how the mighty have fallen...not
Jun. 2nd, 2005 12:36 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chelidonOne of the mailing lists I'm on had a post today with the following question (among many others), and it sent me off on a rant, which I'll post here for anyone who might be interested.
At 10:46 PM -0400 6/1/05, xxxxx@aol.com wrote:
>8) Is not the concept of our need for redemption a truly enslaving concept which offers us no real answers and only increase the despair we live under?
Nail. Head. bang.
Pardon my cynicism, but any religious system which starts with the basic premise that mankind is essentially "bad" and has an essential need to be redeemed, has one enduring function-- to guarantee job security for priests. For once we accept the basic premise that we are "bad," then who else can best "save" us from our inherent "badness" other than the priests, the very same priests who were the ones who told us that we were "bad" in the first place? Gosh, that's convenient.
If we are to be induced to accept the totally unnatural concept that we are all born "bad," then we must be brought to feel "bad" about the essential and primal aspects of our embodied humanity (physicality, sexuality, leisure, strong desires and emotions, a love of food and drink, delight in beauty and adornment, movement and music, and most of the other things that bring us tangible, visceral, bodily pleasure). These are all things around which we have almost irresistible inborn drives and compulsions -- if they are "bad," then most of what naturally seems "good" and "right" to us must really be "bad." This complete reprogramming, a systematic redefining of what is "natural" into what is "bad" quite logically functions in such as way as to increase our level of dependance on those people and institutions who can create convoluted and elaborate ways to explain and justify the unnatural and bizarre reprogramming, and "save" us from our "badness."
If "goodness" is defined as denying the needs and desires of the flesh, then as we are all inescapably made of flesh, our "goodness" can be measured by the degree to which we can deny our basic human embodiment. Further, because we are of nature, are of the earth, Nature and the earth must themselves also be "bad." Some people will, through extraordinary effort, discipline and inclination, at times be able to partially overcome their basic embodied humanity, but most will not, and even those who sometimes can, will at various points in their lives, find out that they are, after all, "only human," and may follow their human needs and desires periodically, in whatever way they have convenient access to, no matter how perverse (child molestation by "celibate" priests, etc). Those terrible examples of natural bodily needs satisfied in unhealthy, destructive ways then "proves" yet again to all who see the convenient moral tales that we are all "bad," because one of us, all of us, failed terribly in the end to renounce the flesh and natural animal selves that we all inescapably possess. Turning logic on its head, if we start with the flawed premise that having natural desires is bad, we must then impose unnatural moral and religious systems which inevitably tend to instigate more of the very kinds of excesses they were supposedly designed to prevent.
The law-giving priests set up a no-win scenario, then punish us for failing to do the impossible, thus making us permanently "bad," and themselves permanently indispensable. The anthropological and sociological analysis here suggests that setting up a system of this type almost guarantees that it will be self-perpetuating. Once you accept the basic premise, the conclusions are simple and logical. Especially if there is no way to *ever* get truly and permanently "good," (at least while you are alive and embodied in the "bad" physical animal flesh, with "bad" human needs and desires), everyone will always need the priests, and will always need the assistance of the Church, for ever and ever, world without end.
Clever monkeys, we are. Note how many of the major world religions start out with the basic dualistic mind/body split that assumes that the one thing we all are born with, our embodied human self and its natural human needs, wants and desires, is evil, fallen, corrupted, a source of "attachments" which must be overcome for "enlightenment," and so on. It seems patently illogical to me that denying that one single essential aspect which we all share during our lives, our inescapable physical embodiment, can lead to anything but failure, despair, and self-loathing. If we are trained to hate our natural bodies, how can we ever come to truly love ourselves, or each other?
Transcendence cannot be achieved by denying an essential part of who and what we are, I believe, rather, it is achieved by enfolding each part of our selves in the larger whole which surrounds it. The great modern philosopher Ken Wilber wrote in _One Taste_ of ego as the "functional vessel of the gross realm," the means through which we function and manifest change in the world of form and physicality. As he put it, "There is certainly a type of truth to the notion of transcending ego: it doesn't mean destroy the ego, it means plug it into something bigger." In other words, the more fully we inhabit our physicality, the more spiritual we can be.
Certainly we are not just our physical bodies, and not just our primal needs and desires. But our physicality is an essential, inescapable part of who we are, and any religious or philosophical system which starts with the fundamental premise that we need to deny it, and that we are born "bad," seems doomed to produce largely despair and failure. ...And, as it so happens, ensure the permanent perpetuation of an established priestly class and permanent churches to hold and promote the dogma, which exists solely in order to produce more priests to tell us that we're bad and then save us from that very same "badness," -- a goal which can never be fully achieved, so in the end it is a purely cyclical system.
We are not just our bodies. But we are, inescapably, our bodies. If an essential part of our selves, our bodies, are essentially "bad," then we never can be redeemed while we inhabit our bodies, while we are alive. And so we will always need priests to cleanse us, but it will never be enough. We will always long for perfection, to finally achieve the "success" in death that was flatly impossible in life, and our lives on this earth will always be at best precursor, and at worst, a terrible endurance of the living curse of daily embodiment -- a kind of perpetual doom, a hell on earth.
No thank you. No matter what comes after physical death, I am here and I am now, and I am alive in the body I was given. I choose to fully inhabit my body, this holy, sacred human flesh which has been bestowed on me as a precious gift. This body is not evil, and this world of flesh and physicality and material things is not evil. And I do not need any priest to tell me how I may be "redeemed," because I am not fallen, this body is not fallen, this world is not fallen. I am not perfect, and I am not infallible, and I am not immune from the laws of gods and men, where those laws do reflect legitimate natural law and create necessary social order. But I may live a good life, and a sacred one, fully inhabiting this holy body. There is no other way to truly, fully live. And so I shall try my best to do.
--Chelidon
-------
"...for mental creation too arises from the physical, is of one nature with it and only like a softer, more enraptured and more eternal repetition of bodily delight. 'The thought of being a creator, of engendering, of shaping' is nothing without its continuous great confirmation and embodiment in the world, nothing without the thousandfold assent from Things and animals--and our enjoyment of it is so indescribably beautiful and rich only because it is full of inherited memories of the engendering and birthing of millions."
--Rilke
At 10:46 PM -0400 6/1/05, xxxxx@aol.com wrote:
>8) Is not the concept of our need for redemption a truly enslaving concept which offers us no real answers and only increase the despair we live under?
Nail. Head. bang.
Pardon my cynicism, but any religious system which starts with the basic premise that mankind is essentially "bad" and has an essential need to be redeemed, has one enduring function-- to guarantee job security for priests. For once we accept the basic premise that we are "bad," then who else can best "save" us from our inherent "badness" other than the priests, the very same priests who were the ones who told us that we were "bad" in the first place? Gosh, that's convenient.
If we are to be induced to accept the totally unnatural concept that we are all born "bad," then we must be brought to feel "bad" about the essential and primal aspects of our embodied humanity (physicality, sexuality, leisure, strong desires and emotions, a love of food and drink, delight in beauty and adornment, movement and music, and most of the other things that bring us tangible, visceral, bodily pleasure). These are all things around which we have almost irresistible inborn drives and compulsions -- if they are "bad," then most of what naturally seems "good" and "right" to us must really be "bad." This complete reprogramming, a systematic redefining of what is "natural" into what is "bad" quite logically functions in such as way as to increase our level of dependance on those people and institutions who can create convoluted and elaborate ways to explain and justify the unnatural and bizarre reprogramming, and "save" us from our "badness."
If "goodness" is defined as denying the needs and desires of the flesh, then as we are all inescapably made of flesh, our "goodness" can be measured by the degree to which we can deny our basic human embodiment. Further, because we are of nature, are of the earth, Nature and the earth must themselves also be "bad." Some people will, through extraordinary effort, discipline and inclination, at times be able to partially overcome their basic embodied humanity, but most will not, and even those who sometimes can, will at various points in their lives, find out that they are, after all, "only human," and may follow their human needs and desires periodically, in whatever way they have convenient access to, no matter how perverse (child molestation by "celibate" priests, etc). Those terrible examples of natural bodily needs satisfied in unhealthy, destructive ways then "proves" yet again to all who see the convenient moral tales that we are all "bad," because one of us, all of us, failed terribly in the end to renounce the flesh and natural animal selves that we all inescapably possess. Turning logic on its head, if we start with the flawed premise that having natural desires is bad, we must then impose unnatural moral and religious systems which inevitably tend to instigate more of the very kinds of excesses they were supposedly designed to prevent.
The law-giving priests set up a no-win scenario, then punish us for failing to do the impossible, thus making us permanently "bad," and themselves permanently indispensable. The anthropological and sociological analysis here suggests that setting up a system of this type almost guarantees that it will be self-perpetuating. Once you accept the basic premise, the conclusions are simple and logical. Especially if there is no way to *ever* get truly and permanently "good," (at least while you are alive and embodied in the "bad" physical animal flesh, with "bad" human needs and desires), everyone will always need the priests, and will always need the assistance of the Church, for ever and ever, world without end.
Clever monkeys, we are. Note how many of the major world religions start out with the basic dualistic mind/body split that assumes that the one thing we all are born with, our embodied human self and its natural human needs, wants and desires, is evil, fallen, corrupted, a source of "attachments" which must be overcome for "enlightenment," and so on. It seems patently illogical to me that denying that one single essential aspect which we all share during our lives, our inescapable physical embodiment, can lead to anything but failure, despair, and self-loathing. If we are trained to hate our natural bodies, how can we ever come to truly love ourselves, or each other?
Transcendence cannot be achieved by denying an essential part of who and what we are, I believe, rather, it is achieved by enfolding each part of our selves in the larger whole which surrounds it. The great modern philosopher Ken Wilber wrote in _One Taste_ of ego as the "functional vessel of the gross realm," the means through which we function and manifest change in the world of form and physicality. As he put it, "There is certainly a type of truth to the notion of transcending ego: it doesn't mean destroy the ego, it means plug it into something bigger." In other words, the more fully we inhabit our physicality, the more spiritual we can be.
Certainly we are not just our physical bodies, and not just our primal needs and desires. But our physicality is an essential, inescapable part of who we are, and any religious or philosophical system which starts with the fundamental premise that we need to deny it, and that we are born "bad," seems doomed to produce largely despair and failure. ...And, as it so happens, ensure the permanent perpetuation of an established priestly class and permanent churches to hold and promote the dogma, which exists solely in order to produce more priests to tell us that we're bad and then save us from that very same "badness," -- a goal which can never be fully achieved, so in the end it is a purely cyclical system.
We are not just our bodies. But we are, inescapably, our bodies. If an essential part of our selves, our bodies, are essentially "bad," then we never can be redeemed while we inhabit our bodies, while we are alive. And so we will always need priests to cleanse us, but it will never be enough. We will always long for perfection, to finally achieve the "success" in death that was flatly impossible in life, and our lives on this earth will always be at best precursor, and at worst, a terrible endurance of the living curse of daily embodiment -- a kind of perpetual doom, a hell on earth.
No thank you. No matter what comes after physical death, I am here and I am now, and I am alive in the body I was given. I choose to fully inhabit my body, this holy, sacred human flesh which has been bestowed on me as a precious gift. This body is not evil, and this world of flesh and physicality and material things is not evil. And I do not need any priest to tell me how I may be "redeemed," because I am not fallen, this body is not fallen, this world is not fallen. I am not perfect, and I am not infallible, and I am not immune from the laws of gods and men, where those laws do reflect legitimate natural law and create necessary social order. But I may live a good life, and a sacred one, fully inhabiting this holy body. There is no other way to truly, fully live. And so I shall try my best to do.
--Chelidon
-------
"...for mental creation too arises from the physical, is of one nature with it and only like a softer, more enraptured and more eternal repetition of bodily delight. 'The thought of being a creator, of engendering, of shaping' is nothing without its continuous great confirmation and embodiment in the world, nothing without the thousandfold assent from Things and animals--and our enjoyment of it is so indescribably beautiful and rich only because it is full of inherited memories of the engendering and birthing of millions."
--Rilke
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: How the fallen are mighty?
Date: 2005-06-04 03:41 pm (UTC)Sure, repost as you will, so long as you include attribution, and, if applicable, a link to the original post.
I used to be very active on HML in the "old days" (you'll probably run across my ritual writeups for the years in Tiph, Kether, and the Daleth path in the archives, among others), but haven't done as much formal work with the Lodge for a couple of years now, though I still feel like our work is congruent. Thanks much for the feedback, and though I haven't been posting much, I've enjoyed your contributions as well!
93/696/23,
--*C
Re: How the fallen are mighty?
Date: 2005-06-05 06:05 am (UTC)31?
Chelidon:
Thanks. It is amazing how what you wrote fits so well in the flow of sexual dreams people have been posting.
I added you to my friend list on livejournal.
What I gleaned from what you wrote and what you quoted:
We ought to celebrate when anyone finds and experiences joy, bliss, pleasure, because this is the creation of life. This way we move it forward.
I don't want to be part of inhibiting and blocking the energies of the Universe. That always backfires in the long run.
As Wilhelm Reich would say, such blocks keep the orgone from flowing, and it usually expresses itself in some conflict or drama, or world war.
Let's have a world sex peace party.
Fuckin A
Sweet dreams,
Sunwolf
Fr Sabaechit
Re: How the fallen are mighty?
Date: 2005-06-06 04:08 am (UTC)Ah-yup. Where you are closed, where you constrict the flow of lifeforce flowing through you, there you are not fully alive.
Here's something I wrote some years ago on the subject, as part of a thread on AMOR vs ROMA and the Albigensian Crusade:
-------
There's a stance of bitterness and inward-shrinking, of exclusion, clinging isolation, binding, loneliness, turning away, closing down, cutting off, disconnecting, and turning off. There's a path of ecstasy, expansion, inclusion, joy, freedom, camaraderie, turning to face, opening up, adding on, connecting, and turning on.
Being snide, smarmy, bitter, vicious, cold, indifferent, sarcastic, caustic, cynical, pompous, self-righteous or petty, has a way of shriveling the soul when turned into a regular habit. As does spending a lot of your time around other people who choose to live that way. And a wrinkled, shriveled soul rattling around in an otherwise healthy body is not a pretty sight. When you lose your sense of humor, you've lost the world, because there's plenty enough nasty crap existing to suck dry the joy from anyone without it. And, indeed, those whose own wellspring of joy has run dry will frequently attempt to suck it from others around them...this explains much of society--joyless people grasping at anything or anybody external which seems like it might be a substitute. Beware the difference between healthy self-skepticism and the contagious disease of poisonous, cynical bitterness. Pettiness is a sure sign of the latter. But it is easily banished with laughter.
I seek immersion in the ecstasy, the ocean of amor--the wild, uncontrollable, unstoppable love that burns away all weaselly smarminess, all self-righteous pomposity, all half-hearted platitudes, sticky sentimentality, persistent self-imposed limitations, insidious illusions of isolation and self-perpetuating auto-apocalyptic memes. I seek the preciously impractical tickling spark that lets you giggle with abandon at other's silly pettiness, shrug without bitterness at tightly-held delusions, and laugh at oneself without limit. Everyone's gotta choose their own truths. But some clearly lead to heaven on earth, and others wind their sure way to personal hells of disillusionment and bitterness.
-------
And another, more recent bit, same topic:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/chelidon/25982.html