I like what you’re getting at, which can probably be summed up in idea that, “he who loses himself, finds himself.”

I disagree with your notions about what is an inherently “male” or “female” way of understanding or relating to the world.

“Doing what matters” is already, in and of itself, self-centered, because “what matters” is always going to be very personal. What matters to you may not matter to me. And, in fact, that’s true, because what matters to me is undermining some of what you’d like to do (as we already discussed long ago on HUS). You might think it “should” matter to the rest of the world, but then, you’re entering “being” territory, at least as you’ve defined it, since you’re trying to make the world adapt itself to your vision of it.

Also, your concept of “being yourself” is one that only a very dominant person would adopt (male or female), and actually would require a great deal of “doing” in order to be successful.

Really, your feminine principle in general seems very dominant, which doesn’t correspond to any kind of reality I live in. But the fact that it does can easily be seen in the way you describe falling into “alpha” or “omega” as a man. How does a man do that? By incorporating “being himself” into the way he relates to the world. “Being yourself” is a feminine principle according to you. So essentially, what you’re saying, is that the way to become alpha is to become more “feminine.”

That’s absurd, of course. But it’s what you’re saying.

Yohami,

I’m familiar with Kohlberg’s theory, though I disagree that it’s in any way “male.” Max referred to it as “implicitly” male, exactly because Kohlberg himself never identified it as such. What’s more, I don’t see any significant difference between Kohlberg’s theory and Gilligan’s.

1. Avoiding pain and seeking pleasure IS all about caring for oneself.
2. Upholding Social Norms is about recognizing and accounting for the needs of others.
3. Universal Principles are all about balancing the two.

As for your own breakdown of male morality, just about every male I know chooses which ladder to congregate on or around by first deciding who they are.

And as for female morality, “being” without dominance requires one to adapt herself to her surroundings, and not the other way around. Or else searching for an environment that allows her to be herself. Which is like men deciding which ladder to scale.

I think you’re just making more of the differences than you need to.

I agree that feminine energy is like a beautiful dance. I agree that feminine energy is about emotion, whereas masculine energy is more about logical, linear thought. Feminine energy is about the present, timeless moment and masculine energy operates in the field of time.

But I think you take it too far. I think by calling the feminine “dream” and the masculine “reality” for example, you’re creating distinctions that don’t really exist. And by calling the feminine “being” while calling the masculine “doing” you’re actually distorting both.

Also, I think extended the masculine/feminine differences differences in morality is way too far of a stretch.

I would say that the self that is always there is a lie. That’s your archetype. I would say there’s only change. The moment you say “I” or “self” you’ve abstracted things, you’ve come up with a fixed idea.

In some ways, that’s necessary. How would we communicate otherwise? But it’s not real. There is no you or me. Only change. “Being” is a necessary lie. The moment you begin to label things, you’re lying.

But, like I said, the lie is necessary.

Sasha,

I would agree that “being” is a masculine concept. I think that I would use the word “becoming” in order to describe what you mean by “being yourself.”

I agree with your points, Jesus.

Eh, I think I like Yohami’s example and wording of ‘being’ and ‘doing’. I’d probably classify it more as being and building, but thats me.

Being is living in the moment, not planning ahead, flowing from one moment to the next and weaving a story of life through that moment to moment dance – very feminine to me.

Doing for Yohami is the act of planning your life out in advance. Shelter for the storm, a place to rest, digging into life and then taking what you have in your hands and shaping it to what you want it to be. Very masculine to me.

These views are embodied in the stereotypical way that men and women will relax after a long day of work. A man will take a beer, go out on the porch in front of the house that he’s provided for his family. Silently taking joy from the stability he’s created, the obstacles he’s overcome, and confident in his ability to continue to provide for what he’s built and values.

A woman’s stereotypical relaxing is chatting with friends about current events. Taking heart in the quick, instantaneous joys of how her life is now, comparing it to the experiences of people she’s friends with or knows, and being glad that her life is more stable than that. Or that she will soon overcome any instability.

(Jesus, in the bottom right hand corner of the comment boxes you can click and drag to make them larger so you can see the full text.)

Yohami,

That’s absolutely correct. The only way to understand and act on the world is living the lies and accepting them. At the same time, realizing that the lie is in fact a lie is enormously empowering.

That’s what frame control is all about: choosing the lies that you want to live by, and living them so powerfully and consistently that others choose to believe them also.

“Your *being* is my archetype. How do you call the self that is always here but changing?”

I dunno, is this a Spanish translation issue? In English, there’s no concept of estar and ser. The word is “to be,” in every sense of the word. When people learn Spanish, they constantly misuse estar and ser, mistake them for each other, because the concepts don’t exist in English. So in English we argue the semantics, but in Spanish there are just two different words.

Yohami, when you speak of “being” in the female sense, which Spanish word would you use?

Ah cool. I still think the Spanish words are a good way to conceptualize the difference in the schools of thought. The “ser” is the archetype, the permanent state, Jung’s school of thought (I assume you mean Carl Jung?). The “estar” is the free-flowing, temporary, changing state, the oriental way of understanding.

If you think about it, it’s interesting that we don’t have an “estar” in English, like “being” is always permanent. It really translates to our thought processes… in the United States, when you say “I’m tired” it’s like you’re always tired, like tired is your default mode of conversation. People say that to each other all the time, as a conversation opener. Of course we understand that tiredness is not a perpetual state, but I think the language makes it ambiguous, like maybe after you wake up you’re always tired, you’re never well-rested. It’s interesting how language influences culture. I haven’t spent enough time in Latin America to grasp how it’s different there though.

[...] Competitiveness”Dagonet – “2011: A Year in Review”Yohami – “Be Yourself. Do What Matters.”John the Other – “Feminists: Demented, Stunned or Cultists”Alcuin – [...]

Wow, I have a hater. Awesome.

Max, thanks for the link. I’ll check it out.