The Patriarchal Revolution

The tagline to this weblog is “a discourse on feminine essentialist science and metaphysics.”  In reading the material covered so far, one may wonder why I have included “feminine” in the tagline.  What is feminine about the material?  How is feminine essentialism different than essentialism in general?  Other readers may notice that there are many articles about tradition and that this weblog upholds tradition, as a general rule.  Is not tradition patriarchal?

The answer to these questions is that historically, patriarchy itself was a revolt against the early feminine tradition.  I am assuming that anyone who has followed this weblog so far should understand that patriarchy and the masculine does not refer to biological males, nor does feminine refer to biological females.  Masculine and feminine are metaphysical principles in and of themselves, but they are not completely separate from biological gender.  Indeed, biological gender does find its roots in the metaphysical, as does everything else on the material plane.  On the other hand, just as everything on the material plane is an imperfect reflection of Perfect Form, so biological gender is an imperfect reflection of the higher principles.

The Primordial Tradition is indeed feminine.  We can find all over the world images of Dea, or the Feminine God, in Her various forms.  It was not until the Age of Iron that we see the Divine reflected in Masculine form.  At first, the Feminine God obtained Masculine Consorts, and in the West, there was a violent revolution in which the Masculine overtook and attempted to obliterate the Feminine.  The Masculine also took over in the East; however, the Divine Feminine survived in such traditions as the Japanese tradition and the Indian traditions.  This Patriarchal Revolution took place all across the world around 600 to 500 B.C.

Sabbath PrayerWhat was the world like prior to the Patriarchal Revolution?  It is hard to know.  Most of our historical, written records are from the Patriarchal period, and in the West, the Patriarchal Revolution was quite violent.   The Judeo-Christian written tradition chronicles the stamping out of the worship of Asharah and the Queen of Heaven.  Mundane archaeology has uncovered physical evidence to suggest that prior to around 500 B.C., Yahweh and Asharah were worshiped alongside each other as consorts.  It seems that the Canaanite Baal was also a consort to Asharah.  Interestingly enough traditions, such as Judaism, that can not be traced to a specific “founder” such as Jesus or Mohammed, tend to be the most fiercely Patriarchal.  This makes a great deal of sense if one understands that there was a revolt against the Feminine Tradition, and the unfounded traditions were reacting in keeping with this revolt.  Still one can see elements of the Primordial Feminine Tradition in Judaism, in such practices as the Mother of the House lighting the Shabbat candles and giving the Shabbat blessing.

Minoan Snake Goddess

Minoan Goddess

The Masculine Principle on a metaphysical level is associated with Mars, or Sai Vikhë in the Filianist tradition.  At its highest level, the Martial/Vikhelic Principle governs the Divine Conflict between Good and Evil, and is a protection against the Forces of Darkness.  In its lower form, the Martial/Vikhelic Principle is associated with conflicts of all kinds.  It is interesting that in cultures, such as Ancient Minos, which had a primarily Feminine spirituality, there does not appear to be evidence of weapons of war or a standing army.  Ancient Minos seems to have been a rather gentle culture in comparison with many other Ancient cultures that we know of.

Were women the dominant gender prior to the Patriarchal Revolution?  Perhaps, perhaps not.  Again, we have few if any written records to refer to.  It is likely that women governed, because in Traditional cultures, societies tended to conform with their spirituality.  There is certainly no reason to presuppose that men were suppressed or oppressed during these times.  It is much more likely to presuppose that relations between women and men were rather harmonious, and that without the predominance of the Martial/Vikhelic Principle, there was little in the way of cruelty or oppression in general.

Why did the Patriarchal Revolution happen?  Again, there is no way to know the specifics from a fact based perspective.  Likely, it happened gradually over time.  As I discussed previously, in the natural Unfolding of the Ages. we are in the Age of Iron, which, aside from being the Age most consolidated in matter, is also the harshest and most violent Age.  Iron is the metal of Mars/Sai Vikhë, so it stands to reason that the Age of Iron would be the most Martial/Vikhelic, and it would become more so as the Age progressed.  It is possible that as the Age progressed, the Martial/Vikhelic nature of patriarchy seemed to offer better protection.  It is likely that this was at least partially the impetus in the Hebrew tradition, with the pressure of the neighboring warlike states intent on conquest.  The Roman period was a particularly Martial/Vikhelic period in the West, and many of our current customs and cultures derive from the Roman period.  Indeed, Christianity, the dominant spiritual tradition of the West, has been transmitted to us through the Roman Empire.

MarsAs I stated earlier in this article, the Masculine and Feminine Principles are related to, but not synonymous with, biological males and females.  As evidence of that, one can see in our current times that the Masculine Principle has all but completely overtaken the Feminine Principle, particularly in the West.  Certainly, women have more “rights” than they ever had; however, these “rights” are bound up in the Masculine Principle.  Femininity itself became more and more devalued as the Feminist Movement progressed.  Lately, there seems to have been a resurgence of value given to the Feminine Principle; however, compared to sixty years ago, the Feminine Principle has been largely trampled.

One may ask what this has to do with a weblog devoted to philosophy, metaphysics, traditional science, and astrology?  A lot more than one might think.  To begin with, this weblog does not equate Tradition with patriarchy or the cruelties that have occurred during the Patriarchal Age.  Quite the contrary.  Patriarchy and the over-balanced Martial/Vikhelic influences that accompany it are seen as deviations from an earlier, gentle, and Feminine Tradition.  Also, one may notice that I rarely, if ever, quote from Classical, Medieval, or Renaissance philosophers or astrologers in this weblog.  I most certainly have studied many of these authors, and the astrology that I practice derives from the principles taught by these authors.  On the other hand, almost all written material that is available to us is from after and is colored by the Patriarchal period.  Also, there are many fine Classical Astrologers within the International Society of Classical Astrologers, who have done and are doing fine work in analyzing the methods used and philosophy taught by these authors, so that I do not think that my voice can really add to that discussion.

Part of the work of this weblog is to dig a bit deeper and retrieve the ideas and the principles from the older Feminine Tradition.  Many of these principles did and do survive even to this day.  Indeed, Classical Astrology is one of the few disciplines in the Modern West where these principles have been preserved, albeit in a masculinized and patriarchal form.  Classical Astrology is also one of the few disciplines that still functions as a true traditional science to a large extent, in that metaphysical principles are studied and applied to solve practical problems in the material world.

I am attempting to do the work of digging deeper, and replanting traditional metaphysics and practical astrology in its earlier Feminine Essentialist roots.  I am also making a humble attempt at working out how traditional Patriarchal metaphysics and Classical Astrology fit within the older Feminine Tradition.   Luckily, I am blessed with the able and kind assistance and teaching of friends and mentors.  Much of this weblog is devoted to that task; hence the tagline, “a discourse on feminine essentialist science and metaphysics.”

See also:

Matriarchal History

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “The Patriarchal Revolution

  1. Dmh says:

    Hi Myriam, here I go again with more questions and attempts to connect the dots.
    In the following link
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sex
    (that I searched to check if the statement that “sex” was a term invented in the 1920’s—according to
    The Tellurian Concept of “Sex”),
    I found, scrolling down the page, the following interesting information,
    … Some animals have only one sex.
    For instance, some species of lizards reproduce only by parthenogenesis, that is, their unfertilized eggs grow into adults, and these species no longer have males.
    Sometimes the external temperature determines the sex of an animal during its early development.
    If the eggs of the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) are incubated at above 34 degrees Celsius (93° F), all of the offspring become males.
    If they are incubated below 30 degrees Celsius (86° F), they become females.
    The midrange of temperatures results in both male and female offspring.

    The American Heritage® Science Dictionary Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. ”
    I believe this could be interesting in many aspects, of which I’d like to highlight the following:
    /1/ In the case of the species that reproduce only by parthenogenesis, the “remaining gender” is female, the male gender becomes extinct.
    Also if we look at other species where females are predominant, like bees and wasps, the females are those who carry a double set of genes, from fertilized eggs, while males are offspring resulting from non-fertilized eggs.
    In addition, even in species which have the gender determined by the X and Y genes, like flies and humans for example, the X genes are larger and, therefore, I think they carry a greater amount of information than the Y genes.
    All this seems to indicate that, as taught by the Essential Feminine Universe philosophy, the feminine aspect of manifestation would be more “essential”, more sophisticated, in terms of amount of information it carries, than the masculine. In this case, could we say that the latter would be a kind “reduced form” of the former?

    /2/ If we consider that there is a essential cause, i. e. that it’s not purely random, for some species that have their gender determined by the temperature at which the offspring was incubated, then the female gender would be connected with colder climates and the male gender with hotter.
    At the level of Feminine Essentialism this would reflect, I suppose, in a more violent and materialistic tendency (of the soul) during periods of warmer climates and more spiritualized, harmonious tendencies during colder climates.
    For example, we’re living in a period of post-“global warming”, which in fact ended around 2003-2005, but it existed for many decades of the last century. A similar period happened during the apex of the Roman empire, 2000 years ago, and at that time it was even more pronounced (in terms of warming) than the event that took place in the last century.
    Could this be connected with the observed Tamasic, or Inverted, trend in human society in both periods?
    Another hint in this direction could be the fact that the present Iron Age, which is supposed to have started around 6,000 years ago, coincided approximately with the period know as Holocene Optimum,

    in which the temperatures of Earth’s climate reached their maximum in the present interglacial. In addition, all the previous cycles associated with the previous “Yugas”, of the Feminine Essentialism teachings, would fall closely or fully within the period of the last Ice Age.
    And in support of a sophisticated culture many thousands of years ago, I found the following interesting information about relatively advanced textile technology and art dating more 25,000 years ago,
    .. AN: Olga Soffer’s research … has shed light on the existence of a complex textile technology thousands of years before we thought possible. By extension, their research on textiles, in conjunction with research on ceramic technology (also Olga’s work!), and on the production of beads, flutes, sculptures and cave paintings all of which date back 25,000 to 35,0000 or even 40,000 years ago illuminate the lives of all Ice Age peoples
    http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2014/09/18/349474044/looking-beyond-notions-of-erotica-in-prehistoric-art

    Could all this be just a coincidence, or do you believe we have here some clear indication of (scientific support for) the validity of some important aspects of the Feminine Essentialism philosophy?
    Demih.

    • Myriam Hildotter says:

      I apologize for taking so long to respond to this.

      I do find all of this information interesting; however, you have touched upon an important difference between Essentialism and Rationalism. This difference is that Essentialism does not seek support or validation for its doctrines in manifestation, or the material world.

      We believe in the doctrines of Essentialism, because they have been passed down to us from our ancestresses, who were closer to Primordial Maid, and thus closer to Our Source, than we are. Metaphysics (the study of the non-material world) is higher than physics (the study of the material world).

      We do believe that everything in the material world exists as it does because it is a reflection of the spiritual world. At the same time, it is a reflection only, and thus may sometimes seem to differ from the perfect Archetypes. An analogy would be the Moon as reflected in the ocean. We expect the reflection of the Moon to resemble the physical moon in the sky, but of course, it is not exactly the same.

      In the same way, physics, or the laws of the material world do reflect metaphysical laws; however, metaphysical laws are higher and more “real” than the physical laws.

      Thus, this information is certainly interesting, and not really surprising, but it does not validate these doctrines, nor would finding contrary information invalidate the doctrines.

      • Dmh says:

        Hi Myriam, thanks for your answer and I agree, there is a certain level of knowledge that is above scientific “approval”.
        For example, the idea / perception of God and the Universal Love I believe are beyond science and even if science could “prove” them wrong, it’d make no difference because it’s the kind of “knowledge” / feeling that you just know. It’s part of who you are, it is part of what defines you as a human being, nothing can change it.
        Some things we learn in this life, others it seems we bring from “previous learning”, or possibly more essential understanding.
        Maybe what Essentialism calls metaphysics could possibly be understood as an extension of these primordial ideas, associated with God.
        For good part of my life I tried to see science as some kind of ultimate attempt of the human mind to uncover the Truth of the Universe, but the more I got into the practice of it the more I discovered that it’s in fact very far from this goal.
        It became clear after some time that science, in our present human civilization, is greatly connected with politics and power and, to a great extent, with the arrogance of those who practice it.
        It could be a much more widespread and friendly knowledge than it has become, not because of its essential difficulty but more due to the great corruption that has affected many levels of its present structure.
        It is very disappoint in this respect, but it’s also understandable, because these are common traits of virtually every human activity– I mean the spiritual corruption– and it could be attributed to the extreme masculine / Tamasic / inverted aspect of our present (“Tellurian”) society.
        In this respect, I that what you said, that “metaphysical laws are higher and more “real” than the physical laws”, is very true especially if you consider how the study of physics is done in our present “civilized world”.
        On the other hand, the study of the ultimate Truth of the Universe is also an essentially metaphysical quest, because we have no good reason to do it, except perhaps the fact that the honest human mind seems to always be searching for this final perfect Knowledge.
        I wonder then if we shouldn’t at least try to approach this ultimate Truth through all possible means, including the analysis and observation of Nature / the Universe as it’s done in the usual physical methodology, but with the addition of a more spiritually honest mindset.
        However, I’d also question the “purely traditional” approach in the sense that, the leap into the new Golden Age (according to the spiral time concept) from the present Kali Yuga, would probably not happen in the “blink of an eye” but stepwise.
        In this case, during the “transition period” there would be both “golden” manifestations and “iron” manifestations living side by side. If this is true, the “golden” aspects would be in part manifested and could be used to guide science into a “new Renaissance”, where its objectives could change slowly but steadily in the direction of a more spiritualized and harmonic understanding of the Dea’s Creation.
        I don’t see why one should avoid this possibility even if accepting Deanism / Filianism as the correct metaphysical description.
        I mean, I see no contradiction of my questions and my proposal with what I know about the Essential Feminine Universe.

  2. Thank you for your very interesting thoughts, honored Dmh-chei.

    As you say the quest for the ultimate truths of being is inherently metaphysical. As such is not approachable by a purely-physical science. Indeed the very concept of “truth” is metaphysical. If it were true as the current pop-scientific mythos has it, that human intelligence were something “evolved” for “survival” then what would “truth” even have to do with it? The findings of intelligence would either have survival-value or they would not. Their correspondence to some postulated “objective truth” (not even ultimate truth just the “reality” of the material universe) would be a mere side-effect, and one which that intelligence was *by its very nature* incapable of judging.

    The very fact that humans even have a concept of “truth” outside of survival is due to the fact that they are metaphyisical and not purely physical beings.

    The deficiencies of material-science in being harnessed to political and financial considerations are not accidental. An intelligence conceived as practical will always be rooted in practicalities (survival techniques, life-optimizing techniques). The very standing in the current world of material science as the “measure of all things” is based on its marriage with technology. It is “true” because it “works” is the only actual validation it can claim

    The technical term for “it is true because it works” is “the experimental method”. This is, and quite properly, the very foundation of modern Western material science. It is what gives it its effectiveness. It is also what disqualifies it from pronouncing on non-material areas of being.

    Traditionally all philosophy can only ever be a *preparation* for the reception of truth which is *by definition inexpressible*. That is why philosophy means “love of wisdom” and not wisdom itself.

    For more on why material science *by its very definition* cannot approach metaphysical truth you may wish to read this article:

    http://www.mother-god.com/origin-of-the-universe.html

    This is not to say that material science is not interesting and valuable in its own right. I believe it is.

    Also, in theory, advanced physics could change the rather outdated mechanist-materialist outlook that is popularly called “the scientific world-view”. In practice that is unlikely because the “scientific world-view” as understood by the general public is the root of current Western culture and is a *mythos*, a story-picture on which life and culture is based. Its relation to actual material science is very tenuous and it is not likely to be changed by real material-scientific theories or findings.

    • Dmh says:

      Thank you Miss Tadashiku-chei for your thoughtful words.
      It’s a privilege to be in a forum discussing these important ideas with sensible and insightful philosophers like you and Miss Hildotter-chei.
      I’m trying to be an honest truth seeker myself and this necessarily means to acknowledge and revere the Light when we see It, and I see It here.

      It’s interesting that my mind had started to look for the possibility of an Essential Feminine “approach” / understanding to the Creation before I actually found the “mother-god” site and then Myriam’s sites, the Chelouranya’s site, etc.
      It was as if I was brought into contact with your ideas after I already had them in my mind– to some extent– for some time, but the readings at the websites made them more detailed and profound.

      I believe that despite the necessarily metaphysical nature of the ultimate truth our present lives are to some extent conditioned/constrained by the physical environment. It is also part of the Creation and, therefore, contains valid elements of communication between the creature and God, I mean valid elements of true knowledge.
      Therefore, I believe it could also be a doorway to higher knowledge.

      I could not agree more with your analysis of what you call “pop-scientific mythos”, where the search for an “objective truth”—one which can be validated independently of the personal prejudices or cultural values, etc., of the researcher— has been corrupted to a good extent by the materialistic search for “immediate” knowledge, that can be used for practical applications, as you said, for technological ends.

      I also acknowledge as you do that the material realm is a kind of shaded version of “higher realms”, as Myriam said in her previous comment

      “… physics, or the laws of the material world do reflect metaphysical laws; however, metaphysical laws are higher and more “real” than the physical laws…”

      In fact one of the difficult aspects of life at the material realm is its seemingly inherent “chaotic” component, which is itself a clear indication of its intrinsic limitedness: We cannot know with arbitrary precision– therefore, sometimes, we may have some “surprises”– we cannot move with arbitrary speed, etc., we have clear limits here.
      It is as if God was saying to us: “you can learn something “here” but don’t look too much because you will never find all the answers”.

      You said

      “..The technical term for “it is true because it works” is “the experimental method”. This is, and quite properly, the very foundation of modern Western material science. It is what gives it its effectiveness…”

      The experimental method, or experimental validation, is the core of the modern idea of science and it could be used to deepen our understanding of the Creation, to avoid the personal characteristics of the fallible researcher to interfere with the construction of an “objective knowledge”, which would be valid for all.
      In this case, the addition of the “modern Western material” part to the method, as you said, is what I believe has made it so inefficient to serve in the search of higher truth, but the goal of an “objective knowledge” is still important in itself.
      As I see it true Metaphysics, as you discuss here, and Mathematics are objective knowledge, i. e., we can discuss about their concepts and make independent creations and compare results that are agreeable upon.

      However limited the material realm is, I believe it’s also naturally connected with the higher ones. In this case, the main quest of true science in this world should be a search for the truth, as much as we can, even if it lead us beyond the semi-chaotic limits of the usual material realm.

      In fact, I have the impression that we could be close to important discoveries in this direction due to recent failures of some important models in particle physics and cosmology. I believe our studies of the Sun may bring important new “revelations” in this respect.

      I also think that the direction science will take from now on is closely connected with some studies made in the XIX century and the beginning of the XX, related with the control of matter by the human mind and the study of “life after death”.
      If it is possible to do it in a more profound scientific way, as a search for “objective knowledge” in these areas, then an important connection with “higher realms” could be opened.

  3. Dmh says:

    Thank you Myriam for your answer and the link.
    Sorry if I posted too many comments on the same subject (and a bit off topic…).
    God bless!

  4. Dmh says:

    “41. And you that have care of My children, let them not become confounded by dissonant thought and work”

Comments are always welcome!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s