that it was both sexes in my own
experience I would be lying. I see men and women as equal in most aspects, but I'm not gonna sit here
and lie for the sake of being politically correct. Yes, women channel to me more so than men. I ventured to guess
that this may have a relationship to the feminine principle. I'm sorry, I don't see anything sexist at all.
My opinion on this is mutable, but I formulate these views based on my experience. That's all. -
I get it.
You don't see anything diminutive about a difference you hypothesize might be based in gender.
But see.. there's all this background baggage of shit that people have said in the past about women basically being spiritually passive (understood negatively) and weaker and therefore more able to channel. And you like.. just ran through all those trip-wires blind.
-
@kasper81 said
"
@milkBoxx said
"What is so difficult to understand that each individuals path is unique? I respect if you have seen both. I'm not arguing that. I only see
an individual who is blatantly trying to deform my original statements to reflect a gender bias."the way you wrote it as follows
- I believe this to be relevant to the notion of the principle of Nuit, or a feminine "Womb or Vessel" like nature.
It's like temporary possession*
it seemed to me to be your way of making a philosophically validating objective universal observation. It's like a slightly more sophisticated way of saying, "all women are air heads who have all kinds of entities passing through them and that's all they're good for".
""all women are air heads who have all kinds of entities passing through them and that's all they're good for"
This is a sexist statement. But we were discussing a particular subject and I was only speaking upon my experience, perhaps it's because
I mostly have women around me. But to accuse me of saying that I find extremely offensive. "All they're good for"? Where exactly did that come from?
We were not discussing the subject of women as a role in the great work as a whole, only a specific subset of experiences that have happened to
other individuals in regards to situations where someone may randomly walk up to you and say something that is almost synchronistic.
I find women to have an uncanny ability that isn't just about transmitting messages for others, but to receive knowledge in a more
direct and lucid way. Men and Women are equal and yet each embodies different principles and the truth is that we both NEED each other. When i said
it's like temporary posession, I meant that when this occurs sometimes it almost seems that way (Rose Edith Crowley). If you read into what I'm saying and
all you can see is "all women are air heads who have all kinds of entities passing through them and that's all they're good for" this speaks loads about you and not me. I don't look at women that way, I find that offensive. - I believe this to be relevant to the notion of the principle of Nuit, or a feminine "Womb or Vessel" like nature.
-
"I don't look at women that way, I find that offensive."
I concur.
What's more interesting to me, though, is the idea that you seem to hypothesize that it's actually channelling - "like a temporary possession."
I can relate to that kind of experience, but I don't personally think the people who are involved in these kinds of "messages" are going passive in any way that could be related to what's normally referred to as channelling. Their own egos and personalities remain, do they not? And they don't "lose time" or say things that they don't remember later, do they?
I just wanted to ask about that for a second. Not to diminish the "message" aspect, but to suggest the possibility that such occurrences are even more miraculous than you may currently imagine...
-
@Bereshith said
"I get it.
You don't see anything diminutive about a difference you hypothesize might be based in gender.
But see.. there's all this background baggage of (****) that people have said in the past about women basically being spiritually passive (understood negatively) and weaker and therefore more able to channel. And you like.. just ran through all those trip-wires."
I'm on this forum because I subscribe to the ideals of Thelema. I shouldn't have to tip-toe around trip-wires. Frankly, if I were a woman then no one would be saying any of this. It's kind of crazy that people who claim to be freethinkers their entire life get upset about someone who tries to phrase something in an honest and objective way. People read wayyyy to much into what I said, the fact that I'm even typing this is upsetting enough. If I were a woman and on my husbands account,
I would be more offended that I was being ridiculed for such supposed bigotry. I would want my opinion to be valid, not twisted into a sexism issue. I'm done with this thread. -
@Bereshith said
"
"I don't look at women that way, I find that offensive."I concur.
What's more interesting to me, though, is the idea that you seem to hypothesize that it's actually channelling - "like a temporary possession."
I can relate to that kind of experience, but I don't personally think the people who are involved in these kinds of "messages" are going passive in any way that could be related to what's normally referred to as channelling. Their own egos and personalities remain, do they not? And they don't "lose time" or say things that they don't remember later, do they?
I just wanted to ask about that for a second. Not to diminish the "message" aspect, but to suggest the possibility that such occurrences are even more miraculous than you may currently imagine...
"You would be surprised what I have heard my wife say. Yeah, I have seen her lose time. I didn't even know what was happening at this point so I thought
something was medically wrong and it scared the hell out of me so I drove her to the hospital to rule out any other cause. Eventually, we both had to come to
the conclusion that she was channeling. There were a few times where it was very very strange. Trust me, I consider them to be extremely miraculous.
-
@Bereshith said
"Really?
Now that was an unexpected reply. lol..."
Well, now you can see why I say that it has primarily been women channeling to me.
Other women as well, but still I embrace a woman's nature and ability to do this.
I don't know how others twisted it into some weird bigotry lmao. -
@milkBoxx said
"I'm sorry Jim, I don't believe my post was sexist at all."
Oh, I totally get that! I know you don't believe it. Nonetheless, it IS sexist.
"Sexist" means making a distinction based entirely on biological gender - saying or implying that a person is A or B because they are male or female. You did that. You made a gender-based distinction.
Now, not all of those are wrong. Some that are purely biological are not offensive at all because they are based on real fact. For example, "most men have a penis" is a sexist statement - a distinction based on sex. There are some "plumbing" differences, some brain structural differences, and some secondary effects to these such as different hormonal balances. That sort of sexism is completely neutral.
On the other hand, broad generalizations that are not purely biologically rooted start into a gray area. Generalizations that men are one way, or women are another way, move into an area where it may not really be a result of their gender, but of the way society has structured things over time. You could easily find things that actuallty tend to be true in observable people but are not inherent in the gender.
Silly example: "Women tend to stay home with the kids." This happens to be true as a generalization in our society. A serious question, though, is whether this is true for biological reasons (some experts would argue that it is) or only because women have been cast into that role centuries ago (say, for political and dominance reasons, or because they were regarded as property) and held there by cultural pressues. In our present era with opportunities for remapping our social structures, this is a VERY important question.
This sort of example, as I said, is in a gray area. It can be said without intent to offend, but it can still be offensive. It's offensive even if it's true for most people in the world today because its repetition helps lock in place narrowing and restricting social structures that are not based on nature but on old cultural, economic, and political suppression.
I know this is strange territory for you. You were reporting what you've seen - which is great! I love that sort of thing. But then you started generalizing. You wandered into a gray area. THEN... you kinda pinned yourself down when you said (in different words) "this thing that is mostly true about women instead of men is a kind of temporary possession." In other words (to paraphrase your original statement in a purely mathematical structure), "women are more likely to be possessed than men."
You might as well have said, "Women are more likely to be crazy than men." In fact, what you said might be even worse than calling them crazy.
Now... again... I know you didn't think of it this way. But that's what you said. And one of the things you should be able to count in when you have an open conversation with observant, thinking, and well-intentioned people is that they let you know how you come across - how it sounded. This is a huge gift. It gives you power to pick a different way of saying things so that you message comes through correctly to your audience.
Free self-expression isn't about "I want to say it the way I want to say it!" It's about "How do I have to say this so that my meaning correctly reaches the person(s) I'm talking to?" Most people don't understand this, and so miscommunication occurs. (What I just told you will be one of the most useful things anyone ever tells you in your whole life - provided you put it into action.)
So: What you said was sexist. Some sexist things aren't offensive. Some are in a gray area where many people don't realize they're reinforcing suppression and restriction. You actually crossed past that gray area to say a truly offensive thing. Then you were unwilling to hear that others heard it as offensive.
"I only stated what I have witnessed first hand"
Yes, I know. What you are ignoring is that this is NOT what you have witnessed first hand. It's how you have INTERPRETED what you have witnessed first hand. (Your sentence is an interpretation. It's not simply stating sensory impressions. You drew conclusions.) And your INTERPRETATION is naturally going to be distorted by whatever psychological filters you have in place. We're all like that. (A Master of the Temple is less like that, but even a Master's personality continues to be just like that.)
"and made it clear that my experience is unique just like everyone else"
Here's the main point I want to make, the reason I decided to take the time for this post: You weren't really talking about your experience. You were talking about your perceptions, interpretations, and generalizations. These are at least one giant step removed from experience. This probably confused people.
Furthermore, when you first were talking about it, you presented it as fact - as the way things are, instead of "just how you see things and think about things."
"I see men and women as equal in most aspects, but I'm not gonna sit here and lie for the sake of being politically correct."
No. I wouldn't want you to do that.
But you didn't just say, "In the examples I've seen, it's usually been the woman who had this talent." You gave your observation, THEN you gave a theory about why things are that way (as if to take it from the realm of "just my experience" and lock it down as a fact, AND THEN you said that women are more likely to be possessed than men. With every sentence or two, it just kept getting worse, and it really did end up offensive. Not because of what you observed, but for all the rest of it.
This isn't a chastisement. This is a teaching.
-
Historical considerations:
The oracles in Greece were women as a rule.
The highest ranks in Voodoo circles, a practice very concerned with "possession" or passive spirit, can only be held by women, and these woman are treated with respect and reverence because of their ability to be a "womb" for their gods. Ma'at was seen as the resonant matrix or womb that received Djehuti's Word, among other things. Perhaps these examples reflect the prejudice of days past, or perhaps they point towards a truth about how much of our consciousness is determined by mere biology.There's this book Veronica suggested on here a while ago, Vagina: A New Biography by Naomi Wolf, that raises the idea that the vagina isn't a mere organ disconnected from the essential consciousness of a person but a fundamental anchor and keystone for their awareness. Take that as you will. I think it applies to men as well.
I personally hold the conviction that "As above, so below" applies here, that our bodies are mirrors for our minds, souls, consciousness, whatever, to find expression.
While a major goal/result of initiation is the achievement of an androgynous state(mentally, at least), before serious initiation it seems apparent that we are predisposed in certain directions by our body's constitution, men being wired to send and women being wired to receive.I've had experiences very similar to Milky, in the way of the women around me pulling signals through. More often than not, when they are made aware of it, they don't recoil at the notion of being "different" than men in this context, but are intrigued by the mystery of feminine nature as they see it and embrace it, asking for more, wanting me to figure out what I can bring them to experience.
Is that mild hypnotism? If so, is it nefarious if consented to? I see it more like the Dee/Kelley relationship(which is a perfect example of how there are exceptions to every rule, that men are perfectly capable of developing a psychic womb--though perhaps not to as great of an effect).
EDIT: I myself have experienced possession by the anthropomorphized Nuit. She had me in total trance walking around my backyard like some seductive and voluptuous woman while my mind was off having visions of various people and places. I had no control over my body, she was using it, which is where that walking came from. I'd occasionally come back from the visions to find myself doing all manners of wild shit to the people that were there with me(apparently I was teaching them some important things), but I still had no control, mind awash in the purple. So I know it goes both ways.
-
@Pattana Gita said
"
I honesty think that is a complete myth. I could send as well as receive naturally sans any initiation from when I was 18. I sent my consciousness across town and put my bf in a trance while he was in the pub because he'd stood me up and then I astrally ranted at him a bit.
" As I said, exceptions to every rule!
Also, I think the ability to astrally do anything shows a certain degree of initiation, formal or otherwise. -
@Pattana Gita said
"
I am not an exception to the rule! The rule is bullshit!
"Fair enough. Perhaps I haven't met enough women like you to show me otherwise(which doesn't surprise me, being raised in the American suburbs). I'm only forming this on the data I've thus far collected, and that data makes you look like quite the anomaly. I mean that as a compliment!