Archive
Comments on “Numen, Old Men” – Part 3: Integral Spirituality or Muscular Spirituality?
I have long been enamored with models of human behavior, development, personality, origins, …on and on. From simple typology models, such as Myers-Briggs, to more complex models, including the Enneagram, from spiritual esoteric developments such as the Kabbalah to Jungian archetypal explorations, and on to Ken Wilber and the Integral Model of “a brief history of everything” I’ve studied them and applied them to my own development, understanding, and yes, even (maybe especially) enjoyment. Most models, of course, are found wanting in one or more respects. They are models, after all, and not the real thing. They can’t be expected to operate perfectly in the real world. This is just like creating climate models and then expecting accurate weather reporting – it just doesn’t happen!
Ken Wilber has created an elegant and complex model of the world, especially of people and their history in the world. I have enjoyed poking into it, with a relatively non-critical eye, to understand it, but not to test it in all it’s “grandeur.” Chapter 5 of Joseph Gelfer’s book: Numen, Old Men: Contemporary Masculine Spiritualities and the Problem of Patriarchy is titled: Integral Spirituality or Muscular Spirituality? and in it he takes a critical look at Wilber’s Integral Model and its perspectives on spirituality and masculinity. And, just as all models have them, Dr. Gelfer finds some serious issues with Wilber’s.
I thoroughly enjoyed this chapter and believe it to be the best argued so far in the book. It is both informative and entertaining at the same time; I laughed out loud at points, often at the expense of Mr. Wilber. For example Dr. Gelfer observes that Wilber runs afoul of his own “pre/trans fallacy” insight. The pre/trans fallacy leads to a confusion of pre-rational and transrational spiritual explorations by elevating “archaic and magical reasoning to the heady heights of Wilberian transrationalism, and scientific rationalists can reduce Wilberian transrationalism to the primeval swamp of archaic and magical pre-rationalism.” Then “Wilber’s whole application of masculine and feminine ‘types’ falls foul of the pre/trans fallacy….Wilber’s simplistic approach to gender, even if we give him credit for removing masculine and feminine one step away from actual men and women (which he does on occasion) is clearly pre-rational.”!
Yes, you could say there are times when Wilber argues out of both sides of his mouth!
There are also some parts of the chapter which elicited a “groan” from me as I read about the extent to which Wilber and some of his followers of the Integral approach have perpetuated the notion that women (the feminine) are some how inferior to men (the masculine)! As an example: “even in the noosphere [the sphere of evolved thought which transcends and includes the biosphere] Wilber says women should not expect complete parity, ‘given the unavoidable aspects of childbearing, a parity in the public/private domain would be around 60-40 male/female'” – yeah, he quotes Wilber here! And Dr. Gelfer then rightly quips: “Dashed are the hopes of many who thought that in the noosphere would be realized more flexible workplace policies.”!
In my mind the main argument here is that Wilber has not dealt very well with masculine/feminine issues and has not modeled the incredible complexity of these notions at all deeply. To rely on two dimensional characterizations of male and female as polar opposite manifestations of humanity is naive. And as elegant and useful as some of Mr. Wilber’s thought is, he fails to probe this area of masculine spirituality much below the surface of the trite characterizations of masculinity/femininity by the evangelical men’s movement.
Tomorrow we take a break from Dr. Gelfer for a comment on this week’s Mystic Message from The Divine Feminine.
Comments on “Numen, Old Men” – Part 2: The Evangelical and Catholic Men’s Movements
Chapter 3 of Joseph Geler’s book: Numen, Old Men: Contemporary Masculine Spiritualities and the Problem of Patriarchy is titled: The Evangelical Men’s Movement: Networking, Violence and Sport. Chapter 4 is: The Catholic Men’s Movement: Sacrements and Adoration. Today I review both chapters together, since both have their roots in the mythopoetic men’s movement and have Christianity as a common theme.
First, I have little to no experience with Christian Men’s movements. While I was working with Bly, Moore and others in the early 90s Rosemary and I belonged to a large liberal Presbyterian church (PC-USA). Since men’s movements were in the news then this church did initiate a men’s Bible study group which I participated in a few times. That experience was a far cry from some of the events and men’s ministries I have read about both in the press and through Dr. Gelfer’s book. We did not go out into the woods to “hug trees,” we did not espouse a return to patriarchy and strong family leadership, we had no intention of declaring “war on evil,” and we did not engage in sports of any kind (even though one of the leaders of the group was the local high school football coach!).
Second, while these two movements may have sprung from some of the concepts and ideas behind the mythopoetic men’s movement, I see little resemblance among them as Dr. Gelfer examines the extremes of the movements.
Third, the overview of both Christian-based movements presented by Dr. Gelfer seems thorough and good, balanced reporting. I am pleased to have read about these movements but am not persuaded to join one! For the most part I find these movements as devoid of spirituality as Dr. Gelfer claims the mythopoetic movement to be. The evangelical movement seems to have tended toward a return to patriarchy and war; again, an emphasis on the King and Warrior archetypes. In fact I would say this movement is almost entirely rooted in these archetypes to the exclusion of the more spiritual archetypes (here I would claim Magician and Lover are more spiritual; and I’m using the Moore/Gillette quadrant model). It is about “male bonding” – hardly spiritual. It’s about recruiting (evangelizing) for the “war.”
Fourth, the Catholic movement, while beginning much the same way as the evangelical movement, tends to have some redeeming qualities, especially in areas of sacraments and adoration. We seem to be getting closer to real spirituality here! This movement is not about evangelizing but ministry to and with men. In one survey of Catholic men their primary motivation for being part of a men’s ministry was to be with other men. (Secondary was to gain self awareness and third (finally something spiritual) was to explore the relationship to God!)
Lastly, Dr. Gelfer compares the evangelical and Catholic movements: “Numerous Catholic men’s ministries…carried direct allusions to Promise Keepers, asking their members to bear witness to various promises or pledges. Other themes predominate in evangelical men’s ministry can be identified in a Catholic context, such as servant leadership and allusions to violence and sport.” And he contrasts the movements: “While evangelical men’s ministries go to some quite extraordinary lengths to masculinize both their aesthetics and theology, there is no such common practice among Catholic men’s ministries.”
The Catholic approach seems a “kinder, gentler” approach to exploring masculine spirituality compared to the evangelical approach. Yet, I am startled that spirituality seems to be an afterthought in both movements. My personal experience of the secular mythopoetic movement (contrary to Dr. Gelfer’s research) is than we were much more engaged with the transcendent than either the evangelical or Catholic movements!
Tomorrow I move on to the 5th chapter and explore the Integral approach to masculine spirituality. I look forward to it! I’ve read a reasonable amount of Ken Wilber material and have a certain respect for the Integral model. Let’s see how Dr. Gelfer rips into it!
Men and Grief (part 4)
I don’t usually post on Sundays but my exchange with Joseph Gelfer on the “mythopoetic men’s movement” has me continuing to think and explore both Joseph’s critique of the movement and my own experiences with it. So, here are a couple random thoughts on the subject:
Over the last couple of days I’ve listened to part of a recording of the 2002 Men’s Conference hosted by Robert Bly in Minnesota. The first full day of that conference was on September 11, 2002, just one year after “9-11.” Through that listening almost eight years later, I recalled the feelings of anger, grief, and a remaining disbelief that this had happened. We were encouraged to share all of those emotions and to explore them in the much larger context of the world view of that event. Many of us expressed dismay at the lost opportunity to better ourselves and learn from the event and our responses to it. Most were alarmed at the “saber rattling” and desire for vengeance that seemed to be gripping so much of the nation at that time; the call to war! Grief was at the core of the emotional attitude in that group of 100 or so men. We were experiencing it and getting guidance in how to deal with it. Participants and leaders alike shared in this common and heart-deep sense that the world had changed and we were being called to change with it. At the end of this sharing and grieving we were led to express our feelings in song: “Oh, the distance between us is holy ground.” The words themselves are enough to plunge me into deepest feeling; the sound of a hundred male voices singing with full hearts was an awesome experience; and the sense of separation, among individuals, nations, continents, beliefs, cultures, melted into holiness.
And if you have been reading the exchange between Joseph Gelfer and me about the “movement” I offer this poem about archetypes and development which came to me the other day:
Wounded Man
Wounded healer,
Heal thyself;
Recover that lost piece
Which bleeds in some far place.
Wounded warrior,
Come home now;
Sooth thy fevered brow,
And sing songs of peace.
Wounded holy king,
Rule in peace;
Strengthen thy green land,
And love your people free.
Wounded poet,
Write thy verse;
Create the songs of peace
To heal the warrior-king.
Comments on “Numen, Old Men” – Part 1: The Mythopoetic Movement
I’m closely and carefully reading Joseph Gelfer’s book on “Contemporary Masculine Spiritualities and the Problem of Patriarchy” because he offers a clear review of what has been going on with men and spirituality over the last couple of decades and maybe some hope for where we can go as men looking for progress rather than a regress to our baser and lower motivations and instincts. This will be a multi-part comment because there is a lot of material to cover.
As I reported at length yesterday I was directly involved to some degree in the “Mythopoetic Movement.” Dr. Gelfer’s second chapter (after an introductory chapter) is titled: “The Mythopoetic Movement: Getting it Wrong from the Start.” You can imagine how this caught my attention!
The chapter covers much of my life in the 90s. He reviews the movement, the luminaries and their work. It is a good and fairly detailed review which covers much of the material, yes, some of the shortcomings, but I also think there is something which got lost in the research. I have a hunch that Dr. Gelfer’s research was based to a large extent on the primary and secondary sources with no real experience with either the movement or its leaders. Since I had some reasonable and positive experience of both my view is different. Here I’ll go into Dr. Gelfer’s review, findings, conclusions and then amplify these with my own thoughts.
Dr. Gelfer characterizes the movement using four major themes he culls from the literature: archetypes as identified by Jung and extensively researched and adapted by Robert Moore (a Jungian psychoanalyst) and Douglas Gillette (mythologist); wilderness (also called wildness) sometimes characterized by the Green Man and certainly by Iron John, probably the most notorious character in the movement and main character of the book by Robert Bly of the same title; fatherlessness as an explanation of why we are in this mess in the first place and why we need a movement; and initiation as a key missing component to the raising of American, possibly all of western, men.
He also claims that there is little if any spirituality in this movement. He defines spirituality across two pages in his book and finds one offered by Robert Forman “perfectly acceptable” as do I (Forman in Grassroots Spirituality: What It Is, Why It Is Here, Where It Is Going, 2004): “Grassroots Spirituality involves a vaguely pantheistic ultimate that is indwelling, sometimes bodily, as the deepest self and accessed through not-strictly-rational means of self transformation and group process that becomes the holistic organization for all life.”
With that definition and these themes in mind I’ll briefly summarize Dr. Gelfer’s critiques, offer my own thoughts and conclude with an overall impression of both the book, so far, and the movement, so far.
Archetypes: Dr. Gelfer focuses on the work of Moore and Gillette. I was fortunate enough to take a weekend workshop with Robert Moore before their four archetypal books were even publish. The first one, King, Warrior, Magician, Lover: Rediscovering the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine which summarized their model had just been published in 1990. Dr Gelfer spends most of his time examining the King and Warrior archetypes and claims that these represent a call for return to the patriarchy and also claims that these two are the chief focal points for the movement. And here I disagree based on my experience with Moore, the use of the archetypes with Bly and others and my own sense of the operation of these archetypes in my life. Moore and Gillette don’t focus on these two archetypes to the exclusion of the Magician and the Lover. And they don’t call for a return to these archetypes to define the Mature Masculine. Rather they call for a balance and a development. And they clearly point out the shadow side of each of the four archetypes and how they can operate destructively in men’s lives. They also use this archetypal model in a developmental sense claiming we are born as divine children in the King quadrant, move through adolescence and early manhood into the warrior quadrant, move on in our prime to our magician quadrant, as we mature and grow in wisdom we move on to our Lover quadrant, and then as senior men (maybe even grandfathers) we finally move back into the King quadrant where we are generative in our maturity. Obviously this is a simplistic model both of the masculine and the developmental stages we go through. It is meant to be instructive rather than conclusive. There is much more detail (five books worth!) that I can’t go into here, but I will conclude that the model has been very useful in my life as a guide to who I am, how I got here and where I am going. And while Moore & Gillette claim these archetypes are “hardwired” into our psyches I may not go quite that far. I believe we can rise above our development and the archetypes which instruct us but don’t necessarily limit us. And here I go back to the definition of spirituality as a means of self transformation, yes, even beyond archetypes.
Wilderness: Yes, Iron John was a wild man. Dr. Gelfer seems to believe this too is a call to return to strong patriarchy. There is certainly a lot about the mythopoetic movement that calls for a return to nature, a respect for nature and the natural. Clearly there is power in this. But there is also love. Rather than King and Warrior in the Wild Man I see Magician and Lover. When Robert Bly refers to the “soft male” he is referring, in my mind, to absent males who have abdicated, not their patriarchal role as King and Warrior, but their male role in the world as leader and protector. And there is clearly, in my mind, a reverence here and a “vaguely pantheistic ultimate” at the core of this Wildness. I experienced the “Other” the “Ultimate” in my time within the movement, especially at the “Men’s Conferences” I attended. These were spiritual, transcendent experiences that are not easily found in the literature; but how do you write about the transcendent? Through poetry (of the Lover); through “not-strictly-rational” experiences (of the Magician). I agree with Dr. Gelfer that the Spiritual can be difficult to separate out within the movement’s literature; but it is there to be experienced.
Fatherlessness: This is an important theme in much of Robert Bly’s thought on our current predicament in the post-modern world. He believes absent fathers (boys no longer working side-by-side with their fathers) has meant we have been raised by our mothers to too great an extent and to our detriment. We have been raised without good male role-models; our fathers represent the closest we have to strong, if not positive, models. Here I can agree with some of Dr. Gelfer’s criticism. This theme almost sounds like a blame game; looking for excuses. I personally struggled with this thought and finally abandoned it; I grew up with a wonderful father and worked by his side on the family farm. Yes, this was then, and certainly is now, a rarity. And as I explored this concept of the absent father I reached too far thinking because my father was quiet and we didn’t have deep conversations this meant he was somehow “absent.” But now that I’m well into my own fatherhood and grandfatherhood I realize how important my father’s modeling was in my life. OK, so if I had a “present father” what about the men who did not? I think we find our models as we grow up. And these are choices we make as part of our developmental process. Which leads me to the next and final theme:
Initiation: Bly’s second major book (other than his works of poetry): The Sibling Society focuses especially on the situation in which we are a society of uninitiated adolescents. There are good arguments in this book that we adults (including governing officials) act as children too often. And this can be very scary! (I don’t want to get political here, but I believe we invaded Iraq in a childish and grandiose way resulting in a country forever changed!). As we grow up in western culture we do not have tests for maturity; we can test for academic achievement; we can test for attained levels of skill; but emotional and spiritual maturity are difficult to measure. It is precisely this emotional and spiritual attainment which Initiation seeks. It is much more than a rite of passage; it is a process of development for young people to move through. Dr. Gelfer seems to equate this call for Initiation with a return to primitive societies where boys are initiated into the tribe of men to take their rightful places as heads of families, patriarchal leaders. Again, this was not my experience. And I don’t think that is the point of identifying Initiation as a missing component in our society. In my mind we have no process for becoming emotionally mature, spiritual leaders. We need them. We need everyone to be emotionally mature and on a spiritual path of some kind, to access “through not-strictly-rational means of self transformation and group process” the “holistic organization for all life.” How else will we ever advance Consciousness?
Dr. Gelfer has done a great job in outlining the mythopoetic men’s movement and pointing out some of its weaknesses. I don’t believe it was ever meant to be an end point, but rather a stepping stone, as it’s been for me. It doesn’t really have much life in it any longer, sad to say for young men wondering how to “grow themselves up.” But its leaders have been heroes for me: good models, good thinkers, good Warriors, Magicians, Lovers, Kings. And while I have moved on from some of the more simplistic elements of the movement I sense that I stand on a stronger base for having been part of it.
And, don’t get me wrong; I have very much enjoyed Joseph Gelfer’s book and continue to do so as I read through his critique of the various approaches to masculine spiritualities. And I very much look forward to his recommendations (stay tuned).
The Mythopoetic Men’s Movement and My Personal Experience within it
I have been less active on this blog this week; I’ve been recovering from a mild stomach bug, probably picked up in all my travels earlier in the month to LA, then Baltimore, and home again. While I was resting I took the opportunity to plunge into Joseph Gelfer’s book: Numen, Old Men Contemporary Masculine Spiritualities and the Problem of Patriarchy. Joseph brought his book to my attention while commenting on an earlier post. It took some time for me to get it and then to get into it, but here we are. I will offer some thoughts this week (and probably next) on this provocatively titled book, and from my initial read.
Before I explore the book I’ll begin with a personal account of encountering the Mythopoetic Men’s Movement, one of the subjects of Dr. Gelfer’s review.
My early involvement with Robert Bly started with his interview with Bill Moyers in 1990: “A Gathering of Men.” This was perhaps a natural extension, both for me and many others, from our experiences growing up in the 60s, of our activism, our idealistic hope for change and and a strong desire to be part of that change. My personal men’s movement started as early as 1967 as a peace corps volunteer to Ethiopia where I experienced relationships with men that seemed unthinkable in the US. I formed strong bonds with several men, Ethiopian and Indian colleagues with whom I taught. By 1990 I had been re-culturated into American society, married, had two sons, divorced, remarried and added a step-daughter. Yes, I was well integrated into the “American Dream” at that point. But I knew too much, had seen and experienced too much to think that this dream is all there is to life on Planet Earth.
I went to a Bly/Michael Meade event in Washington, DC in about 1990, called “A Day for Men.” A thousand men gathered and crammed into Lisner Auditorium of George Washington University to listen to these two poets/storytellers spin a yarn and teach about what it might be like to grow into a modern man in late 20th century America. It was an awesome experience and I can still give myself goosebumps recalling pieces of the day. It hooked me into the “movement.”
I have since had several more experiences with Robert, did a weekend workshop with Robert Moore, another luminary of the early movement, read all the books with eager enthusiasm and finally made it to one of Robert’s annual gatherings in Minnesota, the Men’s Conference in 2002. (I had planned to attend the one in 2001, in fact was at the airport in Colorado to fly into Minneapolis, when the planes hit the towers in NYC; I didn’t go anywhere that week!). It was at the 2002 conference that I met Martín Prechtel, one of the conference leaders that year. I enjoyed this event so much that the following year I took my older son; we enjoyed the 2003 conference, especially doing it together. Maldoma Somé was a key leader and my son made an immediate bond with him.
Since that time I have continued reading and thinking, writing and reviewing material on all these subject lines that I first encountered with Bly, Meade, Moore, Prechtel, et al. I continue to study with Martín in his school, Bolad’s Kitchen. I do not consider what Martín is now doing part of the mythopoetic movement. First it is not about men but humans; second, it is definitely about spirituality, especially native spirituality as a guide to find our indigenous souls; third, it doesn’t really address the principal topics of the movement.
The movement has had many critics. Feminists voiced concern that it championed a return to strong patriarchy; there was a fear that Bly’s “soft male” would become hard and violent. I believe there was a lot of misunderstanding by those who viewed the movement from the outside and through the literature only. Myths and archetypes presented within the movement were never meant to be models for behavior but teaching tools to gain a deeper understanding of who we men are in an evolving and ever more complex society. We were learning to be present and participating men rather than the absent and withdrawn, or violent and domineering. My wife encouraged me to participate in the movement; her women’s book group read Iron John with enthusiasm and reportedly gained much understanding of their husbands, sons and even daughters.
I do not now consider myself part of the mythopoetic men’s movement (if, in fact, it still exists as a “movement”). I learned a lot from the leaders and teachers within the movement. What I gained drew me into areas of study and thought which continue to evolve and grow. Jungian psychology and archetypal investigations still hold my interest. The next book on my reading list is Matthew Fox’s The Hidden Spirituality of Men Ten Metaphors to Awaken the Sacred Masculine. His ten metaphors are archetypes. And whether these archetypes are real and “hard wired” into the human psyche (as Robert Moore professes) or simply metaphors by which we explore human behavior to learn how to improve it, I believe modeling that behavior is instructional and important for the evolution of consciousness and spirituality.
I will never apologize for my participation within the mythopoetic men’s movement. I gained too much, became a better man through its influence. But it was only one of many stepping stones. The movement was a beginning to open men to their higher potential. It was never meant as a be-all, end-all approach, but an awakening. Since the early days of the Vedas and Buddha we are all, as humans, called to awaken. For me the men’s movement was part of that call and part of my awakening process.
Tomorrow I’ll begin my review of Dr. Gelfer’s book. As a preview I will tell you he is quite critical of the movement. Stay tuned!
Queen of Heaven
We are in store for a beautiful weekend in Colorado. I hope you have a wonderful one wherever you are! On Sundays Rosemary and I host “Sundays at The Center“, a celebration of spirit. During our celebration this Sunday I plan to talk about Isis and some of what I’ve been reading which connects her to alchemy. It is also clear to me that she is connected to Inanna, Sumerian “Queen of Heaven” of whom I’ve written earlier in this blog.
The origin of the Egyptian Goddess, Isis, is unknown. But at some point in her history and associated stories it becomes clear that there is some linkage to the Sumerian Inanna and the Semitic Ishtar. First, along with Mari, Diana, Hecate, Pasiphae, Selene, Brigit, Cybele, the Shekinah, Lilith, and Persephone, they are Moon Goddesses (ref: Diane Wolkstein in Inanna, Queen of Heaven and Earth). And the three were also known as “Queen of Heaven.” How much cross-cultural exchange took place across the middle east from the Mediterranean area to Mesopotamia is unknown. But the parallels of myths, stories and religious rites and observances is highly synchronistic.
What are we dealing with here historically? Was there significant exchange across these civilizations or are we seeing an archetype at play? And does this archetype continue to play out in our lives today? One of the dominant religions of today, Christianity, has at its core a story which resembles the Isis/Osiris/Horus story with uncanny parallels. Yes, until recently, the patriarchy has driven much of the Isis story out of Christianity. But Mother Mary and Mary Magdalene are coming back into their own. Is this archetypal or cultural mixing of stories?
I did not realize before my deeper readings into the stories of Isis that her significance and recognition as the Queen of Heaven extended throughout the Mediterranean area, even reaching Britain, and lasted well into the first millennium AD! The last temple of Isis and Osiris continued in operation on the island of Philae in the Upper Nile into the 6th century. How much influence did the parallel worship of Isis have on the Christian mythos? We know that Christian churches and holy sites are built over more ancient spiritually significant sites throughout the world. The Church adopted calendars, saints and sites to fit as an overlay and displace what came before. How much of the story of Jesus, the whole basis of a dominant world religion, is nothing more than an overlay on stories which came before?
What did change in translating the stories of Inanna and Isis to Christianity was the loss of the Feminine as the Masculine worked to dominate and control. The various cults of Isis rose in the Egyptian Delta area; they varied from city to city; they rose in power above the cults of Ra, the masculine; but I find no evidence of a purge of all worship of Ra in order for the Feminine Isis to dominate. This displacement was a gradual shift from masculine to feminine influence. The Christian story is different: The Theodosian decree (in about 380 AD) required the destruction of all pagan temples. Control. The masculine approach to imposing rules on the population.
Marie-Louise von Franz describes the masculine this way: “With this development and increase in the sun cult came a development in law, science, geometry, the planning of fields, of buildings, and so on. There was an enormous progress in rational civilization and in organization and war, etc. That was a development of the masculine world, of the mind world and the world of order”. Sound familiar? It was after this “increase in the sun cult” (by a couple thousand years) that the “men became tired” and the cult of Isis rose – enantiodromia.
We are due for another episode of enantiodromia. We are watching the failing and fading of the current age of masculine dominance. We are in the middle of a swing away from rationalism and war. At least I hope we are! It is time for us to pay attention to the Queen of Heaven. She is due!
Enantiodromia; are we in it? We can hope so!
It was a lovely day in Colorado after our snow on Tuesday which was enough to cancel one of our scheduled meetings. The snow is all gone, soaking into my grass to green it. Perhaps we can say in Colorado at this time of year we are in a period of enantiodromia: the warm spring 60 and 70 degree temperatures bring about the spring snow, and then we bounce back to the warm spring…
Wikipedia says this: “enantiodromia is a principle introduced by psychiatrist Carl Jung that the superabundance of any force inevitably produces its opposite. It is equivalent to the principle of equilibrium in the natural world, in that any extreme is opposed by the system in order to restore balance.” I encountered this word in my current book on alchemy by Marie-Louise von Franz which I’ve mentioned before in these posts. And what in particular caught my attention was her reference to the rise of Isis in Egypt as a central Goddess, even the most powerful of all the gods/goddesses.
She first tells the story of the rise of the cult of the sun god, Ra, around 3,000 to 2,800 BC; sun worship gradually exceeded that of the moon and bull worship (end of the Age of Taurus), an enantiodromia. This gave rise to a patriarchal social and political order. As Ra became old and senile, Isis, using a poisonous serpent or worm and then healing him, tricked him into giving her his secret name, and thereby all his power. “…at the end of the Egyptian civilization there was a similar enantiodromia. Suddenly Isis got everything into her hands and the male gods faded – and it is interesting that that was at the end of the Aries age and that now we are at the end of the Pisces, the astrological fish age, and again a woman is gathering the harvest and the men are a bit tired.” Wow! Von Franz said this in 1959!
Is the patriarchal political and social order under which we have lived our whole lives truly at an end? Are the men “a bit tired”? And where is our Isis, our Inanna, when we need them?
The Isis story is certainly a parallel with the Inanna story to which I’ve referred before. Her descent into the underworld gave her king and husband, Dumuzi, just the opportunity he needed to take charge; and of course he did! This was an enantiodromia. But Inanna was able to come back from the underworld to rule again; poor Dumuzi had to spend half of each year in the underworld in exchange for Inanna’s rise. (And his poor sister spent the other half of the year “down there” representing a nice balance).
Do these myths and archetypal examples of enantiodromia condemn us to forever shift from one extreme to another as we struggle as a humanity for power and control? I say in my title “we can hope so” that we are in a period of enantiodromia; that we are experiencing tired men and the rise of the Goddess, the power of The Feminine. I say this not because I think a feminist, goddess dominated matriarchal society would be better but because I have lived with what the patriarchal, masculine, “god the father” dominated society has generated. I am looking for balance; and maybe, just maybe as we swing back from the extreme through this enantiodromia principle, we can somehow arrest the pendulum’s swing more toward the center.
Can the “new human” figure out a way to share power and control without regard to gender? Is there a balance between masculine and feminine principles we can apply to our social and political struggles so they become less struggle and more cooperation?
As we move toward a new astrological age, the Age of Aquarius, let’s hope we are in a new period of enantiodromia but that the opposites move to balance!
Alchemy and the Goddess
My posts have been sparse lately as we travel coast to coast and back home. Experiencing all these climates has been enjoyable but a bit hard on the environmental body controls. Rosemary and I are both a bit under the weather (so to speak) from the changes. It was good to get home to Colorado last evening and back to our regular schedules. My posts will be regular again as well!
Last night Rosemary and I hosted our “First Monday” Spiritual Exploration Group meeting here in Colorado Springs. We had a good turn out for our topic of the month: What’s All This Hype about 2012? What’s the Basis for it and What Do We Think Might Happen? I found some interesting references to both Alchemy and the Goddess in my readings in preparation for the discussion. There seems to be a strong synchronistic potential at work in my life. The books I am choosing to read and the topics I am choosing to write about and discuss all align with the topic of this post. More of this as we work through the week
The first story of my current book on Alchemy (Alchemy, an Introduction to the Symbolism and the Psychology by Marie-Louise von Franz) is from the Codex Marcianus. It is called The Prophetess Isis to Her Son and is about Isis seeking the secret of “the holy technique” – the preparation of gold and silver. Interestingly Alchemy and the Goddess are immediately linked not only in my mind (see my post on March 25) but in the very first material I take up on the subject!
The story itself is fascinating: Isis encounters an angel who wants to have sex with her in exchange for the knowledge of alchemy. She puts him off until she obtains the knowledge; then he admits this is above him and he needs to hand her off to another more powerful angel. The next day the more powerful angel appears; this one too wants to have sex with Isis. Again she refuses until she receives the secrets of the preparation of gold and silver. In the story the recipe is actually presented but the names of the various substances used are so arcane as to be not identifiable today. But Isis does obtain the secret knowledge and is allowed to share it with her son, Horus.
The significant part of this is where von Franz takes the discussion: she draws the parallel between this myth and the creation myth of the Bible where Eve is the source of the “fall” when she suggests Adam eats the apple whereby they gain knowledge. Of course the Isis story is a positive one: not only does Isis succeed in gaining the information she sought, but she also avoided payment for it by not having sex with the angels. The Eve story is negative: the payment for the knowledge gained is expulsion from the garden. Von Franz would say both stories are archetypal and related; they likely have the same source. The Biblical story is much younger than the Isis story. How is it that the newer story was twisted to have a negative outcome to the gain of knowledge?
And this becomes the crux of the evolution of western civilization, even consciousness! There was an ancient track that seemed to consider knowledge as good. And women were the seekers and keepers of knowledge. This track was diverted a few thousand years ago to declare knowledge as evil; and the cause of this evil was Woman! What is this all about?
Is knowledge good or evil? You might think this is a silly question in the post-modern world of today when science and technology are supreme icons of advancement. But this debate continues. How many people today would still say Eve was wrong in offering the apple, knowledge, to Adam? How many people today deny the science behind the evolutionary process? Believe it or not there is still a sizable portion of the population of this country that believes the Earth is the center of the Universe! (And I suspect these people do not want to discover anything that would contradict their beliefs.)
Is knowledge evil; is ignorance bliss? The question is not as simple as it seems. My posts will continue to consider the question – as we seek answers through knowledge!
Men and The Goddess 