Well I decided to split Gluadys' thread, Gender, Science and the Dark Side of Dualism, as I thought she was finished and I was a bit premature in responding. At least this way it will allow her to finish posting without derailing the thread any further. Thanks.


Should women become like men and men become like women? I don't think so. Otherwise what's the point in having the opposite sex? Of course that isn't to say they can't become more like each other, because they were meant to be actual "reciprocals" of each other. But, as far as making a man's role completely interchangable with a woman's, I don't think that's correct, primarily because men and women are not designed the same. While here men tend to be more rugged and exterior and concerned with the outer form, or truth, and women tend to be more soft and interior and concerned with the inner essence, or good. So in this respect the world may be reflective of man, at least on the surface anyway but, only because the truth is much more visible. While the sole purpose of the truth which, is derived from good, is to protect the good. So there should be no implication here that women are any less significant than men, because they're not. And without them we wouldn't be here! While I think the problem arises when men use this as an excuse to subjugate women, which of course is wrong.

"Truth is the vessel (form) and Good is contained within (essence)."

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Iacchus32, I'm sure you're a great guy, so please don't take this as a personal attack, but you have got to stop "filtering" everything that is posted through your pre-conceived notions. It makes it seem as if you start reading a post, grab onto something that bothers you, form an opinion and then post a rebuttal. But then you seem to forget to read the rest of the post! I can't believe you have truly read what gluadys has posted here in her "rant" and then have the audacity to make the statement I've quoted you on above! Do you truly think that is what she's advocating here?!? It is clear to me that her forthcoming suggestions toward dissolving the male-oriented hierarchy will be more akin to "weeding the garden" to get rid of what is causing the problem. You seem to think she is going to suggest that corn become more like wheat, and vice-versa!

Actually it's attention deficit disorder I think??? I don't do a lot of reading and it's hard for me to read lengthy posts. Sorry. I never claimed to be a mind reader either, and neither do I think you fit in that category.

By the way, did you know that Dionysus was called the god of confrontation? Also, by "pre-conceived notions," do you mean I may come across as a bit confrontational as well? Well I have to admit I'm not the most diplomatic person in the world, however, that doesn't mean I go around looking for an excuse to pick a fight. But neither does that mean I'm here to get on anybodies good side, because I'm not. Let's just say I don't get into the habit of agreeing with people, Okay? That's not why I opened up this website.


P.S. In terms of what she's speaking about in her thread doesn't really concern me past what I've written about it. Honest. So, if she wishes to take issue with me over something I've said, that's fine. Otherwise there's no point.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

This tells me why some of your replies don't speak to what has been posted.I don't have to read minds. I read the posts.
This is what I mean by filtering your answers to posts through your pre-conceptions. I know you like Dionysus and Swedenborg, but I'd like to hear what Dennis has to say, based on all he has learned, not just the Swedenborg bits.Confrontation shouldn't scare anyone. To be honest, because you don't read the larger posts all the way through, you often seem to be commenting on something completely outside the intent of the thread or the post. I've had conversations before where in the middle of my sentence the person I'm talking to gets a far away look in their eyes, and I can tell they are formulating their response to something I've said and are no longer listening. No offense, but I'll bet you do this a lot.

Good, we are in agreement. The problem is that currently, in order to have equality with men, that is exactly what women are expected to do: become like men.

We will only have genuine equality when we can keep our differences and still be equal.


This begs the question,though. What is man's role? Or rather what are man's roles? Who says these roles are for men only? Based on what criteria? You mention "ruggedness". But are there not rugged women as well as rugged men? Why should they be excluded from rugged activities? And are there not men who are less than rugged? Does that mean they are not they are not manly men?


You mention "truth" and "good" as male/female. I do not see any basis for making this a gender distinction. And given the gender laden value you attach to these terms, I have real problems with the idea that "the sole purpose of truth ... is to protect the good". In a gendered context, is that not like saying the sole purpose of man is to protect woman?


Here we are in agreement. Acknowledging real differences is not a problem unless they are used as a basis for discrimination.

I had a conversation with "some of the guys" once that got to a comfortable enough level to mention the fact that I had started to urinate sitting down (I know, too much info). I was apalled by the reaction. No one wanted to know why, they wanted to call my manhood into question, saying it was part of being a man to stand. When I could finally explain that it made no sense, that even if you're accurate you still splash water & urine all over everything, & why stand when you could sit, it made no difference. They refused to see the logic. I couldn't understand until I asked them why they would want to make their job cleaning up the bathroom any harder. That's when I found out the simple truth. None of these guys cleaned, or even helped to clean, their own bathrooms. They allowed their wives and girlfriends to do it.

I just celebrated my 11th anniversary Saturday. Two of the "men" involved in that conversation have since been divorced.

Yes. I agree.

Actually there are four parts to the puzzle here which, come together as the 5th, 6th and 7th parts believe it or not. The first four correspond to the masculine and the feminine qualities of the man and the woman and thus corresponds to their parents, respectively. In other words both the man and the woman have their masculine and feminine sides. In which case a man is not just a male but both male and female, except that with him the masculine predominates, and vice-versa with the woman.

I would also venture to say that men and women are structured oppositely. Are you at all familiar with transistor theory in electronics? Well basically there are two types of transistors, the PNP transistor (positive-negative-positive) and the NPN transistor (negative-positive-negative), both of which are constructed oppositely and conduct electrical current in opposite directions. So in that sense they'e opposites. However, a circuit can be designed around either one and produce the same effect. So this is how I view my differences between men and women. In fact it's quite common to use one of each transistor with similar ratings (but opposite polarities) to produce a high quality amplifier. Whereas if you produce two sets of these (akin to the man's parents and the women's parents) you get stereo and, indeed music! This is the relationship that I see should exist between men and women.

So it's in this respect that the man becomes the 5th aspect, or the husband, and the woman becomes the 6th aspect, or the wife, and together they become the 7th aspect or, the marriage itself ... "and the two shall become one flesh." I continue further with this in chapter 3 of my book if you're interested. I also developed a numbering scheme based upon this which continues out to 14th aspect in chapter 4, with some pretty wild results.

Generally speaking, yes. Indeed, I think women are designed more specifically towards nurturing and men more towards the defense of that.

Yes, I think this is a fair assessment.


P.S. Sorry if I jumped in and posted when I did, because I thought you were through with your rant ...

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Dennis doesn't know in as much as perceives, this is why he may have to rely a little more heavily upon his resources. I'm not into knowledge. Besides, the resources I've presented on this forum are intended (hopefully) to serve as an introduction to my book which, I would ultimately like to make people aware of. This isn't the only reason why I started the forum but, ideally it may become the means of its promotion. Okay?

No, really, I do have a problem with reading long extended posts.

Actually no. For the most part I don't rely upon what other people have to say, in fact I find very little of it interesting. It might be a different story if they understood where I was coming from but, that's another story entirely. I'm like the cat which has three names ... i.e., the third aspect being that which nobody knows but the cat himself.

Also, the same is signified by the Church of Pergamos, the third church -- hence the third degree -- in the Book of Revelation. To which it says ...

This goes a long ways to speak about the experience for most of my adult life, in fact I've maintained most of these things inside myself (i.e., what's written in the book) without speaking a word of it to anybody. Why is that you ask? Because there was nobody there to confer with. Honest.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?