glenngk
De'anic (Non-Jana Clan)
Posts: 63 
|
Post by glenngk on Apr 5, 2017 14:24:20 GMT
I have been reexamining my relationship with the Deanic community for the last several months. One result of that reexamination is that for the last few months I have been reconsidering how I should deal with those posts and threads which arise within this forum with which I have deep disagreement. In the past I would periodically respond to such posts and express my alternative interpretations of reality. Given my natural some might say Vikhalic temperament this is a natural way for me to respond. Though out my life I have had many opinions on many differing subjects and have never particularly been hesitant to express my own points of view. In fact there are a group of older guys I have met with regularly at a local McDonald's Restaurant in Columbus for many years. We talk about everything under the sun, from the most mundane, to issues of politics, religion, and a host of other issues. Because we are all very different persons often strong disagreements occur and sometimes even tempers flair but we in general make up and relationships are generally good.
However on the subject of religion the situation in general seems to be different particularly among persons who have related beliefs. Over the years I have arrived at the idea that most persons do not want much or any conflict within the context of a common religious community. I have particularly noticed this in relationship with the developing Deanic community and in fact one important leader has told me as much. The sense seems to be that within religious discussions only harmony and peace should prevail.
As a result of this over the past few months, I have generally not been responding within this forum to posts or threads with which I disagree. Thus peace is maintained and perhaps everyone is happy accept for possibly myself. In fact the path I have been taking is in reality one in which I feel myself to be losing my own independent voice. Well this self inflicted discipline does not work for me. Therefore I do plan to go back to my old policies and respond periodically to posts and threads to which I disagree. I will of course do so according to the rules of courtesy which exist for this forum.
I want to end this by saying a few words regarding my own perceptions regarding the relationship of the roles of harmony and conflict within a religious community. I am very aware of the stress that both the Deanic scriptures and the various De'anic traditions have placed on harmony, concord, amenity. etc. Certainly these positive communal processes and feeling should prevail within any religious community and many other forms of community as well. However the fact is that most persons do have differing understandings of reality and very differing personalities. Persons clash, ideas clash. This is in particular true within relatively new traditions which are still in the process of development.
Another thing should be said. While one might think it good that conflict did not exist, the reality is that it does exist and if conflict is not openly expressed, hopefully with some degree of politeness, than it will still manifest itself in more negative ways. It can come out explosively and vengefully from some one who feels that his or her point of view in being systematically belittled by others or the community as a whole. It can also do its sinister work by simply disempowering those who come ultimately to believe that they have no real role anymore in the community. While in this case the results may not be so public or obvious the result is still harmful to the strength of the community as a whole. Energy which could have been utilized effectively by the community is wasted and disappears. Well I could say more about this subject but I will stop now. Thanks for the attention.
Glenn King
|
|
|
|
Post by david on Apr 5, 2017 16:21:09 GMT
Glenn,
As far as I am concerned, you are welcome to make any criticism you like of my posts. In fact, I welcome them. I want anything illogical I say to be exposed, because that way I will become more logical.
May She be with you,
David.
|
|
|
|
Post by racemochridhe on Apr 6, 2017 11:48:04 GMT
Glenn,
I think people's attitudes to this are strongly conditioned by the environment in which they have been brought up. Christianity, which forms the background of most Déanic converts, is highly conflict-averse. When disputes did arise, historically, the Church addressed them by convening council of the bishops, hammering out an authoritative decision (usually with the help of political authorities), and then anathematizing or excommunicating everyone who refused to accept it. Now, it deserves to be said that this way of doing business has its strengths and advantages, but as you rightly point out it, has its weaknesses and its disadvantages as well.
My first religious community was Jewish, and Judaism has historically worked very differently. When the rabbis disagreed, they too would have meetings and councils, but rather than issuing one binding decision, they would collect all of their argumentation and reasoning and set it down in writing to be transmitted entire to posterity, in order to facilitate future rabbis arguing about the same issue more cogently and more thoughtfully until the end of time. This approach was conditioned partly by Judaism's refusal to image God and by the destruction of its priesthood with the Temple, which gave the rabbis a very different relationship to God and the tradition than Christian priests had—a relationship that was, if you will, less authoritative and more curatorial. It was conditioned partly also, however, simply be a cultural belief that the vastness of the idea of God was too great to encapsulate, and that one approached it not by finding some definite answer to a religious question, but by the willingness to wade into the question in good faith and lose oneself in it. One finds this same attitude in Islam, where a scholar's decision (fatwa) on a particular legal question is non-binding, and may be followed or disregarded by other Muslims, based on their agreement, or disagreement, with the scholar's reasoning and its perceived merits relative to the fatwas of other scholars. In practice, of course, most Muslims find it beneficial to commit themselves to adhering to the rulings of scholars operating in one or another of the various schools of jurisprudence (madhabs), so as to be consistent, but each individual decision is, nonetheless, one which may be taken or left.
My deeper sympathies lie with this latter approach, but I find both preferable to simply avoiding discussion of disagreements altogether. That can only result in the kind of alienation you describe and will, over the long-term, lead to the fragmentation and dissolution of our community as every point of disagreement, even those which are in no sense a cause of hostility, becomes effectively a point of schism from people with whom one cannot discuss it. On some points, I think we need to hammer out agreements; on many others, I think we need to lose ourselves in the grasping after God from the depths of the points on which we can agree to disagree. In all cases, I think we need to hear each other. I, for one, have always been grateful for your willingness to challenge ideas and to offer differing points of view.
All that being said, I do think there are parameters to this. We are not a NeoPagan religion or a New Age school, founded on the whims or notions of energetic individuals amid passing intellectual fads. We have a defined body of Scripture (even if there are some disagreements still about the exact composition of the canon), and also what I would call a "sacred tradition" of practice and thealogy which we have received from the faith's founding mothers (whom I often refer to together as the Matristic writers, by analogy with the Christian discipline of Patristics). I do personally feel that the arguments we put forward have to be supportable from these sources, but there are many points on which Scripture and Matristic tradition are open to differing interpretations, many points on which Matristic writers disagreed among themselves, and many points which are simply never defined by either source, and on all these points I hope we will be able, as a community, to live not only comfortably, but productively and beneficially, with probing and humble disagreement amongst ourselves. In this balance, I think, lies the greatest hope of maintaining a vibrantly cohesive and enduring community and tradition while also leaving room for both the foibles of human interaction and the certainty-shaking intervention of the Spirit's work.
I look forward to hearing more of your voice again.
-Race
|
|
glenngk
De'anic (Non-Jana Clan)
Posts: 63
|
Post by glenngk on Apr 7, 2017 11:30:28 GMT
Glenn, As far as I am concerned, you are welcome to make any criticism you like of my posts. In fact, I welcome them. I want anything illogical I say to be exposed, because that way I will become more logical. May She be with you, David. David thanks for the response. I no doubt will be responding to your posts periodically. Though the fact is that after we have gone the rounds on a subject for a while and it becomes apparent that we are simply not going to agree then I normally will not continue in the discussion. I will say this. I admire the fact that you are willing to hold opinions which seemingly few others hold and that you are committed to them. I also admire the fact that you are impeccably polite and courteous in your discussions. That is a rare quality on the internet. Glenn |
|
|
|
Post by david on Apr 7, 2017 16:07:36 GMT
Glenn, thank you for your compliments, but I have not noticed anybody being impolite in this forum, so I cannot be said to be outstanding.
May She be with you,
David.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philemon on Apr 8, 2017 12:44:19 GMT
Glenn,
I would greatly welcome hearing your perspective on matters of interest to members of this board. I like to think of controversy and disagreement as an opportunity for spiritual and intellectual practice. One aspect of the practice is to deepen our sense of amity especially for those who do not think or act as we do. Another aspect of the practice is to see through another's eyes, as it were, thereby broadening our own vision.
|
|
glenngk
De'anic (Non-Jana Clan)
Posts: 63
|
Post by glenngk on Apr 8, 2017 14:04:11 GMT
Race thanks for the response. I agree with much of what you say particularly in regards to your words regarding how Judaism has generally dealt with conflict. My understanding of the Jewish response to conflict is similar. You are of course right that most forms of Christianity have not dealt with conflict well. The problem seems to be that if right belief is a prerequisite for escaping from hell and for the assurance of heaven, and if as many Christians seem to believe the correct belief in God is generally self evident then those who hold wrong beliefs are either being dishonest or in fact representing Satanic interests.
Now regarding your comments on role of what you refer to a Matristic thought within De'anism. When I first started reading the articles from our Chapel of Our Mother God, I was amazed and impressed by much that I found within it. Much of this was because it was so different from the New Age and Neopagan ideas which dominate so much of the alternative religious world. I loved it that these people called for a real religious faith and a Bhakti form of devotion to a real Goddess who was not simply a Jungian symbol for the self empowerment of women. I loved the fact that women's or any other peoples sexuality was not put center stage. I liked the fact that they did not bother about balancing male and female persons within the Deity both simply went to the chase and affirmed Dea above all. I loved the fact that they did not demonize Christianity and many of the other religions of the world as being only patriarchal. I loved that fact that they clearly rejected many aspects of the modern world and in fact attempted to create a counter society in opposition to that world. I even liked the audacious attempt to recreate another reality Aristasia, the Feminine Empire, etc even though I knew that by definition I was excluded from it. I admired this even though I think that the idea of intermorphic sexes is simply an exercise in fantasy.
However the fact is that in spite of all that I thought was good within it, much of which I still admire; the fact is that I did find much which to me was also deeply problematic. I do not want to go into that list now. There is plenty of time to deal with the issues latter. Suffice it to say that I do need to do much more reading from the works of the Madrians and to do another round of study of the articles from the Chapel site. I believe that these do have a place within discussions regarding the nature of Deanism and its future. However I am not willing to accept the ideas which come form Feminine Essentialist and Traditionalist sources as being absolutely authoritative in determining the proper interpretation of Deanism. I would not do this any more than contemporary Christian Protestants accept long established Christian traditions as being necessarily being valid for them. Yes I may admire tradition, I may have bias in its favor but if ultimately if it does not agree to this vision of truth I see within my moral conscience or to reason I will reject it. For example as I rejected the ideal of slavery and other forms of servitute in my adolysense even those the bible does not prohibit it, I reject the idea fo matriarchy which seems to me to be simply the reversal of the patriarchal inequality. I do know of course that according to Rene Guenon's teaching what I have just said is an example of the sin of individualism. But I really do not know how I would have survived in this world during my life if I had not followed my own capacity to think for my self. If I had not been able to challange and reject every form of suppossed authority which impossed itself on me, I probably would have disintegrated decade ago. Well enough for now. Thank you for the response. I appreciate it.
Glenn
By the way could you send me a link to the article you call A Man's Place? I would appreciate it.
Glenn
|
|
|
|
Post by david on Apr 9, 2017 17:28:35 GMT
Glenn,
You will find A Man's Place if you open your Dropbox file, then opne TCA 15, then open pages 6,7,8 and 9.
May She be with you,
David.
|
|
|
|
Post by david on Apr 9, 2017 17:44:27 GMT
Glenn,
I think your attitudes to authority are bassed on how authority works in a patriarchal society. Madrian authority is based on purity. without purity it all collapses, because only pure women have the strength needed to maintain it.
When I met Madria Moura, I was impressed by her spiritual awareness. She had great inner vision, and knew a lot about me which could only have come from inner vision. She was charismatic. I felt I could die for her. I was brought up by members of the Communist Party, and always had a rebellious attitude to authority, and attached great importance to individualism, but meeting Madriam Moura changed all that. There is a question that is always asked: What would you do if you wwere told to jump into a furnace? I believe that if Madria Moura ever told me to do that, she would explain why it was necessary, and would not be satisfied until I understood.
May she be with you,
David.
|
|
|
|
Post by racemochridhe on Apr 9, 2017 20:10:48 GMT
Glenn,
The article on "A Man's Place" can also be found in the Archive, pp. 6—9 of this PDF: chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/http://www.oxfordgoddessrevivalarchive.org/cms/files/original/a75a4da19693fccc498919cf2a42b86d.pdf
I can certainly sympathize with what you are saying. I, too, have had to reject a great deal of supposed "authority" that wished to impress itself upon me. The irony, of course, is that in a society dominated by liberal democratic ideals, all Traditionalists arrive at that position by bucking authority and refusing the conventional "wisdom" with which they were raised. Hence the often repeated criticism that Traditionalism depends on the very modernity it criticizes for its existence, which is true. Once the Traditional society has fallen apart, all the best efforts to reconstruct it can only end in an approximation that never restores the primordial simplicity and unity of its conception. Still, if one cannot return to the Senkoku, being Yukio Mishima is better than the alternatives.
My relationship to Déanism is profoundly shaped by the fact that I was already a Traditionalist before discovering it, having learned of Guénon and Evola (as heterodox as he is in many ways) some years prior. I had been deeply impressed with much of their thinking then, and what reservations I had were perfectly answered by the Aristasians. Much as the Madrians wrote about the Rosary—that it was effective in other forms, but that their symbolic approach to it seemed to unlock a potential that had been hidden in the exercise—my discovery of Aristasian writing was like finding the missing piece of the Traditionalist puzzle, transcending its contradictions and rescuing it from the more perverse possibilities of its interpretation (like Evola's "Männerbund"). Thus, accepting the Traditionalist components of Feminine Essentialism never posed a problem for me.
I agree with David in his implicit suggestion that matriarchy is not simply an inversion of patriarchy; that would require us to assume that the two sexes are fundamentally alike, which is not the case. Even if similar in outward form, the domination of a society by the matriarchal principle will necessarily be different in inward working, and thus in ultimate effect. I am reminded of the Japanese story of Empress Jingu, who legendarily conquered Korea in the early third century without shedding a drop of blood. Her position was legally like that of her father and, subsequently, of her son. Her forces were constituted in the same fashion. Her aims and objectives remained unchanged from those her father had established in his campaigns. And yet, the result of her labors was markedly different from the celebratedly bloody conquests of her male predecessors and successors. That is not to say, of course, that women will always act or lead differently than men—history will give the lie to any such assertion very quickly—but it is to say that, on balance, a society that places women into positions of power fundamentally identical to those formerly held by men will manifest the use and results of that power very differently nonetheless.
That is just some food for thought, however. As Luther said: in essentials, unity, in inessentials, liberty, and in all things, charity. I think that if we can hold that maxim within our own community, we will do well. (Now, on to the acrimonious debates about which points are essential and which are inessential! :-)
-Race
|
|
|
|
Post by david on Apr 10, 2017 16:26:53 GMT
Glenn and Race,
I think a lot of people will think me fanatical for saying this, but I think the important thing is that Madrianism is the truth, and that, if you act according to Madrian principles, you will reflect the Spirit. Everybody else, however devoutly religious, only obeys man made rules.
May She be with you,
David.
|
|
|
|
Post by david on Apr 11, 2017 18:05:49 GMT
I think I ought to justify my last post on this matter. What people say, these days, is that religious intolerance is caused by people thinking that their religion is the truth, and therefore better than all the other religions, when, in fact, they are all equally true, even when they contradict, but suited to different types of people. What thye overlook is that, if they don't correspond to an objective reality, they are illusion, which makes Atheism the one truth and better than all religions. You can't get away from the fact that there has to be truth and falsity. You have to learn to tolerate people even when you believe them to be wrong.
The solution is not to have a violent attitude, the solution is to justify your beliefs with reason, not with force. People don't accept this because it is the rationalist approach, and rationalism is unpopular, these days, and held to be the source of all violence. They cannot admit that rationalism helps to have a moral attitude.
May She be with you,
David.
|
|
glenngk
De'anic (Non-Jana Clan)
Posts: 63
|
Post by glenngk on Apr 13, 2017 11:24:27 GMT
David, To call someone a fanatic in general is an exercise in name calling. I do not engage in that activity. I will say this, when you say that Madrianism your religion is the truth and that all other religions are merely man made you are saying simply what millions of Christians and other members of the Abrahamic faiths have said before. Let me ask do you really believe that all other religions are simply false that they contain no revelation of the truth?
Now regarding your second post David. First I agree that a primary problem with the attitude that ones faith is the truth is that historically many on that basis have persecuted others. I agree with you that the solution to that one must defend ones faith iby reason and that one should never attempt to force ones faith on others. To do so is simply wrong.
Neither do I agree with the position is all religions are necessarily equally true or equally false. The logical result of that position is that it is a matter of indifference which religion one is a member of. I do however believe that most religions are mixtures of elements some of which are very false and some of which are true. That does not mean that they are all equal. The ancient Aztec religion which called for the sacrifice of thousands of people each year to the gods and goddesses to keep the universe running while it may have had some elements of truth was very wrong. I do not believe that it was the equal of the Roman Catholicism of the Spaniards regardless of the brutalities of the conquerors. And while I believe that much is true within the Biblical scripture I certainly do not accept all of it as true.
The fact is that I do not believe in the religious dichotomy of religious faiths being either objectively true or false. Most are a mixture of both of these elements. In fact I have a real problem believing in your word "objective" or "logical" for that matter. To be honest I believe that the concept of objectivity comes purely out of the material realm. 2 + 3 = 5. That is an objective fact in any language or among any people. What is objective of necessity I believe is connected to the world of the senses and matter. I does not matter how good or evil persons are, all can see its evidence, it is self evident. I am sorry David but I have never experienced spiritual truths in this way. I do not see any objective ways in determining whether Christianity or Judaism or Islam or Buddhism or Deanism is true. As likewise I do not see any objective way of determining whether the ethic of absolute non violence as supposedly taught by Jesus and the Buddha is truth. The best that I can do is the say that this teaching or that seems to be true to me, that it seems right to my heart mind and conscience. It is a truth by which I am willing to live or even die by. Thus I have faith that it is true. But no David I can say this with no hesistation I do not know that Dea exists or that when I die I will continue to exist. I have faith faith that Dea exists and thatn she will take care of me at my death. And yes I will admit it I often have many doubts regarding these beliefs. I do not have absolute certainty as much as I wish I did. This is simply the fact of the matter.
Now on the issue of logic goes to be honest it seems to me on a strictly logical basis that strictly naturalist interpretations of evolutionary materialistic science explains what happens in life and reality than does a theistic one. My own reason for reject that position come more from the testimony of my heart than it comes from reason.
Note I will be getting back with you on some of your other comments latter.
Glenn
|
|
glenngk
De'anic (Non-Jana Clan)
Posts: 63
|
Post by glenngk on Apr 13, 2017 11:43:23 GMT
Race I will be getting back to you when I can. I do want to tell you that I have been able to print out from your archive site the 15th edition of "The Coming Age." The print out is great. I am now able to read this material at leisure and with the thoroughness they deserve. I know that you were able to create the archive only as a result all of the prior work of both Sophia Ruth and David as well. So I simply want to say that I appreciate all of the work that was done.
OK I have read the first article related to the Amazons and I am currently reading "A Mans Place." Let me say this. The reading again reinforces my perception that Sister Angela is a religious thinker of great depth, perception and brilliance. As I noted on a blog entry which I posted several years ago that even when I disagree with the positions taken on the Chapel of Our Mother God site I still feel that I find much that is stimulating and of depth.
However I also have to say that I still have problems with aspect of what is being said. For example the very story line of the Amazons themselves I believe is purely mythological, having little relationship with objective human history. That is one example. However I do have to say this. I do understand now that I will need to do a significant amount of reading from this literature to better understand the worldview and spirituality behind the scriptures.
Glenn
|
|
|
|
Post by david on Apr 13, 2017 16:45:24 GMT
Glenn,
In answer to your first question, I don't believe that all other religions are totally false, but are a mixture of truth and falsity. Christians were telling the truth when they restored divine unity, but they are wrong when they believe that Jesus was God or that he rose from the dead.
Now, your other point. If a thing has an objective existence, it exists independantly of how I think about it. When I say Paris is the capital of France, this is true because there actually is a country called France with a capital called Paris. I don't know the name of the captial of Cambodia, but this capital has an existence which is just as objective as the capital of France. When I say that religion is based on objective reality, I mean that the Dea really exists, and the nature of Her existence is independant of anyone's belief concerning Her. That belief is true or false depending on whether it corersponds to Her true nature.
As for logic, I beieve I have a logical proof of the existence of the Dea. When we look for the cause of existence, whenever we find a first principle, we raise the question "What happened before that?' We have a choice between accepting an infinite series of causes, or a cause which was uncaused. The solution is that the first cause is the cause of time, so there is no before. This first cause must contain all other causes in potential, which must include consciousness. We are led to believe in the existence of the Dea as a conscious being Who is the Cause of all causes.
I tried this proof out on an Internet group, and I was told I could not prove there has never been an uncaused event. This has caused me some trouble, but my answer now is that all existence requires energy, and it requires energy to change existence. The energy which brings about that event is the cause.
I don't know whether this answer is adequate, but I thought I'd try it out on this group to see if anyone has any observations on it.
May She be with you,
David.
|
|
