Random Messages
-
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!
-
@Pattana Gita said
"Well I think if you look again at the data with a critical eye (not just assuming) you'll find that women have been doing more than passively receiving throughout history, just as men have been doing more than sending."
I totally agree!
Of course, since "men never listen to women," it's clear women have never been communicating anything, right?
-
@Pattana Gita said
"
Well I think if you look again at the data with a critical eye (not just assuming) you'll find that women have been doing more than passively receiving throughout history, just as men have been doing more than sending."If you look at my first post on this thread, you'll see that I understand that. There's just a natural tendency in either direction among the masses. It takes a conscious breaking of the pattern.
@Pattana Gita said
" We all have an ida and a pingala. Sexually - a man's balls are a first stage womb - a man womb that a woman can send to. All those beautiful and innocent homonculi are just waiting for you to stir them into life. More women should be aware of this instead of just doing it naturally on autopilot. Have some intent and some love and will brought to the matter!
"That's the key! It's SO rare to find women that are aware of that! You're honestly the first I've had interactions with that is(gonna fix this, if it's the death of me!), and I've nearly driven myself mad in the past desperately trying to get the girls in my life to see that part of themselves and engage in a relationship with more intent and love and will, but at first it honestly scares them(in my experience). It takes so much digging to undo all of the conditioning put into them by parents and school and practically everything else; it never even crossed their minds that they didn't have to serve. At least here, specifically where I grew up, it's much tougher for them to find their individuality--there's much more of a violent reaction against it.
-
Most men have a BIG womb or vessel inside their anus. It´s not necessary to link a video, if you think in fist fuking the thing gets clear.
-
Ha! Good point. I restricted my view. Tibet, it goes both ways(though I've seen more women in the position than otherwise). Siberia, I don't know. I suppose anyone can take Amanita Muscaria.
And with genius... When I speak of broad patterns, I speak of the masses, not the rare gems. They are a Law unto themselves and defy declarative statements. The hope is that we'll eventually reach the point where all have access to their own higher genius, but that's just not the case right now.
-
93,
While I get we all can benifit from sharpening our communication skills and writing ability, I also think we could pick our battles better.
It seems easy for scholars to pick apart minute details of some particular post finding fault. However, is it worth it in every case??
I honestly am disappointed in how many can shake a finger at and lecture someone who was obviously making an innocent comment. I just feel that milkbox didn't warrent the type of reaction he got. We should be more tolerant of speach unless its required. To go around picking apart posts, finding problems with the way someone happens to phrase something, and jumping on them is silly.
This accomplishes what? It diverts the thread for one, second its obvious there wasn't any malicious intent etc., and so you repay someone for interacting by making them feel bad. Third, it generates hostility, and bad feelings between us, and why would we want that among fellow spiritual seekers? Shouldn't we be trying to foster unity? Bashing one with insults and or what not over an obvious mistake is just childish in my opinion.
Jim, while I totally get where your coming from, and your points, it seems unfair to not also give a lecture to those who seem to bully for no real good reason. Right? Sure you can explain how "technically" a statement is "sexist" but why not teach others to descriminate what was intentional and warrenting tolerance?
I for one an discouraged from posting by this. I'm no scholar, and not as articulate as many if you. If you think bashing me (and others) for some unseen angle is going to replace a college degree your wrong. It makes one weary of posting, second guessing every word, and so stressfull and tedious. I say correct someone if you must, but choose YOUR words better in terms of tact and respect!
After all, there's more to harm others than mistaken sexist remarks, there are feelings at stake, and the potential loss of good intentioned participation here with this sort of scholarly big brother.
Again, I'm sorry Milkbox, I feel bad because you responded to my thread and were caught up in this "trip-wire" nonesense.
93 93/93
J -
J.L.,
First, I appreciate the feedback. I take in all such feedback about the forum and how people experience it and, even if it doesn't have an immediate effect, it gradually informs my decisions over time.
@J L Romer said
"I honestly am disappointed in how many can shake a finger at and lecture someone who was obviously making an innocent comment. I just feel that milkbox didn't warrent the type of reaction he got. We should be more tolerant of speach unless its required. To go around picking apart posts, finding problems with the way someone happens to phrase something, and jumping on them is silly. "
I agree that he had an innocent intent. I disagree that it was an innocent (or harmless) post. His remarks reinforced some of the cultural attitudes that are very hurtful in our society I'm not sure that there is a more important single issue, in the unfolding of Thelema, than the dismantling of sexism - if for no other reason than that it is the primary cultural legacy of the Osiris Aeon that we carry around with us throughout our day. On this issue, if someone isn't actively a part of the solution, then they're part of the problem.
My effort was to distinguish opinions about milkbox himself from opinions about what he said and how he said it.
"This accomplishes what?"
See above.
"It diverts the thread for one, second its obvious there wasn't any malicious intent etc., and so you repay someone for interacting by making them feel bad."
My honest view is that if he feels bad from candid feedback on how he is coming across, then that's something for him to work on. He has much to gain by incorporating just that type of feedback.
"Third, it generates hostility, and bad feelings between us, and why would we want that among fellow spiritual seekers? Shouldn't we be trying to foster unity? Bashing one with insults and or what not over an obvious mistake is just childish in my opinion."
I agree with your motive, and most of the time agree with the method. However, despite his innocent (naive, ignorant, inattentive, sloppy) intent, I think it was his post that carried the hostile colntent, and that needed to be confronted.
"Jim, while I totally get where your coming from, and your points, it seems unfair to not also give a lecture to those who seem to bully for no real good reason."
Anyone with a habit of that gets attention from me. (Some of them are still around and will be able to confirm that.)
"Sure you can explain how "technically" a statement is "sexist" but why not teach others to descriminate what was intentional and warrenting tolerance?"
Because eradicating sexism is a far bigger issue. - BTW, you may have missed that I was talking to others on this thread, but I was doing it by modelling a wider approach. They didn't need a lecture, they needed an example. (And the people I have in mind have shown, in the past, the ability to pick up on that sort of thing and get back into their freeway lane. Milkbox, on the other hand, has never particularly shown an ability to take input and make changes from it, so I felt I needed to speak directly.)
"I for one an discouraged from posting by this. I'm no scholar, and not as articulate as many if you. If you think bashing me (and others) for some unseen angle is going to replace a college degree your wrong. It makes one weary of posting, second guessing every word, and so stressfull and tedious. I say correct someone if you must, but choose YOUR words better in terms of tact and respect! "
Didn't I? I thought my post showed total respect for the person. Not the ideas, not the word choices, but for the person. The words simply had to be knocked down and demolished - they could not be allowed to stand unchallenged. But, even better, is to give someone the opportunity to learn from the experience and approach their communication better in the future.
"After all, there's more to harm others than mistaken sexist remarks, there are feelings at stake, and the potential loss of good intentioned participation here with this sort of scholarly big brother."
I appreciate the feedback. We don't agree on all things (and that's fine with me).
-
Sorry Jim, I was directing the disrespect comment etc, at the others not you. You were respectful, I just feel that others could approach it with more respect and tact. I think the point would get across better (from them initially) with a respectful tone.
I do think he apologized in a way by trying to clarify. If he was mistaken, not seeing the technical aspect, I don't see how others can be angry and judgmental. Even IF technically sexist was it that big of an offence in terms of sexism? Really?
Im not taking fault with you here, as much as I do with others being just unjustly disrespectful. I certainly wouldn't want to be attacked like this, especially if I meant well. IDK, maybe its just me. Maybe I just don't get it.
93 93/93
J -
@J L Romer said
"If he was mistaken, not seeing the technical aspect, I don't see how others can be angry and judgmental."
Well.. that's human nature. And sometimes it is ameliorated by a friendly response of, "Oh, my, that was a bit judgmental, don't you think?"
"Even IF technically sexist was it that big of an offence in terms of sexism? Really? "
It could have been much worse, agreed. I was more concerned about his resistance to the feedback than to the original statement. (Notice that I didn't enter into the matter until it hit that point.)' His recurrent entrenchment behind "This is my experience!" is simply rigidity that would keep him from seeing the consequences of his actions. There was an opportunity of a teaching moment presented.
"IDK, maybe its just me. Maybe I just don't get it. "
Probably
I want to create and maintain an environment here that is welcoming, and that encourages participation. I'm doing that in the midst of a culture of people that value direct confrontation. This works when it is spirited and good-hearted, and the target is open to receiving the feedback.