Gaia: feminine and masculine faces of the divine

Re: Masculine spirituality book

Tue, 16 Jun 2009 07:55:54 GMT

Anyone interested can read an excerpt over here:
http://www.realitysandwich.com/masculine_spiritualities_and_problem_patriarchy

Masculine spirituality book

Wed, 29 Apr 2009 07:19:51 GMT

Hi folks,

I thought you might be interested in my new book, Numen, Old Men: Contemporary Masculine Spiritualities and the Problem of Patriarchy (London: Equinox Publishers, 2009): http://tinyurl.com/desl9s

Since the early 1990s there have been various waves of interest in what
is often described as “masculine spirituality”. While diverse, a
commonality among these interests has been a concern that spirituality
has become too feminine, and that men’s experiences of the spiritual
are being marginalized. Masculine spirituality is therefore about
promoting what it perceives to be authentic masculine characteristics
within a spiritual context. By examining the nature of these
characteristics, Numen, Old Men argues that masculine spirituality is
little more than a thinly veiled patriarchal spirituality. The
mythopoetic, evangelical, and to a lesser extent Catholic men’s
movements all promote a heteropatriarchal spirituality by appealing to
neo-Jungian archetypes of a combative and oppressive nature, or
understanding men’s role as biblically ordained leader of the family.
Numen, Old Men then examines Ken Wilber’s integral spirituality which
aims to honour and transcend both the masculine and feminine, but which
privileges the former to the extent where it becomes another masculine
spirituality, with all its inherent patriarchal problems. Gay
spirituality is then offered as a form of masculine spirituality which
to a large degree resists patriarchal tendencies, suggesting a queering
of spirituality could be useful for all men, both gay and straight.

Many faces -- slide show

http://matagiri.gaia.com — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:08:06 GMT

Hi everyone,
Since we're talking about the "faces" of the divine, it seemed very fitting to send you these two animated slide shows -- with more on the way.
A bit of history -- Ma Jaya Sati Bhagavati is an American who teaches an interfaith path, although when she paints it is mostly from a Hindu tradition. She has painted literally thousands of the faces of god and goddess. One of her students put these programs together. I can't seem to make a video link here, so search Gaia for "Ma Jaya," or go straight to You Tube. There are 4 sets, each about 5 minutes long.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebs_ap6-Sz8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLEdE-JCCTM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgC9K2IyGC4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89pBMJN1KfY
Matagiri

Re: Damn

http://transcend-include.gaia.com — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 17:50:32 GMT

Oh, for heaven's sake. "Sass" was also a presenter at the conference. I feel really lame, lol!

I even saw you, Sarah, and sat in on your presentation for a time. Then I got called away. I didn't even say "hello."

Oh, well. Next time.

Liz

Re: Damn

http://vanessafisher.gaia.com — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 16:47:38 GMT

Hi Liz,
I was sorry to have missed you also!!
Bummer.

I'm not traveling much on the Gaia waves these days. I find the online community a little hard to feel totally connected into. Maybe just my temperment?

I hope we have time to connect again in the future!

Love,
Vanessa

Damn

http://transcend-include.gaia.com — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:01:22 GMT

I went to the Integral Theory Conference (as a volunteer) and totally missed the fact that I could have met Vanessa and that we'd already had online interactions here.

Granted, this pod hasn't borne much fruit lately, so it's no wonder I forgot about meeting her here. It was inspiring to be at the conference and hear the presentations, though I missed Vanessa's because I had to work that session.

Anyone want to talk about any of the papers from the conference? The attendees got a CD of all the papers with our registration packets.

Liz

Words vs. Music as expression of Divine

http://crowwoman.gaia.com — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 04:48:48 GMT

All major religions incorporated a higher, inner language of words that embodied their sacredness: Latin, Hebrew, Vedic, Quranic, Pali and so forth. While these maintained the connectedness of each to its ineffable mystery, they also served to alienate each from all others. But, before any of these existed, shamans had a sacred language. It was of drumming, vocal sounds and dance. And that sacred language does not alienate because it may be understood by anyone.

www.circleotheearth.org

Re: Guest Blog: Feminine Spirituality, by Anita Floris

http://transcend-include.gaia.com — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 21:36:51 GMT

Just popping in to let you know I'm rather obviously not contributing, but to also say that I have a month off from work and hope to more deeply ponder what's being discussed, and I am enjoying thinking about these perspectives.

Liz

Re: Guest Blog: Feminine Spirituality, by Anita Floris

http://vanessafisher.gaia.com — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:34:23 GMT

Yes, I agree with your point: from a nondual perspective retaining a strict sexuate binary does seem untenable. I also think the clause you've included is essential; that is, that "at present" there is fundamental differences that have to be acknowledged, included, respected etc. I suppose it is my struggle with running into "spiritual camp individuals" who want to wipe out the sex/gender divide too early that always brings me back to wanting to emphasize work like Irigaray's. But I know neither you nor I take that stance, and that the wiping out of feminism too early is actually both our main concern with certain "nondual" approaches.

I am also thinking in regards to Irigaray that in some ways it seems even the "at present" clause, doesn't really protect her from criticism from the queer, transexual and intersexual movements. It seems that not only gender but sex is becoming increasingly recognized as a spectrum of many possibilities, which really challenges her work.

Thanks for your clarifying insights here. So much to contemplate! I am continually feeling humbled by all the knowledge out there. Especially in regards to really providing an integral framework for the many diverse strains of feminist thought, something that really hasn't been done in a deeply articulated and scholarly way. I look forward to the grooves you will carve out with your work!

Re: Guest Blog: Feminine Spirituality, by Anita Floris

http://sass.gaia.com — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:51:44 GMT

Yes, I love Irigaray's work and think she is a fundamentally important and insightful feminist philosopher.
But I tend to diasgree with her on her fundamental tenet of sexual difference.
She, as I understand her, believes that there is an irreducible difference between men and women.
While I would accept that if it where couched in terms of "at present" - ie. that current conditions produce two (or, at least broadly two) different ways of experiencing being in the world, as a man or a woman - I do not accept that as universally so..
Examining sex/gender from a nondual philosophical perspective the idea of there being two fundamentally and universally different sexes seems untenable to me.
There seems to me to be a significant unresolved tension in her work where on one hand she advocates for moving beyond dualism and binaries, and yet she insists on sexual difference. Where in being marked by interconnectivity, co-dependent arising and flux could a fundamental sexual difference reside?

Re: Guest Blog: Feminine Spirituality, by Anita Floris

http://vanessafisher.gaia.com — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 05:48:01 GMT

Great questions Sarah, I appreciate your breakdown of definitions here.
Overall, yes, I think we are in large part agreement. I too think that b and c are aspects of the "Feminine" that can be explored by both men and women in post-conventional development. And I think we both agree that b and c "feminine' are not exclusive to women.

I also really appreciate the two questions you have posed out to the zaadzsphere that you yourself are muddling with, I'll take some time to sit with them as I think they are important to seriously contemplate and I don't want to attempt to respond to them too flippantly(-:

One thing that did come up for me while reading your post was an itch around whether (b) and (c) (but specifically b) were completely unexclusive to women. I honestly flat out don't know, but I'm curious to explore it further.

I suppose it made me think about an essay I was reading just last night entitled: "On Luce Irigaray's Phenomenology of Intersubjectivity: Between the Feminine Body and Its Other" by Sara Heinamaa. It seems Irigaray--judging from the small amount I've read-- is really a defender of (b) in your scheme (mode of relating to other subjects/objects) as a domain that is marked inherently by sexual difference. (i.e., the female body as a physical biological reality inherently effects the nature of a woman's felt experience in relation to other selves and other objects)

For Irigaray, the phenomenological experience of woman's relationship to "other", is and always will be distinctly unique from mens. She uses a great example of how traditional phenomenological philosophy has been made up of men who have pioneered a philosphy in the realm of intersubjectivity based on the visual perception of the other. The other is always felt as outside of me, but I know they exist becasue I visually percieve them. Irigaray then compares this to the experience of a pregnant woman who does not see her baby but knows that the "other" exists through felt sensations of being. She argues that this radically shifts the grounds for which intersubjective knowing and experience are built. My sense of what she is arguing is that in some ways, female and male embodied reality inherently effects every other domain of phenomenological inquiry--from intersubjective, to aesthetic to spiritual experience.

Now I don't necessarily agree with all Irigaray puts forth in her philosophy of gender/sex and phenomenological experience, as I do believe at least a great degree of these experiential binaries can break down and integrate at higher post-conventional modes of relating and being. But her vehement insistence of retaining the sexuate binary for certain purposes has continued to intrigue me, and I am still questioning whether it is possible for men and women to ever really be at a place where they "equally access" masculine and feminine modes of being at the intersubjective and interobjective level (again, (b) in your scheme)

Again, I don't know.
Thanks for being willing to dance with me in this wide space of unknowing(-:

Re: Guest Blog: Feminine Spirituality, by Anita Floris

http://sass.gaia.com — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 04:29:01 GMT

Hi Vanessa,

Yes I've read Debold's article. It's great. I particularly draw on Harvard based girls development research in my thesis.

I was just looking over a previous thread on Masculine and Feminine as words
and thought that it would help (me) to break this down further.

To start - a dictionary definition: "feminine" -
1 of or characteristic of women
2 having qualities associated with women
3 womanly, effeminate

When we talk about " the feminine"
(and equally this could / should be broken down for the "masculine")
are we talking about :
a. a type of behaviour ( which women are believed to embody, ie. conventional role that they are enculturated into)
b. a mode of relating to other subject / objects
b. a form of energy

While I believe that we agree (at very least you & I, Vanessa ; ) that "the feminine" ( as any or all of the above definitions) has been historically been degraded, dismissed and denied and needs to be reclaimed and reintegrated, I am still totally tramping about, stuck in the mud of these questions :

"Where does the feminine arise from and what relates it to woman?"
and then, "what level of "the feminine" are we talking about?"

I believe that we would also agree that development for women is about moving beyond the conventional "feminine" mode (role) of being.
In a post conventional sense woman is not the "feminine " (defn a.)
but she may still privilege b. or c. as modes of being
[ and at post-conv the process of exploration and re-integration of b & c could be part of an important developmental process for men]

In post conventional these modes (b & c) are no longer inherently "characteristic of women" (unless we believe that they arise particular to female biology - which I think is a part but certainly not all of the "feminine" mix)

What do you think?

Re: Guest Blog: Feminine Spirituality, by Anita Floris

http://vanessafisher.gaia.com — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 02:41:52 GMT

Hi Sarah,
I think you've got some important thoughts here, worth contemplating more seriously...

I do totally understand your reservations around using a term--feminine--that is so distinctly defined within a conventional context, and in some way always carries that baggage. I suppose for myself, I am somewhat hesitant to fully shruck off that baggage, even when we are talking about post-post conventional consciousness. I suppose it is in part because I think that history and baggage does always travel with us, no matter what our level of consciousness, although, of coarse, our identification with it greatly changes/transforms.

I was just reading a great article by Elizabeth Debold today from a back issue of WIE entitled: "Where are all the Women?:Part III" the link is http://www.wie.org/j32/women.asp
I think you would really enjoy it, if you haven't already read it, as she is speaking directly to the questions you are putting forth here. She especially challenges us to go beyond "feminine" and "masculine" descriptors in the future, which she feels only solidify preconventional/conventional binaries. It is beautifully written and well researched. I was definitely humbled by her knowledge in the subject and her courageously provocative writing style.

I agree with Debold in many essential ways--totally! But there are points where I still remain ambivelant about...questioning...

I appreciate the discussion. And I definitely don't have the answers(-:

Re: Guest Blog: Feminine Spirituality, by Anita Floris

http://vanessafisher.gaia.com — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 02:41:46 GMT

Re: Guest Blog: Feminine Spirituality, by Anita Floris

http://sass.gaia.com — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 01:58:24 GMT

Hi Vanessa (and everyone else out there in this pod land)
I've been meaning to reply to this thread for .. well, months. Something I read today prompted me to pipe back up. I was reading a review the Rita Gross (feminist buddhist scholar) book Soaring and Settling. The reviewer takes issue with her analysis of Vajrayana's use of the concepts of feminine and masculine principles : "when she [Gross] says there's no relationship implied between the qualities of the "feminine principle" and the nature of women, I think she's unrealistic. If not, then what does it mean to attribute those qualities to the feminine? Why not call it the x principle or the orange principle or some descriptor that has relevance to what is described?"
And that I think is an excellent point (as it is the one I've been trying to make. ha ha!).
In a post-conventional sense why are we calling things feminine?
If in a post conventional sense we understand that the feminine is limited to or reflective or constitutive of woman why limit it to a name that is directly linked to our conventional understanding of woman?
Personally once we move out into post and post-post conventional thinking & discussion I think we should shuck off the term feminine (which, for me at least resonates too strongly with conventional definition) and agree to use the terms communal or agape or some other agreed terms.
What do you think?

Re: Guest Blog: Feminine Spirituality, by Anita Floris

http://vanessafisher.gaia.com — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 18:34:55 GMT

Oh, and I wanted to add one more thing that came up for me.
I guess I feel that a bit of the 'itch' for me, as far as concerning the I-I definitions of "the feminine", isn't so much the western bias, but ironically, for me, it is the importation of the Eastern term and definition of "the feminine" and how it often easily blankets over the Western definitions (i.e. the feminist movement).

Perhaps there is a Western bias in our interpretation of the Eastern term, and we could talk about that to, but I actually feel that the way we sometimes simplistically privilege the Eastern definitions is what can make it hard to apply them to our specific Western setting, with its own unique historical developments and challenges.
This all ties in with my critique of Anita Floris' article, again a kind of blanketing of the Eastern definitions which hides the unique situation of the term "feminine" in the West, as well as women in the west.

Re: Guest Blog: Feminine Spirituality, by Anita Floris

http://vanessafisher.gaia.com — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 04:38:57 GMT

Hi Sarah,

I see what you are getting at. I too agree that the feminine and masculine are definitely nuanced here when we start looking into cultural definitions... and our perspective is going to be undoubtably western in its slant. I myself don' t feel that I am an expert in other cultural definitions but if you would like to bring them in here I'd love to see more of your thinking around this.

There is only one thing for me that is immediately coming to mind. I guess I"m thinking about how other cultures may give equal weight or even privelege to the feminine within their spiritual traditions-- say Tibetan Buddhism, Hinduism or Taoism for example-- but I would still argue that it is largely an equal weight only given in the causal/nondual realms, where the feminine is seen as pretty much entirely unequated with women. And in many of those cultures where the causal/nondual feminine is worshipped, there is often still oppression of women. It seems in the Eastern traditions "the feminine" and "women" often falls on the other side of our western tendency of conflation, into a complete separation. I think this can still speak to how the gross feminine manifestation and the subtle feminine expressions, as they arise through women, have seen at least suppression if not oppression through most patriarchal cultures, which encompasses a large part of the planet.

That said, again, I don't feel this is my area of expertise, do you have any particular examples that you feel would be important to bring into this discussion?? I'd like to tease out your concern here if you are willing.

Re: Guest Blog: Feminine Spirituality, by Anita Floris

http://sass.gaia.com — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 13:58:19 GMT

Liz, Vanessa, For the most part I agree with you both. yes 'the feminine' in the west has (and is) been repressed and degraded .. and we dont want to skip over it prematurely (because we simply can't) into some post-gendered place... we are all going to have to step back and scoop it up before we move along, but.. I think my itch around 'feminine' and 'masculine' might be, in part, that we don't do particularly much in the way of acknowledging how western our perspective of these things are.. we let these terms fall as a blanket over our ideas of men and women. (Now, I'm not going to get all relativist on you.. but) it seems to me that if we look at things more closely there are some fairly significant cultural differences arise around the concepts of masculine & feminine .. while there are also (sure to be) unifying threads or median points of agreement. I guess I'd like to see some more acknowledgedment of and work around this also.

Re: Guest Blog: Feminine Spirituality, by Anita Floris

http://transcend-include.gaia.com — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:55:17 GMT

Ahhhh...I can already feel myself relaxing into this space. You two are so refreshing to my old feminist soul! It is rare indeed to speak with women as young as 23 and not feel the need to hold back the information that, no, they have not come that long a way, baby. So often, I have to just tell myself that they will have to learn by experience, and that anything I say will be rejected.

Ok, that taken care of, I find myself in such substantial agreement that I'm a bit at a loss for what to say. I guess all I would add is that my experience of the "feminine" has been that yes, it has been circumstantial in many respects, and I think you're right that the lines between "masculine" and "feminine" --so sharply drawn they can cut us--will largely fall away when we all have true choices.

For instance, had I chosen not to have children, I am certain my feminine would not be so highly developed. Not because children change one so much (and they do) but because of the strategies for survival that one has to have in order to continue to grow. Meditation is what comes to mind. I will never, as long as I have children, be able to sit for an hour and stare at the wall. I am pretty much incapable of sitting still for even 15 minutes. However, many is the time that I have been doing dishes or scrubbing a tub and had the kinds of experiences I hear people talk about from meditating. I didn't even know I was meditating until I got into Wilber and found out more about it, only a few years ago. I was simply trying to be more aware and improve my life. I'm certain that if men were forced into such "feminine" spaces, they would have very similar results.

Liz

Re: Guest Blog: Feminine Spirituality, by Anita Floris

http://vanessafisher.gaia.com — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 04:13:41 GMT

Hey Sarah, I felt the desire to dive in on your concerns/inquiry on the use of the term "the feminine" as I know it is something that has come up in our discussions together a few times.
I haven't really thought this out too much but I'm going to dive in on an impulse and feel free to jump in and fight with me(-:

I guess what first came up for me was, yes, I think all of those things you mentioned (i.e., biology, culture, limited access etc) have shaped women's inclination towards what we might term a more "feminine" path. And yes, I agree with you that the term feminine is still very linked to women, even within the I-I definitions.

Part of me really wonders though, whether at this point in our evolutionary history such a strong link between the feminine and women is really unavoidable. I mean, yes, at the higher third tier levels, masculine and feminine really are not two and are ultimately not experienced as such nor conflated with men and women. But seeing that the masculine and feminine expressions themselves have gross,subtle and causal expressions, we aren't just dealing with nondual definitions,

Why I think this is so important is because the feminine as it is expressed at the gross levels of embodiment and the feminine as it manifests at the subtle levels of mind are traditionally what have not been properly acknowledged and seen in a world that has preferenced masculine modes of embodiment and thinking. And typically it is women who have embodied these gross and subtle feminine expressions, and it is women that haven't had a full voice in the world to express the feminine side of the gross and subtle domains. Now of coarse not all women preference the feminine modes of expressing (I happen to be one of them(-:), but I would argue that especially up to this point in our evolution it is largely women who do hold a lot of the important keys into better understanding these feminine ways of relating, due to the stronghold of both biology and culture.

I think as we develop as a culture into second and third tier waves these kinds of distinctions will become less and less relevant and the feminine and masculine will become less and less conflated with men and women. Because obviously the causal and nondual territory is really another playing feild. But until we carve out those grooves in our collective consciousness I would argue there are some good reasons to link the feminine with women. At is point in our historical trajectory women tend to carry more insight into those feminine expressions at the gross and subtle levels and these really need to be better articulated and brought out so as to better integrate them into our strongly masculine value based society. This is where I think feminism can offer so much to our integral approaches to gender and spirituality.

And of coarse, ideally, we would be able to always hold the nondual recognition of radical freedom and fullness beyond gender identifications in the relative world as we simultaneously give presence and privelage to the relative experiences of the feminine as it is embodied through women. This isn't to exclude men, nor to say that men can't offer to our inquiry into the feminine, it is only to acknowledge that at this point in our evolution women really need to be given their own voice on this as well...something which I think you would agree with.