Dude, where's my Goddess?

Once upon a time, the vast, silent, dark and pregnant Void cried out and split open and gave birth to all matter.

And the people rejoiced and recognized the Great Mother of all matter, of the very material world.

The people recognized Woman as the Womb of the World and honored the Circle of Life.

Some of the people wandered in the desert, back and forth and back again. They were so confused they forgot the sacred circle, so lost and scared that they nailed the sand into squares and put a point on top. The Great Mother was told to shut up and sit down and greet those who entered the new square with a smile.



Into the desert a child was born, wise for his years and inquisitive beyond all understanding of the teachers who could not answer his questions. How did he know what he knew?

The child whose birth was blessed by a star was joined by the holy spirit. He walked and healed and taught the people about the great circle of life.

He was remembered down the millennia and inspired many, many people, until his holiness was spirited away and he was turned into a brand name.

http://images.blogads.com/tljoofsefnpdsbujdvoefshspvoedpn/democraticunderground/3287680/thumb?rev=rev_2

The Great Goddess too had been separated in the minds of the people from her Power-- and her image turned into a marketing tool. She was forced to ride on the rear of the powerful chariots of the pyramid people, as a "mud flap," to protect the monster wheels of power from her own good, rich, fecund, moist soil.

http://images.blogads.com/tljoofsefnpdsbujdvoefshspvoedpn/democraticundergroundselectpagespremium/3288344/thumb?rev=rev_4

Young women, who would have known the Goddess in her previous powerful forms, were found at the end of the Millennium with the leavings of the pyramid culture-- piecing outfits from discarded synthetics, sewing wallets out of shredded billboards, earrings made of bottle caps and broken eyeglasses, knitting shoes out of found pennies and popsicle sticks..... or borrowing from past era's costumes, such as the timeless "barroom floozy" wearing a ribbon "choker" to keep their heads from falling off and brazenly waving the plumage of endangered species.

http://images.blogads.com/tljoofsefnpdsbujdvoefshspvoedpn/democraticunderground/3287690/thumb?rev=rev_1

The End
:nuke:





Images Copyrighted by Historylink101.com & found at Egyptian Picture Gallery.

but it sounds like Tom Robbins is posting at DU. And that's a compliment.

:spray: :toast: :bounce:

Sorry. Can't hear you. The dynamite blast inside the pyramid has me a little deef.

Honestly, though, didn't TR show extreme prescience with his depiction in "Still Life?"

I won't know til I read it ;)

to you for your efforts, then.

Also, your musings are reminiscent of some of Graham Hancock's writing, as well.

On edit: what of the young men? Clearly, they lost, too. But what?

sucking on a hollow plastic shell
seeking sustenance
and soul

This is such a wonderful post.
Love and peace to all who read it and understand the truth in this

and all the rest :toast:

Here's to you "and your little dog too" :hi:

Sir Mix-a-Lot: "I like big butts and I can't deny . . ."

:rofl:

All kidding aside, they're the earliest manifestations of art; quite possibly the paleolithic equivalent of the internet porn site.

"flowers"

"they're the earliest manifestations of art; quite possibly the paleolithic equivalent of the internet porn site."

Difference b/w woman's power and woman's per/sub/verted power.

Since those peoples lacked written language, the underlying uses of the objects are, by definition, subject to interpretation. Yours, if backed with sufficient ancillary data, is as valid as anyone else's. Context is difficult among literate societies. It's almost impossible in the pre-literate. Perhaps I was mistaken, but I enjoyed your writing from a "meditation-myth" perspective as opposed to a statement of actual fact.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,,1451507,00.html

The ancients were far from sexless beings and may have been less inhibited than we are, by a long shot. That would appear to be the lesson from studying the few modern, non-literate hunter gatherer societies still extant on the planet.

While some of the artemisian representations must certainly be taken as representations of fertility, they also manifest an undeniable sexuality.

and more of that Either/Or thinking that sets up too many strawman arguments on poor DU

The artworks/totems have a stand alone reality. Unfortunately for us, we don't know what that reality was/is.

Many theories have been put forth for the existence of patrilineal vs. matrilineal societies. Those do tend to be either/or. There are very few examples of them coexisting in equality. The FIsher King myth and those similar to it in European paganism are ascribed to an Earth Goddess cult steeped in ritual human sacrifice. The same occurs in the Sky God cults of the MesoAmericans.

One of my favorite speculations on the topic occurs in "The Red Tent," as we see posited the rise of the YHWH cult over the earth-based prior worships.

We are, of course, all of us, our own power source. The imposition of gender distinctions upon religious structure is an entirely artificial one, since nothing in nature is wholly of one gender or another, but arises out of a symbiosis. Terms like "male" and "female" are largely imposed upon nature by our own taxonomic efforts. As Heinlein noted "Thou art God."

It is a fact, however, if you read the Gnostic Gospels, that their vision of Yeshua was one of a man much more sympathetic to the "feminine." Hence, the early Church's reference to the Holy Spirit in the feminine.

How are these mutually exclusive?:

"...representations of fertility" and "an undeniable sexuality."

...and what's a parsec?

it's "you other brothers can't deny"


just helping out. :toast:

gas.

It's a miracle! :smoke:

with the exception of Jesus, of course.

We need to stop the objectification of Elvis. It demeans his fans.

ancient statuary of the Goddess (and by implication all such iconography) as "quite possibly the paleolithic equivalent of the internet porn site" fails to recognize that "pornography" is essentially a state of mind, an attitude or rather an entire complex of attitudes. That one would argue Goddess-iconography and porn are equivalent also suggests dire confusion between the attitudes that result in "pornography" and the radically different state of shamelessness or freedom from guilt that anthropology has shown to be characteristic of many so-called "primitive" peoples.

Pornography is always a manifestation of sexual guilt (hatred of self fostered by the conditioning imposed by Abrahamic religion) and hatred of women and nature (the central element in the Abrahamic creed): the entire notion this world exists merely as a series of obstacles to be transcended on the way to "eternity" and is therefore but vile ensnarement. Depending on its content, pornography may express specific aspects of characteristic Abrahamic hostilities -- an ultimate example would be snuff films in which women are horribly murdered -- or it may attempt to express the sensuality forbidden by Abrahamic precepts and thus be an act of rebellion. It may also be a confused expression of both motives. Whatever, the defining characteristic of pornography is not its imagery per se; it is rather the fact that it is invariably a product of guilt and shame: a definition strongly implied by the related jurisprudence, especially the notions of "socially redeeming value" and "local standards." The ultimate measure of pornography's implicit shamefulness is the fact that while pornography may exist in public, its erotic functions are all carefully concealed, relegated to back-alley shops with suspiciously stained floors, dark theaters with damp seats, spaces sealed by locked doors, under mattresses, in computer rooms protected by drawn shades. Not only that; in many places these erotic functions are specifically prohibited, as are the images themselves.

The milieu from which the Goddess iconography emerged is almost certainly the diametrical opposite of Abrahamic society. Everything that is known about so-called "primitive" peoples suggests they are mercifully unpoisoned by sexual guilt: literally shameless. And with their psyches never mangled by Abrahamic creeds, their attitudes toward sexually charged iconography would therefore be radically different too. We are so far removed from that purity, and so savagely twisted by 2600 years of doctrinally imposed guilt, I believe that even our most sexually healed individuals can approach "primitive" sexual consciousness only by analogy. In this sense it is as the Zen masters say about describing enlightenment: like trying to describe water to someone who has never tasted nor felt nor even seen it -- and yet enlightenment, like original shamelessness, is "nothing special." Indeed I am not even certain we can describe it by analogy; perhaps we can only speak in terms of what such shamelessness is not: despite Abrahamic efforts to condemn it as evil, it is as organic as the tendency of a flower to open or a stalk to grow. It is not remotely akin to the moral imbecility of the sociopath; neither is its lust like greed or covetousness -- not the greed of the spoiled child nor the greed of the predatory capitalist -- for how can one covet that which one cannot possibly own?: that which therefore cannot be diminished by ownership.

Which brings me to my final summation of the distinctions: one may own pornography, but one cannot possibly own the Goddess -- even if one regards her as nothing more than a metaphor.

"The milieu from which the Goddess iconography emerged is almost certainly the diametrical opposite of Abrahamic society."

The holy book documents and reinforces the desecration of that milieu-- the guilt and hatred reverberating from the foundation.

"And with their psyches never mangled by Abrahamic creeds, their attitudes toward sexually charged iconography would therefore be radically different too. We are so far removed from that purity, and so savagely twisted by 2600 years of doctrinally imposed guilt, I believe that even our most sexually healed individuals can approach "primitive" sexual consciousness only by analogy."

We are so far removed from that time and that consciousness, that the discussion turns (too) quickly to baffling cliche dichotomies of ancient woman power associated with "sexless beings" and "artemisian representations" that, while arguably "must certainly be taken as representations of fertility, they also manifest an undeniable sexuality."

I missed the part where it was suggested that representations of fertility "deny" sexuality.

"That one would argue Goddess-iconography and porn are equivalent also suggests dire confusion between the attitudes that result in "pornography" and the radically different state of shamelessness or freedom from guilt that anthropology has shown to be characteristic of many so-called "primitive" peoples."

"Pornography is always a manifestation of sexual guilt (hatred of self fostered by the conditioning imposed by Abrahamic religion) and hatred of women and nature (the central element in the Abrahamic creed): the entire notion this world exists merely as a series of obstacles to be transcended on the way to "eternity" and is therefore but vile ensnarement."

Obstacles to be transcended and disassembled and dissected and defined in order to proceed, leaving a trail of bloody bits: screws, scraps, sinew, science-- reductionism ad infinitum. Iconic figures of fertile, female power have become as cartoon-like to some folks as the pulsing neon outline of "girls girls girls." To honor that ancient power is detracted by some as "sexless," and the flimsy, un-wholey imitation (and it's practitioners) are fiercely "protected."

:smoke:

(links) :hi: