All posts tagged sedentary

[Yes, that’s “Meh,” not men. As in, Bill: “Hey, Bob, how your sack hanging?”—-Bob: “Meh.”]

I haven’t written much in this deal lately. Not sure why. Nothing much to say, I guess, recently that would sound very different to (yet pale copies of) other entries, and aside from that, I haven’t been able to wind myself up, mood-wise, to get pissed about anything. (No, been out of weed for a while; that ain’t it.)

Translation: my mood’s been even and it’s been hard to get worked up. At times I get worked up when I see something stupid—

*It Is My Solemn Sworn Duty In This Life To Point Out All That Which I Find Foolish, Hypocritical, And Utter Bullshit*

—or provide an alternate view on something, or, obviously, insert the so-much-needed masculine or male point of view wherever it’s lacking, and it’s always lacking in this completely lopsided world.

Further translation: it’s been difficult getting angry lately because I feel pretty ‘good’ (this word is so worn-out and silly) all around, and am gradually getting closer to being in the exact position I need to be in, in order to leave for the Coast.

“Why do you need to be worked up or angry?”

Because I believe that human expression is best when it’s passionate—this doesn’t mean sexually, to which most people seem to limit its meaning, but rather…I dunno. I call it “fire.” Fire within; spark, drive, aggressively but constructively forcing your energy out, like skin cleansing its pores. “Cleansing” indeed, because that’s what it’s like. There’s scarsely anything I hate more than bland, dull, mediocre blather, small talk and chit chat; trivium. Or, as my sister would say, talk about “happy stuff.” It’s like a flat-line on a heart monitor; monotone, tedious, irrelevant, lifeless and soulless. Spiritless—even better.

“Doesn’t that increase blood pressure and stress, isn’t it unhealthy?”


“SO…don’t you want to take care of yourself?”


“Why!? Um…I dunno, so you can live a rich and fulfilling life maybe…?”

1. Why would I want that? 2. And why is that relative to health?

“1. Because that’s what humans are supposed to do! 2. Because we should live as long as possible and ty to be happy while we’re here, how ’bout?”

1. Who says? And what wisdom is so grand that I should obey such a rule?

2. “Should?” Again, who says? If I want to absorb every speck of information in the world before the age of 45 and ignite it like gun powder within my mind to create something other than what we see every single prosaic day, in every single prosaic way, then that’s far better. Far better to live short, hard and fast, and blow your mind through the stratosphere than live a long, comfy, safe, boring existence as a human drone; sheep. Slaves watching TV…hampsters running on wheels…dogs chasing rubber balls in the backyard, barking at shadows…

I prefer quality over quantity.

3. How ’bout not? “Happiness” is simply meaningless; a word, which is an illusion, that leads one—absolutely without fail—back to unhappiness and sadness. It’s a drug, and you always come down from it because drugs aren’t real and never last: drugs and addictions are an unwise basis for deeming your average mood or, in particular, overall human “state.” State of being. I’m striving to limit my addictions ultimately to food, water, air, before I die. When I am empty, here, at last, I’ll be complete—hopefully just before I die—when I have utterly nothing left but these three things, wanting and needing nothing else, that’s when my life transcends all other versions of my previous states of existence. No one seeking “happiness”—an extended period of joy—has ever “reached it.” Are you kidding me? It’s called chasing the dragon—might as well get yourself some herion or jerk off or eat some candy-covered cholocate-banana-flavoured sugar, because it’s exactly the same.

(Non-happy is what I seek, and I haven’t felt unhappy in some time…can’t even recall the last depressive period I had.) It’s a dog chasing its tail—futile ego pursuits….Be a slave, a “happiness junkie,” to your own brain chemistry if you want. I’ll choose the hard way and do without.

“1. Nobody ‘says’—it’s just common sense! 2. That’s risky and foolish! 3. That’s completely silly!”

1. Most people are barely self-aware and miserable, entirely entangled in, consumed by, and blind within, their own egos, and merely act a part—they invent a self-commercial of how they should be and fine-tune it until others swallow the deception, until they fit in, gain praise for it, and seem outwardly “normal,” while inside they’re crying like little kids still, scared and confused, in the spiritless deserts of their souls praying for rain; it’s not who they really are.

That is common; “common” can rot. That does not make sense to me. I’ll be “me,” thanks, and no one else. (The next time someone in real life tells me something I “should” do or be, I’m gonna spit in their eye.)

2. No one gains anything in life without risking first—courage comes from doing (not talking about doing) and is earned after recklessness and risk. It’s only as foolish as you are cowardly. A tiny child hiding under its bed, wishing the scary noises would go away.

Fuck off. I’ll walk out and find that noise—and if it’s a large hairy monster with red eyes and big glowing fangs, I’ll smile right back and say, “What up, beasty?” Maybe offer it some orange juice and a game of chess or something. To do otherwise is to live in fear, as an infant, and I’m beyond that. I prefer to grow up and remain so, to face it all and dare it to do its worst. I shall endure it all and smile afterwards, expanding as I do so, or die trying; and if death comes, it comes—it will anyway—so what? Why is that ‘bad’ and not completely natural?…why run away from it? This is the opposite of chasing the dragon—it’s believing a dragon is chasing you, my friend. I have other things to chase, real things.

Go ahead and tippy-toe about through life, sheltered from all suffering and unpleasantness and so much ickiness, if you want, buddy. I’m running out to meet that shit head-on.

3. I can see that you insist upon seeing it that way, so further conversation is pointless. Your mind is not open, enslaved by ego, wanting approval, acceptance, praise and to avoid shame…you have no awareness of all that’s holding you back; what little respect you must have for your own intelligence and personal development…

“Crazy talk!”

You betcha.

Moving the site…

There was a glitch in moving Nordiblog to the new website—I’m getting a new domain through my step-dad’s online cash account (I refuse to get one myself, the same way I refuse to own a car or even a cellphone…my hypocrisy really does have limits; the only static material attachments I’ll end up with ideally is an e-domain and a computer), which is overdrawn, so he has to wait until he has the money to settle it before I can give him the cash for the new site (what he owes is much more than what a new site would cost—I’m nice, but I’m not paying off anyone’s debt).

Another week and a half, roughly.

“The Feminine, women, (biological) females, and Woman

One thing that struck me this week was how many do not see a distinction between the above. In this gross tedium of modern “thought,” it is immensely politically incorrect (lace curtain) to make any distinctions (or even bring up the subject), which is precisely why it is necessary to do so; the formula is actually quite easy to follow: what most people think should be ignored; what most people do, do the opposite. (The world is entirely bassackwards. And I can prove it. But not all at once.)

I’m not about to get into the WOMAN deal, since David Quinn (quite) adequately covers this in his Exposition

Love the initial quote, which is all I’ll get into regarding this, because I could not say it all any better than he (if you have a functioning mind, an open one, and some guts, read what’s in that above link).

[Someone took a youth to a sage and said: “Look, he is being corrupted by women.”

The sage shook his head and smiled. “It is men,” said he, “that corrupt women; and all the failings of women should be atoned and improved in men. For it is man who creates for himself the image of woman, and woman forms herself according to this image.”

“You are too kindhearted about women,” said one of those present; “you do not know them.”

The sage replied: “Will is the manner of men; willingness that of women. That is the law of the sexes – truly, a hard law for women. All of humanity is innocent of its existence; but women are doubly innocent. Who could have oil and kindness enough for them?”

“Damn oil! Damn kindness!” Someone else shouted out of the crowd; “women need to be educated better!”

“Men need to be educated better,” said the sage and beckoned to the youth to follow him.

The youth, however, did not follow him.

Nietzsche, 1882.]

For it is man who creates for himself the image of WOMAN, and woman forms herself according to this image. Truer words have not been spoken or written.

Now, the other three—biological females: those born with the female physical ‘gender;’ humans born with cunts—I can get into. I just explained one. “Females” and “women” are not the same thing; “WOMAN” and “women” often are, but not always—I include men (biological males—humans born with cocks) regularly when discussing “women.”

“Does this have to do with ‘the feminine’?”

Exactly. One thing I have realized lately is that there is nothing wrong with “the feminine” either; I know, I know, sounds like I’m really slipping here, that my ‘misogyny’ (my former expressed loathing of the feminine, not—obviously—“hatred for all women”—ridiculous concept) is fading, but I doubt it’s possible to hate an object or its symbol—one can only, in any real way, hate its function, its actions, the consequences, such as based on how constuctive or destructive it is regarding Nature, the natural order of life, for instance.

“I don’t follow you…”

If a rock tumbles down a cliff, eventually beaming you on the noodle…do you hate the rock?


Do you hate gravity?


Do you hate what happened, the situation you were in, or the results of that rock falling…?

“I guess so…the result.”

Same thing.

All humans utterly masculine would lead to extinction (underpopulate). All humans utterly feminine would do the same (overpopulate). Nature, in its unfathomable wisdom, divided up our genders for a reason: it is called balance. Right now, there is nothing even remotely close to balance on this planet—hence my life-long struggle to unmask WOMAN and discover what precisely this “feminine” thing really is, what it does, what it’s supposed to be doing in terms of natural order: what its nature is.

Thus, “hating” the feminine is as fruitless and meaningless as “hating” a woman, female, or male, man, woman, child, a Hitler or Queen Elizabeth or Stalin or teenager or Bush or Hillary or feminist or Attila or bimbo or primitive or king or rapist or asshole or slut or nagging hag or liar or corporate whore or nabob or manipulative bitch or criminal or farmer or priest or priestess or god or God or goddess or anything else we have socially invented for our current civilization.


Yes, all of these we want—that’s precisely why they exist, popping in every single generation since “human beings” invented the term human being: they all serve their purpose in our insane human constructs; they exist because we collectively will them into existence and subconsciously go about producing them. Like terrorists, drug lords, whatever, we want these things deep down, else we’d stop the entire process and come up with something better. We don’t because it works; we love to hate. We create evil, socially engineer it, to create goodness and to justify a stucture set up to “fight” it or feed it. Makes us feel less pathetic and insignificant, I expect, but there might be millions of reasons why….

“So, what do you hate?”

Ignorance, hypocrisy, lies—to name a few—and all things designed to perpetuate these. I hate the actions, and results of these actions, that many people do, the things they do. When anger gets out of hand, that’s when we confuse the difference between object and function—hating someone and not what they do.

“So, you don’t hate Hitler or Bush?”

No. Should I? Do I hate a bird for flying? Or if that bird flies through window, steals my last bit of food and takes off again…do I hate what just happened? To blame is to objectify; I can neither blame nor hate that bird, even though in anger and hunger I might curse it. That’s a distortion.

“But before, you said there’s rational and irrational hate…”

Not for objects, for their functions. Hating a thing for what it is…is like hating yourself for taking a piss; it’s what you do—were you to hold it in until your bladder explodes and you die of infection? Or is it just a function of a living being? Is the function natural?

It’s not always easy to make this crucial distinction, and, admittedly, blind rage makes it nearly impossible to do so. Habitual hate and anger makes it even harder.

“But why hate a function at all?”

Exactly. It depends if that function is “as it should be.”

“Come on! You already said you’re not going to be anything someone else says you should be!”

Right, someone else—no human has that wisdom, only Nature does. The rational and sound natural order of this planet isn’t telling me that I should be anything—it had done already so at the time of my birth; how the masculine was supposed to function is completely lost, and how the feminine was supposed to function is as warped as much as the masculine is missing or mutated (as “patriarchy”) in the human organism. Again, viewing male behaviour in civilization and calling it “inherent” is as stupid, misleading, unscientific, and inaccurate as calling dog behaviour “wolf behaviour.” Dogs are domesticated and are not acting out their true nature (it stuns me every time I need to explain this; it’s such a given for me now); men are domesticated and are equally as unnatural. Male behaviour is not “masculine behaviour.” Men are not masculine beings anymore than dogs are still wolves. Captive nature is not true nature. (To quote Megadeth: “Captive honour is no honour.” One’s nature is no different.) Think: males in prison compared with males not in prison—very little difference in context, with regards to dogs and wolves, but extreme difference in observable function of “the male.” Cage a wolf and prod it with a stick relentlessly, brutalize it, “teach it,” train it, and what happens? Twisted, mutated nature; perversion of nature, and of Nature. Prison mentality. Same with men. Domesticated male = “house-bound” male (Norse: “hus-band”) = feminine ‘man’ = a ‘woman’ with a dick = mangina. And so forth.

“Even if you’re right, that by defintion means we’re fucked! Dogs have been bred into this state! We’re doomed to be “women” or feminine forever!”

Why? Leave a dog out in the wild and it gradually (or quickly, depending how hungry it is) reverts to its pure nature, its original form; we call these “feral dogs” or “wild dogs.” The hardest part for that dog is starting to fend for itself, being self-sufficient and independent—the shock of loss…of such a former cozy and lazy, captive existence, suddenly thrust in an alien environment—alien! (The first thing it will do is desperately try to get back to that precious ease of life—its cage—all it has known as “normal.”) It’s alienated from its environment and its nature; Christ, like a fish wearing a hat and strolling through a mall. That’s not “evolution”—it’s biological perversion, since nothing natural arranged it so.

Nature, its environment, and evolution set it all straight again when the feminine stops manipulating and controlling it. Except dogs aren’t fully conscious or self-aware (sentient) beings and so men can guide themselves through their purification process back to a natural state, finding their true nature once more. (The trouble is with men properly identifying what Man is, what “masculine” is—ever wonder why no men really know or can agree on this, and yet all women readily identify most of what’s feminine, what Woman is?—here’s where we flounder and are at risk to the ego.) It’s not like we’re all feminine at birth—every human is wild when it’s born: we domesticate it youth.

This is the feminine in action; taming, controlling, with no masculine to balance it out (or properly resist it). What my spider-sense tells me here is that, and this isn’t even a theory and just a crazy idea I have, at some point, roughly 20 millennia ago, something happened and children of some tribe were either left without parents or, more likely, without fathers…an entire group was raised by mothers (no male initiation) only; and what resulted was their rendition of “education,” and they were sensible and practical and stuck to their strengths: gathering—farming. They couldn’t hunt and so the Veggie Age began. And it made so much sense, it became “wisdom” and fertility cults, religion, Mother Goddess worship and sacrifices and such resulted as it spread out, further and further from the Levantine:

Behold: the spread of farming culture: civilization = feminization—this is the progressive range of the feminine itself.

(No, the Chinese did not invent agriculture independently of the source—it all originated in the same place, spread by trade, by the early Silk Road, long-used in prehistoric times; aside from the Indus Valley, there was no fertile ground (no fertile rivers) along the Silk Road route until we get to the Chinese river basins, lush and great for seeds. Trade, technology and culture spread there and cropped up before 8000 BC.

Think I’m making this up?—snoop around here for the Origins of Farming , where I got that above gif, from Arch Atlas—not a “pro-male” or “masculine” site, either, completely unbiased. There’s also reason to suspect that farming reached the Americas via the sea-farring Polynesians in the Pacific and influenced early Mesoamerican cultures. (My old “pristine, untouched” North America concept is in tatters, I know. Farming may not have been invented independently in Mesoamerica either (Aztec, Inka, et al); thus “whenever humans sit still, we tend to concentrate on gathering, in warmer climates” might be in error—all farming seems to have one single origin.)

There’s even strong evidence that the populations of Easter Island—Polynesians arriving from western Pacific islands—had contact with the Nazca and such on mainland South America, as well as evidence that the pre-Olmec were influenced by African cultures from around 3000 BC; many African skeletons have been found there dated from different ancient periods, and all the Olmec deities were blatantly “negroid” or black in appearance. Only in the North did people remain free—only here was the primal masculine preserved.)

Nothing else seems to make sense…why men would abandon everything they held utterly sacred, vital, and do everything as women wanted, everything that was easiest?…it doesn’t follow, not with all I now know about these ancient people in the pre-Paleolithic and Paleolithic, or what I know about the masculine, how deep and strong and respected male culture was back then…something really fucked up happened and it started a cultural domino effect…

It’s the left brain enslaving the right brain. We engineer it according to the same pattern ancient women began doing to get men out of the forests and onto the farms (see Gilgamesh-Enkidu for a pre-biblical peek into this historical example). The correct term is “pedomorphism.” Or proper evolutionary adaptation through adolescence—it needs a natural environment and no “human” influence. The hope for humanity lies here and only here.

“Sounds like you’ve replaced “God” with “Nature” to me…”

“Nature” is merely a word for the total sum of all life on this planet (one small “franchise” of life, as a biosphere, in the galaxy and indeed the universe; “Nature” is just a microcosm for all life absolutely everywhere in the “totality”) and its many systems, including what we call “evolution,” which is the measuring of change in and function of life forms here on Earth. It’s alive, I think “wise,” not by definition “intelligent”—our words can’t adequately define or describe it. But it’s no deity; thus, no god or God.

“Okay, sorta makes sense, but why do you blame women—like up there, ‘ancient women’ and ‘stop manipulating and controlling…'”

(1) No blame—as I said already, it’s what (2) the feminine (not necessarily “woman”) does—as well as blame! I understand mostly why and how it happened now, so I might be a bit sad at times, even angry, over the current state of affairs, but I know it’s no one’s “fault.” Again, in its proper context (natural order), the feminine is needed in the human equation—but that human equation is no longer a natural 1+2=3…it’s a goddamned 0.005+2007.3/A=Z*20,0001=WTF? Which leads me to a much-needed review of…

The Masculine & The Feminine…

The following is a recent post at GF (not that old GF) that I adapted from thought and from previous writing on the subject—I’ll arrange it better here…even though it’s still all scattered and in no real order (as I intended). I’ll go back and forth for more practical comparison….

(Prefatory comments… These are almost always exact opposites, in extreme, of course, and no human is all one or all the other, and “physical gender” doesn’t necessarily enter into this; there’s nothing inherently “good” or “bad” in any of all this, except the collective human imbalance of one in regards to the other, a fraction of which I have demonstrated and illuminated on this blog. Nature split it so originally for balance—hence half our teeth are for grinding cereals and half for shredding flesh. Hence the Age of Civilization, Age of Empires, Age of Agriculture, has all been simply the Feminist Age. (Thank climatic phenomena that the masculine was sealed off from all that in some key areas—see above gif—so we have some reference now as to what the masculine originally was…) Unlike some who use only modern human behaviour erroneously, or those who select positive human attributes and label them “masculine,” out of ignorance, and call the unpleasant ones “feminine,” or those who select the “good stuff” about humans and call it “feminine” and all negative “masculine,” also out of ignorance, I have been painfully striving to be as accurate and fair in this as I possibly can be, based mostly on what we know of both genders today, both genders 20 thousand years back in Eurasia, and what we know of both in cultures such as Native North Americans, Indigenous Australians, et cetera. If a reader locates bias or inaccuracy, post a comment to let me know and I’ll have a look.)

1i. “The feminine…”

1a. Its symbol has eternally been a hole or circle—a void or abyss. (The symbol for feminine defines its very nature; its female sexual organs and reproductive process do as well.) It’s a taker; it lures, it draws in and sucks inward, being filled and nurturing. It grows the seeds. Its character is to collect (gather), settle, contract, stay still (or be pursued until the time is auspicious to ‘be caught’). It wants to be penetrated, violated, to “take in,” to be gotten inside of…

2i. “The masculine…”

2a. Its symbol has eternally been a protrusion or triangle—a tapered point or arrow. (The symbol for masculine defines its very nature; its male sexual organs and reproductive process do as well.) It’s a giver; it provides, it extends outward and penetrates, filling and nurishing. It deposits the seeds. Its character is to stalk (hunt), explore, expand, wander (and pursue: to keep moving and to ‘catch’). It wants to penetrate, violate, to “insert,” get inside of…

1ii. “The feminine…”

1b. Sedentary. The feminine attack-defense might be manifested as a snare or trap (vaginal); “fly-paper.” It strives for shelter, for protection, to be served. Cowardly. Drive for permanence, continuity; sameness. Subconsciously seeks acceptance—captivity. Extravagant. Loves crowds, hates solitude. Fearful in Nature, like a fish out of water. Impatient.

2ii. “The masculine…”

2b. Nomadic. The masculine attack-defense might be manifested as an arrow or bullet (phallic); “fly-swatter.” It strives to shelter, to protect, to serve. Brave. Drive for changefulness, variation; difference. Subconsciously seeks independence—freedom. Minimalist. Hates crowds, loves solitude. Confident in Nature, totally at home there. Patient.

1iii. “The feminine…”

1c. The Chinese correctly envisioned this as “Yin (dark, passive force).” It is indirect. Hidden. Shallow. Soft. Liberal. Primary tendency in basic human dichotomy is “Yes.” Conformity. Allow. It’s self-centered—it accepts sacrifices, for its own good. Irresponsible—passes blame easily and refuses to “own up to shit.” Its strength is its facade of weakness. Its wisdom is beauty.

2iii. “The masculine…”

2c. The Chinese correctly envisioned this as “Yang (bright, active force).” It is direct. In the open. Deep. Hard. Conservative. Primary tendency in basic human dichotomy is “No.” Resistance. Deny. It’s selfless—it sacrifices itself for others, for a greater good. Responsible—accepts fault easily and strives to find solutions rather than assign fault or blame. Its weakness is its facade of strength. Its beauty is wisdom.

1iv. “The feminine…”

1d. Inside. Follow. Copy, destroy—indirectly, often through the masculine. Collective, unity—“a massive group.” (One large female egg cell.) Cooperative yet argumentative with others. Psychological and empirical. “What’s easiest to do is best.”
MORE. Hoarding behaviour; greedy. Yielding, ‘wins’ in surrender. Fragile. Importance of wants; desires.

2iv. “The masculine…”

2d. Outside. Lead. Create, build—directly, by itself or in teams. Individuality, tribalism—“many small groups.” (Several small male sperm cells.) Competitive yet wants to get along with others. Physical and metaphysical. “What’s most difficult & challenging is best.”
LESS. Travel light; give away. Stubborn, ‘wins’ in tenacity. Resiliant. Importance of needs; necessity.

1v. “The feminine…”

1e. Attraction (like a proton). Prefers to be “at rest.” Dominates through cunning and persuasion. Deceptive (masks and guile) in overall personality. Fosters stability yet conventionality. Hesitates, over-anaylzes.
Submissive. Prone to worry about problems; asking for help is no big deal, accepting help is sensible. Keen on convincing others to adapt to itself and altering situations to better suit itself.

2v. “The masculine…”

2e. Repulsion (like an electron). Prefers to be “in motion.” Dominates through brute force. Truthful (honest and clear) in overall personality. Fosters fragmentation yet originality. Takes action immediately.
Aggressive. Prone to solve problems; asking for help is demeaning, accepting help is insulting. Keen on adapting to others and to situations.

1vi. “The feminine…”

1f. Its strength mentally resides in the left hemisphere of the brain—originally: manipulates intensely (“control freak”); plant-object-‘thing’-oriented (“diamonds are a girl’s best friend”—does not tend to work well in teams, better at delegating and specialization in overall social group).
Rationalizational, logicizational, organizational, “clean and tidy;” very verbal, spoken-language-heavy communication.
Skill and talent, concerned more with details, and literal things, et cetera.
Sequential. Linear. Many shallow emotions.

2vi. “The masculine…”

2f. Its strength mentally resides in the right hemisphere of the brain—originally: relinquishes control; (“leaves things be”); animal-people-‘living being’-oriented (“dog is man’s best friend”—tends to work well in teams, not prone to specialization—better to improvise, overcome obstacles, not be limited in ability).
“Dreamer,” instinctual, conceptual and perceptual (spatially too), disorganized, “dirty and messy;” very non-verbal, body-language-heavy communication.
Intuition and imagination, concerned more with ‘the big-picture,’ universality, and abstract things, et cetera.
Random. 3-D. Some deep feelings.

1vii. “The feminine…”

1g. Practical yet prone to over-complication. Better with letters, numbers, words. Better with the obvious. “Sees things as they appear.” Multi-tasking—“compulsive.” Concerned with names, categories. Follows guidelines, formats, maps; follows regulations. Talks relationships. More focused overall awareness and narrow self-awareness (*** what’s called “semi-consciousness” or else, and I disagree here, “unconsciousness”).

2vii. “The masculine…”

2g.Goofy yet prone to simplicity. Better with images, symbols, patterns. Better with the subtle. “Reads between the lines.” Singular determination—“obsessive.” Concerned with functions, meaning. Trail-blazes, goes by feel, sense; rebels against rules and regulations. Does relationships. Great self-awareness and vast overall awareness (*** what’s often called “full consciousness”).

1viii. “The feminine…”

1h. Its human manifestation, originally within females, in terms of culture, has been gathering; essentially, it’s a herbivore. In terms of belief systems: religious, material—worship of objects and things; wealth and ‘power.’ Corporeal; flesh.
Static laws. Morality.
(Hence “Mother Earth.” Hence a goddess, a humanization and feminization of something else, not the thing itself; idol. Matter.)

2viii. “The masculine…”

2h. Its human manifestation, originally within males, in terms of culture, has been hunting; essentially, it’s a carnivore. In terms of belief systems: animistic, spiritual—deep respect for essence, the intangible, and the fluidity of life (or “Life Force”). Ethereal; “ghost in the machine.”
Organic philosophies. Ethics.
(Hence “Father Sky.” Hence a shaman, a medium between the material and the spiritual realms; soul. Energy.)

(*** —I’m still undecided on the point of consciousness—-dual consciousness theory puts all this in new light and a different perspective: each hemisphere has its own consciousness or levels of consciousness (LOC); also, there’s scarsely been any female example of staggering consciousness (myths of Hypatia notwithstanding) to determine whether or not the feminine itself is barely conscious, or if it’s merely a matter of “consciousness atrophy” in the great bulk of females, meaning that under the right circumstances every woman, if she’d “use her brain, all of it,” has the potential for “higher” LOC as some men have. I’m uncertain and need to study this further sometime.)

I was tempted to leave out consciousness altogether—I’m unconvinced there is significant “opposites” here, as much: differences; it seems that the right brain is more “big picture” prone concerning perceptive awareness and overall LOC; the left brain is like a magnifying glass with it.

No; scratch that. A better example: one’s a candle up close and the other is the sun—the left brain can see details in cracks and creases with its candle of consciousness, while the right cannot but can see the entire world; the left cannot see the whole deal at all, but its ‘light’ seems brighter because it’s right in your face. Illusion; the right is nearly limitless in scope. (The sun is one-million candlelight per square inch; a candle is easily blown out—logic-dependent, and when that breaks down, it’s blind. The sun is always there, even though sometimes we can’t see it.)

Anyway, enough for now.

Have a day, folks.