The pagans had the gods represent the various aspects of the psyche. Dionysus was only one aspect, and a very important one. But, there was also Apollo who would be his opposite. There's the idea that the Greek gods were actually based on real people, with stories combining more than one human into a god, who had lived in prehistoric times. The retelling of the stories by poets, artists, minstrels or Dionysian choir would therefore be based on centuries of human experience condensed into a particular god, or, as Jung would put it, archetype.
These people were also living in a time before Christianity separated spirit from the flesh. Humans, even the Greeks, could not comprehend any spiritual concept without a god or a daimon associated with it and a story to describe the feeling brought about by the manifestation of the god. You wouldn't read a book to make the god or daimon manifest him or her self. You had to mimic an aspect of, or make some kind of offering to, the god in order for the god to manifest or for a sybil (usually high on drugs) to pronounce and priests to interpret.
The point is, it, the Dionysian release, wasn't done in order to make people equal which is what I'm sensing in your preoccupation with incels, or whoever is supposed to do what to each other. The ancients wouldn't imagine that anyone has a right to do or have anything at all. They didn't have the concept of human rights and would have thought it absurd.
The problem with the late 19th, early 20th century spiritualists is that they were raised in the post-Christian world and their brains were programmed by modern abstractions, such as rights and so forth, and were trying to recreate the pre-Christian non-abstracted world. But, they, like us, cannot return to the old ways of thinking. Or rather, you have to move with the gods and heroes in ways that I'm not sure you have considered. But I appreciate your efforts here.
“For instance, there is a genetic code behind everyone’s ideal romantic partner or soulmate. However, that romantic and spiritual reaction, which is caused by a convergence of hormones and genetics, could be one’s Anima.”
I wonder if this entails that the Anima of an Animus/vice versa, in relation to HBD, is of a totally different racial makeup or similar.
I'm astounded at how many of the same ideas I've been entertaining are on this post. It's really fantastic and thought provoking!
While I find my beliefs about sex as diametrically opposed, it's an interesting perspective. I think sex is an illusion created by nature to distract humans from truly purposeful and even spiritual pursuits. I think evolution is just duping us all and we must transcend. In light of that the idea of sex being used for spiritual experiences would at first seem contradictory to me. But perhaps it's a matter of whether you partake in it while enlightened vs following your base instincts. I'm always open to contradictions paving the way for evolution in my thoughts.
Unbridled hedonism always leads to spiritual ruin. This is unambiguous.
De Sade, Crowley, etc., ultimately became the antithesis of enlightened beings: deeply self-absorbed and profoundly destructive.
That's not saying that exposure to hedonism can't ultimately lead in the opposite direction. I was a sex addict as a young man -- not as catastrophically promiscuous as the stereotypical gay man, but still bad enough that I cringe over past behaviors. All of that was an extreme obstacle to spiritual development, a value I professed even back then but could not really fulfill. Only when I committed (and upheld) a monogamous relationship was I able to make spiritual progress. I will add that I feel far more sexually liberated with 12 years of monogamy than I ever felt beforehand.
It could be argued that it is only by virtue of past hedonism that I am able to make a legitimate comparison. If so, so be it. But the point still stands.
Only half way through this but I have to give my two cents because I have a lot to do today and I can't keep this perspective inside.
Firstly, practically every cult we know of involves the male cult leader using it to fuck a lot of women while he's alive (Branch Dravidians, Mormons, Manson Family, Nexium). A terrible midwit comedian with a few good ideas once said: the difference between a cult and a religion is in the "religion" the cult leader is dead.
Secondly, tantric mystic cults are paradoxically always one step away from purtinical, sex-negative religions. How? Well, if you believe sex is sacred and magic, it follows that you're going to be careful how you use it outside of your religious rites. There are probably many cults that say you can't fuck or masturbate at ALL unless it's in our ritual orgy.
Now all you need to do is remove the ritual orgy and you have a bunch of pent up people who think sex is a sin. This could happen easily through infiltration (if you know any natural born sex haters you know they will stop at NOTHING to try to prevent everyone else having fun), through the natural watering down of rituals over generations, through interference of the state (the Roman state was always trying to shut down pagan orgies).
Sometimes the polygamous leader himself might tell everyone else to keep it in their pants because god said only he gets to have fun and then he dies and theres no one around to correct course.
I think after many iterations of ecstatic sex/drug/nature cults, it was inevitable for us to end up with uptight, restrictive, sex negative monotheism. This could be seen as the "fall" from the garden of Eden, ironically.
The pagans had the gods represent the various aspects of the psyche. Dionysus was only one aspect, and a very important one. But, there was also Apollo who would be his opposite. There's the idea that the Greek gods were actually based on real people, with stories combining more than one human into a god, who had lived in prehistoric times. The retelling of the stories by poets, artists, minstrels or Dionysian choir would therefore be based on centuries of human experience condensed into a particular god, or, as Jung would put it, archetype.
These people were also living in a time before Christianity separated spirit from the flesh. Humans, even the Greeks, could not comprehend any spiritual concept without a god or a daimon associated with it and a story to describe the feeling brought about by the manifestation of the god. You wouldn't read a book to make the god or daimon manifest him or her self. You had to mimic an aspect of, or make some kind of offering to, the god in order for the god to manifest or for a sybil (usually high on drugs) to pronounce and priests to interpret.
The point is, it, the Dionysian release, wasn't done in order to make people equal which is what I'm sensing in your preoccupation with incels, or whoever is supposed to do what to each other. The ancients wouldn't imagine that anyone has a right to do or have anything at all. They didn't have the concept of human rights and would have thought it absurd.
The problem with the late 19th, early 20th century spiritualists is that they were raised in the post-Christian world and their brains were programmed by modern abstractions, such as rights and so forth, and were trying to recreate the pre-Christian non-abstracted world. But, they, like us, cannot return to the old ways of thinking. Or rather, you have to move with the gods and heroes in ways that I'm not sure you have considered. But I appreciate your efforts here.
superb!
“For instance, there is a genetic code behind everyone’s ideal romantic partner or soulmate. However, that romantic and spiritual reaction, which is caused by a convergence of hormones and genetics, could be one’s Anima.”
I wonder if this entails that the Anima of an Animus/vice versa, in relation to HBD, is of a totally different racial makeup or similar.
I'm astounded at how many of the same ideas I've been entertaining are on this post. It's really fantastic and thought provoking!
While I find my beliefs about sex as diametrically opposed, it's an interesting perspective. I think sex is an illusion created by nature to distract humans from truly purposeful and even spiritual pursuits. I think evolution is just duping us all and we must transcend. In light of that the idea of sex being used for spiritual experiences would at first seem contradictory to me. But perhaps it's a matter of whether you partake in it while enlightened vs following your base instincts. I'm always open to contradictions paving the way for evolution in my thoughts.
Unbridled hedonism always leads to spiritual ruin. This is unambiguous.
De Sade, Crowley, etc., ultimately became the antithesis of enlightened beings: deeply self-absorbed and profoundly destructive.
That's not saying that exposure to hedonism can't ultimately lead in the opposite direction. I was a sex addict as a young man -- not as catastrophically promiscuous as the stereotypical gay man, but still bad enough that I cringe over past behaviors. All of that was an extreme obstacle to spiritual development, a value I professed even back then but could not really fulfill. Only when I committed (and upheld) a monogamous relationship was I able to make spiritual progress. I will add that I feel far more sexually liberated with 12 years of monogamy than I ever felt beforehand.
It could be argued that it is only by virtue of past hedonism that I am able to make a legitimate comparison. If so, so be it. But the point still stands.
Only half way through this but I have to give my two cents because I have a lot to do today and I can't keep this perspective inside.
Firstly, practically every cult we know of involves the male cult leader using it to fuck a lot of women while he's alive (Branch Dravidians, Mormons, Manson Family, Nexium). A terrible midwit comedian with a few good ideas once said: the difference between a cult and a religion is in the "religion" the cult leader is dead.
Secondly, tantric mystic cults are paradoxically always one step away from purtinical, sex-negative religions. How? Well, if you believe sex is sacred and magic, it follows that you're going to be careful how you use it outside of your religious rites. There are probably many cults that say you can't fuck or masturbate at ALL unless it's in our ritual orgy.
Now all you need to do is remove the ritual orgy and you have a bunch of pent up people who think sex is a sin. This could happen easily through infiltration (if you know any natural born sex haters you know they will stop at NOTHING to try to prevent everyone else having fun), through the natural watering down of rituals over generations, through interference of the state (the Roman state was always trying to shut down pagan orgies).
Sometimes the polygamous leader himself might tell everyone else to keep it in their pants because god said only he gets to have fun and then he dies and theres no one around to correct course.
I think after many iterations of ecstatic sex/drug/nature cults, it was inevitable for us to end up with uptight, restrictive, sex negative monotheism. This could be seen as the "fall" from the garden of Eden, ironically.