Encounter with Two Poetic Spiritual People

Some people said some things, and I reply.
==What Has Been Said So Far==
===The Main Post===
Someone, whose views I'm at least somewhat aquainted with, posted the following:
:::: While some may think talk of art and spirit are not appropriate for political discussions and some say politics is not appropriate for art discussions, I believe the best politicians are examples of those applying inter-disciplinary skills to all they engage in, or receiving inspiration from a variety of sources in order to comprehend a full-bodied politics. Conversely, imagine if Fildebrandt, Kenney, or Trump wanted to become more fully-developed in character and add “artist” to their skillset: they would probably dump a can of paint on a canvas that somebody else prepared for them, drive to the dollar store, buy a made-in-China gold star, and drive back home to pin it to the dump that they called art. While it is true that the dump might be a true expression of who they are, their efforts are hardly inspiring, as real art often is, and politics should be.
:::: This is a note I made once upon a time from a book called: “Exploring the Invisible: Art, Science, and the Spiritual”: “The work of art comprise two elements: the inner and the outer. The inner element is the emotion in the soul of the artist that causes a corresponding vibration (in material term, like the note of one musical instrument that causes the corresponding note on another instrument to vibrate in sympathy) in the soul of another person, the receiver. As long as the soul remains joined to the body, it can only receive vibrations via the medium of the senses, which form a bridge from the immaterial to the material (in the case of the spectator). The vibration in the soul of the artist must therefore find a material form, a means of expression, which is capable of being picked up by the receiver. This material form is thus the second element, the external element of the work of art. The work of art is the inseparable, indispensable, unavoidable combination of the internal and external elements, i.e., of content and form, said Wassily Kandinsky.”
:::: I think, like art, politics needs an inner and an outer – to create a coherent whole that speaks to our emotions (because the reality is that we respond to politics emotionally whether or not we are conscious of it – thus the popularity and effectiveness of memes) and makes sense to our thoughtful practical material nature. And demonstrates a benefit to our collective and our commons. In other words, I think we need more politics and politicians that have “good vibes”. LOL
===My Reply to the Main Post===
I responded with the follwoing:
:::: Politics already is stuff inside people's heads, and results in stuff out there in the world. And it already does speak to people's emotions, as you have noted. The problem is that something that feels good to one person can be upsetting to another.
::::I think what you said previously about common values is a bit more on the right track.
::::The only thing people can really be expected to agree on is empirical truth, and valid logic. These are the things that can unite people, despite their disagreeing emotions (and so we should value them). Abandon these and you get more division. And so we need to become better at those kinds of reasoning, and better at correcting our beliefs even if it doesn't feel good. But with the correct values (curiosity, empiricism, progress, logic, compassion, honesty with ourselves and others), we can at least feel good that we are acting according to those values. Plus, disagreement never feels good anyways, so if it has to feel a bit uncomfortable, at least we should be doing it in a way that is most likely to lead to correct agreement.
===Another Person Comments on the Main Post, and I Try to Understand It===
====They said:====
:::: It is powerful, [name]. As within, so without. Our culture is deeply split in its so very narrow soul. The moral high ground claimed by securalism decries the world of images, the language if the unconscious. Art, spirit, the earth, the feminine rebirth, life, death, rebirth has been forced underground. As She emerges with her artistry, the world trembles in rage. She's coming, emerging from beneath from the womb of the earth. Rage as it might, rational mind will explode with the force of the blood gushing birthing.
====I replied:====
:::: I'm not familiar with a lot of that jargon, and the metaphors make it difficult to understand as well. But I am very curious, so perhaps you could communicate it more plainly.
====Main poster replied:====
:::: I can't speak for [the commenter] but what I understand from what she said is that half of the basic Life principle, the half of us that naturally knows the language of the soul - art, music, spirit, life cycles - has been denied for so long that it is as if it never existed for all the credence the patriarchal world and now our modern world has given it. We are so off-kilter that we don't realize what is even wrong - that a very essential part of ourselves went into hiding a long time ago. If we are ever to become whole, fully functional beings, and create functional societies and politics, we might start by bringing the feminine back into its rightful place in Life.
====Commenter replied:====
:::: Hmmm. I can't change the language of the soul since it is. However if metaphor is not understood, I guess the world is in more trouble than I first thought. Art is as necessary in a culture as words. Spirit animates everything on the planet including the planet. Quantum physics. I would add to what [main poster] has said to broaden the feminine to include both halves of the gender equation....in fact all the sides in the circle. Balancing the energies of the planet is the return of the feminine principle to its rightful place ... in full partnership with the masculine .... either male nor female. We must liberate ourselves from the dead, dry, rational and become whole people. Hope this helps you to understand ... I work in the world of imagery, symbols and psyche. It ain't no jargon! Lol!
====Main poster replied again:====
:::: I picked up on that common way that the reality and worth of the invisible world - that world of words, images, spirit - is denigrated and discredited by deeming its language "jargon", but am so familiar with that being some people's way (those fairly ignorant of at least half of life) to feel superior or better, that I just let it slide.
== Some Corrections ==
=== Is "metaphor not understood", as she says? ===
In actual fact, most people including myself can generally understand metaphors (and, most people can re-phrase their metaphors in plain language). Yet sometimes, for various reasons, some metaphors are not so easily understood.
=== An example of my own ability to understand ===
I think I have a pretty good understanding of the movie Inland Empire. It's a film which most people find utterly incomprehensible. Even fans of the film maker, David Lynch, say they can't figure it out (even this skilled professional writer/critic).
It's actually possible that my logical analytical skills have helped me here.
=== What metaphors are ===
A metaphor is saying something is something else that is partly similar. There could be similarity of form, or function, or something else. But they will be radically different (and thus inaccurate) in some ways too (this is what distinguishes metaphors from plain speaking). These will be differences of form, function, or something else.
=== So why are some metaphors difficult to understand? ===
Quite simply: because sometimes it isn't clear which parts of the two things (the thing itself, and the metaphor for the thing) are similar, and which are inaccurate.
Someone skilled at communicating, analyzing, and describing can tell you what they meant, which parts were similar and which were different. Normal people would at least try when asked. But I think we may have encountered an ideological superstition, a belief that explaining metaphors can't or should not be done.
==Distinctions that Need To Be Made==
There's a difference between:
#valuing art (including metaphor)
#believing that using a lot of metaphors is a good way to have discussions with people who don't yet understand your views
There's a difference between:
#having difficulty understanding someone who is speaking in unfamiliar metaphors and terminology
#flat out not understanding metaphors in general
#being unable to understand it if it was spoken plainly, or even being ignorant of the subject at all
There's a difference between:
#knowing (or not knowing) what someone believes
#agreeing or disagreeing with what they believe
===Why they May Not Make these Distinctions===
Ideologically, they may have some blocks.  I could hypothesize what those are.
#Anti-Rationality.  They see rationality as the enemy. And they're unskilled at it.
#Ignorance.  They believe there is no other way to communicate the truth of the matter.
#De-valuing of plain, clear communication.
#Superiority.  So long as they can keep outsiders from understanding what they are even trying to say, they can believe (or claim) that this means the outsider is ignorant of the subject, and they have superior knowledge.
These blocks would reinforce each other.
== I think I understand some of the things the commenter is saying ==
#She wants people (and society) to be "whole"
#Being "whole" requires having both of what she calls the "feminine" and the "masculine"
#She believes that currently people lack (or undervalue) the part that she calls the "feminine", and so that's what they need in order to become whole
==I think I agree with some of the things the commenter believes==
For example, if she is saying some things similar to the wonderful talk by Julia Galef about the "Straw Vulcan" view.  I agree with Julia Galef, and thus I agree with people to the extent that they are agreeing with Julia Galef.
==I think I disagree with some of the things the commenter believes==
Of course I disagree with their beliefs about the possibility and value of communicating this subject plainly.
I don't think anything supernatural exists (here's a blog post defining what "supernatural" means), so if she does, we dissagree.  She says that "spirit" animates everything, including the planet.  That sounds like supernaturalism to me.
When she decries secularism, I think we disagree on something there, though it isn't yet clear what her complaint is.
==I don't totally understand certain other things that the commenter says==
This section is incomplete, and full of unanswered questions.
But it's clear that she has an unusual ideology that very few people would be familiar with. And she seems to have a belief in Persecution and Vengeance.
=== Unusual Ideology ===
The moral high ground claimed by secularism decries the world of images, the language if the unconscious. Art, spirit, the earth, the feminine rebirth, life, death, rebirth has been forced underground.
Like fundamentalist christians, this person seems to find secularism to be an enemy, a force of persecution, which is forcing things of value "underground".  Somehow.  She doesn't say how, or give any examples of this being true.
What are those things of value?  See the next section below.
=== The world of images, the language of the unconscious ===
I'm guessing this is "intuition" or something. So she thinks secularism "decries" intuition? How, in what way? Examples could help.
=== Spirit ===
What does she mean by "spirit" here? A supernatural soul? Belief in a supernatural soul? Or just feelings? Or what? She says "quantum physics". So she thinks "quantum physics" is spirit? What does that mean?
=== The feminine rebirth, life, death, rebirth ===
This one is puzzling. The grammar isn't even clear:  is it a rebirth of something feminine, or is this specific act of rebirth just feminine in style? What is being reborn, and dying, and so on? Who knows, she doesn't say, even after my first request for clarification.
My best current guess is that she's talking about a "rebirth" of femininity itself. See my section above, titled: "I think I understand some of the things the commenter is saying".
=== The "Feminine", and the "Masculine" ===
Art, spirit, the earth, the feminine rebirth, life, death, rebirth [...] half of the basic Life principle, the half of us that naturally knows the language of the soul - art, music, spirit, life cycles - has been denied for so long that it is as if it never existed for all the credence the patriarchal world and now our modern world has given it. We are so off-kilter that we don't realize what is even wrong - that a very essential part of ourselves went into hiding a long time ago. If we are ever to become whole, fully functional beings, and create functional societies and politics, we might start by bringing the feminine back into its rightful place in Life. [...] I would add to what [main commenter] has said to broaden the feminine to include both halves of the gender equation....in fact all the sides in the circle. Balancing the energies of the planet is the return of the feminine principle to its rightful place ... in full partnership with the masculine .... either male nor female. We must liberate ourselves from the dead, dry, rational and become whole people.
So. They categorize the following things as "feminine":
* art (which obviously includes types of art such as music)
* spirit
* "life cycles"
They seem to categorize the following things as "masculine":
* the rational
What does the main poster mean by "life cycles"?
==I ask more questions and get more answers==
A replied:
: "Ok I think I get the general gist now, needing both halves to create the whole etc.. Could you fill me in on some of the details? That would be helpful. Maybe some examples of how the world of images is being decried? How things (art, the earth, the feminine rebirth, life, death, rebirth) are being forced underground? Thanks."
Main poster said:
:: again, not to speak for [other commenter] but I sure know about all that was forced underground. Basically because of patriarchal religions that worshipped the male, even awarding birth-giving powers to the male (think woman popping out of Adam's rib), and continuing on through authorities of their time, the worth of woman was debated, some even seriously wondering if they were even human. So, because it could be dangerous just to be female and females were punished if they failed to worship the male god and SILENTLY follow man-made laws, all the wisdom they accumulated had to be hid and thus become esoteric. A good book is "A History of Ideas on Women". But a very interesting perspective is "The Alphabet and the Goddess: The Conflict Between Word and Image" by Leonard Shlain.  or there is a youtube video too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QQuD62RxrU