https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=kcleLkbjw-M
This is Jonathan Peugeot. Welcome to the symbolic world. I also recently watched your video where you broke down Moana. And it was important to me because in that movie they didn’t really say what island it was. It’s very just a Polynesian mix. And I spent time in Samoa, New Zealand and Tonga and just fell in love with their culture. And also I’ve seen, as you pointed to in that, it seems like we’re getting to a point where we’re being told that the characteristics of male are bad, that they’ve gotten to a certain point, but things are getting toxic and we sort of need women to take over. And I’m seeing it. So when I was living in Brampton, just for example, we had in our shopping mall, it’s full of these posters saying, like, who says that women can’t rule the world? And I can see it in commercials where it seems like the male is this fool and the woman has to take over and make the decision. So I wanted to make videos, like I said, about this at first. But now I’m trying to see it. Do you think maybe it’s as if we were pushed so far towards this patriotic culture that they’re trying to push it back so far the other way so that we sort of end up in the middle somewhere? I don’t know. I don’t. The difficulty is that, I think the difficulty is the problem of the, the problem, the big question right now is the question of the feminine. Like to me, that’s the big, big question is that it seems that although we talk about feminism and we talk about, you know, and we have this idea that women can rule the world or whatever, but there, it seems like what’s really being damaged in this story is the feminine itself. That is, the feminine has an extreme, has a very important part to play in a very, you know, all these images of like, of the secret, these images of the, of potentiality, the image of the private, the image of, you know, all these, these powerful parts of society, you know, are being, you know, kind of cast aside. So it’s like, you’re not, you wouldn’t be surprised that in a world where, where, for example, we have this idea that women can do whatever men can do, like that, that somehow is a value that at the same time, our private lives would be, be, be shrinking, shrinking, shrinking, shrinking until, you know, there is no private sphere anymore, because that’s the sphere, like that’s like the beautiful sphere of the, of the feminine is this notion of the, of this, this, this, of the home of the, of the, of the, like of the secret and of the, the, the, the private life. And so to me, that’s what, that’s what’s kind of sad, you know, that’s what’s kind of sad in this. And even in like, you know, first of all, I think it’s important to know, like, I really do believe that there is no, there is no such thing as matriarchy, like it’s never existed. And it’s a, it’s a modern myth. Like there were, it’s like there, there are matrilineal societies, but matrilineal is not the same as matriarchal. You know, Jews are matrilineal, like, you know, it’s like there’s all kinds of societies that, let’s say, calculate family through the, through the, through the female. And there are societies where, let’s say, there’s a chief, and there’s like a group of women who kind of hold his power, let’s say. But that’s still not matriarchy, right? That’s still exactly this image of like, of like, let’s say, a masculine, a public masculine figure. And then underneath, let’s say, kind of in the, in the background are this group of women who, who kind of hold the power in a, in a more subtle way, let’s say. And that’s always been how it is, like forever. Like, you know, I wrote an article about, about, about women in Christianity recently. And I just showed that women, women precede men in Christianity systematically. And so it’s like, you know, Constantine’s mother converts, then Constantine. Augustine’s mother converts, then Augustine. Then it’s like the, the prince of Vladimir’s mother in Russia converts, then Vladimir. It’s like it’s constantly, the women have this like, kind of like a private, this private approaching of the sacred. And then we, in the story, it doesn’t tell you, but you can see it if you look at the story. Then the public little version comes out where their son or their husband will convert. But it’s the women who kind of secretly go there first in a, in a, in a kind of mysterious hidden way. And it’s like, that’s a beautiful thing. Like, that’s an awesome thing. It’s like, I wish that we had more of those amazing feminine characters, you know. That’s why in the video I showed Galadriel in, in Lord of the Rings, I felt like she was really like a very powerful feminine figure where she looks into your eyes and she like goes right to the bottom of your soul. And she can like see all your secrets and you can barely look at her because you know that she’s like, you know, that there’s nothing that she, she, she, she is the mistress of the secrets, let’s say. Like she can, she can see everything in your deepest desire. So it’s like, you know, everybody’s afraid of her because of that. It’s like, that’s a really powerful feminine character. But you know, the, like the, the, the, the woman who, who just is constantly trying to prove that she can be everything a man is, it’s like, I mean, I, I don’t even, I’m not even denying that that’s possible. It just seems like we’re losing the feminine, you know. It’s just something very powerful about that. So in Moana, it’s like, Moana, they kind of have the, the wise crone. They still have the grandmother who kind of acts as this, this wise crone who kind of guides her and follows her. So they kind of preserve that. But then Moana is definitely like a masculine character in terms of how she acts. Like that scene where she like, she like goes into the pirates and she’s like beating everybody up and she comes back like swinging down on like the rope and she hits Moa, she hits Mao and he falls over. It’s like, my goodness, you know, can you be more obvious about what you’re trying to do? It reminds me of, like how you’re saying about certain cultures where women are sort of on the inside making the changes, but on the outside we see the men. I think that was in My Big Fat Greek Wedding, where they have to show that they’re manipulating the man into him thinking it’s his own decision. And also I’ve seen that in Polynesian culture where it’s so much more clear to see there that it’s a hierarchical culture where you have to do what the chief says, the chief’s word is final. And I think that’s part of why I enjoyed it so much there and feel drawn to go back there is that you just, I feel that my role was more defined here. We’re growing up in Canada where things are changing and we’re being told that it’s negative for a male to be masculine and it’s positive for a female to be masculine. Where there it just seemed that, okay, here’s what men do, here’s what women do, but the women still within a family will make the decisions on the inside, but then on the outside it appears that the man is through the chief. And now we’re at this time where we have so many different categories emerging and all this transgender issues that are coming up. They’ve had it for thousands of years that it’s not quite the same now, but it’s not quite the same now, but say a family if you have eight children, they’re all boys, if your ninth child comes out a boy, the family would say, okay, let’s just raise this one as a girl because we need someone to do these chores. And it’s so completely accepted there that if, I think more so now it’s if a man feels that he’s homosexual, he’ll just dress as a woman and be completely treated as a woman. If that they’re called the faqa lady, if a faqa lady goes with a man, if they have relations, that man wouldn’t even be considered gay that because the other, the faqa lady is completely considered a woman. Where here it seems like we’re, there’s so many just arguments between categories where in other cultures where they’ve been doing it for longer. And also I’ve seen it in Hinduism that many of their gods are transgendered or don’t have gender. Where I feel for me, like growing up Catholic, it seems that our God is very much a male God and just by the symbolism we use and our culture being founded on that, there’s, it seems that there’s people who have take up such an issue with it. Like, no, that’s that’s not, that’s not a man. You’re a woman. If you don’t have, you are what your genitalia is. And it’s just, there’s how do us, the people in the middle who aren’t so much either way, like how do we mediate between these sides and try to move forward with this? Well, like I talk about Saint Maximus the Confessor quite a bit in my talks. Like he’s the basis of the idea of logos. Like even for Jordan, Jordan doesn’t necessarily know, but he gets his idea of logos from Solzhenitsyn and from Dostoevsky, but they take it from Saint Maximus the Confessor. And Saint Maximus had this idea that there were three genders. Like there’s male, there’s female, and there’s the, he called it the extreme. And the extreme is basically all the exceptions. And so all the exceptions would be just put in that category of exception. So the eunuchs, you know, anybody who’s a eunuch for whatever reason would be in that exception. And then also the monks, actually. So the monks were viewed as being neither male nor female because they weren’t engaging in sexual activity. And so the thing that I’ve been kind of trying to promote is this idea of leaving, leaving a category, a buffer of chaos, just leaving a buffer of chaos at the edge, you know, where there are exceptions. But those exceptions, the difficulty that we have now is also because of our scientific thinking, like, you know, like our Occam’s razor, everything has to fit exactly. You know, there needs to be categories for everything. And so that’s what’s becoming problematic with the transgender question is that it’s like at the edge of something, there is a kind of chaos and there is a kind of, let’s say, a spectrum, let’s say, like they say, you know, but that spectrum has to be on the edge, you know, because or else what’s going to happen is it’s going in our society, for sure, what’s going to happen is if you try to normalize it the way that we normalize male or female, it’s going to start to eat at the categories. And so, you know, that’s why, for example, now, you know, they’re trying to pass laws where you’re removing, you know, the father and mother from the law because you have to account for the exception. It’s like you should just leave the exception and just not talk about it. Like, not not not talk about it in the sense that it’s like a taboo, but just like leave it for the private sphere, like leave it for and anyway, so that’s kind of like my that’s what I’ve been kind of kind of talking about. And then I think it also like in terms of the feminine, I think it really is, I see it more like as modernity, which has a which is has been kind of hyper masculine, let’s say, like the enlightenment has been hyper masculine. Whereas, you know, in the medieval world, you really had the importance of the Mother of God was was was great, like she really had a very high importance. And there was a kind of weird balance where, for example, the hyper masculine version of Christianity would have a very high devotion to the Mother of God. And so, you know, like the Knights like the Knights who went on crusade, you know, they had a very high devotion to Templars were highly devoted to our lady. And so there was a more of like a balance between between the masculine and the feminine. Let me tell you, I want to tell you one story about that kind of helps to understand in terms of Christianity, what that can be in terms of the logos, let’s say, okay, because there’s a story, the first miracle that Christ does. Okay, it’s the it’s the changing of water into wine at the the the the wedding of Cana. Okay. And so that story, you have a situation where Christ is there, no one knows who Christ is yet. Right. Only only the woman knows right only his mother knows who he is. It’s a secret. Okay. Now, they run out of wine at the wedding. And so the Mother of God, you know, Mary goes to Christ and she says, you know, they ran out of wine. And so Christ says, like, how does he say this? Like, he says, My time has not yet come. Okay. It’s like, what a weird thing to answer to that question. She’s saying there’s not enough wine. And you’re basically saying, I’m not ready to die yet. Because that’s what it means. Right. So it’s like, what does that mean? It’s very odd. And so what it means, first of all, the whole idea of changing water into wine as it is the idea of taking chaos and transforming it into something useful, right. So it’s really is reproducing the act of creation from the beginning of the world. So it’s like, she’s asking Christ to create the world, basically. She’s saying, show that you’re Christ. And she’s giving him the frame in which the logos is going to manifest itself. She’s saying, this is the problem. And now Christ has to answer that problem. That’s the feminine. The feminine asks the question. Right. And the man, the masculine answers the question, but the masculine doesn’t speak until unless there’s a question asked of him. And so the feminine gives the frame into which the logos will manifest itself. And that’s a very, very powerful thing. It’s like, if you think about all the, let’s say, all the repercussions of that thinking, it’s very powerful. It shows how powerful, let’s say, the idea of the church who prays, who asks God for something. And then God decides, yes or no, or I will answer your prayer. But God acts in answer to the prayer. So the church as feminine frames the actions of God in the world. It’s a pretty powerful thing if you think about it in those terms. So I just wanted to give you an idea of how the feminine, let’s say, is part of Christianity. Because that’s one of the criticisms you hear on the kind of extreme is that Christianity doesn’t have a feminine aspect. And it’s like, oh, no, Christianity definitely does. And in the eschatological vision, that is in the whole vision of the whole cosmos, let’s say, we have this idea of at the end of time, the bride joining with the bridegroom and this idea that creation is united to God. And the feminine is also part in some manner of divinity, like in some participative manner, part of divinity. So you have to kind of see the whole story altogether. But it’s not the same as, let’s say, yeah, we don’t have as clearly like father and mother, like the father God, mother God. It’s not exactly the same. It’s more like in the whole story of the cosmos brings everything together of that relationship, let’s say. If you enjoyed this content and our exploration of symbolism, get involved. I love to read your insights and questions in the comments section. And if you can, please consider supporting us financially through Patreon or PayPal. You’ll find those links in the description below.