/lit/ - Literature

Nice thread, I often wonder what the primordial feminine could possibly be in a lot of different ways like this that are often hard to express. Is pure femininity just pure potential, chaos, inactivity etc., so that any activity, even of women, would necessarily be "masculine"? You've articulated it way better than I could have.

>>14225432
Thanks, I forgot to mention, I'm a girl btw

>>14225439
What have you been reading, relating to this?

It is necessary, innate, and ineliminable

>>14225400
"Feminine," "Masculine," and "Heroic" as absolutes are universals.

Universals do not exist in any meaningful sense. They are an abstract mechanism used to help categorize, but this categorization is nothing more than further abstract construction with no actual ties to reality (i.e. it correlates but does not constitute identity).

Human Nature (and other natures such as Feminine, Masculine, etc) are not a metaphysical properties, identities, or substances. They are linguistic/rational tools to help summarize entities which underwent similar evolutionary processes, thus attaining some level of isomorphism.

There is no "Feminine" in the sense that there is mass or gravity. It is a social-construct through and through, and therefore how the Heroic (which is also historical) relates to the feminine will depend entirely upon the culture you were born into and will be wholly arbitrary, though relative to you might bear some value.

>>14225475
Simply put Butterfly: you are mine to use how I desire. Don't get any ideas. :3

>>14225475
Please please don't post in this thread. I'm fucking begging you. This thread interests me and I want to see how it develops, but you are a cancer, you poison every thread you're a part of until the whole thread is only about you. No matter where you go, you kneejerk impose your own shallow ideas on everything, shutting down people in shallow simplistic ways and provoking flamewars that aren't even interesting. If you're going to post in this thread at least contain yourself and let people disagree with your simplistic preconceptions, without needing to reply with your usual condescending single-sentence dismissals of them.

Please.

>>14225517
Have respect
Delete please

>>14225517
Leave Butterfly alone.

She's paid her dues.

She's one of us now.

>>14225520
HAAHAAHAHAHAH :3

Why are you so vain? Why do you care so much about what other people think? Please. PLEASE. You need to realize that not only can other men make fun of how you behave, they may be CORRECT in their assertions.

>Delete please
is such a fucking ridiculous thing to say.

>>14225432
Welcome anon, I've been thinking of not really browsing /lit/ anymore and only post on it when I've taken some time to actually think about something. This being the only place to talk about such things. All considering just browsing 4chan is a waste of time after you've absorbed whatever necessary or specific knowledge you came there for(in /lit/'s case, it would be reading the Western Canon or for the latter specific this thread). So it's good to see that this is probably working.

In actual response to your post though, I've also wondered whether one could see the animal as the dualisticly masculine in contrast to say the plant. Everything coloured by the ideas of the masculine and feminine. Considering I am a human however I would generally say at least from my human experience there exists an equal masculine/feminine existence, rather than man being say the masculine to the feminine "other" (which can only be defined by contrast), because there is no contrast of experience we should proceed to understand it only as an equal footing of these forces. For whatever larger definition of masculine and feminine there are surely they would not fit the understanding of say the feminine and masculine within the masculine, or the masculine and the feminine within the feminine. To such an extent we could no longer call these meta-characters masculine or feminine anymore or at the least from our own understanding. One idea I have been thinking of is this, something along the lines of potential/actual but not quite as strict. The feminine is what man rests upon, the rhizome through which man spikes out of. Consider a plane field, and large point jutting out and falling back can be seen as the masculine. Just as the natural populace of a people rests on a larger female population than male, e.g. turtles. I think it's silly to apply this to any meta understanding of the feminine and masculine but none the less allows for a unique aesthetic image I believe.

>>14225439
Though I would also like to state that the Op is quite a "male" question, considering its perspective is of the feminine being something chiefly foreign to the male experience, one can draw obvious conclusions in the opposite sense though of the idealistic experience of the feminine and the lower form (in relation to the female thing)of which the masculine usually manifests against, at first anyway.

>>14225483
I don't believe the feminine to be innately evil.

>>14225486
Anon you miss my point. I think it would be good for you too look into Jung's idea of Archetypes as such, and Archetypal images. And then the definite moral judgement of an existent property against another, and of universal applicability and existence.

>>14225486
But you see it must constitute the identity if we exist through it, you might as well say race and species do not also construct identity. You misunderstand the categorisation into two key and eternal groups, with meaning that because it is categorised and understood as such by our human hands(and naturally all other animals) it cannot exist in itself. Just as we categorise space/time it also exists in itself even if they are simply products of perception. And this is not even the extreme, being of course, that they are simply products which through a perceiving being have come about. Even then, you seem to imply that they do not exist as they do, and yet still they remain as something individually existent. We exist in and through them, and so we provide comparison of other things to them in seeing that all eternity and existence can be characterised under them, and because of this they exist in themselves. The heroic none the less. There is a masculine and feminine in the sense of duality, positive and negative and so forth.

You are completely wrong yet I would not think you would be so wrong to think it as only a social construct instead of a biological, psychological and spiritual one.

>and a good thread soon dies as a shitpost was made

>>14225400
Heroism requires a degree of romanticisation to be created. The romantic, I feel, is linked with the effeminate since romanticism makes an appeal to one's emotions and sense of beauty.

I've always felt that the masculinity and femininity were never that far removed from one another because the worship of masculinity and/or femininity as a concept is an emotional reaction rather than a logical reaction.

>>14226558
Are you saying worship is innately illogical?

>>14226604
Worship is a spiritual and emotional act which from a stand point of cold, inhuman logic is irrational. Humans aren't robots though, so the practice of worship isn't a bad thing.

What I am saying is that the worship of masculinity and femininity are closely intertwined. Even misogynists who hate femininity, or misandrists who hate masculinity in a sense still worship the concept they claim to hate if they worship the other concept. This is because the definition of masculinity can be summed up as the opposite of femininity and vice versa. Worshiping either means you worship the existence of a gender binary. Given that this worship is an emotional state, it's little wonder that masculinity and femininity both heavily inform romantic tropes such as the heroic archetype.

>>14226686
Your use of irrational and rational are wrong. I think there is nothing more rational than engaging in worship of the fitting. After all it is rational that judges it as fit worship. It is aesthetic for itself.

>>14226686
>What I am saying is that the worship of masculinity and femininity are closely intertwined. Even misogynists who hate femininity, or misandrists who hate masculinity in a sense still worship the concept they claim to hate if they worship the other concept. This is because the definition of masculinity can be summed up as the opposite of femininity and vice versa. Worshiping either means you worship the existence of a gender binary. Given that this worship is an emotional state, it's little wonder that masculinity and femininity both heavily inform romantic tropes such as the heroic archetype.
This I almost entirely agree with save your wholly irrational typing of it.