Post by glenngk on Aug 2, 2018 21:12:36 GMT
David, actually on rereading my post, I do not think that I said that men were simply "matter." I have observed in the past that according to Madrianism / Aristasianism the male represents the material principle while the female represents Spirit. And yes often the term "manifestation" is used to refer to this world as the place of increasing materialization and increasing distance from Thea.
You know David, I am increasingly unwilling to hold back punches here or anywhere else. What I mean is that I am increasingly unwilling to just go along with the dictates of Orthodox Deanic theology and hesitate describe where I disagree with it. I am not under any kind of papal-like authority from those who can order me to shut up. Of course I can be ignored but I have felt for a long time that most in general ignore me anyway. So why hold back? BTW David, in spite of the fact that I generally disagree with much of your theology, I have always been grateful to you for at least considering my posts as worth refuting. To me that is more generous treatment than I receive from those who simply ignore me. I often contemplate which is worse to be ignored regularly with benign neglect or to be openly attacked. Well at least when under open attack one knows that others are listening even if they often distort the meaning of what one says. Oh please not I am not saying that I am interested in getting into endless discussions with those who disagree with my understandings of Dea and her will, and I theirs. I do not have time for that and neither I suspect do they. But what I do have problems with are those chose never to respond at all. I would rather have them tell me, as one member of the Deanic Tumblrsphere told me recently, that since she is a Feminine Essentialist and a Traditionalist, that she and I have nothing really to discuss. At least I know where I stand with her.
Ok, David back to the discussion. You have often said that women represent both the Spirit and the Creative principle because they give birth. The male does not give birth and therefore he is intrinsically non-creative. Yea I am aware of the snake scripture which supports this. Well the only thing I can say about this is that the Madrians interpreted the creative principle in a radically different way than do most human beings. For most creativity involves the creation of something new or at least beautiful. Sure the giving of birth is creative but so is the creation of works of art, the discovery of scientific principles, crafts and perhaps even athletic accomplishment, etc. And to go back to biology so might the male role in the conception of a baby as creative. Though I grant you that the female role is much, much more central. Simply stated I simply do not accept the logic of the argument that the fact that women give birth means that they represent the creative principle and thus Spirit. It seems obvious to me that both men and women contain a seed of light a seed of Dea within them. It seems to me that both men and women have the potential to be creative in many spheres of life in including that of religion. When one gender is given the sole role of authority while the other the sole role of obedience then what is being said is that one has the role of creativity and the other does not. This simply is a denial of the facts of reality.
OK, Matter and Spirit. From what I understand of Madrian doctrine Spirit and Matter are radically different principles. Matter apparently in itself does not contain Spirit. Spirit in itself does not contain Matter. From what I understand Spirit and matter are separate principles and that spirit has to enter into matter in order to create manifestation. And within the manifest world the relationship of matter and spirit should be that of the obedience of Matter to Spirit or the Manifest to Dea. I have a problem with all of this. The idea that Spirit and Matter are two directly opposed principles I believe is simply wrong. Based on my own admittedly limited understanding of science, I believe that Spirit and Matter are not totally opposed principles. I think that Matter is simply Spirit which is visible to the human or animal senses. Matter can also be touched,smelled, weighed, etc. I am more inclined to think that the universe is the visible sensibly present body of Dea than some material that must be put into subjection to disembodied spirit.
I want to add one more element before leaving this subject. On the issue of matter, I think that it is really startling fact that Orthodox Deanism ignores almost the whole of Hindu Shakta theology regarding the relationship of matter to Shakti / Dea. Within those Hindu theologies in which the Goddess is supreme she is both Prakrti / Primorial matter which which is fully creative of life in its totality, and Absolute Pure Spirit, Brahman which is seemingly separate from the world of matter. She is both though it seems to me that pride of place is given to her nature as Prakrti primordial matter. So where does the Deanic Traditionalists get off in their almost inevitable characterization of matter as being some sort of pure decline from the higher state of pure spirit. It seems to me that Dea must take great joy in the creation of life and that it is not a decline at all.
Glenn.
You know David, I am increasingly unwilling to hold back punches here or anywhere else. What I mean is that I am increasingly unwilling to just go along with the dictates of Orthodox Deanic theology and hesitate describe where I disagree with it. I am not under any kind of papal-like authority from those who can order me to shut up. Of course I can be ignored but I have felt for a long time that most in general ignore me anyway. So why hold back? BTW David, in spite of the fact that I generally disagree with much of your theology, I have always been grateful to you for at least considering my posts as worth refuting. To me that is more generous treatment than I receive from those who simply ignore me. I often contemplate which is worse to be ignored regularly with benign neglect or to be openly attacked. Well at least when under open attack one knows that others are listening even if they often distort the meaning of what one says. Oh please not I am not saying that I am interested in getting into endless discussions with those who disagree with my understandings of Dea and her will, and I theirs. I do not have time for that and neither I suspect do they. But what I do have problems with are those chose never to respond at all. I would rather have them tell me, as one member of the Deanic Tumblrsphere told me recently, that since she is a Feminine Essentialist and a Traditionalist, that she and I have nothing really to discuss. At least I know where I stand with her.
Ok, David back to the discussion. You have often said that women represent both the Spirit and the Creative principle because they give birth. The male does not give birth and therefore he is intrinsically non-creative. Yea I am aware of the snake scripture which supports this. Well the only thing I can say about this is that the Madrians interpreted the creative principle in a radically different way than do most human beings. For most creativity involves the creation of something new or at least beautiful. Sure the giving of birth is creative but so is the creation of works of art, the discovery of scientific principles, crafts and perhaps even athletic accomplishment, etc. And to go back to biology so might the male role in the conception of a baby as creative. Though I grant you that the female role is much, much more central. Simply stated I simply do not accept the logic of the argument that the fact that women give birth means that they represent the creative principle and thus Spirit. It seems obvious to me that both men and women contain a seed of light a seed of Dea within them. It seems to me that both men and women have the potential to be creative in many spheres of life in including that of religion. When one gender is given the sole role of authority while the other the sole role of obedience then what is being said is that one has the role of creativity and the other does not. This simply is a denial of the facts of reality.
OK, Matter and Spirit. From what I understand of Madrian doctrine Spirit and Matter are radically different principles. Matter apparently in itself does not contain Spirit. Spirit in itself does not contain Matter. From what I understand Spirit and matter are separate principles and that spirit has to enter into matter in order to create manifestation. And within the manifest world the relationship of matter and spirit should be that of the obedience of Matter to Spirit or the Manifest to Dea. I have a problem with all of this. The idea that Spirit and Matter are two directly opposed principles I believe is simply wrong. Based on my own admittedly limited understanding of science, I believe that Spirit and Matter are not totally opposed principles. I think that Matter is simply Spirit which is visible to the human or animal senses. Matter can also be touched,smelled, weighed, etc. I am more inclined to think that the universe is the visible sensibly present body of Dea than some material that must be put into subjection to disembodied spirit.
I want to add one more element before leaving this subject. On the issue of matter, I think that it is really startling fact that Orthodox Deanism ignores almost the whole of Hindu Shakta theology regarding the relationship of matter to Shakti / Dea. Within those Hindu theologies in which the Goddess is supreme she is both Prakrti / Primorial matter which which is fully creative of life in its totality, and Absolute Pure Spirit, Brahman which is seemingly separate from the world of matter. She is both though it seems to me that pride of place is given to her nature as Prakrti primordial matter. So where does the Deanic Traditionalists get off in their almost inevitable characterization of matter as being some sort of pure decline from the higher state of pure spirit. It seems to me that Dea must take great joy in the creation of life and that it is not a decline at all.
Glenn.
