The conversation with my friend Guy has continued with his post here:
I commented back, “Guy, what devotion to delve into the shadows and the sticks of the I Ching in pursuit of the slippery truth of our conversation! In the spirit of that, I've read carefully and will let your distillation steep for awhile. Your I Ching reading could give heart to all of us in these dire times. I'm grateful for the energy and love that you put into your reflections ;-)”
I later added, “Listening to your ‘Song of the exploration’, The Blood of Eden by Peter Gabriel, made me cry. It's so poignant and perfect for this time. And fits exactly with your Sage Sensei. More to follow—not to refute but to build. Yes and ....”
So in this episode I’ll be correlating my explorations with the Peter Gabriel song. I’ll start with the social and move into the metaphysical. Then the Biblical to the archetypal and personal. And I’ll end with why I feel something has gone terribly wrong with the relationships between women and men, and how Guy’s I Ching may hint that the spiritual, social and sexual all lead to the same solution.
Let’s begin with the excellent live version Guy linked in his article, filmed on a circular stage with the center prop of a tree:
I caught sight of my reflection
I caught it in the window
I saw the darkness in my heart
I saw the signs of my undoing
They had been there from the start
And the darkness still has work to do
The knotted chord's untying
They're heated and they're holy
Oh they're sitting there on high
So secure with everything they're buying
the darkness still has work to do
As our world—built and natural, psychological and physiological, social and spiritual—is ravaged, beaten and raped, who are those ‘sitting there on high, so secure with everything they’re buying’? In a James Corbett Solutions Watch, he interviews Etienne de la Boetie² who wrote Government: the Biggest Scam in History, Exposed.
Etienne refers to intergenerational organized crime, which I like because it describes the function without needing to come to agreement on who or why. I would amend it to InterGenerational Organized Theft or IGOT—I got mine and I got yours. Although it doesn’t rhyme, it’s more accurate to say “so secure with everything they’re stealing,” which is the motive behind everything else.
On the social level, I believe we’re still in the time of undoing, seeing anew the signs that have been there from the start. The darkness still has work to do. The time isn’t ripe to fix things because most of the world is still reeling and reacting to the symptoms, exactly the way the IGOT want us to.
And here is an excellent interview between Catherine Austin Fitts and Sasha Latypova on the ways in which that’s happening:
In the blood of Eden
Lie the woman and the man
With the man in the woman
And the woman in the man
in the blood
Staying with the social, let’s start with the blood. Is violence part of human nature or does ‘western civilization’ backed by a patriarchal violence endorsed by God make that hard to delineate?
One of the many fascinating tidbits the literary Guy has taught me is that the phrase “rule of thumb” comes from an 18th century British ruling that a man couldn’t beat his wife with anything more narrow than his thumb. Whether or not that’s true, in the not-so-distant past, physical violence by husbands against wives and children, or teachers against children has been de rigeuer, a phrase that literally means ‘out of strictness’ and colloquially, ‘so commonplace as to seem mandatory’.
My dad came from a heritage of wife-beaters, a legacy the older sons continued. My grandmother, a cantankerous woman herself, moved out to live with him, preventing him from finishing high school in order to support her or later using the GI Bill to go to college. I shared a bedroom with her until middle school.
Early in my parents’ marriage, as the story goes, my dad kicked a trash can out of anger and my mother said if he ever hit her, she’d leave, Catholicism notwithstanding. He never did. If I’m honest in my memories, though, he held anger until he exploded with it and I skipped enough dinners to avoid the yelling that I graduated at barely 100 pounds. It’s hard to reconcile that with the gentle, loving grandparent he became, but I’m being honest.
The examples we have today of pedo-sadism and domestic violence, as appallingly widespread as I’m finding them, are notable because they’re not the rule but the exception. This is the legacy we’ve been given, the one that is ours to absolve and resolve. But only after we take away the power that enables it.
blood of eden and birth of slavery
A comment on the lyrics to this song wrote, “I was thinking of Adam and Eve. I always wondered what they were like. What do you say to each other after a thing like that? I often wonder what went through Adam’s mind when he realised what Eve had done. Did he even consider his options? Did he look at the creature before him in a different way? I mean defying God isn’t your average awkward moment around the coffee machine.”
In Genesis there are two creation stories. In the first, “God created Man in his image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." And “God saw all that he had made and it was very good.” He rested on the seventh day.
The second account starts over with no plants and no rain because, duh, “there was no man to work the ground.” So God made a man from dust and “put him into the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.” Because the man needs a helper, God puts him to sleep and takes out a rib to make a woman, bringing her to the man who says, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman for she was taken out of man.” And it’s all downhill from there.
Eve’s original sin against God and Adam is our culture’s creation story. God’s violence is because of Eve’s disobedience. She eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then tricks the innocent Adam into doing the same. From then on, nothing bad can be blamed on God, only Woman. She is the source of all suffering, mother of destruction and accomplice of Satan.
God’s curse to women besides pain in childbirth was “Your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you.” What kind of male fantasy is that? Adam is cursed for listening to his wife, a mistake no patriarch in the Bible ever repeats.
Adam names his wife Eve, God makes them some clothes and sends them on their way, saying, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”
As soon as judgment is introduced into the world, it brands woman evil and shifts the blame to her. Eve disappears as never worthy of mention again except for birthing Cain with the murderous glint in his eye, who slays Abel and then lies about it, according to the omniscient narrator. His name’s resemblance to Canaan who Noah cursed as a race of slaves is surely coincidence.
the man in the woman and the woman in the man
That’s the Creation story and we all know the Evolution story that says humanity hoisted itself into existence on monkey genes and survival of the fittest. Now let’s look at the Third Paradigm of Split-Mind Dreaming.
This is the premise of A Course in Miracles and the idea I’m still trying (and failing) to explain, not just to Guy but to anyone. My ideas start where the Course leaves off, so I’m not representing anyone but myself. And I’m not looking for believers but acknowledgment that it’s a valid third hypothesis that fits all the data points.
In the comment that prompted Guy’s recent article, I wrote:
I hit a ball to you and asked you to play. The ball was my question, "What if we collectively are co-creators of Reality with God?" My ball had the spin on it that this world was therefore not Reality.
The Course points out that when the Bible says Adam slept while God made woman, it never says he woke up. The division into good and evil, the self and the other on whom blame can be projected starts as soon as Adam falls asleep. Before that, it’s all good—even if Adam is God’s gardener because he needs someone to work the soil.
So, Guy, play with me here. Let’s say that Reality is infinite and eternal Consciousness. Imagine God as the masculine left side of the brain and us as the feminine right side, co-Creating Everything That Is. But that’s not matter, which would be stuck in finite space and time, it’s ideas that expand and are cool as hell (a contradiction, surely ;-).
We get the crazy idea that we don’t need God as our sidekick, we wanna go solo. So we cut ourSelf off from God (or think we did) and invent a world of our own. But this makes us guilty and paranoid because we think we made ourSelf just like God—exactly as Genesis claims. And the penalty for that is death, or so we think.
Everything we think we experience could be happening in the dream of Adam, the God imposter. But we’re not creating it with God, we’re hiding from God in an illusion. In Reality, we’re Eve, mother of all Creation and we’ve never left God’s side.
My grip is surely slipping
I think I've lost my hold
Yes, I think I've lost my hold
I cannot get insurance anymore
They don't take credit, only gold
Is that a dagger or a crucifix I see
You hold so tightly in your hand
And all the while the distance grows between you and me
I do not understand.
all the while the distance grows between you and me
Does it seem that something has gone terribly wrong in the relationship between men and women? My observation in my daughters’ generation is that few are finding relationships … I could stop there and it would still be true … but especially relationships where both want to have kids.
Jimychanga did an interesting article on Sugar Dating:
and I’ll link my episode at the end on The Lust Frontier: Disposable Dating & the Great Isolation. Peter Gabriel is prescient talking about not being able to get insurance anymore, as victims of disaster terrorism can tell you. And I’m sure it’s coming that “they won’t take credit, only gold.”
Men, I think, have been emasculated but not because women are in the business world. Because it should have gone the other direction so the labor of men ALSO served the family, providing stability, security and skills that used to be de rigeuer.
In the blood of Eden
We've done everything we can
In the blood of Eden
So we end as we began
With the man in the woman
And the woman in the man
It was all for the union
Oh, the union of the woman, the woman and the man.
so we end as we began
Guy ended by asking the I Ching to comment on our dialogue. He wrote of its answer, “Tereza and I are working towards a meta-metaphysical hierosgamos. The male and the female, yin and yang, are in harmony and thus are bringing vitality and life to physical and non-physical existence.”
The configuration was three broken lines representing the receptive earth female over three straight lines representing the creative heaven male. The Baynes/ Wilhelm translation is below:
The Receptive, which moves downward, stands above; the Creative, which moves upward, is below. Hence their influences meet and are in harmony, so that all living things bloom and prosper. …
This hexagram denotes a time in nature when heaven seems to be on earth. Heaven has placed itself beneath the earth, and so their powers unite in deep harmony. Then peace and blessing descend upon all living things. …
Here the small, weak, and evil elements are about to take their departure, while the great, strong, and good elements are moving up. This brings good fortune and success.
To phrase the I Ching differently, the man has placed himself beneath the woman, supporting her, and so their powers unite in deep harmony. The man is not competing for who is on top—the empire-thinking of hierarchy—but instead lifts up the woman who, in turn, gives life and abundance. Then peace and blessing descend upon all living things.
Another song from the same concert is called Shaking the Tree with a chorus of “It’s your day, a woman’s day.” I recognize that this has been used by the oligarchs but I think there’s something important there. The song concludes:
The blood of eden keeps running through me
Running through my veins
The blood of eden keeps rushing through me
When I'm sure there's none that remains
The blood of eden keeps running through me
I can feel it in my bones
That blood of eden keeps rushing through me
Taking back what it owns
This is the original version fittingly with the strong willed Eve, Sinead O’Connor. Rest in power Sinead.
and for an evolutionary bad-ass Eve, here’s one of my favorite songs from Guy with the chorus, “Who made you the center of the universe and made you judge and jury over me?” Great dancing and costumes!
To follow up, here is The Lust Frontier: Disposable Dating & the Great Isolation:
Examines disposable dating and whether it's a strategy to keep us in line and online. Looks at the need to develop an online dating skin and whether relationships have become more transactional. Tells a story from my parents' era of torch singers and dance cards, and compares it to my daughters' era of swipe-rightmania and ghosting. Cites Matt Taibbi's article on Laura Kipnis, author of Unwelcome Advances: Sexual Paranoia Comes to Campus and Love in the Time of Contagion: A Diagnosis. Discusses making love and making babies from a sociological perspective and whether the couple is the lust frontier on the way to The Great Isolation. Ends with advice to the next generation that you deserve the real thing.
and Sex & Power: Battle of the Daves
David Buss, evolutionary psychologist on mating strategies, claims men are wired to seek multiple partners who are as young and fertile as their social status allows. But why do young women mate with them? To answer that, I consult anthropologist David Graeber and archeologist David Wengrow on the Yanomami of Venezuela, the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia, and the Wendats of Canada. They show that sexual liberty was the norm when women owned the economic resources and money was just a plaything used for status, political apologies, and gambling.
I just love this, you wrote:
"To phrase the I Ching differently, the man has placed himself beneath the woman, supporting her, and so their powers unite in deep harmony. The man is not competing for who is on top—the empire-thinking of hierarchy—but instead lifts up the woman who, in turn, gives life and abundance. Then peace and blessing descend upon all living things."
This is very much like Prakriti and Purusha; the inward facing power is the masculine supporting and acknowledging of the movement supreme, but the most important of the two is the feminine power that is outgoing and is the immutable true character of creation. Bringer of life.
This is a brilliant exploration You and Guy are doing. ------ Blessings to both of you.
Hola, Tereza.
Great discussion. Love it. Extant inside Adam dreaming of the apple of his eye, and we're there too. Hmmmm. I've heard stranger things. Did you ever read this:
*Ultimate Problems*
In the Aztec design God crowds
into the little pea that is rolling
out of the picture.
All the rest extends bleaker
because God has gone away.
In the White Man design, though,
no pea is there.
God is everywhere,
but hard to see.
The Aztecs frown at this.
How do you know he is everywhere?
And how did he get out of the pea?
Stafford, William. "Ultimate Problems", cited in *News of the Universe: Poems of Two-Fold Consciousness* ed. Robert Bly. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1980, p. 182.
Through an odd set of synchronicities what began as a toe dip into Krishnamurti is becoming a deeper dive. (My next essay will be about him and the possibility that he was an agent of sleep.)
Synchronicity? As I was writing this reply a YouTube mix pick gave this, new to me, song that begins ‘Everybody in this place is dreaming”:
Johnny Flynn feat Lillie Flynn - Amazon Love
https://youtu.be/qOszeh8huyU
Everybody in this place is dreaming
It's been that way forever
They're all gonna wake up soon, they'll all be hell
For leather
…
Now, quick to the cut are we waking
And seeing it all as the dream
The pillars that raised us are shaking, and Samson's wheel
Is the fiend
That one minute we see and the next we don't
In our minds, in the devil's long tail
Slapping sense to its peak and a hard, strung-out week
And sold back to the love in our sails
(And I found this song, too: begins with a dream and ‘living my whole life in your basement’ which is a curious metaphor to your essay.
Leona Naess - Basement
https://youtu.be/ObeijICrXi0)
And the link to Étienne De La Boétie*2 and James Corbett created a bit of cognitive dissonance and pleasant surprise. Someone is referencing the once famous friend of Montaigne? And that could only mean De La Boétie’s (once) famous and inflammatory essay “The Politics of Obedience: Discourse on Voluntary Servitude” published ~1552. (Our ‘problem’ today, has been around for a long time and noted by the few for just as long. De La Boétie died a few years after writing that of the plague.)
https://cdn.mises.org/Politics%20of%20Obedience.pdf
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/etienne-de-la-boetie-discourse-on-voluntary-servitude or
From the second translation from the link above:
We often find ourselves in a position of weakness, with no option but to yield to force. We do not always have the upper hand, and we may have to play for time. We must not be surprised, then, when a nation which is at war finds itself compelled to serve one ruler (as the city of Athens served the thirty tyrants) — though we must deplore that servitude. Or rather, we must neither be surprised at the situation nor deplore it, but endure the misfortune patiently, and look forward to better fortune in the future.
Human nature is such that the way we live is largely influenced by the common duties of friendship. It is reasonable that we should love virtue, that we should have a high regard for noble deeds, that when someone does us a favor we should acknowledge the fact, and that we should be prepared to accept some reduction in our own comfort in order to enhance the standing of one whom we love and who had deserved our love. And in the same way, citizens of a whole nation will acknowledge that a particular individual has protected them by displaying great foresight, or had defended them with great bravery, or governed them with great care, and they may thus accept that it is reasonable to be obedient towards him, and they may go so far as to entrust him with power over them. I am not sure that this is wise, for they are removing him from a position in which he was doing good and putting him in a position in which he can do harm. But there is no doubt that there is something commendable about the fact that they fear no harm from someone who has done them nothing but good.
But — oh good God! — what is this? What words can describe this vice, this misfortune (or rather, vice and misfortune!) Whereby the obedience of an infinite number of people degenerates into servitude, government turns to tyranny, and people have nothing they can call their own, not even their parents, their wives, their children, their own lives! And they become prey to the pillage, lusts and cruelty not of some army, not of a barbarian horde which they could only resist by shedding their blood and laying down their lives, but of a single man! And is he a Hercules or a Samson? No, he is a solitary weakling, and usually the most cowardly and effeminate in the land, who is unaccustomed to the dust of battle and has hardly even set eyes on the sand of the jousting arena, and who has no authority to issue orders to men since he is an abject slave of some pitiful little woman! Are we to say that the people are cowards? Shall we call them pusillanimous and faint-hearted? Supposing you have two people, or three or four, who fail to defend themselves against one man: that is a strange situation, but still within the bounds of possibility, and we can rightly say that these people are lacking in courage. But if a hundred or a thousand people are willing to tolerate one man, surely we have to conclude not that they dare not defy him, but that they do not want to, and that their attitude is not one of cowardice but rather of apathy and disdain? If what we see is not a hundred or a thousand men, but a hundred nations and a thousand cities and a million men failing to challenge one man (who, however well he treats any individual, is still treating him as a serf and a slave), what are we to call that? Is it cowardice? Now all vices have natural limits: two people may fear one man, ten people may fear him. But if a thousand men, a million men, a thousand cities do not defend themselves against one man, that cannot be cowardice, for cowardice cannot go that far, just as valor cannot go so far as to lead one man to scale a fortress, to attack an army, to conquer a kingdom. So what prodigious vice is this for which the term ‘cowardice’ is too flattering, for which there is no name vile enough, which nature herself will not admit to having created and which the tongue can find no name for?