Tuesday, May 24, 2016

God and Gender

Let's continue with last Friday's post on the cosmic implications of human sexuality. I suppose we have to start with the cosmic implications of humanness as such, and then go from there. Again, human beings are in the image of the Creator, such that there are traces of our origin even in our physical form.

How so? Let's answer that in the form of an aphorism or two:

The laws of biology alone do not have fingers delicate enough to fashion the beauty of a face (Dávila).

For that matter, the feminine body is far too perfect and spiritually too eloquent to be nothing more than a transitory accident (Schuon). Can I get a witness?

Thus, Christianity does not deny the splendor of the world, but rather invites us to search for its origin, to climb towards its pure snow (Dávila).

The journey is more aesthetic than epistemological; or, to be perfectly accurate, it is epistemology via aesthetics, or knowledge through beauty:

Approaching religion through art is not the caprice of an aesthete: aesthetic experience spontaneously tends to expand into a presentiment of religious experience (ibid.).

For which reason, When religion and aesthetics are divorced from each other, it is not known which is corrupted sooner (ibid.).

So, the human form is an aesthetic object, which in turn draws us toward its nonlocal spiritual source.

Recall Schuon's gag about the human station being both the summit of and exit from terrestrial conditions. The former goes to immanence, while the latter goes to transcendence; equally, the former goes to man's splendor, while the latter goes to his humility: man is a kind of everything/nothing, depending upon how we look, i.e., with two eyes or three.

Now, God is either beyond gender or the synthesis of both. Thus there is an aspect of man that is beyond gender, but in this regard, the left commits what Wilber calls a pre/trans fallacy, in that God is beyond gender, not before it. Insofar as man is concerned, he may transcend gender, but only after he is one. This is why the left is committing a systemic cruelty to children in trying to deny them, or confuse them about, this primordial identity.

As Schuon says, "the liberating Way may be either 'virile' or 'feminine,' although it is not possible to have a strict line of demarcation between the two modes" -- partly because each is always in a dynamic rapport with its projected complement. In Jungian terms, for the male, the animus relates to the projected anima, while for the female it is the other way around. We are all searching for the archetypal other who completes us on this plane.

Schuon points out that our deiformity must be a feminine attribute, in that we are the passive partner vis-a-vis God, who is active. Here, Mary represents the archetype of archetypes, i.e., of human receptivity to the Divine energy.

For which reason female has an ambiguous relationship to male. I don't want to trigger anyone, but Schuon suggests that "there are two ways of situating the sexes, either in a horizontal or in a vertical sense." According to the horizontal, "man is on the right and woman on the left," whereas considered vertically, "man is above and woman below" (as reflected in the God-Mary relation).

Anyone who uses this as a pretext for domination or oppression has thoroughly misunderstood the cosmic lesson. I would suggest that, to the extent that women are oppressed -- most conspicuously, in the Islamic world -- it is because of a pathological perversion of the vertical relationship, or an infection of that relationship by horizontal mind parasites.

Which I think Genesis 3 goes to. Consider the verticality of its metaphysic: Adam comes from God, and then Eve from Adam. The relationship is inverted when Eve listens to the serpent (a quintessential archetype of horizontality), who then pulls Adam away from God. This is not to blame woman per se, because Adam is still ultimately responsible for his ontological reverse metanoia, such that he turns from the above to the below. Eve only tempts, she does not compel.

And again, Mary represents the reversal of this reversal. Thus, the Eve/Mary axis is the same as the Nothing/Everything axis alluded to above. You might say that the serpent promises man everything and delivers nothing.

Like the left.

29 Comments:

Blogger Magister said...

Adrienne von Speyr has written a deeply insightful book about Mary, The Handmaid of the Lord (1955). The first chapter is on her assent and its relationship to the Trinity, which is pretty absorbing, and the rest of the book is full of lived wisdom in conversation with profound theological reflection. Highly recommended.

Get rid of the vertical, and you have an earth flattened by your own limitations and by force. Some days the only way I avoid contemptus mundi is to reflect on that little house at Nazareth.

5/24/2016 10:37:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

Magister, well said.

I don't want to trigger anyone, but Schuon suggests that "there are two ways of situating the sexes, either in a horizontal or in a vertical sense." According to the horizontal, "man is on the right and woman on the left," whereas considered vertically, "man is above and woman below" (as reflected in the God-Mary relation).

Indeed. One of the things that strikes me about feminism, especially the stridently anti-human form preached and practiced by the radfems, is that in denying gender as artificial and putting themselves in place of the patriarchy, they are actually expressing a deep-seated hatred of everything feminine. They hate motherhood, they hate marriage, they hate children, and above all they hate women.

5/24/2016 11:35:00 AM  
Anonymous It's the culture said...

Be kinda cool if it turned out the Holy Spirit was the spiritual equivalent of female.

Uh oh. Van’s in the pew right behind me giving me that look. That’s all I have to say about that.

5/24/2016 11:40:00 AM  
Blogger mushroom said...

When religion and aesthetics are divorced from each other, it is not known which is corrupted sooner

That does explain a lot about our current situation.

5/24/2016 12:04:00 PM  
Blogger Van Harvey said...

"The journey is more aesthetic than epistemological; or, to be perfectly accurate, it is epistemology via aesthetics, or knowledge through beauty"

And so the contrast between the critic who either uses what he knows to reduce art to facts, or to elevate their the scope of their knowledge through beauty.

5/24/2016 12:24:00 PM  
Blogger Van Harvey said...

cultcure said ""

Ooh lookie! I don't think I've had my very own pet troll here, since, what, the days of psychoprincess?

Cool.

[Pokes it]

Ha! Lookatthosecutsiecomments! Isn't that precious, artificial intelligence in the text!

Dontcha just wanna squeeze that font?!

5/24/2016 12:32:00 PM  
Blogger neal said...

I do not really try so much to divide more than is reaquired. Not so much opposites, just lost stuff getting married.
That is a celebration. Rockin chairs, rockin babies. Rocka bye, Rock Of Ages. Probably best when who is on first on who is on top trade off for the rest.

5/24/2016 04:11:00 PM  
Anonymous It's the culture said...

“The journey is more aesthetic than epistemological...”

Bear with me for a bit, but I think of this verse:
“And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.” - Matthew 12:31

You can dis the father. You can dis the Lord. But don’t you dare dis the mother.

Facetiousness aside, that’s an ominous verse if there ever was one, taken out of the context of Pharisees declaring Jesus miracles Satanic. I wonder about the limits of that declaration. When scientists are disre-ignoring The Work of Art, are they doing the same thing? Is that what it could also mean?

5/24/2016 09:52:00 PM  
Anonymous It's the culture said...

No need to flatter yourself Van. Just a comment. Instead of obsessing over the irrelevant your time might be better spent learning a writing style human beings can actually relate to.

5/24/2016 09:53:00 PM  
Blogger Allena-C said...

"Now, God is either beyond gender or the synthesis of both. Thus there is an aspect of man that is beyond gender, but in this regard, the left commits what Wilber calls a pre/trans fallacy, in that God is beyond gender, not before it. Insofar as man is concerned, he may transcend gender, but only after he is one. This is why the left is committing a systemic cruelty to children in trying to deny them, or confuse them about, this primordial identity."

Yes, the last thing a child needs is confusion about who they are, and the left excels at that. Not to mention projecting onto the child what they want the child to be. I have even seen this with adults as well.

5/25/2016 03:31:00 AM  
Blogger Van Harvey said...

cultcure said "Instead of obsessing over the irrelevant your time might be better spent learning a writing style human beings can actually relate to."

Careful now, it's not all about you, it's ok that you, many, or even most don't like my 'style', you're free to go your own way. To obsess on it though, or to think that that which doesn't appeal to you, can't possibly appeal to any who are human... you'll want to be careful there, for that kind of thinking is the sort of thinking that is quite popular with those certain someones who so compel those thoughts you're always so busily thinking about... (you know... that word. Shhh...).

5/25/2016 05:24:00 AM  
Blogger Allena-C said...

"I do not really try so much to divide more than is reaquired. Not so much opposites, just lost stuff getting married.
That is a celebration. Rockin chairs, rockin babies. Rocka bye, Rock Of Ages. Probably best when who is on first on who is on top trade off for the rest."

Um....congratulations?

5/25/2016 08:34:00 AM  
Blogger mushroom said...

Anybody that doesn't like Van's style has a short attention span.

5/25/2016 08:48:00 AM  
Blogger Van Harvey said...

:-) Thanks Mushroom.

5/25/2016 09:28:00 AM  
Blogger Allena-C said...

Well said Mush. :)

5/25/2016 11:31:00 AM  
Anonymous It's the culture said...

mushroom,

“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”
― Albert Einstein

Van's Tuesday, April 26, 2016, Primary Stupidity and Political InTrumpretation: "But wait, there's more!" post. I am the six year old with no attention span.

Dazzle me.

5/25/2016 02:17:00 PM  
Anonymous It's the culture said...

While mush emails Van for something to say, here’s something from:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435195/donald-trump-won-because-many-republicans-arent-conservative

“America stands for small government, a free economy (and therefore capitalism), liberty (and it therefore allows for liberty’s inevitable consequence, inequality), the “melting pot” ideal, and a God-centered population rooted in Judeo-Christian values (so that a moral society is created by citizens exercising self-control rather than relying on the state to impose controls).”

That last part is the “cultcure” to which Van refers.

But wait, isn't Prager in bed with Deepak?

5/25/2016 02:33:00 PM  
Blogger Van Harvey said...

cultcure whined “If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”

Ok, well for those six year olds in the room who are interested in the problems with our presidential politics, here ya go:

"Okay Billy, wanna play a game? If I give you your favorite soda as a prize? Cool. Ok Billy, I want you imagine these Three REALLY mean tricks being played on you, and then you tell me how you'd react, ok?

Ok, here we go, here's the first mean trick:

You've got a new substitute teacher at your school, and they teach you and your friends a new word, a special word, a word that you're going to wear on your jersey and teach you to cheer it out loud, but then this substitute teacher only whispers to each of you what it means, and one of you they tell it means 'Power Rangers', and to your other friend that it means 'The Amazing Spiderman', and another that it means 'Barney the Dinosaur'. I KNOW!. And then that substitute tells you all to go outside and play games around that new word... how big of a fight do you think you'd get in, and how soon?

Wild, right?!

The second mean trick, is your P.E. teacher gets you and all of your friends to form two 'football' teams together to play a BIG game, and they get referees and fans and everything... except... they secretly tell some of you that you're coming to play and see NFL Football, and the others are there to play soccer football - nonono wait, wait, wait... then he has an umpire (yeah, an Umpire!) yell 'Play Ball!' - what do you think would happen next?!

Can you IMAGINE that?!

Ok, now here's the last mean trick:

What would you think, if your Home Room teacher poured you a big glass of your Favorite soda, and right before you were about to take a drink, your home room teacher shouted out "No Billy! Don't drink it! Mrs Marx's class Spit in it!" Gross, right? Well what would you think if you then turned around, and saw your teacher DRINKING your Soda?!

I know! How mad would you be?!!!

Ok, so after all of that, the next day you're given a choice of going to school with that substitute teacher, the P.E. Teacher, your Home Room teacher... Or... kicking them out and having the lead singer of your Favorite Rock Band run your school - wHo would you pick?

Even though you know you'd learn nothing from them? Suh-PRIZE, right?!!! Ha.

Now Billy, you DO want to learn how to grow up big and strong like your heroes, right? I thought so. So tell me, do you think the problem with that school was with what good teachers were there to teach you, or with it being filled with bad teachers playing mean tricks on you?

So if you got to pick your next school, what would you want to know about who the teachers were?

_________

Thanks Billy, here's your Soda."

5/25/2016 04:32:00 PM  
Blogger Van Harvey said...

cultqueer said "That last part is the “cultcure” to which Van refers. But wait, isn't Prager in bed with Deepak?"

No doofus, if you listen to a few hours at Prager U, he'll make it very clear, that the Governing end of American culture rests upon We The People understanding the meaning of Liberty and the Laws it requires to succeed, and the ones that would cause it to fail.

But then... you're apparently not even smart enough for a six year old... so... you'll have to settle for Deepaking the Chopra.

5/25/2016 04:35:00 PM  
Blogger Van Harvey said...

cultcure, you are an absolute twit. The article by Prager you linked to, says,

"But the argument meant little or nothing to two types of Republicans: the majority of Trump voters who don’t care whether he is a conservative, and the smaller number of Trump voters who are conservative but care about illegal immigration more than all other issues, including Trump’s many and obvious failings.

So, then, what happened to the majority of Republicans? Why aren’t they conservative?

The answer lies in America’s biggest – and scariest – problem: Most Americans no longer know what America stands for. For them, America has become just another country, a place located between Canada and Mexico. But America was founded to be an idea, not another country. As Margaret Thatcher put it: “Europe was created by history. America was created by philosophy....”



IOW, if you actually read Prager's article (the words too big? Had to skip some?), and my post (I'll be the size scared you off, right? Got issues with 'size'? Small hands maybe?), Prager says, and kudos for him being able to say it in less space, exactly what I'm saying in more detail.

LOL, what a trollninny.

5/25/2016 04:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Donny said...

I am the walrus.

5/25/2016 05:31:00 PM  
Anonymous It's the culture said...

First one, I was addressing mushroom. He can’t answer for himself? Maybe I was wrong. I’m now thinking you may only have a readership of one. Yourself.

Second one, lets say I disregard this part of Pragers sentence:

“and a God-centered population rooted in Judeo-Christian values (so that a moral society is created by citizens exercising self-control rather than relying on the state to impose controls)”

and replace it with this:

“the Governing end of American culture rests upon We The People understanding the meaning of Liberty and the Laws it requires to succeed, and the ones that would cause it to fail”

Are you saying that if American culture (theoretically) changed from Christian to Islamic, it’d be irrelevant? The results would be exactly the same as long as We The Islamic People understood the Laws it requires to succeed... Why not in Syria then? Why did Prager even put that original statement in there to begin with?

5/25/2016 05:37:00 PM  
Anonymous Donny said...

I am the walrus.

5/25/2016 05:39:00 PM  
Anonymous It's the culture said...

I’ve realized what’s happening. You’re taking my “It’s the culture” moniker, far too literally. I’ve never once stated that everything is rooted in culture. I included Prager’s entire paragraph because I believe (and he believes) ALL of it. A Christian people will make for less Rule of Laws, whatever they decide they should be.

Are you drunk?

5/25/2016 05:47:00 PM  
Anonymous Donny said...

What the fuck is he talking about, Dude?

5/25/2016 05:54:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Donny,
Van is notorious on the internet for mis-understaking pieces of comment assuming the leftie worst, then exploding into really long comment rages. I came here for the metaphysical, but discovered I may be a masochist. I hope he turns on me next. I’m sitting here with hanky and weenie ready to go.

5/25/2016 06:27:00 PM  
Blogger Van Harvey said...

Well said Donny, goo goo g' joob goo goo g' joob
Goo goo g' joob goo goo g' joob
Goo gooooooooooo jooba jooba jooba jooba jooba jooba
Jooba jooba
Jooba jooba
Jooba jooba

5/25/2016 07:11:00 PM  
Anonymous Walter said...

Shut the fuck up, Donny! V.I. Lenin. Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov!

5/25/2016 07:24:00 PM  
Anonymous Billy said...

My dad told me the rock star only talks about Jesus so the losers will like him better. And then he gets to do whatever he wants. Only a dummy actually believes what Jesus said.

5/25/2016 09:46:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home