> read the article I would love to hear your sense
> of it, not necessarily on a male/female divide
> perspective but whether it is something you can
> relate to from within.
Hi again, Maria. I will say at the front end, that I enjoyed your article and consider our differences relatively trivial to the overall substance that I picked up on upon having taken a read. But first, I would like to address something else at the front end.
> Dear Poster Boy (I don't think I've ever said that
> thank you for your input. I must say, your
> response to the 'non-read' article speaks of
> prejudices- but not necessarily mine -and remind
> me how threatening some words have become in our
> society that the mere mention of them result in a
> string of other word associations, just as
Just so there is no ambiguity on the part of other readers, I am the one whom you are suggesting is being "prejudiced," and that's perfectly okay with me.
Just so we're also clear, in no way whatsoever do I find your use of words "threatening." What I perceive is a kind of misappropriation of (big-F) Feminism, through the labelling of certain mundane behaviors and states, as feminine-spiritual "femtheogenic" consciousness . I say that very respectfully, and believe that the impulse may have something to do with what you wrote in your article, with which I am in firm agreement"
"Patriarchy’s attack on the feminine is a collective wound and responsibility. The devaluing of the feminine has damaged the feminine."
The question I think, when I read that, was 'how might we repair that?' Then I thought, 'I honestly don't believe that the divine feminine needs any fixing at all. It's out of our collective reach to damage!
The problem has more to do with the undervaluing of women at the mundane level, in general. It is understandable that right-thinking persons will want to restore women's proper place in our spiritual institutions, which is to say as co-equals with men. But we must take care how we do this, and labelling certain experiences as "feminine" - if they are not necessarily that, is not the way to go in my opinion.
Here's what I'm getting at, Maria..
This weekend I learned that a childhood friend had, in recent years, become confined to a wheelchair. As if that weren't enough, around the time this happened his son, who must be in junior high school as I write. When I learned this I was informed that his mother has just died of cancer. My friend didn't attend the funeral, because he didn't want to redirect any attention his way. I am told that his father has cancer now too.
I learned of these things through another elementary school classmate, who knows my friend's sister through her place of work. Word about my friend's condition had gotten around, and when I asked if I could reach out to my friend, he said that I was the only one he wished to make contact with...
So, Maria, when I learned all of these things, I began to feel in certain ways that I would regard as spiritual, and therefore associated with other times when I felt what I would call spiritual consciousness. I'm still quite 'there', as I am yet to reach out to my friend but want to tread carefully when we reconnect, if only to be there, and let him know that going forward I'm going to be there by his side, in a manner of speaking, any time he wishes to reach out.
I thought of your article after I had this shift in awareness, and found myself thinking that 'it' - this special kind of awareness, is really not something that I would not attach a gender association to. That said, as far as my friend is concerned, and certainly based on past spiritual experiences, I fully expect that I will receive guidance on this because I believe I have been brought to my friend.
It is not easy to speak up today
> about these matters as they are quite volatile,
> and yet it is essential that we do so however
> fragile the container of language might prove to
> be -for the nuance around such matters is endless-
> words and language is the only way we have.I will
> follow this with urging you to read the text, to
> spot yourself in your response, though I will of
> course respond to your main points nonetheless.
> The premise of this article is nowhere near sexist
> or aiming to separate men from women or suggesting
> that this text is for special women's reading
I fully trust your intent. But I do think we can, at times, have good intentions and do things that are sexist. But as I was saying, thisis something that I think pales in comparison to your article's overall message.
As this may apply to your main message, I have been very interested in how psychedelics are gaining the attention of mainstream medical professionals. I expect this to continue and perhaps lead to the legalization of psychedelics, in some form, owing to how profoundly many subjects describe their psychedelic effects. But as they collate ever-increasing amounts of information, I doubt that medical professionals will describe them as "feminine" or "masculine".
Having said that, I am intrigued by how Graham Hancock has, at least in the past, described his ayahuasca as involving "Mother" ayahuasca. That descriptor suggests to me that he really did encounter a feminine being, but only after he imbibed on what looks, to me, like some pretty gender-neutral looking beverage. This is not the first time I have heard this sort of thing.
In fact the main premise of the text is that
> the feminine as an archetype is part of all of us,
> men as well as women. So is the masculine (which I
> myself have had overdeveloped for most of my life
> and still serves me extremely well but has been
> having to negotiate with the feminine a lot
> more!). We all hold the masculine and the feminine
> energies within us and need to cultivate a balance
> between the two internally.
100 percent. I think we're clear now. I simply hesitate to label those archetypes into male and female categories. I see where you're going now, and I quite agree.
> Also my research is about exploring the
> intersections between the feminine archetype and
> altered states of consciousness. Perhaps another
> article could explore the intersections between
> the male archetype and altered states, to do so
> wouldn't necessarily be an attack on women.
> I personally consider archetypes as symbolic
> representations of our psyche. If one does not
> ascribe to archetypes they could also understand
> these ideas as metaphors that helps us get nearer
> to matters that can be difficult to describe. We
> don't need to discard any metaphors in so far as
> they offer us a glimpse into something we can hold
> on to or utilize.
I definitely agree, and have often marvelled at how well this is articulated, in the personalized sense.
> Regarding patriarchy, my view is that we are all
> victims of it to one extend or another. I have
> seen many posts recently questioning it's very
> existence, that for me is pure abc stuff, if we
> start negotiating at ground 0 we will never get
> anywhere. The greatest challenge patriarchy has
> created for men is that it has taught them to not
> feel their feelings and it can take men a lot to
> break through cultural conditioning and
> expectations to find a way through that barrier.
Yes, there is a lot of unhealthy inertia there, but it cuts both ways.
"One of the major insights of femtheogenic consciousness is the awareness of interconnectedness and oneness."
Lao Tse would call this the Tao, which includes yet transcends the yin and yang.
"The next femtheogenic link is creativity. Patriarchy has suppressed our creative forces by focusing on logic and the mind"
You seem to be leaving aside everything that has been created, through insight, by men. Alternatively, your definition invites the interpretation that all of the great discoveries, by men, were feminine in essence. They might be, but I hesitate to presume so.
> As a therapist I work with both men and women, I
> hold them all in utmost respect for the humanity
> they bring to their work, and when we work with
> these internal elements (with both men and women)
> it is never to shame them, attack them or
> disempower them, it is to support them to access
> the breadth and depth of their inner resources.
> I hope all of the above is reassuring :)
Yes, it is of course, Maria. Given your sincere intentions, I am sure that you do a lot of good as a counselor with this framework. But I do sense an agenda, which I'm not quite in agreement with. Perhaps this line speaks to it the best, "There has been a lot of talk about the return of the Divine Feminine. The return of the Divine Feminine is essentially a new mythology for challenging the existing patriarchal structures and for the expansion of our consciousness."
Elsewhere you say, "Psychedelic Mysteries of the Feminine aims to address the inequalities within psychedelic culture by bringing more feminine voices and matters to the surface."
This sound to me like a set of mundane issues that you are referring to. I would be interested in how these things play out, how we might fix them, and so on.
The construction of mythologies are, in my opinion, centrally involve a very different thing. Whether they be in the forms of stories, or taxonomic constructs, at best mythologies encourage people to look in spiritual directions that tend to get overlooked, especially in our busy and overly materialistic modern societies. Problems arise when the lines between a mythology's purpose and what is real get muddied.
I don't mean to sound overly nit-picky, but I would say that there's no need to talk abut the "return" of the Divine Feminine because, again, the Divine Feminine never went away. I am more interested if ayahuasca provides a way of connecting to the Divine Feminine, as Graham and others seem to attest through their reverential use of the term, Mother and related feminine archetypes.
Thanks for reading this.