Relative states of consciousness tend to value form and deny space, not because space isn’t valuable, but because space can’t be related to in relative terms. For this particular manner of partial looking limits what one is able to see or comprehend and, in so doing, begets a real predisposition to value what can be known with relative thought, sense or feeling (the out-standing) and devalue what can’t be known in a relative way (the in-standing). As a result, one identified with a relative state of mind tends to practice an unconscious, though very real, form of male chauvinism in that he has a pre-programmed bias for form, and against space. This very natural tendency is itself a direct result of the limited processing capability that relative states of mind, which of necessity need to classify and categorize massive amounts of data into manageable units of information, are heir to. The end result is that such a mind state tends to over-value that which falls into its neat, pre-determined, bitesize bits of information and to under-value those that don’t fit its limited processing capability. Thus, as an astronomer who is always looking through a telescope designed to see stars, tends to value stars; and a biologist, who is always looking through a microscope designed to see cells, tends to value cells, so, too, mankind, whose relative state of mind was designed to recognize and recall form, tends to value form. Worse yet, the relatively unknowable and thus mysterious nature of the feminine— the yin, the negative, the nothing—very often becomes an object of great fear to the masculine—the yang, the positive, the something.

 

(OOMM Appendix C Intro)