Tradition betrayed

[Josquin des Prez]

Obviously there's not a shred of evidence for this, unless you're thinking of Q Elizabeth II

I find this type of answers curious. The frame of reference is purely materialistic, but even from a materialistic point of view one should at least understand that i'm talking about a principle, not women per-se, whom for the record have nothing to do with the creation of cultural trends one way or another, in a purely direct manner (their indirect influence is another matter altogether). When we speak of masculinity and femininity we are talking about how those principles apply to males in general.

Either way, even from a materialistic frame of reference, one could interpret my statement from, say, a psychological point of view. But even that isn't enough, for what we are dealing with isn't materialism per-se, but dogma, feminist dogma at that, which transcends either intellect or reason, but is purely sentimental, which is a form of materialism yes, the lowest form to be exact.

[Karl Henning]

In its tendency towards active domination and intervention, of forcing things to fit its whims, of aggressive logic over intuition, Western civilization would actually best be characterized as "masculine" where the Tao Te Ching is concerned. Yet Yin does not by any stretch simply mean "woman" or "feminine," but rather refers to the pliable, the receptive, the soft, the yielding, the dark, the mysterious. Western civilization would not know wu-wei if it bit it on the ass

Because its teeth are neither hard nor sharp, you mean? . . .

[Florestan]

Because its teeth are neither hard nor sharp, you mean? . . .

Hah!

[Josquin des Prez]

Yet Yin does not by any stretch simply mean "woman" or "feminine," but rather refers to the pliable, the receptive, the soft, the yielding

Which is precisely the intellectual state of western civilization (I.E., a continuous state of awaiting a pregnancy, from a guiding principle). Of course, from a physical level, western civilization has been anything but, but that's because originally, it was only the brahmin cast who abdicated to a purely feminine principle (or rather, lack of any guiding principle). The kshatriya element of western culture went haywire after that, since the only guiding principle for their concentric energies became: materialism. They became the so called "men of action" of Dostovesky.

[Josquin des Prez]

Yours is a radical misinterpretation of the Tao Te Ching by any standard I've ever encountered

Its not a misinterpretation, its an application of taoistic duality within the frame of masculinity and femininity.

[Grazioso]

Because its teeth are neither hard nor sharp, you mean? . . .

Can you be like an old woman
gumming your food?
Can you dribble soup down
your hairy old chin?
The Tao is toothless
Neither hard nor sharp
The Sage bites the West on its ass.

--From the Tao Te Ching: The Lost Verses, Pfft Press: 2011

[Josquin des Prez]

A good introduction from the perspective of Western thought is The Way of Zen by Alan Watts.

I'm not sure i trust a modern perspective, at this point. This is why i chose Evola, at least i know i'm getting an esoteric interpretation, right or wrong that it may be.

[kishnevi]

Its not a misinterpretation, its an application of taoistic duality within the frame of masculinity and femininity.

But the point of Taoist thought is to move beyond the dualities to the Unity that underlies everything.

I would suggest skipping Evola and every other interpretation and trying to grapple  with the texts themselves directly. 

As to the difference between masculine and feminine--one of the main points of the "perennial philosophy" is that everything has its source in the Divine, and therefore everything is equally divine; it's just a matter of seeing through the superficial appearances that mask the Divine, or (from another angle) transcending our human limitations to experience the Divine in all things.
So you see, you, me, db71, Richard Dawkins, Barack Obama's Kenyan grandmother--everyone--is equally God, and that means everyone, black white red polka dotted, male female androgynous GBLTQ.... is equal to each other.  You can't say that anyone is inferior to anyone else, because they are all equal to you.

Likewise for my recent realization for the existence of God, which is not something i feel, once again, it is a question of intellectual certitude.

If it's intellectual certitude, than you're not  getting the point.  The goal  is experiential certitude.   By experiential certitude, I mean the same sort of certitude that you have about the air you breathe.  You didn't conclude the air you breathe exists because of any intellectual argument; you know it exists because you experience it with every breath you take, etc.  Your intellectual certitude is secondary to this:  prompted by the experience, perhaps explaining what the experience is, but always an offshoot of that experience.

And to clarify further, when I say I feel God, I don't mean an emotional feeling--I mean feel in an almost sensory sort of way (almost sensory of course, since God can't be "felt" in a purely sensory way:  how I feel an apple, not how I feel about the music of Bach.

[Florestan]

So you see, you, me, db71, Richard Dawkins, Barack Obama's Kenyan grandmother--everyone--is equally God, and that means everyone, black white red polka dotted, male female androgynous GBLTQ.... is equal to each other.  You can't say that anyone is inferior to anyone else, because they are all equal to you.

You forgot to include Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tsedong, Pol Pot and Ted Bundy...

[Karl Henning]

All equal, in all ways?

[kishnevi]

You forgot to include Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tsedong, Pol Pot and Ted Bundy...

But the statement applies to them just as well.  Because individuals act very undivinely does not mean that their source is not in the Divine.

All equal, in all ways?

Yes.  "God in all and all in God".  The fundamental equality renders the superficial differences trivial.  It does not render them non existent, but it means it we need to focus on the fundamental equality more than we do on the surface differences.

Remember constantly that everyone you deal with is equally divine with you, and their differences from you become secondary things.

[Karl Henning]

The fundamental equality renders the superficial differences trivial.

That idea is problematic.

[Florestan]

But the statement applies to them just as well.  Because individuals act very undivinely does not mean that their source is not in the Divine.Yes.  "God in all and all in God".  The fundamental equality renders the superficial differences trivial.  It does not render them non existent, but it means it we need to focus on the fundamental equality more than we do on the surface differences.

Remember constantly that everyone you deal with is equally divine with you, and their differences from you become secondary things.

So all a Jew had to do in Auschwitz was to focus on his fundamental divine equality with Dr. Mengele and not on their trivial superficial differences, much less on secondary things as the death awaiting him and his relatives and friends.

[kishnevi]

So all a Jew had to do in Auschwitz was to focus on his fundamental divine equality with Dr. Mengele and not on their trivial superficial differences, much less on secondary things as the death awaiting him and his relatives and friends.

Not quite.  The Auschwitz inmate would still deal with those "secondary things" but he would escape the trap of hating Mengele and Mengele's accomplices.

Or to flip it: had Mengele and the other Nazis understood that fundamental equality, they would have not done the things they did do.

[kishnevi]

That idea is problematic.

The opposite idea--that the differences really matter--is even more problematic, since that's the root of racism, sexism, etc.

The principle does not mean that one should deny the differences;  it means you should treat them as the surface things they are.  Do not treat a black man as a black who is a man; treat him as a man who happens to be black.  Deal with the individual always, as someone who is fundamentally your equal.

[Florestan]

Not quite.  The Auschwitz inmate would still deal with those "secondary things" but he would escape the trap of hating Mengele and Mengele's accomplices.

Or to flip it: had Mengele and the other Nazis understood that fundamental equality, they would have not done the things they did do.

So anyone who would have killed Hitler or Mengele would have been guilty of killing God, nay, indeed of comitting suicide: "God in all and all in God".

[Florestan]

The Auschwitz inmate would still deal with those "secondary things" but he would escape the trap of hating Mengele and Mengele's accomplices.

Pantheismus macht frei.

[Karl Henning]

The opposite idea--that the differences really matter--is even more problematic, since that's the root of racism, sexism, etc.

But I disagree, because I do not believe that acknowledging the importance of the differences compels those evils.

[Josquin des Prez]

But the point of Taoist thought is to move beyond the dualities to the Unity that underlies everything.

Yes, the unity is human kind, the duality is male and female.

I would suggest skipping Evola and every other interpretation and trying to grapple with the texts themselves directly.

Well, i'm curious to see what the old fascist has to say on the subject, being that my intellectual ground work has close ties with that of Evola and others like him.

As to the difference between masculine and feminine--one of the main points of the "perennial philosophy" is that everything has its source in the Divine, and therefore everything is equally divine; it's just a matter of seeing through the superficial appearances that mask the Divine, or (from another angle) transcending our human limitations to experience the Divine in all things.
So you see, you, me, db71, Richard Dawkins, Barack Obama's Kenyan grandmother--everyone--is equally God, and that means everyone, black white red polka dotted, male female androgynous GBLTQ.... is equal to each other.  You can't say that anyone is inferior to anyone else, because they are all equal to you.

I find that perspective troubling. Long isn't the same as short. Unity exists only in duality. So to argue that everything is the same is to miss the point as well. A duality means that one side is the opposite of the other. If masculine is vertical, by extension the feminine has to be horizontal. This has nothing to do with concepts of inferiority or superiority, which seem to be sentimental (moralistic) in nature. The masculine isn't superior to the feminine, this entire line of thinking is just childish. The fact there has never been and never will be any female sage or genius is a problem which the perennial traditional school has to deal with at one point, if they truly want to have a chance in saving traditional principles in the midst of the onslaught of modernist disintegration.

If it's intellectual certitude, than you're not  getting the point.  The goal  is experiential certitude.   By experiential certitude, I mean the same sort of certitude that you have about the air you breathe.  You didn't conclude the air you breathe exists because of any intellectual argument; you know it exists because you experience it with every breath you take, etc.  Your intellectual certitude is secondary to this:  prompted by the experience, perhaps explaining what the experience is, but always an offshoot of that experience.

I'm not sure, really. When i say intellect of course, i'm not talking about reason. I haven't reasoned God out, or anything for that matter. Maybe you could call it intuition, but is intuition experience? All i know is that certitude seems to be a part of it, and certitude is the result of an intellectual process. Its like what Karl Jung said. I don't believe in God, i don't experience God, i don't feel God (well, i added the last two). I simply know.

And to clarify further, when I say I feel God, I don't mean an emotional feeling--I mean feel in an almost sensory sort of way (almost sensory of course, since God can't be "felt" in a purely sensory way:  how I feel an apple, not how I feel about the music of Bach.

Well, i don't know about Judaism, but in most modern Christian circles, claiming to "feel" God points to nothing more then wallow sentimentality, so you always need to be careful when you talk about certain subjects, in order to avoid misunderstanding.

BTW, do you have any particular recommendation for a good commentary on the old testament (Tanakh, whatever you want to call it)? All i have right now is the translation by Everett Fox (which i hope he is going to complete within my lifetime, blasted hell), which only offers a few secular pointers.

[kishnevi]

So anyone who would have killed Hitler or Mengele would have been guilty of killing God, nay, indeed of committing suicide: "God in all and all in God".

But how can you kill God? 

Better to say that Hitler's assassin would release Hitler from the trap of his own ego and ego based delusions, and keep Hitler from killing the God to be found in others.

Again--the idea I'm stating does not deny that men do evil things, or that differences among people do not exist.  But even the most evil of humans can have no existence outside of God, for the simple reason that nothing can exist outside of God.

And keeping in mind the divine nature of each and every one of us will keep you from doing things such as Hitler et al. did.