Life and Woman’s Purpose-An Endless Question

Life and Woman’s Purpose – An Endless Question

                    [thoughts from   ~burning woman~   by Sha’Tara]

What makes life exciting?  What gives it that power to draw us in and push us on, even in the most horrible of conditions; that brings us back to the fore life after life?  The endless question, naturally.

Of course, for those who have abandoned the quest in favour of a “safe” future, either in choosing annihilation at physical death or to spend some eternity in a nebulous heaven jealously guarded by an exclusive God, then what I’m attempting to relate here won’t grab.  Just words.  How can anyone who has all the answers in the bag ask any more questions?  What would be the point?  Any new existential question would only disturb the still waters.

What a sad place to be.  No wonder there is so little joy on earth, and so much dissatisfaction.  So many trusting in fate or some God to possess all possible answers to all the unasked questions!

Eve dared partake of the forbidden fruit.  Pandora dared open the box.  The still waters of an essentially male dominated world were stirred forever.  Damn those women, eh?

Life expresses itself as a question.  We are a question and as we come to know ourselves, we receive our answer.  Ah, that is what I am?  No, only in the moment.  Every answer leads to the next question.  That is how creation happens.  We keep questioning the chaos and every answer is a bit of order we put together.  Like fording a stream over stepping stones.  Not all are always visible.  Sometimes you have to wait for the current to change before you see the next logical one and step there.  Then to the next because if you stay on that one it will submerge again and you will lose your footing.

A question that has been foremost in my mind since I began writing the “Antierra Manifesto” or trilogy of the Stacked Worlds as it pertains to a world called “Malefactus” and that is, simply, “What is a woman’s purpose?”  I’m not speaking of position, function or role, but purpose. Please note the difference, these are not synonyms and “purpose” is going to be the driving force of our future.

Much of what passes as history, divine revelation, philosophy and mores comes from the “male factor” on earth.  Did you ever wonder why the injunction against “coveting your neighbour’s wife” did not also contain the injunction to the woman not to covet her neighbour’s husband?  Pretty obvious when you think about it.  The woman was not considered able to understand such things.  She could not really understand the law, for it was from a male God to man, although interestingly enough she’d be the first one punished if she transgressed this male law.  In all ancient literature and carrying on in today’s world we find the same conundrum.

Throughout history males have determined the woman’s place.  Her function or “usefulness” to the male manifesto, which states basically that in any top-down power system, the male must rule. Some rare exceptions can be made for a female to have that power as regent; in some temporary capacity and properly surrounded by male advisors.  Another exception can be made if the female exhibits enough male values to do the job as a male would.

That’s been beaten to death and whatever answers anyone may have come up with – such as “allowing” women to vote; or “allowing” women to inherit property; or “allowing” women to keep their own names in a marriage; or “allowing” women to get equal pay for equal work; or “allowing” women to become police officers or grunts in the military – now there’s a promotion to exclusive male power – none have managed to make a dent in the Earthian reality or “male factor.”

The question asked here is, what is a woman’s purpose?  Could it be it’s to bring forth life because life is female?

 

 

 

60 thoughts on “Life and Woman’s Purpose-An Endless Question

  1. jim-

    I could write a book in answer to this, but in a nutshell; whatever you decide it to be—with total autonomy. I hate the religious pigeonhole put on women at an early age, and they wind up voluntarily dismissing their other potentials.
    Obviously from a biological standpoint it is fairly obvious. My own personal ideal settles around what little I have to offer a women’s discussion. Total equality, family, shared roles, and maybe a time where embracing the feminine and masculine sides of both sexes was apparent. The right hates feminine men, but they all have those attributes, whether hidden or exposed. Embracing those attributes as well as both sides of the woman, would be a pretty cool place to live where we could be ourselves and develop all true strengths.

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      Total equality in terms of justice, access to the social net, physical protection now so totally lacking, but not automatic “equality” in terms of function. A woman/mother with children should not, obviously, be required to hold down a job to draw a salary commensurate with the hours she puts into raising and caring for a family. As a woman/mother she should have automatic right to proper and free health care on a 24/7 basis. She should be guaranteed food on the table and security in terms of housing. Obvious, common sense stuff. She should never have to rely on a man, whether the impregnator or some other. It should be up to society, i.e., the justice system to determine men’s responsibilities in supporting women/mothers. Since there is no possibility of shirking when providing funds for the military – it’s tax supported, a just system would switch that support to women/mothers or in some cases legitimate home fathers.

      Reply
  2. rawgod

    I’ll take a direction different from Jim’s, lol: Why should women know their purpose when even we men do not. That would be very unjust, and a definite sign of inequality.
    Aside from your ability to produce new living beings, with a bit of help frm us males, I do not see this as a life purpose, but rather a species purpose. If you could produce non-human life, that would be really something. But women can only reproduce more humans, and that speaks to proliferation of the human species, and therefore does not approach a meaning for life purpose, at least not in my mind.
    I prefer to look at what humanity can offer to life itself, and there is no difference between the sexes, no matter how much we men make it seem so. My argument, however, as looked at in a recent post of mine, is that life presently has no purpose, or we (all forms of living beings) would be moving in one direction to fulfilling that purpose. As yet we do not all seem to be working together, though anything is possible.
    To conclude, if we humans can be said to have a purpose, our sexes do not speak to that. Instead, our only purpose is to create and understand what might be a purpose for all life, if we can do that. As of right now, I do not see that as possible, or at best, highly unlikely.

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      [rg] Women as the subjugated, abused, enslaved “party” have  very good reason to discover their purpose – men already possess the power that gives them their purpose  which is to exploit and oppress.  That should come as no surprise that men will not naturally seek for a purpose.  All they need to do is to add to their purpose, through whatever means at their disposal.  The surprise, if there remains any room for surprises in the social make-up called civilization is that so few women actually realize the desperate need they face to discover their purpose before the patriarchy has rendered it a moot point in the inevitable collapse if men’ technological toys aren’t forcefully removed from their graspy, greedy hands.

      Will it do the trick if women, as a gender, one is tempted to say a different species on earth, discover their purpose and open to its power?  Will it absorb the patriarchy into a world where it will find no foothold or handhold from which it can stand to crush the weaker, or grasp to choke life, thus ever disempowered?

      As you probably know, or remember, I am a “mind” transgendered being (“person” to use Earthian terminology) – as in gender talk, not sexual. Thus physically and mentally mal-equipped and condemned to live a life on the margins of society, useful but weird, I found myself experiencing both sides of the great sexual divide and how extreme the pressure society (namely the three great ruling powers of god, government and gold) put upon the sexes in order to control, exploit and oppress Earth’s pseudo-humanity.  When you cannot fit in, either you break inviolable rules and end up incarcerated, suicided, or you become an observer of philosophical bent (or bent philosophically!)

      So I /observed/ and learned many aspects of Earthian life not mentioned in its history, it religions, nor in its great revolutionary movements of recent times, particularly in feminist thinking.  I saw the poison coming down from space as a drip feed into the minds of Earth people.  I “saw”  how normal people are programmed to do the bidding of forces they know nothing about and are forced to believe and serve to their own endless detriment. I saw how the poison is carefully doled out; how those slated for leadership receive extra doses of the more potent stuff… I saw too much to relate here but suffice to say that Earthians are a species of addicts, but that women, denigrated as a “species” by ruling forces, are given much less of the poison and therefore are the ones most likely to successfully break free of their programming as a singularity — if they can ever break their programming to “love” and its attachments.

      Reply
      1. rawgod

        The problem, for me, S’T, is that you are boxed in by that patriarchal Time Lord world. Everything you see is defined by it, whether you are experiencing yourself as male or female. While I “may” be living in such a world, it does not contain me, despite the fact I am a man. I am a living being first, and that is the perspective I approach life from.
        But that is how different we really are…

      2. Sha'Tara Post author

        Yes, I think I understand the “limitations” I put my physical life under. They don’t call this a prison planet for no reason: it is as much a prison planet as was Selusa Secundus under the imperial rule of House Corrino – Dune, by Frank Herbert. We can only get out through death, that is earth’s particular curse, though people are so attuned to the horrible overall living conditions that they rarely question the “Why” of it. Not only do they not question the global injustice, the wars and genocides and female sexual enslavement, they don’t even question their pointlessly short lifespans. Once, long ago, it was known that the short lifespans were imposed as a punishment from the gods. Now it can be ‘scientifically’ rationalized, as are many other unacceptable conditions on earth. At least when I exchange information with you it isn’t with someone living a dead-end life. You know much already, you will know much more. The freed mind can learn to view its “awareness” or “surroundings” much like one can learn to analyze stereoscopic images through a simple stereoscope to view in 3-D a specially photographed landscape, a very useful invention used in WWII to analyze enemy targets prior to mass bombings and in mapping prior to satellite imsgery. When the Bible talks of “the Lord God” and I talk of Time Lords any open mind can assemble the information and see a much more realistic image of these entities. They take form under the questing mind’s inspection. That form may not be at all what was expected but it will be much closer to the actual reality. On earth, due to active programming, it is the norm to live either in denial, or in naïve acceptance of official information. The two images necessary to create a proper image are never brought together, out of fear, denial or indolence.

      3. rawgod

        The un-needing-to-be-freed mind never goes there, it stays where it is free. Earth is not a prison planet, it is an experiential world where anything can be explored, including that which you can see, S’T. And while death is the surest way off of Earth, it is also the surest way back. I do not understand that, because if there are all kinds of civilizations in the universe one would expect to end up incarnating anywhere, not just on Earth. Yet, in my experience (and memory) Earth is the only planet I have ever incarnated on. IMO, this is wrong, and therefore beyond my present awareness. So I wonder, but Ì do it in my own way…

      4. Sha'Tara Post author

        Quote: “Yet, in my experience (and memory) Earth is the only planet I have ever incarnated on. IMO, this is wrong, and therefore beyond my present awareness. So I wonder, but I do it in my own way…” Oh, the things I could say to you about those missing remembrances, and the frustrating gaps in others. Some should be obvious as they were to me, but ‘your own way’ it shall be! 🙂 I’ll slip this tidbit in, maybe it will be tantalizing enough to open a new line of inquiry: the soul implant functions as a mind wipe.

      5. rawgod

        in my language, civilizing a newborn baby covers up what has come before {your mind wipe}. This is nothing I do not know, just comes with different terms–as usual, lol.

  3. stolzyblog

    One could take this question from a different stance, namely: “What was the idea of the Creator in the unveiling of womankind”? (I will quickly pass over any debating about religious doctrine or scientific objection by simply stating that cosmic truth is not imaginary and that religions, per se, get it wrong by virtue of having exposed only aspects of this truth which then are glommed onto and dogmatically re-interpreted within most all religious activity or what is left of it, and finally to say that evolutionary explanations about everything’s origin is revealed as inadequate as soon as one lifts the covers off of it.) So… what does mystery wisdom of a particular school, say the true Rosicrucians (as opposed to AMORC) sat in relation to this womankind question?

    First, that the sexes were not always separated in human history, and this state of affairs is quite obliquly made reference to in Genesis. And this separation into sexes was connected to certain tasks of human evolution involving the necessity for greater individuality, which tasks we are currently only beginning to become embroiled within. Further, the separation was also forced, in a way, or a creative response (on behalf of the Sun gods mentioned in Genesis as the Elohim — plaural — who by the way were and are themselves genderless — to the premature ‘tempting’ of two very early humans at a certain point in Earth’s history (before Atlantis to be only slightly more precise), who were prototypical at that point in that they alone bore the capacity among all human souls to withstand the possibility of earthly incarnation at that point, … premature tempting to have independent knowledge as gleaned by earthly senses and reason as opposed to the theretofore usual way, namely via direct spiritual revelation as breathed into them by higher beings.

    One of the cataclysmic byproducts of this direct individualized gathering of earthly knowledge, only possible on earth, was that death would now become a human experience, because they would lose direct cognition of spiritual realities in favor of earthly sensory and reason-bound thought, and so would therefore gradually lose direct memory of pre-earthly existence and so eventually become terrorized at the prospect of earthly life cessation. Also, besides death, regeneration now became more an affair of mankind at least on a physical level, and one of the sexes would need to have the capacity to create and sustain within themselves — womankind — a cosmically spiritual condition somewhat akin to the higher spiritual worlds themselves, namely the womb, wherein spirits wishing to incarnate could freely exert their influences upon a new seed/embryo to prepare it for their gradual inhabitation on Earth.

    This sacred womb concept comes very close to comprising one of the primary ideas of the Creators concerning their thought: womankind. Another, in my opinion, is : soothing.

    Humans on Earth are composed of four important components: physical, etheric, astral, and ego (or I AM in esoteric Christian terminiology). I do not have time to go into what characterizes these four. But a subtle difference exists in how males and females configure these four components. Males primarily dwell in, or accentuate or easily express their life forces, within the 1st and 4th of these components, or the highest and lowest, namely the ego and the physical. Thus there is an inherent instability within male humans as compared to females, because they live less in their centers (the etheric and astral components) and more in their extremities. This is a harder fate to endure in many ways, but one which also allows for the possibility of easier and more fantastic expressions of individuality, which is one of the ‘goals’ of earthly humanity. Female humans naturally exhibit more soul integrity and stability because they ‘live’ in their centers or closer to it. In general, they have less likelihood of extreme feats of physical action or extreme manifestations of their individual egos. Of course, all of this must be constantly seen as general truths only.

    Fortunately, the usual scheme of eathly incarnations alternate genders so that imbalance in one direction can be pendulumed back in the other direction next lifetime. Males are the karma of Females, and vice versa. This realization renders the war of the sexes absurd. Intelligent and sensitive males, and probably even those not so qualified, know intuitively that the stability, the soothing stability they need, exudes from the presence of a female in their proximity in life, and will try in turn to offer as much protective energy as possible. Sensitive females will seek to nurutre males who they’ve intuited or ascertained will be able to sublimate their extreme potentialities of ego capabilities into more purely spiritual functions for the good of all humanity.

    In the future, we are destined once again to rejoin as one gender, and procreation will come about in a way so fantastic that it is not even advisable to utter it. The present dismal paths being taken as a result of ‘naturalistic’ and purely material science is a potent obstruction to this destiny.
    The opposing powers have possibly their best ally in the current state of natural science, precisely because it promulgates all sorts of utilitarian techniques in complete ignorance of spiritual realities.

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      The only comment I wish to make to this one is, it is my hope that everyone who follows this blog reads this very carefully with intent to analyze all that it is saying. This, in my estimation, is a view from our distant past and into our future. I can’t and won’t add to it.

      Reply
      1. stolzyblog

        I understand your wish, and thank you. It’s an ambitious one though. I’d be happy with the idea of simply one or two taking it in, allowing it enough space within their cognitive fabric, and living with and entertaining the notions for a year or two… to reflect upon what it offers. 🙂

    2. rawgod

      IMO, just as there is no such thing as sin, there is no such thing as karma. Both ideas are human-made. Our physical bodies are animal bodies, and what would animals be like if karma was real? Would wolves become rabbits, and rabbits wolves? What would that do for anyone? No, karma is just another way of threatening humans with rewards and punishments, heavens and hells. It promotes feelings of guilt in those who believe in it, as do the Hebrew 10 Commandments, and is about as useful as those commandments. Those who do not believe in either are free to be responible for themselves and their actions. I will chose responsibility over outside authority every time, I know it comes from deep inside of me.

      Reply
      1. stolzyblog

        first of all, I hadn’t discussed sin. As for the fact that you believe there is no such thing as karma… yes it is clear from your previous opinions that you think this way. What is interesting however is that althought you claim to not believe in it — whatever that statement may mean — you do not appear to shy away from holding various (misconceived in my view) opinions about what characterizes it and how it operates. As indicated by your response here. Karma is a cosmic law, just like on a lower or more physical level, Kepler’s observations about motion are natural laws. You or anyone else who does not ‘believe’ in karma is no more free of it’s effects than would a person who doesn’t believe in Kepler be free of the laws of bodies in motion. It has nothing to do with belief or lack of belief. It also has nothing to do with external authority. Also, the concept of karma, or I would say, the ability to think accurately about it, has nothing to do with limiting one’s responsibility. In fact it promotes responsibility, in tendency.

        Your pseudo-argument about rabbits, wolves, and animal bodies make no sense and basically, without being rude, merely serve to show that you are pretty unaware of what the concept of karma is all about. Which as I mentioned, is not so surprising or uncommon.

      2. rawgod

        Karma was invented to avoid paying back loans in one incarnation, and postponing it to a future incarnation. if I do not repay you next lifetime, you can punish my future self. People so believed in reincarnation that they believed they would be repaid. The belief expanded from there to what it has come to mean today, you will reap what you sow. Sorry, but there is no such thing as cosmic law, there is no such thing as karma.
        Further, I do not know how old you are, but 50 years ago the word karma was barely known in the West. It is a very recent addition to Western thought, and while it sounds great at first encounter, once you look behind the curtain of the word, you will see it has no substance. You want to believe in Karma, be my guest, especially if it helps you stay on the straight and narrow. My bet is you pick and choose what you believe according to what you are doing, just like everyone else on Earth. And, BTW, it takes a god to keep track of karma. Who else could do that? I am an atheist, there is no karma in my world.
        And how you make the jump from Kepler’s
        laws of Motion to karma is beyond me. one ia apples, the other is whales.
        Have a nice day.

      3. stolzyblog

        You have not looked behind the curtain of the word. You have no idea how to even begin to do so. And of course you are an athiest. That is obvious and needs no stating.

      4. rawgod

        What is your problem, Stolzyblog? You think you have all the answers to life? I can guarantee you do not, no one does. And if you think you have strength in numbers, you don’t. Numbers above 1 are meaningless.

      5. stolzyblog

        I do not have a problem, and do not think, nor have I indicated, that I have all answers concerning life. It seems to me you simply do not like having your worldview disagreed with. I have no idea what you are getting on about concerning numbers, so I will ignore that. I see no point in further littering Sha’Tara’s blog with a 90s-esque style argument about things you do not understand, mostly arising from your embrace of a materialist worldview which perforce results in you professing your atheism while claiming at the same time all sorts of incorrect pronouncements about what you imagine my beliefs are. So I

      6. rawgod

        My materialistic viewpoint? I am probably the least materialistic person I know. But you have already judged me as unworthy, without knowing me in any way. That’s okay. I do not need my worldview agreed with. My worldview is based on life experience, not on what I am told to believe. Peace be with you, Stolzyblog.

      7. stolzyblog

        happy new years, rawgod. There is confusion around the word materialism here — perhaps my fault for not being more explicit. What I meant was philosophical materialism, i.e. materialism as a worldview. We were discussing worldviews after all. What I did not mean, did not mean, was some sort of characterization of you as a person obsessed with the acquisition of expensive worldly items and consumer goods. That is a secondary meaning of materialistic. And besides, how could I even know this about you, in any case? That would make no sense. The following excerpt from the definition of the word, from Webster’s 3rd Unabridged, may help clarify: (I paraphrase slightly to save space):

        materialism – n. 1a) a doctrine, principle, or theory according to which physical matter is the only reality, through which ALL processes and being and phenomena are exclusively explained 1b) the philosophical position characterized by the doctrine of materialism, and it’s ramifications 2) a preoccupation with, or tendency to seek after or value material things as opposed to spiritual things.

        So, I am talking about 1a, the main and central meaning of the word materialism or materialist.

        Now, you could well ask, on what basis would I diagnose you as a materialist, philosophically, in the sense of 1a? It is because you have expressed already in this dialog, in the thread above, two points which I have found in experience discussing with many people that 95% of the time coincide with materialism as a worldview. And I do not exaggerate this percentage. The first point is that you went out of your way to equate our physical natures, our bodies, with that of the animals, placing us in the same category, as akind of animal. (This opinion is very common in the afterglow of neo-Darwinism, but I think it is wrong.) And the second point is your deliberate mention of espousing atheism. These two traits or opinions, thinking in such a way that we are physically, even physically, merely a sort of animal, on the same level as animals, and the espousal of atheism, especially when avid, correlate very highly with materialism as a worldview in people. One can readily grasp why. If we are not athiest, or do not strictly consider that human bodies are simply mechanical evolutionary elaborations of animal bodies before them, then we are hard-pressed to explain how we can subscribe to materialism.

        Now if you are somehow one of the rare 5% or so for which this is the case, i.e. not a materialist yet athiest and believing we are animals, then that is intriguing & I would be interested to see why and discuss with you. Though I reiterate, not ideally on Sha’Tara’s blog real estate.
        Finally, you have again, for at least the 2nd time, subtly or not so subtly, intimated that worldviews which either I express or which differ from your own somehow can only arise because a person “is told to believe them”. That is just plain horse crap. Also… I have not made a judgement about your worthiness, just about the materialism evident in your opinions.

      8. rawgod

        Well, sir,I hate to tell you, but I took materialism to be more or less exactly how you meant it to be taken. I am a spiritual atheist. I not only believe spirit is the main force of life, but is life, or life is spirit. Same difference. How could I not believe a germ’s life is equally important to a human’s life, when they are both life, and therefore have the same spiritual value.
        Now, while I do believe human bodies are animal bodies, it is more the spirit in every living being that puts us on the same scale. Of course there are differences, but life is life is life. Without life there is nothng For anyone! Therefore with it, we all have the same basic quality, we are alive.
        I am more than willing to discuss anything you like, anywhere you like. I highly doubt Sha’Tara minds, she too loves discussions such as this. But we can trade emails if you like (gewcolo@gmail.com) or we can do this on Word Press.
        As for worldviews, I stick by my claim that religious worldviews come from outside authorities, no human has ever been born with an a priori belief in god. if one were, all would be. Since not all are, none are. Especially since gods do not exist. Belief in gods does exist, post-birth, but gods themselves, I’ll never again accept that.

      9. Sha'Tara Post author

        I’ll just address the part that mentions me, for the moment. You are correct, I like good, deep, discussion. Both of you are good at it, and for it. I’m honored to host these thoughts from deep thinkers. When there is an opening that demands my input, I’ll put it in, otherwise, it’d be too much like being a log rolled back and forth by the waves on a seashore. I do have to say though that my experience tells me you are correct in stating that life is spirit/spirit is life… really to me they are one and the same. It is a giving force, not a controlling one. Once that’s understood it’s easy the strain the god-tripe out of the equation.

      10. stolzyblog

        Hi rawgod. No reason for you to hate to tell me this. But we shall have to discuss things a good deal, I believe, in order to come to some understanding about what each of us means about certain words, like ‘spiritual’ and ‘athiest’, and apparently, ‘life’. I propose we can continue here till ST suggests otherwise, whereupon we could make an enormous dialog post of the whole conversation on our WP blogs, if you wish.

        The term ‘spiritual’ seems a better place to start than the term ‘athiest’ to because atheism is highly entangled with religions, and I myself, for example, am not religious, but I am also not atheistic and in fact have never heard anything persuasive mentioned to me in all of the many discussions on the topic which would make me think the position makes any sense. (Also, ST has told me on several occasions she shies away from atheism-religion questions (learned from experience) so this too makes it seem better to push that topic aside for the moment.

        I think we will more quickly arrive at a contradiction I sense, between anti-materialism and atheism, by focusing upon what you mean by spirituality.

        A priori beleifs, i.e. born-with beliefs, have no particular weight, far as I can see. I might even say that you must prove they exist. You use this to decry gods or religious ideas of gods. But the exact same thing can be said about your contention that germs have a much life as people do and since life=spirit, in your view, then germs and people are equally spiritual. (If I get this right.) What is important, so far, is not whether I got it right, but that this idea of yours is equally not an a priori belief, a born-with conception. You had to arrive at it, true or false, or somewhere fuzzy in between, you had to arrive at this by thinking. It is not a priori. Therefore, we can dispense with the idea that whether or not something, an idea or concept, is something we are born with has any bearing whatsoever upon whether the idea or concept is a valid or true one. Quite the opposite in fact. If the criterion were that only concepts which are a priori to us should be considered of value, then we would all learn nothing from life, and life would be meaningless. Which in your way of seeing things, would mean that spirit too is meaningless, since spirit=life.

        I suppose time to pause here for you to think and reply. But I would add that I see no reason to equate these two concepts, spirit and life. The ideas have quite different meanings to me, although one can see how they are somewhat related. Also, I don,t think your logic is valid when you argue that a germ’s life is equally important to a human life and thereby have the same spiritual value. No. They do not. We would need to more precisely discuss what spiritual value means to make this more clear, but I do not think that the formulations you have given about them are particularly clear either. They are just fuzzy equations, which I do not buy. Respectfully. 🙂

      11. rawgod

        I will back up even farther, because my whole experience and therefore my philosophy only starts when I learned that life is not just a thing to be appreciated or ignored. Life for me is an actual force, the fountain of everything we see or do not see in our cosmos. Nothing can exist without life to bring it beingness. All our Big Bang or Creationist theories of the physical universe are nothing without life to perceive them. It is impossible for us to actually define life, since we are life. We can describe it all we want, and it seems we do want, but it is not something that you can point out and say, that is life, because everything is life. However, you can point at any form of life, be it microscopic, plant, animal, or something we do not yet see as life, and say that is a living being, a life form. And it does not matter how you see it, or I see it, because whatever life is, that life form has it, and therefore all life is equal.
        I am not saying that all lifeforms are as capable of accomplishing deeds and actions as all other lifeforms, but aside from the fact that we honour such accomplishments in those beings that do accomplish things, that does not mean it is the purpose of life to accomplish things. It may be a purpose of our lifeform, but we are only one of billions or trillions of species of life on this one planet alone, and we do what we do, but others do what others do too. We are different, but that does not make us superior, it only makes us different.
        Now, if I move to spirituality, it is only one level of life. But I have to start at the start again. Again, I cannot speak for other lifeforms, the only lifeform I can speak intelligently about are humans, which is just a name for our version of life. We have three basic levels of life that I have experienced so far in my lifetime. I started with physical, or egoic life. I was nothing when I was born, just a ball of living matter, same as every ball of living matter when it is born, or hatched, or whatever it is when it first comes to life. We believe that other forms of life operate on instinct, but that is just our way of separating us from them. We know that we have to be taught how to live, how to stifle our cries of fear as babies, our cries of hunger, thirst, aloneness, whatever those fears might be. But basically we are being taught to be civilized, to not dirty our places where we live, to use language, and eventually to think, and conceive ideas. But all we are really doing is putting limitations on what we could be doing. A parent’s favourite words are 1) No and 2) Don’t. If we say Yes, or Do, we get punished. Until we learn No and Don’t our lives are hell. As I said above, this is what we call civilizing us. Turning us into little versions of our parents. Into people who do what they are told is right, not doing what we are told is wrong. All this is about creating an ego, showing us how to get along in this world.
        Next level of of life is mental, as we start to reason not with our brains, but with our minds. We learn how to think–for ourselves. We stop believing some things we are told, and replacing them with things we think are better for us. Over a number of years we go from black and white thinkers to gray, fuzzy thinkers. And that opens up whole new vistas of what life makes available to us. But mind is just a short step from ego. The breakthrough step is much larger, and is one not everyone accomplishes successfully in a lifetime, and that is spirit. Spirit exists on all levels of life, but until one discovers our spirit it is not readily available to us. Our egos guide us through life, and our minds make course corrections as we feel necessary. Spirit might yearn inside of us, but until we actually discover it within us, we cannot make good use of it.
        So what is spirit? It is that which allows us to live beyond the physical world, and even beyond the mental world, and opens up the whole cosmos to us. You can think of it as the Buddhist journey of enlightenment, but that is just one part of it. If you have ever fully experienced spirit you have gone beyond scientific reality, and even religious reality, though there are some similarities between spiritual and religious. Religion can move you off earth, but it still limits you, controls you. Spirit does not try to control you, or limit you. It lets you see the possible.
        It does not confine you in this physical dimension. And it does not confine you in human form. It is not easy to talk about spirit in languages, few languages have words to describe spirit. Infinity Explorer on her Spirit and World wordpress blog is one person I can recommend who does it better than I. Sha’Tara writes about it in her own way. Lisa R. Palmer in The Otherhood of One also has her way. These are just some of the people I have found on wordpress. And basically we each have our own ways of communicating our experiences. I struggle with it, but I try.
        However there is more to the spiritual than just our own individual experiences. Connections to other human beings is probably the easiest connection to experience. Some people find the human connection and stop there. Some find the connection to animals, and stop there. i myself move all the way to seeing the connections with all living beings, and try to remain open to what living beings are, or can be.
        You seem to think, or discuss at the very least, that there are levels of value in life. Humans can do this or that, so therefore their lives are more valuable.I take the opposite position, we all do what we can do, and therefore are of equal value. We are all just beings on the road from being “born or hatched or split off” to accomplishing bettering ourselves and the world around us spiritually. Physical accomplishments mean something on earth, the physical plane. Spiritually they are absolutely meaningless. How you live your life is most important, how you live with others, all others. That is part of what I mean when I talk of spirit, or spirituality. And it is why I believe all life has equal value. No life is superior to any other life, just different.
        And yes, you can say I had to think of all of this, but it does not feel that way to me. I did have to discover my own spirit, but it was already inside of me, a priori to life. My task was to understand the experiences, to make sense of them. Yes, I have probably made mistakes along the way, misinterpreted some experience or other, But I try, and I try not to lock myself into any particular vision until I am 99% sure it is right for me. If things do not fit my experience, such as gods, or humanocentric thinking, I discard them, once I have concluded they have no meaning for me.
        Life has not been easy for me, not that this has anything to do with what we are doing here, but growing up spiritual in an egoistic religious world, has given me strengths I never had as a bullied child. And that strength has allowed me to go where few do, because I can see there. I am very used to being alone. You might see that as pride, or arrogance, or whatever, but I like to think of it as freedom, the freedom to be.

      12. stolzyblog

        ell, thanks for all that. I’d say it is very lengthy and so hard to integrate into the conversation for me. I think I have a picture of the way you see things. One thing I notice is that we use language quite differently, and therefore our communication will be prone to misunderstandings. (I went through a similar thing with Sha’Tara, especially around the way she thinks about the word ,love’.) With you, I see the words ‘ego’, ‘life’ and ‘spirit’ as fairly differently defined in our world views. Also my rearing experience as a child seems different than yours, not to mention the way which I try at present to raise my son — therefore I have a less pessimistic view about what child rearing and ‘civilizing’ consists of than you do. It seems mostly true to me what you say about religion, though I am not as black-whaite about this, as I see the main issue to be not surrending your steering wheel to anyone else while pursuing religious thoughts or explorations, and then you will be more likely to stay closer to or discover it’s original spiritual impulse with your intuition. (sorry — this is a bit rambling because you have written a lot.) About life forms, I would see our differences along lines something like as follows: I see a continuum from minerals through plants through animals through numans, with each level being powerfully different from the previous one. While spirit or a spiritual element is common to all of these levels, life is not an element of the first level, the minerals. Crystals, rocks, things mad purely of matter, and so forth. What chiefly distinguishes the next level, plants, is that they posess life, they are living. They constitute an aspect of being which is missing from the purely mineral. Moving from trees and plants on to animals, which admittedly span a wide range of forms and complexities, a new ingerdient is added, which might be called sentience, or awareness, posessing some sort of inner life. The difference between all animals and humans lies in the fact that only humans have self-consciousness (though some higher animals have consciousness per se.) It is necessary to posess self-consciousness as a pre-requisite to perceiving the spiritual. So, humans are the ,lowest’ or first level of being with the potential to experience spiritual reality. This echelon, if you will, also gives some kind of an idea as to why I think various ‘levels’ of life have meaningful and significant qualitative differences between them. I see nothing wrong with the, usually buddhist-acrredited, ideal to respect and value all life. But it does mean something important, after all, if a life form can or cannot potentially preceive the spiritual. The spiritual, to attempt a sketchy characterization, only for the sake of clarity, is what is true for all things, regardless of vantage point or quality of awareness. It is the source of all activity and all design which manifests physically. Personally I see no convincing reason to divorce this spiritual, the spirit, from consciousness. In fact I regard all efforts to do so as inherently mushy, even new-agey sometimes. It is correct, in my view, what you say about spirit (less so what you say about life), although I would add that for me this indicates that the spiritual reality must perforce be manifested via consciousnesses, i.e. via beings. Spiritual reality implies higher beings. That is how I see it. I do not see ‘spirit’ simply as emanating mystically from all around us without the agency of active beings. It must be embedded in some forms of higher consciousness. And this is why I tend to regard concepts which try to divest spirit of beings and consciousness as materialistic. The materialist prejudice cannot bring itself to stomach the notion of spiritual beings… everything must function as ‘energy’, which is transformed matter. I think this is simply biased. I,ve written about this in various places on my blog. Two which come to mind are ‘How Not To Envision Space Aliens’ and ‘Nagel Summarizes Nagel’. But also much of my poetry voices this.

        I heartily agree with you about not locking oneself in to some accepted idea. I would even go past 99% to 100%. If we know something, we do not need to believe it, or disbelieve it. So we should keep open and strive to know. There is also one other thing you mentioned early on in this convo which I heartily agree with. Parphrasing, it was that when something comes from deep inside you, it can more be trusted in terms of truth. This is where all moral intuition really comes from, I find. Inherited or received morality is less valuable and just a placeholder.

        Finally, if grasp what you mean about breaking through to a spiritual realization, then I think I did so at age 6. And wrote about it: ‘Introduced By Buttercups’.

        well, that is probably enough for now. good talking with you.

      13. rawgod

        You call my theories about child-rearing pessimism, Those I do not brand as any ism, just fact. If you are not civilizing your son, what is it you are doing? Do you not want him to get along socially, not fighting with others, being loving, and compassionate? How is that being pessimistic? Or do you teach him only through positive words, and positive feedback, without spoiling him? I do not know what you do raising your son, or how old he is, but I am betting you told him No, or Don’t, more than a few time in his pre-teen, and probably teen years, if he has reached them.
        I am not saying you use corporal punishment, or anything intentionally hurtful or harmful, but it is really hard to raise a child by never denying him anything, material or emotional, or to do with his temperament. Negative words are useful. Showing us how to get along in the world, as I said.

      14. stolzyblog

        He just turned 6. I find it interesting which things I say register a sort of cluster of response with you and which do not. I didn,t suppose you had a child-rearing theory, per se; I just responded to some remarks you’ve made and contrasted this with my own view, which seems less affected by negative childhood experiences to me. Some of these remarks of yours have had to do with your concept of unfolding ‘ego’, which is different from mine. Also, the picture you drew of ‘civilizing’ a few posts back, is darker than what you are portraying in the present one. AS for my parenting, I do the best I can in terms of creating a loving ambience, and when I say no about something, I always try to find the right occasion to explain why, so that he has a fuller picture and can weigh things in his unfolding being, according to his abilities.

      15. rawgod

        I chose that item to respond to for a few reasons. One, you seemed to be asking me to cover less territory in my comments, which is not easy for me, because I see connections everywhere. Child-rearing was one that I figured I might be able to stick to just a short response. As for the earlier dark words, I try to look at different sides, depending on my mood at the time. I was talking at that time not directly about child-rearing, but more about how hard it was to find one’s spiritual center, which is made more difficult by ego. This last comment was to revognize that ego does serve a purpose in our modern world. While it interferes with spiritual development, if one is going to try to live in North American society, ego is a necessity to get along with others who operate only or mostly with ego. As I said, for me, everything is connected.
        Ego–that which drives the bus, but which is not the bus. Ego only sees physical reality, it is a level of understanding that has no use for mind, or spirit. It responds to what the body senses though touch, taste, smell, sound, and sight. Ego does not think, but reacts. However, ego tries to control the mind, doing everything it can to give the body what it needs for life, without going deeply into why. Life is straightforward, no troubling questions. It is not pure instinct, yet it often reacts instinctively, for the betterment of a person’s physical life.

      16. stolzyblog

        OK. you can use whatever length of posts you like… it is just that the real lengthy ones are harder to reply to comprehensively, that’s all.

        I use the word ego more to describe what distinguishes human consciousness from animal consciousness, i.e. something closer to the vehicle or mechanism or faculty which enables self-consciousness. It is true, the way you use it calls to mind more of a feeling of instinct, or possibly Freud’s “id” to me.

        Not sure where to go from here, unless you have questions for me. I suppose I could ask something in connection with your idea of spirit, or life, or life-spirit. When you think back on your earliest childhood, and your childhood in general, do you find or consider that all of your qualities, characteristics, psychological tendencies and interests, and so on — do they arise from your environment and what you were exposed to? In other words, are you, at that point, fully explainable in terms of your nurturing since birth along with genetic factors, whatever you take them to be? Or is something else there, which is not explicable in this way?

      17. rawgod

        When I was a child, I believed everything adults told me. They were the authorities. I knew nothing about lying. Why would I?
        So, pretty much I would say I wzs a product of my nurture. It may have been my nature to be so trusting, but how can one know not to trust when there is no reason to even know what trust is.
        Later, when I was able to realize what lying was, that people vould lie, that ttust became an issue, but I still had no word for it. It was more a question of, “Why would you lie to me?”
        But now, when I look at how parents raise their children, I am seeing that through an adult lens. Babies are not born civilized. I have witnessed good parenting, though not often, and bad parenting. I have never witnessed parents teavhing slirituality to a child, though . Religion, yes, or racism, yes, or homophobia, yes, but never spirituality. But then, most parents do not knojw how to be spiritual.
        But how you can distinguish human consciousness from animal consciousness, I do not understand, when I know you do not know what animal consciousness is. Unless you can speak telepathically to an animal, you have no idea what goes on in the mind of an animal. Or in the mind of a plant. Or a cockroach. You can only consider such things through your human mind, and as long as you consider yourself superior, you cannot consider any kind of equality (using the collective you, not necessarily the specific you).

      18. stolzyblog

        IS there not something between lying and truth? Between believing all as though authoritative and skeptically doubting everything? Certainly for me there was when I was young. I knew, could tell, that some adults were more deliberate, thoughtful, authentic, mature, trustworthy than others. Maybe not when I was 3, but maybe — it is simply hard to remember, But certainly 4,5,6. How did I know, perceive these things? (And I do not consider myself exceptional in this.) It points to a capacity, a human capacity, an intuitive ability. I am after all not inside their minds either, even though they are humans instead of animals.

        I do not think you can teach spirituality, or it would be a kind of mistake to do so. It must arise itself within the I. We can do much, however, to not blockade it. It is part of human nature, parts of it manifesting differently at differing points of maturity in self-awareness. So, really it is a question of not clouding it, and responding well to it when it glimmers through. It has already begun in my son, for example, to my delight.

        How can I, or anyone, make judgements about an animal’s level of consciousness? By observation, peppered with as little bias as possible. The same way you can daily make assessments about others, and many other things as well. I love animals, nature, wildflowers, domestic pets. I observe them, and enjoy doing so. I spend time with these things, and have my whole life. The argument that one cannot really know anything because of the issue of subjectivity is a fallacy, for in truth this is the only route to knowledge. All knowing is ultimately subjective — it takes place intimately, within us. When we can place ourselves in another’s position, sympathetically, this is of course very helpful to richen the picture. I have never seen an animal evince self-awareness. They are less individualized than humans, because they have no I. They are much more collectively defined, by their species. With humans, it is more like each one is a species onto themselves. The dfference between two arbitrary human beings is equivalent in scope, in quantity or scale if you will, to the difference between two different animal species. You can see this even in the facial physiognomies which mirror our unique souls. It has nothing to do with superiority. It is just what is. As for the ability to consider equality, I see it unhindered. I am free to consider any dimension of proposed or noticed ‘equality’ that arises. The truth has many angles to it. You can look at things from many many sides and vantage points.

      19. Sha'Tara Post author

        I’m wondering, does the fact that a dolphin recognizes its own face in a mirror not state it is self aware? I’m enjoying the discussion, guys, thanks!

      20. rawgod

        Is there something between lying and truth? Fibbing? White lies? Defensive lies? Lies of omission, rather than commission? If there is, I don’t know what, unless you call it belief, or faith? I’m not saying people don’t lie, but there is a man in the USA right now who presents lies as truth, and his followers believe him. How many people does he hurt with his lies? Too many. One is too many!

        I agree that you cannot teach spirituality, yet what do we do with all the rinpoches and gurus and swamis who bring up alternate truths, oriental truths as opposed to occidental truths? They believe what they are “teaching” for the most part, and their acolytes believe what they are being taught. I learned from a rimpoche for awhile, until I decided he didn’t know the full truth to be able to teach it. The world has changed a lot since Buddha lived and taught, but the philosophy/religion has not. Same with Christ. Except that christianity is so full of paganisms that it can hardly be called a revelation nowadays. Neither buddhism or christianity is a true religion any more, one cannot keep up, the other is just a conglomeration of every belief system it has ever encountered piled on top of each other.

        Why do you need to make judgments of anyone’s level of consciousness? There is no purpose in so doing, other than to feel superior to them. What other outcome can there be, if you decide to judge them? I certainly have no need to judge them. My purpose is to live with them as best I can. To let them live the happiest lives they are capable of. Along with my partner, we share our house with 5 cats. Each cat is different from the others, they all have distinct personalities, just like people. They are far more than “just cats!” Do they have human consciousness? Maybe, I do not know for sure. Do they have cat consciousness? Most definitely. Are they related to humans? Yes. All life is related. We all started out from the same primordial soup. We all went through the same evolutionary steps to get where we are. Our species are the lucky ones so far, we have not gone extinct so far. Doesn’t mean it’s not going to happen.
        But backing up a second, how do you know animals or other living beings do not have an I? By obsevation, biased observation? People see what they want to see. You don’t see other living beings as having a spirit–I refuse to even consider the word soul, it is too religious for me–but yet I see all living beings having a spirit. If one life has a spirit, all life has a spirit, we all come from the same soup.
        You probably do not see that connection, at least not from the words I am hearing you use. You keep on saying that humans are somehow different, somehow better, yet we all share the same DNA, or at least a major part of it. There are differences, of course, but there are far more similarities. You look at the differences. I look at the similarities.

        Meanwhile, I have no idea whar race you are, what colour your skin. But it has been scientifically proven that people see more differences between the faces of their own race than they do the faces of different races. Fortunately, as we have more exposure to individuals of different races, we are learning to see those differences. But what of people who are not exposed to many people of different races? They are not learning as fast as others. Yet you seem to not see the differences in the faces of animals. I am sure animals see those differences quite well. Take a flock of sparrows, we are trained to see sparrows, not individual birds. But yet the sparrows can see those differences. They are all individuals, to them. Their eyes see each other. But they look at humans, and I’m betting they just see humans. To think otherwise would be completely humanocentric.
        And how intelligent does that make horses? They can learn the differences between humans. They know strangers from friends. Despite the fact we where different clothes every day, horses see right past the clothes, to see the individuals. How do you explain that?

        I will leave it there for now.

      21. stolzyblog

        You have numerous judgements in this reply. Why do YOU NEED to do so? You ask me this question, about levels of consciousness, as though it is some sort of quixotic arbitrary pointless pre-occupation of mine. We make judgements about what we perceive because that is the nature of our consciousness. You seem obsessed with me about the ‘equality’ of all life, and now it seems to also have spread to consciousness, in your view. But it seems like little more than a wish on your part, without any explanation as to why this doctrine is so compelling or important or plausible. If you cannot see the scale of differences between human faces and the faces of other species, not to mention their scales of expressiveness which reveal the depths of soul underneath them, then I believe you are simply being willful. And where do you get off saying I do not see the differences within animal faces? Does degree have no meaning in your world of thoughts?

        This circles back to why I spoke about the vast area of cognitive real estate existing between labelling something truth and lie. But people who think in black and white will often miss this area. Or underestimate it’s extent. This vast middle area consists of making space to see phenomena from many different sides and viewpoints, so as to approach a closer richer view of reality.

        Also, animals, sparrows or horses, can very much, to varying degrees, distinguish human individuals. So I do not know why you ‘bet’ or think otherwise. But what does this have to do with showing they have self-awareness? Nothing. You are passionately defending animals as though I am attacking them or something. I just say what I see, after looking and reflecting.

        The DNA argument is totally laughable. We also share atoms, atomic elements with other species. 100% of them. So? Does this mean we now evince identicality to these things. In fact, we share atomic elements with pieces of garbage and automobiles and ice cream too. Does this say something meaningful about our consciousness, or that of these items? No. This is a very materialistic argument, and it is why I say your thinking is materialistic. But you cannot see it as such. Biologists have no idea how DNA or atomic elements translate into soul characteristics or elements of consciousness — because this translation does not exist. It is merely a figment of materialist imagination. The belief that we are composed and defined by what our physical components dictate. Not just us but everything else. It is very subtle and very entrenched in commonplace western thought. It is not examined.

        What do we do with ‘religious’ teachings, you ask, regarding my comment about the ‘teaching of spirituality’. We absorb what they offer, according to our proclivities, and then reflect upon them according to our experiences and acuity. We are free to extend, modify, obliterate, and edit all these ideas we take in. Simple. This does not change the fact that spirit arises naturally from within, and that one’s main aim should be not to squelch this within another. Gurdjieff, I think, mentioned this once s an important cosmic moral principle: “One must never take away someone else’s religion — this is a big sin.” (I paraphrase.)

        The reason original spiritual impulses (such as those given by the initiators of Buddhism and Christianity) become corrupted and difficult to grasp and apply with the passing of centuries is that they have been mediated and filtered and obscured through centuries of interpretation. Sometimes this interpretation has been motivated by goodness, and sometimes by evil. Ideas are living, including spiritual ideas. It is up to us as individuals to take up what appeals to us from such streams and construct their evolving meanings in the face of our times. Scriptures are intuitive documents; they need to be worked with , lived with, mulled over, wrestled down, extended. That was/is their purpose; not to be a recipe book for truth… go to page 214.

        Biased observation: thikning, perceiving, and reflecting is all that we have. This is how we decide to know things. You do this too. I think your consclusions (along the lines we’ve disagreed about) are wrong. Some of them contain partial truth. (But to you, this is white lying or something like that.) It’s ok. You think similarly about me. The reasoning you’ve offered does not strike me as persuasive. (In several cases, not even relevant.) That’s ok. You are free to feel the same.

      22. rawgod

        No problem, Stolzy, but this is as far as I am willing to go. You are proudly human, that is your choice. I tried to offer you a different viewpoint to consider, but you cannot even look at it. The conversation has become pointless. Thanks for your time and effort. rawgod.

      23. Sha'Tara Post author

        It’s been a good discussion; I got to know both of you a lot more and hopefully I’ll remember when we interact again. A sincere thanks to both of you.

    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      You’re right: society is not willing to answer the questions posed here, so ad much as time allows they will perforce answer themselves. Instead of man pushing forth enlightenment, enlightenment will lead man but when you put the cart before the horse, expect some serious problems along the way, especially where there be sharp corners to negotiate.

      Reply
  4. George F.

    Women simply “allow” men to think they’re leading, in charge, etc. But women are the smart ones. If the measure of success and living well is a long life, women live a lot longer than men. That’s indisputable.

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      George, do I state I’m disappointed in that comment? That’s such a stock answer. If women only allowed men to be in charge, would they allow men to treat them as chattel, as slaves, as sex objects? Would they allow men, or put better, a totalitarian patriarchal system, to so abuse them, overall? Sure, we’ll work for half your wages; sure, you can rape me and my daughters, sure you can rule over me, buy and sell me, and take away my name and whatever I might own when you marry me. Sure, you can use me as a sex object to sell tires and tractors. Sure, you can beat me up and oppose anyone who would write up a law to stop you. After all, we’re just playing a power game and we’re pretending… We’re not really being hurt, we’re just plastic dolls. As to living longer lives, if a long life is lived in constrained quarters, denied its natural freedom, where’s the gain in that?

      Reply
      1. George F.

        I knew you wouldn’t like that comment…I simply prodded you for a response…and I got it. But I would agree with another comment here: Men don’t know their purpose either.

      2. Sha'Tara Post author

        [George] Thanks for following up – I appreciate that. Re: men’s purpose, I tried to explain that earlier when I commented to rawgod: “Women as the subjugated, abused, enslaved “party” have a very good reason to discover their purpose – men already possess the power that gives them their purpose which is to exploit and oppress. That should come as no surprise that men will not naturally seek for a purpose. All they need to do is to add to their purpose, through whatever means at their disposal.

        Though it is a false purpose, it functions to maintain the oppression of the imposed patriarchal system on earth. This probably only makes sense if you look at it from the viewpoints of differently evolved human worlds, worlds that have evolved the kind of unity and justice we can but dream of and talk about on this world. For us, such remains but in thinking of utopia, and of course we immediately give up on it and blithely carry on with the ‘tried and failed’ we are much more comfortable with.

        What would most Earthians do if some individual offered them global peace, full and true justice, and equality for all? Absolute disbelief and if they thought it was possible, most would freak out. The Earthian mind has never allowed itself to “live in” these concepts as applied to their entire planet. They could not bear not having an enemy. I am doing this in my mind and I can tell you, it’s like forever walking a tightrope: it is NOT a comfortable place to be in. It’s not normal.

      3. George F.

        Brilliant. We can not bear NOT having an enemy due to the Military Industrial Complex and all the money and jobs killing creates. It’s that simple. Even Aristotle, I believe, said something like the ultimate purpose of man is to obtain power. (I’ll have to Google the exact quote.) But now you’re motivating me to get back to my story…I got distracted over the Holiday and eager to get back to Lassiter, Akira and Paul!

      4. Sha'Tara Post author

        I’m so glad you’re motivated once again, Paul. Imagining, putting lives together, writing… may look easy for some but for those who have actually written novels, we know the score: it can get brutal as we must, by mind, inexorably participate in the dramas we create and suffer our own kinds of consequences through the vicissitudes. When I write I have to be one, or a partial, of several of the characters. We ‘live’ to experience together or we do not exist.

      5. Sha'Tara Post author

        What a wonderful example of a true Earthian leader, hero and macho man. They have mighty statues to that rapist and war criminal, what does that say of the species? Proves everything I’ve always said about ‘mankind’ when given the power. War, genocide, rape: where it always goes.

      6. George F.

        1 in 200 men, or over 16 million men, are direct descendants of Genghis Khan carrying his Y chromosome. So, I never argued with what you said about rape and pillage…in fact, I’m offering proof! Mankind. All were good at, it seems, is fucking and killing. Oh, I need to get a blog post out this week!

      7. Sha'Tara Post author

        Even with the whitewash of civilization, democracy and political correctness, nothing, absolutely nothing changes. In fact the pot is boiling over. The only way I’d choose to be eighteen years old today is if, as a full-fledged sorceress I could move in and out of this reality at will. To be young, beautiful and desirable and stuck here would be a greater curse than being seventy two and ‘safe’ except from poverty or a debilitating disease. Right now, except for the good I can still do I have no desire to remain here. I will be returning though, as I remember doing many times before; as I promised to myself and to a few who will try to remember the next time. When we remember, that’s when things really begin to change. “Remember, remember…” as V said in ‘V for Vendetta.’ If we cannot, or refuse, to remember, we remain mind slaves of the Matrix.

  5. franklparker

    I’m close to Rawgod on this and so much else. You said you were not talking about roles – but in many of your replies that’s exactly what you have done. None of us knows any purpose beyond that of ‘doing good’. That includes reproduction and supporting the children and each other. It’s a joint enterprise in which each contributes according to his/her ability. That’s the true and only purpose for humanity – anything else is a manifestation of greed and selfishness.

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      [Frank] Thanks for commenting and I would like to just agree with your comment, it makes sense, if we live in the past. Consider that we have long ago passed our limits to growth, particularly in terms of population. If a woman’s purpose is contained in making and raising/nurturing babies, then we are solidly on the road to extinction. If it isn’t because there are way too many babies born, then women must discover another purpose for themselves, as a gender and as equally (or more) fulfilling as bearing and rearing children. I don’t mean as roles or functions within corporate treadmills, government bureaucracy, politics, religion or the state security apparatus, in other words, as competitors for “exclusive” male enclaves of power. I reiterate that when I speak of purpose I do not speak of function, even if I use function to point out all that is horrible for women within the current (purposeless) patriarchal power framework. If she is no longer “needed” by natural demand to bear and care for children then the woman must of necessity discover or create her own, entirely new purpose. Remember also that in my understanding of life’s continuity, true sense of purpose transcends one’s physical life. It is a mind affair and mind is infinite and eternal, thus purpose defines one’s future. For those who have none, or cannot accept the concept, then I suppose it doesn’t matter, they will inherit whatever the after death offers. Rest in peace or… ‘Hello, what’s happening here? Why aren’t I dead?’

      Reply
  6. rawgod

    Nothing I am hearing here comes from nature. Everything I am reading is about nurture. Women are raised to be loving and caring, and those are so ingrained in them that they appear to be natural. Men are raised to be domineering in some way or other, physically, mentally, or sexually. Spirit does not care if you are male or female, all that matters is you be alive. And spiritual life is not bound by Earthly limits.

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      [rg] Quote: “And spiritual life is not bound by Earthly limits.” I have never, ever, believed or said so either. Spirit (assuming that is what you mean by spiritual life) can’t be bound by anything… any thing, including whatever is thought or said or done. Existence precedes essence.

      Reply
  7. Akhila

    Something which I have asked myself a lot many times…and I know Never ever this can have an answer from the surrounding.. maybe only the creator knows the purpose.. thinking loud, is there a creator really.. if there is , how he or she has a shut mouth to this question..

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      For woman there are no answers in the surroundings because those surroundings are alien and inimical to her. She currently lives, exists, survives and struggles within a misogynist patriarchy with which of necessity she has uncomfortably made peace and adapted to, so much so that she forgets that she remains “the enemy” to be crushed, used, exploited, silenced, enslaved. It may not always seem that way and for some it isn’t so bad, but the reality is that as western-style (fake) democracies crumble one by one, women who had gained some power within that corrupt system will find themselves violently disempowered, deposed, jailed and even executed. The wheel of history is turning and it isn’t in favour of woman. So, what is a woman’s purpose on Earth and at this moment? To destroy the patriarchy, nothing less, for anything less will mean the worst state of bondage and slavery she has ever experienced. How do I know this? I’ve had many lives on this world as a woman and experience is the best of teachers. You can also think of me as crazy…!

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.