A Trinity of Accomplishment
The production of all things requires three components: the Will, the producing vehicle, and the medium. The Will comes from the masculine principle, the producing comes from the feminine principle, and the medium is substance or matter.
Principles are absolute and complete; they do not contain shadings or degrees. Two and two always totals four, never almost four or roughly four. The acceleration of a falling body due to gravity is 32ft/sec/sec all of the time. A stationary body stays immovable unless a force is applied to it—Always.
In the Universal Principle of Gender there is no such condition of mostly feminine or mostly masculine. The principle at work is purely masculine or purely feminine ?? all of the time. Among humans the degree of pure principle used depends upon the mental and spiritual development of the individual.
Some illustrations of the principle of Gender at work and the resultant manifestation follow:
Masculine Assertive Feminine Receptive Manifestation
anode cathode electricity
sun moon light at night
north pole south pole magnetism
sperm ovum child
farmer earth fruits and vegetables
bull cow milk
force stillness movement
mind law order
goals work accomplishment
In all of the illustrations the acceptance, receptivity, and compliance of the feminine Gender are total and without equivocation. The moon has no choice in reflecting the light of the sun. The ovum has no choice as to which sperm impregnates it. The earth has no choice as to the plants it will grow.
The power of the masculine Gender is also total and unequivocal. The seeds were planted in the earth, the Sun shown on the moon, force was applied to the stationery object. There was no degree of application ?? just application.
The Gender principle is also at work within each person, and each person has access to all the attributes of both Genders. However, the nature of our bodies determines which attributes enable it to best function in harmony.
The body containing the receptive ovum, the nurturing breasts, and the smaller more delicate stature draws unto it the feminine Gender attributes. The body that is broad at the shoulders and more muscular, and that generates what will impregnate the ovum, will draw unto it the masculine Gender attributes. Even though each body has access to all the Gender attributes, those that assist and promote the harmony of the particular body will prevail. A Haitian woman said to me many years ago, “I have the body of a woman, I hope that I have the mind and psyche of one to go along with it.”
To say that the “only” difference between a man and a woman are the organs of sex is akin to saying that the “only” difference between a giraffe and a rabbit is the size of the neck. The difference in the neck size affects the thinking, psyche and activities of these animals. It affects where they eat, how they eat, how they defend themselves, and the color of their skin. Their entire lives are different because of the difference in the size of their necks.
The difference in neck size is not nearly as different as the difference in Gender attributes. As Emmanuel Cellar, former congressman from Brooklyn said many years ago, “There is less difference between a chestnut horse and a horse chestnut, than between a man and a woman.” Congressman Cellar was stating in colloquial terms the Universal Principle of Gender.
We have been taught that the amoeba, that one celled form of life, reproduces itself, a fact that seemingly negates the principle of Gender. At the time that I wrote my book 15 years-ago a notation in a magazine stated that scientists have “discovered” what appears to be Gender in the amoeba. Of course there is Gender in the production of the amoeba. Nothing is produced in our universe without the influence of Gender. It cannot be otherwise.
The masculine Gender wills and the feminine Gender produces. Nothing begins until the masculine Gender Wills it, and nothing is accomplished until the feminine Gender produces it. Working in harmony together through the medium of substance, they create and produce all that is. It can be called a trinity of accomplishment.
Possibly related posts...
I'm also the Chief of Men's Action to Rebuild Society, an organization that not only addresses the issues confronting you, but takes action to resolve these issues. | More from Elder George
Stumble It!
Cons, my friend, re #47. Good post.
What I’m learning from all this is that there is a leadership vacuum, or perhaps just a perceived leadership vacuum. I’m fairly new to this, but I think there has to be someone better out there to follow than EG. If not, men’s rights activists are in trouble. How many people will want to support EG? Just a small band of ardent supporters?
We don’t all need to have the same leader, but why are some trying so hard to get us all to rally behind the one man, EG?
Why is it that when some of EG’s points are refuted, people won’t admit that?
Since EG is taking on a leadership role, why doesn’t he define himself more clearly so those that are into what he is into can follow him, and those who aren’t can find somebody else?
Instead of some people defending EG ‘religiously’, it would be more constuctive to survey who else is out there and what they have to offer.
Things that will work better than mysticism:
1. Write letters to politicians, newspapers, etc.
2. Hand out fliers exposing the lies of feminists and injustices of the system.
3. Bumper stickers.
4. Signs.
5. T-shirts.
6. Advertising.
7. Tell your friends about *various* leaders, and let each one get behind the one that he wants to support.
I know who I am and I am comfortable with who I am. I don’t need to search for a meaning of masculinity to help me define myself. What I’m learning is that due to all the gender confusion, some people do.
I think that EG just adds to the confusion. EG’s articles are so error prone I don’t see how they help. They just seem to confuse the issue. What I’m beginning to realize is that some people, probably young people, have latched onto EG because they need someone to look up to and they don’t know where else to turn. I can’t tell them who else to turn to regarding activism because I am just learning myself. But in terms of understanding masculinity, the list of books I offered is more sensible and also practical for everyday living.
I’m all for celebrating manhood. Why would anyone think I’m not?
Who thinks being a man is just about hunting and scratching genitals? Do EG’s followers think that the only alternatives to EG are (i) feminism, (ii) hunting and scratching genitals, or (iii) being a gender-bender as SK keeps saying?
What I’m learning from this discussion is that people don’t know where else to turn.
So maybe the discussion should be about what other leaders are out there and what practical things are being done that men can get behind.
The Objectors’ perspective is two-fold, says MMX # 37. The first is the “I’m offended that Elder ___________” …. “But the second was revealed when I asked them to come up with their own definitions.”
These are furphies. I object to EG’s message purely on the basis that there is no supporting proofs for his assertions. I am not offended in the slightest by EG. As for suggesting alternatives, why on earth should anyone suggest an alternative to unsupported nonsense when the alternative is in EG’s own hands.
MMX, re your # 45. You are putting all kinds of words in my mouth.
If you envision a band of automatons in supporting the basic premise here well, have a good day. I assure you that each of us, this little group that you so readily dismiss, has taken EG to task on aspects of these posts and beliefs. I speak for myself when I say I am not seeking a movement or leader that parallels some strange religiosity. I read EG’s book and found that, with an open mind, I bended, I changed my view ever so slightly.
You sarcastic digressers are in some cases saying things I said, and even would still agree with. But it hurts the baby when he hits the pavement with the bathwater you’ve tossed out folks.
I cannot speak form anyone but me, but I assure you, I do not practice yoga, I poke fun at organic food, you will not see me meditating, and I take vitamins but see doctors and take medicine as needed. The east versus west is a distraction. I fell to that as well. But if being a man ONLY means we like to scratch our genitals, go hunting, and talk less, then I’m going to but into feminism too.
These articles are attempting to define us…not each and every one of us perfectly, but in general.
Let me say it this way. I am a Christian man. (therefore while clever the whole Egism thing is silly)
I do not subscribe to Mormonism. BUT, I see the Mormons as putting their faith in action in far superior ways to Christians. They have metaphorically perfected the notion of a barn raising looking after their own. I credit them that while not agreeing with the religion.
What is wrong with celebrating manhood folks? What are men infidel? Who are we and what must we do? Should we write letters and change laws? Should we post signs and write letters to tge editor?
Good luck with that.
MMX, you’re still here when you could be supporting worthier leaders?
scottkirk – Yes, given that The Objectors don’t really understand the message, they can’t be objecting to it. They’re instead objecting to the audacity behind it. “How dare Elder create a message that doesn’t care about appeasing certain peoples’ feelings?”
Well, to make an omelet…
Infidel – You’re still here fighting EGism when you could be out there fighting much worthier opponents?
E.G. is a man of action!!!
he grew up prior to 1950 feminist indoctrination…
His message seems foreign to most!!
His generation of men don’t share the modern middle aged mans fear of P.C.
MMX said: “I’m offended that Elder’s message cannot explain how stars came into existence!”
I am not offended by that. I just asked a question for EG. So where is the answer? Who says I was offended? Stop putting words in my mouth.
infidel — You’re still here fighting EGism when you could be out there fighting much worthier opponents?
SK said: “His message is a message that will defnatelly shake the foundations of a violent, barbaric matriarchy!”
Feminism is a house of cards/lies. Lots of people have ripped it to shreds. Who needs EG’s religion for that? EG seems to be more interested in metaphysics than attacking feminism. He just seems to be using this site to win converts.
MMX, usually the point by point style is difficult for me to read to be honest, though admittedly I would concur with most of your arguments and the way you make them. That last post was great. As I realized some time ago, people react to the micro, and have a tough time with the uber-macro. “Whats in it for me?” or “How am I impacted by this?”
I do not expect everyone to bring their own “message”, nor is it reasonable to think everyone will fall in behind a message. But I can say with absolute certainty that reading Glenn Sacks daily diatribe of stories about hoisted men, then piling on and bitching is perhaps threraputic but little more. Ive always marveled at liberals and their awareness raising campaigns. Sure thats a first step but I think, DUH, what next?
I’ll invite Mike’s scorn by saying action must follow. Ray Blumhorst acts. He is doing something. So may are typing a lot of words that say , “yea yea, that really sucks man, look at what she did to me!”
EG could just moan about society and he’d be everyones friend. He certainly has the ability to write in a way that gets folks going. If he wants a choir to preach at he needs to start reporting on the horrors of the local family court. If however he wants to inspire folks he will do what he does.
Strange how the world is ready to worship a friggin tea cup, but cannot stomach simple observations about mans nature.
If any of these folks doing the objections are so into tangible manifestation as a needed factor, then if they are Christians they must be attending one of the many charismatic churches where MEN create from whole cloth all kinds of “acts of God”.
Keep handling the snakes folks….but they still bite!
MMX said: “So, it’s highly significant that none of Elder’s critics can develop their own definitions….”
This was refuted in the comments on the last thread. I refer people there.
MMX you are blowing smoke like a chimney.
Steve said: “As to what in the heck EG is aiming at, I’m at a loss; but then, I haven’t read the book…”
Steve, you’ll learn more reading the comments on the last few articles EG has written than you will reading his book. EGism has been torn to shreds, but he and his indoctrinated followers still keep acting like he is right, dodging questions and repeating bad arguments over and over.
They have resorted to blowing smoke, it’s all they have left.
When I asked those who dislike Elder’s message to come up with thier own definitions of gender, I was testing elder’s basci gender characteristics.
Elder produced his own definitions. Producing one’s own ideas is a highly masculine act. So, taking from his list of masculine qualities, we have: abstract thinking, activeness, ambition, conditional love, constancy, contemplation, courage, creativity, daring, dependability, discipline, force, independence, individuality, knowledge, leadership, originality, pioneering spirit, positivity, progressiveness, spirituality, stability, and will-power. Except for conditional love, I see all of those qualities in his very act of creating a message.
So, it’s highly significant that none of Elder’s critics can develop their own definitions. It’s not necessarily that their incapable of being masculine, but rather they lead with feminine ideals at the expense of masculine ones.
When you look at Elder’s list of feminine ideals, these ones jump out: accommodation, adaptability, caring, companionship, consideration, cooperation, diplomacy, friendliness, gentility, giving, harmony, industriousness, informative, materialism, nurturing, receptivity, responsiveness, rhythm, visual thinking, and unconditional love.
The Objectors’ perspective is two-fold.
The first is the “I’m offended that Elder ___________” After all, that is the core of what the Objectors have to offer: complaints that Elder’s message does something really terrible, or fails to do something really good, or hurts the feelings and sensibilities of some poor innocent victims. Usually all three, and sometimes streched to extremes. (“I’m offended that Elder’s message cannot explain how stars came into existence!”)
But the second was revealed when I asked them to come up with their own definitions. People who take great notice of when someone offends someone else isn’t going to want to appear hypocritical by offending others. (This means that their standard of proof says, “If you cannot 100% prove that it can make 100% of the people happy 100% of the time, then it’s bad! Can GOD even do that?)
So what message exists which offends 0% of the people, 100% of the time? That’s easy. No message at all! Think about it. If no one can connect you with any message, (because you don’t have one!), then no one can possibly be offended by anything you say.
Nice, huh?
Except it isn’t. By dropping out of the game, and having no message, you’re granting dominance to whomever has a message plus the force to back it up. Right now, it’s the anti-male judicial system.
So, really, there’s only two choices. (1) Support Elder’s mesage if you like it. (2) Come up with your own message and support that.
But do recognize that asking Elder about star matter does exactly nothing to deter our common enemy: the nasty political system we have now. I hope everyone, whether supporter or objector of Elder’s message, will keep that in mind.
infidel…The benefit to others is that they can see the disease of EGism for what it is.
His message is a message that will defnatelly shake the foundations of a violent, barbaric matriarchy!!
Virtue, as to the hormonal differences, YES the presence of testosterone and estrogen in proportion in men and women DOES explain some differences.
You asked your question as if a yes answer impeached (I love the pet phrase) EGists. So I said yes, I agree with your point.
Explain my impeachment now.
Infidel, tell me of the positrons! Please.
infidel — “MMX, I think you know that the purpose of the question was to refute EGism because it cannot answer the question.”
But that’s a cheap tactic. Suppose you asked for permission to date my daughter, and I said, “If you can tell me how many angels can fit ont he head of a pin, then you can date her. But if not, get out.” Is that fair? Of course not.
Your question is gnat-sized, maybe smaller. It also ignores what Elder’s message can accomplish by foolishly postulating that his message “had better know about the production of stars for it to be effective!
Let’s see how this works…
Shall I go to a hospital and snatch a newborn baby from her mother’s arms, unless she can answer your question?
Wait, there’s a man being sued for child support. Hey, if he can’t answer the question, let’s make him pay four year’s salary a month!
That is, after all, the implication of YOUR question. You created it, so why not take responsibility for it?
When I used to post on askmen.com, I would give the people little tasks, to see how they reacted to them.
One of my better moments on there came when I took a very nasty misogynistic piece and posted it. The problem with that piece was that some of it, maybe 25% of it was true, while 75% of it was hateful nonsense. My simple task, to all of the women on the board, was to do their best to separate the 25% good stuff from the 75% horrible stuff.
The really nasty women on the board didn’t even bother. Instead, they try to use these strong-sounding, but very empty one-liners to close the discussion by getting the last word in.
The excellent women, on the other hand, put their souls into it. They picked quotes, added their opinions, compared their answers to the ones which came before. They built up a sweat and moved the problem forward, while the nasty women put forth no effort and tried to end all discussion.
And so, on that day, the young men of the board learned the difference between a keeper and a throw-it-back: effort, effort, and more effort.
MMX said: “Infidel — What affect will answering your question about the stars have on the world as a whole? How will it benefit the world for you to find that out?”
MMX, I think you know that the purpose of the question was to refute EGism because it cannot answer the question. The fact that you try to evade and obscure that point should help MND readers see the weakness in your arguments.
The benefit to others is that they can see the disease of EGism for what it is.
SK, re your post # 28, I told you on the last thread that I’m not a “gender bender”, and I’m certainly not PC either. Must you misrepresent EG’s critics to defend EG? What does that say about the strength of your arguments?
Also, it is simply false to say all matter is a relationship between electrons and protons. There are other particles that make up matter, like neutrons, positrons, etc.
To equate male/female to protons/electrons makes no sense. Does that make neutrons homosexual since they are neither positive or negative? If they are homosexual, are they gay or lesbian? Or are there two kinds, gay neutrons and lesbian neutrons? The whole thing is dumb. Please think before posting.
SK said: “Infidel…One is not qualified to attack others if that individual offers no other plausible alternatives …”
SK, surely you must know that I answered this question several times on the previous thread.
infidel…all matter is a relationship between protons and electrons..
yin/yang….
male/female…
the new P.C. “gender bender” crowd will refute this forever!!
infidel — What affect will answering your question about the stars have on the world as a whole? How will it benefit the world for you to find that out?
EG said: “Nothing is produced in our universe without the influence of Gender. It cannot be otherwise.”
EG, how were the stars produced? Did a daddy star and a mommy star have sex and produce a baby star? If not, how did gender come into it?
infidel…wheres youre grand, enlightening philosophy of gender???
One is not qualified to attack others if that individual offers no other plausible alternatives …
maybee you should leave the critiqeing of E.G.’s philosophies to one more qualified!!
infidel — Did you watch the video of Team Hoyt yet? If so, what do you think of my analysis? If not, then you’re abandoning critical thinking and are instead resorting to insults.
Come to the temple of EG and check your brain in at the door. Recklessly toss critical thinking to the wind. Just have faith in EG when he says the truth is within you, then let him dump this falsehoods into your mind.
how about we test E.G.’s general philosophy of chaos resulting from the lack of the masculine presense in american politics!!
Maybee we can just assert enough masculine energy to say for starters to equal out the funding bias between male/female medical research..
Maybee we can assert just enough masculine energy to work on not sending innocent fathers/men/boys to jail to meet some feminist domestic violence funding quotas…
maybee we can assert just enough masculine energy……….
Mike LaSalle – Whose craw would your “Life = Male + Female” example stick with, and why?
cons – Nice point. Reminds me of the whole, “Get me a pizza, and step on it!” joke I made earlier.
Hi Steve – I think this is a very important point:
I have talked a lot about Professor Frank Tipler’s work on his mathematical proof for the existence of Almighty God – the Omega Point Theory.
In his article, The Omega Point and Christianity, Tipler details some of the miracles of the New Testament, and provides some very startling hypotheses to explain their occurrence and meaning.
On the topic of the Virgin Birth, for example, Tipler has calculated the possibilities for parthenogenesis in a human female, and found that such an event is ENTIRELY WITHIN THE REALM OF THE POSSIBLE.
Tipler also provides “reasonable” (read: materialistic) explanations for walking on water, the Resurrection, and even the Incarnation of God in the body of the man Jesus.
Tipler addresses gender topics as well (though it may not please a lot of people to hear of his conclusions).
One of Tipler’s most striking assertions (which he made in his classic text, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle) is that life itself can be defined as “self-reproduction with error correction.”
“Note that a single human being does not satisfy the above sufficient condition to be considered living, but it is made up of cells some of which do satisfy it. A MALE-FEMALE PAIR would collectively be a system capable of self-reproduction, and so this system would satisfy the condition.” (emphasis mine)
-The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, 1986, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, p. 515.
It seems obvious enough, doesn’t it? But I’ll bet this definition will stick in some people’s craw: for sexually reproducing creatures like us (not withstanding the occasional human birth by parthenogenesis) Life=Male+Female
Mike you could say that about any word that was, lets say, one of what could be argued is defining of the concept in question. I understand it has meanings. I subscribe to the notion that wordas mean things and have zero problem with that. In fact I tend to question people along those same lines.
But, having gone round and round w/ EG myself over things, I suggest in the context I see it, other words can be substituted to get to what the whole sentence(s) means.
I don’t see Gender as the “god” of what has been called EG’s religion. I’ve taken my own issues with the fascinations with things eastern, as you know. If I thought for a minute that we were headed for a meditative state, a rickshaw (sp?) and some robes I’d run like hell. Selling flowers at an airport isnt in my future.
A loose example of my thinking would be that I surely am not bought and sold into the Republican platform as it reads. Though I register as one and even donate and work along those lines. For me here is the same with EG.
Steve Farrell — Thanks for the compliment and example. The greatest thing about Mr. Hoyt is that he KNEW the Truth when his son ws born: That it would be best if he were to bring him home and treat him like a normal child.
Mike LaSalle — Artfldgr, in a thread about Child Support, spoke of “shamanistic thinking”, the notion that if only one could “get” the “thing” that makes one “successful”, then they’ll be so. (Kind of like how you want the simple definition, so you can eat it, and get Elder’s message.) But the definition doesn’t make the message readily comprehensible. Instead, there’s the inherent ability to work with the message, as life presents examples to you.
Quotes from Elder’s “Gender Characteristics”
Masculine Traits – abstract thinking, activeness, ambition, conditional love, constancy, contemplation, courage, creativity, daring, dependability, discipline, force, independence, individuality, knowledge, leadership, originality, pioneering spirit, positivity, progressiveness, spirituality, stability, and will-power.
Mr. Hoyt was able to hold on to his son, because he displayed the characteristics highlighted in bold.
However, if he had chosen to put his son in an institution, he would’ve instead appealed to his own: accommodation, consideration, friendliness, gentility, materialism, nurturing, receptivity, and responsiveness.
He wouldn’t have faith in his own ability, so he would’ve easily accepted the conventional wisdom given to him. (The bold list above is, of course, a list of feminine traits.)
conserv – EG used the term “Universal Principle of Gender”.
The word “principle” is not an arbitrary word thrown in for good measure like salt in the soup. The word “principle” has an actual meaning that cannot be replaced with any other word.
If you’re going to write something employing a grandiose “Universal Principle of Gender”, you could at least tell us what in Allah’s name you’re talking about.
(I’m also intrigued by Infidel’s comment #4 above… wherein he notes EG’s promotion of “Gender” to the status of a mystical force, while simultaneously downplaying the notion of a singular monotheistic Creator. It’s a fair point, and suggests the possibility that EG is a pagan of sorts. Not that there’s anything wrong with that…but it would be nice to know.)
Virtue: my “theory” on the changes due to age, is that when God commanded us to be one, he gave this as an aid to married couples, that over time they come to understand each other better, and more unified in the important things.
MMX: Nice dissertation – especially the insight at the end on whether or not Mr. Hoyt would have thought it was worth it had he “not” succeeded. It reminds me of a talk entitled: “But if Not,” which built upon Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego’s bold declaration of faith before King Nebuchadnezzar:
“Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter.17 If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king.18 But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.”
But if not … is one of the ultimate tests of faith, isn’t it?
As to what in the heck EG is aiming at, I’m at a loss; but then, I haven’t read the book, and as for all things MND, I’m still trying to catch up, get educated, find time to read a few classics, with a dictionary in my lap. Yeah, and well, I sometimes need a dictionary when I’m reading MND; that’s why I just installed one in my Firefox bar.
Mike, when I listen to you, I feel like I need to study this “Discovering Arguments: An Introduction to Critical Thinking and Writing with Readings” (by Memering and Palmer) that sits on my shelf. It might do me some good, if I can just find the time.
Is testosterone a masculine or femininee hormone?
Is estrogen a masculine or feminine hormone?
Do humans of either sex have BOTH hormones in their bodies at any given time? (excluding levels due to age)
Does this help explain how men and women can have aspects that are usually paired with the other gender?
I’m not Shadow Boxing at all. I’m giving you one of the most amazing and concrete examples of how the masculine principle of Faith actually works.
Here’s how.
Q1. What did the Doctors tell the Mr. Hoyt to do when his son was born?
They told Mr. Hoyt that they should put his son in an institutionf rom the moment he was born.
Q2. What arguments did they use?
They said the son would never learn to walk, never learn to taljk,a nd would never live a fully functional life. Implied behind this are two controversial principles: (a) that fully functional human begins are more valuable than the handicapped, and (b) that parents have the right to make their lives less burdensome if their child doesn’t mean their expectations for functionality.
Q3. Do you think the Doctor’s arguments were sound and logical?
Sure! Isn’t it obvious that the kid will never learn to walk? Just look at this materialistic x-ray that shows his permanently malformed bones! Isn’t it obvious that the kid will never learn to talk? Look at this materialistic CAT scan that shows the malformed nervous connections! Quite frankly, Mr. Hoyt, if you insist on taking this boy home, you will be rejecting materialistic proof, rejecting the advice of the best medical practictioners, and asserting that YOU are better than the scientific method!
Q4. What did Mr. Hoyt have that empowered him to resist the advice?
Faith in what the Doctors couldn’t see! Faith in his own determination to give his son a better life. Faith in God’s word that says “ALL children are God’s children”. Faith in God’s promise that He will work miracles on behalf of those who believe in Him.
In the battle between materialistic proof and faith in God – who won, Mike?
Q5. “If Mr. Hoyt coukd’ve looked into the future and known, with 100% certainty, that his decision to raise the boy and give him a normal life would work out exactly the way it did, would it still be the greatest love story of all time? Why or why not?
Absolutely not! By far the most amazing thing about Team Hoyt is that Mr. Hoyt had no way of knowing it would turn out that way! Because, if he HAD known, then his path wouldn’t have been one of faith, but of knowledge.
If he had known how it would’ve all worked out, then he would’ve “simply been doing his job” or “trading in the agony for the guarantee of becoming a hero”. But, without the guarantee, Mr. Hoyt’s battle was a spiritual one of faith.
Moreover, I contend that, because of his faith, Mr. Hoyt would’ve been perfectly happy if no one would’ve ever noticed what he was doing. His child’s happiness confirmed his faith, and that’s ALL Mr. Hoyt needed.
If the son would’ve never learned to talk, would Mr. Hoyt still think his decision was worth it? YES. If the son had never gotten a degree, would Mr. Hoyt still think his decision was worth it? YES. If the son and father had never gotten on to national television, would Mr. Hoyt still think his decision was worth it? YES!
Elder says, “”Truth is an unseen quality that emanates from the masculine principle.”
Where did the Truth in Mr. Hoyt’s case, come from? Not the visible X-Rays and CAT scans. Not in the medical degrees. Not in the years of doctoring expeience. Not in the popular consensus, which would’ve put the son in an institution. Not in the legal system, which provides parents with the “right” to put children in insitutions.
So where was the Truth? It was in Mr. Hoyt’s faith. Can you measure it? Can you rig a machine to see so that we can all see it? No and no, because faith is unseen, unmeasureable – just like a man’s masculinity is.
But don’t make the mistake to say that Mr. Hoyt’s faith didn’t exist, simply because there’s no machine by which to measure it. Same goes for a man’s masculinity.
Mike:
I’m not weighing in on this exact debate, but when you originally posted your thesis on the word Principle I asked that you simply try a different word…like concept or attribute or whatever you like.
How often do you dissect someones point by expounding on the definition of one word they use?
MMX – you are shadow boxing.
I have already gone over this in previous posts, but will repeat for general benefit:
EG has assserted a “Universal Principle of Gender”.
Here’s a good definition of the term “Principle” as a descriptor of an archetypal condition:
Thus “laws” occur in the context of a pre-existing “principle”. This is true whether we are talking about human law or natural law.
The codification of laws is a relatively new phenomenon in human experience.
Codification was a necessary precursor to the establishment of certain human liberties that most of us now take for granted.
I dare say most all conceptual innovations in human liberty were made by Western minds. From the codification of laws, to the establishment of the Magna Carta and English law, Habeas Corpus, and even in the libertarian implications of Protestantism.
EG’s use of the term “principle” is not credible because he has provided no single definition, but only a vague assertion that depends entirely on the readers’ credulity.
Mike LaSalle – It absolutely does!
Q1. What did the Doctors tell the Mr. Hoyt to do when his son was born?
Q2. What arguments did they use?
Q3. Do you think the Doctor’s arguments were sound and logical?
Q4. What did Mr. Hoyt have that empowered him to resist the advice?
Q5. If Mr. Hoyt coukld’ve looked into the future and known, with 100% certainty, that his decision to raise the boy and give him a normal life would work out exactly the way it did, would it still be the greatest love story of all time? Why or why not?
MMX – #5 -
That’s a great anecdote, but it in no way qualifies as a succinct and explicit definition of EG’s “Universal Principle of Gender” (whatever that is).
And Thurston – go jump in a lake.
Interesting supposition. I’m curious though, how does asking the author to cut through all of the etherial solipsism and give a straight and tangible answer classify as “belliegerent and abusive”? All of this wishy washy stuff about the Truth is known except when it’s unknowable because the Masculine Principle guides the feminine that is all around us. Pfah! Reminds me of the Pseudo mysticism of the Hari Krishnas and the failed burnouts you’d see in a university sophistry exercise.
What do all of these empty words actually do? Gender attributes indeed! This reminds me of nothing more than one of Oprah’s book readings and the affirmation of feelings b.s. Instead of writing bout the attributes of gender, how about actually doing something that might have an impact, such as writing to your local and state representatives. It might not accomplish a lot, but it will be more effective than a dissertation on the Masculine Principle.
infidel — The video I posted proves Elder’s stance on gender. Did you look at it? It really IS the greatest love story of all time, after all.
EG has a hypothesis about how gender works in nature. It is unproven. Science also uses hypotheses, but in science the hypotheses are tested by experimentation, and observation. In science, hypotheses are also examined for internal consistency. We call this using logic.
Science tries to prove things but EG says the truth can’t be proven. Yet, when it suits him, EG uses a few facts from science as he understands it.
To find out what scientists have learned about asexual reproduction, which occurs in bacteria, archaea, protoists, plants, and fungi, the following link is informative and more complete than EG’s discussion of amoebas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction
scottkirk — The major thing men have lost is faith. But the opposite of faith is NOT faithlessness, but something else. I’ll speak more about it later, because I’m curious to see how people react to the video.
Mike LaSalle – Perhaps this is your answer?
It’s the greatest love story of all time. Watch the video and tell me how it answers your question.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flRvsO8m_KI
EG said: “The masculine Gender wills and the feminine Gender produces. …. Working in harmony together through the medium of substance, they create and produce all that is. It can be called a trinity of accomplishment.”
Wow! They create and produce all that is. The whole universe.
Sure sounds like a religion to me, so why doesn’t EG just admit that?
It’s interesting how EG capitalizes ‘Gender’ but puts ‘creator’ (see previous articles) in lower case. Is Gender the god of his religion?
Men are women, girls are boys, gay is straight in terms of paranting, the state is daddy and the moms are mommy and daddy, those without are entitled, those with are raped by the state, men have less rights than pets….
What society to save???
maybee thats why we are continually subjected to societal chaos…The males have lost the will to save society!!!
Nice poem.
At the risk of beating a dead horse, is there a succinct and explicit definition of your “Universal Principle of Gender”?