CONSTRUCTING A METHOD FOR THIS MADNESS


DRAFT REVISED DECEMBER 21, 2016

THE PROBLEM: It is productive to find a method for ferreting out what is and is not buffoonery in mysticism. Mysticism’s intangibility, it seems, poses a challenge to the rational technologically driven science of today. My good friend Marcus, a German particles physicist was doing his internship at Fermilab. A staunch materialist, he asked me why I thought universities and even my culture doesn’t invest any resources in mysticism. Thinking this was a real question, I launched into about 10 minutes about cultural epochs of the last 2,000 years.

  • The Dark Ages that were economically dependent on an illiterate workforce;
  • the Inquisition forcefully squashing heresies;
  • The Black Plague creating an opportunity for the powers that be to capitalize on the fears of the uneducated;
  • the Age of Reason fighting the political church for the existence of Scientific study;
  • Logical Positivism and the Vienna Circle jumping on this band wagon to infiltrate our Occidental universities with the language that obliterated all conversations that might be superstitious thus throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I was so animated! He watched me quietly as I methodically pulled one epoch out after another. Once sure I was spent he quietly said, “Amanda, this isn’t about The Black Death or Logical Positivism. It’s simply that mysticism doesn’t exist.” wow.

Marcus went on to explain the reason it is impractical to invest resources to explore mysticism is because it’s too intangible. He felt a more rational approach would be the research Fermilab was doing with Neutrinos. The government is investing a billion dollars for Fermilab to create a machine that does something with these non-substantive subatomic particles. A billion dollars? And how is this not a type of mysticism I asked and why can’t we use a small percentage of that billion dollars to find out if neutrinos can explain entities? He was speechless because in his head entities are intangible and neutrinos are not and that’s the logic that makes sense to him.

Weeks later, Marcus said he was inspired by our conversation so asked around the lab to find scientists who would be interested in our discussion so I developed “Out of the Box.” The problem goes even deeper. Investigating how Neutrinos might or might not explain entities is one thing, but to include consideration of the productive reasons for their sex with humans is another issue altogether. The sex part is why Marcus left our discussion and erased any connection with The Deviant Minds. One must wonder why the taboos run so deep in our society that even science seems to require strict protocols to engage even as only as a topic.

CONTEXT IS IMPORTANT: If an erotic spirituality is unfathomable, to bridge it with our Occidental culture we’d have to engage an unfamiliar OTHER way of understanding sex on one hand and the sacred on the other.  To begin, it’s important to understand that relationships between a mortal and entity starts in childhood. There was an interesting exchange I had with a blank wall when I was a baby that unnerved my mother. I was 4 months old when she put me in a portable baby chair on the kitchen table. She began playing with my toes making me giggle when my gaze wobbled over to the blank wall and suddenly I started to laugh — hard. She returned my head to gaze to seduce another smile, but my gaze wandered back to the same blank spot on the wall. Non-corporeal entities don’t just appear out of nowhere, but find all kinds of ways to engage. But since not everybody is a mystic, it would take establishing context to make room for our differences like you would with anyone else from another country.

The first two paragraphs of his little book, “Judaism, A Very Short Introduction,” Norman Solomon writes:

Finding the right words

You are reading a book written in the English language. The English language is not neutral. It evolved in a Christian civilization; it comes ready loaded with a cargo o Christian concepts and assumptions. As Christianity was born out of conflict within first-century Judaism, and defined itself as against Judaism, it is difficult from within a Christian culture and language to look at Judaism with the innocence you might look at say, Shinto or Buddhism. Just think of some of the offensive overtones which have been carried in English by the single word “Jew.”

If you find yourself asking questions like, “What do Jews believe bout Jesus?”, or “What is more important in Judaism? Faith or works?”, you have got off on the wrong footing; you are approaching Judaism with cultural baggage imported from Christianity. You will find answers to some questions of this kind in this book, but they will not help you to comprehend Judaism as Judaism understands itself, from within; Judaism simply does not define itself around Jesus, nor does it assume that faith and works are opposing concepts.

Because I am attempting to engage Jewish Kabbalah within a sacred sexual mysticism, Kabbalah is deeply embedded within Jewish mysticism, and context is critical for deeper accuracy, I will introduce the Jewish system of PaRDeS, an anagram for 4 different approaches to accessing spiritual texts and concepts.

A METHOD TO BUILD PARADIGMS: I contend mysticism is not a product of a religion, however religions have universally been useful to expediting esoteric processes within a given “spiritual” paradigm. PaRDeS may be Jewish, yet its effectiveness has nothing to do with it being Jewish. The same is true with a “Theology” for outlining a method that constructs spiritual paradigms, even if Theology is a Christian invention and might carry with it Christian agendas. We shall see.

Augustine of Hippo defined the Latin equivalent, theologia, as “reasoning or discussion concerning the Deity”;[2] Richard Hooker defined “theology” in English as “the science of things divine“.[3] The term can, however, can be used for a variety of different disciplines or fields of study.[4] Theologians use various forms of analysis and argument (philosophicalethnographichistoricalspiritual and others) to help understandexplain, test, critique, defend or promote any of myriad religious topics. Theology might be undertaken to help the theologian:

  • understand more truly their own religious tradition,[5]
  • understand more truly another religious tradition,[6]
  • make comparisonsamong religious traditions,[7]
  • defend or justify a religious tradition,
  • facilitate reform of a particular tradition,[8]
  • assist in the propagation of a religious tradition,[9] or
  • draw on the resources of a tradition to address some present situation or need,[10]
  • draw on the resources of a tradition to explore possible ways of interpreting the world,[11]
  • explore the nature of divinity without reference to any specific tradition or
  • challenge (ex. biblical criticism) or oppose (ex. irreligion) a religious tradition or the religious world-view.

Theological understanding might provide a bridging language for us within a construct of a corporeal human experience provided by Hieros Gamos. Such an intimate view of the mystic as something more than simply a product of their religion, may give us a reason to define human exchanges with “entities” or “conscious energy” thus connect an intangible mystic with a corporeal sexual act. But as Norman Solomon tells us, language a common language is lacking.

QUESTION: What would my tradition be? Need Requirement and definition for a “Tradition.” Can’t I simply be at their service?

Important is our practice of sacred sexuality. As I was reaching for an antonym for asceticism to describe sacred sexual practices, I found:

Synonyms for asceticism Antonyms for asceticism
noun restraint from desires,
especially physical desires
abnegation
abstaining
abstemiousness
avoidance
chastity
continence
fasting
forbearance
frugality
moderation
refraining
renunciation
self-restraint
self-control
self-denial
drunkenness
excess
indulgence
intemperance
intoxication
revelry
self-indulgence

Roget’s 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition Copyright © 2013 by the Philip Lief Group.

THERE IS AN IMPORTANT BRIDGE TO CONSTRUCT BETWEEN THE ANCIENTS AND THE MODERN TECHNOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE. Our society is sophisticated enough to understand what happens when the very language of a culture is deliberately skewed to not allow divergent conceptions to be equally present in a given community. We don’t need to go far to see that the ancients accepted relationships with entities and established rites such as the Hieros Gamos to accommodate reciprocal exchanges even when sexual (see St. Therese of Avilla for example).  I believe a Theological language would create our opening to comprehend these edgy and complicated relationships with entities, but it also serves to:

  • Bring back our understanding of what makes the Sacred Marriage sacred;
  • Develop a new respect for sex as part of the “Divine” process;
  • Create a bridge that lessens the schism between mortal and immortal in concrete terms;
  • Bring a renewed respect to our physical bodies; and
  • Find out what consciousness even means.

Hopefully then we’d be able to carve our way to perceive a significance of sex is in its healing, not its entertainment.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

        
Facebook Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com