Faxneld: Satanic Feminism

Discussion on literature other than by the Star of Azazel.
obnoxion
Sodalis
Posts: 1829
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 7:59 pm

Re: Faxneld: Satanic Feminism

Postby obnoxion » Sun Jun 10, 2018 6:14 pm

Red Bird wrote:
obnoxion wrote:A great book, indeed! And not only for the Feminism and the Satanism, but also for its treatment of Romanticism and Symbolist Art.

When it comes to Abrahamic religions, Jung has wrote that (if I have understood correctly) a new form of a collective spirituality in the West must grow from the Christian past. I think it would be helpful to think Christianity not as an monolith, but as a slow process, connecting many traditional streams from the West, the Middle-East and the Orient. For have there ever been a century without its distinct form of Christianity - or Islam or Judaism, for that matter?

When Pope Pious XII in November 1950 made the infallible dogmatic definition on The Assumption of Mary - that is, "having completed the course of her earthly life, [she] was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory" This act - and I think this is highly interresting in terms of Jungian Psychology, that a public Religious act like this can facilitate so collective an impression - caused the Feminine Principle to rise as the Fourth term into the Pleroma.This fourth term has also been reserved for Satan, after the reconciliation of Satan and Christ. So, keeping these things in mind, I think that modern Feminist Theologies can be quite relevant field of study from our angle, too.
I enjoy reading you comments because your associations are very different from mine. Jung might be right about that. But right now we have science and intellectualism a substitute for spirituality. Christianity was replaced, at least in my country. How could a collectiv new spirituality grow out of intellectualism?
I think I have some idea what you mean, but for me this is too general question to give a short answer to.
One day of Brahma has 14 Indras; his life has 54 000 Indras. One day of Vishnu is the lifetime of Brahma. The lifetime of Vishnu is one day of Shiva.
User avatar
Jiva
Frater
Posts: 515
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 2:13 am

Re: Faxneld: Satanic Feminism

Postby Jiva » Sun Jun 10, 2018 10:12 pm

Red Bird wrote:It’s painful to watch women in my age that are desperately trying to be like men since they’ve been taught to rate masculinity higher than femininity. People do notice that there is something wrong and a screaming discontent is spreading its wings amongst the western culture. Some women hate themselves, other women and men equally because obviously men are better in being men. What a bitter irony it is. Today’s so called feminism is actually fighting against femininity .

I see women wandering around confused and desperate without even remembering what they are looking for in this endless maze of nothingness. Doomed to obey their own slavery some find the only option to express their femininity in their physical appearance. It breaks my heart every day to see the empty shells painted in beautiful colors, presenting the rotting leftovers of femininity to the world and bagging for attention.
I don’t have much to say about this itself, but I’ve heard the opposite argument made: men are taught to rate femininity higher than masculinity, hate themselves, get big muscles to express or reclaim some vestige of their masculinity etc. I don’t find either extreme to be particularly true.

Red Bird wrote:I guess we are talking about the absolute essence of femininity.
Red Bird wrote:I'd like to hear your definition of femininity and the role of death within it. Just because mine does not come from literature but from meditaiton and therfor comparing them could be interesting.
I don’t think there is an absolute essence of femininity or, indeed, of masculinity. I find most of the characteristics stereotypically associated with either to be basically neutral and can’t see any justification to, for example, consider passivity feminine and activity masculine. Therefore, as could be expected, I don’t consider the femininity or masculinity of my appearance and actions, although if people wish to do so – for whatever reasons – that’s fine, of course. But then I think these are necessarily subjective understandings of femininity and masculinity that I don’t see the point of applying to other people, as it seems to me that the only result is being annoyed when people don’t conform to your expectations.
'Oh Krishna, restless and overpowering, this mind is overwhelmingly strong; I think we might as easily gain control over the wind as over this.'
User avatar
Cancer
Posts: 250
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 5:45 pm
Location: Helsinki

Re: Faxneld: Satanic Feminism

Postby Cancer » Mon Jun 11, 2018 12:46 am

I’d say contemporary mainstream feminism shares the basic problems of all Enlightenment-based thinking. It’s one of the forms of Western reason’s self-critique that’s so prominent in twentieth century philosophy. Thus it is still fundamentally doing reason’s business: reason is capacity for self-criticism, at least in this context. This negativity of reason is why all the great social theorists are at their most interesting when analyzing oppressive systems, and always seem to falter when something new and positive would have to be suggested. It is also why so many people experience feminism as alienating, ”unnatural” etc. The whole point of reason is to be unnatural; to free the subject from the object-in-it (e. g. to make it so that stereotypically masculine behavior is not necessarily expected of me although I’m physically male).

I’m not saying this to try to further a supposedly better form of feminism contra Red Bird or Nefastos. I just thought sorting out different kinds of feminisms might help the conversation. For the occult or spiritual, ”Goddes-type”-feminism certainly is very different from this one. As has already been pointed out, it sees femininity as an essence, something that can be realized well or less well, and that is right now being oppressed by the masculine principle. The feminism that stems from Enlightenment tradition holds, on the contrary, that the dichotomy of God-Goddess, Man-Woman itself is a kind of oppression.

Personally I’m actually very much inclined toward both types of feminism. The contradictoriness of my thinking is what keeps it alive.
Tiden läker inga sår.
obnoxion
Sodalis
Posts: 1829
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 7:59 pm

Re: Faxneld: Satanic Feminism

Postby obnoxion » Mon Jun 11, 2018 2:13 am

Cancer wrote: Personally I’m actually very much inclined toward both types of feminism. The contradictoriness of my thinking is what keeps it alive.
I very much share this inclination, although I find little contradiction in them as lived experiences. But trying to put such experience into words often makes a simple thing seem conplex.
One day of Brahma has 14 Indras; his life has 54 000 Indras. One day of Vishnu is the lifetime of Brahma. The lifetime of Vishnu is one day of Shiva.
User avatar
Cerastes
Soror
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri May 25, 2018 10:31 pm

Re: Faxneld: Satanic Feminism

Postby Cerastes » Mon Jun 11, 2018 1:17 pm

Dios mío, this is getting confusing ;)

We have:

1. Occult version of feminism
2. Sociological/political version of feminism
Both are completely different, but connected. I’d say one is actually fighting the other, but that is just my personal interpretation.
Jiva wrote:I don’t have much to say about this itself, but I’ve heard the opposite argument made: men are taught to rate femininity higher than masculinity, hate themselves, get big muscles to express or reclaim some vestige of their masculinity etc. I don’t find either extreme to be particularly true.
Good point. Since one principle can’t survive without the other it may be a parallel increase/decrease of polarities. It is impossible to change one without the other.
Jiva wrote:I don’t think there is an absolute essence of femininity or, indeed, of masculinity. I find most of the characteristics stereotypically associated with either to be basically neutral and can’t see any justification to, for example, consider passivity feminine and activity masculine. Therefore, as could be expected, I don’t consider the femininity or masculinity of my appearance and actions, although if people wish to do so – for whatever reasons – that’s fine, of course. .
I believe that there are different kinds of polarities/energies/essences or whatever we want to call them. One of them is dominant more often in women, the other is dominant more often in men. To make them understandable we put them together into an archetype. For me, the key of getting out of expectations and clichés
was to find them both and to love them both.
Somehow that seems to be hurtful to some because people are unable to point out polarities/differences without rating them. (Better/worse/more important/ less important ect.)
Jiva wrote: But then I think these are necessarily subjective understandings of femininity and masculinity that I don’t see the point of applying to other people, as it seems to me that the only result is being annoyed when people don’t conform to your expectations.
We always have expectations towards other people, based on experience and what we leaned. There is no tabula rasa and no ex nihilo.
I don’t think this is just a negative thing. It’s the reason why people like to interact in like-minded groups for they provide more safety. Every child is seeking for identification to develop a stable personality. Gender identification is absolutely vital for that and it is connected to the physical attributes of course. Some adults –no all- are able to find their own ways of identification but this is only possible with a stable personality in the first place. It took me a while to figure out how important dogmas and identification structures actually are. Although I don’t really like them, they are still necessary to some point.

I adore both principles don’t really see the point in political feminism anymore. People always ask me if I feel oppressed because I work in a male dominated field. Truth is that I’m constantly trying not to insecure men too much. The occult version on the other hand is more important than ever for this is exactly what society is lacking of.
Cancer wrote:’d say contemporary mainstream feminism shares the basic problems of all Enlightenment-based thinking. It’s one of the forms of Western reason’s self-critique that’s so prominent in twentieth century philosophy. Thus it is still fundamentally doing reason’s business: reason is capacity for self-criticism, at least in this context. This negativity of reason is why all the great social theorists are at their most interesting when analyzing oppressive systems, and always seem to falter when something new and positive would have to be suggested. It is also why so many people experience feminism as alienating, ”unnatural” etc. The whole point of reason is to be unnatural; to free the subject from the object-in-it (e. g. to make it so that stereotypically masculine behavior is not necessarily expected of me although I’m physically male).
Yes, I agree.
But the problem is, that fighting against nature can be more oppressing than accepting it to some point and oppression often leads to violence in the end.
“Granny Weatherwax was not lost. She wasn't the kind of person who ever became lost. It was just that, at the moment, while she knew exactly where SHE was, she didn't know the position of anywhere else.”
(Terry Pratchett, Wyrd Sisters)
User avatar
Nefastos
Frater
Posts: 3482
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 10:05 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Faxneld: Satanic Feminism

Postby Nefastos » Mon Jun 11, 2018 3:24 pm

Cancer wrote:Personally I’m actually very much inclined toward both types of feminism.


Perchance I should stress the fact that my somewhat critical attitude towards the "sociological/political feminism" (or one small but commonly seen part of it, more precisely) comes from the fact that I was raised in a beautifully woman-empowered, matriarchal Carelian family & was grown to see it as self-evident, and thus "even more of the same" -attitude of this "woman strong as man" seems to me as unnecessary and tautological. But like Red Bird so aptly pointed out, there is no tabula rasa, and my tabula thus bears all these early scripts of feminine empowerment, bringing along some challenges (e.g. Oedipal nostalgy) but being in some other ways more developed (e.g. emancipated free-spiritedness of anima). For some other people, who do not share such a childhood atmosphere wherein naturally strong women naturally prevail and are naturally rewarded by a nice grade of success and happiness, most likely need more emphasised picture of that kind of strong women, who are "at least as capable of men". In me, such statements provoke only a shrug: "Yes, of course that is so. So can we now move along to the more nuanced views, instead of keeping in these thinly veiled masculine virtues (and vices) that the modern woman also – as we already all must know – has her share of?"...

Red Bird wrote:I'd like to hear your definition of femininity and the role of death within it. Just because mine does not come from literature but from meditaiton and therfor comparing them could be interesting.


Well! A very interesting question, which could be approached from several different directions...

Like it was formely pointed out in this thread, Activity/Passivity -dichotomy is one possibility, but it has its problems. Perhaps it would be better to say that the forms of activity are different in archetypical and female. In my books I have used the idea that in the Sun symbol (a dot at the center of a circle or sphere), the circumference is the symbol of the Feminine (Shakti), whereas the dot in the middle is the symbol of the Masculine (Shiva). Both of these have all the energy of the whole sphere in them, but the feminine dominates that energy by surrounding it, while the masculine dominates the energy by focusing it. These two, the matrix and the seed, or grounding and inseminating presence, are two different approaches to the undivisible unity of one cosmos. Shiva-Shakti is only seen as two by our dividing technical reason, but in reality there is no division. I am Shiva; the one who hears is Shakti: but by articulating these words I have already become the listener many times on different levels of consciousness. The very act of communicating either word, energy or being is already the play of polar opposites.

Like every other principle or archetype or image, Death also is dual. But in its all-encompassiveness Death is very "feminine" to us. It would demand an adept to see the masculinity of Death, so to say, by which I mean: to penetrate the mystery of Death's circumference, and realize the hidden middle point of Death. (To reach that part of adepthood is exercised by us in the effort of understanding the mystery of Saturn-Satan, in theory and in life.) As opposed to that, we all can see the maternal aspect of Death, "her" aspect of embracing all, freeing all, changing all: bringing to our lips that most beautiful cup of consummatum est!.

She truly is the great redeemer; and would we be theoretically possible to meet in every second of life and not only at that last one. For death and life, the black & white serpents held by Magna Mater, are the one and the same, only seen from two opposite directions.
Faust: "Lo contempla. / Ei muove in tortuosa spire / e s'avvicina lento alla nostra volta. / Oh! se non erro, / orme di foco imprime al suol!"
obnoxion
Sodalis
Posts: 1829
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 7:59 pm

Re: Faxneld: Satanic Feminism

Postby obnoxion » Mon Jun 11, 2018 3:56 pm

I perhaps found a way to answer in short to the question if intellectualism has replaced religion, thus making christianity more or less irrelevant to possible future spirituality. So this would mean that any future spirituality should rise from intellectualism. I suppose in this case spirituality would mean a solid ground of shared philosophical ethics, combined with the encouragement of individual quest for meanings beyond the limits of some commonly held certainties. But this sort of intellectualism tends to pull the rug under the feet of such spiritusl outreach, as it does not possess a mytho-poetic dimension.

That religion (admittedly nearly as vague term as intellectualism) has this dimension, tends to make it somewhat gothic affair in contemporary though - a barbaric remnant with all its vertical striving, supported by gargoyles in all corners. From some angles, religion has become herself the Satanic horde of superstition from which she has sought to save us - for has not the talmudist, the thomist and the doctor of islamic law ever been the intellectual rationalist, ever stern against the old wives' tales?

Thus, the mytho-poetic, the soulful, the vital aspect must be a development of the previous mytho-poetica. I suppose it is mostly a matter of religiosity, how much independence we accept to this sphere or dimension. In Jungian psychology - or this is how I've understood it - this sphere functions in a way that at least makes it seem as quite independent and effective, while at the same time unexpected and resistant to attempts of full conscious control.

One of our deeply rooted paradigmas are that this mythopoetic sphere, is aligned to the idea of the feminine, and has formed to so called "double treath" of satanic and female forces, that has been so enthusiatically treated in Symbolist and Decadent art. In mythopoetic terms, I would see the future in the "Star" card of the Tarot, where a sovereign female handles the running water with her two chalices. This rise of the female archetype should stir the waters of christian mythopetica, and cause effects such as the 1950 Assumption of Mary. The intellectual culture would handle these same impulses as succesfull feminist campaigns.These campaigns do not have to mean the loss of feminine ideals. I think the point is to release the physical sexes from the opressive social aspects that would be upheld in the name of these paradigmas. I think it is important to search for the crossroads where the archetypal meets the struggles of the common life. It is the blessing of a mythopoetically vital religion, that it soaks in meaning the common life in all its tumults and repetitions.
One day of Brahma has 14 Indras; his life has 54 000 Indras. One day of Vishnu is the lifetime of Brahma. The lifetime of Vishnu is one day of Shiva.
User avatar
Cerastes
Soror
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri May 25, 2018 10:31 pm

Re: Faxneld: Satanic Feminism

Postby Cerastes » Tue Jun 12, 2018 2:19 pm

obnoxion wrote:I perhaps found a way to answer in short to the question if intellectualism has replaced religion, thus making christianity more or less irrelevant to possible future spirituality. So this would mean that any future spirituality should rise from intellectualism. I suppose in this case spirituality would mean a solid ground of shared philosophical ethics, combined with the encouragement of individual quest for meanings beyond the limits of some commonly held certainties. But this sort of intellectualism tends to pull the rug under the feet of such spiritusl outreach, as it does not possess a mytho-poetic dimension.

That religion (admittedly nearly as vague term as intellectualism) has this dimension, tends to make it somewhat gothic affair in contemporary though - a barbaric remnant with all its vertical striving, supported by gargoyles in all corners. From some angles, religion has become herself the Satanic horde of superstition from which she has sought to save us - for has not the talmudist, the thomist and the doctor of islamic law ever been the intellectual rationalist, ever stern against the old wives' tales?

Thus, the mytho-poetic, the soulful, the vital aspect must be a development of the previous mytho-poetica. I suppose it is mostly a matter of religiosity, how much independence we accept to this sphere or dimension. In Jungian psychology - or this is how I've understood it - this sphere functions in a way that at least makes it seem as quite independent and effective, while at the same time unexpected and resistant to attempts of full conscious control.

One of our deeply rooted paradigmas are that this mythopoetic sphere, is aligned to the idea of the feminine, and has formed to so called "double treath" of satanic and female forces, that has been so enthusiatically treated in Symbolist and Decadent art. In mythopoetic terms, I would see the future in the "Star" card of the Tarot, where a sovereign female handles the running water with her two chalices. This rise of the female archetype should stir the waters of christian mythopetica, and cause effects such as the 1950 Assumption of Mary. The intellectual culture would handle these same impulses as succesfull feminist campaigns.These campaigns do not have to mean the loss of feminine ideals. I think the point is to release the physical sexes from the opressive social aspects that would be upheld in the name of these paradigmas. I think it is important to search for the crossroads where the archetypal meets the struggles of the common life. It is the blessing of a mythopoetically vital religion, that it soaks in meaning the common life in all its tumults and repetitions.
How did you manage to answer my very too diffuse question accurately? Did you have demonic help or do they put doping substances in the Finnish drinking water? (Don’t take me too serious, I’m just lacking of coffee today ;) )
-
This is exactly what I’m talking about. Since everything is rated by the materialistic outcome, mytho-poetic dimension is not a social priority anymore. It is hidden behind a mountain of nothingness. In the same way people expecting endless growth without death (e.g. in the economy).
Right now we are running from one oppression to another because there is no easy way to solve this within the material worldview. Rising the female principle must necessarily come within the mytho-poetic dimension which has lost its value but is still relevant. This is just my own guess but I think the extreme materialistic worldview needs to crash down completely before there will be a change. But since I’m a pathological death-worshipper I could also be wrong here

Nefastos wrote:Well! A very interesting question, which could be approached from several different directions...

Like it was formely pointed out in this thread, Activity/Passivity -dichotomy is one possibility, but it has its problems. Perhaps it would be better to say that the forms of activity are different in archetypical and female. In my books I have used the idea that in the Sun symbol (a dot at the center of a circle or sphere), the circumference is the symbol of the Feminine (Shakti), whereas the dot in the middle is the symbol of the Masculine (Shiva). Both of these have all the energy of the whole sphere in them, but the feminine dominates that energy by surrounding it, while the masculine dominates the energy by focusing it. These two, the matrix and the seed, or grounding and inseminating presence, are two different approaches to the undivisible unity of one cosmos. Shiva-Shakti is only seen as two by our dividing technical reason, but in reality there is no division. I am Shiva; the one who hears is Shakti: but by articulating these words I have already become the listener many times on different levels of consciousness. The very act of communicating either word, energy or being is already the play of polar opposites.

Like every other principle or archetype or image, Death also is dual. But in its all-encompassiveness Death is very "feminine" to us. It would demand an adept to see the masculinity of Death, so to say, by which I mean: to penetrate the mystery of Death's circumference, and realize the hidden middle point of Death. (To reach that part of adepthood is exercised by us in the effort of understanding the mystery of Saturn-Satan, in theory and in life.) As opposed to that, we all can see the maternal aspect of Death, "her" aspect of embracing all, freeing all, changing all: bringing to our lips that most beautiful cup of consummatum est!.

She truly is the great redeemer; and would we be theoretically possible to meet in every second of life and not only at that last one. For death and life, the black & white serpents held by Magna Mater, are the one and the same, only seen from two opposite directions.
Yes, the problem with the passivity/activity concept is that passivity is often confused with laziness or something that has less influence.
The feminine energy is what I would describe as diffuse, unbound and floating but also relentless, cleaning and very present. As you said, this is is closely connected to death.
The picture of the sun symbol in your books seems accurate. Is there an English version available? (Learning Finnish causes depression so I’d rather not try that again)

Finding the masculinity of death is a very inspiring task. The methods would be highly interesting but this is definitely too much content for this topic and I’m trying not to annoy everyone with my curiosity.
“Granny Weatherwax was not lost. She wasn't the kind of person who ever became lost. It was just that, at the moment, while she knew exactly where SHE was, she didn't know the position of anywhere else.”
(Terry Pratchett, Wyrd Sisters)
obnoxion
Sodalis
Posts: 1829
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 7:59 pm

Re: Faxneld: Satanic Feminism

Postby obnoxion » Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:51 pm

Red Bird wrote: How did you manage to answer my very too diffuse question accurately?
I am so happy the answer was satisfying, because the topic is so vast and full of subtleties! I just really enjoy these forum discussions, and that's why I write so often. Most days I have a few moments to write, but almost never a long enought time to write as clearly as I would like to. So I just try to keep the conversations going, and offer something interesting as often as possible. Also, I find it especially stimulating when we have a new and active writer on the forum, such as you, dear Red Bird.
One day of Brahma has 14 Indras; his life has 54 000 Indras. One day of Vishnu is the lifetime of Brahma. The lifetime of Vishnu is one day of Shiva.
User avatar
Smaragd
Frater
Posts: 478
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2014 5:27 am

Re: Faxneld: Satanic Feminism

Postby Smaragd » Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:37 pm

Red Bird wrote:Dios mío, this is getting confusing ;)

We have:

1. Occult version of feminism
2. Sociological/political version of feminism
Both are completely different, but connected.
I'm not sure I follow the conversation accurately and if this got answered already. Anyway if this knot refers partly to how I expressed the language of abrahamic religions being completely different thing, I'd like to point out that the images that are communicated in religious myths usually refers to these timeless beings and to the charge between them as they are, so when political questions try to obstruct these models, the only thing such act can do is reverse the polarity in the outer forms. This to me is a dead end and a failure in facing the real problems behind all the hassle. But this is quite the extreme case and in all the good unselfish will that is circulating in feminist agendas will give chances for new perspectives caused by the flipping polarity.

Do you see this polarity flip necessary? I myself am not sure, but then again I'm actually quite ascetic and detached of the culture to have a say in this. Partly it seems almost violent and forced, but that's maybe just the one careless and scared current that usually takes it's place when something as big as feminism sweeps over. I wonder if these problems might have been dealt faster without these flippings by just channeling the female arcetype with greater enthusiasm. But then again the problems are spread on so many different layers that for example allowing outer female to embrace inner man is a cultural "problem" and might be doomed to be dealt as such.

Questons like these makes one find creative ways to use magic.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest