I agree completely with your assessment of David Deida. I'm not interested in his work, but am just reading him as part of my own research. I fail to see what Deida's writings have to do with transcendence or spiritual enlightenment, which is all about transcending roles and dualities, not reinforcing them. Every genuine spiritual teacher tells us that the soul has no sex, race, nationality, etc. etc. The soul encompasses both the masculine and the feminine principle and thus each individual always has both aspects, unless they repress one of them (Jung's anima/animus concept comes to mind here).

I myself am a student of the Indian philosopher-sage Sri Aurobindo Ghose and the French occultist-mystic Mirra Alfassa -- read their writings for some common sense teachings on gender, i.e. that instead of trying to be a "real man" or a "real woman", we should just focus on being individuals and unique instruments of the Divine. As a woman, I am amazed at times when I see women buying into this "men are from Mars, women are from Venus" nonsense.

I'm very comfortable with masculine and feminine sides of my nature, dominant and submissive, aggressive and passive, grasping and ungrasping, strong and weak, etc. So playing one over the other with such fervor and consistency that it becomes a lifestyle or something just seems like monotony, and it totally kills real spontaneity. It may satisfy impulses and roles, but real spontaneity (the intuitive, non-reactive kind) is about resonance and compatibility, and just has nothing to do with such planned out forms like traditional gender roles or BDSM.

I think that apart from Jungian notions of the "opposites within", Transactional Analysis also has a lot to offer on this subject. People projecting one part of themselves onto others because it either feels like a taboo thing for you to indulge in it yourself, or because it's taboo for you to identify purely as its opposite while letting the other person play a role you are tired of.

As far as gender goes, we need to not be in denial of the masculine/feminine duality that exists in this divided universe, while also not resigning ourselves to it and considering it eternal or final. Frankly even the term "feminism" seems divisive to me. It implies that this is some reality that is necessarily separate from masculinism. It doesn't point out integrations, it points out an alternative to masculinism that is merely an opposite. Half the time it's just a disguise for women acknowledging their masculine half and then glorifying it, even while complaining about it in men. It's terribly disjointed. Gender issues are peppered with that kind of dualism, because people feel overly concerned about identifying with a particular gender, or overly concerned with NOT identifying with a particular gender, etc. Either way, people look at gender as a limiting, oppressive force rather than something they will naturally identify with one moment and not the next. People give it power by emphasizing either its presence or absence, it's power or lack of power. Because either way, they're still talking about it like a stark reality. What we really need to do is to find the center within where all these oppositions and dualities are alchemically transmuted. *That's* transcendence, and David Deida does not discuss this at all.

Deida's teachings pertain to what Sri Aurobindo calls the "vital being" -- the seat of desire, the will to power, the desire to possess and be possessed. Now some people may need that sort of thing, and I never interfere with people's lives or tell them what to do. But really this has nothing to do with soul-level resonance, harmony and love, or with transcendence. The truth is that nobody can complete anybody. Marriage merely helps us recognize the wholeness that is already there within -- it does not and cannot "create" wholeness.

The soul that can learn to live totally alone with itself will meet God, and that is the route to true intimacy -- when you can see everyone else within the Divine and relate to them on that level. As long as we keep building up vitalistic attachments, trying to possess others and be possessed by them -- which is all that Deida's sexology is about, I'm afraid -- we'll never truly become enlightened.

I do wonder about that. I am a women and I have a strong direction for myself outside of the home. I also feel what David Deida says about women and love is pretty right on, for me at least. I want both . I would like a man who wants both too, a strong direction for himself outside the home and a lot of love and commitment inside our relationship too. I can do both. We can do both. I want freedom and purpose, but it's not my first priority. ( I already feel like I have freedom and purpose so that may be why I don't need to look for it ) I feel best pursuing love and family.
But both are important.
I think it's moire fluid that some people get from Deida's work. The 3 stages are differing day to day or as life needs. We can pursue our own direction during the day ( with a kind of genderless in the business world , if we want to , although I like being very womanly at work too ) and then come home to a wild, sexy polarized home life. Perhaps this is the ideal. But after dating a string of guys I wouldn't let tie my shoes much less direct my life , I would love to meet a man with a mission, purpose . Men with purpose also tend to like commit too. It takes a certain commitment to even explore these issues in a relationship.

Deida's been much more clear in his recent work of characterizing these differences as being between the Masculine and the Feminine, and that we both have both aspects, and that there's nothing wrong or abnormal about women taking a masculine role or men taking a feminine role. And many do.

But the essence of third-stage masculine and feminine is that it transcends _and includes_ the 2nd stage, where each gender adopts the characteristics of the other. Masculine beings can be nurturers, can be about agape and connection; but they can also, _having developed_ those capacities, go on to _choose_ to inhabit a clearly masculine role in a relationship, or in their work at the office, or elsewhere. They also have the choice to take on more feminine roles. It is that consciousness and choice that distinguishes third-stage masculine from first-stage unreconstructed patriarchs - and it is the _fear_ of making a choice to be masculine, out of shame for the sins of patriarchy, that distinguishes a second-stage masculine from a more healthy, integrated third stage brother.

The point of examining and describing these roles isn't to cast anyone into them - but instead to offer positive archetypes for how we can choose to embrace our own masculine and feminine energy, in a way that's hot and exciting in our relationships and also in a way that's deeply meaningful in our lives.

Mac:

My own personal opinion is that you misunderstand Dieda’s teachings, trying to fit them into your preexisting cognitive framework rather than making much headway into what they are actually saying. I also think that many of your fundamental assumptions in the conversation are fucked. I have many other higher priotities in my life however besides writing out something for this tribe taking apart your assertions, and I think that most everyone else in the tribe already gets it.

I appreciate that this recent post shows more of an effort to actually engage and discuss, rather than to dump and aggress. I as moderator have however warned you in the past about insulting the members of this tribe. And I have warned you what the consequence would be.

> On reflection and more experiencet that short answer about Deida that I come
> through is that he is either not a deep thinker or unable to convey the depth of
> his thought in writing. Fortunately for him, most of his fans either cannot tell
> the difference or do not care.

I’d call that an insult to the people in this tribe.

So - down comes the banhammer. You seem to have conveniently removed yourself from this tribe, but please know that any future posts by you here will be deleted.

Good luck to you, may you find what you seek.

Adam