15 Minutes Past Sagittarius

The first nickname that firefighters gave me was ‘Guru’ – not because I showed any symptom of wisdom, but because they learned that I studied yoga and even rented a room at my instructor’s home. But an hour after the first firefighter learned that I danced classical ballet I became known across the county as ‘Tutu.’ As long as they imagined that the name irritated me they wouldn’t search for another because we all adhered to the warrior principle, “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.”

I’m too nice a fellow for such games. Ok, mostly. There was the time I was assigned to a station where the fire lieutenant had genuine doubts about my sexual orientation. In so perfect a setup I felt compelled to follow him into the restroom to stare at him whenever I saw him go. I suppose I could have explained my life-long quest for beauty to him, and if I’d simply introduced my yoga mistress to him he would have seen how close I was. But what’s the karmic penalty for giving a man prostate problems compared to providing the rest of the crew a long-running laugh?

One of my grandfathers, Clay, was an Atlanta police officer, and the other, Jimmy, was a Southern Baptist preacher. One influenced what people did by his power, and the other changed what they were by his beauty. I am simply the stuff of these two men and their families. How their natures combined in me to form a soul is an accident of the time and place in which I live, but the spirit descended from them was determined before I was born. No one at my parents’ wedding could have foreseen that the union would produce a paramedic. But seeing me in uniform with the authority of the county in my badge, charged to the ministry of rescue and healing, one could look back and say, “Of course – that’s Clay and Jimmy.”

We are all a combination of the masculine and the feminine. Not a stagnant blend, but a fluctuating balance of the qualities. If I happen to be an extreme example, happily so, because it makes it easier for me to notice the differences.

Even the routes by which I came to the vocation of paramedic and avocation of danseur express the difference. At a very young age I lost a marriage at the same time that I was laid off from my job in printing. My wife’s parting gift was to tell me that the county fire department was expanding and hiring. I would have never considered such work, but my expectations of this life had been destroyed and I was helpless to create a new reality. By accidents, then, the world called me to be a firefighter at just the time the county was developing its Emergency Medical Service. I stumbled blindly into EMS training, but once assigned to an ambulance crew I realized I’d found my calling.

One evening during that training I attended a performance of the Pennsylvania Ballet at the Fox Theater in Atlanta. Seated there, about halfway through a piece, I heard a strikingly clear voice say, “You should be doing this.” I’d never heard this voice before, nor have I since, but it was instantly familiar. I’ve always heard that the ‘still, small voice’ calls one to a ministry, but this call was secular, to the arts. I don’t know why, but the purpose is not mine – it is Deity’s. Even now that my careers both in dance and in EMS are completed, it’s still evidently not for me to know what purpose was served. Well, so be it. At twenty one, I was too old to begin dance classes, but there was no doubting this voice.

So, both pursuits called me. One via a series of external accidents which could theoretically be explained away in a chain of cause-and-effect. The other was an internal, mystical event – Deity taking an instant to reach into this world to give me a direction. It was of course the same Deity working in opposite ways, one to expose me to the chaos of emergencies in the physical world, and the other into a realm where every step is choreographed to music. Can I help it if God loves me best?

So what are these ‘masculine and feminine’ attributes? European languages assign gender to all nouns, according to their speakers’ sense of the object named. In German, the moon is masculine and the sun feminine, while in Italian, for example, the moon is feminine and the sun masculine. If there is an essential truth, a whole people have it wrong.

I’ve no doubt that there is an absolute truth, and if we each were perfect we would be compelled to comply with the attributes of our gender absolutely, both externally by force of law and internally by our very nature. But wait – I’ve already acknowledged that I have a feminine side.

Masculine and feminine are attributes of consciousness. They aren’t two things, but rather two faces of one. We may as well look at the tricky concept right up front. It’s impossible for a physical object to be two different things at the same time, and it’s absurd to assert a logical principle which has mutually exclusive developments. Consciousness, however, is precisely this. It is a natural development of an organism’s sensitivity to its environment, and it is the a priori intention which brings that organism into being – it is both the chicken and the egg. Material and logical objects are things of which consciousness is aware — consciousness itself is a different sort of thing.

The masculine mind is individuality, and the feminine unity. One wants to see the world as an extension of himself, and the other to see herself as inseparable from all. One wishes to own, the other to belong. The masculine mind is the soul, and the feminine mind is the spirit. But soul and spirit aren’t two different things – they are two faces of one.

Power is masculine, beauty is feminine. Power is the capacity to bring about change, and beauty is the eternal unchanging. Power is unfolding drama, beauty is the intention behind the drama. Power is the movement from one frame to the next in a film, beauty is a single photograph that contains all its meaning. Power is actual, beauty potential, one is right now, the other is always. One is law, the other love. And each is the fulfillment of the other.

Because psyche is simultaneously two different things its analysis is ripe with paradox. For example, the spirit is eternal and the soul temporal – one thing, psyche, which has mutually exclusive attributes.

The method by which one analyzes psyche will itself be either masculine or feminine, and the choice will bias one’s conclusions. Feminine thinking sees relationships, while masculine eyes see each thing as distinct – one sees the forest and the other the trees. As soon as one begins breaking psyche into constituents the analysis is masculine, and yet the thing being considered, consciousness, is an inseparable whole to the extent that it’s feminine. One sees the bark of a tree or the skin of an animal and recognizes that as the extent of its being, while the other sees it within the balance of an ecosystem.

Let’s have a closer look at mortality. Western religion teaches that we each live only once, then go to another state of being permanently. Eastern religion, however, has it that our state of being is cyclical – that we continually reincarnate in a form consequential to our previous lives. There is the potential for escape from the cycle by reaching enlightenment, but this is described as surrendering one’s individuality and merging with Deity. That’s the pure feminine state. And there’s a psychic trick one must accomplish – achieving the desire to become one with Deity requires the surrender of personal desire. In the West, existence in Heaven (or Hell) is masculine because we retain our individuality – God is a separate personality, often conceived as the Lord of the Eternal Realm.

But the West has the paradox that “the Kingdom of Heaven is within,” meaning that Deity is somehow at the core of our being, a nucleus, or a seed. This hints at our duality as both spirit and soul – one with Deity and yet distinct, both feminine and masculine. We earn admission to Heaven by believing in the Christ within ourselves. Churches differ in stressing whether that belief is only to recognize Christ, or also to “accept Him as our Lord and Savior,” that is, whether the knowledge itself is sufficient, or whether trying to live according to that knowledge is required evidence of genuine faith. In any event, if we meet the condition we will each upon death be transferred into a perfected body (or all of us at once, at the end of this world) and live eternally in Heaven.

Eastern religions do not always suggest that we all aggressively seek enlightenment now, but that we will each eventually reach it through a series of lifetimes. We form a soul from the mulch of the earth, live out our lives, and return to the soil, either directly by psychic decay or indirectly by ascending into the heavens as a vapor and descending again as rain. Yes, there is a vagueness inverse to that within Western thought in how the spirit retains sufficient individuality that someone’s next life is determined by the last. The two systems are not so different as they may appear.

Westerners believe that the individual soul is the essence of our being and that spirit is entirely distinct from us, an ‘other.’ Easterners think that the spirit is the absolute truth, and that our own soul is ultimately an illusion. My position asserts the paradox – that we are both spirit and soul, masculine and feminine, consciousness both eternal and temporal, one with all and each distinct.

This discussion probably implies that I find the feminine perfect and the masculine corrupt. It should only reveal how I yearn for beauty. Again, the separation of the psyche into its attributes is partially artificial. Both soul and spirit have desires – the soul for sensations and experience and the spirit for understanding. Sins of the soul are quite familiar – indulgence and self-interest. Sins of the spirit involve failure to understand or respect the individual (perhaps even including oneself) – lack of empathy or the use of others to satisfy intellectual wants. The archeologist who violates the tomb of a pharaoh on the grounds that the pursuit of knowledge overrules the obvious will of the deceased commits a sin of the spirit. And there can be strange intermixing of the masculine and feminine – Dr. Mengele’s adherence to the Nazi principle of the ‘master race’ was masculine, and the inhuman experiments on prisoners which that allowed expressed coldly detached feminine curiosity.

Dreams often represent our own psyche to us as a house. The soul is in the basement, and the spirit is in the attic (dream attics are often open to the heavens, either via windows and skylights, or simply by being incomplete in construction.) The attic stores ideal things – hopes, aspirations, potential – while the basement holds more mundane things which have been used and stored. New-Age names for these rooms are the superconscious and the subconscious. One can see a certain generality to one room and universality to the other; the basement is sunk into the earth, and the attic open to the heavens. The difference between them is primarily that one is self-aware and the other is not. In gender terms, the masculine is instinctive and the feminine intuitive; both are connected to sources of knowledge beyond their physical senses, but one as animal consciousness and the other as spiritual consciousness. Again, we are each our own balance of both. And our lives are conducted on the floors in between.

It’s quite cliché that authors write about themselves, and I’m no different. In my novel, The Beautiful Fountain, one character is Dove Warrior because my own guide has revealed herself to me as the Dove. Yes, I’ve seen her, even before I heard the voice. It was at Atlanta’s old Municipal Auditorium during a Simon and Garfunkel concert. I knew that she was a spirit creature, and sensed my identity with her. No, it wasn’t a pigeon, and yes I was cold sober – this was before concert halls filled with illicit smokes. Live performance arts again – as with the ballet, the music had opened me to the mystical. You probably have experiences which you could compare. Anyway, my former wife made a portrait of me as a dove, which she called “the voyeur” – the watcher. This was without my telling her about the dove, but there was no need because she has the eyes of an artist. Pity that we didn’t work and play well together.

My book offers two versions of the myth of the dove descending to earth and becoming the turtle. There is the hope that the turtle will eventually become the eagle and return to the heavens, but my story didn’t lend itself to developing that point. My focus was on the dove forming a shell around herself to become an individual. This world is masculine. But dove and turtle yearn for each other’s gifts – the dove wants to experience and the turtle (when he eventually begins to awaken) to understand. She wants to immerse herself in this world, and he to see it from above.

These cross-purposes can be found in the mythology of the Navajo. Women form villages, but men tend to wander off into the forest alone. Only desire for each other motivates them to make the adjustments necessary to come together and form a nation. The feminine knows what should be built and why, the masculine knows what can be built and how. The Navajo creation story of First Man and First Woman differs from the Biblical account of Adam and Eve in that the conflict of wills is not between man and God, but between man and woman; and rather than being cast out from Eden, men and women separate from each other. The myth doesn’t shy away from the erotic nature of their desire for each other.

The current Western world-view is scientific – everything can theoretically be explained within a chain of cause and effect. This is masculine thinking, as opposed to the medieval, feminine view that all things in this world express a divine intention. The masculine mind induces laws from observed phenomena, though it can never reach an ultimate cause. The feminine mind deduces phenomena from an intelligent purpose, though she can never account for why it takes one form and not another. Plato is feminine, Aristotle masculine.

Our current, material perspective is grounded on the philosophy of the German, Immanuel Kant. He theorized that we could not know anything (any object, or even ourselves) as it truly is, but can only have indirect knowledge – a concept formed in our minds by our limited and fallible set of intellectual processes applied to the data provided by our equally limited and fallible set of physical senses. That defines the psyche as a biological computer, equipped with a specific instruction set that is applied to the datum of its input/output devices. Kant did not doubt that there is a real world beyond our senses, or even that God exists – only that our capacity to know either is quite restricted. We are minds condemned to solitary confinement within our skulls, trying to interpret noises in the hall.

Kant’s is an extreme masculine view, fixed by his resolute assumption that we are each finite in every way. We can’t really know God because Deity is an infinite being, and a finite mind cannot contain an infinite concept. Kant’s logic is inescapable, but if his premises are true then the Kingdom of God cannot be within. Kant saw us as objects – essentially animals with sophisticated minds. The religious view conflicts with this, arguing that we are subjects, having some sort of identity with Deity. Scientific proof of either the material or religious view is impossible because only objective evidence can be valid. And logical proof is inappropriate because it’s a paradox to assert that we are both soul and spirit.

We can, however, refer to the philosopher who paved the way for Kant – the French mathematician, René Descartes. In his Principles of Philosophy Descartes was seeking the sort of knowledge about which he could be absolutely certain. He recognized the fallibility of the senses, as well as the possibility that he could misunderstand things in one way or another. His meditation led him to the conclusion that he could be mistaken in every concept he held; however, he could not doubt that thinking itself was going on. And so, eureka, Cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am.) Descartes then embraced his concept of the world as being reasonably accurate, if not perfect, on the grounds that God has our best interests at heart and so would not deceive us.

Kant developed Descartes’s insight into rather a sophisticated account of the interplay of mind and senses. He made the one assumption that we are finite. Descartes made two: like Kant, he never questioned the reality of God, Who has the positive characteristics generally held by Western religion; and he never examined what the “I’ is that is doing the thinking. In his philosophy, “I” is the soul, the individual, finite mind, and God is the ‘other,’ an infinite and distinct personality.

These two philosophers shifted the balance of Western thought toward the scientific, masculine world-view. Needful, and there have been magnificent developments, but neither addressed the concept that “the Kingdom of Heaven is within.” The feminine is ignored, our connection with Deity is forgotten. There can be no purpose in life, and meaning can only be the fulfillment of biological and psychological needs.

According to Kant, even though God exists, our idea of Him is an empty concept – a vague placeholder in our minds. Since Kant’s time, other philosophers have undertaken the search for what we mean by the word, “I” – what is the self – and many reached the same conclusion, that this, too, is an undefined, empty reference. Neither God nor self can really be known, and in the extreme view are not real things.

The balance point is the paradox that the infinitely small is identical with the infinitely large – that “I” refers to the same thing as God but with different characteristics, where one is Deity individualized and the other is Deity unified, the soul and the spirit, the masculine and the feminine. The two things that Descartes didn’t examine are two faces of one; and Kant’s assumption of our finitude is an error reflecting and contributing to our shifting balance from a religious to a material world-view.

Descartes’s own Cartesian Coordinate System happens to be a lovely model for the balance. As a mathematician, he saw space as sort of a continuous substance which can be defined in reference to an arbitrarily selected origin. Though he didn’t apply this to his philosophy, so too, as spirits we are a continuous substance upon which souls are drawn, each with its unique perspective of all. Don’t push the model too far – as is the Creative Word itself, this is a metaphor.

The medieval religious view was feudal – even if spirituality is feminine, God is masculine, a Lord distinct from us Whom we can only contact indirectly through a church hierarchy. Protestant reformation modified this view, capturing more of the sense that Christ is within each of us. But it could be clearer still that this is not other than us – it is our own feminine selves, our own spirit.

One of my paramedics took me serious when I told him that most people outside work call me Bob, but my girlfriend had to call me Lieutenant. Snicker. Anyway, the point is that people evoke a slightly different personality in me depending upon whether they call me Bob, Robert, Mr. Flanders, rookie, or Lieutenant (Guru and Tutu, too). The name they use reveals how they see me and our relationship, and I generally respond to that, though there times I choose to assert something different.

Within us (you, too – ‘us’ is not used here in the regal sense) are personalities with different world-views and different perspectives of ourselves. Pop psychology has it that in extreme cases some of these personalities are unaware of or in conflict with each other, but for the most part we sense the general unity. The psyche is fluid in this way. As above, so below. The cases of which I’ve heard (and one whom I knew personally) reveal that when the schism between these personalities becomes clinical, the individual personalities develop so slowly that they never mature (and are implicitly incomplete.) The masculine mind – the soul, the turtle – develops over time through experience in this world. When personalities within a mind are isolated and compete for dominance, no one of them has the time to develop.

But our dreams represent these personalities to us symbolically, as they do our beliefs and our emotions – for the healthy as well as the injured soul. Sometimes we identify with a particular character in a dream, seeing things from his perspective and feeling what he feels. And we sometimes shift that sense of identity from one to another character. Sometimes we don’t identify with any of the actors – we’re simply an audience – and sometimes our role as author comes to the fore as we rewrite and replay a dream sequence when something just didn’t seem right with the previous version.

As souls we are simply players in the divine dream. We need the feminine to connect us with the Author, else this life is but a tale told by a madman. I know my power – I’ve been a paid professional hero – but I hunger for beauty. Seeing her once has given me a glimpse of eternity, certain knowledge. And I have not only seen her – when I carried my ballerina overhead in promenade the audience saw the dove perched on my hand in as clear a light as she can express in this world, and I could feel when they recognized her. So be my little metaphor and I will be yours, and together we can enter the realm of suspended disbelief.

Robert C. Flanders

all rights reserved