Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Nefahotep's avatar

I just love this, you wrote:

"To phrase the I Ching differently, the man has placed himself beneath the woman, supporting her, and so their powers unite in deep harmony. The man is not competing for who is on top—the empire-thinking of hierarchy—but instead lifts up the woman who, in turn, gives life and abundance. Then peace and blessing descend upon all living things."

This is very much like Prakriti and Purusha; the inward facing power is the masculine supporting and acknowledging of the movement supreme, but the most important of the two is the feminine power that is outgoing and is the immutable true character of creation. Bringer of life.

This is a brilliant exploration You and Guy are doing. ------ Blessings to both of you.

Expand full comment
Guy Duperreault's avatar

Hola, Tereza.

Great discussion. Love it. Extant inside Adam dreaming of the apple of his eye, and we're there too. Hmmmm. I've heard stranger things. Did you ever read this:

*Ultimate Problems*

In the Aztec design God crowds

into the little pea that is rolling

out of the picture.

All the rest extends bleaker

because God has gone away.

In the White Man design, though,

no pea is there.

God is everywhere,

but hard to see.

The Aztecs frown at this.

How do you know he is everywhere?

And how did he get out of the pea?

Stafford, William. "Ultimate Problems", cited in *News of the Universe: Poems of Two-Fold Consciousness* ed. Robert Bly. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1980, p. 182.

Through an odd set of synchronicities what began as a toe dip into Krishnamurti is becoming a deeper dive. (My next essay will be about him and the possibility that he was an agent of sleep.)

Synchronicity? As I was writing this reply a YouTube mix pick gave this, new to me, song that begins ‘Everybody in this place is dreaming”:

Johnny Flynn feat Lillie Flynn - Amazon Love

https://youtu.be/qOszeh8huyU

Everybody in this place is dreaming

It's been that way forever

They're all gonna wake up soon, they'll all be hell

For leather

Now, quick to the cut are we waking

And seeing it all as the dream

The pillars that raised us are shaking, and Samson's wheel

Is the fiend

That one minute we see and the next we don't

In our minds, in the devil's long tail

Slapping sense to its peak and a hard, strung-out week

And sold back to the love in our sails

(And I found this song, too: begins with a dream and ‘living my whole life in your basement’ which is a curious metaphor to your essay.

Leona Naess - Basement

https://youtu.be/ObeijICrXi0)

And the link to Étienne De La Boétie*2 and James Corbett created a bit of cognitive dissonance and pleasant surprise. Someone is referencing the once famous friend of Montaigne? And that could only mean De La Boétie’s (once) famous and inflammatory essay “The Politics of Obedience: Discourse on Voluntary Servitude” published ~1552. (Our ‘problem’ today, has been around for a long time and noted by the few for just as long. De La Boétie died a few years after writing that of the plague.)

https://cdn.mises.org/Politics%20of%20Obedience.pdf

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/etienne-de-la-boetie-discourse-on-voluntary-servitude or

From the second translation from the link above:

We often find ourselves in a position of weakness, with no option but to yield to force. We do not always have the upper hand, and we may have to play for time. We must not be surprised, then, when a nation which is at war finds itself compelled to serve one ruler (as the city of Athens served the thirty tyrants) — though we must deplore that servitude. Or rather, we must neither be surprised at the situation nor deplore it, but endure the misfortune patiently, and look forward to better fortune in the future.

Human nature is such that the way we live is largely influenced by the common duties of friendship. It is reasonable that we should love virtue, that we should have a high regard for noble deeds, that when someone does us a favor we should acknowledge the fact, and that we should be prepared to accept some reduction in our own comfort in order to enhance the standing of one whom we love and who had deserved our love. And in the same way, citizens of a whole nation will acknowledge that a particular individual has protected them by displaying great foresight, or had defended them with great bravery, or governed them with great care, and they may thus accept that it is reasonable to be obedient towards him, and they may go so far as to entrust him with power over them. I am not sure that this is wise, for they are removing him from a position in which he was doing good and putting him in a position in which he can do harm. But there is no doubt that there is something commendable about the fact that they fear no harm from someone who has done them nothing but good.

But — oh good God! — what is this? What words can describe this vice, this misfortune (or rather, vice and misfortune!) Whereby the obedience of an infinite number of people degenerates into servitude, government turns to tyranny, and people have nothing they can call their own, not even their parents, their wives, their children, their own lives! And they become prey to the pillage, lusts and cruelty not of some army, not of a barbarian horde which they could only resist by shedding their blood and laying down their lives, but of a single man! And is he a Hercules or a Samson? No, he is a solitary weakling, and usually the most cowardly and effeminate in the land, who is unaccustomed to the dust of battle and has hardly even set eyes on the sand of the jousting arena, and who has no authority to issue orders to men since he is an abject slave of some pitiful little woman! Are we to say that the people are cowards? Shall we call them pusillanimous and faint-hearted? Supposing you have two people, or three or four, who fail to defend themselves against one man: that is a strange situation, but still within the bounds of possibility, and we can rightly say that these people are lacking in courage. But if a hundred or a thousand people are willing to tolerate one man, surely we have to conclude not that they dare not defy him, but that they do not want to, and that their attitude is not one of cowardice but rather of apathy and disdain? If what we see is not a hundred or a thousand men, but a hundred nations and a thousand cities and a million men failing to challenge one man (who, however well he treats any individual, is still treating him as a serf and a slave), what are we to call that? Is it cowardice? Now all vices have natural limits: two people may fear one man, ten people may fear him. But if a thousand men, a million men, a thousand cities do not defend themselves against one man, that cannot be cowardice, for cowardice cannot go that far, just as valor cannot go so far as to lead one man to scale a fortress, to attack an army, to conquer a kingdom. So what prodigious vice is this for which the term ‘cowardice’ is too flattering, for which there is no name vile enough, which nature herself will not admit to having created and which the tongue can find no name for?

Expand full comment
32 more comments...

No posts