Tuesday, December 15, 2015

The Left's Permanent Institutionalization of Man's Fall

I don't remember how we veered down the path of Gnosis, but we might as well finish what we've begun. As I've said before, at least half of what Mouravieff writes strikes me as batty, but maybe a third of it seems quite sound -- at least if translated into the proper terms.

For example, what he calls "esoteric evolution," I would just call spiritual development. Everything in this world is subject to development, and spirit (in man) is no different. How then does this not make me a relativist?

Because all development takes place in the context of the Permanent Real, AKA God, or O, or the Great Attractor. I am not a relativist but an absolutist; however, we are all related to the absolute, and vice versa. In between are the Vertical Energies, more on which as we proceed. (I might add that these Energies can take the form of information, or love, or creativity, or other modalities.)

Let's take the example of our primordial calamity, the so-called fall. From what or whom did we fall? It seems to me that in some general sense, we fell out of the orbit of the Great Attractor. Recall from Genesis the idea that the "unit" of mankind is man-woman. We are created to exist in passionate and intimate relationship, not as autonomous units. Therefore, as we are created twogether, so in twos do we fall.

In other words, not to get too far ahead of ourselves, but a primary manifestation of our fallenness will appear in the man-woman relationship (and indeed, much of John Paul II's theology of the body goes back to this idea).

Therefore, as Mouravieff says, spiritual ("esoteric") evolution, "by its nature, is evolution that involves both man and woman." That is, "the fall was not, as we say today, the fall of Adam, but of Adam and Eve together, each having fallen in their own way."

Therefore, the return must in some sense involve both. Certainly this would appear to touch on the necessity of Mary's role in salvation history. Most heresies contain an element of truth, and so it is with the idea of Mary as co-redemptrix.

In a certain sense -- and I'm just thinking out loud, plus I have a cold that is affecting my thinking, so don't hold me to it -- it is as if Mary is the necessary condition (the without whom) while Jesus is the sufficient condition (with whom). Certainly the whole thing appears to be predicated on Mary's prior and freely given Yes.

And doesn't this follow the pattern of the fall, i.e., Eve as the condition without whom, Adam as the condition with whom? In any event, this is how Mouravieff sees it, that "the role of a woman, on the ascent to Redemption, must be comparable to the part played by woman in the Fall."

In both cases there is a kind of "conception." In Mary there is the conception of God, but to what does this parallel in Eve? "Having conceived in her fertile and artistic imagination the notion of Illusion, the woman, after tasting its fruits, offered them to her husband..."

Here I think it is useful to think of this in symbolic terms, as something that takes place in the psyche. The story is told in mythic terms to relate a much deeper truth of being seduced out of the Great Attractor and into a realm of illusion. Each of us has Adam and Eve within; or, they are names for more general principles and trends.

But there is also a quite literal dimension. For example, this is how the left destroyed black culture, by using the state to drive a wedge between man and woman, and to offer them perverse incentives that literally institutionalize the fall.

Woman, instead of being oriented to her complementary partner, forms her primary relationship to the state (remember "Julia"?). And a man will tend to sink to the level necessary to maintain sexual access. Having first turned from God and lost his orbit, he simply plunges after Eve. Thus, instead of God --> Man --> Woman, the order is State --> Woman --> Man.

Now, "repent" comes from metanoia, which means literally to "turn around." And it is a literal turning around, from world to God, or from illusion to the Great Attractor. Here again, our proximity to the nonlocal goal is the measure of our "evolution":

"whatever guides him towards his proposed goal, helps him to attain it, or contributes to this attainment, is for him a Good; whatever turns him away, retards him, stops him, takes him backwards, and in general anything that creates material or psychological obstacles on the path that leads him toward the goal he seeks, is for him an Evil" (ibid.).

Think about how the dominant liberal culture is nothing but this EVIL writ large. This occurred to me while reading a piece linked at Happy Acres, called Turn On, Tune In, Drop Out. I believe I've posted my own variant on this very meme, but the idea is to turn around, tune in to the Great Attractor, and drop out of the death culture of the left. The whole machine only works because people do the opposite, which is to say, repeat the fall.

The other day I mentioned how it has occurred to me that the left's war on civilization is entirely bound up with sexuality. This book on The Global Sexual Revolution wasn't exactly what I was looking for, as it goes more into how the soul-destroying machine works than why.

But as Kuby writes, central to the re-education (and re-orientation) is abolishing "the habit of distinguishing men from women" and "extinguishing the fundamental truth that mutual sexual attraction between man and woman forms the basis of humankind's" existence.

Mess with that, and you are messing with the very foundation of civilization. The left knows this. And it does everything in its power to make sure that no one else does. But again, their goal is a permanent institutionalization of the Fall, such that the order of the cosmos begins with the State -- not only instead of God but as God.


julie said...

But as Kuby writes, central to the re-education (and re-orientation) is abolishing "the habit of distinguishing men from women" and "extinguishing the fundamental truth that mutual sexual attraction between man and woman forms the basis of humankind's" existence.

I've often suspected that part of the issue in the bad old days of the angry OT God was that people were using their various alternative religions as a cover for engaging in all manner of sexual perversion. The tendency to child sacrifice, in that case, may well have been as much the result of the lack of contraception - and thus the need to do away with the inconvenient products of conception that resulted from the absence of self restraint - as it was a need to appease various gods.

Re. the Happy Acres-linked article, I read that last night, and cooncur, for the most part. It's good to be part of the counter-culture for a change, even if it's never really hip to be square. Or triangular, as the case may be.

Leslie said...

Having been deinstitutionalized for the past 17 years, after we started homeschooling, becoming counter culture isn't very hard. It seems like once you "unplug", the rest seems natural. I quit watching any tv news a few years ago, and, since my kids have no interest in tv, it is hardly ever on. They biggest eye opener has been seeing THE LIE with crystal clarity. It is so obvious, it is almost embarrassing.

will said...

While trying to explain the impossibility of gay marriage to a lefty friend - good luck there, eh? - she replied, three times actually and with increasing vehemence, "But love trumps all!". Now we all know that filial love exists, as does Band of Brothers love, and as does my insanely groveling love for my cats Florence and Irene, and so forth. But gay marriage purports to be identical to hetero marriage; it presents as viable the same mystical/sexual union of male/female marriage.

Well, harking back to the Kabbalist idea that the universe is perpetually in the throes of a male/female Giant Orgasm, I would have to say that mystical/sexual love is indeed impossible in a homosexual context - indeed, love between Creator and Creation, the transcendent love, would be impossible without the male/female, yang/yin dynamic. 

So yeah, okay, "Love trumps all" but without the male/female equation, love literally cannot exist. I might add that this seems to be borne out in gay marriage divorce stats and in fact, in the average length of an "intimate" gay relationship, which is about three years. 

Artists rendition of Florence
- /\__/\
= *. *=

mushroom said...

Each of us has Adam and Eve within; or, they are names for more general principles and trends.

We are all a fractal of the Fall. So, too, we are a fractal in the redemption. As in Adam all died, so in Christ all shall be made alive.

julie said...

Leslie, your kids definitely do you credit.

Leslie said...

Thanks, Julie. I give God the credit. I just love 'em.

Paul Griffin said...

...the order of the cosmos begins with the State -- not only instead of God but as God.

Well, what is a totalitarian state, if not the attempt to incarnate our own savior? It is the anti-Christ par excellence. Born of thousands upon thousands of non-virgins, it comes not to fulfill the Law, but to abolish it, and you will quickly discover that it is for Slavery that it has enslaved you.

Man, having a cold makes me grumpy...

John said...

Excellent point, Will. Even from an evolutionary point of view, gay marriage, or even gayness makes no sense. What is the advantage? On the other hand, homophobia is clearly and sensibly genetic.