- Vincent Reynolds Can relate. a night ago I woke full of the zeal to activate a debit card, then again to take a job no longer available which I don't value more than what I'm doing now as an unemployed activist, except that it seems the way to get a mate.
Also the fleas.
Male = self-sufficient house? male = capable of fixing infrastructure? Just questioning this as a cultural truism, I am guessing you are too. I recommend Dorothy Dinnerstein's 1976 book Mermaids and Minotaurs, one of the few early books of ecopsychology, or indeed ever published, to cover human attitudes toward nature as informed by infant perception of gendered roles and gendered reliability and attractiveness. When males are distant they can seem more capable and alluring than a mother who is all too revealed as fallible and human though the primary caregiver. And what to males do but take from Mother Earth's bounty and return it to hungry infants? Lesson learned and passed down in turn, feels right and who knows, after several hundred thousand years this may be in our genes. Doesn't make it right or good for the Earth. Not an indictment of gender roles, just a caution about the unexamined way conveniently 'good' and 'proper' roles work together for unintended consequences. As Dinnerstein notes, humans will resist thinking about them, even herself.
Maven Huggins nice . Lovely Vincent. I like where your head is at/ You are one welcomed male ;) who appears to be a man. You have not been around me long enough to know i make that very strong distinction. Hope you get it. And I never read Dinnerstein but I questiion all the time and see It appears i have little interest or tolerance for the baggage that comes with most arrangement. I actually wrote about this just yesterday in more than one post in fact, so I understand it, get it and know it well. My comment was also take too seriously for I was also basically just taalking about balance and equanimity although, deep as it may be, it appears I have no need of it. I am feminine on the outside, oh so' but evidently very masculine. Masculine mentally and emotionally. I love what you see about male species though-- the eternal depletion and consumption. My joke was so complete it was and is unknown. i am a very competent female. the cathedral ceilings should /could have been the clue. I ripped off the bumper on my suv a few weeks ago and right then and there, looked for the clips and reconstituted it. i had never done that before. I have my father carl huggins to thank for some reason he spoke of being self competent but i took it to the nth degree...
i feel i am rambling though. your words are pregnant and poignant, vast and unending as fodder for thought. I shall repost. there are others who may need to check it
Incidentally, on a friends thread yesterday, ...i shall look for it and share. All your sentiments I wrote in there..and it all related to:"do we really need men" i have no male children , which i want, and i think it my purpose, but even wonder if i can trust a man to raise them..for my purpose is to repopulate the pinnacle man child in total honor to earth gaia and wombmyn - Maven Huggins Maven Huggins" you know what would be great. if one were to read the title and write one's own exigesis/confirming or negating in two regards: one for self and one's own personal experiences, and one for others and what one sees, hears and reads are the experiences of other sisters. then let the observations, stories and realities speak for itself.
i am amused. I did not read the article, just your two comments I see: Lindsey and Mills. and all i think about is I can write either an essay to integrate my life and the lives of other women around the globe, or a paragraph of my own philosophy validating the title
we are in a very bad sad depth of place. but i dont do denial. and i dont do masochism/ and further, put a premium on staying sane and healthy and integrated...
{i dont hate my black men because largely, i have stayed away from them and their common shenanigans}
Peace"
in response to this post and link> [Why Black Women Dont Need Men]
------------
So you see dear Vincent, there is almost no area i dont question or interrogate. in fact ;D, the name of my blog is questioneverythingevenyourself
Cheers!! Mate - Maven Huggins all of that Vincent, but I have to say, I do wish I could find men, real men, the ones who are most balanced, not consuming not objectifying, not steeped and made of dominant paradigms and oppressive patriarchy...but along the lines of Rumi Gibran and Rilke, who are free and able to be my good friend. I need that more than anything. but alas, the best ones I have are far away from my locus standi
- Vincent Reynolds WOW. I like your writing style but I am going to have to absorb your meanings. Have you ever gotten into feminist lit? There is a subtle agenda to suggest many variations of possible meaning, as in poetry, also the demand for contextual meaning. A move away from the voice of authority which is actually simply use of unexamined words. I actually learned my writing voice in the late 80s, reading some of the hip and self-published small press lit which was exploding then. I had done some poetry and newswriting until then, but was held back in finding my voice.
I think your advice fits because of the nature of having a public voice and in what social situations context is vacated in order, basically, to tell others how it is and what they need to do. Conversely, reality is found when that removed self is put back in. And humans have gotten to the point where reality is almost more badly needed than right action. Lost, I mean. Because abstracted and objectified perspective isn't more real than the limited perspective of an individual. In fact the limited individual perspective can lead back to reality in this case, better than the objectifying voice can narrate reality which has been lost.
I picked up this approach writing a vision statement for an intentional community. It starts one self, one other in relation to the self and the community in relation to the self. How to treat those other perspectives, identify with them via our own filters, and love them as part of the cosmic whole which is also us (via our filters).
And I read that a psychologist uses this same approach: self, other, others.
And back to gender. What is gender when looking at real people? I admit I thought you were a woman at first, then a man who happened to have an ambiguous name. Now I wonder if you are a woman (are you saying so?) and why does this matter just talking to you online? The cathedral ceiling was neutral to me, and I should explain why, in general. I am Aspergers. So the whys and wherefores of human nature don't come instinctively to me. I have to read about them as facts and often their connection with other facts never comes to me as it comes to normal people. The affinities, alignments, dividing up of the world according to polar distinctions. Because I don't have that type of brain. I have a brain capable of general processing and my 'human' specialized centers of insight died when I was about two, I guess. If my brain has re-specialized it is according to my own experience since then, not likely in ways others see as common sense.
So, that's the kind of man I am. I am in my culture and I do make gendered assumptions too. I can tell that because of the dissonance in how the gender confusion guides how I relate to you. Also the color of your skin as I guess it. How far does the sameness/difference I perceive/assume rule how we relate, online like this? I also have tried to pass as the opposite gender, in person. Many times. I came close only once. I'm pleased you aren't adamant about gender roles. Now we won't fight about that, probably, LOL. But the one aspect about me which rules how I interact is that I am never sure of anything. And I therefore question a lot of it. Not all the time.
I am very curious and drawn to hearing more of your sense of things because of those amazing comments. I should probably read your blog which I can google. I love Rilke. Assigned that at age 20 by a poetry instructor. I am a recovering Romantic though--Ken WIlber's critique of Romantic eco-writing was devastating. I love Hafiz. I am guarded toward Rumi but still in awe--wrote a poem expressing that I can share. I am cool toward Gibran, although a friend loves him so I can respect. There are women who are like them. In fact I want to friends suggest one. Perhaps in a while. There is some tension--I think the permission to be drawn toward such a thinker seems more general when there is the prospect of dualistic love, or difference love. Complementarity, Dinnerstein calls it. Or Dyadism. Dyads can happen between similar individuals, of course. But that's so arbitrary. Except the voice of social authority tries to keep it hard and fast. And as an Asperger person I like finding out what is and seeing through appearances. So while I trust your assessment I would love to hear more about you in detail. Your writing is probably the clearest way. Need to eat breakfast and possibly work on my greenhouse. Unless this conversation draws me back and diverts me... which it might. - Maven Huggins Vincent, writing you is amusing only because you keep asking me about exploring what i already am ; but that is okay it is the getting to know. I am female. fb i left saying i am h...See More
- Vincent Reynolds Thank you! I mean for the information and permission to think about your opinions. Admission/clarification here: people fascinate me--you seem nuanced and slightly contrarian, also traditionalist. Which is not what I was expecting. I looked up the Wikipedia entry on womanism. I suppose I have taken on the identification as a feminist, my reading sort of tapers off in the 80s and is heavy on poetry, anthropology and lit criticism however. The wikipedia entry on dyad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyad_%28sociology%29) is short but suffices in the sense that a dyad is a social unit for some sociological interest. Can't remember the quote or the writer who said all human stories can be simplified to three or fewer protagonists. Which is pitiful and an indictment of human stupidity. But so it goes.
What was I saying? Dyads? Part of my experience is difficulty relating to others. Being in a dyad is a challenge and it gets expenentially tougher from there, even visually tracking a crowd. And society isn't made up only of individual, dyads, and families whatever the Right says. A society is made up of all of its combinations including neighborhoods, communities, legacies etc. It just that theory often ends with what is familiar and grounding to a particular theorist. Theory which gets published by the gatekeepers of a dominant culture anyway. And admitting that a respect for all permutations and expressions of a society soon exceeds the patience of mere reading and must exist as a body of experience.
So, how is this grip over public discourse wrenched away and focused on real people? Situated testimony and acknowledgement of primary authors? And deconstruction which de-sacralizes precious theories and returns the right of theory-making to individuals? Deconstruction is also a pain in the ass for individuals who value their ideals and don't need to fragment them or reform them or replace them. But the ability to express one's self is validating. So I guess for me it all turns into storytelling in the end. With liberal honoring of each articulation.
So I guess what I get out of that wikipedia entry on womanism brings into the balance a view for theological structure, a view for the welfare of entire communities, a view for the specific experience of people.
But back to you, which I guess is also your learning and experience, but what interests me for this discussion is your willingness to not be part of a dyad, or not do dyad the traditional way, without rejecting or disrespecting those who might logically or culturally be the other unit of a dyad for you. Self-sufficiency in other words, which might or might not have identified as male. There is a big quagmire here. Which is that when there is a hierarchy or seems to be one, in a culture, a person gets judged/honored for which side of a divide they are bridging (even in themselves through honoring the opposite gender mana in themselves. It sort of depends on the judge, of course and how imaginative a judge is about guessing at motivations. If the motivations are understood easily, that's where the judging stops. If they aren't, all kinds of negative motivations get assumed.
What do I mean? I mean power. What powers do women hold? I am not trying to be funny. I am just suggesting that in a hierarchical society few spend enough time thinking seriously about this. If they did they'd come up with a huge long list. But all too many people, many men mostly but also women, might assume women lack power and are sensibly motivated to get power or at least independence and men have power and any motivations they might have to identify with woman is kinky at best and likely psychologically complicated at the least.
To which I answer that women typically have awesome, enviable social intelligence and the power of relationship-building and community-building. And that if a man didn't give a damn about looking macho or didn't even know that male and female traits are separate worlds, never to be mixed except in a dyad, he'd emulated that power, even symbolically or in his thinking.
Trouble is, few people in a hierarchic society bother to arrive at that calculation. All they see is a man acting like a woman, and thus as a perv. Definitely not dyad material.
And here is me. I can either reclaim the power of the feminine but remain solo or I can repair my wounded masculine and embody what women really want, which is a macho guy to "contain" their energy, choose for them, dominate them, daddy them and provide for them and their babies by bringing home the bacon.
And I am getting this from former feminists, very close friends of mine. White former feminists I admit and maybe they were never all that solid, LOL. But they seemed to be fellow gender-blenders. What they are saying now is that trad roles work, and dammit they want to get their family on. That's the magic mana which drives dyads, which seem to be the foundation of a society, at least according to some folks.
I am very sorry to keep writing long but I'm mad to hear what you think of this. Or you can ignore it. I'm sure you have stuff to accomplish today, your work seems dread important. I got one frame done but I find myself deconstructing why I am so keen on saving the garden I worked on all year from dying of frost before harvest.
I am getting to know you which is why I am so theory. I can be a regular person once I get an idea of someone. I like you loads because you surprised the heck out of me and turned out to be a very interesting writer, at least here on FB. I suppose I enjoy the gender trick and now that you are revealed as a woman I am indulging a special interest in women's issues, perspectives and psychology. I love getting to know women who aren't into typical women's goals, also.
en.wikipedia.org
Positivism · AntipositivismFunctionalism · Conflict theoryMiddle-range · MathematicalCritical theory · SocializationStructure and agency - Maven Huggins ;O
well this is a wonderful exchange and ask for permission to insert it into my blog> these kinds of explorations and exchanges are at home there.
It is funny you say, "your work seems dread important". Vincent. I have no work.
you also write something i have posted on in the last few days given a new experience or new engagement with new characters in recent weeks; people who are supposed to be apart from the dominant paradigm emulate just that. the traditional. which to me is shocking and challenging
i have read and learned and burned a lot of the disempowering of women, from ancient times to today. I have this page to try and combat it, in some futile waste of time way...w.facebook.com/pages/Women-Inspired/126478892166?ref=ts#
i am very totally annoyed and disappointed with women, to think they are the all powerful, creating life but living life in such fragmented, broken stripped (no pun intended) ways...but..the planetary system is what it is.
I am just trying to live and outstand (stretch to transform) me. not anyone or anything beyond me.
you read me correct. and there is nothing you write that is not apart from my view and seeing...so not much I can say except to reinforce what you have so already well written. Listen, it is always hard to walk out of boxes and off paths...which is clear it is what we are doing.. but i not only write of that triumph but the painful bitter trial that is..
what you speak of in a word is integrative/ integrated: of all energies, genders and identities...that {one } thing... - Maven Huggins i had dyad intuitively correct..the matching of paths and journeys for mutual benefit /upliftment
- Vincent Reynolds I love that last sentence, "what you speak of in a word is integrative/ integrated: of all energies, genders and identities...that {one } thing..." it excites me, cultivating attention to this is my goal. I get it from a class on Gaia ecology. Also Ken Wilber to a certain extent. Basically, most human leaders reformers think mechanistically, with bits which are supposed to embody one principle only. If these widgets integrate they do so only in an assemblage of unchangeable parts. I suppose the Wilber contribution, or Arthur Koestler's rather, is the idea of a _holon_, the insight that all things are wholes AND parts, ie. integrations of many principles on their own as well as in concert with other things.
Where this most often gets lost is the insight that a woman is a person. You must know from history that many women were physically powerful, trained warriors and warrior-queens and leaders of all sorts. I sort of subscribe to Gimbutas although Eisler's popularization of her less so. I'm sure you know it. I also celebrate the scholarship of Raphael Patai and others on Hebrew eradication of feminine principles. But I think the eradication of Celtic equality is the worst, down to present Anglo culture in America (which is very reductionist, literal and conservative).
I think your definition of dyad is too spiritual for my sense of how it is used in academia. You might be a spiritual person and I might start using your sense of it (dyad_MH) but my frustration with the American dyad is that it isn't about who a person is inside--only whether they bring home the bacon and keep the car alive or whether they keep the kids alive and put out. Sorry to be so crude. And cynical. I'm not even sure there is a spiritual dyad, at least for me. How's that for cynical?
Let's put this all together. Is there an integrated individual? Is there an integrated dyad? Is there an integrated society, and so on. You know what I mean? Are there these units who can work, be productive yet also be themselves, totally and not sublimate or need addictions or have to embody a role with their partners in order to even BE in the unit of partnership. In other words can we be ourselves openly and still be part of society? And the planet, for extra credit? Answer me that and I will be a fanboy, at least until you tell me to quit.
About quoting, I haven't made up my mind. I think you just did it for a post here on FB and I don't think I need you to delete it. Thing is, my waking drives aren't general or abstract, they are about specific people and recent situations. Would be loads better if you could wait a few weeks at least, or change my name or else edit out that 'getting a job to have a mate' bit. Everything else is fine, incl the cross-dressing. I'm open about it. I do it to try and get inside the experience of women, not to be kinky. It isn't kinky in fact and I am alarmed when people assume its kinky and try and come on to me.
I do think its a responsibility to provide for domestic partners, mates or whatever. I just rankle at being reduced to a role in order to get love. Lovers gotta live, yes, but do I have to be some role to BE a lover? And does that mean I can't parent so much cause I'm the public face and 'outside' worker of the dyad? This part is academic and related to no one in my life anymore.
I am often disappointed with theology when it is reductionist or one-dimensional. Sorry this is a hanging paragraph. Have no idea where I was going with this. If you like Rumi and womanism I might guess you are a rich theological thinker. Are you? Because I'd be mad to discuss it with you as well.
Sorry to go on and on. Aspie trait. Things will die down in a couple weeks and then I'll just go ": )" because I like you and your perspectives. And maybe I'll get to know you well enough to stop idealising you and even quibble over opinions. : ) - Vincent Reynolds The more I think about my question the more it is burning. If humans can become integrated in their societies there is hope for alignment with nature and the planet. And my measure of integration is, can they remain persons? Or maybe I am wrong. I suppose it hinges on how permeable nature is between levels of organisation. Its almost a physics question, i.e. do traits exist beyond the quanta of necessary and sufficient causes? Does a lepton change the universe beyond serving in a chemical bond? Or maybe I lapse into incoherent and obscure analogy. But I think I'm right, that chaotic complexity affects the cosmos as much as organized complexity, even though humans love order.
- Maven Huggins ah Vincent..i have always made up my own paradigm, make new definitions of old words and reformulate, if not create my own, words that is... that is what dyad is to me.
if you ever get to it, one of my favorite poems is Yea! Samurai Warrior Queen...channeling something ancient ancestral
sorry to tell you but what we are writing about here, does not exist, and i am too, thus, very cynical..even as i remain a dreamer/idealist
apologies if i transgressed. will go find that and delete and edit. funny thing is I did initially and felt i was censoring you and your voice and your experience and disingenous so i left it as is. i did flirt with just focusing on the meat of what you wrote, which was the last paragraph, but all the other parts was of value and invaluable to mbe cause here was someone else writing the trivia of their live as legit, as I do everyday to a lot of people's consternation>>
i will correct it. Forgive me, Apologies
I love your use and writing of :"i would be mad..to discuss it with you:
about theology, rich or otherwise...i believe in the theology of the self and Hig Her Self.; praying one's own name...and believe on some dimension that we were or are Gods.
yeah, no need please to idealize me, it always ends bad and no need to quibble either. I just write my story and it is not to convince, compel or convert any other...
we can just be Rumi friends of enlightened beings on our journeys..intersecting. ;)
- Vincent Reynolds LOL. Yes, idealizing is willful ignorance and being a cart before the ass, or something. Not very dependable support or friendship. I was sort of kidding about it. I think I do tend to get excited when someone is unusual or has similar interests. Then one runs a lot by the person wondering how many things in common they have. I'm not really a Rumi fan though. I'm not sure what my special interest is really. I tend to skitter from topic to new topic like Mercury. It sounds like your theology is in line with my friends, that of the intentional community I like and what I've been bombarded with lately to my benefit. But that's idealization too. Haven't even read your online writing yet. No need to rush. I should get the greenhouse up to insulating efficacy.
I think beings only do ever intersect, or share reality fields briefly and in part. Sorry if it seemed like I was coming on to you ,from Oregon to Trinidad, Bolivia. I'm not one to travel that far for love. I've started looking again after about five years of being alone. I'm on attractiveness high alert. Maybe it was better when we were both men and I wanted to make sure you weren't being a macho, LOL. We can go back to that if you like. I don't like gendered relationships really, although I like women better than men for some reason. Ambiguous or undefined is good too.
I wasn't concerned. I am very open, radically so I'd told. But it might make someone else uncomfortable or feeling their confidence betrayed. My bad, actually, I spilled it here on your post. Maybe I'll go ahead a delete my side of this discussion. I might have made an ass out of myself. I hate that. I do try and express myself uncensored. Because I tend to, or have, censored myself too much before about three years ago. Thus my frustration with being able to be myself. But I don't have to be an ass, that's bad for business. - Maven Huggins no but we all do that. I recently learned. seems others more than me. but i have suffered to realize when someone who i really wanted to be in friendship with, how ugly they become and react when their delusions are dismantled...i kind of thought, oh is that they way to keep relationships lasting...> lying, saying nothing, taking no stand, offering nothing but nods and smiles...(rolls eyes)
oh no. Vincent, no need for apologies here and nothing you wrote I took as a come on. Just as two beings excited to enjoin...that is all. my friend that is all. Please let yourself be free , unencumbered. i trust we are all of light so as to know how to dance respectfully ;)
you werent an as and I would be sorely sad and disappointed if you were to delete anything here. really i would. Part of being revolutionary and authentic is we need to stop hiding the real parts of ourselves, and we need to stop resisting being open with the best part of being human...communication and if we try to obverse that, we undermine everything...everything we say at least.
I am holding sacred space and you have not done anything here that i dont do in all if not most of my posts: Lay myself bare and no one holds space for me. I just do it cause I do it and that is what I do, damn all the bitches and haters who decry me...they exist..but so..please...dont feel any kind of way Less or wanting or incorrect. You have blessed me to trust me. and because you have written so deeply and poignantly, i saw it fit to reproduce but it is to teach others. You can run away or turn back from your accomplishment of self ...
♥
- Vincent Reynolds LOL. Yes, you are a self-sufficient man (womb-myn?). I am horrible with boundaries, that's the cause of this current faux-pas. Lately I just spill it, which is stupid. And I spill it right away, which is extra-stupid and just off-base. Because, in person anyway, I can't pick up non-verbal signaling of "I'm not interested in you that way. Give it up! You have no chance with me!". I can usually pick up "Jerk." but sometime not know precisely why. Its always boundaries though, or maybe stupid assumptions or being narrow or not being respectful of something sacred. I know very little about your thinking and nothing about your circumstances, preferences, etc. It wasn't in earnest, I am not about to go to Bolivia and I don't do long-distance letter-writing romance anymore. I suppose though that I was bordering on flirting with you or something silly. Because I'm in that mindset I guess. I get a lot out of being alone. But lately I've been seeing that I need the expectations and boundaries of others. I suppose I crave female attention too. Esp. someone creative with words and smart and aware of huge areas of knowledge and a PhD too. I had to try didn't I?
Edited before I saw your last comment and I'm really going to delete all of this, lol. I really should message you only it would seem serious then... not being too serious. This is just in fun, it seems like people flirt for the fun/seeing others in consternation and I want to do whatever other humans do. I am like Data that way, : ). I even have a genuine sense of humor although a lot of other's humor puzzles me, esp. some that seems like hazing.
I love your writing here. You are a brave, independent-minded, smart, bold honest person and even if I still thought you were a man I'd want to hear your thoughts on anything you care to talk about. I still do want that in fact. Please don't not take a stand because I was checking your interest-level. Delusions must be sprayed with violet light... ubik-spray... madness-b-gone. Cold-water if nothing else, lol :)
my every thought, consideration, theory, muse, word and whim
Monday, September 17, 2012
Dyads and Transcendent Transformative Identities;/ Humans Being Sentiment
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment