Little is said about the internal tension that exists within highly intelligent women - an internal conflict that often manifests as a journey of learning about the concept of duty.
I would like to further clarify that both the mountain and the bird archetypes are usually ferociously intelligent in their own right, yet their intelligence manifests in fundamentally different ways - one in the mastery of structure, stability, and order - the other in adaptability, creativity, and intellectual rebellion.
Furthermore, both archetypes typically attain their own distinct forms of success. The mountain builds systems of control, ensuring stability for those who depend on him. His success is structured, deliberate, and often tied to legacy. The bird, by contrast, thrives in exploration, innovation, and the navigation of uncharted intellectual and creative landscapes. His success is driven more by the pursuit of ideas and experiences than by concrete empire-building.
For highly intelligent women, the internal conflict is not merely about choosing between these archetypes but about recognising that they embody aspects of both. They possess the mountain's deep-rooted sense of responsibility and the bird's insatiable desire for boundless exploration - which is why neither archetype, in isolation, feels entirely sufficient. The challenge, then, is one of self-integration - reconciling these competing drives within themselves - whether through relationships, creative pursuits, or philosophical understanding.
Although you’ve framed this in the third person (“the intelligent woman”), I think you’re talking about yourself. I think you’re seeing a dichotomy that can exist, but doesn’t need to. You describe two types of men - one who’s conventional and financially/practically successful, and the other who’s unconventional and not. I’ve picked up from previous comments you see this as the natural order. You think a man can be one, but at the expense of the other. You want a bit of both, but see it as a trade off.
I disagree. Some can become successful by following the pattern set by others, to a degree. But big time success, both spiritually and financially comes from an independence of spirit that’s happy to challenge convention. I know this, because at the risk of sounding arrogant, that’s me.
It wasn’t always this way though. Few who knew me in my teens and early 20’s would have described me as successful. I was on the outer. When you’re very young, social compliance counts. But compliance also leads to stagnation. Those who aren’t compliant, but stay rational will generally become dominant, practical, and financially successful in due course.
I would like to further clarify that both the mountain and the bird archetypes are usually ferociously intelligent in their own right, yet their intelligence manifests in fundamentally different ways - one in the mastery of structure, stability, and order - the other in adaptability, creativity, and intellectual rebellion.
Furthermore, both archetypes typically attain their own distinct forms of success. The mountain builds systems of control, ensuring stability for those who depend on him. His success is structured, deliberate, and often tied to legacy. The bird, by contrast, thrives in exploration, innovation, and the navigation of uncharted intellectual and creative landscapes. His success is driven more by the pursuit of ideas and experiences than by concrete empire-building.
For highly intelligent women, the internal conflict is not merely about choosing between these archetypes but about recognising that they embody aspects of both. They possess the mountain's deep-rooted sense of responsibility and the bird's insatiable desire for boundless exploration - which is why neither archetype, in isolation, feels entirely sufficient. The challenge, then, is one of self-integration - reconciling these competing drives within themselves - whether through relationships, creative pursuits, or philosophical understanding.
Lovely read, really enjoy your style, prose, and insights🍹
Although you’ve framed this in the third person (“the intelligent woman”), I think you’re talking about yourself. I think you’re seeing a dichotomy that can exist, but doesn’t need to. You describe two types of men - one who’s conventional and financially/practically successful, and the other who’s unconventional and not. I’ve picked up from previous comments you see this as the natural order. You think a man can be one, but at the expense of the other. You want a bit of both, but see it as a trade off.
I disagree. Some can become successful by following the pattern set by others, to a degree. But big time success, both spiritually and financially comes from an independence of spirit that’s happy to challenge convention. I know this, because at the risk of sounding arrogant, that’s me.
It wasn’t always this way though. Few who knew me in my teens and early 20’s would have described me as successful. I was on the outer. When you’re very young, social compliance counts. But compliance also leads to stagnation. Those who aren’t compliant, but stay rational will generally become dominant, practical, and financially successful in due course.