Xylia
New Member
Posts: 8 
|
Post by Xylia on Aug 27, 2016 23:16:02 GMT
As I mentioned in my introductory thread, I'm essentially coming to/approaching Déanism from a purely secular, naturalist, and atheistic context. I've spent most all of my life actively hostile or indifferent to any form of 'spirituality', metaphysics or religion, and was a bit surprised to learn how strongly I feel myself drawn to Déanism, since a completely naturalistic/atheist worldview is all I've ever known. For several years I've identified myself as an atheist existentialist and even nihilist, and it has only been recently that I've tentatively stepped out of that framework to consider other paradigms. As such I'm finding myself with questions, struggles and concerns I haven't really seen addressed in a Déanic context before, as most people who find their way to this faith seem to have come from another religious background. This is all so new to me--I wasn't a very religiously literate person either--and I find myself a little overwhelmed sometimes during the course of my research and contemplation.
Despite how beautiful and wonderful I find this religion/faith/tradition, and how much I'd like to become a Déanist devotee, I am really struggling to make the leap into consideration of the supernatural/metaphysical. I've been reading a great deal about metaphysics on the Chapel of Our Mother God site, and there are many interesting ideas there I hadn't considered before, but sometimes I just feel overwhelmingly foolish for even entertaining the notion of deity at all. I've recently been clumsily praying a bit to Déa, saying good morning, good night, asking for guidance and even offering food sometimes before eating, and despite all of this bringing me a sense of great comfort, I can't help but feel deeply ashamed sometimes for doing it (again feeling foolish and ridiculous for thinking of a personal deity, as someone who has always been resolutely atheist), and worried that my fledgling and fragmented communications are somehow inappropriate. It does give me tremendous comfort to think of Déa as an infinitely loving and patient mother.
Does anyone know of anyone else in a similar situation? Any advice or kind words (broadly speaking) for a lost, confused and suffering maid, disaffected and alienated by the stringent materialism she's always existed in, gradually wandering her way to Déa from a completely secular/atheistic worldview?
|
|
|
|
Post by david on Aug 28, 2016 17:39:53 GMT
Xylia, my parents were both atheists, and I was a convinced atheist when young, but I was fascinated by the idea of female characters with superhuman power. It never occurred to me that this had anything to do with religion until I read Robert Graves' books on matriarchal religion. I realised then that I was fascinated with something supernatural. The problem was that I accepted the perspective that Christianity is the whole of religion. This perspective blunts people's religious concepts.
I felt guilty about excluding the male principle from religion, but the key step was learning about Lux Madriana. This religion has disappeared, but it was the origin of the religion expressed in The Chapel Of Our Mother God. They made me realise that creation is a female principle, so God is female.
They answered some problems I was having with religion. The principle one is what happened before creation? The answer is that creation is a state which contains all time in one instant, so there is no before.
The other problem, which was quite serious for me, is why does God not prove "his" existence to me by performing a miracle? The problem is that Christianity has no real concept of spiritual development. It is a spiritual attainment to realise the existence of the Dea by correct understanding. I also, at the time, did not accept the visions at Lourdes and Fatima as genuine. The reason is that these are generally explained as being visions of Jesus' mother, who is not God. At seems absurd to believe that his mother would manifest and not Jesus. The Madrians say that these visions were the visions of the Dea, and provide the miraculous proof I need.
|
|
|
|
Post by racemochridhe on Aug 28, 2016 20:03:35 GMT
Xylia, Ten thousand welcomes! Like David, I was raised by atheists and began as an atheist myself. I spent a little over a decade as a spiritual seeker studying just about every religion you can think of before discovering Filianism. For me, a lot of the journey was driven by the axiom Jesus put so well, that you will know them by their fruits (Matthew 7:20). Long before I made a commitment to a particular religious path, I was convinced that religion in general was meaningful and, in some sense, true simply by the observation that, up until the early modern period, virtually all human attainment in philosophy, art, literature, music, architecture, charity, statecraft, or anything else was connected, more or less closely, with religion. The story of religion was the story of civilization itself. Religion created the hospitals and the universities, invented algebra and astronomy, inspired the courage of Joan of Arc, the compassion of St. Francis, the beauty of Rumi, the joy of Mirabai, and the comfort and kindness of untold millions. Believing, somewhere deep down, that so much good could not be built on a lie, I muddled along for a long time in a vague, ecumenical belief that there was a God and that She was at work behind many masks. In Filianism, I found a doctrine that perfectly and beautifully revealed the fundamental unity behind the many disparate creeds and presented the essential truth of all the great faiths in a clear and concise form adapted to our modern age. Many scoff at it for its origins but, as St. Paul said, God has made the wisdom of the world foolish (1 Corinthians 1:20), and every great dispensation of revelation has come through a channel that seemed absurd to its contemporaries. I would be happy to talk with you more about my experience and what was persuasive to me if you are interested. I would be remiss, however, if I did not first direct you to a couple of very helpful books. You may already have obtained a copy of Miss Alice Lucy Trent's "The Feminine Universe". As you have spent a goodly amount of time at the Chapel, I dare say you have already read some of the contents (perhaps without realizing it), but the book elaborates many of the ideas presented by the Chapel more fully, sets them coherently against the history of the world's broader philosophical and religious thought, and presents them in a more ordered and iterative way. (Miss Trent's engagement with Nietzsche may have an especial relevance for you, given your formerly nihilist leanings.) It is very much worth the twenty dollars it costs from Sun Daughter Press (http://sundaughterpress.com/the-feminine-universe/). While you're there, I do recommend getting the Gospel of Our Mother God, even if you have the NCUV version of the scriptures, as there is some additional material not present in the NCUV and a very handy appendix of prayers and details of practice in the back that you might appreciate as you take your first steps devotionally. The other recommendation I would make to you is Joseph Campbell's series "The Masks of God", most especially the second and third volumes ("Oriental Mythology" and "Occidental Mythology", respectively). Campbell was not a Traditionalist per se, but he was influenced by and sympathetic to Traditionalism (which is also a major influence on Miss Trent and many aspects of Déanic/Filianic thought). I highly recommend him for broadening your religious literacy in general from a Traditionalist(esque) perspective and for the clarity that his treatment of the broad scope of world religions lends to understanding a range of Traditional concepts discussed at the Chapel, from the parallels between Christ and Guanyin to the fungibility of sin and dukkha, and even life theatre, performative roles, and the Golden Order. I recommend Campbell for you at this juncture, as opposed to going straight to the Traditionalist writers that Déanic/Filianic thinkers generally cite most (Guénon, Coomaraswamy, etc.) because Campbell, drawing on Jung, writes in a way that is more accessible to someone coming from a secular background and focuses more exclusively on religion and spirituality (those other writers tend to assume more knowledge of religion and then wander more freely in their own discussions through aesthetics, cultural criticism, politics, and other subjects). His use of the language of Jungian psychology sometimes leads people to some false assumptions, since contemporary psychology is very materialistic, but Jung in any other age would have been called a mystic, and the fact that he had to adapt his mysticism rhetorically to a scientific era that had no patience for the mystical is exactly what makes his work, in the hands of a writer like Campbell, such a good opportunity to help bridge people coming from a naturalistic/atheistic perspective into metaphysical considerations. It won't take you all the way, but it can get you closer to where the leap has to be made, so that the chasm won't seem so daunting. (For help translating Jungian rhetoric into more Traditional metaphysical terms, you may benefit from Lady Aquila's comments in this interview, if you have not already read it: www.mother-god.com/anima-mundi.html)Please don't feel foolish, and please do continue to share your "questions, struggles, and concerns" with us. There are any number of us here who have made journeys from atheism to theism and are happy to share our experiences and the resources we have acquired in our studies. I would say "Dea bless you" for all your efforts, but it is clear from your motivation and open-mindedness that She has blessed you already! I am very happy for you, and wish you joy in the journey. -Race |
|
Xylia
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by Xylia on Nov 19, 2016 11:59:54 GMT
Xylia, my parents were both atheists, and I was a convinced atheist when young, but I was fascinated by the idea of female characters with superhuman power. It never occurred to me that this had anything to do with religion until I read Robert Graves' books on matriarchal religion. I realised then that I was fascinated with something supernatural. The problem was that I accepted the perspective that Christianity is the whole of religion. This perspective blunts people's religious concepts. I felt guilty about excluding the male principle from religion, but the key step was learning about Lux Madriana. This religion has disappeared, but it was the origin of the religion expressed in The Chapel Of Our Mother God. They made me realise that creation is a female principle, so God is female. They answered some problems I was having with religion. The principle one is what happened before creation? The answer is that creation is a state which contains all time in one instant, so there is no before. The other problem, which was quite serious for me, is why does God not prove "his" existence to me by performing a miracle? The problem is that Christianity has no real concept of spiritual development. It is a spiritual attainment to realise the existence of the Dea by correct understanding. I also, at the time, did not accept the visions at Lourdes and Fatima as genuine. The reason is that these are generally explained as being visions of Jesus' mother, who is not God. At seems absurd to believe that his mother would manifest and not Jesus. The Madrians say that these visions were the visions of the Dea, and provide the miraculous proof I need. David--thanks for your candid reply. For me, in lifelong absence of any supernatural inclinations, the draw towards a concept of Déa as overarchingly feminine simply took the form of being always and at the deepest level drawn to other feminine and female figures and perspectives in all things (in the material realm I've exclusively inhabited), with an emphatic and particular core focus on maternality and the mother/daughter dynamic on earth. At the innermost center of my heart and permeating every aspect of my being I've always felt, for as long as I can remember, an intense yearning to be nurtured as daughter by mother figures in all forms and iterations they should happen to manifest in. As I've recently come to realize/suspect, this was very likely a microcosmic/metonymic reflection, a clear and shining symbol of my unconscious love for/connection to Déa (though I have struggled recently with the pernicious suspicion that it may be the other way around). Part of the path that attracted me to religious explorations in general very recently and then to Déanism was my realization and strong conviction that there is a transcendent, irreducible quality to womanhood that defies dissection and misclassification in all the ways the approaches of this current age have tried to deny, divert, split and numbly suppress it. Following the emergence of this belief--perhaps my strongest--I came to vehemently reject most of the forms of present feminism ubiquitiously popular among my generation, leaving an aching void and need for a worldview in better accordance with what I knew to be true about gender. But I digress. Regarding creation as a female principle, I can only say that I vociferously and wholeheartedly agree. Out of the branches of Déanic tradition that I've explored so far, the Madrian perspective has stood out to me as being particularly interesting, purely resonant and appealing, and I appreciate that there's someone else here who seems to share that view and who has more knowledge of that path. Digging deeply I've managed to find more than I initially expected, but I only wish that information regarding the Madrian tradition and the original manifestations of Lux Madriana in particular was more easily and widely available. It is important to me that it was the origin of our Scriptures. I am finding, much to my surprised curiosity and relief, that Déanism as a religion does not give rise to most of the peripheral objections of Western atheism as (prototypically) does Christianity. While I'm not familiar with the visions at Lourdes and Fatima, thank you for sharing!  I look forward to future discussion regarding Lux Madriana and Madrianism, which I have many questions about. |
|
Xylia
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by Xylia on Nov 19, 2016 14:14:15 GMT
Xylia, Ten thousand welcomes! Like David, I was raised by atheists and began as an atheist myself. I spent a little over a decade as a spiritual seeker studying just about every religion you can think of before discovering Filianism. For me, a lot of the journey was driven by the axiom Jesus put so well, that you will know them by their fruits (Matthew 7:20). Long before I made a commitment to a particular religious path, I was convinced that religion in general was meaningful and, in some sense, true simply by the observation that, up until the early modern period, virtually all human attainment in philosophy, art, literature, music, architecture, charity, statecraft, or anything else was connected, more or less closely, with religion. The story of religion was the story of civilization itself. Religion created the hospitals and the universities, invented algebra and astronomy, inspired the courage of Joan of Arc, the compassion of St. Francis, the beauty of Rumi, the joy of Mirabai, and the comfort and kindness of untold millions. Believing, somewhere deep down, that so much good could not be built on a lie, I muddled along for a long time in a vague, ecumenical belief that there was a God and that She was at work behind many masks. In Filianism, I found a doctrine that perfectly and beautifully revealed the fundamental unity behind the many disparate creeds and presented the essential truth of all the great faiths in a clear and concise form adapted to our modern age. Many scoff at it for its origins but, as St. Paul said, God has made the wisdom of the world foolish (1 Corinthians 1:20), and every great dispensation of revelation has come through a channel that seemed absurd to its contemporaries. I would be happy to talk with you more about my experience and what was persuasive to me if you are interested. I would be remiss, however, if I did not first direct you to a couple of very helpful books. You may already have obtained a copy of Miss Alice Lucy Trent's "The Feminine Universe". As you have spent a goodly amount of time at the Chapel, I dare say you have already read some of the contents (perhaps without realizing it), but the book elaborates many of the ideas presented by the Chapel more fully, sets them coherently against the history of the world's broader philosophical and religious thought, and presents them in a more ordered and iterative way. (Miss Trent's engagement with Nietzsche may have an especial relevance for you, given your formerly nihilist leanings.) It is very much worth the twenty dollars it costs from Sun Daughter Press (http://sundaughterpress.com/the-feminine-universe/). While you're there, I do recommend getting the Gospel of Our Mother God, even if you have the NCUV version of the scriptures, as there is some additional material not present in the NCUV and a very handy appendix of prayers and details of practice in the back that you might appreciate as you take your first steps devotionally. The other recommendation I would make to you is Joseph Campbell's series "The Masks of God", most especially the second and third volumes ("Oriental Mythology" and "Occidental Mythology", respectively). Campbell was not a Traditionalist per se, but he was influenced by and sympathetic to Traditionalism (which is also a major influence on Miss Trent and many aspects of Déanic/Filianic thought). I highly recommend him for broadening your religious literacy in general from a Traditionalist(esque) perspective and for the clarity that his treatment of the broad scope of world religions lends to understanding a range of Traditional concepts discussed at the Chapel, from the parallels between Christ and Guanyin to the fungibility of sin and dukkha, and even life theatre, performative roles, and the Golden Order. I recommend Campbell for you at this juncture, as opposed to going straight to the Traditionalist writers that Déanic/Filianic thinkers generally cite most (Guénon, Coomaraswamy, etc.) because Campbell, drawing on Jung, writes in a way that is more accessible to someone coming from a secular background and focuses more exclusively on religion and spirituality (those other writers tend to assume more knowledge of religion and then wander more freely in their own discussions through aesthetics, cultural criticism, politics, and other subjects). His use of the language of Jungian psychology sometimes leads people to some false assumptions, since contemporary psychology is very materialistic, but Jung in any other age would have been called a mystic, and the fact that he had to adapt his mysticism rhetorically to a scientific era that had no patience for the mystical is exactly what makes his work, in the hands of a writer like Campbell, such a good opportunity to help bridge people coming from a naturalistic/atheistic perspective into metaphysical considerations. It won't take you all the way, but it can get you closer to where the leap has to be made, so that the chasm won't seem so daunting. (For help translating Jungian rhetoric into more Traditional metaphysical terms, you may benefit from Lady Aquila's comments in this interview, if you have not already read it: www.mother-god.com/anima-mundi.html)Please don't feel foolish, and please do continue to share your "questions, struggles, and concerns" with us. There are any number of us here who have made journeys from atheism to theism and are happy to share our experiences and the resources we have acquired in our studies. I would say "Dea bless you" for all your efforts, but it is clear from your motivation and open-mindedness that She has blessed you already! I am very happy for you, and wish you joy in the journey. -Race Race, Rayati! First I want to thank you so much for your detailed and informative reply! Your erudition in these matters is much appreciated.  Forgive my belated replies; I've been greatly set off course in recent months by acute mental health and various personal issues, though I've remained connected to my study of Déanism as a calming yet exciting oasis to return and look forward to, even if I haven't been able to engage with it as thoroughly or directly as I'd like and have intended to. Reading about the impetus behind your spiritual/devotional path was interesting, and your point about the meaningful nature of religion is a good one, though I hadn't ever much considered it from that angle myself. The Western materialist/atheist perspective has done much to downplay, explain away and selectively compartmentalize its role in the development of civilization, and I suppose that I always accepted the concept of religious thought as merely a detailed product of protoscientific motivations and a springboard for humanity to more 'advanced' levels of knowledge and practical development. My path towards spiritual/religious exploration has been perhaps a highly unconventional one, grounded firmly in the very worldview that I'm emerging out of, and I will confess to some insecurity and concern over the authenticity of my motives throughout as a result. The primary threads that initially began to lead me out of my entrenched atheistic/naturalistic worldview were essentially as follows. I started to consider and realize the value of ritual at an extremely chaotic, muddled and amorphous turbulent period in my life wracked by rapid and frightening deterioration on nearly all intangible levels of my emotional landscape, spirit/soul, psyche and so forth. I had become aware of the potential benefits of meaningful ritual and little elements of structure for some of the debilitating mental health issues I constantly struggle with, as well as the emotional advantages of being able to rest in the comfort of "turning things over to a higher power" (a flawed articulation of this concept through a secularized "personal empowerment" lens) in overwhelming moments, and I desired to find and/or establish a ritual framework that was both personally meaningful/symbolic to me and ideally connected to a broader, connected cultural paradigm and context. Before that I also had arrived at extraordinarily strong and lucid beliefs and conclusions about the nature of gender, femininity, and womanhood following an intensive examination and study of the many iterations and schools of feminism prevalent and simply extant throughout the latter half of the twentieth century to present day. I became immensely frustrated and disheartened with the gulf between my views on these topics--which were inherently antithetical to patriarchal worldviews and simultaneously, fundamentally at odds with the versions of feminist thought that I had poured myself into understanding. In that sense, discovering the Déanic perspectives on this subject was very much like coming home--though there were some significant differences as I had developed and articulated my philosophy of feminism from a totally material perspective and still within the wider feminist lexicon, finally I felt immensely validated and relieved at finding a complete paradigm that I felt was at least very much inclined in the right direction. Furthermore, (and the thread that finally tied my nascent feelings together and propelled me towards open questioning of the premises of my philosophical underpinnings), I realized that I held many strong personal values that were utterly 'out of sync' with and indeed anathema to the (sub)cultural and sociopolitical contexts in which I existed, and that were inexplicable within the confines of secular/atheistic existentialism. Subsequently I found myself adrift, confused and increasingly disenchanted with the realm that was the applied result of the view of life I had attached myself to. The teachings on Kali Yuga and to an extent the Chelouranyan/Aristasian concept of the Eclipse resonate greatly with me in the aftermath of all-encompassing postmodernism, and help to make sense of the discordance I've long felt with present society. I sincerely apologize if all of this, the above expression of my journey to Déa, seems excessively and jarringly Vikhelic in tone and topic--I am sure that it does and I regret this, but these are the seeds from which my trees of curiosity and higher knowledge, growing gradually towards the heavens/higher spheres, have sprouted, as well as the roots from which they've derived initial nourishment. Given that I'm coming from a feminist background of utopian undertones rather than that of a mainstream and directly patriarchal tradition, I wouldn't and didn't scoff at the origins of Filianic thought at all. Quite the contrary--Lux Madriana is fascinating to me and I'm intensely curious about its original form. I have been exposed to The Feminine Universe through the Chapel and actually reread "The Image of the Cosmos" today while waiting for an appointment. The references to Nietzsche through the map allegory are astonishingly refreshing and have helped me begin to comprehend the Traditionalist perspective and metaphysics in general in a highly coherent and understandable way amenable to my philosophical groundwork. I look forward with eager anticipation to reading it in its entirety, and I will order both The Feminine Universe and the Gospel of Our Mother God as soon as I can afford them. Currently I am greatly in need of guidance regarding the details of specific prayers and devotional practices, as my prayers have been a bit clumsy and free-form to this point, and I would like to begin to experience consistent worship in earnest in order to properly express/articulate my gratitude to Déa for calling me to this path, and also to garner a better idea of what regular devotional practice might entail. I do have the digital copy of the NCUV, but actually, my preferred/favorite version, the one I've found to be most harmonious with my personal inclinations, preferences and overall heart-needs, is the Madrian version containing the Madrian catechism as available online at www.womanthouartgod.com/madriana.php. (And yes, I am fully aware of the highly dubious nature of that website, but unfortunately it's the only place I've been able to find this version online.) Reading the scriptures and particularly in this version has provided me with much joy, peace and quiet strength over the past months. Thank you for your recommendations--though I haven't yet gotten around to seeking out the Campbell volumes you mentioned, they're on my reading list and I suspect that they will definitely help increase my religious literacy to the point where I'll feel more comfortable engaging with and participating in discussions around the relationship of our faith (an imperfect term I haven't found a suitable replacement for) to other religious traditions and paths worldwide throughout human history. Admittedly I've felt a bit out of my depth in that regard so far coming more-or-less directly from atheism/secular existentialism, as much of Déanic thealogical discourse seems to revolve to some extent around detailed consideration of other traditions and influences of which my knowledge is superficial at best. Many thanks also for your very kind words. Your reply has made me feel most welcome, and I am very glad for the opportunity to have these discussions in my journey of spiritual growth. --Xylia |
|
|
|
Post by racemochridhe on Nov 23, 2016 17:11:14 GMT
Xylia,
I'm so glad that we have been able to make you feel welcome here, as indeed you are! I quite understand how it is in getting waylaid by the affairs of life. I think it is good for us sometimes, though, to offset periods of more intense study and devotion with spiritually stiller times in which the effects of that study can work on us in their subtle ways without too much input from the conscious mind. To everything there is a season, even reading Scripture! On which note, I agree with you in preferring the MRM text as hosted at Woman Thou Art God to the NCUV; I'm glad you've found that. I'll be curious for your thoughts when you see the AAV. After careful study of the differing versions, I've come to believe that the original text most likely contained a mix of the features found in the MRM and the AAV. I'm currently working on a detailed report to share with everyone; I'd certainly be happy to discuss it more with you (and particularly the light that critical analysis of the Scriptures may shed on the history of Lux Madriana).
Thank you for sharing so much of your journey. Believe it or not, I too was deeply influenced by feminism, having been steeped in academic environments where feminists were basically the only people talking any kind of sense at all, and finding in the records and transcripts of the early consciousness raising circles of the late 60s much that resonated with my own troubled upbringing. I therefore hear you very clearly when you speak of the relief in finding an articulation of much of what is most precious in that intellectual heritage within a form which is far more internally coherent and, as you observe, better adjusted to the realities of gender, than most contemporary feminism (after the third wave) manages to be. I think we are a desperately needed voice now, especially, as the pro-patriarchalism of the "alt right" seeks to co-opt Traditionalist thought for itself. Someone has to point out that the Patriarchy is, in fact, anti-Traditional. As the ideological commitments of contemporary feminism to the left drive them to complicity in affirming patriarchy as "the old way", it appears that, right now, that someone to speak truth is only us Deanists!
As you can see, I am often "jarringly Vikhelic" as well; you need never apologize for that to me. To some extent, I think it may be unavoidable in such a throughly Vikhelic age.
Yours in the love of our Mother,
Race
|
|
Xylia
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by Xylia on Dec 16, 2016 9:23:14 GMT
Race,
I ordered the AAV a little while ago and have been perusing and meditating upon it here and there since. I am very fond of it also. It is nice to have a print copy of the Scriptures that I can carry around with me, perhaps make notes in and have at hand for bedtime reading and such. As I anticipated, the prayers and extra devotional material have proven useful--particularly the Filianic prayers included before the Catholic Canonical Hours in the Appendix, though admittedly much in the Sanskrit Texts still escapes me, as I have not yet properly studied the Indian tradition and connections to Hinduism. I tend to trust the Chapel as essentially authoritative in most matters as of yet--I'm increasingly finding that the Chelouranyan/Aristasian orientation of Déanic thought resonates with me greatly--and I'm glad that they have graciously compiled a version we can rely upon for day-to-day meditations and devotion, critical and historical analysis aside. The minor differences in the Mythos (the pronouns/gender of the snake, references to 'golden' rather than 'silver' light in certain places, etc.) make sense to me and I understand why they would be different in the AAV.
On the subject of critical and historical analysis, though, your report sounds extremely interesting! I can't wait to read it. I've passingly considered compiling an archive of all extant material related to Déanism/Filianism, Aristasia/Chelouranya, Lux Madriana, Feminine Essentialism, etc., currently available online, both in an effort to preserve it for my own ongoing study (as, sadly, for whatever reason, the online/Elektraspace presence of our religion, as well as related philosophies and subcultures seems exasperatingly ephemeral in places, as others have observed), as well as to obtain a better grasp on how the various branches of Deanic thought fit together and connect to each other over time. I wish that there was a chart available somewhere illustrating these links between Madrian, Aristasian/Chelouranyan, and the many breakaway forms of 'independent' Deanism/Filianism in a simple, visual form.
The Feminine Universe arrived the other day and I'm just beginning to delve into it.
I very much agree that we (in general, broadly encompassing all of the perspectives mentioned above) are presently a desperately needed voice. It is true that patriarchy has long been affirmed as 'the old way', though I think in general that the problem goes much, much deeper than that. Contemporary feminism, particularly in the forms popular among people my age and younger, misunderstands the nature of gender itself so profoundly, and is very patriarchal at least in the sense that it is built upon premises that completely distort and invalidate femininity. Fundamentally misguided feminist premises have been expanded upon so much since Miss Trent so astutely observed their flaws, and have given rise to ideas and approaches that are mind-bogglingly twisted and utterly grotesque, crude parodies of distortions of distortions of misunderstandings and oversimplifications. It frightens and dismays me that this has opened the door for pro-patriarchal thought to predominate in two ways, through the false banner of third and post-third wave 'feminism' that insidiously presents itself as exactly the opposite, as well as the 'alt-right' opposition, which has been fueled in large part by the identifiable absurdity of that which it presents itself as an alternative to. There is so much more I could say on the matter, but in the interest of keeping this more 'on topic' (and avoiding too much overtly political discussion), I'll leave it at that. Needless to say, the Feminine Essentialist perspectives have been a vital breath of fresh air in this regard.
Returning more to the original topic of this thread, it has occurred to me in rereading my responses that I may have given the impression thus far that my journey to Dea has been primarily or even exclusively motivated by my disaffection with feminism, beliefs on the subject of gender and other such specific material concerns. This is regrettable as, while those factors have certainly been important to me, that isn't at all the case.
As I briefly mentioned, at a certain point I admitted to myself that I held many strong values, distinct (and, naturally, highly unpopular!) moral opinions and general beliefs about 'how things should be done' that I was not supposed to have as a good little materialist/postmodernist existentialist/Pit-dweller or what have you in this time and context, despite not having been led to them by any particular external influence. This realization led me to ask myself some difficult questions about the origins of such things, about where, if not purely the product of human indoctrination, this ever-present sense of morality/'right and wrong'/and so on might come from. I began to entertain the idea that it might not all be relative in the sense I had always been led to believe after all. I came to understand, even if in the slightest whisper at the back of my mind initially, that there may have been some sense and certain good reasons for social traditions and the ways prior generations went about organizing life, as deeply imperfect as they undoubtedly were. This may seem very obvious to someone well-versed in Traditionalism such as yourself, but coming from a constellation of subcultures in which previous forms of social organization drew the greatest contempt, this was--and remains--a momentous shift for me.
I've also long been dissatisfied with the extreme sciencism that pervades contemporary approaches to ontology and masquerades as mythos, even before the recent epiphanies I experienced as described above. In broad terms, I've often observed the general bias/greater weight given to the quantitative over qualitative ways of processing the world and understanding things, and been alienated by it due to my greater aptitude for and inclination towards the latter. What has been discussed about the concept of qualia in relation to all of this is of great interest to me, and a subject I intend to intellectually explore further in the near future. I'm finding that many of my ontological and teleological worldviews have in many ways been rather Essentialist all along...
I do agree that "it may be unavoidable in such a thoroughly Vikhelic age", but even still, I think it is somewhat important to bear some caution in mind, if for no other reason than to avoid excessively marring the rare havens from extremely Vikhelic tones and turning them from their purer purposes. I appreciate your indulgence in discussing topics which may for many be controversial or uncomfortable with me as I sort through my thoughts and feelings as a budding Déanist/devotee of Our Mother.
May She be with you always,
Xylia
|
|
|
|
Post by Philemon on Dec 24, 2016 21:02:19 GMT
Rayati Xylia, Thank you for your very thoughtful posts on your intellectual journey. I'd like to address your opening question regarding advice for someone approaching Déanic Devotion from a secular, naturalist and atheistic background. My advice is simply to cultivate what is in your heart. Blaise Pascal famously wrote in the Pensées: The heart has its reasons, of which reason knows nothing (Le cœur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît pas). According to the sages (for example, Sri Ramana Maharshi) the spiritual heart is the true center of consciousness and the seat of Divinity within each of us. This is what we address with "Rayati". I believe the central characteristic of modernity is forgetfulness of the higher intellectual faculty ( intellectus, nous or buddhi) that we access through the spiritual heart. Modernism is characterized by a claim for the authority of reason ( Ratio), while post-modern thought challenges that authority, but really has nothing to put in its place. To forget the intellectual faculty, is to forget the spiritual heart and to forget Dea. It's interesting that the modern debates so clearly echo debates that we see in Greek philosophy. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nous for an extended discussion of the (Western) philosophical history of this principle. Note, this may also be helpful background reading for the Feminine Universe. If the traditional view is right, it is through Nous that we are able to discern Truth and Goodness at all. The faculty of reason is quite impotent. The impotence of reason was notably raised in David Hume's philosophical writings, and he was only able to offer a kind of psychological conditioning as an account of how we can "know" at all. Philosophy since Hume has been struggling with this problem, and I don't think anyone has solved the issue. Modernists who claim that religion is irrational are, unfortunately, being deeply anti-intellectual. They have grasped neither the pre-modern understanding of the higher intellectual faculty, nor the enlightenment and post-modern critique of reason. There's no reason to take this type of rhetoric very seriously. Our inability to know is part of the human condition, but knowing has two meanings. In the lower sense it concerns propositions (what Plato called doxa), but in the higher sense it concerns a kind of intellectual seeing (Plato's episteme). Propositional knowledge is necessarily fragmentary, analogical and mixes truth and falsity. It is that mixture that makes so many arguments bitter. Truth on the other hand is really beyond expression, but it is experienced in everything we do, say, see and feel. Without that Truth, we simply could not be. The problem is how do we approach that Truth? The answer, according to the sages, is contemplation of and through the heart center. Truth is that which unifies and resolves apparent oppositions, Truth is Love. How do we know this? Ask your heart to tell your head what your heart knows. I've been blessed in living with an underlying certainty. I don't think I've ever for a moment doubted the Reality of the Divine. What I struggle with is how to make that intellectual principle real in my life, to bring it to full expression, and I can't say I've done a good job, but I have and continue to try. Namaste Philemon |
|
I look forward to future discussion regarding Lux Madriana and Madrianism, which I have many questions about.
Forgive my belated replies; I've been greatly set off course in recent months by acute mental health and various personal issues, though I've remained connected to my study of Déanism as a calming yet exciting oasis to return and look forward to, even if I haven't been able to engage with it as thoroughly or directly as I'd like and have intended to.