|
xssve -> RE: BDSM: Path to Spiritual Enlightenment? (3/10/2010 7:30:54 PM)
|
A cogent metaphor, however, software has to have some hardware to run on, neither is much use without the other - which is where Shekicromaster is losing me, in reference to his inference that a materialist approach is somehow "lower" or less enlightened than an ascetic one.
In order to address that however, I'd like to reiterate something aldompdx said: quote:
While I am not advocating absolute right or wrong, there exists common meaning around the geometric center of a gaussian curve derived from popular consensus among the set of all persons who speak English. Otherwise, anything means everything and nothing.
A delightfully post modern way of saying that in order to communicate, we have to have some sort of shared concept, an archetype, an archetype in Platonic terms, which we refer to with a common symbol - without the common symbols, what we have is a Babelian chaos, which can only be resolved by referring back the original archetypes.
For example, one can presumably go anywhere in the world, and without knowing the language, either rub ones belly or simulate the act of eating something, and be directed using hand gestures to where one might obtain something to eat - it's a universal symbol based on a universal archetype of the human condition, hunger.
In fact, it's likely hand gestures evolved simultaneous with language - common genetic syndromes that affect linguistic ability are almost all associated with non-standard development in the hands and or forearms (Williams syndrome is particularly fascinating).
On an even more fundamental level, even babies can recognize facial expressions almost as soon as they can see, another form of symbolic language that can convey simple archetypes, happy, sad, approval, disapproval, etc.
In any case, the writings of mystics form a cannon of symbols that refer to the esoteric, existential states of mind experienced by those mystics, and not surprisingly there are correlations and overlaps - while what you might call "materialistic mysticism" also has a cannon, but it's typically disparaged by the ascetic mystics, who tend to be more cerebral types - in short, what I'm suggesting is that due to quirks of personality, there is a sort of bias against the materialist side of it, which is typically acted out or transmitted orally instead of written down, and is therefore more transient - it's also fairly universal, and requires little explanation - like my gesture language example, one need have no previous experience with gesturing to do this, it requires little esoteric reasoning to come up with it.
By the same token, we refer to the "universal language of love", i.e., the body language and gestures used to flirt with the opposite sex are fairly universal - different culture may have specific symbols with specific meanings: the Italian "Fig" or the American middle Finger, but simulating penetration with a finger of one hand penetrating a tube formed by the opposite hand has the same meaning in any language, and will, universally, get you either laid or the shit slapped out of you.
The Bull is a common symbol in pre-monotheistic religions, a form of pastoral animism representing virility, it's typically mentioned only in passing: in Gilgamesh, after setting up a relatively complex symbolic frame of the human condition: Enkidu is Animal and Man, Gilgamesh is Man and God, together they slay the Bull of Heaven - presumably symbolic of more feminine (if not overtly feminist) fertility religions. In the Bible, Moses comes down from the mount after his rap with the burning bush, and still glowing with the word of God almighty, what does he find but everybody partying around a fertility symbol, the mensch's.
Possibly another reason that the more materialistic side of mysticism gets a bad rap - asceticism reflects more of a stress on the intellect, traditionally associated with the masculine, much less stress on practical matters such as virility, impregnation and childbirth, traditionally more feminine concerns, and not surprisingly, ascetic mysticism tends to ignore fertility issues, if not actively criticize them, often to the point of misogyny when it finds them threatening, which it often does.
Our cultural archetype of the perfect woman is not a loud, lusty butch, it's a meek, introverted femme, Christians aren't bulls, they're sheep - which is not surprising, as Judaism emerged from a pastoral, shepherding culture.
Rather, the ascetic model reflects pure, even sterile, intellect, as I mentioned, and the intellect is nothing if the archetypes of human consciousness and the symbols that represent them - to me, ascetic traditions often represent a sort of spiritual passivity, a lack of curiosity about life - it's more aggressive side mostly taking the form of endless bloody disputes over how many hypothetical angels, exactly, can dance on the head of a hypothetical pin.
At least the Indian mystics can like, walk on fire and shit, that's at least more entertaining.
Anyway, my point is simply that these more materialist archetypes and symbols are very much a vital and central part of the set of universal archetypes, often deeper, older, and more powerful than the abstract political archetypes that overly them - again, not surprisingly, the abstraction of duality is itself essentially an intellectual paradox, good and evil, light and darkness, matter and energy, to be or not to be - but linguistically, it's simply a device for making distinctions between one thing and another on the most fundamental level, mostly employed as a mere a rhetorical device on the political level.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Shekicromaster
Yet, if one was willing to take this D/s relationship on such an idealized level where physical aspect would be completely transcended and forgotten It might, of course, theoretically at least, be possible. It is just that I have yet too see such an incredible divine manifestation between us, that are, frankly, just a bunch of pervs making too much noise about it and trying by any means to look greater than we are to give more importance to what, basically, is nothing more than primordial animal grade sex and power related behavior. That's pretty much what Moses said, I'm thinking.
It seems to me you're simply fobbing off what may be a much deeper and more universal set of archetypes and symbols worthy of exploration - where even Madame4a's earthshattering orgasms are symbolic of something - where to live con mucho gusto is as spiritual as perching on a pole. I hope I'm not insulting Madame4a if I note that she strikes me as having a lot of spirit.
The "wow factor", the "I guess you hadda be there" of revelation has been mentioned, it's a driving force behind mysticism, which does seek to find a common language to describe the more occult workings of the subconscious, and existential experience - but these are, in the end, often no "deeper" or "higher" than an earthshattering orgasms.
Esoteric Zoroastrian duality leads ultimately to conflict, whereas the essence of Tantric dualism stresses the reconciliation of opposites, rather than their eternal opposition - i.e., the submissive is the Yin to the dominant's Yang, a counterpart rather than a victim, together they may overcome, if only transiently, the paradox of matter, the gulf between the existential self and "the other", and in doing so, find a common language.
Judeo-Christian, or more accurately Christian culture (I think they throw the Judeo in there mostly to lend it credibility) is heavily influenced by Zoroastrian duality, obsessed with the "Final Conflict" in which good is supposed to prevail over evil, whereas from a practical perspective, it's just the start of another cycle at best.
The symbolism here is quite fascinating, I mentioned the Bull, often encountered in BDSM, but there is also the Serpent, which is more closely associated with feminine mysticism, and interesting in that it's a more androgynous symbol, it's both a phallic symbol, and in the form of the serpent swallowing it's tail, a Yoni, also associated with the cyclic paradigm of eternity.
Anyway, I just don't think it's so easy to separate energy and matter: matter is energy, and energy is matter, I think it's less a factor of opposition and more a matter of scale, and often, point of view.
Ashes to ashes, dust to dust - from matter you arose, and to matter you will return, what what is spirit but the life force? Nepesh, the breath of life, and in life, food, sex, and reproduction - animal needs - play significant roles, depending on how you answer the question; "to be or not to be"? In short, there is no evidence that the "higher" consciousness can even exist without a body to ride around in, and one can be "ridden" by many different spirits.
In fact, I'd personally much rather be acting it out than talking about it, were I not, once again, due to accident and circumstance, a celibate ascetic - I'm seriously hoping it doesn't last, I'm just trying to make the best of it in the meantime.
I'd love to get into that whole right handed/left handed symbolism, this culture is distinctly biased towards the right, and it's always that which is being overlooked that I find most interesting, whether it's Madame4a's earthshattering orgasms or Jeffff's unfortunate propensities with working girls - it seems a little too complicated to gaff off with a crude binary mytheme, it's bad science.
|
|
|
|
