Thelemic Pantheon
-
I like "whores" probably a bit better than the average guy...lol I mean Free Women of course to all the women who are reading this.
As I was reading the topic postings, I noticed a contradiction come up within me. From a Thelemic perspective, I want women to be free, all of them scarlet women (little s, little w). I also want this in a larger social sense, as it is good for the evolution of the species.
The problem comes up when I remember my studies of genetics, sexual biology and anthropology. On a personal level I don't want my women to be whores, in fact, it goes against my very nature. As a reproducing male I need to prevent any promiscous behaviour from my woman for my genes to pass on. I can't leave it to chance; I might end up getting cuckolded.
So.. how do we reconcile our biological, DNA programming with this new Thelemic concept? How do we accept our Whore?
93, 93/93
-
@whitewolf said
"The problem comes up when I remember my studies of genetics, sexual biology and anthropology. On a personal level I don't want my women to be whores, in fact, it goes against my very nature. As a reproducing male I need to prevent any promiscous behaviour from my woman for my genes to pass on. I can't leave it to chance; I might end up getting cuckolded.
So.. how do we reconcile our biological, DNA programming with this new Thelemic concept? How do we accept our Whore?"
Birth control?
-
@whitewolf said
"The problem comes up when I remember my studies of genetics, sexual biology and anthropology. On a personal level I don't want my women to be whores, in fact, it goes against my very nature. As a reproducing male I need to prevent any promiscous behaviour from my woman for my genes to pass on. I can't leave it to chance; I might end up getting cuckolded.
So.. how do we reconcile our biological, DNA programming with this new Thelemic concept? How do we accept our Whore?"
I find it impossible to separate these sorts of biological explanations of sexuality and behavior from contemporary cultural expecatations of gender and sexuality. I suspect sociobiologists and others like this more or less project their expectations onto "nature" and then read back that behavior as natural. They tend to use two sorts of evidence. 1) Observations of other species. But we shape our observations and interpretations with our expectations. And 2) (Not really evidence at all. At all!) Constructing seemingly coherent stories about our evolution. It makes sense that... Well that doesn't provide any evidence at all. Why do these stories make sense? Perhaps because they fit our cultural expectations.
All that aside... Even if "nature" says something is a particular way, why just accept it? Some sociobiologists see men raping women as natural. Perhaps wishful thinking for some of them, but, regardless, even if "nature" said so, I wouldn't do it.
So to offer an answer your question... 1) Don't accept that you know what your DNA "wants" - not that it actually wants anything. 2) Don't accept that you or scientists know the relationship, if any, between behavior, genes, and evolution. 3) Don't accept genetic determinism4) Don't hand over your ethics to "nature" - I mean to scientists claiming to speak for "nature".
-
Here's the short-form, cut-to-the-chase usage-based-on-etymology glossary based on the above details and laced with my sociological prejudices. We must learn to use our words correctly.
B-girl: "Bar girl," the "Buy me a drink, big guy?" sort of sales associate. Used pejoratively because she exercises sexual power over the poor plastered prick at his lowest moments.
bawd: A woman who runs (or works in ) a brothel.
bimbo: Italian for "baby." Now means, "someone too air-headed and naive to know what the guy is getting away with," but evolved to include "a woman really interested in sex."
blower: Take this one at "face" value.
broad: Outspoken woman.
concubine: Conventional dictionary meaning, from the root idea "to lie down with."
dame: M.I.L.F.
floozy: Sexually promiscuous woman.
harlot: "Vagabond." Homeless, wandering about from place to place, presuambly accepting (extremely) short-term employment. (Modern meaning: prostitute.)
hooker: Somebody good at snaring customers.
hussy: Housewife. Adulteress.
jezebel: Any evil and scheming woman. I recommend the word be rehabilitated to mean "pagan bitch" in an affectionate way.
libertine: One who acts without moral restraint, defies established religious precepts, and is free-thinking.
loose: Needs firming or tightening.
moll: Gangster gal.
nymphomaniac: Woman with pathologically excessive sexual desire, according to psychiatrists. More literally, a woman who is "really wild and crazy, like a Greek nature spirit."
prostitute: A woman (less often a man) who accepts money for sex. Specifically, a highly effective female professional.
slut: Dirty (used morally, but literally applies to the physically unkempt and unwashed).
tart: A promiscuous woman, especially one resembling a tasty sweet thing that is shallow, not crusty, has a nice filling, especially if you can enjoy two or three with only a little guilt.
trollop: A slut, i.e., one who is slovenly, dirty, and wallowing.
wanton: One who is unrestrained. (Thus, in Thelemic language, one who is not a sinner.)
wench: A child, especially a peasant girl, and especially any young girl in a service occupation.
whore: A horny woman.
-
@sasha said
"However, it seems to me that Babalon, a supposed "whore", discriminates intensely and requires a committed relationship."
I disagree that the Babalon archetype discriminates at all - Her essential nature is to receive all.
Regarding committed relationships: Yes, she requires absolute devotion from her devotees and concubines, down to "the last drop of blood." It's rather one-sided on modern views of "committed relationship" since she, in turn, has an unlimited number of lovers. However, I agree regarding the absolute commitment she brings to that.
"She, by no means, opens herself to receive anyone, as folk, including Crowley, often phrase it."
Again, I disagree - since this is the one basic characteristic of her being. She is the archetypal Grail, receiving all things soever.
"But I don't think I get the Beast/Chaos."
Two variations of the Chokmah idea. Primal Logos. Mahalingam of eternally streaming life.
-
@Edward Mason said
"We don't need to defend Babalon's "honor" for example, because she cannot be harmed or polluted to begin with. She can absorb and contain all."
During the early '80s, when Grady McMurtry had his Knights of Baphomet, his consort at the time wanted her own cadre of Knights of the Scarlet Woman. A few of us were knighted by her one night at my house. At Lon DuQuette's recommendation, the devotion was "to ever defend the honor of She who needs no defending."
-
"So.. how do we reconcile our biological, DNA programming with this new Thelemic concept? How do we accept our Whore?
Birth control?
"Good answer... Actually, as a man, I was thinking of a female's promiscuity not outside of the core relationship, but affecting it directly, as say, having someone else's kid. It's in the literature, and it happens for a very good reason, and more often than is supposed.
"So to offer an answer your question... 1) Don't accept that you know what your DNA "wants" - not that it actually wants anything. 2) Don't accept that you or scientists know the relationship, if any, between behavior, genes, and evolution. 3) Don't accept genetic determinism4) Don't hand over your ethics to "nature" - I mean to scientists claiming to speak for "nature"."
I think I agree with you with respect to not accepting what our DNA wants, or even a certain scientist's thory, and I am skeptical. Yet, shouldn't the question be asked? I personally do not have control over my animal instincts however much I would like to believe I am. To give an example of sources, I am thinking of ideas which come from "The Red Queen" by Matt Ridley, and "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins.
"During the early '80s, when Grady McMurtry had his Knights of Baphomet, his consort at the time wanted her own cadre of Knights of the Scarlet Woman. A few of us were knighted by her one night at my house. At Lon DuQuette's recommendation, the devotion was "to ever defend the honor of She who needs no defending."
"Fascinating... I'd like to be a Knight of the Scarlet Woman too.
-
@whitewolf said
"I am thinking of ideas which come from "The Red Queen" by Matt Ridley, and "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins."
Exactly the sorts of stories about our "animal insticts" that I question. We may have some physiological or genetically-based behaviors regarding sexuality, violence, etc., but I don't think scientists have yet given us a good account of it. I also don't really believe in a "natural" or "instictive" set of behaviors. This suggests that we have unnatural or non-animal or non-instictive behaviors. Which do we class as which? Can we tell the difference?
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I disagree that the Babalon archetype discriminates at all - Her essential nature is to receive all."
You mention archetypes. Does this mean that you refer to Babalon in a manner separate from Binah or its position above the abyss? If so, this may explain why I feel like I have talked past everyone or that we have discussed different issues using the same words.
-
93 Sasha,
In one method of attributing the sephiroth to the Four Worlds, Chokmah and Binah are in the World of Briah. This is quite explicitly the realm of the "archetypes". So, there is no conflict in simultaneously seeing Babalon as an archetype, as well as a "trans-Abyss" concept.
93 93/93
David@sasha said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"I disagree that the Babalon archetype discriminates at all - Her essential nature is to receive all."You mention archetypes. Does this mean that you refer to Babalon in a manner separate from Binah or its position above the abyss? If so, this may explain why I feel like I have talked past everyone or that we have discussed different issues using the same words."
-
@sasha said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"I disagree that the Babalon archetype discriminates at all - Her essential nature is to receive all."You mention archetypes. Does this mean that you refer to Babalon in a manner separate from Binah or its position above the abyss?"
No, nothing like that was meant. (In fact, quite the contrary is implied by the word "archetype"
) -
@Jim Eshelman said
"No, nothing like that was meant. (In fact, quite the contrary is implied by the word "archetype"
)"I should have said, "refer to Babalon in a manner BROADER THAN as a correspondance with Binah and relation to her position above the abyss". Though I don't know if that makes a difference to your response, Jim - though it does for Dshoemaker's.
-
@sasha said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"No, nothing like that was meant. (In fact, quite the contrary is implied by the word "archetype" )"I should have said, "refer to Babalon in a manner BROADER THAN as a correspondance with Binah and relation to her position above the abyss". Though I don't know if that makes a difference to your response, Jim - though it does for Dshoemaker's."
I still think that the answer is the same I gave... though I must admit that, all of a sudden, I'm not at all sure I know what you are saying on this point. (For example, plugging in what I think you're saying doesn't make any difference in how I read David's answer.)
-
93,
I'm lost, too. Are we being over-specific here?
Binah is the principal point of contact for Babalon - I think that's clear. Much of her symbolism is Binah-ic; she is supra-rational, being of Understanding, rather than a concept that can be neatly summarised within intellectual categories.
But there are also valid reasons for assigning her to Netzach (her seven-pointed star being one) and Malkuth (which is exalted to sit upon the throne of Binah, and is also the place of manifestation of the Shekinah). She gets around, as Whores do.
I think there's also some confusion over the term 'archetype'. in Thelemic Qabalah, we tend to use this term as a synonym for what is indicated or hinted at by the magical image of each sephirah - a Child or King in Tiphereth, a Warrior in Geburah, etc.
But archetypes tend to be 'wild cards' - they work within certain rules determined by their primary characteristics, but those are the archetypes' rules, not 'ours'. At least, they're not the rules of the realms of Assiah/manifestation and Yetzirah/formation where we humans hang out in our conscious or near-conscious lives.
I also recall an interesting discussion on Evalna once about the different conceptions of archetypes according to Qabalists, and according to Jung.
I have to wonder if Babalon, or Chaos, or any of 'The Pantheon Gang' are really as sephirothically constrained as we seem to be saying.
93 93/93,
Edward
-
@Edward Mason said
"But there are also valid reasons for assigning her to Netzach (her seven-pointed star being one) and Malkuth (which is exalted to sit upon the throne of Binah, and is also the place of manifestation of the Shekinah)."
Without arguing against any of the aboe, let me mention that the 7-pointed star is also specifically a Binah symbol, and that (from The Vision & the Voice) there is a daughter of Babalon that fits better. (On the other hand, for most purposes Babalon is indistinguishable from Shakti and Shekinah, and Shekinah has the higher/lower Binah/Malkuth thing and... etc., as you said.)
"I think there's also some confusion over the term 'archetype'. in Thelemic Qabalah, we tend to use this term as a synonym for what is indicated or hinted at by the magical image of each sephirah"
"Indicated or hinted at by the magical image." I like that. It's the backdoor approach to the way I usually define it, viz., that an archetype is a root idea Itranscendant to the Yetziratic level) which has the capacity to generate symbols to express it. I think that "capacity to create symbols" idea is the main point - no symbol itself is an archetype.
To put it another way: Words are the language units of the Ruach. Symbols are the language units of Nephesh (subconsciousness actually reads symbols as directly as ego-consciousness reads words). Archetypes are the language units of Neshemah.
"those are the archetypes' rules, not 'ours'. At least, they're not the rules of the realms of Assiah/manifestation and Yetzirah/formation where we humans hang out in our conscious or near-conscious lives."
Right, because those things are simply individual expressions (nearly inferences) of (some aspect of) the archetype.
-
@dshoemaker said
"In one method of attributing the sephiroth to the Four Worlds, Chokmah and Binah are in the World of Briah. This is quite explicitly the realm of the "archetypes". So, there is no conflict in simultaneously seeing Babalon as an archetype, as well as a "trans-Abyss" concept."
I thought Atziluth, rather than Briah, was the Archetypal World. Have I got that wrong, or are you employing a different meaning?
-
@zeph said
"I thought Atziluth, rather than Briah, was the Archetypal World. Have I got that wrong, or are you employing a different meaning?"
Atziluth is called the "archetypal world" by Qabalists - all of whom are pre-Jung or copying those that are pre-Jung.
But "archetype," as it has come to be used over the last seven decades or so as a consequence of Jung, doesn't refer to an Atziluthic level but, rather, to a Briatic one.
-
Coming back to this general topic: am I the only person around who has had trouble accepting Ra Hoor Khuit?<p>
He emerges from the most difficult of the Book of the Law's three chapters, and then proceeds to tell us a whole load of apparently nasty stuff. Yes, I appreciate this Chapter has levels of meaning, and some of those have gradually become clearer to me with time. But his role as Master of Revolutionary Upheaval makes him not exactly .... cuddly. If I'm confused or unsure what to do, he might help me see through the confusion, but there is nothing (that I see) that addresses the initial state of fear around (or perhaps causing) my confusion.<p>
Realigning (or un-crushing) an Universe is worthy work, but it seems to call for a complete commitment before we can get any real understanding of what we've committed to.Edward
-
@Edward Mason said
"He emerges from the most difficult of the Book of the Law's three chapters,"
I used to think so... but, on close reading, Chapter II seems much nastier to me. That's the "kick the homeless in the teeth when they ask for spare change" chapter, for example
"But his role as Master of Revolutionary Upheaval makes him not exactly .... cuddly."
Hoor-paar-kraat fills that role much better, I think. The two halves of Heru-Ra-Ha do serve different roles.
-
JAE, 93,
I see your point about the Second Chapter - it can seem cold and disdainful - though it doesn't embrace the warlike symbolism the way Chapter III does.
Hoor-Paar-Kraat... cuddly...? Well, I admit I've never tried snuggling up to him...
But then, I've never really seen him in this role. He seems more a dark, silent embrace than a hug - a place of temporary safety, perhaps?
I think what I'm trying to say here is that I've always felt that Thelema shuts us out when we feel tired, weak, dispirited or just unsure. It's only 'there' for us when we are energised, confident, or alert. I personally can't be like that all the time.
I'm not disparaging confidence energy, etc. If so, Chapter II ('pity not the fallen') would tell me I'm out of the game anyway. But at times it seems as if we have to become Thelemites <i>despite</i> what the Book says: that it offers us minimal help in reaching the threshold of what it reveals.93 93/93,
Edward