I have always believed that each gender must go through their own kind of hero’s journey in order to spiritually individuate. In both modern and historical contexts, this journey is often depicted as something reserved for men: a rite of passage where they “earn” their place and enjoy the spoils of victory.
Women, on the other hand, are subtly conditioned to believe that their role is to choose the right man, as if abundance of choice replaces the need for inner growth. Many internalize the idea that maintaining physical beauty is enough. Which while true, and important, I have always thought that it draws the type of men who are concerned with the material (and nothing beyond that), but it’s rarely sufficient to draw in the kind of man they truly desire or would willingly devote themselves to.
That’s why I think it’s so important for women to embark on their own path of individuation, to strengthen their feminine essence to the point that it can genuinely meet and capture the depth of the masculine they long for.
I have also long believed that the masculine brings out the best in the feminine, and the feminine brings out the best in the masculine. But most people today are stuck on the material plane: men chasing external markers of success, women doing the same, so most relationships never touch that soul-deep devotion you described here.
This thought just came to me: perhaps this dynamic also sheds light on polygamy or why some men seek multiple partners. Because if a woman truly captures your soul, if she possesses your essence, there’s no need or desire for another.
Curious to hear your thoughts on that and whether women too can go on their own hero’s journey to individuation without the masculine inspiring them of it.
I think the language "captivated" or "fully claimed" speaks to an earlier stage than "conquered" and "possessed". I think a man can captivate and claim a woman, but to enter into the type of love described so beautifully in this writing, the woman must make the choice to surrender, to open herself up to possess and to be possessed by another. To draw aside the veil and allow herself to be fully seen. Caution is appropriate at times, and it is a reasonable default. Some women have been hurt not only by surrender to a tyrannical man, but by trying to surrender to an abdicating and weak man. But I think surrender is a step that can only be undertaken in full agency, full sovereign consent of the will, stepping into a death and rebirth. Surrender that is not passive, giving up, lying like a dead fish on the beach, but surrender that is courageous and strong, responsive but agentic, a potent opening.
Excellent points. I don't find myself disagreeing with any of them. You are right to say it must be a conscious relinquishing. Because if it isn't that, then what is it? It's being crushed/overpowered and giving in because you're weak, not submitting because you believe in the pure greatness of the man and wish to be his, but quite simply because he is the greater destructive force and eroded your dignity until you gave in. These are two very different frames.
The passive form of surrender is not wholesome or pure precisely because it is not consciously chosen, but the byproduct of being enslaved due to your weakness, so in this context you're effectively playing out the shadow dynamic equivalent with all the corruption that entails.
Most women do not make the distinction you have between active surrender which is conscious and chosen and the byproduct of sheer awe, and passive surrender which is the structural consequence of being overpowered and having your will supplanted by another.
The former is a very beautiful thing, and should come with much discernment, awe and faith - it is the highest sign of courage in a woman who understands relational dynamics/sexual polarity, what type of woman she wants/needs to be, and the risks she needs to take to be with the man she deeply believes she was made for. The latter on the other hand is simply the complete loss of agency due to a lack of personal boundaries that were not consciously chosen through devotion, but resulted from being weak willed, spiritually drained etc.
Surrender thus gets a bad wrap in mainstream dialogue, as it's almost always framed in the lower negative sense, meaning women who know better and are operating under the higher frame of the definition are up against a constant barrage of social pressure and shame by having their superior knowing stigmatised and reframed into something uglier which isn't even their personal conception of it, or embodied experience of it.
Yes, exactly. Surrender can be either an act of nobility, courage, and grace, a risk that can lead into a great victory; or a diminishment, a failure of self, a defeat.
Reception of Holy Communion (note the term ‘com-union’) is the merging of Groom (Christ) and His Bride (the Church) physically AND spiritually.
This is why many Catholic parishes have a bedpost baked into the sanctuary architecture (think the baldochinno over the high altar in St. Peter’s basilica).
The altar is the wedding bed where the two become one.
"... heartbreak as a portal for individuation through the metabolization of grief has done more for your spiritual growth and thereby capacity to love, inspire devotion and know true union, than any pay raise, degree or acquisition of a skill ever has ..."
This was well articulated.
I have always believed that each gender must go through their own kind of hero’s journey in order to spiritually individuate. In both modern and historical contexts, this journey is often depicted as something reserved for men: a rite of passage where they “earn” their place and enjoy the spoils of victory.
Women, on the other hand, are subtly conditioned to believe that their role is to choose the right man, as if abundance of choice replaces the need for inner growth. Many internalize the idea that maintaining physical beauty is enough. Which while true, and important, I have always thought that it draws the type of men who are concerned with the material (and nothing beyond that), but it’s rarely sufficient to draw in the kind of man they truly desire or would willingly devote themselves to.
That’s why I think it’s so important for women to embark on their own path of individuation, to strengthen their feminine essence to the point that it can genuinely meet and capture the depth of the masculine they long for.
I have also long believed that the masculine brings out the best in the feminine, and the feminine brings out the best in the masculine. But most people today are stuck on the material plane: men chasing external markers of success, women doing the same, so most relationships never touch that soul-deep devotion you described here.
This thought just came to me: perhaps this dynamic also sheds light on polygamy or why some men seek multiple partners. Because if a woman truly captures your soul, if she possesses your essence, there’s no need or desire for another.
Curious to hear your thoughts on that and whether women too can go on their own hero’s journey to individuation without the masculine inspiring them of it.
Thank you once again for this submission.
I think the language "captivated" or "fully claimed" speaks to an earlier stage than "conquered" and "possessed". I think a man can captivate and claim a woman, but to enter into the type of love described so beautifully in this writing, the woman must make the choice to surrender, to open herself up to possess and to be possessed by another. To draw aside the veil and allow herself to be fully seen. Caution is appropriate at times, and it is a reasonable default. Some women have been hurt not only by surrender to a tyrannical man, but by trying to surrender to an abdicating and weak man. But I think surrender is a step that can only be undertaken in full agency, full sovereign consent of the will, stepping into a death and rebirth. Surrender that is not passive, giving up, lying like a dead fish on the beach, but surrender that is courageous and strong, responsive but agentic, a potent opening.
Excellent points. I don't find myself disagreeing with any of them. You are right to say it must be a conscious relinquishing. Because if it isn't that, then what is it? It's being crushed/overpowered and giving in because you're weak, not submitting because you believe in the pure greatness of the man and wish to be his, but quite simply because he is the greater destructive force and eroded your dignity until you gave in. These are two very different frames.
The passive form of surrender is not wholesome or pure precisely because it is not consciously chosen, but the byproduct of being enslaved due to your weakness, so in this context you're effectively playing out the shadow dynamic equivalent with all the corruption that entails.
Most women do not make the distinction you have between active surrender which is conscious and chosen and the byproduct of sheer awe, and passive surrender which is the structural consequence of being overpowered and having your will supplanted by another.
The former is a very beautiful thing, and should come with much discernment, awe and faith - it is the highest sign of courage in a woman who understands relational dynamics/sexual polarity, what type of woman she wants/needs to be, and the risks she needs to take to be with the man she deeply believes she was made for. The latter on the other hand is simply the complete loss of agency due to a lack of personal boundaries that were not consciously chosen through devotion, but resulted from being weak willed, spiritually drained etc.
Surrender thus gets a bad wrap in mainstream dialogue, as it's almost always framed in the lower negative sense, meaning women who know better and are operating under the higher frame of the definition are up against a constant barrage of social pressure and shame by having their superior knowing stigmatised and reframed into something uglier which isn't even their personal conception of it, or embodied experience of it.
Yes, exactly. Surrender can be either an act of nobility, courage, and grace, a risk that can lead into a great victory; or a diminishment, a failure of self, a defeat.
Incredible work brother
An excellent (knowingly or not) on the theology behind reception of Catholic Eucharist.
Reception of Holy Communion (note the term ‘com-union’) is the merging of Groom (Christ) and His Bride (the Church) physically AND spiritually.
This is why many Catholic parishes have a bedpost baked into the sanctuary architecture (think the baldochinno over the high altar in St. Peter’s basilica).
The altar is the wedding bed where the two become one.
Bravo, sir. Bravo. This part particularly:
"... heartbreak as a portal for individuation through the metabolization of grief has done more for your spiritual growth and thereby capacity to love, inspire devotion and know true union, than any pay raise, degree or acquisition of a skill ever has ..."