I have been listening to some podcasts, lately, which fall outside my political spectrum. It isn’t new, I keep up, inasmuch as what I’m keeping up with is interesting. Anyway. Page Vanderbeck ran a podcast about feminist witchery. Obviously, that’s a loaded title and the common cultural observations of a right-winger are to be had there, but I’m a big boy and I can handle it. I knew where I was going, so I’m not complaining. The other podcast I had listened to was from another podcast about amorous histories, covering Inanna the “Goddess of Sex.” (Presumably among other things, like beer and tricking old men out of their throne… by drinking them under the table.) As I say, it can be gratifying to cut across the aisle and Recolonise your thought-space with fresh material. None of this is a jab at either authoress, both of whom seem kind and charming in their own rights despite any cultural disagreements I might have… but rather at systems of thought employed by the monoculture we are being sold by marketing firms and executives.
If I remember, I will provide links for the curiously bored.
In both podcasts, there was above and beyond any popular (in the media) social cause mentioned, like trannies or, indigenous rights (no such thing as indigenous, when you think about it – following institutional logic) there is the titular issue. Time bias. I forget myself, in my own echo chamber down here in my firelight and my iconographies and my underground, slick, stylish, big beautiful weightroom. I forget that people think time has meaning. The presumption that moving further in time equivocates a moral advancement. Does it? This invincible march of evolution…? If we grant the liberals that being born a colour doesn’t make you different than any other colour, than why get hung up on arbitrary dates? …Disclaimer: it’s not about the differences that split us, but the similarities that bind us – like unto like has been a Law of Nature since the Dawn of, oh no, TIME. Do we really, really know better than all history? That’s a bit vain, a little presumptuous, a little hubris is leaking into the humble bleeding pie.
Example, witch trials. If Kristian MacJeebusloverssenbergsteenbear roasts a witch over an open fire to appease the Jew God in the skycano in the year 1350, how is this any worse than if a little pagan Greek man did it in, I don’t know, the year 0666? Why do we assume that being born later in an arbitrary timescale means anyone should “know better?” Look around you. We’re a stone’s throw from the Flat Earth debate at any given moment. (Phat Earth, baby.) It remains you can tell the hoi polloi anything, and if the popular opinion backs it, so shall they believe. If tomorrow I claim that the Great Goddess, em, Tiamat, we’ll say, farted out the universe the morning after a huge self-indulgent bender and enough popular people (kings, priests, lords = politicians) believe it than that is exactly what Tom, Dick and Grug are going to cling to.
SCIENCE once taught the world was flat. Or a disc. Or an oblong apparatus riding a turtle shell. Point is, anything can say anything else and anyone will believe anything. Time doesn’t change that. CoVid: no matter who’s right or wrong, someone is going to end up looking incredibly stupid in someone’s history books – assuming there’s a history to be had. Jury’s out to lunch.
And why should “time,” (read causality) commonly understood as an unfeeling catabolic causality and not necessarily an archetypal entity, necessarily enforce “the narrative?” Burning witches is bad, how does that relate, for example, to people debating some other pet cause marked for propagandising? Has human nature changed? It has not. Today people mention the Witch Kindlers only as a means of swaying Overton Windows, fighting over rights to archetypes so they can claim to be evolved. Contrarily, in most ways time is seeing most people actively devolve, paradoxically suggesting our fire worshipping fathers who understood the meaning and value of life, love, sex and material goodness weren’t the witless apes we think. Projection, maybe… Curiously, social causes aren’t stopping that inescapable decline we all debate the root of. Indeed, it seems, the more inexplicably dissociative causes society at large embraces, the more rapid that devolution becomes. Plummeting IQs, spiralling crime – time isn’t stopping that. CAUSALITY is making it worse. Why? You probably know why. Certainly not the dissolution of family, dismantling of tribe, liquefying of race and all inborne markers, like gender. Whilst offering no truly meaningful alternative. Which would be fine, I suppose, if dissenters weren’t browbeaten back into the Funko Pop Aisle to consume unlimited product as a means of causally addressing the lack of objective self in society. Because, realistically, generic opinions regarding love an identity do not make – one needs a foundation to buid a house upon, and sadly, the current model of equalisation involves wrecking the foundation of every house, burying them, and altering the future blueprints to make it seem like nobody ever had one. Which, frankly, won’t do what most people slavishly going along go get along would want.
The transvaluation of identity resulting in a migratory pattern of sublimated escapism dominating sight unseen the background process of the mind, preventing expansion and evolution of self. The result? Degeneration from desperation. The debate has raged for centuries, and across at least 109 countries. Or maybe it hasn’t. How would I know? I’m just an idiot in the Current Year, inextricably inferior to the Serene Genius of the Future Year. Following time bias, all I am is tomorrow’s caveman, so I might as well go back down cellar and bang rocks dumbells together singing hymns to the Venus Dolni Vestonice, or something. Happy Monday, citizens of Clown World. Glorious Fat lady: sing!
…
Now would somebody go feed Tiamat? I have to go to work.
…
…
The Culprits:
- Both podcasts appear discontinued, but if either authoress should swear against Fair Use of her link, she may let me know and I shall scrub it. My aim isn’t to scrutinise individuals so much as systems.
The Serpent's Loft 
Can you grok the notion of simultaneous time, that everything is happening at once? In other words, our perception of time may depend on focus, what we attend to in any given Now. The Now contains, perhaps, all potentialities of past, present, and future. Within that potential reality, there is room for multiple genders, or a unisexual species, as with unicellular organisms that propagate by division.
You mention a progression over time, but you also admit that “progress” is a matter of perception and politics.
Have we progressed as a species? That depends on how you define “progress” and “species”. Time may change our definitions of both, as well as our understanding of time itself.
LikeLiked by 3 people
To a degree. I have considered that perception, as we have it, is synaptic adaptation which cannot fully elucidate existence.
As to the question of gendering, I suppose anything could be possible. However, ultimately, the reality I inhabit is produced by polarities, dialectic tension and synthesis, the human crux of which is, wait for it, engendered by the oppositional attraction/copulation/reproduction phases which so seemingly neatly reflect cosmological mythic cycles.
Yes, the species question is interesting. Personally, I think it is a limiting factor. For example: oneracehumanrace. Is that true? We can project racism onto science by claiming that Neandertal, Cro Magnon and Homo Sapiens were competing species. And yet in some ways a deconstructed Caucasoid resembles a reconstructed Neandertal or Cro Magnon than, say, a Negroid or Mongoloid. But because there are such value judgements on what could be banal observations, they zte projected backwards. I think.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I’m fine with polarity. It’s the way of most life on earth, as far as we know.
Can you consider that the human sexual dynamics have been conditioned over time to result in a basic disconnect between the intents and purposes of male and female?
Of course I know only one culture and time, but I was raised with the idea that it’s a competition between male and female, but both lose in the contest. When it comes to propagation, we supposedly like to think it’s a partnership, but often it does not work out that way.
You mention witches, and in Genesis, Eve is the cause of humanity’s fall, by her curiosity/temptation. By extension and implication, women have been associated with evil. They are man’s undoers, not to be trusted, or even respected. In my experience, women also take this attitude with other women, and with themselves, to the detriment of all.
I can come up with many associations, including allusions to Greek mythology, in which the goddesses are vain and shallow. Helen of Troy brought on the Trojan war by running off with Paris, butno one blamed him. They blamed Aphrodite/Venus for promising the most beautiful woman.
I’ll end this diatribe by asserting that those stories were conceived and written by men. Go figure.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Funny you should ask. Yes. Allow me some time to gather my thoughts in the shape of links.
LikeLiked by 1 person
https://spergbox.wordpress.com/?s=Sophia
The first poem. Once More Unto The Sophist Breach. Apologia Pro Gnosticismos. Concerted Cosmological Contrivances.
These deal more or less with my thoughts of Eve as a Sophianic metaphor, balancing matriarchy and patriarchy, and and so on.
LikeLike
You ask for one minut and take four! ☝
LikeLiked by 2 people
Fordi jeg er en trollmand, jeg kan går det. ;p
LikeLiked by 2 people
Du har ret!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tak. Jeg gør, hvad jeg kan.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Det samme her.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have to say, it makes my heart glad that wizard is troll-man. That could work so many ways.
LikeLike
I am sorry, but in Danish it’s “troldmand”!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ach, thank you. Working on memory here and, for shame, several months without practise. Troldmand. Troldmand. Dankesehr.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Troldmand på norsk er “trollmann”. Det svenske ord for troldmand er vist det samme som rigtig dansk.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jeg forstår nu, tak!
LikeLiked by 1 person