Sexual Metaphysics

wizzle

When I first started studying tarot and the qabala I mentioned to a friend that the voice of women in religion and magic was conspiculously absent. The age of the priestess is long past and until perhaps 150 years ago, women were given little education and certainly were not encouraged to contribute to philosophical or religious thinking much less writing. One has only to look at the male/female literacy rates in in third world countries to see it operational today
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

Having completed several books on the qabala, I believe I've identified two serious metaphysical errors resulting from the inevitable polarity of male-dominated metaphysics. While the principles I'll discuss are metaphysical, and clearly not personal, I believe they are easiest to understand when we examine sexuality. However, my discussion is not meant to personalize the issues, mearly to make them accessible to those who don't care to read lengthy metaphysical tracts.

1. My reading of the qabala is that the female/cup/binah principle is seen only in terms of a receptical and gestator. In sexual terms, this would be viewed as putting the sperm in the proper place and you get a child. Certainly this is understandable because from the male standpoint of the old testament qabalists, this is what they could see and what happened. Sperm, very visible, was put into the receiving female. The result was also visible in the swelling of the female and the resultant child. All well and good. The missing piece here is the ova, not visible to those fellows who were jacking off on their own theories. Hence, they made the metaphysical error of believing that the female/cup/negative/yin principle had nothing of its own to contribute beyond serving as a receptical. The contribution of an ova/egg is not recognized metaphysically anywhere that I can see. Only the passive/receptive part played by the female is given metaphysical life or thought.
2. While the sacrifice of a dying god (or object) is recognized in Tipareth and by most religions, the living sacrific of the mensus is totally ignored. It is very clear that blood, metaphysically, is a sacrifice. The monthly magic that allows an entity to sacrifice blood and yet live is wholely overlooked and I think this is just male sour grapes and metaphysical myopia.

In support of my conclusions, I offer the fact that all of the magical images on the middle pillar above Malkuth are male. Thus, translated metaphysically, only the sperm ensouls or produces equilibrium.

I believe I'm correct when I note that all of the arch angels are male. I recognize that the Elohim are male/female, yin/yang, whatever.

[size=+1]As above, so below unless of course you get to write the book. [/size]

Looking forward to your thoughts on these issues.
 

The Dreamer

wizzle said:
...1. ...The missing piece here is the ova, not visible to those fellows who were jacking off on their own theories.
:eek: :laugh:
Hence, they made the metaphysical error of believing that the female/cup/negative/yin principle had nothing of its own to contribute beyond serving as a receptical. The contribution of an ova/egg is not recognized metaphysically anywhere that I can see. Only the passive/receptive part played by the female is given metaphysical life or thought.
I'm not well versed enough in the ins and outs of Kabbalah to comment on that idea in relation to kabbalah- but the "female as abscence/passiveness/receptacle" is very very widespread in the ideas of many cultures and in most of the metaphysical ideas I've read about.
2. While the sacrifice of a dying god (or object) is recognized in Tipareth and by most religions, the living sacrific of the mensus is totally ignored. It is very clear that blood, metaphysically, is a sacrifice. The monthly magic that allows an entity to sacrifice blood and yet live is wholely overlooked and I think this is just male sour grapes and metaphysical myopia.
Here's a thread which touches on some of those ideas:The Dying God/King/Healer

I believe I'm correct when I note that all of the arch angels are male. I recognize that the Elohim are male/female, yin/yang, whatever.
So archangels are associated with Kabbalah?
In popular culture, angels are usually cast as female.
Of course various scholars of religious texts can quote a lot of things about the possible gender of angels.
I myself don't see much use in the idea of angels. It looks to me like nothing with any basis other than one of tradition and imagination. Speculating about their existence or possible qualities makes about as much sense to me as discussing how many could theoretically fit on the head of a pin.
If it's a matter of finding definitive texts, that is silly, because the text was based upon someone's imagination anyway. If it's a matter of making up whatever we like or which fits with our physical experience, then I like the idea of androgynous angels, or no angels at all.
The question for me is what the spiritual reality, if it exists, really is like. Everything else really is just our own theories.


[size=+1]As above, so below unless of course you get to write the book. [/size]
Well. Yes.
Or- as above, so below, because you write the book.
The question to me is, does "as above, so below" really have any bearing at all. If there really is an "above", (spiritual), then why must it really be like the below? Maybe people only think that it is because the below is all we have to base our ideas of the above on. And, of course, if the person who is writing the book about the above really does not understand what is below, then the bizarre phenomenon of prejudices and myths being taken for spiritual truths will result.
Pretty much, we can look at the world and at our own experiences and say "does this spiritual or physical theory really fit with reality as I've experienced it?" and "does reality as I've experienced it really generalize to reality as others have experienced it" and "does reality as individuals or groups experience it really have any bearing upon what the ultimate spiritual reality may be?"

Probably even some of the most ridiculously misguided gender and sexually related metaphysical ideas had their uses. But they should be seen as what they are- products of culture, with all the bias which that entails.

I like the idea of sexual energy in general being a spiritual force, because that seems to fit with my experience- however, I don't know if my liking that idea makes it any better or more true than that of some guy who came up with the theory that sperm ensouls or that archangels are male. I mean, we know that the ovum is an essential part of creating life, but do we really know that the sperm does not "ensoul"? Do we even really know what "soul" is? Do we know that angels do or don't exist? How do we know that?
I know that my energy exists, and that the energy of others exists, and that they affect each other, and that sexuality is inextricably linked to that- but what metaphysical conclusions I can draw about that, I'm not really sure.
 

Ravenswing

hmmm.

wizzle--

a few thoughts as per your request.

As I see it, male is energizing "force", female is form "generator". Can't do a damn thing without both.

Gabrielle is frequently depicted as female.

In the tarot deck I'm developing, the Magician is female.


fly well
Raven
 

Grigori

qabalah frivolity...? WOOHOO!!

wizzle said:
1. My reading of the qabala is that the female/cup/binah principle is seen only in terms of a receptical and gestator..... The contribution of an ova/egg is not recognized metaphysically anywhere that I can see. Only the passive/receptive part played by the female is given metaphysical life or thought.

I think their are subtle shade of action on the part of Binah also. She is attributed to Saturn & Chronos also, both male gods of action. Binah certainly recieves quite a lot... (Crowley put it not so nicely ;) ) but also she also disciplines and passes on to Chesed. She's also related to the Queens, who as cardinal signs are known initiators. You could argue that Binah was seen as more active under the Golden Dawn system, than previously. That may be a simple reflection of an increased understanding of reproduction, wishful thinking an naivety on my part. *shrugs*

wizzle said:
2. While the sacrifice of a dying god (or object) is recognized in Tipareth and by most religions, the living sacrific of the mensus is totally ignored. It is very clear that blood, metaphysically, is a sacrifice. The monthly magic that allows an entity to sacrifice blood and yet live is wholely overlooked and I think this is just male sour grapes and metaphysical myopia.

Yes, I know I am so jealous that I don't get to menstruate... :rolleyes: :D

That is however something very interesting to think on in terms of how menstruation is placed into the framework of the qabalah. Perhaps it is not....?!?! The King and Queen get rather lazy between "encounters" so maybe the menstruation is the realm of the Princess in Malkuth. When the Princess pashes the Prince from Tipareth and becomes a Queen, she is perhaps immediately pregnant, and it is far too late to reach for the condom!

wizzle said:
In support of my conclusions, I offer the fact that all of the magical images on the middle pillar above Malkuth are male. Thus, translated metaphysically, only the sperm ensouls or produces equilibrium.

Well this I must debate with you earnestly Wizzle. Certainly Kether is predominantly seen as male in the texts I have read. Although the argument for bisexuality would be an easy one to make. The distinction may indicate the predjudices you observed. Although I still struggle to consider sperm as relating to equalibrium... :confused: We could think of Kether as the sperm, transmitted to Binah via the phallus of Chockmah. In that case the sexuality of Kether could vary depending on which of the 4 worlds/aces we are in at the time. That sort of thinking potentially makes all sephirot rather ambigious in gender.

Tiphareth does not strike me as particularly male. The sacrificed gods are a male pantheon I admit, but one could also argue they embody many of the "female" qualities that were otherwise absent in patriarcal religions.

Yesod is strongly female, being attributed to the moon, and a wash of girly purple :D Malkuth also is quite lady like. And let us not forget that Mars in Geburah is on the female column, and Venus is Netzach is on the male.

Also one could note the tarot cards attributed to the middle pillar are the High Priestess (gimel-moon)), Temperance (samekh-sagittarius) and The World (tau-saturn).

The union of the male and female within is a strong theme for our magical writer friends. Perhaps any leanings towards male symbols shows a concern from a male writer for the development of the self, and reflects their experiences in that endevour. Rather than discriminating against the contribution of women, thay are more concerned with accessing the women within them, and left the real world ladies to fend for themsleves.
 

Ankou

Quote Similia
"Perhaps any leanings towards male symbols shows a concern from a male writer for the development of the self, and reflects their experiences in that endevour. Rather than discriminating against the contribution of women, thay are more concerned with accessing the women within them, and left the real world ladies to fend for themsleves."

I really don't have a much of a clue about the Kabbala, but I think your statement is an intriguing thought. I would be inclined to belive that this is probably the case in several instances and a good argument for a fair amount of philosophical contemplation written by men and "excluding" women, but not neccesarily the feminine principle.

However Wizzle's arguments are also very stimulating. The concept of the feminine being passive because of a misunderstanding of biology... And in my limited readings I've been frustrated by the lack of information relating to the female cycle. I remember when I found out that bleeding regulary was going to be part of my everyday life...WHAT!!!!!! That's a very weird thing which needs explanation, especially in a time period when medicine was based in spiritual practice. How did they explain that?

Anyway, I really don't have the background to provide a suitably intellectual bouncing board, but I'm loving the discution none the less.

Thanks from the wrinkling grey matter,

Ankou
 

mac22

My dear Wizzle--

On the mundane plane yes it as you said but on the astral & other planes things shift to the feminine.... :D

And the same applies to the four worlds it shifts from male to female.
 

Grigori

Changed my mind!

wizzle said:
In support of my conclusions, I offer the fact that all of the magical images on the middle pillar above Malkuth are male. Thus, translated metaphysically, only the sperm ensouls or produces equilibrium.

Similia said:
Although I still struggle to consider sperm as relating to equalibrium

I've realised we are both wrong Wizzle. And I have found the ova! (Rather a productive afternoon for me wasn't it :D )

We have both made the error of thinking of sperm in a male way, and ova in a female way. In fact ova are neither boy nor girl, but do have a slight leaning towards girliness (as they all have the X chromosome). Sperm in contrast are sometimes boys (with a Y chromosome) but also sometimes GIRLS!! (with an X chromosome). Yep, you heard it right. Girl sperms! :eek:

So all the male delivery parts are in Chockmah, and the female recieving parts in Binah, but Sperm is certainly multi-gender, and ova has the potential to go either way. So both gametes are very well suited to Kether, and the middle pillar.
 

venicebard

wizzle said:
...from the male standpoint of the old testament qabalists, this is what they could see and what happened.
I see you use qabalah to refer to Merkavah, but that’s okay, since it was a reconstruction (in 12th-century Provence) of the most ancient strata of Merkavah, based on contact with another branch of alphabetic/Sefirotic tradition, namely Irish-Welsh bardic tradition (carried to the Continent along with Arthurian lore, no doubt). Of course this is not commonly known.

What is at least commonly suspected (and true to a greater extent even than that!) is that Qabbalah embodied considerably deeper understanding than the naivety you see in the Old Testament. I do not understand your characterization of angels as male: it is my understanding that angels are sexless. I (‘philosophically’) grant them higher status than ordinary pagan spirits, which are usually male or female, even though I am anti-monotheistic (being Gnostic).

But perhaps a deeper understanding of the Name will be of help here. The modern tradition, based on Lurianic Kabbalah (I spell it with a K when speaking of the surviving flotsam), has it that the female element is in the two hehs. This is simple misunderstanding, based on a secondary aspect. It is clear from more careful analysis (and I find it hard to believe Luria himself did not know this) that the root of the female in the Name is vav: yod-heh (Yah) is the male half and vav-heh the female half, with each half itself containing a male and a female aspect, the female aspect of each being the heh, evidently. Thus you can see that the Name, which is the creative power itself, is divided evenly between the two sexes when it expresses the degenerated form of creative power in fallen Adam, namely the procreative power: it thus requires two, a man and a woman, to ‘pronounce’ it (meaning invoke it).

That the vav is the root of the female half is fairly obvious from its shape in old Semitic (Phoenician, etc.), where it is the breast pouring forth milk. Yod, on the other hand, is two arms drawing a line in the dirt with a stick, or else guiding the plow. And the heh is in the form of a comb: the comb symbolized the female organ in the Eleusinian mysteries. This suggests that female images (at the deepest level, that of origins) outnumber male (3 outta 4 ain’t bad).

Anyway, there is much more to these mysteries than you seem to imply, but this is understandable considering the secrecy surrounding them that caused them to be lost (forcing me to have to reconstruct the basics piece by piece). Yes, the exoteric religion of Judaism is patriarchal nonsense in a sense, as is most exoteric religion in our age (though the Judeo-Christian tradition is much less oppressive of women than that other monotheistic creed, the one whose extremist element has posed itself as foe to all civilized institutions). But to read this into Qabbalah is simply to take today’s rabbis’ word for what Qabbalah was (which does not take one very far, unfortunately).
 

prudence

Isthmus, thanks for that link, I really enjoyed reading it...

and I want to say this, because I am so excited...I actually understood everything you said in your post venicebard!! Yes, I am a bit proud of myself...and vb, that really helped me to understand a lot about kabbalah, its roots....sometimes it's weird how things I may have read many times, don't sink in until it is put into just the right words. Thanks. :)