Follow by Email


Wednesday, March 13, 2019

Principal Rules of Feminine Interaction...
And A Problem

“Simon Peter said to them [incredibly; and downright stunning in its viciousness and misogyny. How could any man who says such a thing have any understanding at all of the Teaching of Jesus?], ‘Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.’

Jesus said [lamely in her ‘defense’; but better late (not really) than never], ‘I myself shall lead her [lame], in order to make her male [lame], so that she too may become a living spirit [lame] resembling you males [lame]. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven’[lame, lame and lame].”

Saying #114 (the last saying) of the
Gospel of Thomas
(The sequence of these Sayings having been decided upon by whom? The male apostle Thomas, of course.)

“She is frequently kind and she’s suddenly cruel.
She can do as she pleases, she’s nobody’s fool.”

Billy Joel
She’s Always A Woman To Me

As I have previously explained—or ‘mansplained’, depending upon attitude and perspective—women typically establish continuity of consciousness on the basis of in-the-moment experiences of a “self”, whereas men typically establish continuity of consciousness on the basis of (usually, although there are exceptions) carefully considered thoughts of a ‘thinker’. And, at the same time, a principal value of women is in the maintaining of societal interactions and relationships, whereas a principal value of men is in isolation.

And now we have a problem.

Women are often demeaned, and often experience instances of insult, offense, and either intentional or unintentional viciousness and misogyny in their relationships with men as well as with women.

And how do they respond?

Typically, they are so taken aback, so startled, so intensely hurt that they are incapable of saying anything at all; and it is not until hours or even days later that they are finally able to think of an appropriate response to the person who has deeply wounded them.

But what do they do then?

Typically nothing.

Living in the momentary experiences of a “self”—and with their principal value being the maintaining of societal interactions and relationships, even with those who have wounded them so deeply—their default mechanism is to ‘forgive and forget’ and to ‘let bygones be bygones’; in addition to which they have been conditioned to think that it is not ‘lady-like’ to respond hours or days later to such affronts to their dignity, or even much deeper wounds to their “self”, because the ‘time has passed’.

(But the reality—the simple fact of the matter—is that ‘the time has not passed’ at all. They still retain an often wordless memory of having been deeply wounded in that interaction.)

The consequence of which is that, in another few hours, or days, or next week, they will again be demeaned or wounded; they will again be unable to respond appropriately or at all; they will again be required to suffer those indignities and wounds to their “self” for the sake of preserving societal interactions and relationships even with those who have wounded them.

The consequence of which they then create an image of themselves as always being wounded in interpersonal relationships, and as always being bereft of any power.

The consequence of which is that they become completely hopeless in such interactions; while, at the same time, being required to maintain them.

But then her husband, for example, says something to her that is unintentionally demeaning—unintentional because his wife has never told him that it is demeaning; in order, of course, to preserve her relationship with her husband...

And it is ‘Armageddon’.

She immediately ‘goes to general quarters’ and responds with a veritable tsunami or daisy-chain of previous negative experiences she has had with her husband going back days, weeks, years, or even decades.

[The husband’s best response in such situations, of course, is silence; to think very carefully over the next 24-48 hours (quotations of precisely what his wife said are of crucial significance here, because she will often forget or disremember what she actually said) how to attack his wife with the thoughts of a ‘thinker’ (with respect to which his wife has, of course, no defense), and during the thinking of which thoughts the blood will leave his face...

And not to tell his wife any of those thoughts; but, rather, to stand back and explain their interaction, not from the perspective of his consciousness of “self” and ‘thinker’; but, rather, from the perspective of the “observing consciousness”.)

Any further explanation to either men or women is best conveyed in an oral (interactive) teaching.

Michael Joseph Cecil (Chapter 12, verse 1 of the Book of Daniel, Sura 2, verses 97-98 & 285 of the Quran, Column XVII of the Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light & Chapter 3, verse 12 of the Revelation of John) and:

Sarah-->Elijah-->Daniel-->John the Baptist-->Mohammed-->Elizabeth Anne Cecil (Chapter 12, verse 13 of the Book of Daniel and Chapter 11, verse 14 & Chapter 17, verses 10-13 of the Gospel of Matthew(1987) (7th Church) for:

Hagar-->the apostle Mary-->Danielle (1982-1987) (6th Church)

Isaac-->the apostle John-->Robin (1986) (4th Church)

Ishmael-->the apostle Peter-->Cindy (1992) (5th Church)

Jacob-->the apostle Thomas-->Linda (1987- (2nd Church)

Esau-->the apostle, Judas-->Susan (1970) (1st Church)

Isaiah’s wife-->the apostle James-->Kimberly (2000-  (3rd 

No comments: