Why do you want to know ‘what a woman is’? Why does woman or man have to mean anything? Why does it matter? And if it does matter then one ought to be able to prove it, to justify it, and then also justify what female and male ought to be, prove up and down, define true and false, and explain what meaning means. THEY cannot define woman for you without knowing what you mean by all the other words that could be used to define it. They don't know what you mean because you do not know what you mean, you do not even know what meaning means. Your language is impotent. In the ocean of lies their silence on the meaning of woman is perhaps the only truthful gesture.
'What is a woman' is like someone shaking you in a dream to make you think about its meaning and become conscious of how meaning comes into being, instead of compulsively repeating the same forms, inside forms, inside forms that you are dreaming of without being able to fulfil them, to justify them, to own them, and in the process justify yourself, define yourself, prove that you are One Self. Someone is shaking your world to make you aware that you are dreaming, because the shaking signifies the intent to pull one out of a dream, and dreaming of being shaken out of the dream is a realisation of dreaming as dreaming, but without the knowledge of what one could awaken to, as if reality were not created yet. Nevertheless, the reality beyond the dream must include the forms of meaning that made the dream meaningful, but put together differently, more coherently, integrated in a way that would make the distinction between dreaming and reality both meaningful and obvious.
The leap from 'what is a woman' to 'what is anything' is an act of self-refinement, but also an act of creation, or perhaps of discovery of that which is already contained in the forms of the dream but not yet decoded, not yet put together into a meaningful whole that could contextualise our sense of reality as a dream, meaningful in parts but not whole, lacking the integrity of the real. By implication, the self in the dream is not a one Self either but a series of emotional possessions, morphing from one identity into another, all narratively connected to a body but not quite the same, also lacking the integrity of the real.
The You in the dream is a pantheon; nobody is completely in control, nothing completely makes sense, and there is no fundamental principle or standard. To emerge from this dream requires a commitment to a higher standard, one fundamental principle, one version of You that is also the image of every other Self. That common image is neither woman nor man; these are properties of reality, not of the Self. We do not choose what is real, but we can point to its parts, identify them consistently with every other aspect of the real, or misidentify them and thereby fragment the real like an incoherent dream. We can also augment reality, re-create it in narrative continuity with its former states, but we can do so only as integrated selves and only in relation to all other integrated selves, consistent with the common standard of meaning.
It does not suffice to assert that people are deluded, irrational or morally deficient; we are all collectively unreal to a degree, and our unreality manifests as a real deficiency, as irrationality, as madness; the problem is the integrity of our world, or what we take for reality. We have not made it right yet, the world is not finished. We are not finished.
I have a bad habit of throwing wrenches into programs. At one time I suppose I questioned the real, and now cannot escape it, then realize, doing so would have no point.
There is an overarching question to me, which may not mean to others what it means to me, and it is specific to reality, that is, “What do I, what does anyone need?” The answer will be specific to the individual, and to me it is only that, that has value. One cannot escape reality, try as one might.
Big topic succinctly expressed.
"By implication, the self in the dream is not a one Self either but a series of emotional possessions, morphing from one identity into another, all narratively connected to a body but not quite the same, also lacking the integrity of the real."
I agree with you, in general. I don't know about 'emotional possessions' alone, since many are mentally possessed as well. The many identities (parts) and the overall lack of integrity, I am in concert with, which of course emerged within a 'fake' reality and so had to adapt to that environment. I write about this frequently - this relationship between identity and the world. (We're in such a unique time, where what's being dissolved out there, must by necessity, dissolve those identities.)
"It does not suffice to assert that people are deluded, irrational or morally deficient; we are all collectively unreal to a degree, and our unreality manifests as a real deficiency, as irrationality, as madness; the problem is the integrity of our world, or what we take for reality. We have not made it right yet, the world is not finished. We are not finished."
Collectively unreal. Yes, in response to the manufactured world or larger context we find ourselves in. When I listen to narrative believer, I know largely what they'll say when I ask challenging questions. They are in a program, and if you know the program you'll know their responses. It's very A.I. like.
I often feel the Self is not really present in an obvious way (like they don't know how to bring that Realness into the current embodiment, but I sense it). Not always. If they stay in engagement with me despite my throwing a wrench into their program, I take it as evidence that they want that to come in to embodiment, even as they argue with it. Not sure I'm explaining that well.
I suspect having been part of the prevailing narrative - 15 years ago-ish - and coming out of it, I can relate to where they are; fully captured and so prisoners advocating for their prison. It's hard not to be empathetic and root for them. No, the world is not done, but one version of it, is.
I wonder - as an aside - do you read Ed Brenegar's newsletter?
Thank you.