Man-woman/male-female

[twinstar0]

This thread has been very helpful, as I am a woman and all of my group of friends (in person) in The Work are male. As I go deeper into the book Gnosis my "role" became a source of a lot of confusion.

Thank you!
Theresa

 

[Laura]

There are some great passages about positive/negative, male/female, in Chittick's "The Sufi Path of Knowledge." His description of the feminine principle is excellent.

 

[daco]

Anyone read Otto Weininger book Sex and Character?
I want to post some quotes from book,but he is viewed as misogynistic and antisemitic in academic circles and has hard words about women in particular,but beside that he have some good points about women.
I want to ask permission for this if I can post it.

 

[einheri-limetree]

There are some great passages about positive/negative, male/female, in Chittick's "The Sufi Path of Knowledge." His description of the feminine principle is excellent.

On the search with Google i have found this,it seems it is a little bit overloaded with islamism and has a complex language but it is a interesting article :)
Goes this article in some cases in the direction which you mean ?

The Creative Feminine Principle in
Ibn al-‘Arabi’s School of Thought
(Part-II)
__http://www.allamaiqbal.com/publications/journals/review/apr07/5.htm

 

[cubbex]

But doesn't it make sense that male and female roles should be different in most cases? In the example of the knight and the maiden, the knight does the Work. His role is to protect the source of creativity and nurture. He takes the active role. He slays dragons and creates a safe environment for the maiden. She nurtures him to health after battling to create such an environment.

All men and women with atrophied emotional centers must Work to bring forth Divine Creativity - I think that Divine Creativity cannot survive through us in this realm without those in which 'she' exists having an active emotional center - which is rather like air to 'her' (though 'her' is a limiting word to use for the Essence of Life - it is also 'him').

I do get your point about the physical female 'default setting' of a more active emotional center and think it likely applies in a lot of cases, but in this exceedingly toxic world, it is not - in any way shape or form - a given. I also think that the masculine and feminine attributes are spoken of here symbolically - our true essences are neither 'masculine' nor 'feminine' - and each person has specific blocks to overcome (programs to rewire) depending on their nature, nurture, soul imprint, etc. - in order to find/call forth/rescue and protect/become a representative of Divine Creativity in this realm. The point seems to me to be the use of an archetype to illustrate that what is missing must be actively found, protected, nurtured and it takes the attributes of a Knight to do so - whether that Knight is male or female - but that's just my take and I tend to 'think outside of the box' on this topic.

;)

I just have to say anart that, well I wrote a fictional story, but in that fictional story this kind of knight has a battle to protect some woman that is the source of the information, so its like... I don't know where I get all this inspiration, because is like you are describing the essence of that moment.

Thanks to sharing.

 

[psychic_spy]

''Shortly after the earring episode with Mme Schernvall, he brought up once again the question of men and women, their roles in life, and, as an additional element, the specific roles of the sexes in his work or, for that matter, in any religious or psychological work which had self-development and proper growth as an aim. I was surprised and puzzled then, and many times later when he spoke on the subject, by his reiteration of the fact that not only was his work "not for everyone" but that "women did not need it." He said that the nature of women was such that "self development" in his sense of the phrase was something that they could not achieve. Among other things, he said: "Nature of woman is very different from that of man. Woman is from ground, and only hope for her to arise to another stage of development - to go to Heaven as you say - is with man. Woman already know everything, but such knowledge is of no use to her, in fact can almost be like poison to her, unless have man with her. Man have one thing that not exist in woman ever: what you call 'aspiration'. In life, man use this thing - this aspiration - for many things, all wrong for his life, but must use because have such need. Man - not woman - must climb mountains, go under oceans, fly in air, because must do such thing. Impossible for him not to do; cannot resist this. Look at life around you: Man write music, man paint pictures, write books, all such things. Is way, he think, find Heaven for self."

That's definitely sexist, no matter how many arguments you bring to affirm that Gurdjieff was giving a more symbolic meaning to those ideas.
I would rather choose to think Frantz Peter misunderstood or mispelled G's words. After i read '' In Search of the Miracolous'' all i can say is that G is quite clear about the way he refers to classes of things and i don't think in this context he refers to any symbolic meaning , yin or yang , feminine or masculine principle. How can a principle issue from the ''ground''?
I know I may sound abrupt but taking into account spiritual elevation, acquiring an individual ''I'' and becoming a full integrate human being with four functional centres how ccan it be possible for a man and not for a woman on the material plane? And that women don't aspire to climb moutains , go under oceans, paint , write ..? I discover his way of seing things very subjective since on another paraghaph he refers to principles indeed and to the predominance of one of feminine or masculine principle in some persons but in this paragrh he stately refers to the mechanical being, man and woman, that is, and their social conditionning ( if only Peter's words utter the truth)

 

[RyanX]

That's definitely sexist, no matter how many arguments you bring to affirm that Gurdjieff was giving a more symbolic meaning to those ideas.
I would rather choose to think Frantz Peter misunderstood or mispelled G's words. After i read '' In Search of the Miracolous'' all i can say is that G is quite clear about the way he refers to classes of things and i don't think in this context he refers to any symbolic meaning , yin or yang , feminine or masculine principle. How can a principle issue from the ''ground''?

I know I may sound abrupt but taking into account spiritual elevation, acquiring an individual ''I'' and becoming a full integrate human being with four functional centres how ccan it be possible for a man and not for a woman on the material plane? And that women don't aspire to climb moutains , go under oceans, paint , write ..? I discover his way of seing things very subjective since on another paraghaph he refers to principles indeed and to the predominance of one of feminine or masculine principle in some persons but in this paragrh he stately refers to the mechanical being, man and woman, that is, and their social conditionning ( if only Peter's words utter the truth)

Hi psychic_spy,

I'm just wondering if you've read this whole thread in its entirety yet? Because if you did, then the above remark you quoted should make a lot more sense. There's really no reason to assume that G was talking about actual Men and Women in this quote. This thread contains some valuable information on the concept of paired opposites, but you seem to missed this concept and instead focused on the literal meaning of the terms Man and Woman. FWIW.

 

[psychic_spy]

Ryan, Hello you too

I read it alright but it didn't sound convincing enough, not even if i read hundred times. I appreciate G but this statement quite clearly refers to gender in a social background. It doesn't say anywhere otherwise.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Ryan, Hello you too

I read it alright but it didn't sound convincing enough, not even if i read hundred times. I appreciate G but this statement quite clearly refers to gender in a social background. It doesn't say anywhere otherwise.

Consider a few things. First, Gurdjieff had many female students whom he taught in a similar manner as the males. In fact, during the late thirties he worked almost exclusively with a group of lesbians. Second, he often told students not to believe anything he said, to question everything, and that he often spoke literally and in metaphor and that it was the student's job to discern which was which. He would also make contradictory statements, for the student to think for themselves and decide which was correct. For Gurdjieff, "man" was active, "woman" was passive. "Ground", "earth", and "body" are all passive elements according to his Law of Three. Third, even with all that said, Gurdjieff did have what would today be considered sexist attitudes. He thought men and women were different and had certain roles. C.S. Nott remarked that after working with him, male students would become more masculine and female students would become more feminine. In one talk he remarked that men needed to learn how to feel more, and women needed to learn how to think more. Lastly, I would take the remark you quoted with a grain of salt, considering it was Fritz Peters who wrote it, and he often made things up to suit the needs of his 'story'.

 

[Meager1]

In the example of the knight and the maiden, the knight does the Work. His role is to protect the source of creativity and nurture. He takes the active role. He slays dragons and creates a safe environment for the maiden. She nurtures him to health after battling to create such an environment.

What if the environment spoken of in the above is just eluding to, or meant to be a representation of a right internal environment, more so then an external one, which could mean that the knight is needing to protect his own lady/feminine principle, within himself, and the lady nurturing her knight/male principle within herself as well, the real life knight/male and lady/female simply being metaphors?

Gender would not even come into play as anything more then the costume one wears, or as an indication perhaps, of the predominant principle carried within at birth?

And perhaps to, if this were the case then recognizing and relating to a functioning principle carried within ones self, if in harmony, with whatever gender presents as a life partner, would make more sense, then just an "opposite sex" partner, in any working relationship.

It would just seem that if a person is in the process of becoming whole within, then even attempting to merge the two separate or opposite "sexes" from without, as is usually done to obtain wholeness within, would be a horrible trap and a sure bet to misery.

And it would also seem that only two people who have integrated their own working "principles" first, would even have much of a change of being a good reflection of, or any help to the other, in any kind of long term relationship.?

 

[Approaching Infinity]

In the example of the knight and the maiden, the knight does the Work. His role is to protect the source of creativity and nurture. He takes the active role. He slays dragons and creates a safe environment for the maiden. She nurtures him to health after battling to create such an environment.

What if the environment spoken of in the above is just eluding to, or meant to be a representation of a right internal environment, more so then an external one, which could mean that the knight is needing to protect his own lady/feminine principle, within himself, and the lady nurturing her knight/male principle within herself as well, the real life knight/male and lady/female simply being metaphors?

Gender would not even come into play as anything more then the costume one wears, or as an indication perhaps, of the predominant principle carried within at birth?

And perhaps to, if this were the case then recognizing and relating to a functioning principle carried within ones self, if in harmony, with whatever gender presents as a life partner, would make more sense, then just an "opposite sex" partner, in any working relationship.

It would just seem that if a person is in the process of becoming whole within, then even attempting to merge the two separate or opposite "sexes" from without, as is usually done to obtain wholeness within, would be a horrible trap and a sure bet to misery.

And it would also seem that only two people who have integrated their own working "principles" first, would even have much of a change of being a good reflection of, or any help to the other, in any kind of long term relationship.?

This post from Laura goes into more detail: http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=4892.msg81820#msg81820

 

[Meager1]

I have read that Approaching Infinity, thanks for the link to refresh some concepts.

I think my "sticky" point may be in some residual biblical gloss that I haven`t been able to eliminate or separate, from the knight/lady idea yet.

For instance, the feminine was separated from the masculine as in the Adam and Eve story.

The woman consorts with the wrong side, was this confusion, or the first attempt in seeking a wrong "knight" outside of herself?

And if originally the two principles resided in One being, ( as in neither male or female) then it would seem that just any old knight coming down the pike would never do.

It would need to be the original "knight" or principle, that was in residence with the lady in the beginning!

Her own "true other" that she would be seeking and not just "a" similar principle as a substitute for that.

I guess my confusion is this..are we talking about a "true reunion" of two separated parts that can make a whole, or are we talking about picking up conglomerated bits and pieces that could come together and resemble a whole?

And wouldn`t it by necessity, have to done within every person, individually?

 

[cubbex]

As I see with anart and others analogy, is that the female essence was the creativity essence, I remember there is a session about it and the fall. As I see it the wishful thinking maybe has separated the whole of a human being, from thinking that every knowledge was going to be in an apple lol, so we have aligned with the STS forces. That's what I understood from the wave chapter and all the metaphor/analogy to Adam and Eve.

I have thought that maybe the humans were hermaphrodites in analogy to their spiritual or male/female union, and indeed, made relationships between them in an external one representation, intercalating between sexes. I don't really know, the balance of the universe is represented in lot of examples.