Inverted direction of thought: Feminine=Active, Masculine=Passive

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   
This is a post where some will read the title and knowingly grin to themselves and move on. Others will (possibly) see a platform from which to assemble weapons. I will do my best to keep it simple and leave the bulk of the exploration and implications to the individual reader.

There is a direction to all thought. This direction has no direction, however it has a direction relative to all other thoughts. These directions, in a way, create a gravity whereupon thoughts collect, congeal, and compress to create seemingly coherent concepts.

C... See? Ignore that.


In the collective pool of thought I currently find myself in, there is a very VERY clear direction of thought which... in the "spiritual" or "esoteric" terms (as well as the mundane "human" terms) considers the "Feminine Aspect" to be the passive/receptive energy... and the "Masculine Aspect" to be the Active/Assertive energy.

I will not disagree that this is a quite reliable and descriptive way of interpreting the patterns of information we're exposed to and sense within ourselves.

However... this is simply and absolutely NOT fundamentally true. This is nothing more than yet another distortion within duality, and creates additional division within reality that confuses the full dynamic at play.

The "passive" force is as much an "active" (PULLING) force as the "active" force is a "passive" (PULLED) force.

In order to avoid falling into "ladies are asking for it" pits of hell I will... well looks like I already did. The purpose of that statement is to emphasize that there are many many directions a person can take this exploration of thought, some of them quite challenging in the current social paradigm. I'm not a supporter of "ladies are asking for it"... but I'm not going to ignore that there are valuable yet controversial paths to explore when reversing the perceived direction of "force".

See? Ignore that.


The typical way a human on this planet perceives an incoming asteroid is to call it a "threat"... an "incoming" "danger".

In truth this asteroid is, from a certain perspective, a PASSIVE (feminine) ACTOR in this dynamic. It is in fact the Earth's Gravity which is PULLING (masculine) the asteroid in... and the only "fault" the asteroid has is that it exists with mass near enough to our planet to be sucked in. Were the earth a less massive object with a less powerful pull... the asteroid would fly by harmlessly.

We however, would determine that this "offender" should be destroyed... because it is "threatening" our very existence.

Let us consider however that this asteroid is instead a sentient being adrift at space... with no capacity to change direction. Upon impact it will kill 1/3rd of us... as well as itself. Some would still decide to "destroy" this "active threat" before it reaches us. Some would attempt to divert it. A few would choose to die.

Let us instead consider that this asteroid is a colony of sentient beings adrift at space... with no capacity to change direction. This is simply how it reproduces. Upon impact it will kill 1/3rd of us and 2/3rds of itself... however after impact both species will still have the capacity to survive.

Who is the threat here?

Should we attach laser beams to our windshields to prevent bugs from dirtying them?

The truth is there is never a push without a pull, nor a pull without a push.

Every application of makeup or skin tight clothing is an ACTIVE force in the universe pulling upon some PASSIVE entity receptive to such stimulus.

Every invention or "achievement" is a PASSIVE force being pulled by something... some void... some pull.

Best to everyone.




posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheEgo
Every application of makeup or skin tight clothing is an ACTIVE force in the universe pulling upon some PASSIVE entity receptive to such stimulus.

Every invention or "achievement" is a PASSIVE force being pulled by something... some void... some pull.

To ensure this is placed before anyone wishes to use this as ammo: Any observant person in the world today will notice that neither sentence applies to a specific gender "anymore".

Whether it ever did except in certain pockets of culture and time, is up for debate as far as I'm concerned.

/namasalute



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 08:18 PM
link   
It's all a matter of how you look at it. While human males typically take the active role in selecting a mate, human females have the active role in attracting a mate. The male takes the active role in the conception of new life, but the female has the active role in actually bearing the child.

It is also worth noting that some of the traits we consider to be masculine or feminine in humans are reversed in other animals. Males of many species of birds, for example, have evolved colorful plumage and elaborate mating rituals to attract the interest of their plain looking females, who would otherwise just fly away if the male attempted to mate with her.
edit on 23/7/2013 by Glass because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Glass
 

100% with ya, sibling.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   
An additional followup that came through today:

When attempting to explore completely reversing the direction of perceived forces... the primary point of confusion is encountered regarding items which provide "arbitrary resistance".

As two planets are pulling on each other, there may be some "debris" between them... which will be impacted by the two larger bodies pulling upon each other. This creates a dynamic where it is easily exclaimed that the smaller bodies being impacted by one of the larger bodies as it is pulled toward the largest body are "victims".

The smaller bodies being impacted, having no awareness of the larger body pulling upon the "attacker" will perceive it as if the attacker is going after them specifically. It takes an exceptional leap of awareness to notice much less understand and appreciate that their destruction is merely a "trivial" consequence to the "passive" activity of the attacker being "actively" pulled in by some other more powerful force, no different from the "trivial" consequence of an ant hill as we build a place of worship or scientific observation.

Thank you for your time. /namasalute
edit on 24-7-2013 by ErgoTheEgo because:




posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 11:39 PM
link   
I have enjoyed the thoughts of this thread. Lots of thoughts to process and also well presented.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by TheomExperience
 

Happy to see you pulled by
and happy to hear that the thoughts have stimulated other thoughts...


Also very glad to see that the care in constructing the manner of presentation didn't go unnoticed.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Do you have any thoughts on the left and right brains contained within both male and female? It got me thinking that the passive and active "forces" would go further into the micro and it is only social stigma and pressures that seem to create a pattern of males being this and females being that.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glass
It's all a matter of how you look at it. While human males typically take the active role in selecting a mate, human females have the active role in attracting a mate. The male takes the active role in the conception of new life, but the female has the active role in actually bearing the child.


So males initiate by showing signals to a woman she is special-special then she can respond. But if he didn't show signals and she misinterpreted she might have fantasized and nothing real happened since there was only one half fantasizing and it wasn't the one that initiated.

Which is different in male-male relationships or so I believe I have noticed (if anyone openly gay I suppose could refute that or not) since most males believe they initiate something real, which can pull just like it happens with opposite genders, but really doesn't, except to them ofcourse.
edit on 25/7/2013 by Dragonfly79 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
4

log in

join