Thoughts on the symbol I use for contemplation – describing the act and traits of contemplation

Over the years an image kept appearing in my head.  It revolved around contemplation and the awareness of the world.  It developed over a long period of time (about 20 years).  Why it began to appear in my mind I cannot say.  But, it has stuck and has developed quite a lot of meaning to me.  Its not uncommon for me to use it as a ‘guide’ to help me as it became a representation of the ‘act’ of contemplation and the general stance of contemplation.

Interestingly, I have always had difficulty defining contemplation.  It seems to continually change and never remains constant.  Not only that, I’m always saying new things about it.  This has made it so that I, oddly enough, am always having to redefine and rethink what contemplation is.  As a result, contemplation is a varied and changing quality.  I would say that, in general, contemplation has qualities such as these:

  • It is an ordered state of mind, a ‘controlled consciousness’, so to speak.  It is something ‘practiced’ and performed by someone.  In many ways, it is an exercising of certain qualities of the mind to create a different perception of the world and self awareness.  As such, contemplation can be compared to an exercise.
  • Contemplation has become a particular stance in life, a way of looking at the world.   This tendency, I think, is natural if one practices contemplation.
  • I tend to feel that certain people are inclined to practice a contemplative attitude and way.  In other words, contemplation is often a reflection of a specific type of character.  This makes it very person-specific.  People who are not inclined to it do not do it and generally can’t understand it.   

“Contemplation” is actually a form of prayer in Christianity.  I learned it when I wanted to become a monk.  I wanted to join the Camaldolese Benedictine or Carthusian Order (both are hermit orders). I was particularly fond of contemplation as taught by Pseud0-Dionysius, “The Cloud of Unknowing”, St. John of the Cross, Brother Lawrence, and Miguel Molinos, among others.  These generally taught a mysticism, of an ‘unknowingness’ of god, a dominant theme of being aware of god as the base of everything, as well as a wordless expression of love.  This is something that I seemed to take to quite easily, almost instinctively.

After I decided not to join a monastery I still continued to practice it, but in an altered form.  This shows, I think, that contemplation somehow ‘spoke’ to me as a person . . . it was something I was compelled to do, not because of religion or belief but because “I” needed it for some reason.  Over the years it continually changed and has now gone in a whole other direction than the original Christian contemplation becoming, in some way, something totally different.  Despite this, I still continue to call it “contemplation”, which it, in actuality, really is one the whole . . . its just changed abit.

Contemplation led me onto things such as shamanism (where the symbol first appeared – see below) which even made it go further from Christian mystical prayer and is something totally different.  I’ve written about shamanism in other articles in this blog (for example, see “A time when shamanistic ‘journeying’ scared me . . . I thought I was going mad: questioning shamanism – the ‘belief show’” and “Thoughts on defining shamanism: an ‘active belief system’“).


The act of contemplation can be described by Pseudo-Dionysius in his book ‘Mystical Theology’:

“. . . dear Timothy, in the diligent exercise of mystical contemplation, leave behind the senses and the operations of the intellect, and all things sensible and intellectual, and all things in the world of being and nonbeing, that you may arise by unknowing towards the union, as far as is attainable, with it that transcends all being and all knowledge. For by the unceasing and absolute renunciation of yourself and of all things you may be borne on high, through pure and entire self-abnegation, into the super-essential Radiance of the Divine Darkness.”

I found myself doing this, almost as if by nature, by an event that took place in about 1990 (I’ve written about this event in various other articles in this blog).  I took a walk, by myself, into the woods.  While there I felt what I called the ‘presence’.  It was a sense of a ‘something’ about me that seemed ‘alive’.  I found myself yearning for this ‘presence’.  Almost, as if by nature, I would do what Pseudo-Dionysius describes.  I would focus my mind on the ‘presence’ and as if ‘forget’ about everything and myself.  The ‘presence’ became the focal point of my attention and being.  I found myself “lost” in this ‘presence’.  This act is basically contemplation.


The symbol which has developed, is this:

Contemplation symbol

The slow development of this symbol is quite revealing in what contemplation means and why specific things represent what they do.  I think it also shows the natural tendency, when dealing with mystery, of assigning ’emblems’ or ‘symbols’ for things of a mysterious nature.  This tendency seems innate as people have been doing it since the beginning of time all over the world.

The first image that appeared to me was, I believe, in the mid-90’s or thereabouts.  It appeared during my “very” shamanistic days, where I’d sit for long periods of time in the woods and ‘shamanize’ (or, at least, try to).  During these times, it often seemed that I bordered on madness.  Because of this ‘shamanizing’ something like a mythology appeared about the world and how it worked, as often seems to happen with shamans.  Since this mythology is personal in origin I speak of this as ‘personal mythology’.  In many ways, this symbol is an offshoot of that personal mythology.

It was during one period of ‘shamanizing’ that this image flashed through my mind:

Contemplation symbol_tree

I knew almost automatically what it meant.  It is based on the mythology that had appeared during that time.  The two half circles represents the image of the ‘great tree’, as I called it (the top being the leaves, the bottom the roots, the center is the trunk).  To me, the ‘great tree’ held the world together.  It holds two opposites together (represented by leaves and roots) and kept them in their place.  I first saw it in a shaministic journey dream and was surprised that this same image was common in shamanism.  The two circles represented who I call the ‘great parentage’, namely the mother and father in nature.   It also has representation of opposites as well, as the tree reflects opposites as do the mother and father.  As I reflect on it now, it almost has a yin-yan quality though I didn’t see it that way then.  I often was struck how this image resembled a face (two eyes and a nose) and felt that was part of its symbology (the “face of existence”, of god).

Often, when I went in the woods to sit down I often got a stick and made this symbol in the ground.  In that way, it was almost like a ‘symbol of what I was there for’.  Often, I’d sit and look at it reflecting on its meaning.  As a result, I began to see more meaning and representation in it.  No doubt, it led on to the greater elaboration of it and the ongoing symbols that would develop, as described below.

Over time, the representation of the ‘tree’ also became a representation of the self, as my growing mythology compared the self to a ‘tree’.  Just like the ‘great tree’, the self had to keep opposites together and maintain an integrity.  In this way, we are “kin” to the ‘great tree’, performing a similar function.  This made the symbol a representation of something about the self.  In other words, instead of seeing the world in it I also saw my self.  The more I saw the self in it the more it began to represent my self’s association with the world and, with this, the symbols began to grow and the symbol grew more complex.  In this way, the symbol began to represent contemplation.  This reveals some meaning in the nature of contemplation, that contemplation is, in actuality, a form of relationship between ones ‘personal self’ with the  ‘self of the world’ (meaning ‘existence’ or god).  This, in fact, may be the best definition of contemplation.  With this we can see three phases in the symbols development:

  1. The symbol as the world (the ‘great tree’ and ‘great parentage’).
  2. The symbol as self.
  3. The symbol as self’s association with world . . . contemplation.

With this, we can see that the symbol has developed a great depth and meaning through time.

At first, I thought the initial image just ‘appeared’ but, one day, I happened to look at one of my hats.  On it was a patch of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers (SNAME).  I bought this hat from SNAME in the mid-1980’s when I wanted to be a Naval Architect.  I always had a great fondness for this patch (and still do).  Here is the emblem of SNAME:

Very prominently, in the middle, is the ‘midships’ symbol:

This symbol is used on ship plans to represent the center of the ship.  I knew that this symbol had a bearing on the symbol I developed as the similarity is more than obvious . . . the similarity is too striking.

Not only that, I have always felt my interest in ships has a relation to contemplation.  This is because contemplation, in some respects, is like being in a ship passing through existence and the mystery of life in ways such as this:

  • A ship on the sea can be compared to the self in existence.
  • Both the self and a ship travel in a far greater element (the sea and existence).  That is to say, they are as if specks in the element that they travel.
  • In both, a person is ‘enclosed’ and separated from the element that it is in.
  • In a ship one is aware of ones ship very prominently and in contemplation one is aware of ones self in existence.

In this way, even the origin of the symbol shows a ‘hidden meaning’ behind it that is quite revealing.

Interestingly, this symbol would reappear again when I became interested in Heraldry.  I, for fun, created my own coat of arms.  This is what I came up with (click to see):

Coat of Arms – Mike Michelsen

In this symbol I have shown a stylized symbol of a tree of which half is in the earth (below) and the other half in the air (above).  The tree, of course, represents the great parentage and the self.  This shows that this symbol had great meaning to me.  I also like to compare it to a keyhole, as if it is opening into a ‘new world’.  The motto (“Character first”) refers to the idea of maintaining ones self as a person in the world (character = self-in-the-world).


Each part of the symbol has a meaning and represents something.  These are shown below:Contemplation symbol_notation

Each part describes a specific function that is important in contemplation.  These are:

  1. The ‘Firmament’/Mystery.
  2. The “Presence”. 
  3. The “Passion”. 
  4. The “Emptiness”.
  5. The “Duality”. 
  6. The “Self”. 
  7. The “Ember”/Beingness.

All these elements, together, make up contemplation.


 Contemplation symbol_firmament

The “firmament” represents the unknown, that which we cannot nor will ever know.  It is, in effect, mystery and represents the unknowingness of life.  It, therefore, represents that which is ‘beyond us’, and ‘beyond human’.

Because the “firmament” is ‘beyond us’ we tend to disregard it.  There’s often a tendency  to completely neglect it.  But a big part of contemplation is being aware of it.  In other words, “I must know that I cannot know”.   This entails an ‘acknowledgement’ and ‘awareness’, which much be done regularly, that there is the unknown and that one will never know.


Contemplation symbol_presence

This is a ‘sense’ of ‘something’ about us.  It is, really, the presence of god.  But, more importantly, it is a presence of something ‘living’ about us (which I call ‘living existence’), not that something is ‘just there’ (which I call ‘dead existence’).  This may sound trivial but it is very significant and critical.  Because of this, the ‘presence’ is often perceived as a person or a being.  Often, it has a quality of a parent, of something watching over us and protecting us.

In some respects, the ‘presence’ is a sense of the ‘firmament’ as ‘living’.  The ‘firmament’, by itself, is just a sense of mystery.  The ‘presence’ is much more than that but there are times when they blend together and become the same.

Interestingly, it is the feeling of the “presence”, in about 1990, that actually changed my life and turned me into a contemplative.  This little “sense” made one of the greatest impacts on my life.  This shows the power of the ‘presence’ and its importance.  In actuality, the ‘presence’ is the beginning and end of contemplation.  One could say that there are three stages in contemplation:

  1. One begins contemplation by becoming aware of the presence. 
  2. In becoming aware of the presence one goes through the ‘battle of contemplation’ which consists of the transformation and growth of the self (which are reflected in the symbols below) and the establishing of a relationship between ones ‘personal self’ and the ‘self of the world’ (meaning ‘existence’ or god).
  3. As a result of the ‘battle of contemplation’, and the growing relationship, one begins to become closer to the ‘presence’. 

In this way, one as if makes a great circle going ending where one began.  Of course, this circle never ends and continues on.


Contemplation symbol_passion

I often describe this as the ‘force’ or ‘energy’ that moves things.  It is what I call the ‘livingness’ in life.  This sense is very important as contemplation is not just an awareness but an ‘absorbing of passion’ as well.  In many ways, this ‘absorbing of passion’ is what causes a transformation of self.

Notice how the passion flows from outside the presence to outside again.  This shows that it is a “mysterious force” which seems to have no beginning or end.  It is just there.

There are really two forms of ‘passion':

  1. The ‘passion of existence’.  This is the ‘passion’ that moves the world and is perceived as removed from us and separate.   
  2. The ‘passion of the self’.  This is the ‘passion’ within us, that has origin in us, and moves through us.
  3. The ‘passion of unity’.  This is the ‘passion’ of ‘existence’ and ‘self’ unified and as if one.  This shows, in effect, that the two former ‘passions’ are related and there’s a point where they are the same.

All these must be sought and ‘absorbed’.  That is to say, they must become a part of ones self and who one is.

‘Passion’ becomes more apparent as one becomes more aware of the ‘presence’.  Basically, the ‘presence’ begins to grow ‘dead’ and inanimate.  This can become one of the great struggles of contemplation.  In actuality, one is finding that the ‘presence’ is only a ‘doorway’, a signpost, to something else . . . it leads to ‘passion’.  This requires one to seek, and find, ‘passion’.

‘Passion’ can be experienced as a feeling or emotion at first.  Its often described as ‘love’ in Christian contemplation.  There is truth in this and one can often begin by feelings of love.  But to restrict ones self to a specific emotion or feeling restricts ones contemplation.  One must look beyond emotion or feeling.  This is because ‘passion’ is not a feeling or emotion, though it can cause these.  ‘Passion’, to me, is deeper, coming from the depths of the self.

Interestingly, ‘passion’ describes a ‘hunger’ or ‘need’ or ‘want’ or ‘poverty’.  As living things we are always in want of something, be it air, food, experience, meaning or what not.  In other words, ‘passion’ reflects want.  We are always in some form of need or want AND we always need to have it satisfied.  In other words, we always feel ‘lacking’ in some way.  This sense of ‘lacking’ causes a “want” to end the ‘lacking’.  This “want” is essentially ‘passion’.  Because of this ‘passion’ can be described as having these qualities:

  1. A lacking.  This is a feeling that we are need of something.  This feeling is so strong that we feel it at least part of the time.
  2. A want.  This is the desire to satisfy what is lacking or, in other words, the desire to not be lacking any more.
  3. An object.  This is the “something” that will satisfy the want and, as a result, end the lacking.

So we see that ‘passion’ is a desire to get rid of a feeling we always have (the ‘want’) which originates in a feeling that something is missing in us (the ‘lacking’).  To put it another way, ‘passion’ is the continual seeking or questing to try to become “whole”.  Since we never do become “whole” it is an ongoing never-ending questing.  No “one thing” can satisfy this quest.  As a result, we are always bouncing around between these two extremes:

  1. Feeling lacking.
  2. Feeling satisfied.

This shows that we do feel satisfied or “whole” at times.  But its only temporary.  ‘Passion’ is much like being hungry.  When we need food we feel hunger.  When we eat it is satisfied and hunger disappears.  But soon hunger reappears.  It is no different with ‘passion’ (in fact, hunger for food is a form of ‘passion’ but more specific).  This same thing happens with contemplation . . . we bounce around between lacking and satisfied.

In fact, in contemplation one feels these three qualities:

  1. The sense of lacking. 
  2. The seeking.
  3. The satisfaction. 

In many ways, these three qualities create something like a circle which goes around and around . . . lacking, seeking, satisfaction, lacking, seeking, satisfaction, etc.  In this way, one could compare contemplation to the hunger for food, something that never ends and continually alternates between feeling hungry and being satisfied.

There are many forms of want which makes something like a spectrum:

  • Need.  This is want-as-innate-need.  It is primarily interior and tends to lack ulterior and personal influence.  In this way, it reflects deep inner needs of the self.
  • Hunger.  This is want-as-a-necessity.  In other words, it refers to the want of things to keep us alive, such as food, water, warmth, meaning and such.
  • Desire.  This is want-as-luxury. This primarily consists of wants that are personal, that satisfy personal desire and whims.

In dealing with ‘passion’ one must learn to ‘refine’ and ‘delineate’ ones want and learn to want for the right reasons.  This can easily become a major hurdle in contemplation and take years, in fact, a lifetime.  It would not be far off to say that a significant part of contemplation is nothing but the continual quest to “want correctly”, which is a process that never ends.

Only by “wanting correctly” can ‘passion’ be fully embraced.  This is because want has great impact on ones self, such as:

  • “Correct want” hits to the depths of the self.  “Incorrect want” misleads one from the depths of the self.
  • “Correct want” makes one’s self directed and focused.  “Incorrect want” tends to cause confusion.

In other words, “correct want” leads to the self.

Why is this so important?

Because contemplation is an act of the self.  Through contemplation the ‘personal self’ and ‘self of the world’ is known and experienced.  This shows the importance of the self in contemplation and that, in many ways, contemplation rests upon the self.  As a result of this, the self must be sought and developed.

The “correct want”, that one seeks in contemplation, is need.  In other words, one seeks “innate want”, that inner deep hunger and longing.  In some respects, contemplation can be described as a “quest for innate want”.  This need is something that affect us and influences us.  In general, it does not control us.  We must seek it.  That is to say, we seek need.  In this way, we find that the seeking, itself, is the need.  But, we must remember, that the seeking implies a continual sense of ‘loss’ or ‘hunger’ or ‘want’.  In other words, seeking implies that something is ‘lacking’ in us . . . we are as if incomplete.  As a result of this, as part of the seeking we often feel what can be described as a ‘loss’, or unfulfilled, or unsatisfied, or incompetent.  This sense of ‘loss’ is often one of the first signs of ‘passion’.  But we must beware.  From the sense of ‘loss’ we can take several directions:

  • We can feel only the ‘loss’ – this is ‘passion-not-experienced’.  In this case, nothing ‘moves us’ and we grow stagnant.
  • We can feel the ‘loss’ as a desire to find what’s lost – this is ‘passion-experienced’.  In other words, we feel something that ‘moves us’ . . . ‘passion’.

We can see, then, that ‘passion’ is often experienced in the experience of ‘loss’.  The sense of ‘loss’ is only a sign that ‘passion’ is there.  I say this because there is something like a war that is often required to have ‘passion-experienced’.  In many cases, it is something that one must fight for.  It can often take great courage and inner penetration into ones self and soul.

It seems, to me, that ‘passion-experienced’ is not an emotion or feeling (though it can create those).  It seems like an ‘inner stirring’ of the soul that seems so deep that its wordless.  Perhaps one could even describe I as ‘beyond the self’?

The type of want called hunger is a want that needs to be respected.  Respecting hunger is one of the means, I believe, of respecting life and ones condition in life.  Knowing that we hunger in order to survive can, at times, be humbling as it reveals our weak dependent nature.  It also ‘implants’ us in the world, as worlds children who as if look to the world as a parent for its sustenance.  As a result, respecting hunger is very important for being aware of who “we” are in the world.

The type of want called desire is something that needs to be controlled.  This is to say, one should not completely shun it.  Desire is something that we do, in fact, need but only at certain times and in certain proportions.  In other words, desire is something that we don’t want to dominate us.  Fulfilling desire can cause great happiness and contentment in life, but not when its all the time and out-of-control.  Its power is such that it can easily overpower us.  Once it overpowers it we become its slave.  Because of this, one must be on guard against desire.

The object of want is a significant aspect of ‘passion’. Wanting the wrong object can bring ‘passion’ to a halt.  In this way, in contemplation we are always chasing the correct object.   One could very well say that this chasing of the correct object defines contemplation.

  1. An actual object.  This refers to something tangible and physical.
  2. A thought or conception.  This primarily refers to knowing something.
  3. A state of mind/awareness.  This refers to a particular condition of the mind and self.  Usually, this is without thought.

In contemplation we are primarily chasing the state of mind/awareness form of object.  In other words, we are chasing the state of mind/awareness that satisfies the want and ends the lacking.  Because it is a state of mind/awareness contemplation is very spiritual in nature.


Contemplation symbol_emptiness

‘Emptiness’ is a very important trait of contemplation.  Without ’emptiness’ contemplation cannot happen.  This shows the fact that things easily muddle our minds.  In other words, contemplation entails a very ‘touchy’ part of the mind that is easily distracted.  Because of this ‘touchiness’ contemplation often has a quality of extreme delicacy or sensitivity.  Any disruption brings it to a halt.

There are many forms of ’emptiness’ such as:

  • Worldly emptiness.  This means being devoid of worldly affairs and actions.
  • Sensation emptiness.  This refers to being in an area that does not cause great sensation, such as a noisy area or being in an area where there is much worldly things happening.
  • Thought emptiness.  This means being without thought.
  • Emotional emptiness.  This means being without emotions and feelings and not letting them influence us.
  • Self emptiness.  This means being devoid of ones sense of ‘outer’ self.

In some respects, in the act of contemplation ’emptiness’ can be described as entailing things such as:

  • Being in “empty” location and condition.  That is to say, being in an area away from the noise of the world.
  • The emptying and clearing of ones mind and self.  This is critical for contemplation as one cannot contemplate with a muddled mind.  This does not mean that the mind is ‘blank’.  What it means is that the mind must be ‘free from interference’.
  • The loss of ones ‘outer’ self.   In this way, ’emptiness’ tends to lead to ones inner self.

The purpose of ’emptiness’, really, is to loose ones ‘outer self’.  Since the ‘outer self’ is worldly everything associated with the world must be “emptied” (sensations, thoughts, emotions, etc.).  Only when the ‘outer self’ is lost do we find our ‘inner self’.  This shows that the purpose of contemplation is to put oneself in a condition to find ones ‘inner self’.

  1. The act of emptying.
  2. The finding of emptying.
  3. The finding of ones ‘inner self’.

Each phase creates its own challenges and difficulties.  The act of emptying is difficult in itself.  But its even harder to “find” the emptying.  One may be so busy doing the act of emptying that one may never realize that one is emptied.  It takes skill, I think, to find when one is empty.  It even takes greater skill to find ones ‘inner self’ in the emptied state.  In many ways, these describe the basic challenges of contemplation as everyone, I believe, will have problem on all three levels.


Contemplation symbol_duality

‘Duality’ refers to how things tend to be in opposite’s describing a natural duality in life.  This is reflected in the horizontal line showing that there is a top and a bottom or an up and a down . . . duality.  The theme of duality is continually seen in contemplation and, I feel, plays a major role.  As a result, one must learn to be aware of it and play along with it.  That is to say, to use it.

‘Duality’ seems to appear in two ways:

  1. Extremes – its either “one or the other”
  2. Spectrum – its the same as extremes but there are gradations

In contemplation one see’s both forms.

I’ve found that contemplation is not a ‘one-state act’ but one that entails many states AND the ability to alternate between them and even from one extreme to another.  As a result, contemplation requires that one be variable and able to change.

Some common duality themes found in contemplation are:

  • Life/death
  • Superficial/deep
  • Worldly/other-worldly
  • Thought/thoughtless

These themes are a reference to the many states of mind that are required in contemplation.  To be frank, one cannot contemplate if one cannot change their ‘state of mind’ in contemplation.  It shows that there must be a willingness to be a different person and to reflect a different self.  If one cannot do this then one cannot contemplate.

An importance of duality is also seen in the fact that both make a whole.  That is to say, duality does not just mean two opposites but it also refers to making opposites relate to each other.  In other words, it refers to the ability to make what appear as contrary things relate to one another.  This may sound easy but it is not as easy as it seems.  As a result, duality leads to ‘wholeness’.  Reconciling different and opposing things is one of the great challenges of contemplation and life in general.  In some respects, life is nothing but a reconciling of opposing qualities, in some way or another.  Just as duality requires a person to be variable it also requires a person to be constant.  This dilemma, itself, is reflective of duality.


Contemplation symbol_self

The self refers to the maintaining of oneself as a ‘unit’ or a ‘whole’.  Indeed, the self is a sense of self-as-opposed-to-the-world, as removed from the world.  It requires a sense of being a person in relation to everything else.  As a result, it is associated with an ‘inner sense of integrity’.  This sense, felt more deeply, turns into the ’ember’ (see below).  Because of this the self, and its development, is associated with a relationship and conflict with the world.  As a result, the “self” actually is made up of three elements:

  1. The self.
  2. The world
  3. The self-in-the-world.

So we see that “self” means more than the self but an awareness of the world and a relationship with the world.  As a result, world perception, and world association, is very influential in regard to the self.

Contemplation requires the self to change or grow.  As a result, contemplation can often ‘force’ the self to grow.  Often, great stress is laid upon the self as well as great demands.  This causes a great deal of conflict in contemplation.  One could even say that this ‘forcing the self to grow’ is one of the great benefits, and values, of contemplation.

Notice how, in the symbol, the passion passes through the self.  This is because it is the ‘passion’ that “moves” the self.  Because of this, it requires that the self be developed and grown.  The self, after all, is what guides ‘passion’ and directs it.  This shows that there is a great, and strong, association between ‘passion’ and the ‘self’, that they are intimately bound together.  There are even times when they cannot be distinguished apart, where they become one a ‘passion-self’.

There are also levels to the self.  The self is not just one ‘entity’.  Much of the self is hidden from us, and inaccessible.  In actuality, contemplation can be described as trying to regain or contact these other hidden aspects of our self.  In this way, contemplation has the quality of ‘making for a greater holistic self’.  It does this by more uniting varying aspects of the self, seen and unseen.  Keep in mind that the self is so deep that one can never know it all nor fully make it completely whole.  As a result, this continual quest for a ‘holistic self’ is an ongoing never-ending affair.

There are also “cycles of the self”.  That is to say, self’s are born, live, and die.  Because of this, one must “assist” in the “cycle of the self” and in the different phases of our self:

  1. The consummation of the self. 
  2. The birth of the self.
  3. The growth and development of the self.
  4. The dying of the self.
  5. The death of the self.
  6. The burying of the self.

Because we have many levels of the self we have, in actuality, many self’s, all in different phases of the “cycle of the self”.  This requires us to be very observant and watching of our “different self’s” and to “assist” as required.  In some respects, a great deal of contemplation is nothing but observing our “self’s” and reacting to its condition.

One of the great difficulties we have is that we tend to keep our older self’s (that is, we don’t let them die).  This keeping of our older self’s hinders us and our development.  As a result, contemplation generally causes a continual dying.  This means a continual abandoning of old ways and perceptions.  This is not an easy thing to do.  I often think it is one of the hardest things to do.

Closely associated with the death of an old self is the birth of a new self.  It seems, to me, that the death of an old self often spurns the birth of a new self, making them closely related.  Though it may “assist” in the birth of a new self by keeping the old self’s we hinder the growth and development of the new self.  In some respects, the keeping of old self’s created a very “crowded mind” that “suffocates” any new self.  In this way, part of the ’emptiness’ (as described above) is the emptying of our mind of old self’s.  Often, the birth of a new self is “assisted” by forgetting what one is or thinks they are.  In other words, by becoming “self-dumb”.    I, myself, will go around thinking to myself, “I don’t know who I am”.  This, in a way, creates an environment for a new self to appear (that is to say, it is not “suffocated” by other self’s).


Contemplation symbol_ember

The ’ember’ is a reference to what can be described as beingness, a sense of self-as-living.  In other words, its not just a sense of ones self as “there” but as “living there”.  This distinction may sound minor but is very critical.  When one is “living there” it is as if one is an ember glowing.

As mentioned above, it seems to derive from a deeper sense of the self, of that ‘inner integrity’, which turns into the ‘passion-self’.  In some respects, its the next step, showing three stages:

  1. The self.
  2. The ‘passion.  The self united with ‘passion’ . . . the ‘passion-self’.
  3. Existence.  The “ember”/beingness.  The ‘passion-self’ united with the existence.

In other words, the self unites with passion which unites with existence.  This creates beingness or the “ember”.  Everything as if becomes “one”, united.  In this way, one becomes ‘existence’ and ‘ones self’, bonded by ‘passion’ or a “livingness”, all at the same time.  This often creates a great sense of “God” or sacredness as well as a profoundness.

In many ways, beingness is an ‘existential integrity’, of feeling a part of existence.  Often, this sense gives contemplation a very profound, mystical, and sacred quality.  This makes it something like a ‘centering’, which is why I portrayed it as a small circle in the center.


Basically, the symbol as if says:

“In the presence and mystery of existence, a passion flows giving things life.  This passion flows through the self, which must use it and guide it.  This passion forces the self to change and develop, by being born and dying, continually becoming something new.  In so doing, the self becomes more united and a part of existence and, accordingly, becomes more a part of life and living.”

It describes a general stance.  This stance is made up of many parts and qualities.  In other words, it shows that contemplation is a conglomeration of:

  • Acts.  This is what one does.  It can be described as being active.
  • Awareness.  This is what one opens oneself to and allows to happen.  It can be described as being passive.
  • Conditions.  This is the reality that one is in.  This reality is ones physical state and mental state which set the stage for the two former qualities.  It can be described as being encompassing as this reality surrounds a person.

It shows that contemplation, as I use it, is not a single “act” but something made of small things that lead up to a whole.  In many ways, this is a main goal, to get the whole of it all (see below).


The importance of what I call ‘livingness’ cannot be underestimated.  Livingness is a sense created, and needed, by the contemplative attitude.  It seems to me that, sometimes, the lack of this sense brings contemplation to a halt.  Without this sense, contemplation goes nowhere.  Not only that, there are times when contemplation is nothing but the “fight” to gain a sense of ‘livingness’.  In fact, I’d be tempted to say that contemplation is nothing but the quest for, and embracing, of a sense of ‘livingness’.  Because of this, the sense of ‘livingness’ becomes critical and paramount in contemplation and nothing to look at lightly.

‘Livingness’ could appear in many ways such as:

  • A sense of being alive.
  • A feeling or sense of ‘livingness’ in things
  • A profoundness of god or a ‘livingness beyond’.
  • A sanctity or sacredness.
  • A sense of god.
  • A profoundness.

This ‘livingness’ is experienced on many levels no doubt as a result of the many levels of self’s we have (see above).  That is to say, there are different depths of ‘livingness’, from what can be described, on one extreme, as a superficial ‘sense of living’ to a deep inner ‘mysterious sense of livingness in the world’ on the other extreme (often perceived as a sense of god).  Really, one finds that the forms of ‘livingness’ is endless.   Not only that, one finds that ‘livingness’ has such a range that it can appear from a ‘life’ perspective to a ‘death’ perspective.  In other words, there is a ‘livingness’ even in the “dark” aspects of life . . . conflict, pain, despair, suffering, death, etc.  Its because of this that the “dark” aspects of life must be embraced and accepted as much as is possible.  To put it another way, contemplation requires the “dark” aspects of life to be whole and true.  To avoid this is to only ‘half contemplate’.  This makes it so that contemplation is often filled with conflict, pain, despair, suffering, death, etc. . . . one must learn to live with them.

What one finds is that there is ‘livingness’ in everything.  Because of this, its a continual quest trying to find it.  Each new situation, each new quality, has its unique form of ‘livingness’ that must be found.  This makes contemplation like a continual endless questing or seeking.  This means that ‘livingness’ is not just “one sense” that one discovers and then says, “that’s it . . . I’m done”.  In actuality, its only the beginning.


Each symbol described above has a ‘practice’ associated with it.  That is to say, a person does a ‘something’ pertaining to each quality and which manifests its quality:

  1. The practice of the ‘Firmament’/Mystery.
  2. The practice of the “Presence”. 
  3. The practice of the “Passion”. 
  4. The practice of “Emptiness”.
  5. The practice of “Duality”. 
  6. The practice of the “Self”. 
  7. The practice of the “Ember”/Beingness.

In many respects, the practice of all these different practices constitutes contemplation.  Contemplation isn’t just “one thing” but is made up of many things. many qualities, and many things that must be done.  Each of these things or qualities must be ‘practiced’ and developed.  This makes contemplation a very involved and complicated affair, far more than what it may seem initially.  In fact, I’d say that contemplation has gone in so many directions, and depths, that it has been mind-boggling to me.  It has gone from “just an act I did” (like a hobby) to a life-involving affair.  In other words, contemplation is ‘life-encompassing’.  In some respects, contemplation brought all the different aspects of life into one place.

As I said above, contemplation is a continual practicing of each quality.  But one practices each individual parts for something more:  the entirety of it all.  As it is said in this saying:

“Doing the parts, practicing the whole”

In other words, as one does the different qualities, or parts, one begins to establish a sense of the whole, of the entirety of it all.  Once one becomes proficient in the individual qualities, or different parts, and develops a more holistic way, one can be said to develop a ‘contemplative attitude’.  When this attitude is developed one can say that they are truly practicing contemplation in my opinion.  If a person only does this or that quality then they are doing ‘aspects of contemplation’.  My feelings is that it takes a special person to develop the ‘contemplative attitude’.  I feel that many monks don’t even develop it.

In addition, I tend to feel that nobody can develop a continuous ongoing ‘contemplative attitude’.  In other words, the ‘contemplative attitude’ comes and goes in a persons life.  To put it another way, it has its ups and downs.  There are times when its strong and there are times when its weak.  A person may even develop it for a short period of time only to lose it, perhaps for the rest of their life (I think this happens for many monks).  The reason for the continual up and down of the ‘contemplative attitude’ is because it is not a ‘real-world attitude’.  That is to say, though it is life-based, it is something akin to a spirituality which is removed from the ‘real-world’.  But, because we are human, we need to be in the ‘real-world’.  As a result, the contemplative, in actuality, must alternate between the ‘contemplative attitude’ and the ‘real-world attitude’.  This causes a continual ‘up and down’ of the ‘contemplative attitude’ in a persons life.  Sometimes, the change from one attitude to another can be quite dramatic, even to the point of being traumatic.  The ‘real-world attitude’, for example, can literally feel like having the carpet pulled from underneath ones feet.  From this condition, one may have to struggle and fight to regain the ‘contemplative attitude’.  It may even get to the point that one just “finally gives up”.  This conflict, I feel, is one of the reasons why people who become contemplatives have the ‘character trait’.  Its exactly this ‘character trait’ that allows them to weather these conflicts and persist.  In some respects, this shows the depth of conflict that can happen in contemplation.


The practice of contemplation tends to lead to many places.  In other words, it doesn’t just lead to “one state” (such as ‘enlightment’).  Typically, contemplation is viewed as purely having a religious sense and purpose.  Because of this any other way is shunned.  One could call this the ‘focused contemplation point of view’.  Its a result of viewing contemplation intending to direct the mind in a specific direction and to be in a specific state (such as, in creating a union with god).  As a result, in this orientation, this is where one focuses ones effort and concentration.

I tend to feel otherwise.  My experience is that contemplation leads to many wonderful, fruitful, and life-based phenomena and events, such as:

  • The “quiet”.  This refers to a complete calming of ones self.  It often leads to a strong sense of the ‘presence’ or the ‘self’.
  • A sense of being a part of existence or God.
  • A profoundness.
  • A strong sense of sacredness.
  • A different awareness.
  • A strong sense of self.
  • A different sense of self.
  • A separation of self.  This can even lead to things like shamanism, as it did with me (see my article “Thoughts on defining shamanism: an ‘active belief system’“)
  • Living images.  These are seeing ‘images in the world’, something like a ‘vision’.  See my article “Thoughts on observing the “nature-as-living” images – the ‘cross-self experience’ – the ‘pre-imagination’“. 
  • A humility.
  • A tendency to cry.
  • A ‘worshipfulness’.  That is to say, a desire to ‘worship’, honor, or respect nature, life, sacredness, etc.
  • Hummin’.  This is a term I use for a tendency to hum, sing, do poetry, and such.
  • A desire for expression.
  • Thinking about things.
  • Reflection.
  • Insight.
  • A seeking of inspiration.
  • Daydreaming. 
  • A desire to do some form of work.
  • Distractions.
  • An inability to control thoughts or feelings.
  • Conflict, pain, and suffering. 

These are examples of the many different ‘directions of contemplation’.  They show that contemplation leads to many different qualities.  Some are good.  Some are even bad.  It also shows that contemplation does not necessarily lead to contemplative-like things.  This shows that contemplation can be a ‘platform’ for things that are not contemplative and have nothing to do with it.  In other words, what begins as contemplation may not end there.  This means that there are many directions of contemplation with a range like:

  • Contemplative
  • Partly contemplative
  • Not contemplative

Because there is a movement away from contemplation it can create quite a dilemma. Basically, one must determine if one should persist in contemplation or ‘follow along’ in another direction.  The ability to do this requires great inner inquiry, self-knowledge, and experience.  It also requires many failures and ‘wrong directions’.  In many cases, there are no ‘wrong directions’.  Only ones good judgment can determine that.

Because there are so many directions it as if ‘infuses’ these other things with the contemplative quality.  In other words, they become ‘contemplative’.  Because of this, one finds that one literally ‘bounces around’ between the many different ‘directions of contemplation’ in the actual “act” of contemplation.  That is to say, one does not maintain one constant direction.  This, I believe, is what normally happens, regardless of how focused one is or thinks they are. 


The ‘contemplative attitude’, over time, tends to create a certain state of mind.  This “certain state of mind” is almost impossible to define or, rather, put into words.  Many years ago I called this state of mind ‘poesy’ (of which I’ve written articles of in this blog).

One finds that this “certain state of mind” as if colors and influences life and everyday things.  Like a mist it permeates into all aspects of life.  In this way, the ‘livingness’ of contemplation becomes a part of everyday life and is seen in all things.  Since ‘livingness’ is associated with sacredness and god, it as if makes one see the ‘sacred’ or ‘holy’ in everything.  In fact, one becomes surrounded by  a ‘sacredness’ and ‘holiness’ to the point that one becomes ‘sacred-like’ and ‘holy-like’.   Life, then, is changed and altered as a result.  This is another example of the ‘life-encompassing’ quality of contemplation.

Because of the coming and going of the ‘contemplative attitude, as described above, one finds that one is either seeking or maintaining the “certain state of mind”.  This is because it tends to have a precious quality and grows to be something very dear to ones heart.  The loss of it can be like a death.

One also finds that life, really, is nothing but a state of mind and it is through this state of mind that life is lived, experienced, and embraced.  In some respects, the state of mind is the most precious thing there is in life.  In it is life.  In it is the means to live.  In it is the means to be.  Without the correct state of mind what use are things like money, objects, social status, and the like?  The state of mind makes everything.  It is the base of all experience and being.   As a result, the maintenance of a correct state of mind is critical.

In seeking and maintaining the “certain state of mind” one finds that many things are not as important as we thought.  We have to adjust our priorities and look at life in a different way.  Life becomes, I think, more simpler and less complex.  In effect, the whole world changes.  The world changes because we have changed showing that, in reality, the world we see is actually a reflection of us and who we are.  As my saying goes:

“When I look out at the world I see my self looking back at me.”


Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in Contemplation, monastacism, shamanism, spirituality, prayer, and such, Existence: Awareness, Beingness, Consciousness, Conceptionism, and such, Philosophy, Poesy - Seeking a state of mind, Religion and religious stuff | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Thoughts on ‘modern idiocy’ – of how ‘ways are better than ideas’ and my saying ‘live beyond ideas’

In a conversation some time ago there was discussion about dating.  Basically, a female had difficulty in getting a boyfriend.  She said that “guys are idiots”.  Later, this got me into thinking that amounted to this:

She said that “guys are idiots” but, on the other hand, guys always say “girls are idiots”.  In this society, we tend to blame the person and focus on the person.  As a result, we say “they” are the problem.  In actuality, the problem, it seems to me, is not that males and females are idiots but that the situation is idiotic.  In other words, the whole dating scene has become idiotic.

I went on to say that its idiotic because we have abandoned the ways that have existed for centuries in regard to being male/female, dating, marriage and such.  This loss of the ways of wisdom has, accordingly, caused a deterioration of male/female, dating, marriage, and such.  This has basically turned it into an idiotic situation which, of course, makes idiots out of everyone.

In many ways, the abandoning of the ways of wisdom of the past have turned male/female, dating, marriage, and such into a free-for-all.  It is unguided, undirected, indiscriminate, random, undisciplined, uncontrolled, etc., which makes for an idiotic situation, which tends to fail or create problems.  The ways of wisdom of the past usually prevented these things from happening.

As I grow older I am finding that there was great wisdom in the ways of the past and that one should not look down on them . . . the “advanced” people of today, with all their high-and-mighty ideas and principles, are NOT creating anything better.   In fact, in my opinion, its getting more idiotic.  After making observations like this I’m finding that I emphasize more and more that if the people of the past did something, and had some custom or tradition, there was a reason for it . . . it does not matter if we understand it or not.  In short, the people of the past created customs for a reason, out of a wisdom.  Because we have abandoned these we have lost that wisdom and its effects.  We have, accordingly, become ‘modern idiots’Many of the modern problems we have, it seems to me, are a result of ‘modern idiocy’ and the abandoning of the wisdom of the past.  In short, in abandoning the ways of wisdom of the past we have lost the benefits that their existence created.  This has made us, really, a dumber sort of people.

Wisdom, as I am using it here, is very unique.  It deals with many aspects of life and living.  It does this by using ‘ways’ which are patterns of behavior.   Some traits of the ‘ways’ of wisdom include:

  • Its a pattern of living based in how you live.
  • It is based in experience.
  • It is passed down to the next generation, generally, in an unwritten idealess way.
  • It is based in a belief system of some sort.
  • It requires a constancy to establish the way or pattern of living.

These are qualities found in what is often called culture.  In many ways, culture is nothing but an elaborate form of the ways of wisdom, reflecting a particular way of living of a people, based in experience.  The fall of culture, then, is really the fall of ways and wisdom and, accordingly, the creation of ‘modern idiocy’.

Because the ways of wisdom are rooted in how people live it brings together many aspects of human reality, known and unknown.  As a result, it tends to affect a greater aspect of life and encompass a greater aspect of human reality.  Being based in experience, ways of wisdom become a culmination of things that ‘work’ in human reality.  Because of this, they encompass aspects of human life that we are not immediately aware of.  In fact, the ways of wisdom often go way beyond conception and thought.  This is because wisdom is rooted more in what we actually do, not what we “think” or think we do. 

An example of this was mentioned in the conversation we had.  There was mention of how guys will get girls pregnant.  Because it was not a ‘serious’ relationship to begin with, there is no marriage or commitment.  As a result, they do not help with the raising of the kid, even with money.  This, of course, was condemned (and, naturally, the male is all at fault for it . . . the female is always treated as an innocent bystander).  It was condemned “on principle”, that it did not fit the idea that it was right.  This point of view sounds good, and reflects an ‘idea’ that makes sense, but it neglects certain realities and truths about human nature.  The main emphasis is primarily the ‘idea’ and what ‘it’ means . . . that is the focus.  There is no consideration for anything else.  But the problem is that ‘ideas’, by their nature, are narrow and limited and, as a result, they tend to neglect many other things (see below).  This neglecting of other things that ‘ideas’ tend to do, or so it seems to me, is what causes a lot of problems seen in ‘modern idiocy’.

In regard to what was mentioned above the human fact is that the father needs to feel more of a connection with his kid to inspire him to help it and ‘be’ the father.  I’ve even heard guys say things to this effect:  “why should I pay all this money to a kid I hardly see?”  This shows a reality that many of us probably don’t want to admit:  that it requires more than the fact that its “his kid” to create a bond that is strong enough to make him want to take care of it.  I know enough about the male character to know that the male needs things like these to feel a strong bond and connection with his kid:

  • He needs to feel he’s part of a “team”.  He must see himself, and the kid, as part of a “team” in which everyone plays a specific role and place.  This “team” used to be marriage and the family.
  • It all needs to be part of a greater context.  That is to say, he must see himself, his child, and his association with his child, as part of a social structure and a belief system, with a place and purpose.  This used to be things like tradition, culture, and religion.

The idea of “it’s his kid” is simply not enough in the real human world.  It doesn’t matter how romantic or good “loving his kid because its his” may sound.  Its simply not enough on the human level.  The ways of wisdom, seen in the past, have encompassed traits such as these (not narrowed it down to one ‘idea’ of “it’s his kid”).  Accordingly, the older ways tended to create strong bonds between father and child which tend to be lacking in this idea-based world, nowadays, by supplying these other qualities.

This example shows how we have placed an ‘idea’ (that a father “should take care of his kid even though he has little contact with it”) before anything else and, despite how good it sounds, it comes out lacking.  Its an example of how the emphasis on ideas, nowadays, has undermined and destroyed the effects of wisdom and created something like an ‘idiocy’.   This is because wisdom is not rooted in ideas but in ‘ways’.  In fact, a lot of the wisdom of the past has no “idea form” at all and was often implemented “without words”, only as an act.  This is one reason why wisdom tends to be lost so easily . . . its wordless.  Wisdom tends to be “learned” by example, not by using words and ideas.  They’re not taught in the classroom, for example.  Wisdom generally entails things, and understandings, that cannot be spoken of.  In this way, the ‘practice of the ways’ becomes the ‘learning’, what can be described as ‘learning of ways’.   Nowadays, we are in the ‘era of ideas’ . . . everything revolves around ideas.  Everything is based in what this idea means or what that idea means.  Learning is primarily ‘idea learning’, to learn ideas.  Because this orientation is so dominant it makes us think that its the only form of learning there is . . . but its not.  When we emphasize ideas we are limited by what the ideas invoke and mean.  In this way, we are actually restricting ourselves to these aspects of the mind which reflect the idea orientation.  But the mind is more than that . . . its more than ideas . . . human life is more than ideas.  To limit our life by ideas is to severely restrict our mind, our selves, and our life.  This is because ideas are not all-embracing and are limited in nature.  Human life needs more than ideas!

Ways seem to entail more of the mind than does ideas and, accordingly, create a more holistic perspective and life.  In some respects, ways make life human.  It does this in ways such as:

  • It is an act.  This act appears in many ways such as attitude, deed, action, and thought.
  • It entails participation.  It generally entails something in which a person ‘plays a part’ with other people or ‘takes their position’ amidst people.  These people can be ones culture, ones spouse, etc.
  • It is generally transmitted by example.
  • It often entails symbolism.  This shows how it affects other aspects of the human mind, not just the ‘idea part of the mind’.
  • Sometimes, it may entail ideas.  Usually, these ideas are not abstract in form but symbolic, representational, or mythological in nature.
  • In some respects, ways have the quality of a play where a person plays a specific role and position, turning life into something like a performance.  In this way, it creates meaning in things and a holistic orientation in life.
  • It reflects a belief system.  Generally, ways and wisdom are reflections of a general world view that describes how the world works.  Often, its based in religious or cultural beliefs.

So, we can see that ways brings together more aspects of the mind than does ideas, going way beyond what ideas can entail and encompass.  Because of this, it seems that ‘ways are better than ideas’.

In fact, not only are ideas more limited than ways but it seems that ideas tend to destroy ways and wisdom.  This, no doubt, is because ideas entails so little of the mind and self.  This narrow orientation makes what little wisdom, that is found in the idea, so narrow that it becomes almost insignificant.  Because of this, intellectualism, knowledge, education, learning and such (which Western society so prizes) tends to undermine ways and wisdom.  Because of this, they do not make people “wise”.  In other words, knowledge does not equate with ways or wisdom.  Just because your a college graduate, or know a lot, does not mean you’re wise in any way.  My experience is that most people that are “wise” have little education.  To be frank, it seems that the less education you have the more “wise” you are inclined to be.

Another thing that undermines wisdom is ideals or, rather, trying to follow an ideal.  Idealism tends to destroy wisdom because it follows after ideals, which is really a glorified idea.  This makes it so that an idealist is only chasing after ideas.  In addition, an idealist is usually trying to make the ideals ‘real’.  In some respects, idealism is the problem of ideas taken to the extreme.  This is because they’re trying to make the idea happen, whether its right or wrong, practical or not.  They believe in the idea so much that they try to ‘force’ it to happen.  What dictates life, for them, is the idea.  As a result, idealism tends to create people who “live in the clouds” of their ideas.

Once destroyed, wisdom is almost impossible to retrieve or revive.  As a result, the deteriation of ways of wisdom is a tragedy.  In addition, the creation of new ways of wisdom is not an easy thing.  There are many problems, particularly nowadays, that hinder any creation of wisdom, such as:

  • There are too many ideas.
  • There are too many overeducated people, filled with learning and ideas to the brim.
  • There is no way to establish a pattern or way because there are too many disruptions or interferences.
  • There is little or no belief.
  • There is no bond of a people or a culture.
  • There is too much change.

Because of things, such as these, wisdom cannot be created that easily.  In this sense, we are losing one of the great ‘unspoken understandings’ of human life (wisdom) making a more limited lifestyle (the ‘modern idiocy’ lifestyle).  Here no one knows whats right or wrong, what male and female is, what marriage is, etc.  In addition, there tends to be no social hierarchy, no leader, no direction, no belief, and such.  This shows that many human institutions originate from ways and wisdom.  In fact, human institutions are not only the manifestation of ways and wisdom but create the means and avenues for ways and wisdom.  Without human institutions there’s practically no way for any wisdom to manifest itself.  This is why we are seeing the ‘modern idiocy’.  Some human institutions that seem to derive from ways and wisdom, but also are means for ways and wisdom, include:

  • Religious belief, tradition, and customs.
  • Cultural belief, tradition, and customs.
  • The image and association with authority.
  • Social hierarchy.
  • Right and wrong or living the ‘correct way’.
  • Social roles and obligations.
  • Male and female identity.
  • Marriage.
  • The ‘correct’ association between the sexes.
  • Family life.

Things, such as these, practically define human life showing how much ways and wisdom affect us (or did) and how human life is rooted in them.  Because of this, the loss of ways and wisdom have contributed to our alienation and dehumanization . . . its made us ‘less human’. 

Looking at these human institutions, one can see that a common theme in all of them is this idea of a ‘correct way’, of doing things in a certain specific way.  This, of course, is what a ‘way’ is.  But it can also be described as a ‘moulding’ of a person into the ‘correct way’ and because ways and wisdom encompass a greater part of the mind and self, as described above, they create a more holistic ‘moulding’ of a person, a more complete person (much more than what ideas do).  Much of this ‘moulding’ is manifested through human institutions which has created human life.  In other words, ways and wisdom ‘mould’ a person and, in so doing, create a person . . . a human person. 

What all this shows is that the emphasis on ideas (which includes things like knowledge, education, etc.) is actually moving us into a form of “idiocy” that, in a way, defines the modern world today.  The emphasis on ideas actually restrict our minds, our selves, and our lives making us, in actuality, less human by creating a more restricted and narrow human life.  This is the origin of my saying:

“Live beyond ideas” 


Copyright by Mike Michelsen


Posted in Culture, cultural loneliness, etc., Dehumanization and alienation, Education and learning, Life in general, Modern life and society, Psychology and psychoanalysis, Society | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on how I perceive the world – inspiration and the “I don’t know” – with remarks about Socrates, philosophy, Odin, and belief

Here’s a thought I had:

Nowadays, there is a tendency to equate our perception of the world as a form of “ultimate knowledge”.  It is treated as a ‘fact’ before us, like the sky or a mountain.  Because of this, the world is perceived as being “set in stone” and “unchangeable”.  This becomes the way we know it making the world nothing but a form of “ultimate knowledge”.  In other words, there is an equation of ‘world=knowledge’.  I speak of this as the ‘world-as-knowledge orientation’.   This world-as-knowledge perspective makes it so that knowledge becomes the “measure of all things” creating what can be called a ‘static perception of the world’ as knowledge is static and non-changing . . . once you know it that’s what it is.  The most extreme version of this is science with its rigid “this is the world” attitude, defined, unchangeable, and absolute.

I find I look at things differently . . .


Life is based in perception.  It defines what is known, how its known, and what is important.  Perception, by its nature, is a very varied and active event in life.  Because of this, one cannot equate ‘knowledge’ to perception, as in the ‘knowledge-as-perception orientation’.  It is not ‘fact’ or something “set in stone”, in my opinion.  That is to say, the world is experienced and lived as what one perceives, not what one knows or what the world actually is.  Therefore, the conditions of perception dictate the world and what it is as well as how we associate with it.  This means that the question of the world is really a question of perception.  In this way, one could say that the ‘real world’ is something we can never know . . . all we know is what we perceive.  As a result, I have found that whenever I look at the world I often end up looking at perception instead.  This is the ‘world-as-perception orientation’.  In this orientation, the question of how one perceives becomes more important than the world itself, as well as its ‘knowledge’.  Because of this, I have put great emphasis on how the world is perceived.

I’ve often viewed how I perceive the world in a specific way.  This is shown in this diagram (click to see):

Perception of world

This diagram depicts a particular stance in regard to perceiving and its specific traits.  As one can see I view myself as standing in the act of perceiving the world.  I am standing facing the “I don’t know”, which is really the world.  As I do this I stand on the ‘authority of precedence’.  As I look out into the “I don’t know” there is the “mist of precedence” coming from the “authority of precedence” which comes into the “I don’t know”.  Along with this is the “mist intuition” that comes from “intuition” which hangs as if mysteriously above me and also comes into the “I don’t know”.  This makes it so that, as I gaze out into the world, there is a mixture of three things:

  1. The “I don’t know”.
  2. The “mist of precedence”.
  3. The “mist of intuition”.

These three combine to create something like a soup:  perception.  As a result of all these different elements, perception is very varied and reactive.  It creates a very dynamic and ever-changing situation.  In other words, perception is a constantly fluid situation.

The “Self”

This “self” actually refers to what can be described as an ‘extended self’.  That is to say, it is not just the perceiving of ones self but more.  This is because perceiving, as I’m using it, consists of a combination of three different forms of perceiving:

  1. A perceiving of the world.
  2. A perceiving of the self.
  3. A perceiving of the self-in-the-world.

In other words, its not just a ‘perceiving’ but a ‘perceiving in the context of ones self and the world’.  That is to say, we don’t just ‘perceive’ things (such as the sky is blue) but perceive things in relation to other things (the world, self).  Perhaps we could speak of these three forms of perceiving as ‘contextual perceiving’?  In this way, its more like an ‘extended perceiving’ that brings together different forms of perceiving into a single perceiving.  It is the “self” that brings together the different forms of perceiving and allows this single perceiving.  In other words, the “self” makes ‘contextual perceiving’ happen.  Because of this, the “self” is instrumental in perceiving in a greater context.

Because of the influence of the “self” it makes it so that its state and condition is critical and of paramount importance.  Any alteration, or change, in the “self” changes perceiving.  This is why mood, growth, experience, etc. have such an impact on perceiving . . . once the “self” is changed perceiving is changed.  As a result of this, there is a close connection between perceiving and the “self”.  In fact, they are so closely associated that anyone looking at perceiving becomes concerned, in the end, with the state and condition of the “self”.  In other words, any inquiry into perceiving often ends with an inquiry into the “self”.  This is because they are so closely associated.

The “gaze”

The “gaze” refers to our ‘looking’ out into the world.  It shows that a person must look.  To be more precise, the “gaze” refers to being aware.  One could also refer to this as being ‘open’ to the world.  Only by being aware and ‘open’ can anything be perceived.

One cannot be aware or ‘open’ to everything at once.  Because of this, we are actually only aware or ‘open’ to certain things at any one time.  This can be described as ‘selective awareness’.  That is to say, awareness is “selected” or singled out from everything else.  Because of this, we are usually oblivious to everything else not in ‘selective awareness’.  As a result of this, what one gazes at (that is, what one is aware of or ‘open’ to) determines what one perceives and tends to appear to be the only thing existing.  In this way, we actually only perceive a small part of what we are capable of being aware of.  In some respects, its much like looking through a tube.

Often, because ‘selective awareness’ is so selective and particular we get in the habit of gazing at the wrong things and being aware of frivolous and deceptive things.  Since this is all that we see we tend to ‘assume’ it to be correct.  But, as I mentioned above, this is only a small part of awareness.  As a result of this, learning to “gaze” at the correct things has a big influence on life.  In fact, a big part of life, in my opinion, is learning what is best to “gaze” at, to be aware of, and to be ‘open’ to.  This can have great impact on ones mental health and happiness in life.  As a result, its healthy to develop ‘the directed gaze’.  This is learning what is best, and healthiest, to direct ones “gaze”, of developing the “right perceiving”.  Remember, ones life depends on perceiving the world the right way”.  If one gets in the habit of “gazing” at the wrong things then it tends to detract from life and cause problems.  Developing a good and healthy ‘directed gaze’ is not easy.  A person can’t just tell you how to do it.  A person must look for himself.  Some aspects of a ‘directed gaze’ include:

  • The need for experience.  This means it must be practiced.  It means success and failure.
  • The intention of health and finding the “right” way.  A person must want to find a healthy and “right” way of perceiving.
  • The need for example.  It requires the need of example from other people, tradition, and belief.  Regardless of how much we think we can do things on our own we tend to need help from other people in some form.
  • The need for deliberate effort.  A person must use deliberate effort to find the healthiest and “right” way.  This is because perceiving is rooted in the “self”, as I said above.  Because of this, any healthy or “right” way of perceiving must entail deliberate effort as a manifestation of the “self”.  That is to say, the “self” must be involved for any ‘directed gaze’ to be effective.  The utilizing of the “self'” makes the ‘directed gaze’ hit deeper into ones soul affecting who one is.  In this way, the ‘directed gaze’, through the “self”, transforms a person, making it more than a perceiving but a self-altering experience.

I tend to feel that only in finding the “right” way is life achieved and grasped.  In other words, one doesn’t achieve life by money, by achieving, by climbing mountains, by being famous, etc.  Life is found by developing the “right” way of looking at it and perceiving it, of developing a healthy “gaze”.  In some respects, this is the great battle of life.

In this way, the “gaze” is related to what I call ‘Poesy’, which is seeking a particular state of mind.  I’ve written articles on this such as “Thoughts on how I am not an intellectual – the coming of ‘Poesy’ and the seeking of a state of mind” and “Thoughts on what I call Poesy“.  The ‘directed gaze’ is really ‘poesy’ and the “right” way is its particular state of mind.

The “rest”

The “rest” refers to having a sense of solidity and certainty in life.  This “rest” is based in these forms of authority:

  • The “authority of precedence’ (see entry below).  This could be described as ‘casual authority’ or ‘experiential authority’.  This is primarily based in things we’ve done.  Accordingly, it tends to have a more ‘functional, ‘practical’, or ‘mechanical’ role in life.  That is to say, it is an authority that tends to be superficial and has minimal influence on ones deep inner self.  It primarily has the function of allowing one to be able to function in the world.
  • The authority created by the “self”.  This could be described as ‘deep authority’, ‘personal authority’, or even ‘mystical authority’.  This type of authority is rooted in the ‘contextual perceiving’ described above and its association with the “self” and the world.  It hits deep within a person, often to the core of who one is.  Because of this, it tends to have a deep inner quality that affects ones “soul”.  This often gives it a ‘mystical’ and ‘religious’ quality.  Its not uncommon that it becomes associated with god and the Divine in some way.

The effect of these forms of authority tends to give the quality of something like a rock for us to “rest” upon.  It allows us to ‘relax’ and ‘be calm’ and thereby decreasing worry about things.  This gives authority a quality of a ‘protector’.  In this way, authority is like a parent and our relationship with authority is as a parent/child relationship.  This is because authority entails a trust, of a ‘letting something else take care of the difficulties of life’.  Because of this, the “rest”, which authority creates, is critical for living a healthy, happy, and content life.  The absence of the “rest” makes for a very nervous, tense, and unhappy life.  Because of this, our views of authority, which causes the “rest”, is critical in life.  In fact, one should seek it and try to find authority in ones life.  Some aspects of authority include:

  • We need to seek, and find, authority.
  • We need to develop healthy attitudes and views toward authority.
  • We need to develop a relationship with authority.

As a result of this, one could say that one of the secrets of life is the acknowledgement of authority and in having a good relationship with authority.  By doing this we develop a “rest” or a ‘calm’ in our lives.  This means we must develop a trust and a ‘letting go’.  In other words, one cannot find authority if one “has to be in charge” and “do everything”.  The lack of appreciation of authority is one of the reasons why Americans are so uptight (see my article “Thoughts on the ‘uptight American’ – the price of individualism“) as their individualistic “Mr. American in-charge” attitude does not allow for a “rest”.  Because of this, it detracts from their life and is, in actuality, a burden causing a lot of unnecessary mental anguish.

The “I don’t Know”

The general stance, that I have, is of looking out into the world as a looking into a mystery . . . I simply don’t know.  As a result, I see the world as ‘unknown’ or ‘vague’.  Because of this, my mind is sort of blank or, rather, receptive, and I am as if waiting for something to reveal itself.  In other words, I find that I am “dumb before the world”.  I try to not presume I know what’s going on.  If I “think” I know I try to temper it with “. . . but I’m not sure”.  As a result, the “I don’t know” is an attitude that one takes, a stance.  Its not as easy to develop as it may seem.  It takes practice.

The “I don’t know” is an awareness that:

  • One has an inability to know.
  • That one will never know completely.
  • That what one knows may be wrong.

As a result, it requires a sense of appreciating the fact that one does not know and may never know.  It is not an attitude of seeking to know as a complete fact, as if it is set in stone (an ultimate knowledge).  It is an attitude that knowing is a continual endless revealing that never ends and is ever changing.  This stance, I have found, is not a common one.  Its also not an easy one to take.

The “I don’t know” is like being exposed to life, vulnerable, and weak.  This creates what can be described as an “I don’t know apprehension”, a natural apprehension to the “I don’t know”.  This is because, in the “I don’t know”, one has no ‘handle’ or ‘grasp’ on things.  It creates a tendency to create solid ‘facts’ and ‘knowings’ which are really no more than a refuge to avoid the exposed vulnerable condition the “I don’t know” creates.  Facts and knowledge becomes something to hide behind, a wall, a fortress to protect ones self.   My experience is that most people who accept knowledge as ‘solid’ and ‘ultimate’ are generally doing just that.  One could describe this as the ‘knowledge’ refuge’ . . . using knowledge as a way to hide from feeling vulnerable to life.  As a result, one can see that there is an association between the “I don’t know” and experiencing life.   Its because of this that seeking the “I don’t know”, as an act, becomes a seeking of the experience of life in a “raw” state, so to speak.  But the effect of this is that the “I don’t know” stance requires a confrontation with ones vulnerabilities and weaknesses.  As a result, it requires more of the self, which can be hard.  It requires things such as:

  • Humility
  • Faith
  • Belief
  • Hope
  • Spontaneity
  • An activeness
  • A submission
  • A willingness to be flexible
  • A willingness to be continually changing
  • A willingness to discover things, which can be difficult
  • A willingness to suffer

In other words, there is no hiding in the “I don’t know”.  In this stance, one is exposed.  This can put great strain on the self but this is part of its great benefit.  Basically, the strain on the self develops the self.

My experience is that the awareness of not knowing (the “I don’t know” stance) is more powerful than knowing.  This is true in regard to general life perspectives.  Of course, when it deals with specific things one must know, such as how to change a tire, then its different.  This shows that the “I don’t know” stance is a general life attitude.  It isn’t necessarily directed to the particulars and details of life.  In this way, it has the quality of a philosophy or religion.

The “authority of precedence”

The “authority of precedence” is an authority based on some form of previous experience.  It refers to things that have already happened and which have ‘proven’ to have a truth, at least to our satisfaction at the time.  As a result, it is based on experience that has, in some way, been proven true at the time.  Because they have been proven true (at least as we understand it) it creates a ‘confidence’ or ‘certainty’ about things based on the truth it seems to reveals.  This ‘confidence’ or ‘certainty’ becomes the authority.  These include things such as things we’ve done, knowledge we know, opinions we have, activities we’ve done, things we’ve seen, and such . . . anything which we have developed a ‘confidence’ and ‘certainty’ in.  In reality much of life rests upon the ‘authority of precedence’, which rests on previous experience.  It becomes a great guide and beacon in our life.

One effect of the ‘authority of precedence’ is that it creates a ‘sense of certainty’ that does not need any recollection.  That is to say, when something has a ‘truth’ we develop an attitude of confidence about it and typically become unaware of it.  As a result, it creates a general attitude called the “confidence of precedence”.  This is a sense of certainty, as a result of the many things we’ve done in our life, and becomes an attitude we have in life, a attitude of confidence.  The more truth we find in our confidence the stronger the sense becomes.  This sense is generally constant within us and is unconscious . . . we’re not usually aware of it.  In many ways, it is a sum total of what we have done.

The ‘authority of precedence’ appears in many ways.  It can be:

  • Specific.  This usually means its related to a specific thing.  Many forms of authority only remain around certain things.  They may appear only when that subject makes an appearance and then quickly disappears once it is gone.  Because of this, we often forget the authority of various things and often have to relearn them later in life.
  • Constant.  This usually means that its a character trait.  The fact is that ones character is greatly influenced by a generalized constant character of the various forms of experience that one has in ones life, the ‘confidence of precedence’.  That is to say, there develops an overall “sense” of our experiences in life that develop as we grow.  This ‘sense’ affects our character and is always with us and becomes a part of us.  Once it becomes a part of us it remains constant and, therefore, “colors” our perception of the world and our self greatly affecting our character.

One can see that there are many versions ranging from a specific thing to a generalized life sense.  These give a whole range of variety in how its manifested.  Other ways it manifests itself include:

  • Variable.  ‘Authority of precedence’, being based in experience, tends to change with experience.  In this way, it is an ever-changing and continually altering phenomena.  This gives it a variable quality.  In many ways, the experience of variable ‘authority of precedence’ is part of the experience of ‘living’.  Being variable it makes a person variable, giving a sense of ‘living’ and ‘vivaciousness’.
  • Solid.  Oftentimes, we tend to get in the habit defined by our previous experience that defines our self and reality and ends up becoming something like a rut, a hole we can’t get out of, particularly as we get older.  This makes us look at our life and self in a constant unchanging way.  In this way, the ‘authority of precedence’ tends to become ‘solidified’ into a specific form of authority set by precedence.  When this happens one often begins to feel ‘dead’.  This is common in later years.

There are many cases where the ‘authority of precedence’ remains unchanged, perhaps for ones whole life, not because it has become ‘solidified’, as described above, but because of conditions.  These include things such as:

  • It is based in a “concrete truth”.  Such as the sky is blue and that we stand on two legs.  Typically, this is true with physical but less with mental activities.
  • It is not challenged.  There has been nothing to dispute it.
  • It reflects some aspect of ones self.
  • It does not conflict with a precedence we have gotten used to.

We often hold many authorities throughout our life not because they are “true” but because they have remained unchanged for some reason.  Its not uncommon that a great deal of our ‘authority of precedence’ are false, or have no relevance but, being unchanged, they remain in our minds as an authority.  In this way, one could say that we all develop a ‘residue precedence’ that remains with us.  These are precedence that have no real value but continue in our minds as a truth because there have been nothing to change it.

The “Intuition”

Intuition is a phenomena that is often hard to explain.  To me, it often has a miraculous quality about it, as it seems to come from nowhere and have no foundation in anything.  It comes from many sources:

  • Experience.  This often creates an ability to ‘know’ that, at first, appears miraculous.  In actuality, it is actually the ‘confidence of precedence’, as described above.  That is to say, it is based in a confidence established by something we have already done and have become confident in.  As mentioned above, we are not necessarily aware of this confidence or experience.  As a result, when it does appear it can have the appearance of being miraculous or, rather, it appears as an intuition.  In reality, it is really a hidden or forgotten confidence based on experience. 
  • The inner self.  There are many aspects of the self that allow it to “know” things.  Many of these seemed as if ‘designed’ into us, much like instinct.  Others are abilities we just are not aware of.  And, still others, are abilities that does not fit our logic and point of view of things.
  • Unknown origins.  Some intuitions I cannot explain.

I have always believed that intuition plays a far greater role than we realize.  To me, much of the “I don’t know” is rooted in the following of intuition. I’ve written an article on intuition and inspiration called “Thoughts on instinct, intuition, and inspiration“.

Intuition has several forms:

  • ‘World-dependent intuition’.  Typically, intuition is nothing but “following ones gut”.  In this way, one does not use a reason or logic to do things but, rather, a ‘feeling’.  This intuition usually appears in relation to a situation or condition.  That is to say, there is a situation or condition that creates a ‘feeling’ and one follows it in regard to that situation or condition.  This creates a ‘world-dependent intuition’ that has a beginning, root, and origin in the world situation.  This, in my experience, is the most common and prevalent form of intuition.  This is the form that is the most influential in life.
  • Instantaneous intuition.  This is an intuition that as if comes from nowhere and does not appear instigated by anything.  In other words, it is not ‘world-dependent’.  It tends to involve itself with a specific situation such as a feeling that “something might happen”.  This form is the rarest form of intuition and, from my experience, has little impact on life usually.

The following of intuition has a quality of “following life”, in my opinion.  In other words, life somehow seems to “hide” in intuition.   In particular, the following of ‘world-dependent intuition’ is this “following of life”.  This is because of this association:

self—–‘world-dependent intuition’—–life

In other words, ‘world-dependent intuition’ establishes a connection between the self and life.  It establishes a connection on a deep, almost mystical, level which is why it has so much impact.  As stated in the article above, intuition connects us with instinct, some of the deepest aspects of our self.  In this way, the ‘world-dependent intuition’ creates a deep rooted connection with life.  One cannot develop this deep connection with logic, reason or thought. this shows that there is an association between intuition and a depth in life.  Because of this, one should seek to develop an ‘intuitive life’.

The “mists”

Both the ‘authority of precedence’ and ‘intuition’ create “mists”.  These “mists” are really the “presence” of the each specific quality that tends to guide and direct the “I don’t know”.  It is a “mist” because it is unseen, unconscious, and not obviously apparent but influences our perceivingIn addition, it does not ‘drive’ things but ‘influences’ giving it something like a passive quality.  It lies hidden from us but is there influencing what we do.  Though we do not see it the “mists” have great power and influence over us.  Because of this, it greatly influences the “I don’t know”.

The “mists” is primarily a sense.  By itself, the “mists” would come to nothing, so it is like a half of something.  It needs something from the “I don’t know” to become something, to anchor it and give it value.  This is what makes them a “mist” . . . its only partial.  When the “mists” merges with something from the “I don’t know” it becomes something.  In that way, the “mists” becomes blended, so to speak, to our past experience, current situation, and intuition in the “I don’t know”.  Because of this it is an active element and very fluid and ever-changing.

The “mists” creates a condition that has a number of effects depending on its origin.  The “mist of intuition” creates:

  • It allows recovery of information, knowledge, and experience.
  • Its a source of ‘being there’, of a deeper sense of self.

The “mist of authority” creates:

  • It gives things a direction to go.
  • It creates a constancy of self in life.

Because of these, the “mists” and “I don’t know” interface, in the varied affairs of life, and creates these things like this:

  • A creative tendency.
  • An application of things.
  • A continual doing and discovery.
  • An in-world experience.

They create something like a ‘coloring’ of the world and what one does, influencing ones perceiving.  Oftentimes, these are so mild one does not notice them but their influence is very great.


A big part of perceiving is the creation of  “impressions”.  This is basically an conception created in the “I don’t know” but with an awareness that it can change.  In other words, its an acknowledgement that any conception one has may change in the future, and that ones conceptions are never ‘totally right’.  It creates what I call a ‘fluid philosophy’ or a ‘living philosophy’.  In this there is no ‘constant dogma’ or ‘ultimate knowing’ but it is ever-changing based on impressions that continually change.  In this way, it is ‘changing’ and ‘living’ . . . a vivaciousness of ones conceptions.  Because of this, it is fluid-like.  This is because the nature of the “I don’t know” is one of creating fluid conceptions.  This type of conception is reflective of the ‘world-as-perceiving orientation’ which puts emphasis on ones perceiving, which are continually changing. A common form of conception, nowadays, can be described as solid conception.  This type of conceptions are in the pattern of “let it be written, let it be done”.  Solid conception is what the modern world creates:  the result of schooling, education, learning, etc.  This is reflective of the ‘world-as-knowledge orientation’ which puts emphasis on a ‘concrete knowing’.  This is at odds with the fluid conception of the ‘world-as-perceiving orientation’.   In fact, because it is at odds with it, there is a tendency for solid conception to undermine or destroy fluid conceptions . . . they are not compatible together.  As a result, we see that impressions are a product of the ‘world-as-perceiving orientation’, of a fluid conception.   But impressions are also something that the modern world, with its ‘world-as-knowledge orientation’ and solid conception, actually tends to destroy.  In general, the modern world, the ‘world-as-knowledge orientation’, and solid conception is one of solidity, rigidity, and lack of variability . . . in short, a ‘static philosophy’ or ‘dead philosophy’.  This point of view should be avoided.

I should point out that because impressions are variable there is no right or wrong impression.  What makes them “right” is if they fit the situation and person.  As a result, an impression may be right one day and wrong the next . . . it varies remember.  In many ways, life is nothing but a continually seeking of the “right impression” which continually changes.  We must always be on our guard and ready to accept and follow the “right impression”.   This, in reality, is the main function of inspiration . . .


Inspiration is the coming together of the “self”, the “authority of precedence”, and “intuition”, in the “I don’t know”, as an active seeking.  Typically, inspiration has a quality of appearing out of nowhere much like intuition, which it is associated with.  Inspiration, though requires:

  • Deliberate effort.
  • An ability.
  • An action.

This makes inspiration more of a ‘something’ someone does.  That is to say, it is a result of a deliberate act a person does.  Its not just any act, though.  Typically, a person must have a natural ability at the form of inspiration that they are doing.  Not only that, it only appears as a result of some action one does . . . a person must do a specific act.  This action can be things such as music, painting, and such but, in this article, I am primarily referring to thought and awareness as inspiration.

There appears to be several forms of inspiration:

  1. ‘Word-based inspiration’.   This refers to things that can be “found out” or expressed in an obvious way.  Usually, this means something that can be put into words or thoughts.  This fact makes it attainable or, to put it another way, it makes it “usable”. Words and thoughts can give inspiration a practical use that can be applied in the world.  We tend to focus on words and thoughts themselves as an entity themselves.  This is what can be described as a ‘word-based inspiration’.  It primarily makes up most learning, study, or thought.  It creates an “attainable” form of inspiration.  When this happens our focus is on the words and concepts themselves.  It is tangible, graspable, and, as a result, “attainable”.  In this way, words and thoughts become something like building blocks that one manipulates and builds.  One can fabricate great ideas and philosophies that way.
  2. ‘Passion-based inspiration’.  In this form of inspiration one “seeks the passion before the words”.  That is to say, one seeks what motivates the words and thoughts.  The emphasis, then, is not on the words but the passion, spirit, or sense that caused them to be.  This could be called ‘passion-based inspiration’, as I call what motivates the words as ‘passion’.  Because of this, the emphasis is not on the words or thoughts themselves but on passion itself.  This makes it so that this form of inspiration is not one of ‘chasing words and thoughts’, which is what “thinking” is to most people.  Typically, passion is wordless, unformed, alive, variable, dynamic, ungraspable, and mysterious.  In a sense, one is chasing a ‘mystery’ as it is wordless.  In the chase for passion, though, one naturally has thoughts and ideas that appear as part of the chase . . . they are as if created by the chase giving words and thoughts a ‘secondary’ quality.  This makes it so that the words and thoughts become something that ‘follows along’.  That is to say, they do not appear first but afterwords.  In this way, they are like the ‘footprints’ created by the “seeking the passion before the word”.  This makes it so that the words and thoughts as if ‘materialize out of nowhere’ . . . true inspiration.  The thoughts and concepts are all things that ‘follow along’ afterwords and never lead the thought or inspiration process.  This, in actuality, is what I seek as I think about things and is the primary form of inspiration I do (much of this blog is the result of it).
  3. ‘Awareness-based inspiration’.   This generally refers to a ‘sense’ or ‘awareness’ and is beyond words.  As a result, this form cannot be put into words.  Because of this, it is primarily a form of awareness which is why it can be described as an ‘awareness-based inspiration’.  Being without words, it often has a quality that can be described as “mystical”.  In this way it often has a religious quality to it.  Its primary emphasis, and use, is personal.

These create something like a spectrum, from something defined to mystical.  This is quite important as it shows that inspiration is not ‘concrete act’ but has many forms . . . a manifestation of the fluid quality found in the ‘world-as-perceiving orientation’.  In other words, a spectrum of inspiration is based in different forms of perceiving – words and thoughts, passion, and awareness – that one alternates in.  As a result, in seeking inspiration a person does not just do ‘one thing’ but actually weaves in and out through different forms of inspiration.  The important thing in seeking inspiration, then, is not doing one form of inspiration but the whole spectrum.  In this way, we see that there are really two aspects associated with the spectrum of inspiration:

  1. The ‘form of inspiration’.  This is the specific form of inspiration you are doing, such as thought.
  2. The ‘weaving of inspiration’.  This is going from one form of inspiration to another. The impetus, and tendency, to change forms of inspiration is, itself, a form of inspiration.  That is to say, in changing forms one must be inspired to do it . . . you don’t just ‘do it’ for no reason.  In fact, its very possible that changing forms of inspiration may be the greatest act of inspiration there is.

These two qualities show, and reveal, the varied nature of inspiration.

Being Stupid in Inspiration

The fact is that being stupid leads to inspiration.  An attitude of “I know” does not create an inspired person . . . it just creates a person who “knows”.  Inspiration, by its nature, requires a continual sense of “I don’t know” and of being stupid.  It does this because, by being stupid, the self is removed from awareness and knowledge of the world:


This ‘stupid gap’ gives a space, an opening for intuition in particular.  When the self is too attached to the world it creates a self-world bond which causes a worldly attitude that is so strong that it pushes out any intuition and prevents intuition from influencing the self.  Because of this, we tend to become more ‘worldly’ and focus on what we can ‘grasp’.  That is to say, our orientation becomes focused on what can be ‘grasped in the world’.  Being that this worldly ‘graspable’ attitude pushes out intuition shows that intuition is not something ‘grasped’.   As a result, being stupid is not a ‘grasping’ attitude.  In fact, being stupid is actually a ‘letting go’ of things, often a renouncing or abandoning of things, even ones sense of self.  This means that ‘being stupid’ is not the same as ‘being dumb’ and ‘not knowing’, as one would normally think.  ‘Being stupid’ is an attitude.  More specifically, its a ‘non-grasping’ attitude even to the point of ‘letting go’ of things.

The removal of the self from the world has great impact on the self:

  • Because the self is removed from the world, by being stupid, it often leads to a stronger sense of self.  The self becomes more prominent and aware of itself.
  • The self becomes independent of the world.  In this way, a new self is created, a ‘non-worldly self’.  This tends to create a spiritual orientation.
  • It can put great strain on the self.  This can cause a growth of the self but it can also cause great turmoil and despair and conflict as well.  In fact, it can become unbearable at times.

Being stupid is not an easy task.  Its a unique attitude.  One has to develop it.

Interestingly, being stupid tends to create a dilemma in inspiration.  Seeking inspiration is actually creating a condition that tends to destroy being stupid, which is what creates inspiration.  This is because the result of inspiration is some form of “thing” which as if “solves” stupidity by creating something that is “there”, making us “un-stupid”, so to speak.  This is at odds with being stupid and tends to destroy its effects.  This is the ‘stupid-knowing dilemma’.  There seems to be two reactions to this dilemma:

  1. That finding things “solves” stupidity.  In this sense a person becomes ‘smart’, for example.
  2. That finding things make one more stupid.  One only finds how little one knows.

When I was young, the former seemed to be true.  As I get older the latter becomes more true.  The first is rooted, in my opinion, in the illusion of ‘facts’.  One thinks the facts, and knowing, are the answer.  The latter is a result of finding that the facts are not the answer, that there is something ‘more’, something beyond us.  In this way, it is more of a spiritual sense.  In that way, the best “solution” to the ‘stupid-knowing dilemma’ is by being stupid which creates a spiritual sense and perspective.  As a result of this, there is a sense of something ‘beyond us’.  I’ve found that this is far more powerful than any knowing.

I should point out that being stupid is, in actuality, the “I don’t know”. 

Inspiration = Seeking Life

It became clear to me, over time, that inspiration is a way to seek life.  In fact, one could say that inspiration is a life style.  Initially, I thought it was just ‘for fun’ and the fact that it created ideas and ‘knowledge’.  As time went on, I found it did more than that.  Slowly, ideas and ‘knowledge’ became minor things, trivialities, and a greater picture would emerge.

Inspiration seeks life in a number of ways:

  • By giving example of how to live.
  • By giving means of expression for ones self.
  • By creating experiences as well as experience in life.
  • By creating an increased awareness.
  • By creating a base in life, and a foundation of living.
  • By revealing deeper aspects of oneself.
  • By creating a dynamic and varied life experience.

In short, it became an avenue of living, not only experientially but conceptually.  In short, inspiration became an active participation, based on experiences, that created a concept of how to live.  Its for this reason why I tend to condemn ‘learning facts’ and the so-called ‘education’ of today, which is primarily monkey see-monkey do and imitation.  To put it simply, there has become a lot of ‘play acting’ of knowledge and information, nowadays, that is only an illusion.  Typically, it tends to fail in a number of ways:

  • It tends to lack the self.
  • It lacks experience.
  • It lacks spontaneity.
  • It lacks originality.
  • People are as if standing on the shoulders of other people (by learning things other people created).

These facts, at least to me, make seeking inspiration a very important thing to do, nowadays, as it contradicts the mechanistic attitude of today.


I tend to view that there is no ‘ultimate’ truth.  Or, to put it another way, what we need to do is find what is relevant to us (I wrote an article on this called “Thoughts on my saying: Truth is relevence“).   Too often, in seeking “knowledge” or “learning” we try to make things the ‘ultimate’ truth.  That is to say, we are trying to find truth that explains ‘everything’ and that is everything.  This ‘ultimate’ thinking is the basic stance of the ‘knowledge-as-perception orientation’.

Typically, the further we move into ‘ultimate’ truth the more we move away from relevance (that is, meaning to ourselves).  Or, to put it another way, the more ‘abstract’ it becomes.  By ‘abstract’ I mean that it is distant from us.  It becomes too ‘cranial’ and ceases to have meaning deep down.  This, in fact, is exactly what we are trying to avoid and move away from.  In this way, the seeking of ‘ultimate’ truth is something to be avoided.

Not only that, knowing is passive.  You only know that you know and that’s it . . . nothing more is required.  Its something you ‘have’.  Because of this, it creates what can be described as a ‘false rest’.  This often creates the illusion that it is the end, the answer . . . the ‘ultimate’.  This tends to create an illusion in knowing, that it is more than it is.  In addition, it creates a whole myth about knowledge and knowing, as if it answers everything.


A man who appears to have used a similar, but different, viewpoint and technique is Socrates.  Many statements he made reflect aspects of inspiration I described above:

  • “. . . but I shall use the words and arguments which occur to me at the moment.”
  • ” . . . for he knows nothing, and thinks he knows;  I neither know nor think I know.”
  • “. . . God orders me to fulfill the philosopher’s mission of looking into myself and other men.”
  • “. . . he only gives you the appearance of happiness, and I give you the reality.”
  • “O Socrates,” says Meno, “I used to be told, before I knew you, that you were always doubting yourself and making others doubt.”
  • “. . . I perplex others, not because I am clear, but because I am utterly perplexed myself.”
  • “Then he who does not know may still have true notions of that which he does not know.”
  • “I, too, speak rather in ignorance;  I only conjecture.”

His technique, though, was different, reflecting different conditions and a different culture.  Some of these differences include:

  • He saw himself as on a mission from God, as the Delphic Oracle professed him he wisest of men.
  • He used a didactic techniques of question and answer with people.  That is to say, he talked with people as the means of gaining inspiration.
  • He was more bound by interpersonal associations, social manners, social viewpoints, and conceptual thinking.
  • He put more emphasis on definitions of words as part of his inquiry.  In that way, a lot of what he did is a ‘clarification of the words’.

A very significant difference is the way in which he saw knowledge was received.  Socrates felt that the soul knew everything because it experienced everything before we were born, before we became human beings.  No doubt this reflected the mythology and religion of the time.  A conversation in Meno describes this:

Socrates.  “But if he did not acquire the knowledge in this life, then he must of learned it at some other time.”

Meno.  “Clearly he must.”

Socrates.  “Which must have been the time when he was not a man.”

He then goes on to say that we were remembering what we already knew before we became a man.  This was what he called recollection or notions.  He states some interesting things about his view of recollection and notions:

  • “. . . all inquiry and all learning is but recollection.”
  • “All this spontaneous recovery of knowledge in him is recollection.”
  • “And if there have been always true thoughts in him, both at the time when he was and was not a man, which only need be awakened into knowledge by putting questions to him, his soul must have always possessed this knowledge . . . “
  • “Wherefore be of good cheer and try to recollect what you do not know, or rather what you do not remember.”
  • “. . . he who does not know may still have true notions of that which he does not know.”
  • “. .. our learning is simply recollection.”
  • “. . . we must always be  born in full possession of knowledge, and always know throughout our life.”
  • “. .. having acquired it before birth, we lost it while being born, and later by applying the sense to the things in question we recover that knowledge which we once, formerly, we possessed-then surely we call it ‘learning’ will be the recovery of knowledge, which is our own?  And we should be right in calling this recollection?”

In other words, the purpose of inquiry is not to learn “new facts” but, rather, to remember what we forgot from before we became a man, of recollection or “notions”.  This recollection is really no different than what I call inspiration.  The “notions” is really no different than what I call intuition.  This, to me, shows the great inner sense of intuition portrayed in a mythical way.  In some sense, he’s saying to follow ones intuition, which seems to come from a mystical source (from deep within or before one was born).  In this way, Socrates was not using ‘scientific method’ to find ‘ultimate’ truth.  In some respects, because he said that we are trying to recollect from before we were born he was actually looking for a ‘personal truth’ which is no different that what I call relevance. 

He goes on to say that the purpose of philosophy is not just to find knowledge and information but to live a good life.  As Socrates says:

  • “. . . that daily discourse about virtue, and of those things about which you hear me examining myself, and others, is the greatest good of man, and that the unexamined life is not worth living.”
  • “. . . that we should set the highest value, no on living but on living well.”

This shows that Socrates was not about learning ‘facts’ and ‘ultimate’ truths, such as what we now call ‘scientific truths’.  As Socrates states:  “. . . I have nothing to do with physical speculations.”  To put it another way, recollection (or what I call inspiration) is nothing but learning how to live well.

He also put emphasis on the importance of doubting.  Socrates says, “. . . he had fallen into perplexity under the idea that he did not know, and had desired to know.”  He called this doubting the “torpedo’s touch“, from the torpedo electric ray which can shock you as a form of defense.  This “torpedo’s touch” appears to be similar to what I called the ‘gaze’.  It is the ‘looking into’, the tendency and need to inquire.

Socrates also put emphasis on the difference between “knowledge” and “true opinion”.  Interestingly, he says that “There are not many things I profess to know, but this (the difference between “knowledge” and “true opinion”) is one of them.”  The difference between these is significant.  He makes a comparison with them with a “possession that is at liberty (meaning something that can leave on its own accord)” and, therefore, will “walks off like a runaway slave”.   He goes on to say:

“. . . while they are with us they are beautiful and fruitful, but they run away out of the human soul, and do not remain long, and therefore they are not of much value until they are fastened by the tie of the cause;  and this fastening of the, friend Meno, is recollection . . . “

And he goes on:

“But when they are bound, in the first place, they have the nature of knowledge;  and, in the second place, they are abiding.  And this is why knowledge is more honorable and excellent than true opinion, because it is fastened by a chain.”

In other words, ‘true opinion’ is what I call intuition, which is a sense of something.  By itself it remains a ‘sense’ only.  It is not ‘grasped’, or as Socrates says, it is not “bound by a chain”.  When the intuition gains authority, making it more than a sense, it becomes  what he calls ‘knowledge’.  This ‘knowledge’ is what I call the ‘authority of precedence’.  In the diagram I showed intuition as if above us, like the air which comes and goes at will . . .  it is not ‘grasped’ or “bound by a chain”.  I showed the ‘authority of precedence’ as the ground as we ‘rest’ on this . . . it is “bound by a chain”.

Socrates goes on to say:

“. . .  true opinion leading the way perfects action quite as well as knowledge.”

This is like saying that intuition is the best guide not “knowing facts and figures”, as is claimed nowadays.  Socrates then goes on to say that people cannot teach ‘true opinion’, because “. . . virtue was not grounded on knowledge.”  Later he says:

“. . . virtue is neither natural or acquired, but an instinct given by the gods to the virtuous.  Nor is the instinct accompanied by reason.”

Or:  “. . . virtue comes to the virtuous by divine dispensation.”

Or:  “. . . true opinion, which is in politics what divination is in religion; for diviners and also prophets say many things truly, but they know not what they say.”

Or:  “. . . the say many grand thing, not knowing what they say.”

These state the almost miraculous and mystical qualities found in intuition.

So we see  that it appears that Socrates (and myself) are not after “facts” but things that lead to a better and virtuous life by following intuition and inspiration.

Intuition and inspiration tends to be degraded by a natural process.  This is the tendency to emphasize, and overvalue, the words and concepts created by intuition or inspiration.  Its a natural tendency to “solidify” thought after it appears.  In this way, we are able to ‘grasp’ it.  Because of this, this tendency reflects a ‘grasping’ attitude.  But, as I said above, intuition is a non-grasping attitude.  As a result, the natural tendency to “solidify” thought brings out an attitude (of ‘grasping’) that ends up undermining and destroys intuition and inspiration.  So we see a pattern:

  1. Non-grasping attitude – allows intuition and inspiration to happen
  2. Intuition and inspiration – reflective of a non-grasping attitude
  3. Words and concepts – the product of inspiration
  4. “Solidify” words and concepts – reflective of a grasping attitude
  5. Grasping attitude – conflicts with the non-grasping attitude that creates intuition and inspiration and undermines them, preventing them from appearing

This pattern shows a basic dilemma created by the ‘grasping’ attitude in regard to intuition and inspiration.  Its a conflict of two opposing qualities.  Because of this, intuition and inspiration tends to entail a continual going from non-grasping attitude to grasping attitude to non-grasping attitude, etc.  Its a continual cycle that can be called the ‘non-grasping, grasping cycle’.  Going from one extreme to another can be difficult and almost impossible at times . . . it can stop you in your tracks.  My experience, though, is that we tend to get ‘stuck’ trying to regain the non-grasping attitude.  This is because the non-grasping attitude is very hard to get going . . . a person can’t just will it into existence usually.  This is because the non-grasping attitude reflects intuition which is something that comes from deep within a person.  The problem is that we are not ‘in control’ of the deeper aspects of our self.  Because of this, we cannot will it to do what we want . . . we cannot will intuition to take place.  The result is that we tend to get ‘stuck’ here, trying to make intuition happen.  Typically, we must ‘pause’ and take an inward look at our selves and ‘seek’ the intuition to get the inspiration process going again.  This, though, can take a long time and some great effort.  Often, once the grasping attitude appears its so strong that we completely lose sense of the non-grasping attitude making intuition even harder to find.  This is all part of the dilemma’s the ‘non-grasping, grasping cycle’ create.

But because its so easy to get ‘stuck’ in the grasping attitude the natural tendency is to stay there . . . and this is often what happens.  This creates a general tendency to “solidify” thought, making it concrete and ‘ultimate’.  Not only that, the non-grasping attitude, by its nature, creates a sense of uncertainty and imbalance that we all struggle with, some more than others.  As a result of this struggle it makes it more imperative to “solidify” to give the illusion of certainty and balance.  In other words, it shows that there is a natural tendency to take the ‘world-as-knowledge orientation’ over the ‘world-as-perceiving orientation’.  That is to say, there is a tendency to take the ‘solid’ over the ‘fluid’ showing that the more ‘fluid’ stance is harder. 

This tendency of taking the ‘solid’ over the ‘fluid’ has defined philosophy since Socrates.  Interestingly, Socrates does not appear to be the one who started this tendency to be ‘solid’.  This seems to of began with the work of his followers who began by making all his thought ‘solid’, as if this ideas were written in stone.  In other words, they took his words-as-fact.  Later, his thought would even become more ‘solid’ by being ‘systemized’ and put into a general system in relation to others.  This made it so that quoting Socrates is like quoting the Bible . . . a statement of ‘solidity’.  Basically, instead of learning his recollection or inspiration style – Socratic “recollection philosophy” – they focused on what he said, making them almost doctrine.  This was done by Plato and Aristotle (and everyone since).

It shows a basic process in philosophy.  Socrates began the process by emulating recollection or inspiration.  Plato, then, tended to emphasize the words and concepts of Socrates . . . he took the words-as-fact making them solid.  In so doing, he had forgot that Socrates was seeking inspiration first and foremost.  Aristotle then systemized the words and concepts into a defined organized format . . . its now like a doctrine.  This shows a revealing pattern :

  1. Socrates – Recollection (Inspiration).
  2. Plato – Taking the words-as-fact . . . solidifying.
  3. Aristotle – The systemizing of the words.

This progression tends to replicate the ‘non-grasping, grasping cycle’ even to the point of getting ‘stuck’ as well (at systemizing).  In some respects, its a social version of the ‘non-grasping, grasping cycle’ and follows similar tendencies.  What this tends to show is a general ‘dissolution of inspiration’ following Socrates.   This dissolution appears to of followed these phases:

  1. As a guide.  Thought and concepts are used as a guide to help a person and, therefore, is variable and can change.
  2. As a solid.  It is taken more seriously.  There is a tendency to not want to change it.   Its not necessarily meant to help a person.
  3. As a system.  It is unchangeable.  At this stage, it often may actually be of no help at all in life.  Even the technique that Socrates used would be “systemized” to the Socratic Method.

This tendency to ‘solidify’ made us forget the inspiration of Socrates (the ‘dissolution of inspiration’) creating what can be described as a ‘system-based philosophy’.  This type of philosophy, of course, has become so dominant that it defines philosophy, science, and knowledge in Western society.  In general, it has downplayed and forgot inspiration as a whole.  In fact, inspiration became so degraded that it became forgotten.  Instead, philosophy would become systemized into things like:

  • Specific types of philosophies. This includes things such as Hegelism, Kantism, existentialism, etc.
  • Specific methods of thinking.  A good example is the ‘scientific method.
  • A tendency to seek the ‘ultimate’ or ‘universal’ truth.   This type of truth is really nothing but systemized knowledge taken to the extreme, such as seen in science.

In effect, ‘system-based philosophy’ was the death of Socratic “recollection philosophy” and the creation of a whole new thing:  ‘systemized philosophy’ This would flower into the ultra-rigid scientific type of thinking.  With the arrival of ‘systemized philosophy’ the original spirit of inspiration-based Socratic philosophy was forgotten.  Basically, the concrete quality of words and concepts overpowered the active variable inquiry of a person.  The ultra-rigid viewpoint of the ‘scientific method’, especially, ended up destroying the ability and means of inspiration.  In other words, it shows that systemizing destroys inspiration.


The Norse God Odin has demonstrated similar aspects of what I have spoken of above about inspiration.  It goes deeper than Socrates, though.  This is best demonstrated in the ‘Havamal’ where it is stated:

I know that I hung

on a windy tree

nine whole nights,

wounded by a spear

and given to Odinn,

myself to myself,

on the tree

of which no one knows

from whose roots it rises.

They did  not delight me with bread

or drinking horn.

I peered down, searching.

I took up the runes,

shouting I took them up,

I fell back from there. 

Here we see that inspiration has become a death, a loss of self.  This is really a continuation of ‘being stupid’ which is, in more extreme cases, a losing of ones self.  This is because, in ‘being stupid’, our self is not ‘all there’ or ‘absent’.   This reveals that inspiration passes through phases, going from shallow to deep:

  1. The “I don’t know”.  This is the looking out into the world with this as the sense making this the ‘sense phase’.
  2. Of ‘being stupid’.  This could be described as the ‘philosophical phase’.
  3. A loss of self.  One can say that, at this point, it has become the ‘mystical phase’.

One could say that, with the loss of self, one has truly immersed themselves in the “I don’t know” . . . it has gone to its extreme.  In other words, the “I don’t know” is a prelude to loss of self, or a death.  It leads up to it and, in a way, is becomes it.

Interestingly, even Socrates makes a reference to this association of death with inspiration.  In ‘Phaedo’ he says:

  • “. . . that this very thing is the philosophers occupation, a freeing or separation from the body.”
  • “. . . . philosophers practice dying.”

Interestingly, in the condition of losing ones self one finds a tendency to rely on intuition as a guide.  Intuition has this quality of looking at a great void with the knowledge that anything can appear.  As a result, one tends to turn to intuition . . . the unknown . . . with the loss of self.  It becomes what we rely on and use as our guide.  The end result of losing ones self is the discovery of an authority portrayed in a ‘new self’, ‘new reality’, or something similar.  It is something ‘new’ that has ‘great power’ (authority) over us.  As a result, inspiration becomes a seeking of intuition, in the attitude of the “I don’t know”, in order to find authority.  Or, rather, inspiration is to build or alter authority . . . to make it grow.

This association with authority shows a very significant element with inspiration and loss of self:  the need for belief.  In many ways, this shows the nature of belief, that it is the deepest of all authorities.  One could describe belief as a pre-authority.  That is to say, belief, as I use it here, is authority before it has been “proven”.  In this way, belief can be described as the ‘passion’ of authority, the emotion that authority is based on.  As a result, authority can be described as this belief, the ‘passion’ of authority, combined with some ‘thing’ or ‘image’.  In other words, authority is when belief has become united with some thing.  Often, in the loss of self, these new authorities entail some form of awareness, such as a sense of self, a sense of reality, an awareness of life, etc.  They are typically deep-rooted and are wordless phenomena tending to create a belief without words.  Many people tend to “miss” this form of authority because they can only relate to belief with words.  As a result, a person must learn how to have a ‘wordless belief’.

As a result of this, the loss of self becomes a seeking, really, of this ‘passion’ of authority, before it has been united with any thing.  Once the ‘passion’ of authority is found, it tends to become attached to some thing, creating authority.  In this way, the loss of self creates a continual rediscovery of the creation of authority, what can be described as the ‘re-enactment of the creation of authority’:

  1. The loss of self.
  2. The ‘passion’ of authority (belief) is found and experienced.
  3. The ‘passion’ is united to some thing (creating authority).
  4. A new authority is created.

This rediscovery of authority creates a ‘profoundness’ in belief.  It gives belief, and authority, a vivaciousness, power, and a life.  In many ways, without ‘re-enacting the creation of authority’ there is a tendency for authority to become ‘dead’, mundane, boring, and seeming insignificant.  It becomes just ‘a thing’ like a rock or a chair.

Elsewhere it is written in the ‘Havamal’ which shows this vivaciousness, power, life, and growth of self:

Then I started to sprout

and grow sagacious

and thrive and prosper;

one word from another

sought me out a word,

one deed from another

sought me out a deed.

So we see that the loss of self leads to what can be described as a ‘living authority’.  In this way, authority becomes more than authority, but something “living”, a “reality”.  In actuality, it is this ‘living authority’ that inspiration seeks.  I do not seek ‘knowledge’, I do not seek ‘information’, I do not seek ‘learning’.  The purpose of it all, really, is the seeking of an authority that is “alive”.

But, as I said above, the creation of authority must be re-enacted to continue to be made “alive”.  This shows a continual need to rediscover authority which is why this is an ongoing and endless process, of continual inquiry, continual searching.  As part of this process is the need to be in the “I don’t know”, as a prelude to a loss of self, in order to find it As a result, my perceiving of the world consists of qualities such as:

  • A perceiving of the world.
  • A continual discovery or, rather, rediscovery of the authority in life.
  • It is ongoing and endless, creating a very active and “alive” perceiving. 
  • It requires much of my self, of listening to intuition and loss of self, even a form of a death. 
  • Because of this, my perceiving of the world also becomes a perceiving of my self and, accordingly, of my-self-in-the-world.  

This rediscovery of ‘authority’ creates a new self that is, in a sense, born.  This shows that there is a close relationship between authority and the self.  In other words, without authority there is no self.  The continual rediscovery of authority becomes a continual rediscovery of self.  This, basically, is a growing.

This is rather interesting in that a person must ‘have no self’ to ‘find the self’ showing that the self is not a defined and definite thing but a meandering thing, going from one extreme to the other and ranging from definite to indefinite, absent to existing.  In this sense, the self is not really a ‘thing’ but more of a ‘process’ and this ‘process’, really, is inspiration.


Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in Contemplation, monastacism, shamanism, spirituality, prayer, and such, Existence: Awareness, Beingness, Consciousness, Conceptionism, and such, Mythology, Philosophy, Poesy - Seeking a state of mind, Psychology and psychoanalysis, Religion and religious stuff, Vikings - Odin, Thor, the Norse, and such | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on themes found in two myths on the origin of inspiration: the Norse god Odin and the Greek god Apollo – the ‘self-before-technique perspective’ and the ‘inspired life’

There are several myths of the origin of inspiration that I have found are quite revealing (at least to me).  These are the story of the creation of poetry by the Norse god Odin and the founding of Delphi by the Greek god Apollo.  Both seem to show traits which, it seems to me, are reflective of inspiration and traits of inspiration.

Often, we think of inspiration of ‘something that just appears, usually from nowhere’ almost like pulling a rabbit from the inside of a hat.  This is a very general perspective which does not reveal much about the traits of inspiration.  Both of these myths describe specific aspects of this process.  In a way, they bring up an interesting aspect to this phenomena.

These two myths seem to have similar themes which seem to reveal some insight about inspiration, almost as if reflecting the same truth in differing words and stories.  Odin refers to poetry as inspiration.  Apollo refers to inspiration by way of an Oracle.


This story of Odin and his creation of poetry is found in the ‘Gylfaginning’ by Snori Sturluson:

There was a dispute between the Aesir and Vanar (two types of Norse gods).  After awhile they decided to make peace.  They had a peace conference and each side spat in to a vat (which is how they made mead back then).  From it they made a man called Kvasir.  He could answer anyone’s questions.  He travelled about the world.  When he came to the home of two dwarfs they killed him.  They poured his blood into two vats and a pot. 

A giant then came and stayed with the dwarfs.  They invited him to go in a boat out to sea.  They ended up rowing the boat onto a shoal and capsized the boat.  The giant drowned but the dwarfs were all right.  They told his wife about it and she wept loudly.  They killed her too. 

The giants son found out about this and grabbed the two dwarfs and threatened them.  They gave him the mead as compensation for his fathers death.  His name was Suttung and that’s how he got the mead.

One day, Odin set out on a journey.  He came upon nine slaves who were mowing.  He offered to sharpen their scythes and they accepted.   The whetsone he used so impressed them that they offered to buy it.  Odin then threw the whetstone up in the air.  All nine slaves jumped up and slit each other with their scythes.

Odin then went to the home of the owner of the slaves, who was the brother of Suttung, who had the mead of Kvasir.  Suttung felt things were bad as his slaves had killed each other.  Odin offered to do the work of the nine slaves.  As payment he was to receive one drink of the mead.  But Suttung pointed out that he had no say in the dispensation of his brothers mead.  Despite this, they decided to go to his brother and see if they could get the mead.

Suttung refused!  Odin said he’d have to use other means.   He got an auger and instructed Suttung’s brother to start drilling into the mountain.  After a while he said that he had bored all the way through the mountain.  Odin blew into the hole and bits and pieces came out . . . obviously, he had not bored all the way through.  Odin told him to bore again.  After some time he said that he had bored through and Odin blew into the hole and the pieces went into the hole.  Odin then turned himself into a snake and went in the hole.  Suttung’s brother then put the auger into the hole trying to kill Odin. 

But Odin made it into the mountain where Gunnlog was, Suttung’s daughter.  Suttung had put her in charge of the mead, which was kept in the mountain.  Odin was with her three nights.  She let him take three drinks of the mead.  In the first drink he drank up all that was in the pot.  In the second drink he drank up one of the vats.  In the third he drank up the third vat.  He now had drunk up all the mead. 

After having all the mead he turned into an eagle and started to fly away but Suttung saw him and also turned into an eagle and flew after him.  As Odin approached Asgard (where the gods live) all the gods put out a multitude of containers.  When he flew over them Odin spat out all the mead so they landed in the containers. 

This mead is the source of poetry and it is believed that all poets drink from it.


I’m inclined to think that the oldest, and probably the purest, story of Apollo and the founding of Delphi is found in the so-called “Homeric poems of Apollo”.  Many of the later stories, which bring in all these other elements, appear to be additions caused by the increasing power, wealth, and importance of Delphi.  As a result, it seems that they are more reflective of the times the story was created than by a concern over the origin of Delphi.  As a result of this, I am not inclined to feel that they cannot be relied upon to tell the “pure” story.  This is at least as I understand it at this time.

Zeus was to have a child by Leto (the future Apollo).  Hera, the wife of Zeus, was infuriated.  She decided to keep Eilithyia, who helps in childbirth, in Olympus so as to prevent Leto from giving birth.  After some time she was helped to get away from Olympus.  She then made her way to Delos where, when she immediately set foot on the ground, Leto gave birth to Apollo.

Apollo then went searching for a place to set up a temple for his Oracle.  He went to many places.  Finally, he went to Telphus and asked her if he could build a temple there.  She said that the noise of horses and mules will always bother him.  She suggested she build below Parnassus (where Delphi is located). 

Apollo then travelled there and set up his temple there.  Near there, though, he had to kill a great dragon called Python.  This dragon was created by Hera as a plague upon men.  She created him when she was angry with Zeus because he, by himself, had given birth to Athena, who was prized by all the gods, whereas she had given birth to Hapaestus who was a weakling among the gods.  She then went away from the Olympus and prayed to other gods to allow her to give birth to a child by herself.  She gave birth to Python, who would work great problems for humanity.  After Python’s death by Apollo, it sat and rotted there.  This is why the Oracle at Delphi is called the Pythian. 

After having to kill Python Apollo grew mad and went to Telphusa and told her that she had deliberately deceived him, so that she could keep the place she was at.  Apollo then pushed her over a crag.


Themes found in both myths include:

The theme of ‘difficulty in being productive’.

  • This is seen in how Odin had to go through so much effort to get the mead of poetry.
  • This is seen in Leto’s difficulty in giving birth to Apollo.  Its also seen in the difficulty Apollo had in finding a place for the Oracle.

The theme of ‘being pursued’. 

  • Odin is chased by Suttung’s brother down the hole in the mountain.  He’s also chased by Suttung after he gets the mead.
  • Apollo is “pursued” by being prevented from being born.  This makes him a “target” of Hera and that someone is after him.

The theme of the ‘alternate pathway’. 

  • Odin had to use the brother of Suttung to get the mead of poetry.
  • Telphus made Apollo go to some other area than he intended to found his Oracle.

The theme of ‘deception’.

  • Odin had to deceive the brother of Suttung of his real intentions.
  • Apollo was deceived by Telphus to go to Delphi.

The theme of a ‘killing’. 

  • Odin had the slaves kill each other.  In addition, dwarfs kill Kvasir.
  • Apollo killed Python and also Telphus.

The theme of the ‘element of inspiration’. 

  • Odin had the mead which gave poetry.
  • Apollo had the rotting flesh of Python to, supposedly, give the Oracle inspiration.

An important point is that both of these elements originated from the body of something that had to be killed:  poetry=Kvasir, oracle=Python.  This shows, in a way, that inspiration is a manifestation of “life”, and is reflective of “life”, making it more than something one just ‘does’.

The theme of ‘something gained’. 

  • Odin gained the mead of poetry.
  • Apollo gained Delphi for his Oracle.


These themes tend to show some interesting qualities of inspiration:

The theme of ‘difficulty in being productive’ – This reveals the natural difficulty in gaining inspiration.  It is not something a person just ‘wills’ to happen.  In many cases, a person must have a ‘knack’ at inspiration or develop an ability in order to achieve it.

The theme of ‘being pursued’ –  This refers to an ‘innate need’ that, in a way, ‘pursues’ a person to do inspiration.  In this way, inspiration as if ‘finds a person’.  Another aspect of this is that inspiration is also ‘pursued’ by the person making it something like a questing, a something that needs to be found.

The theme of the ‘alternate pathway’ – This refers to the need to ‘NOT be in our normal self’.  In this way, the ‘alternate pathway’ refers to the fact that inspiration requires another path or, rather, it requires another self to happen.

The theme of ‘deception’ – This shows how we cannot use the techniques of our normal self, that we must ‘move away’ from our normal self.  In this way, we must ‘trick’ or ‘deceive’ our normal self in order to find inspiration.

The theme of a ‘killing’ – This shows how our normal self must be “killed”, so to speak, so the inspiration self can take over.  In many ways, its a continuation of the purpose of deception, of getting our normal self out of the way.

The theme of the ‘element of inspiration’ –  This shows that something specific must be done to have inspiration.  That is to say, inspiration requires a medium to manifest, it must have a form or way to appear.  This could be thought, poetry, music, etc.

The theme of ‘gaining something’ – This refers to how a person must gain or achieve something new, namely inspiration.  In this way, a person ‘achieves’ inspiration.


These interpretations tend to show that inspiration requires a specific quality or aspect of the self.  In other words, it describes an inspiration self.  This is a self separate and set apart from our regular self.  Only in achieving the inspiration self does inspiration take place.  In that way, its showing that it is not our normal self.  In addition, it is describing some qualities of that self.  The emphasis on this new ‘self’ shows its importance and relevance in inspiration.  This is significant in that it shows that inspiration is a product of a self, not a ‘skill’, an ability,  or an act as is normally supposed.  Its for this reason that the myths place emphasis on the self’s battles to achieve inspiration and not in the achieving of ability or skill.  In this way, it refers to the fact that inspiration is a ‘natural ability’ not an ‘acquired ability’ or something  anyone can learn.  That is to say, real inspiration is within a person, not something a person learns.

The themes seems to describe a process in achieving inspiration:

  1. A difficulty.  This difficulty, no doubt, refers to the natural difficulty to begin any inspiration.  Generally, inspiration is hard to begin, particularly at first.  If one does not overcome the difficulty then no inspiration comes.  In that sense, the myths are describing the traits of overcoming the difficulty of inspiration.
  2. An alternate path, one that tends to entail deception.  This is a reference, really, to the utilization of a different self – the inspiration self – that takes one away from ones normal tendencies.  The deception is a reference, really, to the deception of ones normal self so that it will ‘find’ the inspiration self.  In that way, inspiration requires a deception of the normal self and the discovery of the inspiration self.
  3. A death.  No doubt, this is the ‘death’, so to speak, of the normal self with the result of the inspiration self taking control.  In other words the inspiration self ‘takes control’ and the normal self ‘dies’.  In this way, it refers to the ‘victory’ of the inspiration self over the normal self.
  4. A ‘something gained’.  This, of course, is inspiration, what a person has achieved.  This is, in reality, the inspiration self.

Overall, these myths describe inspiration from a self perspective, as a manifestation of self.  In other words, it takes a ‘self-before-technique perspective’.   This, of course, is not the normal stance taken.  Typically, we are taught “how” to do something.  We’re taught technique, something we must learn.  In some ways, placing technique first can be compared to programming a computer, you’re just telling a person how to do something.  Because of this, it tends to be mechanical and devoid of the ‘person’.  Accordingly, it is lacking in inspiration.  In fact, it seems to me, that the overemphasis on technique tends to hamper a person.  It puts emphasis on learning, repeating, imitation, and such . . . nothing but technique.  This is why I often jokingly speak of people being ‘modern robots’, nowadays.  These are basically people who know how to do things but have no inspiration or connectiveness to an inner sense (the inspiration self) . . . all that they do is based in what they’ve ‘learned’ which they repeat.  As a result of this, their self is as if detached from what they do and they develop a mechanical-like way.  This fact shows a number of things about the “self”:

  • That the “self”, itself, is a form of inspiration.  This is because the “self” is a union of ones normal self and inspiration self.  Because of this, the “self” is actually an act of inspiration:  the inspiration self changes the normal self . . .
  • That the ‘self” is continually transforming.  This is because the continual discovery of the inspiration self causes a change in the normal self.  Since this happens all ones life it means that transformation is ongoing throughout ones life.  In many ways, inspiration is a transformation.
  • That inspiration reaches deep into a person.  This is because the inspiration brings up the depths of ones self through the inspiration self.  No doubt, the power of inspiration is in its bringing up the depths of who one is.
  • That living is an act of the “self” and is, therefore, a form of inspiration.  In other words, the “self” gives us the means to live, and being closely associated with inspiration, it makes living an act of inspiration.
  • That there are many forms of inspiration.  Since life entails many different ways of doing things it means that there are many forms of inspiration in life.  Some are dramatic – like painting a scene – and some are not – such as a simple attitude in life.  Because of this, we can speak of formal inspiration which entails things like art, music, poetry, etc. and informal inspiration, which entails following little subtleties, natural tendencies, and inclinations in daily life, of allowing our self to “be”.  Informal inspiration is ‘everyday inspiration’ or ‘personal inspiration’.   Because of this, inspiration is a part of everyday life.  In this way, inspiration is life.  Without it, our life would be devoid of the inspiration self and we would turn into dead robot-like people.
  • That the “self” is closely associated with what one does.  In other words, a person can do things “with the self” or “without the self”.  The former is really inspiration.  The later is mechanical, robotic . . . something ‘learned’, which can be described as the ‘modern way’.

An emphasis on learning and technique, so prevalent nowadays, prevents the “self” from happening and growing.  As a result, too much learning and technique is not good, hindering inspiration, the “self”, and life.

Because the ‘self-before-technique perspective’ (inspiration) focuses on the self it shows that inspiration tends to exist based in other things than learning and technique.  Some of these include:

  • A natural ability.  This, in many ways, is paramount with inspiration.  Its because of this that a big part of life, really, is finding our natural abilities.  By following natural ability, inspiration comes easily.  And since inspiration is life, finding natural ability leads to life.  This is why following natural abilities and inclinations are so important.
  • A connectivity to ones inner sense and inner self.  This is very paramount to inspiration.  In many ways, inspiration is nothing but a connectivity to ones inner sense and inner self.  Some people have a natural connectivity.  Some people don’t.
  • A means of discovering the inspiration self.  I tend to feel that many people do not find inspiration because they have no way to discover it.  In addition to that, many people cannot find it because they are using the wrong means of discovery, such as by learning or technique.
  • Something to put inspiration into context and meaning.  Many people may display inspiration but have nothing to give it value.  For inspiration to be successful it must have a worth.  Otherwise, it as if ‘goes off into space’.
  • A way to practice the inspiration.  Inspiration needs a medium or form in which to manifest itself.  Because of this, “something needs to be done”.  Some cultures, and ways of life, do not offer this to any great length.  Not only that, a person may have a form of inspiration but because their culture has no value in it there becomes no way to practice it.  This shows that inspiration is closely associated to ones culture, belief systems, and way of life.

So we can see that a inspiration requires some things to be effective:

  • It must appear naturally.
  • It must have a means of discovery.
  • It must be practiced.
  • It must have value to ones self.
  • It must have relevance in relation to ones culture, belief systems, and way of life.

In this way, inspiration is associated with life in general.  In fact, inspiration often “makes life” and can give life the “great stamp of ones self”.  So we see that inspiration has gone way beyond the ‘dramatic’ formal inspiration as seen in art, music, and such.  Inspiration, in fact, is a manifestation of everyday life and living.  In this way, we can speak of an ‘inspired life’ and that a life “lived” is one that is inspired.  Its for this reason that I consider inspiration a “life issue”, one that has great impact and value for life.  Because of this, it is something that should be sought and achieved.  But, as the myths tell us, one must not seek for something to “learn to do” (such as art, poetry, etc.) but, rather, one must seek a ‘new self’ (the inspiration self) for only in that self is inspiration found.


Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in Education and learning, free association, Inspiration, Mythology, Religion and religious stuff, The Norse, Thor | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on the image of the Oracle at Delphi – an example of stylized mythological representation?

Delphi picture I took Sep 9 2006_1

(A picture I took of the Temple of Apollo, looking eastward.  Delphi, Greece, September 9, 2006 – click to enlarge)

The Oracle at Delphi, Greece, has always interested me.  Considering that we’re looking at something that lasted about 1000 years there are simply too many uncertainties and inconsistencies about the Oracle, the oracle process, and what happened.  Here’s some speculation I had about it:


The Oracle at Delphi, Greece, is often portrayed in a specific way:

  • She is sitting on a tripod, which is not designed as a chair or to sit on.
  • She is holding a dish of water in one hand.
  • She is holding a laurel leaf in the other hand (the laurel plant was associated with Apollo).
  • She is said to inhale fumes coming from the ground.
  • She is often said to be in a cavern.

These seem more like a representation of specific qualities and attributes than an ‘actual happening’ to me.  I find it hard to believe that the Oracle did this at every session, particularly something that lasted for about 1000 years.  I’m inclined to think that each trait represented specific qualities meaningful to the Oracle at Delphi.  In this way, its actually a stylized mythological representation of the Oracle at Delphi.  One could perhaps compare it to the images of Hindu gods, such as Siva, who is often portrayed with many arms, each hand holding something that has a mythological meaning to that god.  Its not that Siva “looks” like that, with many arms, but that the image represents aspects of him and his traits.  I often felt that the image of the Oracle at Delphi was similar.

If this is a stylized mythological image it would make sense that people “said” it happened that way at Delphi.  This is because it is perceived as a “mythical event”.  We must remember that going to the Oracle at Delphi was viewed as a ‘confrontation’ with the god Apollo, so to speak, a god . . . normal human ‘reason’ would be altered as a result and a more mythological stance taken as ‘real’.  This would mean that the accounts describe what can be called a ‘mythological bias’, so to speak, and do not portray an actual real-world happening.  That is to say, they painted the event in relation to the mythological meanings its associated with and, in so doing, actually created a “biased” view of what happened.  Many religious happenings are viewed in this way where specific things and happenings are viewed as being “from god” or are viewed in a way that fits a specific mythological or religious image . . . .this is how its viewed and claimed.  This same situation seems plausible at Delphi and may account for all the gaps, inconsistencies, and confusions found about the Oracle and what happened there.  In effect, people were describing a ‘mythological happening’ as they perceived it, not an ‘actual real-world happening’.

Assuming people spoke of the Oracle in this way (as a ‘mythological happening’), it may mean that an actual confrontation with the Oracle may not of happened at all, though their account appears to claim it.  This is probably because any answer they received from the Temple of Apollo would be spoken of as “from the Oracle”, regardless of whether they met the actual Oracle or not.  In fact, the answer may not of even come from the Oracle at all (perhaps it may of come through some other form of divination or someone else for that matter?).  But because it came from the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, it would be described as “from the Oracle” by everyone that went there.  This would make the accounts even more confusing and inconsistent as to what actually happened (which is the case).

If this situation were true, and people were actually describing a stylized mythological image of the Oracle, then it could very well mean this scenario was common:

The petitioner was led into the Temple of Apollo by a Proxenas – a local representative – and was told to wait before a door.  It appears that the “Oracle” was in a separate room in the temple, called the Adyton.  The petitioner was apparently left in a separate room called a Majaron or Oikas.  While waiting here their question was taken inside to the “Oracle”.  This, in actuality, could of been anyone:  the Oracle, Priests, other people, etc. . . .  the answer could of even been the result of some form of divining as far as we know.  After they were done, a Priest would walk out the door and tell the petitioner the answer.  The petitioner would then say that the “Oracle” answered the question, even though they never saw the Oracle or what happened.  Instead, they’d envision that the stylized mythical image had happened (the Oracle sat on a tripod, etc.) even though they saw none of it.  But because that’s how they perceived what happened that’s what they’d tell everyone and how they’d remember it.

To me, this sounds very likely.  This is because there are no real consistency in the accounts to describe a consistent ‘actual happening’.  In effect, I’m inclined to think that, more than likely, the petitioner never saw what happened.  This, of course, could of changed over its 1000 years history and there may of been variations in what happened as well, including how the petitioner associated with the Oracle.  Unfortunately, this is all too vague.

What does this mean?

We don’t know what the Oracle did or how they did it.


I have often felt that the image of the Oracle, as described above, may possibly reveal aspects about the origins of the Oracle at Delphi.  That is to say, the stylized mythological image may be a conglomeration of qualities that accumulated over the years about the Oracle at Delphi.  In this way, it reveals things about the development of the Oracle at Delphi.

The Tripod

The tripod is basically a bowl with three legs (see  Above each leg, mounted on the rim of the bowl, are large metal hoops.  The meaning and purpose of these are unclear . . . did they serve a purpose? . . .Were they decorative?  As far as I know, we don’t know.  Where they originated from is also unclear.

The tripods appear to be associated with sacrifice and offerings to the gods.  More than likely something was burnt in it.  Most likely, it was a sacrifice of some form, probably of an animal.  In this way, the tripod appears to of been something like a ‘link’ to the gods.  For this reason, tripods were often given as offerings to temples, as awards in competitions (generally in the name of a god), and were often given as votive offerings.  This shows that the tripod was viewed as having a special association with the gods.

Because a tripod is used at Delphi it is very possible that it is a remnant of sacrifice and offerings to the gods that may of been predominant there at one time, perhaps before there was an Oracle.

I should also point out that, when looking at the tripod images, it always struck me as uncomfortable and awkward for someone to sit in the tripod . . . it obviously wasn’t made as a chair.  This led me to believe that it had other origins and that the image of the Oracle in the tripod had another meaning.

The ‘Something’ in the Tripod

The ‘something’ in the tripod is what was actually put in it as an offering to the gods.  As stated above, this was most likely an animal that was burnt (or part of one, such as a specific organ).  In other words, its a reference to sacrifice.  If this were the case, its practice has been lost to history, being completely usurped by the image of the Oracle.  This doesn’t sound so far-fetched as it would make sense that, as Delphi grew in political and social influence, the image of the Oracle would be the dominant image, making references to early practices fade into the background.

There are a number of possible remnants of these early sacrifices in the religious traditions that took place at Delphi.

  • Apparently, a goat was sacrificed in the morning of the oracular pronouncements by the Priests of Apollo.  In addition, when the goats were sacrificed, the Priests of Apollo used the sacrifice as a form of divination of the success of the oracular pronouncements.  Could this be a remnant of the original sacrifice/divination process?
  • Each petitioner had to sacrifice a cake, apparently purchased from the people of Delphi.
  • Each petitioner may of also sacrificed an animal before being received by the Oracle.

These sacrifices were done directly in front of the entranceway to the east of the Temple of Apollo.

Delphi_me at Delphi 9-2006

(Me in front of the entrance to the Temple of Apollo with its ramp, looking westward.  Behind the photographer is the area where they did the sacrifices.  Delphi, Greece, September 9, 2006) 

Goats seem a common theme at Delphi.  In addition to the sacrifice of the goat by the Priests of Apollo, there is also a tradition that a shepherd first noticed that his goats acting unusual around Delphi, suggesting that its a ‘sacred location’.  This suggests, possibly, that there is a long-standing association of goats with Delphi.  Because of the sacrifices of goats, as well as the association of goats with the discovery of Delphi, its possible that they sacrificed goats there, that it was the ‘something’ in the tripod and that they were used to divine the “will of Apollo”, but its difficult to say.

Interestingly, the only image of ‘something’ in the bowl happens to images of people or, rather, a god and an Oracle.  Early images of the tripod often show Apollo sitting in the tripod.  This would suggest that he is perceived as being “there”, so to speak, in the tripod.  As a result, it was perceived that Apollo was the ‘something’ in the tripod as an existing entity.  This would be comparable to the way that the ‘host’ was viewed as actually becoming the ‘body of Christ’ during Christian Mass.  It shows that the tripod is definitely viewed as a ‘link’ to the gods.  In other words, the tripod was, in a way, viewed much like an “oracle” suggesting that ‘something’ definitely took place in the tripod  and that this probably had an “oracle” quality.  I’m inclined to think it was probably a form of divining that was done in the tripod at one time.  That is to say, they may of burnt something and used it to determine the “will of Apollo” or some other god.


(An image of Apollo sitting atop the tripod with his lyre and bow, from a Greek vase.) 

This image of the tripod, as determining the “will of Apollo”, would establish Apollo as being “in” the tripod.  This created the image of “someone sitting in the bowl”, not because someone did but because it was an image of what “appeared in the bowl”.  Since it is a bowl, and not an actual chair, it was not intended for an actual person to sit in it.  What it probably really referred to, then, is the divination that took place there.  In other words, there was this association:

tripod–divination–presence of Apollo in bowl–the image of Apollo in bowl

Later, this image of Apollo in the bowl of the tripod would be replaced by the Oracle sitting in the tripod . . . the familiar image we have grown to associate with the Oracle and Delphi.


(The Oracle at Delphi, sitting in the tripod, from a Greek cup.  This is the only known portrayal of the Oracle at Delphi.  Is this an accurate portrayal of what happened or a stylized mythological representation?)

This suggests, perhaps, that the divination was replaced, or became identified, with the Oracle.  Because of this, the Oracle was viewed as sitting in the tripod, being the ‘link’ to the gods, which was originally divination.  Instead of divining for the “will of Apollo” they now had an Oracle who did the same thing and pronounced words.  In other words, the Oracle may have replaced the original sacrifice/divination that was done in the tripod.  As a result of this, the Oracle became associated with the original sacrifice images and symbols of the tripod and was now sitting in it like Apollo.  How and when the Oracle appeared and ‘usurped’ the divination is impossible to determine.  There’s also a possibility that they actually existed side-by-side at Delphi and slowly became fused together over time.

But, assuming that this did happen, its possible that this scenario took place in the development of the tripod:

  1. A burnt offering and sacrifice.   In this phase, the offering was probably viewed as only a ‘link’ to the gods in order to gain ‘blessings’ and such.  Who knows, at this phase they may not of even used a tripod at all?
  2. A method of divination.  They may have begun to use burnt offering as a means for divination, of receiving answers and direction from the god.  Perhaps this is when the tripod was ‘officially’ used?
  3. An Oracle appeared which became identified with symbols of divination  – the tripod – because of their similar functions.  Once this happen, it appears the divination disappeared.

The ‘Fumes’

The idea of the ‘fumes’ putting the Oracle in a trance seems to be a later belief, primarily from Roman times, when the Oracle was in decline.  It almost seems as if it is actually an ‘attempt’ at explaining the religious happenings at Delphi primarily because the belief  in Apollo had declined by this time . . . they had to find some way to explain it in much the way science, nowadays, tries to ‘explain away’ religious phenomena.  ‘Fumes’, then, became an easy explanation.

There seems a number of possible explanations of the ‘fumes’:

  • A misinterpretation of the word pneuma.  The ‘fumes’, often called pneuma, may be a misinterpretion as well, but its difficult to say.  Pneuma often has the connotation of ‘breath’ or ‘spirit’ or ‘soul’ and may of initially referred to the Oracle being “taken over” by the ‘spirit of Apollo’, so to speak.  They may of misinterpreted this to think that some form of ‘fumes’ put her in a trance.
  • Smoke coming off a burnt offerings.
  • The smell of rotting flesh due to sacrifices.
  • Laurel leaves that was burnt.  The laurel plant was sacred to Apollo.
  • Gas from under the ground.  I know that there has been speculation that the ‘fumes’ came from underground and that it put the Oracle in a trance.  I guess that’s possible but I have a hard time believing it at this time.  First of all, there’s no real evidence of it.  Secondly, what gas would of done it?  As a result of these, I’m particularly skeptical about it.
  • Some form of incense.  The accounts also state that there was often a sweet smell in the Temple showing that they did burn and incense in the Temple of Apollo.  Perhaps this led to this belief?
  • Some other unknown thing.

I’ve often felt that it could have been related to sacrificial offerings to the gods.  I often think this is the case because of the mythic origins of Delphi which describe Apollo killing the dragon Python when he arrived at Delphi.  I’ve heard it said that the name Python originates from pytho, a Greek word meaning “to rot”.  If this is the case then it would actually refer to the rotting of the dragon.  In other words, the name Python may actually be the name of its rotting corpse rather than its actual name.  In this way, the rotting would refer to the ‘fumes’ or smell of the dead mythological beast and may refer to the remembrance of burnt offerings that took place there (of, perhaps, rotting flesh or the smoke of the burnt offering?).  The name Python also happens to be the source of the name of the Oracle:  Pythia.  This may again show the close association of sacrifice/divination to the Oracle and may be a reference or remembrance of the original sacrifice/divination applied to the Oracle.  Its actually because of this legend that I tend to believe that there is more to the ‘fumes’ than incense, gas, or misinterpretation of a word, though these may of helped promote this belief later on.  There seems to be an association:

Pythia (Oracle)-inhaling ‘fumes’-“to rot” (pytho)-the killing of Python-sacrifice/divination

I’m inclined to think that this is no mistake and may of shown that, at one time, there may of been great sacrifice at Delphi.

The Water

The Oracle holding a bowl of water may refer to the importance of the two springs that are located at Delphi, showing that the springs were viewed as holy.  Water had a number of references with the Oracle at Delphi:

  • The Oracle used to go cleanse herself showing its sacred connection.  This was at the Castilian Spring to the east of the Temple of Apollo.
  • Its been said that the Oracle took a drink from the Cassotis Spring, which went under the western part of the Temple of Apollo (even when the French excavated this area in the late 1800’s, they confronted flooding as a result of this spring).  The Oracle drank from the spring, apparently, before going into the Temple where the spring was exposed to the surface somewhere to the northwest of the temple.  Supposedly, it was a common belief in Ancient Greece that a person could become an oracle when drinking water from a sacred well.  No doubt, this is why they drank from it.  In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if this spring is the origin of the actual “oracle tradition” at Delphi.
  • The Oracle was supposed to get their answer from looking into the bowl of water.
  • Before they sacrificed the goats they’d sprinkle the goat with water and would determine the future success of the Oracle by how the goat responded (by how they shaked).

These seem to suggest that the two springs probably had great sacred value at one time.  In fact, its possible that the Cassotis Spring, in particular, is what made this area sacred as its really the only definite defining landmark in the area.  In addition to this, the Cassotis spring is associated with the ability of being an oracle upon drinking even into the times of the Delphic oracle.   If this were the case it would suggest that the location of Delphi, in actuality, originated from the location of the sacred Cassotis Spring.

The Cavern

The cavern that the Oracle is said to be when making her pronouncements has always been assumed to be in the Temple of Apollo itself.  But, during the excavations of the Temple of Apollo by the French in the late 1800’s, no trace of any cavern has been found.  This has caused great mystification in many people as the accounts seem to suggest it.  This may be a good example of the power of the stylized mythological image in peoples accounts as I said above.

In actuality, it may refer to the Corycian Cave which is located 7 miles north of Delphi.  This cave was associated with sacred things even during the time of Delphi.  Its exact meaning, though, seems somewhat unclear.  But its association with the area has always been established.  Its remembrance may be the origin of the idea that the Oracle is in a cavern.

This cave has a very significant importance in the religious happenings at Delphi.  It was believed that Apollo was not at the temple during the winter months.  As a result, it was viewed that the god Dionysius inhabited the Temple of Apollo at Delphi during this time.  In fact, his tomb is often stated as being in the Temple of Apollo, under the Omphalos, or ‘navel stone’, perceived as being the center of the world and located in the Adyton by the Oracle.

Delphi picture I took Sep 9 2006_4

(The Omphalos, taken by me, at the Delphi Museum, September 9, 2006.  This is not the actual Omphalos, which has disappeared, but a copy that was placed on the Delphic grounds.)

It was during the winter, at night, that the devotee’s of Dionysius would march to the cave and do a secret ceremony in the cave.  Just like the procedure of the Oracle, this ceremony is shrouded in mystery.   This shows a definite association of Apollo-Dionysius-cave-Oracle that cannot be ignored.  The details of this association, though, is unclear.  There are some definite interesting qualities between Dionysius and Apollo at Delphi:

  • Both gods have myths of changing into dolphins.
  • Both gods are involved with the sacrifice of goats.
  • The first priests of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi were said to be from Crete.  Its been said that Dionysius originated from Crete (but its not definite).
  • Both gods are gods of some form of art (Apollo is a god of song and music, for example, and Dionysius the theatre).
  • Apollo and Dionysius have contrary and opposite qualities (Apollo is associated with order and restraint.  Dionysius with lack of restraint.).
  • They are associated with some form of inspiration.  Apollo is supposed to be a god of prophecy.  Dionysius is supposed to be a god of ecstasy and visions.

The significance of things like these are unclear.  But I tend to feel that there is a close association between the two at Delphi.


I’ve often wondered if the first sacred site in the area was, in fact, the cave, possibly associated with Dionysius (or a similar god). The original remembrance, and tradition, of the cave would be remembered in the winter ceremonies at the cave.  This would mean that area by Delphi was originally sacred to Dionysius, which is why there is an association between Apollo and Dionysius at Delphi.  Later the springs may have became ‘sacred’ because they were on the way to the cave.  Being in a more easily reachable area the springs of Delphi became the ‘focus’ of the area switching the sacred emphasis from the cave to the springs.  This, then, set the stage for Delphi.  Because of the ‘sacred springs’ they may of done sacrifice/divination in the Delphi area, establishing the area as finding the will of god (which was later Apollo but could of even been another god early on).  The Cassotis spring, in particular, may of begun the tradition of the Oracle (by drinking from that spring and receiving oracle powers) which became increasingly influential and, at one point, completely usurped the sacrifice/divination.  This created a blending of images and symbols that became part of the stylized mythological representation of the Oracle at Delphi:

  • The Corycian Cave created the image of the Oracle in a cavern.
  • The Cassotis Spring created the image of the Oracle looking in a bowl of water.
  • The burnt offerings and sacrifices may of created the idea of the ‘fumes’ along with the myth of the rotting of Python.
  • The use of tripods for divining created the image of Apollo, and then the Oracle, sitting in it.

As a result, it may be the case that the stylized mythological representation of the Oracle at Delphi used symbols and representations of various themes coming from the Delphic area since early times.  As a result, its like a conglomeration of representations, accumulated over centuries, of the sacred site of Delphi and what happened there.

Since this image of the Oracle is a stylized mythic portrait it does not necessarily describe what actually happened.  In that way, it shows a ‘mythological bias’ in the interpretation of a happening, reflecting its mythic and religious significance creating something more on the lines of a stylized mythological representation . . . a religious symbol.


Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in Historical stuff, Mythology, Religion and religious stuff | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on the modern males dilemma in world conception – the “wildness deprivation” and active/passive conception

Here’s a thought I had:

The condition of the modern world has posed a problem for the male.  Basically it has created a dilemma of the male where he has a problem conceiving the world.  That is to say, the conditions of the times have created, in actuality, a degraded view of the world for the male.  To put it another way, the conception of the world, in the modern world, does not suit the male character.  Because of this, it has caused problems for the male in his relationship with the world.  The problem is not necessarily that the world has changed but is more of a problem in how he conceives it.  The conditions of the modern world have created what can be described as a “world misconception”.  The modern word, by it nature, tends to as if ‘force’ or ‘impose’ this misconception upon the male.  As a result, some males will end up fighting it.  In other words, there becomes a ‘fight’ to overpower the conception or point of view that the modern world, and its conditions, impose upon the male.  The modern world, and the misconception it creates, tries to make the male “think” and perceive the world in a specific way which does not suit his character.

There are a number of qualities in the modern world that have caused this misconception:

  • The world is getting “smaller”.  Its becoming more defined and delineated.  Its losing its mystery.
  • There is more control, law, order.  This means restriction.
  • The fact that society is getting bigger and more controlling.  This means subjugation.
  • The condemnation against war, expansion, discovery.  This means a sense of shame.
  • The destructive quality of the modern world and what has been created.  This creates apprehension of ones self.
  • The fact that, nowadays, one is more of a ‘watcher’ than a doer . . . we spend our lives watching, in some way, other people live their lives.  This means an absence of participation.
  • The fact that wherever you go is humanity . . . we are always having humanity hovering over our heads.  This means an absence of being, and finding, ones self on ones own.

These have created a particular ‘modern world conception’, which the condition of the modern world creates and which can be described as a ‘tame’ conception of the world as well as an undermining of ones self.  So we see that the ‘modern world conception’ creates a world view and a self view, which are intimately bound together.  Because of this, it hits very deep within the male and his relationship with the world.

One could very well say that the ‘modern world conception’ is a loss of “wildness”.  The male, frankly, needs this “wildness”.  Without it he cannot develop properly.  In other words, “wildness” is a trait of the male character.  As a result, its absence creates a stagnation in the male, a halting of ones self.  Because of this, I jokingly call it the “wildness deprivation”.  In short, the male is deprived a the natural “wild” condition and, therefore, goes into a stagnation as a result.

My own experience, and in watching other males, is that it has this quality is such that it is as if one is walking and then, all of a sudden, stops and stares into space.  It seems to bring a ‘great halting’, at least to me.  It’s as if one does not know how to respond and react to a “non-wild” world . . . one is at a loss, the self cannot react.  What can one do?  This poses a particular problem with the male, I think.  Because of the inability for the self to react, many males are not aware of this stagnation.  They are as if oblivious to it.  Because of the lack of awareness one can see it in their behavior such as:

  • A stagnation and apathy.  They as if have a blank expression and feelings toward the world.  They often have low ambition and desire to do things as well.
  • They have cheap attempts at trying to be “wild” (such as being tough, fighting, hunting, etc. . . . things they think are “wild”).
  • Since one is at a loss it creates a loss of self.  Because of this, they are incomplete as a person and have growth problems.  This is a common problem with the American male, nowadays.
  • They blindly follow things to as if get a sense of participation.  Some end up doing whatever society says like puppets.

In short, they try to create one or more of the following:

  1. A false world.  I tend to feel that many males over glorifying technology, for example, is part of this false world.  They create a ‘phantasy-land’ futuristic world.  Many will become involved with various forms of knowledge and learning in order to create this world.  Many so-called ‘intelligent people’ are doing just this.
  2. A false association.  Some, for example, will live in a computer game world and this becomes a dominant association the world.  In many cases, this is the purely “wild” world the modern male is going to see.  
  3. A false self.  They think they are something they are not, such as a tough guy or great warrior.  Some males will pursue a path which further this false image, such as by joining the military.

In short, a “false wild world” is created that ends up failing.  This is often because:

  • Its based in satisfying petty whims.  This becomes so strong, oftentimes, that many males will base everything on their petty whims, thinking that its satisfaction is ‘success’ and living.
  • It lacks specific qualities found in the “wild world”.  Typically, the world they live in does not have these qualities nor the “false wild world” they create.
  • It lacks a stable association with the world.  They are not associating with the ‘real world’ but a false world they created.
  • It lacks depth and relevance.  The “wild world” hits far deeper than any conception they can come up with.
  • It is a world they have created.  One of the big traits of the “wild world” is that it is out of a persons control.

The “wild world” is a specific form of world created by the conditions of life . . .  it’s not something one creates or invents.   Since the modern world is primarily a result of creation and invention it shows that the “wild world” inherently conflicts with the modern world.  In other words, the “wild world”/modern world dilemma is a sign of alienation and dehumanization.  It shows an overabundance of invention and creation.  As a result, a natural condition of humanity is be taken from us.

The “wild world” has qualities such as:

  • It is dynamic.  It generally requires action of some sort, usually as a person.
  • It is variable.  It generally is not constant but is always changing.
  • It goes beyond convention and ‘normalcy’.  Typically, it entails views, or at least a sense, that one is ‘set apart’, in some way, from everything else . . . a great sense of self.
  • It goes beyond the self.  It often puts the self to the test and demands a change in ones self.
  • It is something one must follow.  One ends up following the dictates and ways of the “wild world” so that it, in a sense, becomes ones teacher and parent.
  • It goes into the unknown.
  • It is removed from society.  It generally requires one to be removed from society, at least for a time.  In addition, one must develop a self that is not a part of society.
  • It entails a belonging to something.  This could be a group, a sense of life, a sense of self, etc.
  • It entails respect.   Without respect the “wild world” is, in my opinion, incomplete.  In a way, one must learn to respect the “wild world” and ones position in it.

It is, in many ways, “wild” because it is ‘going out’ of the normal conception of things or what we think is ‘normal’ or standard.  In other words, it actually consists of a movement away from “standard” conceptions.  In that way, the “wild world” creates a specific form of conception all its own:  the “wild conception”.  The movement away from conceptions shows that, in actuality, the “wild conception” is not a conception at all.  It is more like an an arrow pointing in a direction where one may find conception.  One could perhaps speak of the “wild conception” as a ‘pre-conception’, of a seeking for a conception.  As a result, the “wild conception” is really a hunt, a quest.  Because of this one could call it an “active conception” or a “partial conception”, as its incomplete.  This condition shows that the “wild conception” is rooted more in a stance or position or attitude.  It is not based in a belief or idea or even a principle, which is what we normally think a conception is.  This makes it so that the “how you do something” is more important than anything else.  This shows that there are two conceptions:

  1. Passive conception.  This is a conception that is defined, such as an idea, principle, or dogma.
  2. Active conception.  This is conception as how one does something, of ones attitude or stance in doing something.

The modern world is primarily passive conception based.  In fact, the prevalence, in the modern world, of facts, information, knowledge, etc. (which are forms of passive conception) have a tendency to turn the male away from active conception and, as a result, degrades “wild conception”.  This has had great impact on the male.  It creates guys who are ‘mechanistic-like’, defined, restrained, repressed.  Its probably no wonder that the condemnation, that many of us guys do, of being turned into ‘machines’ or ‘robots’ probably reflect this sense of prevalence of passive conception in the modern world.  For us, the lack of active conception is like a death.  This is because passive conception, being “static”, leads to a static outlook which prohibits active conception from taking place.   As a result, it creates a ‘machine person’ or ‘human robot’, a person with no active sense.  In appears, to me, that this is destroying many modern males today.  This seems to be a result of things such as:

  • The lure of technology, knowledge, information, the media, etc. (various forms of passive conception that have an appeal).
  • Having no choice but to participate in the “non-wild world”.
  • The inability to find a “wild world”.

Given the “wild world” deprivation, nowadays, many males will create a “personal wild world” that works for them, even if partially.  This is not uncommon.  I, myself, ended up creating my own “personal wild world”.   This appeared quite naturally and automatically . . . no doubt, as a result of need.  Only now, after all these years, has this become clear to me.  Personally, I think it “saved” me.   I did this, interestingly, by counter reacting the three qualities of the “false wild world” listed above.

  • I emphasized the creating of a realistic, healthy, and proper world image.
  • I emphasized my association with the world as well as my participation in it.
  • I emphasized the development of the self.

These constitute a lot of my ‘perpetual inquiry’ and seeking of inspiration found in this blog.  I also cultivated, as I always say, the ‘hunter instinct’ . . . the need to look.  One could very well say that my “wild world” became an endless hunt, not of animals but of life and myself.  This led me to go beyond society, myself, and normal conception.  I branched off into unknown areas, difficult areas, and tested the limits of my awareness and conception.  This became my “personal wild world”.

I should point out that I feel a significant aspect of why this worked for me is that I had to remove myself from society.  Had I of continued to attach myself to society, and follow its lead, I don’t think I would of ever created my own “wild world” and it certainly wouldn’t of been successful.  This shows the importance of detaching ones self from society.  This does not mean that you go against, condemn, or spit on society though.  It more or less says that you need to have a “life” removed from modern society (a “personal wild world”).

Many males will have a period of time in “wild conception” but it usually dies quickly.  This happens in the late teens and goes into the twenties.  Usually, by the mid-late twenties the “wild world” fades and dies, overcome by the reality of having to live in the passive conception of the “non-wild” modern world.  It seldom returns once its gone.  This tendency is another example that it is an innate need within the male, something that is part of the male makeup.  For a period of time its power is so strong that the need overpowers everything, even the modern world.   But the force of the modern world and, passive conception, as if batters the male slowly eroding his “wild conception”.  Many turn into half-dead robot-like people.  In many ways, this is a death and its prevalence shows a general tendency of a ‘male death’ nowadays.


Copyright by Mike Michelsen


Posted in Dehumanization and alienation, Existence: Awareness, Beingness, Consciousness, Conceptionism, and such, Modern life and society, Philosophy, Psychology and psychoanalysis, The male and female | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on the ‘failed sex’ – how many female traits have failed – a hidden crisis of the American female

Some time ago I said another one of those statements that stunned me but ended up proving very revealing.  During a conversation I wanted to say something (which I actually did not say):

“Most female traits have now become outdated and have become useless The female hood has actually failed.”

Some weeks later, in another conversation, I found myself almost saying to a girl:

” . . . but you’re part of ‘the failed sex’.”

Some weeks later I said:

“This is the first time in history where a sexuality (meaning the female hood) has failed.”

These themes are not new to me.  I spoke of similar things in an article called “Thoughts on my statement: “at the rate we are going the female will be obliterated”“.  It is basically a continuation of the same line of thought.  What is significant about these statements is that I now seemed to ‘accept’ that the female hood is of no use anymore – outdated . . . a failure –  which is not the point of view I said in my earlier article.  Much of these feelings have come about based on observations I’ve made since then about the American female.  Because of this I often call the American female ‘the failed sex’.


For about a quarter of a century, now, I have known that there was a crisis in the female hood.  I first noticed it in a group of females called feminists.  In fact, if it were not for them I probably would never of seen or recognized it, as females tend to disguise the problem (see below).  I wrote an article called “Thoughts on the absurd claims of feminists” which show many absurd claims that I heard feminists say . . . “out of the mouth of the horse”.  As I listened to them I began to see themes behind their claims.  In short, while they were making a political/legal issue out of everything which, at first, sounded convincing and appeared to give an authority to what they said, I could see that there was a deeper side to what they were saying.  The more I listened the more I could see that this whole thing disguised a deeper female problem.   This fact was seen in much of their statements. Here are some of my favorites, which are actual quotes I heard :

  • “The history of humanity is the history of the enslavement of women.”
  • “Motherhood violates the Constitutional rights of women.”
  • “The dress is a prison outfit.”
  • Then there is one of my especial favorites.  I heard a number of variations but they basically go like this:  “Women are oppressed because they are forced to wear nylons, which are frail and fragile, whereas males get to wear Levi’s, which are strong and durable.  This is forced upon us by the male to reinforce our inferiority”.Anyone, with any sense, can see that, behind all this, they are really speaking of a general problem THAT THEY HAVE concerning being female.  As time went on, and I listened to what they were saying, it became clear that it is based in their poor view of being female.  In short, this is a female problem, not a male problem, not a social problem.

Looking back on it now I can say that there are a number of things that ‘tipped me off’ to this problem:

  1. The poor view the female had of the female and how they saw female things as ‘bad’ in some way.  The poor view of the female, in particular, was so bad that I had to start defending the females of the past as well as female things.  In so doing, it actually made me look closer at the female and learn to appreciate the female of the past and what the female is and does, as I had to continually defend the female from the feminists.  I wrote an article on this called “Thoughts on appreciation – how the feminists taught me to respect the male, the female, and myself“.  Over time, I began to see that this degradation of the female was the source of a lot of their problems.  In other words, it became clear that the female hood in America had a problem with itself and what it is.  In addition, this poor view that many American females have toward being female is so bad that it has, in my opinion, become degrading to the female in general.  In fact, I found it insulting to have to be around females with such poor view of themselves and being female.
  2. Their continual tendency to view themselves as ‘victims’ or in seeing themselves as victims in some way.  I was often stunned at this.  They see abuse and victimizing coming out of the woodwork . . . all because they’re female.  They’ve created a whole myth about “female abuse” and how the male, society, and the whole world have caused and created all their problems.  This has done nothing but create a warped vision of the world.  I wrote an article on these things called “Some thoughts on the “insult” of the modern female – the effects of their hidden ‘projected self-degradation’ through everything else“.  To be frank, being around these types of girls was like being around a paranoid schizophrenic who saw threats in just about everything.  More than once have I said that the idea that the female is nothing but a victim has reached epidemic proportions in the U.S.
  3. The endless attempt at trying to be men, ape the male or attempting to masculanize the female.  Their attempts at trying to be male or ape the male was, at times, almost unreal.  I was often stunned when they would basically say “we’re the same as the male” as if that was supposed to answer everything.  I recently heard one female say “I’m beautiful because I have many strong women behind me” (meaning the mothers before her).  My experience is that references to “strong” almost always refers to the male.  Because of this, its like saying “I’m beautiful because the mothers before me were like men”.  Many females talked in this way as if it somehow ‘proved’ that they were men in some way . . . and I was supposed to believe it.  In actuality, what they’re actually doing is admitting to the failure of the female hood.  I once saw something in the news which made a reference to “female leadership in the world”.  I’m not that stupid, I know that’s a reference to the female being like a male.  I began to joke that, in statements like that where they were making the female as having male qualities, they should start putting an asterisk after the statement and below the sentence, in fine print, they should put write:  “* they have to ape the male because the female hood has failed”.  In many cases, they try to portray the female as if she were a male, doing male things and acting like a male, promoting male attitudes and ways.  In short, there is a complete absence of female qualities, ways, and doing things.  This is seen almost everywhere, in everyday life, movies, commercials, and books.  So the question is:  “why are they not promoting female qualities?”
  4. Their continual accusation and blame.  The blame and accusation they did was almost unreal.  I can recall periods of time where, almost daily when I was going to Technical College, I had to sit and listen to girls accuse and blame the male, usually, for just about everything.  According to them the male was this tyrannical oppressive slave driver who has done nothing but abuse and victimize the female all these centuries.  Not only that, we caused all their problems.  Only now, after all these decades, am I really beginning to realize how appalled I was by that.  Listening to this for years, how could anyone not see there was a problem?
  5. How many females have developed a very slavish, almost robotic, nature.  This basically shows an absence of being genuine.  As a result, it shows a loss of being-who-they-are or, rather, an alienation.  I often don’t like to be around some American females because I can’t stand this slavish robotic attitude.  I once described it as being around an ‘un-human’.
  6. Their preoccupation with having a job.  I was often stunned how many American girls have this weird preoccupation with a job, much more than the male does.  Typically, males treat a job in the manner of “its just something you do” like shaving or coming your hair.  But this is not how many females treat it.  It would not be far off to say that some girls have an obsession or mania about it.  And if they have any success with it they will often cram it down your throat!  It doesn’t take a genius, watching it after all these years, that they emphasize a job because the value of the female hood has failed.  In other words, having a job is meant to as if “replace” the value of the female hood.  A common joke for me is “what’s the first thing you say when you see an American female?  So, have you got a job yet?”  (See my remarks about females and jobs below).
  7. How many American females are particularly difficult to associate with.  This observation has been noted so much that there are internet sites on it!  I’ve heard it mentioned by American males, foreign males, and even some females.  Its quite evident that there is something particularly ‘difficult’ about the American female.  I’ve written a number of articles on this subject such as “Why are white American females so difficult?“.  I’ve been repetitively stunned how American females are difficult.  There have been times where I couldn’t even get them to answer my questions.  Many are touchy beyond belief.  With some you have to walk on tippy toes around them.  Many play endless games as if that’s the only way they know how to associate with people.  Sadly, many males learn not to associate with them all that much.  There have even been something like a ‘movement’ where many American males decided to marry foreign females instead of American girls because they are too difficult to associate with.
  8. On how they get mad when you try to help them.  They seem to think that the when you help them you are trying to degrade them or something.  Many of the guys, here in the U.S., learn that you do not help girls or do anything for them.  Many of us guys got called a “male chauvinist pig” just for opening a door for them!  I’ve heard girls say we (meaning the guys) do things for them in order to “degrade” them in some way, or “subjugate” them, or to make them “dependent”, or even as a way to “reinforce their inferiority”.  Yeah, right . . .  This is an example of their poor view of themselves being ‘projected’ onto the males making the males ‘at fault’, which is such a part of this problem.
  9. On how you must walk on tippy-toes around females.  You must be careful of what you say, do, and act around females.  You even got to be careful how close you are to them.  And you don’t want to touch them . . . even accidentally.   God help us all if you happen to touch them in a ‘sensitive’ area!  We all know who will be molded out as the villain . . . don’t we?  Once, some people came to our work and talked about ‘sexual harassment’.  The moral of the story:  when a female is around don’t talk to them, look at them, or get near them!  Apparently, we guys have to be especially careful for if a female nearby just ‘happens’ to overhear a dirty joke that ‘offends’ them, for example, then God help us.  It is my belief that it is actually the males who are ‘sexually harassed’ by having to live with such absurd conditions and accusations!!!  What they’ve done is create an absurd fear and apprehension in society. 

There were also a number of things said by females that showed that there was a problem such as:

  • I can recall females always saying “males are insecure in their masculanity”.  This, it must be remembered was being said by females who saw the female as a victim, saw everything female as bad, and were often trying to be like men.  It became clear that what they were actually saying is:  “I am insecure in my femininity”.
  • The statement:  “the female is oppressed because they are forced to have children and raise them and not permitted to have a career”.  I knew enough about things to see that this, more or less, was saying “I have a problem with being female, and playing the part of a female, so the only solution is to be a man”.
  • I’ve seen females get upset if you made any sort of a distinction between male an female.  Often, they’d cite the political idea of “equality” as authority and justification, that this ‘proved’ that the male and female were the ‘same’.  It doesn’t take a genius to so see that this was a way for them to basically say, “I’m insecure in being female but political theory gives me an escape with its idea of equality, that the male and female are the same”.  Unfortunately, what they don’t realize is that they are actually distorting the idea of equality, as that is not what it means!!! 

These all pointed that something was wrong.  These all showed:

  • A basic problem in being female.
  • A problem playing the female part.
  • A desire to not be female.
  • A lack of self-respect.
  • A lack of dignity.
  • A lack of worth as a person and as a group (meaning the female hood).

As time went on I could see that there was a problem in the female hood and in their perception of themselves.  In short, there was a failure in the female hood.


After many years of observation it seems, to me, that the female hood is no longer “viable” anymore.  Everything is seeming to show that this is the case.  By “viable” I mean that the naturally appearing feminine traits no longer have practical value anymore.  As I once said:  “the female hood has ceased to be an institution in itself – the ‘female institution’ has failed”.  Everything that I am seeing is that female traits are no longer useful and seem to be ‘hanging on a thread’.  These female traits I speak of have qualities such as:

  • They are exclusive to the female.
  • They are innate, instinctual, naturally appearing.
  • They have a “power” to the female herself and the growth and development of these traits helps females develop a strong sense of who they are and be more of a person.
  • The development of traits have a “power” or “authority” in society when developed by the female.  It gives them use and value in society.

The loss of these qualities  have made them lose their “viability”.  In general, the female has lost significant forms of “viability”:

  • A social viability.  This is the social use of female traits.
  • A personal viability.  This means the female traits that causes a personal growth.

These two forms, together, create what can be called the ‘female life’ as a character trait of the female as a person.

When the ‘female life’ plays a part in culture and society it creates the ‘female institution’.  A natural tendency in a ‘real human society’ is that there develops a ‘male institution’ and ‘female institution’ which have been seen in human societies all over the world since the beginning of time.  These are specific divisions in society where the male and female have a specific place to be, grow, and develop their natural abilities and inclinations.  As a result, it gives great identity and worth, both as a person and in society.  They develop specific male and female ways of being.  This becomes so pronounced that these ‘institutions’ create a ‘male culture’ and a ‘female culture’, distinct and separate from each other (I wrote an article on this called “Thoughts on the different male and female characters – “male culture” and “female culture”“).  These different cultures create mature, useful, and meaningful people who have a definite place in society.  I believe that the creation of the ‘male institution’ and ‘female institution’ have been critical in human society and have been one of the great powers of human society.  Their fall, which has appeared recently, has been tragic for human society.  Their fall, in my opinion, has caused a general deterioration of the male and female as human beings and in society as a whole.

Specifically, ‘female institution’ defines the power, the use, and meaning of the female.  In other words, it gives them “viability”.  It also shows that there is a social and personal source for “viability” and that they are inter-related.  We must remember that this “viability” originates and has base in naturally appearing tendencies.  It is not ‘learned’ or taught but more developed or revealed.  This means that, both socially and personally, the naturally appearing tendencies must:

  • Have a place.  They must have somewhere where they have worth and value.
  • Have a means of manifestation.  They must have a way to demonstrate themselves and appear.
  • Have a meaning.  They must have some inherent use.

For the female, it is the ‘female institution’ that allows these to be realized.  Without a ‘female institution’ the realization tends to be impaired or non-existent (that is, fail).  Because of this, it means that the ‘female institution’ is critical for naturally appearing tendencies to grow and develop.  Once the naturally appearing traits fail then the ‘female institution’ fails.  This, in many ways, is just what has happened to the female.   In general, this loss of viability is slowly eating the female hood away.

But this is not to say that the traits are completely gone . . . they continue to manifest themselves in some form.  Because they are naturally appearing they keep appearing but in unproductive and unhealthy ways.  As a result, we could call these ‘residual traits’.  It manifests itself in ways such as:

  • They are directed into areas that it was not intended to go.
  • They are ‘there’ but have no real use.
  • They become distorted and warped.

These conditions often tend to create a female with “issues”, that’s neurotic, that’s touchy and over-reactive, and so on.  This is not surprising as ‘residual traits’ means that their traits are going nowhere and have no value.  One could very well say that they are “fighting for a use”.

From what it seems, to me, there are only a couple of naturally appearing qualities that are maintaining any “viability” for the female hood at all:

  1. Childbearing (pregnancy, newborns, infants).  Notice how I did not say motherhood . . not even motherhood is holding its viability anymore!  Most mothers now just throw their kids in a day care anyways, for example.
  2. Sexuality.  This seems to give the female hood its main “viability” today.  It gives many females a sense of ‘being needed’ and it also makes the female appealing to the male (without it, most males probably wouldn’t want much to do with the female).

Without these two things, what use are most female traits nowadays?  I’ve always said that if they were to be able to scientifically grow children and be able to artificially satisfy sexuality (which they’re probably working on right now) then the female, as a distinct group, will completely lose meaning.  To me, this is a horrible situation.

Some examples and signs of the loss of viability and failure of the female hood, nowadays, include:

  • The naturally appearing tendencies are no longer naturally useful or have a place.  Motherhood, for example, is no longer the “big thing” it used to be, nor is it the necessary thing.  Many of the younger females don’t even know what a mother is anymore nor how to act like one.
  • The qualities of the female hood no longer ‘stands on its own’.  For centuries, the female tendencies were so critical and important that it created a whole way of life, the female way of life, that was critical in life.  This is the ‘female institution’ which stood as an entity in society.  This is disappearing as an entity in society.  In general, I tend to feel that there is no ‘female institution’ to day in the U.S. that is “viable” and has worth.
  • The female hood is no longer something that is developed, practiced, and cultivated.  Girls are not taught ‘female things’ anymore or how to develop them which is what have been going on for thousands of years.  This is part of how they learned and developed naturally appearing female traits.  Most mothers, from what I have seen, don’t give girls any instruction at all on how to be a female or a mother.  If they do its some distorted view (such as to be like a man, get a job, view the female as a victim, or something similar).
  • Females are trying to be something else than who they are.  In many cases, they are trying to be like a male or emulate male traits.  They are also trying to do things that have not interested females in thousands of years (like exploration or war), which is nothing but imitation of the male usually.  In this way, females have become a bunch of people who “ape” other people.  In that sense, the modern female has become something like a ‘lie’.
  • Many females try to masculinize the female, often to the point where the female is painted out to be more of a male than the male is.  In this society, there is great effort to portray the female with male characteristics.  Its seen a lot, for example, in  movies.  Many females will try to emulate it in some way.
  • Some females will try to compete and outdo the opposite sex.  A person who is stable in their own sexuality would not do this.  That is to say, a male who is stable in being male does not need to try to outdo the female in any way.  This is one of the signs of an insecure female.
  • The female is creating warped views of their own traits and identity.  Many females are becoming overly feminine, for example, or excessively slut-like.  Some girls will act ‘overly-emotional’ or ‘stupid’ thinking that’s what a female is.  I’ve seen many females who seem to think that a female is a slut and that’s their only role.  I’ve been stunned how many females don’t seem to know that a female is exactly.
  • The female is losing self-respect and self-dignity.  Every time I turn around females are putting the female down in some way (but blaming other people for it).  They have little self-respect or self-dignity.  Interestingly, I’ve found that a common attempt at creating a ‘pseudo-self-respect or self-dignity’ is to do something that is considered ‘socially dignified’, like getting a degree or going into politics.  Its almost as if ‘social dignity’ compensates for their low self-respect.  My experience is that when many American girls do this it often means that they have self-respect problems.  I wrote an article on naturally appearing female low self-esteem called “Some thoughts on the naturally appearing female low self-esteem“.
  • They view the female in a bad light and generally view the female hood, as a whole, in a bad way.  Many females think the female is ‘abused’ or a ‘victim’ in some way.  In some cases, they act as if there is a conspiracy to ‘harm’ the females which border on paranoia.  I’ve seen many females who see abuse and victimizing in everything . . . all showing their poor view of the female.  They also claim that they are ‘oppressed’ and ‘enslaved’ and see it in everything, especially female things.
  • Some females get upset if you mention feminine traits.  Its like they don’t want to be reminded of anything femalish.  Many girls are ‘uncomfortable’ with “girly” things and will often portray feminine traits in a negative way, such as that “motherhood violates a women’s Constitutional rights”, as I wrote above.  Some will get upset if you mention female things and activities, such as doing their hair or cooking.
  • They often deny uniquely feminine things.  I’ve seen some girls who will, for example, “pretend” that they are not pregnant or that they don’t have ’emotional problems’ and such.
  • If a person speaks of ‘female things’, they will often automatically assume that you are trying to ‘degrade them’ or something similar.  Its not uncommon that they think you have malicious intents if you talk about females.  Many American females take the point of view that the ‘female is a victim’ so anything femalish is a reference to their supposed victimizing.  My experience is that many males learn not discuss anything about the female in front of them.  You can’t talk about ‘female issues’ and problems.  If you do, then they may accuse you of things, such as that you have something against females . . . which often only hides their own self-hate and problems with being female.  Some female don’t like it when you talk of ‘traditional female things’, such as cooking and cleaning.  I recall an instance where an actress in a movie had a scene where it required her to get some tea for the people in the scene.  The actress refused to do it (remember females are ‘oppressed’ and ‘enslaved’ . . . God help us all!).   The only way they could get her to do it is to have a male “help” her.  In actuality, all it showed is that she has a poor view of female things.
  • You must be careful what and how you call them.  A good example is the big nonsense surrounding the word “secretary”.  I was often stunned when females got mad when people called them that.  I have talked to many other males who have said the same thing.  Apparently, its supposed to be “degrading” (frankly, is it any any more worse than a garbage man who handles peoples garbage all day? . . . but I ‘ve never heard any garbage men complain).  To this day, I see nothing degrading in the word secretary but, yet, they’ve had to have it changed . . . and multiple times.  I believe it went from “secretary” to “administrative assistant” but, God help us all, “assistant” implies enslavement and subjugation!!!   Because of this, I think they have now changed it to “administrative professionals”.  I guess they will have to be called “administrative CEO’s” some time in the future, in order to emphasize the power of female leadership???  It doesn’t take a genius to see that, behind all this, is a bunch of females with poor views of themselves. This is why THEY see these words as degrading:  secretary=female . . . its their own poor views of themselves reflected in what they are called.  Being called something different gives them the illusion they don’t have this problem but the problem remains (see below on how females hide this problem with illusions).
  • They are putting too much worth in ‘social approval’ rather than in any ‘inner satisfaction’.   Nowadays, what now consists of the ‘female life’ is often dictated by some form of social approval or acceptance (greatly intensified by social media) . . . they are no longer following that ‘inner sense’ that satisfies their inner natural traits as their mothers have been doing for centuries.   One could almost call the need for social approval as an obsession, dominating what many females do nowadays.  The reason why this is so important is that ‘inner satisfaction’ is how one tells if naturally appearing tendencies are being fulfilled.  Its absence tends to show natural tendencies are not being catered to. 
  • Many females are turning into ‘human robots’.  They are ‘blindly following’ things such as trend, current mania’s, and such to such an extent that they behave more like robots than human beings.  In this way, they are losing their humanity.  This is significant in that, in ‘blindly following’ they do not follow natural inclinations.  Being robotic, they do not nor will they find themselves.  In many ways, the female ‘human robot’ is becoming the new female self.
  • There is no longer a ‘female institution’ as a reality in life.  Females no longer maintain a ‘strictly female’ lifestyle and way of life as their predecessors have done for centuries.  They no longer see themselves as a distinct unique group in society that has a worth and value.   They also do not maintain and keep a ‘female institution’ as a working phenomena, nor teaching it to younger females.
  • The females are not creating a ‘female life’ or a ‘female institution’ on their own.  So far, the females have not created anything new to replace the ‘female institution’.  The bulk of the ‘new female life’ consists of aping other people or in blind following.
  • Many females spend too much time blaming other people for their problems.  When they blame other people they tend to view themselves as ‘innocent’ and that it ‘cleanses’ them of the problem.  This only intensifies the problem and makes it worse.  I was appalled when I saw the extent of this blaming and how freely and openly they did this.
  • There are many efforts to cover up their loss of viability.  In many ways, a lot of what females do today is covering up their loss of viability such as trying to outdo the male, becoming a ‘human robot’, making a life out of ‘being a victim’, blaming other people, and such, many of which have been described above.  In some ways, one could say that the modern American ‘female life’ is one big cover up for their failure.

One of the things we see in many of these reactions is a pattern of a ‘turning away’ from female things.  In other words, there is an  avoiding of natural tendencies in many females nowadays.  This is significant as only by following our natural tendencies do we become who we are.  In general, the female hood has turned away from many natural tendencies and, accordingly, have turned away from themselves.  This has created a quality in the female of being non-genuine and, in a way, artificial or phony which often makes them robot-like or slavish in attitude.  This is a major sign of the failure of the female hood.  Its not uncommon for me to describe many females, nowadays, as ‘robots’ or ‘automatons’ as a result of this non-genuineness.  I speak of this as ‘female non-genuineness’ which is a sign of ‘the failed sex’.  One could very well say that the failure of the female is really nothing but a loss of genuineness.  This loss of genuineness seems to have roots in several things:

  • A loss in who they are as individual people.
  • A loss in who they are in society.

These reflect the two types of “viability” described above.  That’s really no mistake as “viability” and “genuineness” are the same thing from different perspectives.  Many American females struggle with either one or both of these things.  In fact, a lot of the American female life is based in struggling with either one or both of these things in one way or another.

The resulting effect of the failure of the female hood has caused a number of problems in the ‘female life’ and ‘female institution’, such as:

  • Because the female no longer caters to natural female tendencies society begins to abandon avenues where they have use and value.
  • The females, themselves, do not give their own female tendencies a place.
  • The females have lost sense of who and what they are.

In these ways, the ‘female life’ has basically become almost useless.  This shows a basic dilemma and crisis in the female hood.  I feel it to be a serious problem.  As far as I know, I’m the only person to acknowledge it.

I’ve often said that, now that the ‘female life’ and ‘female institution’ has failed, the modern American female now has only two choices to go:

  1. The “ape”.  This refers to ‘aping’ someone.  That is to say, it refers to imitating someone else and trying to be like them.  Generally, the person they try to imitate is the male, but not necessarily.  It could be anyone, such as social trend.  When they do ape someone they often will try to be that person, even to the point that they will try to replace that person.  This is rooted in a female tendency to be imitative (see below).   
  2. The “robot”.  This refers to the slavish mentality of the female and how they mindlessly and blindly follow things.  This is also rooted in a female tendency (see below).

From what I have seen these are very reflective of ‘female life’ now.  Both are actually rooted in naturally appearing female tendencies, which is why these paths are so easy for them to take.

Sadly, with this fall, the worth of the female is narrowing down.  With all the emphasis on work in this country the female is slowly turning themselves into a ‘work animal’.  It won’t be too long before the only value a female has is in getting a job.  Just recently I wanted to say to a young girl:

“Get a job!!!  That’s about the only value you girls are going to have at the rate you’re going.  You can thank your mothers for that.  They have done everything in their power to undermine, degrade, and undermine the female life, as it has been for centuries all over the world.  They’ve made it so that the only value for the female is as a person who gets a job.  Before, the value of the female was far more extensive and involved, and they had value on many different levels.  Now you’re only value is in getting a job.  What a fall!”

At this time this fall may not seem to be the case.  This societies worship of “work” seems to make having a job as having great worth.  It makes many females think that they are doing “the thing” and that it gives them such great importance.  In actuality, all they are doing is following social trend (sort of like fashion).  When this worship fades, sometime in the future, I feel that many females will begin to see that all they’ve been turned into is a ‘work animal’, which they will be expected to do, and that they will be devoid of the worth and value the mothers before them had.


The failure of the ‘female life’ has caused a basic problem in the female identity.  I speak of this as the ‘modern female identity crisis’.  This refers to the growing female identity problems that we’re seeing as a result of the failure of the female hood. More and more this is becoming evident.  Many females are increasingly having problems with the female identity and what it means.  Unfortunately, too much of society is ‘passing this off’ as nothing when, in reality, they are something serious. 

There are many ways that the ‘modern female identity crisis’ appears.  Some common forms I see are:

  • The ‘female-as-victim syndrome’.  This is when they see themselves as victims of everything.  In many ways, this is like saying, “I’ve become useless (a victim)”.  This is very prevalent in the U.S.  I’ve seen so many variations of this theme that it has become nauseating.  Some females have made victimizing a way of life and see it in just about everything (I would not be surprised if some of these girls would see this article as a form of ‘victimizing’ the female . . . perhaps as degrading or portraying the female in a bad way or, to get political, they may say its ‘sexist’ or ‘discriminatory’ . . . it’s all the same:  the female is a victim!).
  • The ‘female-as-male syndrome’.  Here they try to be like a male or emulate male traits.  This shows a complete abandoning of natural female tendencies.  This is very prevalent in the U.S.  Its so prevalent I often state this joke:  “What’s the first thing you say to an American female?  Are you a man yet?”  This tendency often appears as trying to act like a male, be a male, replace a male, or in trying to outdo a male.  Examples of these are trying to do male things (like hunting or mountain climbing), acting in a male way (such as being aggressive-like and even rude-like, such as spitting on the ground), trying to be the breadwinner of the family, and in trying to compete with the male in some way.  Trying to associate with a female who is like this is not easy.  Often, the only male who will associate with them are pussy whipped guys who suck up to them.  To me, this is a pathetic quality in the female and, in my opinion, is the most degrading thing I’ve ever seen in regard to a female.  This is the origin of my saying:  “There’s nothing more pathetic than a female aping the male”.
  • The ‘female-as-first syndrome’ or ‘conceit factor’ (see below).  Here, they think they are ‘first’ or superior in some way.  They can become horribly vain, conceited, or arrogant.  This tendency usually hides a feeling of inferiority, and uncertainty about themselves, caused by identity problems.
  • The ‘exaggerated femininity syndrome’.  This is a tendency where females will exaggerate what they think are feminine tendencies.  They often appear overly feminish.  I first saw this in the 1980’s.  I didn’t realize it then but I now know that it was the first sign I saw of the failure of the female hood.  Looking back on it now I’d say that it looks like the females, at that time, were ‘trying to hang on to their femininity by exaggerating it’.  This is because it was increasingly failing.  This shows that the 1980’s was a turning point in the failure of the female hoof for, in many ways, this was when it turned into a social crisis.   
  • The ‘warped female identity syndrome’.  Here they develop weird and warped views about the female.
  • The ‘pseudo-gay or acquired homosexuality syndrome’.  Here they begin to “think” they are gay for one reason or another.  Oftentimes, its because they are uncertain what a ‘female is’ . . . a sign of ‘the failed sex’.  I’ve written an article called “Thoughts on the new “pseudo-gay” or “acquired homosexuality” – another sign of the dehumanization of the modern world???” which discusses the association with the pseudo-gay with dehumanization, which is a loss of a sense of who we are.
  • The ‘following-the-other syndrome’.  Here they will follow the ‘other’ (which is another person, society, trend, etc.) to the point of a blind sheep.  One version of this is the ‘social media female’.  I wrote some articles on this called “Thoughts on the problem of the ‘soap opera housewife’ and the ‘social media female’ – “The media absorption”” and “Thoughts on the new ‘social media’ female – the degradation of the female and mother???“.
  • The ‘apathy tendency syndrome’.  Here they tend to become apathetic in life.  This, from what I have seen, is somewhat rare.
  • The ‘female blame-game syndrome’.   Here they blame or accuse innocent people for their problems.
  • The ‘female projection syndrome’.   Here they project their problems onto other people.  What they do is see their conflict in other people.  A good example of this is what I saw a lot in the 1980’s.  Many females claimed that males were “insecure in their masculinity”.  This used to stun me as I saw no real sign of it.  And then, one day, I just about said to a female who said this:  “What?  This is being said by a female who has a poor view of the female, and views them as victims, and see’s the solution is to be a man . . who, exactly, is insecure in their sexuality?”  What they did is project their failure at being female onto the male and make him the one who is insecure when it was really themselves who were.  Another version is how, commonly on fathers day, I always hear it said that the father is useless and has no meaning.  But the fathers are doing no different than they were doing centuries ago.  But look who’s saying it.  Usually, its a bunch of females who are not being mothers and are often trying to take the place and role of the father.  In actuality, what they are saying is that the mother has become useless . . . they just projected it onto the father, thereby making him “appear” useless.
  • The ‘female-as-bad syndrome’.  Here they see the female as bad and some horrible thing.
  • The ‘lost femalehood syndrome’.  Here they cannot understand their own female feelings and tend to misinterpret it.  Many girls, nowadays, cannot understand their own motherly feelings anymore (I wrote on article involving this called “Thoughts on female identity problems – an example of how females are losing the ability to interpret their own naturally appearing motherly feelings, the ‘alienated mother desire’, and other things“).
  • The ‘mixed message syndrome’.  They get confused about what the female is because they have differing messages from society.  For example, one side of society says they should be ‘proper Victorian-like respectable girls’ and the other says they should be ‘immoral sluts’.  This can cause great conflict for some girls to the point they don’t know which way to turn.

With the loss of “viability” they have developed identity problems and have problems with sexual identity, namely, the female identity.  They don’t know what it is, what its for, and have no idea of its relevance or value.  I tend to feel that a trait of the American female is some form of sexual identity problem somewhere. 

The ‘female self dilemma':  the mother instinct/menstrual/identity/self connection

One of the effects of female loss of identity is that they have problems, or ‘issues’, with menstruation (in actuality, a significant part of their identity).  In fact, for some females, menstruation dominates much of their identity conflict and life.  The reason for this is that female identity gives menstruation, and its impulses, a direction and a place.  When females lose their identity they lose a ‘control’ over their menstrual impulses.  In fact, it often ‘over runs’ them Their life becomes a continual reaction to its control over their life. Once this happens, one could say that they become ‘controlled’ by menstruation.  There is even a ‘look’ with females who are ‘controlled’ by menstruation.  Some common ways this appears are:

  • A look like they are going to ‘explode’.
  • A look like they are going to kill you.
  • A look of being ‘out of control’.

In other words, it has a quality of ‘being more than they can handle’ and one can feel this in them.  Many males learn to avoid them when they are like this or avoid them overall if its part of their character.

Once the menstrual impulses have no direction they tend to ‘run amuck’.  As a result, the impulses can literally take control of their life.  It then creates what can be described as a ‘menstrual interpretation of the world’.   The world, and everything in it, is typically interpreted from the context of their ‘out of control’ menstrual impulses.  It ends up creating a very limited and narrow view of things in these girls.  Typically, the ‘menstrual interpretation of the world’ revolve around two themes, which are a closely associated with menstrual impulses.  These are:

  1. They feel victimized or abused in some way.
  2. They feel enslaved or ‘forced’ to do things.

These themes, and claims, are prevalent in girls with female identity problems, especially when menstrual impulses are involved.  Whenever I see them they are usually signs of identity problems, I’ve found.  In fact, I feel that these alienated menstrual impulses are the base of why they have such poor views of the female.  Its the reason why they think the female is a victim or enslaved all the time.   What this shows is that their poor view of themselves has a lot to do with their inability to handle their ‘menstrual impulses’ and because it overwhelms them.  As I said above, much of this is a result of female identity problems.  Therefore, a lot of the American females poor view of the female originates from identity problems. 

As part of the ‘menstrual interpretation of the world’ they develop a number of points of view about themselves and the world such as:

  • Internal point of view – A tendency to see the female as a form of “self-degradation” that can go to the point of a“self-destructiveness”.   That is to say, it makes them see the female in a bad light seeing female things as bad.  This line of thinking causes great destruction to female self-esteem and self-worth.  For some girls this can get to the point that they want to ‘destroy’ everything female or femalish causing a tendency to self-destructiveness.  I saw this with many feminists who seemed ‘committed’ to destroying everything female . . . in the name of freedom!
  • External point of view – A tendency to view the world, and the people in it, as degrading them in some way.  This is primarily a projection of the internal point of view onto the world.  You name it, it degrades them.  For some this will get to the point of paranoia, seeing degradation in everything, as if the whole world is ‘plotting’ to destroy them in some way.  This line of thinking tends to make them see the world as a threat.

Both of these make them see ‘bad’ in everything, in themselves and in the world.  This condition poses great dilemma for many females.  This is one of the reasons why they use the defenses, as described above (victim or slave) and can become fanatical about it . . . its the only choice they have.  In other words, the ‘menstrual interpretation of the world’, associated with female identity problems, tends to cause a threatening world view in which there is no escape.  They are, in effect, “trapped” in it, unable to get away.  This tends to give a great sense of ‘being a slave’ or ‘imprisoned’ for these girls.  I sometimes speak of this as the ‘female-as-trapped dilemma’.  More or less, it gives them the sense that the female is trapped in being female and being bound by female life.

A common reaction to the ‘female-as-trapped dilemma’ is for the female to ‘move away’ from being female, a general avoidance of being female.  This creates a pattern much like this:

  1. They feel the female is ‘bad’ in some way The female is viewed as a ‘slave’, ‘oppressed’, ‘trapped’, or something similar, that something bad has happened to them.  I should point out that this is not always something conscious.  That is to say, they aren’t necessarily aware of it.  In many cases, they are not aware at all.
  2. The solution is to flee being female in some way.  This is often done in ways such as by being something else (such as a man), blindly following something (such as trend), and so on.

In this way, the female tends to move away from themselves, of being female, which often leads to a self-destructive tendency.  This is done as a reaction and defense to the dilemma they are in.  This self-destructive tendency has, in fact, been instrumental in the failure of the female hood as it has caused the female to make the female ‘not a female’.  In this way, they have made the female redundant, useless, worthless, and having no “viability”.  In effect, they have, on their own effort, undermined their own value.  What this shows is that females are often victims of their own impulses, despite all their accusation, blame, use of political/legal jargon, etc., no matter how convincing it may sound.

We must remember that menstruation, of course, is associated with the male and children.  As a result, a big part of menstrual impulses is what I call the ‘other’, meaning a sense of “someone else”.  One could very well say that a big part of the childbearing and menstruation impulse is this sense of “someone else” . . . its what its all about, “someone else to get them pregnant” and to give birth to “someone else”.  Its so strong because its innate tendency, a manifestation of instinct.  Its really no surprise, then, that this sense of ‘other’ figures prominently in the ‘menstrual interpretation of the world’.  Its for this reason that, as part of seeing the ‘threat of the world’, they often tend to see the ‘other’ as a threat.  This creates a tendency for the female to see other people as threats.  As a result of this, they tend to become very accusatory and blame people.  This could get to the point of paranoia, where they think people are conspiring or plotting against them in some way (such as the male plotting to enslave them).  In addition, it creates a tendency for them to drag other people into their problems.  Once they see other people as a threat it happens that the other person becomes ‘intimately associated’, so to speak, with their dilemma.  In so being, they become a part of it in their mind.  Not only that, because they become ‘intimately associated’ they are viewed at in a personal way by the female.  The threat, then, becomes ‘real’ for the female and the person is treated as a ‘real threat’.  This tendency was seen a lot with feminists who would continually make the male a ‘real threat’ and, in so many ways, treat him as such.  Being that the male is usually unaware of this, the male usually reacts with a “huh, what?” type of response or is bewildered by it (as I was).  In some cases, it gives the females a quality of being ‘insane’.  All this, we must remember, are things going on within the female mind.  The male, society, or the world (who they view as a ‘threat’) is not making them do it or feel this way.

The childbearing/menstrual, or mother instinct, impulses are very powerful for the female.  Its so powerful, in fact, that it can control them almost like puppets.  Because of this, we should look at some traits the mother instinct creates:

– The ‘equating tendency’

Because of the importance of the male in the childbearing/menstrual impulse its no surprise that the male figures prominently.  This is because the male is associated with childbearing and, accordingly, with menstruation deep down.  In some respects, it creates a tendency for the female to equate the male with female problems.  This is the ‘equating tendency’.  It makes them equate the male with thing such as:

  • Their menstrual problems.
  • Feeling trapped or enslaved.
  • Feeling a victim or damaged in some way.
  • General problems with being female.

With some females, the male is to blame for all their problems, as I have witnessed for decades.  I’ve seen the male blamed for just about anything bad that happens to a female, from childbearing to serial killers to having to wear specific types of clothes.

– The ‘blurring tendency’ and ‘blurring sickness’

The ‘equating tendency’ has another effect of creating a tendency of blurring themselves with other people in general.  This is the ‘blurring tendency’.  What this does is makes it so that they tend to ‘equate’ or make themselves the ‘same’ as other people, as if there is no difference.  In some cases, they seem themselves and the other person as if they were one.  Because of the childbearing impulses, this is often associated with the male.  For example, it creates a tendency where they try ‘to be a man’ to the point that they actually believe that they are the same.  In fact, one of the ways they do this is by trying to turn the female into something like a male/female hermaphrodite.  Because this is so common with feminism I often jokingly called it the “feminist utopian hermaphrodite” (I wrote about it in an article called “More insanity from the feminists: The “feminist utopian hermaphrodite” and the myth of male work“).   Many females, now, are trying to be both male and female, mother and father, as a manifestation of this ‘blurring tendency’.  This tends to create problems which I call the ‘blurring sickness’.   The effect of this tends to be:

  • They lose a sense of who they are.  In this way, they undermine themselves.  This can get to the point that they lose sense of being an individual person and human being.    They will complain of being dependent, having no ‘life’, being controlled by people, and such.  In effect, they are complaining about the fact that THEY have blurred themselves with other people (remember, they typically blame others for their problems so, in their minds, they are not to blame).
  • They tend to destroy the purpose of the one they are blurring.  In this way, they undermine a whole relationship.  It becomes hard to associate with them and form a relationship.

So we see that the ‘blurring sickness’ affects themselves and the people they associate with.

– The ‘dilemma of will’ and ‘will-as-other tendency’

The ‘blurring tendency’ can sometimes cause a ‘dilemma of will‘ with some females.  Basically what happens is that when they blur themselves with another they make the other persons ‘will’ their own.  This is the ‘will-as-other tendency’.   They use the other persons will as if it were their own.  This often makes females slavish, submissive, and dependent.  In some cases, the females become unable to make decisions, unable to think, act stupidly, and so on.  Its not uncommon that when the ‘failed sex’ complains about being female they will refer to this tendency and, as if to solve it, try to promote things such as “a independent female that can make decisions”, for example, as some great solution to it all.  In actuality, they are only referring to the dilemma this tendency causes as, for some females, it makes them feel particularly vulnerable and, therefore, brings out the ‘female-as-victim’ feelings.  In other words, their own tendency to ‘will-as-other tendency’ makes them feel “victimized” . . . and the person they view as “victimizing” them is the person who they want the ‘will’ from typically!

– The ‘female leech’

Closely associated with the ‘blurring tendency’ and ‘dilemma of will’ is the ‘female leech’.  This is a tendency, in some females, where they seek, in effect, to ‘absorb’ another person.  This tends to go in two directions:

  1. They loose themselves in the other person.   With this they will no longer sense that they are a person causing self-esteem problems and selfhood problems.
  2. They loose the ‘other’ in themselves.  This appears, often, like an arrogance or a controlling quality as they as if promote themselves and ignore the other person.  But they need the other person to be there in some way so they can control them and dominate them.

So we see that the first version creates a submissive timid person.  The second version creates a domineering person.  Its like opposite ends of the spectrum.  In that sense, they either destroy themselves or the other person.

– The ‘escaping-being-female-by-being-someone-else’

Another aspect of the ‘blurring tendency’ is that they tend to see that any success at ‘being another person’ – that is, blurring themselves with someone else – as if it were some form of victory.  This often can become a great illusion as they tend to think that they have had a victory over their ‘female dilemma’ by ‘becoming another person’.  So we see here, a tendency of ‘escaping-being-female-by-being-someone-else’.  I was often stunned at this logic as it never made sense when I first saw it.   For example, I often witnessed females act as if they have made some great victory when they happened to do something like a male or, God help us, if they happened to do something as good as a male.

– The ‘Great Imitator’

Because the female tends to blur themselves with other people, and thereby resemble other people, they tend to have a tendency to imitate people and even adopt qualities found in other people (resembling a chameleon).  The social media, with its exposure to many ‘friends’ and people, has only aggravated this condition.  The prevalence of this condition is why I often call the female the ‘Great Imitator’.  Some females do this so well that you cannot tell if what a female is doing is “her” or something she’s imitating.  Not only does it fool the people around her but it generally fools her as well.  As one can guess, this can cause great dilemma for the female as it causes a tendency to not be genuine with herself.    I’ve seen very few females realize that they are really victims of their own imitation tendency.  It creates feelings such as:

  • A feeling of being ‘used’.  In actuality, this is really a sense that something is ‘using’ her (which is her need to imitate) . . . she can feel it but she generally ends up accusing or blaming people for it.  This is one of the origins of the feeling of being a ‘victim’ or ‘enslaved’.
  • They feel that they have no control.  The imitative tendency is so powerful that it basically controls many females . . . they must imitate.  A good example of this, of course, is how many females MUST follow trend and do what everyone else is doing, even if it kills them or causes great anguish and heartache.
  • They feel detached from themselves.  They will often complain of being ‘phony’ or ‘artificial’ and not feel a genuine person.  This seems to be felt only by females who are more mature.

In effect, by imitating others they forget themselves and who they are.  My observation is that many female problems often have a basis in this imitative tendency.  Typically, the imitative tendency has tends to overcome and overpower the female . . . they cannot fight it.  As a result, many females do not have ‘control’ over it.  This tends to create, in the female, a quality of a “weak self” which is a quality mentioned a lot in regard to the female.  I should point out that this overpowering and controlling aspect of the imitative tendency is a good example of the power of childbearing in the female.  We must remember that this tendency has root in the mother instinct and the blurring of the female with the child.  Its a testament, in a way, to the strong mother instinct that resides in the female.

– The ‘alienated-inclinations-by-blurring tendency’

In addition, the tendency to ‘blur’ themselves with others tends to make it so that they no longer follow their natural inclinations.  The tendency is that they abandon their natural inclinations to the ‘blurring’.  In this way, they treat the ‘others’ inclinations as if they are their own, thinking they have the traits and qualities of the ‘other’.   In short, they begin to “think” that other inclinations are theirs.  In this way, they alienate themselves from themselves.  This is the  ‘alienated-inclinations-by-blurring tendency’.

– The ‘female self-conscious panic’

Another interesting aspect of the ‘menstrual interpretation of the world’ is is that it creates a tendency where females do not like to be made conscious or aware of themselves.  They also do not like to have people make themselves conscious or aware of themselves.  I sometimes jokingly call this the ‘female self-conscious panic’.  In many cases I’ve seen it has, in fact, appeared as a panic but not always.  It often makes them uptight, angry, or flustered.  This used to mystify because many acted as if the world is going to come to an end if someone makes them conscious of themselves.  Examples of things that make them aware of themselves, and which bothers them, include getting mad because someone opens the door for them (which was a big deal when I was a kid), helping them in any way, making any specific reference to the female (particularly in a critical way, such as this article), in how they get mad because people look at them, of having someone tell them that they need to do something (of course, that’s oppression!), and such.  Basically anything that makes them conscious or aware of themselves will make some girls upset in some way.  We even see a mild version of it in adolescent girls where they don’t like to find themselves the center of attention.

– The ‘self-other dilemma’

What the ‘female self-conscious panic’ shows is a basic instability in being aware of themselves, which reveals a basic innate instability in the female.  In effect, they “can’t just be themselves” . . . they need the ‘other’, someone else.  This shows a problem with the female self.  It tends to reflect a ‘self-other dilemma’, that there are conflicts between the ‘other’ and the self for the female.  This dilemma shows a number of things:

  • That there is a need for the ‘other’ to complete their self.  In other words, it shows a ‘drive’ to be a part of someone else, which is a reflection of the ‘drive’ of the mother instinct.
  • That their self is inherently unstable.  This often creates a basic problem of the female image that they have.

This creates something like a confusion of self’s, where the female has problems with the association of her self and the ‘other’ primarily in these ways:

  • In defining her self.
  • In defining the ‘other’.
  • In defining the association of her self with the ‘other’.

These basic problems are inherent in the female character.  Not only that, their influence influences much of the female character, the female identity, the female culture, and female institution.

What it all means:  problems with the mother instinct . . . the need for a firm female identity

So we see that the mother instinct tends to cause a number of problems or dilemmas or issues in regard to the female self which can create problems for the female.   This is largely caused by the mother instinct which creates several things that cause this:

  1. A ‘drive’ to blur themselves with other people.
  2. A need for the ‘other’.
  3. The ‘loss of self’.

These tendencies all make up ‘motherly love’.  Many people think motherly love is an emotional thing but my observation is that this is not the case.  From what I have seen it appears that there is a deeper side to motherly love, that it is deeper than emotions and is often devoid of emotion.  This deeper side of motherly love is actually a ‘blurring’ of the child with the mother her self, of ‘equating’ them together, of seeing themselves as part of the ‘other’, of having the child as part of her self.

Do these themes sound familiar?

They should as they were discussed above, but in a different form (the ‘blurring tendency’, the ‘equating tendency’, etc.), showing that they all have origin with the mother instinct.  What this shows, then, is that we are looking at are inherent conflicts that the mother instinct causes.   These conflicts with mother instinct seem to create a number of qualities:

  1. Unique ‘feminine’ character traits in the female.   These include things such as fragility, sensitivity, etc.  These are usually not a problem and are often beneficial to the female character.
  2. Little ‘quirks’, neurosis, and other mental problems in the female.  These can become a problem but not necessarily.
  3. The conflicts becomes dominating.  They become more pronounced and generally tend to become associated with menstruation, the “dark side of childbearing”.  Once it reaches that point it is very deep, dominant, and creates a whole unique interpretation of the world, the ‘menstrual interpretation of the world’, which generally causes problems.

Many of the traits I described above may or may not become a problem, depending on their severity and control they have on the female.  Most females have many of these traits but they are very mild and, as a result, appear insignificant.  When they do become a problem the ‘menstrual interpretation of the world’ tends to appear.  This tends to make females look at the female hood as a horrid and terrible thing deep down.  Because its a deep sense, they’re usually not aware of it.  So we see that one of the effects of female identity problems is that it tends to create what can be described as an ‘anti-female impulse’ which has qualities such as:

  • It creates attitudes that see themselves as bad.
  • It creates attitudes that see the female hood as bad.
  • It makes them find ways to ‘not be female’ (such a pretending not to have female problems).
  • It makes them try to be like someone else (such as the male).
  • It makes them not want to be aware of themselves (self-conscious).
  • It makes it so that they become alienated from themselves.

What all this shows is a unique quality about the female identity:  that the female needs a firm identity to get ‘hold of herself and her impulses’, so to speak, and to the impulses a place and purpose These impulses primarily seem to stem from the childbearing and menstruation, which are a part of the mother instinct.  This is quite significant as it shows the power the mother instinct has over females.  It also shows how it can ‘get out of control’ and start to control and influence the female in negative ways (which, in turn, can negatively affect the people around her).  In some respects, the mother instinct is like a great powerful river, with tremendous force, that needs to be directed and ‘controlled’ to some extent.  This appears to be a main value of identity for the female.  A firm identity seems to give the mother instinct a place, purpose, and worth as well as controlling it.  In addition, it seems to ‘harness’ the females impulses to productive ends.   In this way, the female needs an identity that will, in a way, ‘control her’ and her impulses, which are quite strong and overpowering.  As a result, a firm female identity tends to have the quality of a ‘self-constriction’, made up of restrictions and prohibitions.  If one looks at the female identity all over the world one finds the restrictions and prohibitions are standard for the female life.  If one looks even closer one will find that the female imposes most of these restrictions and prohibitions on themselves!  In fact, its usually imposed by the mothers upon the daughters.   In fact, these restrictions and prohibitions are critical for the female identity.   It is a significant part of the ‘female culture’ and ‘female institution’.  One of the reasons why the ‘female institution’ and ‘female culture’ is so important is that it helps promote and develop female identity.  Being an institution within society, that has existed for generations, with wisdom and ways passed from generation to generation, the ‘female institution’ and ‘female culture’ embody generations of female life, growth, and development in that culture.  Its fall, therefore, is a tragedy for the female as they are now deprived of this.  This is exactly what has happened in this society.  One could very well say that the fall of the ‘female institution’ and ‘female culture’ is the beginning of the fall of the female.  Females, nowadays, have no direction, wisdom, or ways of how to be a female or a guide in what a female is.  They have no real ‘connection’, as well, with the mothers of the past.  In a sense, the fall of the ‘female institution’ or ‘female culture’ has left the female ‘poor’ and destitute, scraping the barrel for some worth at being a female . . . and they’re doing everything, from trying to become a man, to being a victim, to being a slave to social media, none of which work.

Failure at finding a solution:  the ‘confusion tendency’

But having identity problems is one thing.  Another thing is how you react to the problems the identity problems have caused.  The fact is that many females REACTION to identity problems have been more destructive than the original identity problem.  In other words, having identity problems isn’t necessarily the problem, its how they react to it that is the problem.  This makes it so that many females tend to never address their identity problems but only focus on their reaction to it, such as the idea they are abused, victims, enslaved, etc. and the accusation and blame of other people, for example.  Many will make a life out of stuff like this completing neglecting the real problem.  And so, a female may feel ‘enslaved’ by everything under the sun and come up with all these political/legal explanations of why its so bad, which may sound convincing.  The problem is that they have never addressed the actual problem, so it never disappears.  As a result, they become more and more engrossed in their political/legal explanations, as if it will free them from this problem.  In this sense, they are only ‘beating around the bush’.  Because of this, the female ‘solutions’ to identity problems tend to fail.  In fact, what I have seen is that practically all the solutions to the failure of the female, as well as their identity problems, have failed.

One of the things that tend to help create a failure at a solution is that they tend to develop some confusions.  What I mean by that is that they tend to think things work when they actually do not.  I call this character trait the ‘confusion tendency’.  Traits that tend to cause this include:

  • They tend to be too reactive That is to say, they are always reacting to situations and, due to the fact that they are reacting, they think that the reaction is automatically ‘working’ In other words, reaction = automatic solution.
  • They tend to be too immediate in their reaction.  That is to say, they only react to the situation-at-hand without regard to anything else, often neglecting the bigger picture.
  • They tend to not see the effects of what they are doing and what the effects will have on things down the road.  This means that they have little ‘feedback’ on their behavior.
  • They tend to overestimate what they do, thinking its far more effective than it is.
  • They also tend to base things too much on their emotions, which is often a poor representative of what’s going on.  This also makes them too reactive and immediate.
  • The tend to get carried away with their whims and petty feelings.  Often, these will dominate their perspective of things.
  • They too easily blame other people.

The ‘confusion tendency’ seems to make it so that females have a difficult time judging if a solution works at all As a result, much of their attempts often fail.  Oftentimes, what appears to be a solution is, in actuality, nothing but a new condition that only “appears” different from the old condition, but which allows the conflict to continue in a hidden way . . . hence, giving this illusion that there is ‘no problem’.  But when that condition happens to change for some reason, then the conflict that is lying hidden, is often felt again.  This is one reason why, for example, you have to ‘walk on tippy-toes’ around girls, being careful what you say and do.  If you say or do the wrong thing they get upset.  Basically, if you take them out of their illusion at a solution, the hidden problem surfaces and they are in conflict again.  A common ‘quick fix’ is for them to blame the person who upset their illusion, masking it as being ‘offended’ or ‘hurt’ or ‘discrimination’ or something similar (the all so familiar blame game).  To me, that only amounts to saying “I have issues but don’t want to admit to it”.

Some confusions are so established that they have a specific form and style in society.  Some forms of these established ‘confusion tendencies’ include:

  • The ‘trend confusion’.  Typically, trends give an illusionary ‘authority’.  This is usually based on the fact that the confusion appears to be ‘supported’ by trend, which seems to make it relevant . . . “if everyone else is doing it then it must be right”.
  • The ‘vanity/growth confusion’.  Many females, I’ve found, tend to confuse vanity with growth.  As a result, the solutions that appear to “work” are often more reflecting a growing vanity than any growth.  This is seen a lot with female ‘self-help’ groups and books and other ‘self-discovery’ themes that are often done by females, such as “rediscovering the woman within”.  Their ‘rediscovery’ is often nothing but ‘finding their vanity’, so to speak.  In short, the ‘new identity’ they often claim to discover is really nothing but a sense of self-importance.
  • The ‘high cause confusion’.  This is when they tend to use ‘high cause’ as an excuse for whatever they do.  In America, this often entails using American political and legal thinking, such as equality (for example, because they say it in the name of “equality” they assume it is automatically right).  This explanation has such force and power, I’ve found, that its become a ‘cover’ for many female problems.  This is so prevalent that I have found that for them just using it means that they have some sort of a problem.

These confusions make it so that many females cannot see that their efforts do not work even though it appears to work.  In actuality, this has this tendency to help promote and continue their problems.  What all this means is that their inability to solve their problems are a major element in why the female has ‘failed’.

The ‘Female Self Dilemma’

All these describe aspects of what I sometimes call the ‘female self dilemma’.  Basically, females tend to have a problem with their self and in having a self and in dealing with problems with their self as a result of the mother instinct.  It creates tendencies such as:

  • They are insecure in who they are.  They avoid female things and things about being female.
  • They confuse themselves with others.  This makes them think they are someone else, for example.
  • They don’t want to be aware of themselves or reminded their females.   They will not like to be reminded who they are.  The most dramatic version of this is that they don’t like people to open doors for them as it reminds them they’re females.  They also are bothered when they are required to do ‘female things’.
  • They don’t solve their problems.  They have many explanations and illusions that disguise it though.

Overall, these can create a self-destructive pattern.  This is because they develop a pattern of self-avoidance and self-denial that only leads in one direction:  self-destructiveness.  For many females in the U.S. this has become a reality and a fact.  As a result, many females in the U.S. are fighting the negative effects of their own mentality.  These effects, though, are generally hidden because of another aspect of their mentality, of how they hide the problem (see below).

Other Female Traits That Work Against Them

Femininity, by its nature, restricts the female.  One reason for this is because nature has designed the female for a very specific function:  childbearing and motherhood.  As a result, nature has given her abilities, inclinations, instincts, etc. that promote this.  It has done this to such an extent that it has decreased the importance of other things.  The effect of this, often, is that it restricts the female in her capabilities, abilities, and inclinations.

– Other aspects of childbearing and motherhood

The female is, as I jokingly say, a “machine of childbearing”.  They are designed for it physically and mentally.  It dominates their growth, their aging, their mind, their interpretation with the world, and their association with the world.  When one looks at female psychology and behavior one can see that this is very strong and dominant.  In fact, I consider childbearing and motherhood as so powerful that it creates two effects:

  1. It controls the female to the point that they are slaves to it. 
  2. It is so specific in nature that it makes the female limited in what they can do.

Why is this?

Simply because, childbearing and motherhood is so important that nature made it so that the female is focused on it, so to speak.  We must remember that the female, being a “machine of childbearing”, maintained humanity and kept it going.  It was needed for the perpetuation of the species.  This is no small potatoes . . . and its no really surprise this impulse is so powerful.  But this sense appears to of been forgotten.  In some respects, the failure of the female is very much rooted in the loss of the sense of the importance of childbearing and motherhoodThis, no doubt, is rooted in the failure of the ‘female culture’ and ‘female institution’. 

But is childbearing and motherhood any less important now?

My feelings is that it is not.  In fact, it may even be more important.  In other words, I see no lessoning in importance of childbearing and motherhood.  The problem is that the females have lost this sense of importance in childbearing and motherhoodWhy?   Because they have ‘failed’ and this loss of a sense of importance is one of the signs.  In other words, the problem is their lack of a sense of importance.

An interesting aspect of the mother instinct is that, if one looks at the female all over the world throughout the centuries, one cannot help but notice that the female were always in a ‘protected world’.  I often speak of this as the ‘confinement’.  It entails a tendency to be confined, or limited, in many ways such as:

  • Having to be in a limited area of space.  Females have always confined themselves to a small area.
  • Having a limited association with people.  Since the beginning of time, females have had restrictions on who they associate with.
  • Having a limited association with the world as a whole.  Females have always restricted their association with the world.  Typically, if a female does do some great association with the world, such as mountain climbing, it is in imitation of males.
  • Having limited activities.  Females have typically limited themselves in what they do and even how they do it, often confining themselves to specific activities and behavior.

These traits are a historic fact and a psychological fact.

What does it describe?

Basically, it reveals that the female has a restricted or limited mind.  Because of this, they must limit their association with the world.  I generally associate this tendency to the mother instinct which is so strong that it as if creates an automatic ‘narrowing’ of the females mind (which they actually have no control over).  We must remember that the mother instinct, by its nature, primarily consists of a tendency that ‘narrows down’ the females focus and causes an emphasis on specific people only (namely, the child).  Everything else tends to be marginalized, disregarded, or ignored.  In this way, the mother instinct tends to create a general orientation, in the female, of looking at the world through a tube.  This tendency tends to make the female mind, in general, narrow in its orientation, creating a number of limited qualities:

  • Limited association with the world.
  • Limited interpretation with the world.

This tends to make the ‘female world’ somewhat restrictive and limited in its ways, which is what the historical record and psychology shows.  We could very well call it the ‘motherly mind-narrowing tendency’. 

This limited world, caused by the ‘motherly mind-narrowing tendency’ tends to give the female certain qualities:

  • A naïve or simplistic viewpoint of things.
  • It makes it difficult for them to ‘assess’ the greater situation.
  • It makes them have an inability to handle dilemma’s and problems created by the external world (that is, the world beyond their narrow world).

In effect, the mother instinct makes the female ‘fragile’ or ‘weak’ innately.  This fact often appears in their occasional demonstration of fear of the world and feelings of somehow being ‘hurt’ by the world.  Because of this, the female tends to seek a ‘protection’, of some sort, from this apparent threat from the world.  Often, this entails the creation of a specific world within society which is “theirs” and which is removed from the world.  This is the ‘protected world’ or ‘confinement’.  This quality is actually a dominant function of the ‘female institution’ and ‘female culture’.  It creates a world that is ‘a specific way’ that can associate with and feel secure in.  When it is not this ‘specific way’, they will often struggle with it.  This makes it so that the female character is unsuited and insufficient to confront the world ‘beyond confinement’.  One could very well say that one reason why the female has failed is because they are being taken out of their ‘protected world’.

If one looks at history its apparent that there had to be effort to create this ‘protected world’ for the female.  This is because, by creating the ‘protected world’, they allowed the female to grow and develop their natural abilities.  When you take them out of it they tend to struggle.  As a result, much of female life, all over the world since the beginning of time, is in creating this ‘protected world’ for the females to live in.  But in the past several centuries many things have eaten away at this ‘protected world’ making them vulnerable to the world.  This has created a dilemma which I call ‘female exposure’.  Basically, this is a condition when the ‘protected world’ no longer exists.  The ‘female institution’ has deteriorated.  The ‘female culture’ has deteriorated’.  The female is now exposed to the world.

In general, the female character is not prepared for this.  As a result, they tend to create false ‘protected worlds’.  A common one seen, nowadays, is the slavish attitude surrounding social-media and trend.  By following social-media and trend they get the illusion that they are not exposed.  They think that “following what everyone else is doing” creates a ‘protected world’, but its very ineffective.  As a result, we see some traits of the new ‘pseudo-protected world’ of the female:

  • An artificial sense of people.  The association is through phone, social media, etc.
  • A slavish following of people.  By automatically doing what everyone else is doing they feel ‘secure’.
  • A mindlessness.  Things are done without thought or consideration.

These give an illusion of a ‘protected’ world in the female mind.  It does no recreate it though.  They are still exposed.  Overall, ‘female exposure’ has worked against them and has had major contributions to their difficulties, problems, and current failure.  In some respects, it has brought the female out of her natural element and out of the realm of natural tendencies.  In this way, it has caused a general undermining of the female character. 

Overall, its become clear to me, over the years, that the female character only tends to go so far and is somewhat limited (as I described above).  All over the world the female has only done minimal things, even in societies where they have control (I’ve written an article involving this theme called “Thoughts on matriarchal societies: Africa, slavery, and rebuilding – the effects of non-organized society“).  It also even appears that in a society where they have control their character traits tend to weaken it (see article above).  All this shows that the female, by themselves, tend to have a natural limitation in what they do.  As a result, it appears that, for the female to be effective as a person, they must stay within their limitations.  This is one reason why there is ‘confinement’ and the ‘protected world’.  Going beyond their limitations makes them ‘go beyond themselves’, so to speak, which tends to lead to failure.

– Naturally Appearing Low Self-Esteem

The female has a naturally appearing tendency to low self-esteem.  This, of course, plays a strong element in the females tendency to have a low view of being female.  In many ways, its the base of it all, for it is the inherent beginning of the tendency to think in that way.  I wrote an article on this called “Some thoughts on the naturally appearing female low self-esteem“.

– The  female ‘Drive to be a Victim’

Females tend to have a tendency to be a victim or see themselves as victims.  I wrote an article on this called “Thoughts on the female ‘drive to be a victim’“.  I have always seen the ‘drive to be a victim’ as originating from childbearing and menstruation.  To put it simply, the “damage” done to the female body by the act of childbearing makes them a ‘victim’ of all humanity and, subsequently, the world.  Menstruation, which is a ‘failed childbearing’, and its repetitive appearance in their life, drives this fact home.  It makes many females tend to have a deep inner sense of victimhood.  This appears in different ways:

  • For some females, it become a way of life.  They see victimizing in everything and everywhere.
  • Other females become obsessed with revenge.  If these females see themselves as hurt, in some way, they will have deep inner hatred and a desire for revenge.
  • Some will see the female hood as bad.  They will see something wrong in all aspects of the female life.  Whatever the female does its bad in some way (having children, cooking, cleaning, etc.).
  • Some will see themselves as bad people.
  • Some will seek to be a victim.  They will, for example, seek abusive males and even instigate the male to be abusive.

With this naturally appearing point of view its no surprise that one of the results is that they see the female hood in a bad light (females are victims, remember!).  This only helps  foster their ‘failure’.  One of the effects of this is that it destroys their dignity and self-respect.

– The slavish attitude of the female

The fact of the matter is that the female has a slavish-like mentality.  Typically, they have blamed the male or society for this.  But, to be frank, one of the reasons why I don’t like to be around American females is because I cannot stand their slavish mechanistic attitude, of blindly following trend and such.  There is even a look they have, a cold unemotional robot look.  This is one reason why I often speak of the ‘female robot’.  This fact shows that I am observing a female trait, something within them.  That is to say, it is not imposed upon them as they claim.  Because of this, I have always said that the females complaining about enslavement has a kernel of truth but that they are blaming the wrong people . . . they are their own slave drivers!  This slavish attitude is inherent in the female character.  It originates, I believe, from the mother instinct, as I’ve made mention above.  Its power over them  creates a tendency for the female to develop a generalized slavish attitude.  Many females can feel this tendency and feel helpless toward it.  One reason why is that because of the ‘self dilemma’ and ‘dilemma of will’ which robs them of a means to ‘get a hold’ on this problem.  In effect, they are victims of their own character traits:  a slavishness, a lack of self, a lack of will.

– The Females Envy of the Male:  The ‘Female Envy Culture”

In America there is extensive envy of the male by the female.  In fact, its so prevalent I often speak of it as the ‘female envy culture’ (I spoke of this in an article I wrote called “Thoughts on the female and Victorian society – “being Victorian green” – the females envy of the male and the ‘female envy culture’“).  The fact is that the females envy of the male tends to undermine and degrade them.  It does this a number of ways:

  • It takes away their dignity.  The lack of emphasis on being female impairs their development of being female.
  • They try to be someone else and not be themselves.
  • They tend to measure themselves, and the female in general, by a male standard.  This gives an erroneous view of themselves.

Some females will start to compete with the male, trying to outdo him, for example.  Some may even make a life out of acting male-like.  This only hides their doubt of themselves and uncertainty of their own femininity, further making themselves prone to failure.

– The females attempt to take up male values through patriotism

The U.S. is based on male values which reflect the male character.  These values would become integrated and equated with the countries values as the country was created and founded by the male.  These values include things like independence, self-reliance, and achievement to name a few.  During the cold war, especially (though it also appeared earlier), it became a big thing for people to emulate American values as a matter of national pride.  Because of this, the female began to take up American values and try to emulate them and follow them.  The problem is that these values do not reflect the female character.  Because of this it has a tendency to undermine the female.  This is because it does nothing to promote the female character.  In addition, since the females are no longer following things associated with the female character they, in the end, only undermine themselves.  This fact is usually hidden behind national pride, with often has a self-righteous attitude, which only disguises the damage.  Because of this I have learned that when girls speak of patriotic and nationalistic things, in a self-righteous way, it often hides something that undermines them.

One of the effects of taking male values is that it gives the females a ‘fish-out-of-water’ quality.  It makes them appear ‘displaced’ or ‘orphans’ in many ways.  This is a common trait among American females.  I’m not the only one who has mentioned this fact.  This quality is mentioned a lot by males, who can sense it in females, though they describe it with different words.  Many males won’t make anything of it as the females will cite political/legal theory as their ‘authority’ to condemn them.  This is a good example of how their use of political/legal theory furthers their undermining . . . something THEY do.

– The ‘female ghost effect’

Another element that affects them is what I often call the ‘female ghost effect’.  This is a phenomena where they tend to ‘forget’ themselves or other females.  In actuality, though, it is a variation of the ‘blurring tendency’ where they blur themselves with someone else, but it as if goes one step further.  In the ‘blurring tendency’ the female blurs themselves with another person.  In the ‘female ghost effect’ they blur themselves, in a way, into nothing, into non-existence, as if they are not there.  Because of this it is actually part of the ‘female self dilemma’ (problem with being female) and ‘female self-conscious panic’ (problem being conscious of themselves).  This tends to create a number of perspectives such as:

  • They have this uncanny “knack” at always being a victim.
  • They have this uncanny “knack” at always being innocent.
  • They have this uncanny “knack” at never being at fault.

In general, they have no influence on anything but everything influences them.  You see, being a “ghost” they do nothing to their surroundings but their surroundings does everything to them.  In this sense, their relationship with the world becomes a “I’m not there affecting anything but everything is affecting me”.  Its like a one-sided association with the world.  As a result, it tends to make the female become an ‘angel’, in some respects, always good and ‘pure’, always the one adversely affected.  Many females will rely on this image as part of their identity.   The problem is that it is, in reality, no identity at all.  One could very well call it a ‘ghost identity’ or, perhaps, a ‘negative identity’, as it is a continual attempt at ‘not being there’ (a ghost).  In some respects its an avoidance, of not participating in the world.  I’ve found that, often with this tendency, is a fear of the world. 

It seems that there are two types of ‘female ghosts':

  • The ‘ghost self’.   This is when the female, herself, see’s herself as the ghost.
  • The ‘ghost mother’.   Here their mother as if disappears and vanishes despite all the problems, conflicts, hates, and such that the female may have with her.   Because of this, they often overlook the problems they have with their mothers.  Because of this, they often blame someone else for these problems, such as the father.  For example, in Victorian society the mother had almost absolute control of the female, dictating what they do, how they act, who they associate with, etc.  Because of this, many females developed ‘issues’ with their mother as a result.  But, by making the ‘ghost mother’, the effect of the mother fades.  Who, then, becomes the “controller”?  The father . . . who else?  Because of this, many Victorian females claimed that the father had all this control, but it was actually her mother.  Most of the time, the father had little control of the upbringing of the female.  So, you can see how the ‘ghost mother’ tended to put blame in the wrong place.  In fact, I am beginning to feel that much of this problem may have an origin with the mother/daughter relationship in the Victorian era.

Hiding the Problem

As a general rule, the female hood tends to ‘brush off’ this problem, as if to cleanse themselves of it.  In fact, after many years watching them, it became clear that a lot of feminism, and much of the modern female life, is nothing but the attempt at ‘brushing off’ their ‘female dilemma’, which is what I call the problem that they have with being female.  In some respects, for some females its become a way of life.

In general, females tend to hide or avoid the ‘female dilemma’ by doing things such as:

  • Avoidance.  They avoid anything female and, oftentimes, despise it and things about it.  I was often stunned how many females who sneer at “girly” things.
  • Playing the victim.  They see everything female as some form of victimizing, abuse, or enslavement.  You name it . . . if its female, it makes them a victim.
  • Accusation and blame.  They accuse and blame whoever they can.  Generally, the male is blamed, or society.  Its this act, frankly, that mainly made me question what was going on as I was utterly appaled how males, especially, were blamed for EVERYTHING.  Males were often made out as these horrible tyrants intent on enslaving and abusing the male . . . utterly ridiculous!
  • “Oppression” and “freedom”:  the use of law and politics.  Generally, this means taking advantage of British and American law and politics involving the idea of the ‘freedom’.  They basically turn the female into the ‘oppressed’ who are fighting for their ‘freedom’, usually against the ‘oppressive’ and ‘tyrannical’ male.  As a result of this, they were able to harness all the patriotic and political mania of these two countries.  This technique became particularly effective during the cold war where there was a strong political and legal mania going on which they could harness.
  • Trying to be men.  By being men they are ‘no longer female’ and, therefore, they think they no longer have the ‘female dilemma’.  I know females who seem to think that they are males.  I’ve even seen some female who think that their not being a male is a form of ‘abuse’, as if there is some sort of conspiracy to do it (remember, they’re victims!).

These create a pattern of avoidance.  A lot of their avoidance is actually a continuation of the ‘confusion tendency’.  In a way, its just taken more seriously and as a deliberate self-deception.  In a sense, they have developed an attitude of  ‘fooling themselves’.  Because of this, not only are their problems hidden from other people but from themselves . . . they don’t know about it.  In fact, in many ways, because of the failure of the female hood over the years they have created an illusion about themselves, of who they are, what they are, what their purpose is, and such that, in actuality, they hide themselves from themselves.  This is why I often speak of the modern female hood as the ‘failed sex-in-disguise’ or “the great illusion”. 

Over the years I’ve learned that much of what American girls do is an illusion giving them an appearance that they are something else than they are, they are primarily “the great illusion”.  Many of these are based or originate from qualities and tendencies described above.  Some examples include:

  • The ‘feminine chameleon’.  This is a tendency where females imitate things and will automatically change to fit the situation.  Typically, they follow whatever the ideal is.  This often gives the illusion, for example, that females are ‘mature’ or ‘stable’ or an ‘angel’.  In actuality, all they are doing is catering to and changing themselves to the ideals.  The problem is that it is not them, its a ‘front’, an image they have adopted . . . and they immediately change when the ideal changes.
  • The following of the ‘other’.  Whatever the ‘other’ does they do.  This is often done almost obsessively.
  • Hiding behind politics and law. 
  • Seeing themselves as a victim or slave.
  • Effects of the ‘blurring tendency’.
  • Various ways of escaping the female hood.  Some of these were also described above, such as trying to be a man.

These effects of these is to “apparently” give an “image” to the female that is stable and secure.  But, in actuality, it is an illusion as none of it reveals who they are.  In some way, its like an act, a performance, not much different than watching a play.  This is why I often compare watching females to a play or performance.  As a result, it makes it so that females never ‘find who they are’ and have a continual avoidance of themselves, and have problems with their identity.  This gives the female a means to hide the ‘female dilamma’, as well as other problems they may have.  It also creates, in the female, a tendency to have what can be described as the ‘two minds phenomena’.  One mind generally does the ‘acceptable image’, giving the illusion of being secure and being a part of things.  The other mind hides their real self, along with its problems.  For some females it can cause a lot of problems and they struggle with it.


What have caused the failure of the female?  This is something I have been looking at for a quarter of a century.  At first I thought it was consumerism, and such, but my inquiry began to show that there was more to it than that.

Of course, I’m sure many females, in their commitment to accusation and blame, will say it is the male or societies fault . . . they are innocent victims remember!  My inquiry has shown that there is little truth in this.  I see nothing particularly bad in the male or societies treatment of the female.  In fact, my observation is that the male and society are generally supportive of the female in Western society.  When it does fail them it fails the male as much as it does them, though in different ways.  In other words, I see no truth in their claim that the “male is against them” or that there is some “conspiracy” to enslave them.  I accept these as female fabrications and are symptoms of their problem (the ‘female dilemma’).

An interesting point that I should note is that I was utterly stunned by this problem when I first saw it in the late 1980’s.  I actually was baffled and couldn’t explain it until about the mid 1990’s when something happened that is quite revealing.  At this time I become disillusioned with the U.S.   I began to question its whole perspective and point of view.  The end result is that I ceased to support many American points of view.  As I abandoned many American viewpoints I found that I began to understand this problem more . . . it became more clear.  In effect, I saw that Americanism hid a lot of this problem under all its “high cause”.  Because of this, the more you believe in American “high cause” the less likely you are going to see it.  Its probably no surprise that they tended to use Americanism to hide behind (as I describe below).

Here are some of the influences I have seen over the years:


The failure of Christianity, in a way, is the beginning of the failure of the female.  With its fall the female, also, began to fall.  We must remember that, for centuries, life was controlled by Christian belief in Western Europe.  This instilled great Christian belief in the lives of the people.  One of these is the idea that we are all sinners.  This idea of a sinner was very influential in Western Christianity.  It basically taught us that we are bad people.  But Christianity also taught that, through Christian belief, we were all ‘uplifted’ and were ‘saved’ from being sinners.  With the failure of Christianity, after the Protestant Reformation in the 1500’s, we begin to see the eroding of Christian belief to the point that it is greatly eroded by the 1800’s.  This is what I call the Post-Christian era.

When Christianity failed the ‘uplifting’ and ‘saving’ disappeared but the “we’re all sinners” point of view remained.  As a result, it created a general ‘downcast’ attitude in the people and a “we’re bad” stance in much of the population (which continues to this day).  I’ve spoken about such things in an article called “Thoughts on Blind Christianity – some effects of the post-Christian era“.  The effects of this is to create an attitude in the female which I often call ‘self-effacing’.  They basically tended to degrade themselves and think they are bad people.  Because of this, they tended to see everything femalish in a bad light.  In short, the “female is bad” is a variation of “I’m bad” which comes from the Christian “I’m a sinner”.  I tend to feel that this attitude is the actual source for much of the “female is a victim” and “everything femalish is bad” mentality in American females.  Its a remnant of Christianity, a continuation of the idea that we are all sinners.   The effect of Post-Christianity is a tendency to have an attitude that is self-effacing, self-undermining, self-defeating . . . in short, self-destructive.  This attitude has caused a tendency of failure on many levels:   as a people, as a culture, in our belief systems, and who we are as people (In this case, the female).

Reflecting America’s self-destructive viewpoint

In some respects, the ‘failed sex’ follows the pattern of America’s self-destructive mentality.  I have written articles on this such as “Thoughts on how the U.S. is undermining itself with its own ideals – the ‘God-ordained democracy’ thats frightened of authority“, “Thoughts on my saying, “The U.S. has done great effort to destroy human things but they’ve done nothing to replace what they’ve destroyed” – America’s self-destructive mentality“, and “Thoughts on how America is destroying the basic foundations of human society and are a threat to themselves“.  Basically, America has a mentality that tends to undermine itself.  This, really, is a continuation of Post-Christian mentality, of self denial as a righteous cause.  This Christian-based point of view was passed onto the political theories that America created, which just so happens to be about the same period of time that Christianity failed.  In some respects, American political theory is a “political Christianity” reflecting Christian ideas in a political framework, such as the democratic worship of the “people” as reflecting the worship of Christ in the “body of Christ” (a Christian representative of the people).  Because of this, America has taken on views, and the problems, that are found with Post-Christianity:  a tendency of self-undermining and self-destructiveness.

In effect, the American female, being imitative in character, have continued the American self-destructive attitude as a way of life for the female:  just as America undermines itself “in the name of democracy” so have the female undermined themselves “in the name of democracy”In this way, the ‘failed sex’ is actually a reflection of American political viewpoint, following along the character of the society they live in.  I guess its really no surprise that many American females uses American political viewpoints to justify what they do.

Political/legal ideology

Contrary to what it may seem, democratic-based political/legal theory has only helped to promote the failure of the female and female institution.  Its done this primarily by promoting means for the female to undermine herself.  Its done this a number of ways:

  • By supporting their flight from femininity.  A good example is how they have made anything female an ‘oppression’ or ‘enslavement’.
  • By allowing them to idealize non-female things.  A good example is the idea of ‘equality’ which allows them to desire to be like men.
  • By giving the illusion that they don’t have female problems.  A good example is also ‘equality’ which makes them think that they are guys, devoid of female issues and concerns.

In other words, despite the “good” it may seem to promote it actually has been used to undermine the female.  And I must point out that it is the female, herself, who has done this undermining with political/legal theory.   Because of this, the female is really responsible for causing great distortion and degradation in political/legal theory.  In fact, part of the great joke that modern law has become is based in the female and in her use of the law to undermine herself.

In many ways, the political/legal theory has created the perfect ‘cover-up’ of something that sounds legitimate and appearing with authority.  This is because of the apparent authority that political/legal theory gives.

The Influence of Mother Mary

Christianity created an image of the mother in Mother Mary, mother of Jesus.  Naturally, since she is the “mother of God” she would be seen as emulating the best in the female.  Since Christianity is rooted in the idea of love it was perceived that Mother Mary was a loving motherly person.  As a result, this image would be used as the best example in being female.  In actuality, this image of Mother Mary which, interestingly, is largely fabricated (as there is not a lot of scriptorial references to her) would become the basis of an ‘ideal female’.  So we see that, from the beginning, the ‘ideal female’ is sort of based in an ‘imagined image’.  In many ways, this tendency would plague the female down to today.

Some traits of the Mother Mary image include:

  • A selflessness.  The mother must be completely selfless placing her family before herself.
  • A continual lovingness.  They must always be loving and caring.
  • A happiness and joyful disposition.  They must never get upset but maintain a happy and joyfulness.
  • A prettiness.  Mother Mary was usually viewed as being particularly pretty so that females had to maintain such things, both physically and in their character.  This often causes great stress on the female to maintain this.

The natural slavish-like mentality of the female made it so that many females followed this ideal, even to the point that it caused some of them problems.  In short ,they HAD TO follow it, creating much strain on the female.  As a result, it created a number of problems for the female:

  • It made them pursue an ‘image’.
  • It tended to lead to a slavish attitude in pursuit of this image. 

Since Christianity lasted so long it instilled these traits, along with the problems, in much of the females making it a significant part of the ‘female life’.  I, myself, can see these traits in many females where I live, of how they view themselves as ‘pure’, an ‘angel,’ and such.  I can also see that it takes a lot out of some of them.  Even though Christianity seems almost non-existent the hidden influence of Mother Mary is still powerful for the females.

The Victorian Mother and the British Class System

It seems that a very significant thing that happened to create the failure of the female happened right after the Napoleonic wars.  With the rise of business after the wars there developed a richer merchant class that allowed people to afford things.  This allowed some of the population to imitate the nobility or upper classes in England.  I call this tendency the ‘pseudo-nobility’.  Many Victorian mothers would practically “force” this way upon their daughters, forcing them to act like a noble lady.  This became so prevalent that it practically defined the Victorian females life.  In so doing, though, the Victorian mothers cut their daughters off from the centuries old existing ‘female culture’ created by the mothers before them and which took centuries to create.  In this way, the Victorian mothers actually alienated their daughters from a healthy female lifestyle and forced upon them an artificial lifestyle not necessarily suited to the female life.  The fact of the matter, as history shows, is that the ‘pseudo-noble lifestyle’ did not create a healthy female lifestyle, though it gave the illusion that this was the case.  The females appeared ‘proper’ and all that (they were imitating the nobility!) but, deep down, its failure was causing problems for girls . . . it subsequently helped make the female fail.

It altered the pattern of behavior  in the ‘female life’ such as:

  • The tendency to abandon traditional female culture, female life, and female things.  In short, they abandoned the traditional female way of life of the mothers before them.  Being that they were now following a ‘pseudo-noble’ image of the female, the traditional female way of life was viewed as ‘lower class’ in respect to the British class system of the Victorian era.  Accordingly, it caused a view that the old ‘female culture’ as a form of degradation (or ‘lower class’).   In so doing, they made the ‘pseudo-noble’ female the exclusive form of female having any dignity at all. 
  • The tendency to imitate, mimic, or ape things.  The ‘pseudo-noble’ attitude is one of imitation, of trying to be like the nobility.  Because this is so critical in this behavour it became very influential in the female life.
  • The tendency to hide behind illusion:  artificiality.  Trying to ‘play act’ a noble lady created, in many females, a tendency to ‘play act’ as a character trait, causing an artificiality and a phoniness to the female life that continues to this day.
  • The tendency to social climbing.  The ‘pseudo-noble’ attitude is one of social climbing.  Because of this, it made many females wanting to social climb whenever they can.  I can see this in many females now.  In this so-called “classless society”, though, the social climbing consists primarily in taking the male position or role or in pursuing social ideals.  As a result, they want to be the breadwinners, have a job, get a degree, play sports, achieve this and that, and other things.  There is a belief that this stuff will ‘better’ them.  This is basically social climbing, intended to make them higher up on the social scale, which is nothing but a continuation of the ‘pseudo-nobility’ point of view.  In  many ways, this type of attitude is making it so that the female is actually continuing the British class struggle perspective in this society.

All these traits are seen in the American female nowadays.  We must remember that this is a ‘new female lifestyle’ that the Victorian mothers taught their daughters.  This image of the ‘pseudo-noble’ female was ‘conjured up’ by them as if out of nowhere, which is why its created a lacking female life . . . it did not have the benefit of centuries of experience.  But because their mothers taught them this, it became ingrained in much of the females life down to today.

Overall, though, it created a tendency for females to become ‘phony’ or ‘artificial’, to deny who they are, and try to be something they are not . . . all traits of the ‘failed sex’.  Because of this, we can see the ‘pseudo-nobility’ was very influential in the failure of the female.  In some ways, it set the pattern for it.

Another thing this brings up is the influence of the mothers.  As one can see, this phenomena appears to be a condition where the mothers enforced these values on their daughters.  In turn, the daughters enforced it upon theirs and so on down the line.  This more or less means that the failure of the female has large influence in the mother/daughter association.  I wrote an article involving aspects of this called “Thoughts on a Victorian cause for female low self-esteem in Western society: a failure of the Victorian mother???“”.

In addition to that, the Victorian era created a unique character of person.  One of the manifestations of Victorianism is an incredible self-consciousness (I mentioned some things about the Victorian character called “Thoughts on the Victorian character“).  This incredible self-consciousness created, in many Victorians, a tendency to be neurotic and constrained.  In other words, by being too aware of themselves they began to restrict or ‘repress’ themselves, often to great extremes.  For the female, especially, it would have great impact.  It would probably play a big part in the creation of the ‘female self-conscious panic’, as described above.  In the females training at being ‘noble’ they had to be especially self-conscious, as they had to ‘behave properly’ all the time.  What self-consciousness did, though, is predispose the female to a mental weakness and neurosis, a hallmark trait of many Victorian femalesAs time went on this would weaken the female, predisposing her to ‘failure’. 

TV, Soap Opera’s, and Social Media

My observation seems to show that various forms of social media have made great contributions to the failure of the female.  It seems instrumental in the destruction of the housewife at first.  Later it would undermine the female as a whole.  I should note that, by ‘social media’, I mean an artificially induced social experience.  In general, it is not face-to-face, with direct human contact, and generally involves a machine.  This takes place in several ways:

  1. Observation.  This is basically watching and seeing people or what people do.  The person remains passive.  In general, this seems to have effect but its somewhat limited.  The TV and reading things on an internet sites are good examples.
  2. Experiencing.  This is when the female takes deliberate effort.  This tends to have great effect on the female.  Talking on telephones and writing on internet sites are good examples.

The TV seems to be the first significant social media to appear.  This began in the 1950’s.  The coming of soap opera’s would play a greater role by the 1970’s and cause a great deterioration.  I wrote an article about this called “Thoughts on the problem of the ‘soap opera housewife’ and the ‘social media female’ – “The media absorption”“.   The new social media has replicated these problems in the females of today.

The basic effect of these things is that, at first, it destroyed the housewife by taking the ‘center’ out of the ‘female life’ and ‘female institution’.  It did this by the enticing and mesmorizing pull of TV, soap opera’s, and the associations of people they saw there.  Through these things the female would watch other people having experiences and emotions and relationships.  Once the TV was shut off the house, then, became ’empty’, so to speak, making her life seem dreary.  The area where the female has been for centuries – namely, the home – became ‘dead’ to the female . . . the female ‘center’ was pulled away from her roots.  The effect of this was an undermining of not only the female herself, but the ‘female life’ and the ‘female institution’.  In effect, the female hood ‘failed’ by being lured away by the enticing pull of other peoples experiences and affairs the social media initiated. 

My personal feelings is that this is far more important than we may realize.  In fact, I often feel this is responsible for the destruction of the housewife, at first, which undermined the female as a whole, leading to the greater failure of the female.  One can see it anew with the new social media.  Their life centers on their phone and Facebook and things like that.  They ‘live’ there and it is where their ‘associations’ with people are located, all in virtual reality.  It as if sucks their attention and life into it like a vacuum.  How can a viable ‘female institution’ be created under those conditions?  How can a ‘female life’ be created?  How can a female hood be created?  When their ‘center’ of life is in social media and virtual reality, then what becomes of the rest of life?  Here is one of the failures of the female hood.

It seems, to me, that the social media has guaranteed the ‘female institution’ will not exist.  The reason is because it absorbs too much of the females energy.  Their whole heart and mind is in it.  This shows that for a ‘female institution’ (or ‘male institution’ for that matter) to exist they must have their heart and mind in it.  When its not there, it fails.  Since the social media (TV, cell phones, internet, etc.) so absorbs their hearts and minds a ‘female institution’ will never be maintained, no less created.

The Effects of the Consumerism

Initially, I thought consumerism had a lot to do with the failure of the female.  I even used to say that “the washing machine destroyed the housewife”.  I now no longer believe this to be true.  I feel that, by themselves, consumerism couldn’t of created this problem.  There are too many elements involved with this problem, such as the fact that there are too many personal ‘issues’, political/legal mumbo-jumbo, and so on.  This shows that we are dealing with a far greater problem than “washing machines”.  My observation seems to show that consumerism actually had minimal effect than what it may seem.  Its contribution could be described more as ‘minor’, more in the line of something that ‘aggravated’ other conditions rather in causing the conditions. 

In fact, I still feel that the housewife, for example, is still a “viable institution” if the females would make it so.  In fact, I often feel that if the housewives would act like housewives, as their mothers have been doing for centuries, a family could probably live on very little money and families would be stronger.  But the females no longer know how to do that.  As I myself have observed, they have degraded the housewife down to nothing.  There are too many things that turn their hearts and minds from it and pull them away.

Society and the Problem of the Cover Up

The many attempts at covering up this problem, as described above, actually helped not only cause this problem but have helped it to continue.  This is because the problem can not be addressedAs a result, it made it worse over time.  One reason why is that the cover up how now become social.  You cannot speak about or criticize the female socially which, in effect, makes the cover up a social issue.  How can any problems gets solved with a mentality like that?  One can see how this only helps this problem to grow.  As a result, one aspect of the ‘failure’ of the female is how society CANNOT address female problems and, when it does, it is restricted in how it does it.  Many females, and society, would go through great lengths to cover up their problems so that NO ONE could talk about it, not even psychologists (as I, myself, observed when I was at the University studying psychology . . . see my article “Thoughts on why a ‘female psychology’ can’t be developed effectively“).  They did this in many ways such as:

  • The use law and politics.   An example is how they turned themselves into the ‘oppressed’ or ‘victims’.
  • The use of American ideals.   They would make everything out as rights violations, for example.
  • The assumption of ulterior motives.  They see themselves as victims, try to be men, and so on.

Because of these the female would only be looked at from certain angles and certain perspectives.  The effect of this is to create a distorted view of the female and one that was ‘acceptable’ to the female.  In some ways, it was like trying to create an illusion by twisting truth and fact around.  It was this observation, made during this time, that greatly impressed upon me that females had ‘issues’ about themselves and would go to great lengths to hide it.

One form of this cover is called feminism.  In actuality, feminism is rooted in the ‘failure’ of the female hood.  Its philosophies, and points of view, are attempts at a solution which, in reality, are just forms of a cover up.  In this way, feminism helped promote the ‘failure’ of the female hood.

Education and Learning

Despite what people may think, and how it conflicts with America’s view of the grandness of education, my observation is that education (that is to say, learning things on any involved level) seems to impair the females and hinder their growth.  Though they may sound ‘educated’ and knowledgeable, and fit the mold society makes for that, they seem to lack something as if something is ‘missing’.  It seems, to me, that this ‘missing’ quality, for the female, is because education and learning has become an avenue for the ‘blurring tendency’.  Education, with its emphasis on imitation, has become just another way for the female to ape something.  Often, education becomes nothing but an avenue for aping or, rather, blurring themselves with something else (namely knowledge).  They end up aping facts, information, and knowledge all the way to aping social status an education may bring.  In this way, education and learning in female tends to lead to the ‘blurring sickness’.  So we see that education and learning is not inherently suited to the female character, which is no doubt why the female never used to cater to it.

Another aspect of this that they did not create it.  We must remember that education is a ‘male thing’ and it is the male who created it.  Its only natural that it reflects male traits.  Because of this, education is not the same for the female character as it is for the male character.  So we see, in education and learning, that the females are adopting something ‘foreign’ to them.  In so doing they blur themselves with a ‘foreign’ something that does not reflect female tendencies, losing themselves in the process.   In other words, education and learning becomes a means for the female to ‘not be herself’ and to lose a genuineness of who she is.   It, therefore, moves her away from who she is, and, as I’ve mentioned above, this ‘not being herself’ is one of the reasons why the female has failed.  My own experience and observation has shown that the females who demonstrate the most genuineness have little education and learning.  This is because they have little to corrupt or distort their natural tendencies.  Because of this, they can be who they are.  It appears that the more they learn the less genuine they become.  They also seem to have more “issues” and they generally have a slew of facts and figures to hide that fact (part of the cover-up).

Of course, this point of view about education conflicts with this societies high and mighty view of education and learning which automatically makes any education and learning as ‘great’ and ‘wonderful’ and ‘good for everyone’.  My observation is that this is not true.  Education is not ‘good for everyone’.  Some people are better without education and learning.  In fact, I feel that modern education is doing a great deal of harm to many people because education and learning is harmful to many people.  The great majority of females, it appears to me, are part of this group.  There’s also a lot of males who are part of this group, but it seems to be in less proportion than the female.  Originally, it was the damage that education and learning did to the male that brought this to my attention.  As I learned more about it I could see that the female was taking a greater hit, because of their different characters.  But, because this society praises education and learning the ‘damage’ is not noticed or blamed on other things.  Some articles I wrote on this are “Thoughts on the ‘squashed mind’ – the impairing effects of formal education“, “Thoughts on modern education – decreasing the value of ability“, “Thoughts on how modern schooling undermines kids – the ‘education sickness’“, and “Thoughts on the overvaluation of education“.

The Male Contribution

In this society, the male has, to some extent, contributed to the female failure primarily by going along with it and, basically, supporting the female on her path to failure.  Interestingly, this conflicts with what many females claim.  They have done this for a number of reasons:

  • They are pussy whipped.  They suck up to the female and agree with them no matter what.
  • Because of political belief or Nationalistic feelings.  Because many things are seen in the name of the Constitution, etc. many males will support it regardless of what it is.
  • They are frightened or apprehensive to disagree.  Remember, in this society, you can get sued for saying anything “wrong” about the female, or she’ll get “mad” (a point of view I’ve seen with many husbands).

Because of things such as these, there has been very little male resistance.  This is not to say that there isn’t.  Many males, from my experience, know that something is wrong (though they may not know it or understand) and will talk about things in private.  In fact, many of the things I have mentioned above have been casually discussed by many males in private conversations using different wording, of course.  Unfortunately, males have learned not to publicly say anything about the female.  Instead, they just blindly follow what’s going on.  In this way, one could say that the male contribution is primarily in apathy and blindly agreeing.  In many ways, at least in my opinion, this makes the males very much involved in the failure of the female.


It seems, to me, that, under the current conditions of the modern world, a ‘female institution’ will never develop or exist nor will a ‘female culture’ be created.  What is starting to appear is something more like a broken down or fragmented ‘female group’.  That is to say, its just a group of females that are united in the fact that they are ‘female’ and demonstrate specific femalish traits.  The specific female traits they display seems to define which group they are in, as there are many groups in society.  As it appears to me, at this time, the differing ‘female groups’ is revolving themes such as these:

  • A female ‘workplace robot’.  Many females are displaying a great robotic quality in life and work.  More than likely they will become the robots of the modern ‘system’.  This appears to give them an illusion of viability and worth.  But all they are becoming are a bunch of automatons or robots.  As a result, many females are becoming ‘united’ in that.
  • A social-media slave.  This satisfies their need for the ‘other’, as described above.  Its primarily value is in giving the their socializing that they need.
  • The ‘conceit factor’.   The failure of femininity is making it so that many females are developing a particular type of conceit.  In fact, I can see a new type of conceitedness appearing nowadays.  In some ways, its defining a ‘new female’.  Typically, they have an inflated view of themselves, often thinking they are great and wonderful even to the point that they think the world revolves around them in some way.  A characteristic trait of this conceit, though, is that it hides their low self-esteem and bad view of themselves.  That is to say, it hides their ‘failure’.  In some respects, this conceit is meant to as if ‘off-set’ their failure, low self-esteem, and bad view of themselves.   By thinking that they are great they avoid their dilemma.  And if their conceit succeeds and works, their conceit only grows hiding their dilemma even more.  I can see that an aspect of the new ‘female group’, nowadays, is rooted in this conceit where many females are developing it into an art form.  The problem is that, as far as I can see, it solves nothing except in satisfying a concern for themselves.

These conditions will give a temporary satisfaction to certain impulses but will not give the female any great viability or growth in my opinion.  The robot tendency caters to females need to follow, the social-media factor caters to their need for other people, and the conceit factor caters to their sense of importance.  These all seem to ‘satisfy’ aspects of the female character but only a small part of it, nor does it make them “viable” in society and as a person.

The fact is that the ‘female group’ is not the same as a ‘female institution’ or ‘female culture’ . . . it lacks no viability or power, no history, no wisdom, no tradition.  In addition, it does not cater to female inclinations, giving them specific place and role in society.  As a result, it does not offer the female much growth and worth either.

In actuality, what this shows is that the female has already lost her worth and the ‘female group’ is the attempt at holding onto some form of value.  Like many other things with this problem it is primarily and illusion.


All in all, I have found that, in general, the females are their own worst enemy.  Though society, and history, have made some contributions, I do not feel that it would of caused the failure of the female by itself.  It seems that the female is largely to blame for making themselves a failure.  Much of this failure is based on their actions, their feelings, their beliefs, and their effort.   If the females are “victims”, they are really victims of their own character traits.  I see no real evidence that the male, society, or history deliberately forced the female to fail.  I see no real evidence of anything like a conspiracy or attempt to degrade, enslave, belittle, or undermine the female by the male, society, or history.  These all appear to be female fabrications.

Sadly, a lot of this damage has root in female character traits.  In fact, many of these traits are now working against them.  An interesting aspect of this is that, because of the female character, most of this damage is being done unconsciously and without their control.   They are usually unaware of what’s going on (if any were I’d be surprised).  This means that it is sort of a ‘hidden destructor’.


Overall, it seems that the ‘failed sex’ is a result of a long-standing historical process which has been going on for several centuries and have been made up of many different elements which have basically added up to create this problem.  Any one of these problems (or several for that matter) probably could not of created this problem by themselves.  But all of them together have added up to create this problem.  This means that it is an accumulative condition created by a multitude of elements which have all contributed a small part over time.

There seems to be a number of dominant stages in this process:

  1. Post-Christianity.  This created the view that the female is bad.
  2. Pseudo-Nobility.  This created an attitude and mentality in which the females abandon the old ways (the existing ‘female culture’ and ‘female institution’), create a false new way, blindly imitate, and become social climbers.
  3. The political/legal era.  This gave them what appears as an ‘authority’ to flee their female hood and complain about their female problems.
  4. The social media.  This created a slavish attitude and the development of a false ‘female culture’ or ‘female institution’ and a turning away from their existing condition.
  5. Traits working against them.  As this process went along it increasingly created a condition where their traits no longer became productive and lost their meaning.

A unifying element of all this seems to be the media and mass communication.  I feel that, without these, the various elements probably could not of been unified enough to create this problem.  They would of been things that ‘came and went’ with varying generations.

In effect, this process created a condition where the female basically alienated herself, over time and in varying ways, which had the effect where their own traits worked against them.  The bulk of these conditions were initiated, and maintained, by the female herself or reflecting a negative aspect of the female character which worked against them.


The failure of the female hood has had negative effects on society, in my opinion.  A lot of this is being overlooked, though, largely because America has developed a political-based viewpoint instead of a human-based viewpoint.  Because of this, America neglects the human aspects of things.  Just as long as things fit their political viewpoints its viewed as “good” even though it may actually be destructive to human things and institutions (over the years I’ve sat and watched this happen over and over again and again in a multitude of ways).  As a result of this, since this problem has become hidden behind a lot of political theory (equality, opportunity, etc.) the human side is neglected . . . that is, its destructive aspect is overlooked.  In fact, its so draped under political theory that its hard to see the problem at all.  This makes it so that it has become one of the many ‘hidden destructive elements in American society’.  These are elements that are destructive to human things and institutions but are hidden behind political theory making them appear unseen.  This shows the power of political theory in American society . . . far more powerful than people think.

Looking beyond that, the ‘failed sex’ primarily has taken the “female” out of society and human institutions.  This has created a number of ‘female character types’ such as:

  • A superficial female hood.  These are girls that try to maintain a ‘femalishness’ but in which there is no ‘female authority’.  They have a range from ‘prissy’ to being ‘sluttish’.  Of all the females, these are the most ‘genuine’, I’ve found.
  • A female identity based in political theory and American ideals.  These include characters like “Ms. Independence”, “Ms. working mother”, etc.  These all sound good politically, and generally cater to American values which give them the illusion that it has value.
  • A ‘workplace robot’.  As I said above, this is probably going to be the primary value of the female in the future.  It also gains particular authority as it caters to political theory and American ideals.
  • A “slave”.  A female that mindlessly and blindly follows everything.

These are all inadequate, almost pathetic, replacements for the “female”, in my opinion, nor do they have any of the ‘authority’ the female once had.  In fact, none display ‘female authority’.

I mention ‘authority’ for a reason.  I wrote an article many years ago called “Thoughts on authority and the three forms of authority in human society” in which I describe how there are three forms of authority in society:  male, female, and the child.  Each are needed to make and support human society.  I compared these three authorities to a three legged table.  When one leg fails they all fail.  In this way, the failure of the female hood, with its subsequent ‘female authority’, has become a significant part of the ‘female contribution’ of the undermining of human society in America.

I should also point out that ‘authority’ is rooted in the manifestations of innate tendencies which is developed by following natural inclinations.  That is to say, a person can’t just ‘pretend authority’ (in the same way as the ‘failed sex’ tries to ‘ape’ the male, thinking that imitating the male makes them the same as a male).  Authority comes from within, its source.  This is one of the reasons why every society in the world, since the beginning of time, have developed a ‘female culture’ and ‘female institution’ . . . to promote these qualities and to develop these authorities.  As I have said, the failure of the female hood is rooted in the fall of the ‘female culture’ and ‘female institution’ whose purpose is to develop this authority, as well as naturally appearing female traits.  Their failure have degraded the development and growth of ‘female authority’ and female traits causing the creation of the ‘failed sex’.  Since the ‘female authority’ is absent in society it has deprived society of its influence.  In this way, the failure of the female hood has helped to undermine society.  But, in this society, a lot of this has been hidden by political theory and other things making it seem non-existent.  


The 30 some odd years of watching the American females has shown, to me, that there is a problem with their view of being a female and what a female is.  As far as I know, this has not been acknowledged but, like many things associated with the female, it is hidden and not mentioned.  Remember, we can’t talk about female problems (besides, since I’m a male its obvious I’m wrong about it all anyways!).  Despite this I have looked at it anyways and noticed some issues which I have written above.

In general, the American female has seemed to move away from herself, often trying to be someone who she is not making some females more like a hypocrisy than anything else.  Many females has hid this fact by many things, such as portraying the female as a victim of the male or society or by trying to be like a man.  Acts, such as these, only confirm that there is a problem as a normal healthy person would not claim such things.

Initially, I thought this was a reaction to the modern world, which is common with the male.  The female character, being different than the male, has not followed this path.  I’ve found that the modern world, and society, isn’t quite as critical as I thought.  The bulk of the damage seems to be a result of traits found within the female which are now working against them.

Overall, it appears to me that “the female hood did not fail the female, the female failed the female hood”. 


Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in Britain and British things, Dehumanization and alienation, Historical stuff, Modern life and society, Psychology and psychoanalysis, The male and female, The U.S. and American society | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment