Joseph Campbell and Goddess Worship

Leo Volont

Registered Senior Member
Joseph Campbell and Goddess Worship

There are certain consolations in being impressionable and stupid, for instance, you may read books with which you entirely agree, that is, you will not be bringing anything contradictory to the table.

Joseph Campbell presents enough information to show that every viable Civilization had at its cure a belief in the Mother Goddess. He shows that every Destroyer militated against Mother Goddess Worship. And yet, after all of that, he presents Western Civilization as the First Successful Barbarian Civilization, not seeing his contradiction, or supposing his audience too stupid to catch on. He quite ignores that Western Civilization was formed for some 14 hundred years around the Worship of the Virgin Mary, who, afterall, even he acknowledges is another aspect of the Mother Goddess.

What may be slowing down Joseph Campbell, if he is actually sincere, is his being an Atheist, that is, carrying the assumption that Religious Beliefs are formulated by cynical committees in smoky rooms – that Religions are not essentially Real.

From my own experience – through actual dreams and visions, which one can never fake to oneself – the Goddess Mother is a recurrent and powerful Entity within the workings of the Psyche. And then we have the instances of Her Saints, Her Devotees, having been the most powerful Saints in their Civilizations. In the face of this we have Joseph Campbell projecting the intellectual’s fantasy that intellectuals actually have ever had the least bit of influence by simply making up useful fictions to achieve certain political ends. That is what Barbarians do.

So reading Joseph Campbell is something of a mixed bag. He presents plenty of information which is good in itself, but then he tries to spin it to support the War of the Western Barbarians against the Civilized World. He brings to mind all the Pre-War Intellectuals who spoke of Arian and Teutonic Racial Superiority, because brutes from that Race were able to destroy, during the Iron Age, many of the southern Civilizations. People forget how much Intellectual Support the Nazis got from, well, intellectuals. Joseph Campbell is simply rehashing all the same arguments. He doesn’t call his Master Race Arian, or Teutonic, or specifically German. Now he includes all of the West. But it is all still Nazism. And the argument is easy enough to refute. Barbarians would never stand a chance against a thriving Civilization in its prime. It is only when Civilizations have grown old and move away from their original Civilizing Principals that they can weaken and become vulnerable to barbarian onslaught.

Anyway, the book I am reading is Joseph Campbell’s “Occidental Mythology”. He wrote a series of books, but he constantly goes back over what he had uncovered in the other books of the series, and so I can’t see wasting time or money for any more than just the one book.
 
I find you a strange, and interesting character Leo. can't quite make you out. i dont mean this with any disrespect, i am being frank is all

we seem to agree on things, yet VASTLY disagree on an essential which i will explain

ok, we agree on principle about Campbell. You are right, he is contradictory. onone hand he seems to respect Goddess religion, and the next he is saying the Grecian patriarchal values were inevitable and are the best
His belief is in a 'monomyth'--a 'perennial philosophy' which is idealist and which we all belief systems are heading/'really' believed in and we must fit into ...hence 'mono'

so i agree with you there

what i DONT agree with you is your assumption that The Churh's 'recognition' of the Virgin Mary was Goddess religion. it wasn't. What it WAs was the deifying of a subservient ASPECT of a Goddess that the patriarchs, including the Catholic church had cut in primarily two aspects. The passive 'Virgin' etc and the 'demonic' WILD aspect which becomes scapgat and is translated into the image of 'satan' or the 'devil'...where even there she loses her gender to a MALE god!

ok, i agree with you that the later transition from Catholicsm to Protestanism lost even THAt connection with an aspect of the Goddess, but really the whole caboodle was al ready a disasterrous movement ready to happen
The Catholic chruch has been reponsible for terrible corruption, extortion, tortures, murder....you name it--collaboration with nazism, etcetera. And for which they still refuse to apologize
 
duendy said:
what i DONT agree with you is your assumption that The Churh's 'recognition' of the Virgin Mary was Goddess religion. it wasn't. What it WAs was the deifying of a subservient ASPECT of a Goddess that the patriarchs, including the Catholic church had cut in primarily two aspects. The passive 'Virgin' etc and the 'demonic' WILD aspect which becomes scapgat and is translated into the image of 'satan' or the 'devil'...where even there she loses her gender to a MALE god!

It is easy to say that Catholicism was about female subservience, but we simply do not see that in the heyday of Catholic Civilization. Perhaps it is what the Pauline Bishops desired, and it is what defenders of Patriarches and Barbarians point to when they wish to defend the foundations of Latin Europe. But it doesn't take but the barest look at the Historical Data to disclose that the Catholic Church of the High Middle Ages, in its Popular Aspect, belonged entirely to Mary Worship and was more influenced by Her Saints than by the Bishops who were treated much as we would treat ordinary Government Officials and Magistrates. The Popular Heart and Mind were swayed by the Saints and by the Religion of the Virgin Mary. For instance -- the most famous Super Rock Star of the 11th Century was Bernard of Clairveaux. Is he remembered for any prayer to Jesus or God the Father? No. He is famous for his Marian Prayers and his work on the almost lewd Song of Solomon. The fixation of Catholicism at its Zenith was Marian. It was not Patriarchal. The Protestant Reformation, where it did oppose the Catholic Church on actual Theological Issues, was most vehement, and still is, on the Mary Worship controversy.

But yes, Modern Goddess Iconography has developed from older Civilization Iconography. For instance, the most popular Icon of Mary -- given in vision to a novice Nun in Paris in 1830 -- shows Her standing upon a snake. In ancient Iconography, yes, the Goddess is shown in a sort of partnership with the Serpent. It was enough that the Goddess was identified with this Life Force Symbol. But have we not evolved? Now, the Serpent is still there, but the Goddess Mother is now shown in clear Transcendence to Life. Spirit is shown to rise above mere Physical Life.

Also, we also need to factor in the unfortunate fact that all of the original Mother Goddess Civilization did indeed collapse. Apparently their were forces involved in their internal dynamics which militated against their Civilizing Principals. AND perhaps these destructive factors can be symbolized along with the general Life Force as "The Serpent". Indeed, when ever anybody wants to make anything in the world the least bit less corrupt, we are endlessly lectured that "people are people" and nothing will ever be perfect. We are told to accept "The Serpent". So the new Icon for the Next Stage of Civilization will show the Mother Goddess in in clear Transcendence of the Barbarian Principal of the Snake.

To check out that New Iconic Image: http://www.discountcatholicstore.com/images/pr80-5010.jpg
 
Leo Volont said:
It is easy to say that Catholicism was about female subservience, but we simply do not see that in the heyday of Catholic Civilization.

D{ oh, come off it, mate. need i remind you of your dogma?:
ok i will: "But I want to understand that the head of every man is Chirst, the head of a woman is here husband, and the head of Christ is God, but the woman is the glory of man (1 Cor. 11:3,7)

so it is writ so men behave the same...the patriarchy. 'rule of the fathers'?

Perhaps it is what the Pauline Bishops desired, and it is what defenders of Patriarches and Barbarians point to when they wish to defend the foundations of Latin Europe. But it doesn't take but the barest look at the Historical Data to disclose that the Catholic Church of the High Middle Ages, in its Popular Aspect, belonged entirely to Mary Worship and was more influenced by Her Saints than by the Bishops who were treated much as we would treat ordinary Government Officials and Magistrates. The Popular Heart and Mind were swayed by the Saints and by the Religion of the Virgin Mary.

D(( of COURSE, but only in a relatively superficial way. You have to understand the utter ruthlesness and violence used by our favourite people to crush the REAL whole Goddess! The same pattern of the people's resiliance to this oppressive onslaught by the patriarchs is evidenced in other places. In ancient Israel where the 'God' was pushed on the people, the people for a long time still stayed with Goddess....etc

For instance -- the most famous Super Rock Star of the 11th Century was Bernard of Clairveaux. Is he remembered for any prayer to Jesus or God the Father? No. He is famous for his Marian Prayers and his work on the almost lewd Song of Solomon. The fixation of Catholicism at its Zenith was Marian. It was not Patriarchal.

D)) see previous response. 'Marian' is just a retreating shadow of real orgiastic Goddess celebration

The Protestant Reformation, where it did oppose the Catholic Church on actual Theological Issues, was most vehement, and still is, on the Mary Worship controversy.

D)) Agreed. they got rid of all the remaining 'colour' of the last remnants of 'paganism' for sure. but that dont make the Catoliks 'cool'...!

But yes, Modern Goddess Iconography has developed from older Civilization Iconography. For instance, the most popular Icon of Mary -- given in vision to a novice Nun in Paris in 1830 -- shows Her standing upon a snake.

D)) Many ancient churches have images of St Michael or St George slaying the Dragon/Serpent, and true Madonna is seen doing so too

In ancient Iconography, yes, the Goddess is shown in a sort of partnership with the Serpent.

D)) emmm, "SORT OF"...the Serpent Is Goddess. IS earth and comsic energy. IS hallucinogenic fruit and experience. And ancient images of the Serpent in the Tree in the Garden of Eden show it with Godeess' head and arms. so there is no 'sort of'. Serpent is very much a central motif

It was enough that the Goddess was identified with this Life Force Symbol. But have we not evolved?

D)) who is 'we'?
what I see is DE-volve...

Now, the Serpent is still there, but the Goddess Mother is now shown in clear Transcendence to Life. Spirit is shown to rise above mere Physical Life.

D)) ahaaaa. you show true clours here alright Leo, and reveal just where it all went pear-shaped
In that spirit became divorced from Nature/matter/mater/Mother, and began lordin it over the 'latter'. That is when shit hits fan mythologically and metorphorically speaking, and actually speaking to.

Also, we also need to factor in the unfortunate fact that all of the original Mother Goddess Civilization did indeed collapse. Apparently their were forces involved in their internal dynamics which militated against their Civilizing Principals.

D)) that is speculation. yu dont know this for sure. MUCH evidence,of course, has been destroyed by patriarchies, and distorted. But there ARe hints that there were more peaceful times than the patriarchal 'power OVEr paradgim' which we are STILL under!

AND perhaps these destructive factors can be symbolized along with the general Life Force as "The Serpent". Indeed, when ever anybody wants to make anything in the world the least bit less corrupt, we are endlessly lectured that "people are people" and nothing will ever be perfect. We are told to accept "The Serpent". So the new Icon for the Next Stage of Civilization will show the Mother Goddess in in clear Transcendence of the Barbarian Principal of the Snake.

D)) No. a confused argument. The Sepent energies. the actual visceral awareness of our interealtionship with dynamic living Nature is what we have drastically LOSt in our mechanizeed culture. THAt is what you should bemoan Leo

To check out that New Iconic Image: http://www.discountcatholicstore.com/images/pr80-5010.jpg

i have other plans
 
Dear Duendy,

You don't need to answer each statement with a counter-statement... don't you think that rather gets out of hand.

Would it be better to treat as much of it as holistically as possible and write a sort of counter-essay. If you have more than one essay suggested to you by a post, then simply enter more than one reply.

But to divide up a Post into over 20 sections and write 20 odd replies to each sentence... it is all quite overwhelming. and it looks nitpicky. Instead of making your own point, you are satisfied with being merely reactive.

Really, you are one of the more intelligent Posters on this site, so don't waste your time criticizing my puntuation... read my entire essay and then respond with one of your own. It would be far more readable and interesting that way... for both us and all of the others.
 
HAHAHAAAAAAaaaa....that used to be my very style. i hated it when my debate was cut up.........but i sometimes now do see that when people come with such sweeping assertions it helps to analze them. but your remark really brought back what i had accused this other person of once

ok. you might see some other strings of me bow then.....depending on me mood...hehe
 
duendy said:
HAHAHAAAAAAaaaa....that used to be my very style. i hated it when my debate was cut up.........but i sometimes now do see that when people come with such sweeping assertions it helps to analze them. but your remark really brought back what i had accused this other person of once

ok. you might see some other strings of me bow then.....depending on me mood...hehe

Good.

Then you know what I am talking about.

When someone makes 20 discreet comments, there is really nothing left to say. It beyond the realm of possibility to comment significantly on each one of them... particularly if you would come back and again dissect each sentence. It would multiply up like rabbits.

Also, it would seem to be idiotic to treat what you have to say as so overwhelmingly significant, for afterall, we are dealing here not so much with any 'facts' as with opinion about Joseph Campbell's opinion. It would seem silly to have 'serious' comments on every single sentence I should have to say concerning the opinions of that quissling neonazi. And yes, in regards to my opinion, ... simply in the spirit of being contrary it would be easy enough to contrive something to say in the spirit of sheer opposition... as somebody else on this Page has recently said, it is easy enough to take either side in a debate. If that is what you were doing, then, frankly, who cares what you say.
 
duendy said:
YES...we get your point Leo......

sheeeesh!

Well, I was really inviting you to sum up your statements in a little essay... so I would not have to fetch my glasses and try to decypher your scattered comments in those wee little quote font letters.

But you've driven me to it.

Many intellectuals think that they can embarrass Marians by suggesting the the Mother Goddess had not always been so prim and proper. Well, why should we not suppose that as Humanity matures, our Gods cannot mature with us?

I suggest that Joseph Campbell book "Occidental Mythology" -- he displays and explains a great deal of iconography. We can see that the Mother Goddess used to be on almost an equal footing with the Life Force and Libido Symbols, the Serpents. The Trees of Life and all that.

We can compare those Icons to the most recent Supernatural Images -- not developed by Committee but witnessed by Visionaries and Seers -- we have the Goddess Mother now standing upon the Serpent with the World at Her Feet. It is a symbol for Transcendence.

We need to consider that Humanity has only be experimenting with Civilization. We have had no real Civilization yet. Maybe we had the motor cranking, and the ignition caught a few times, but it never really revved up and got going. the Religious Mix was never quite right.

I suppose that as we advance spiritually, we are permitted higher visions of Divinity, and with these Higher Visions, Civilization is given the subliminal support which alone can support the collectivity and the morality which could sustain a lasting, a perpetual Civilization -- The Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.
 
Leo Volont said:
Well, I was really inviting you to sum up your statements in a little essay... so I would not have to fetch my glasses and try to decypher your scattered comments in those wee little quote font letters.

But you've driven me to it.
D--no, YOU have driven you too it

Many intellectuals think that they can embarrass Marians by suggesting the the Mother Goddess had not always been so prim and proper.

D--OWN you embarrassment.

Well, why should we not suppose that as Humanity matures, our Gods cannot mature with us?

D--hah...oh please. you think we are 'mature' NOW? we are about as mature as some 10 year old spoilt brat. and the present 'god' is profit if you haven't noticed and it is compleely fuking up Mother Nature...its Wildness. ...wild Goddess?.....relate the two and you can see the interelated NEED we need to explore here.

I suggest that Joseph Campbell book "Occidental Mythology" -- he displays and explains a great deal of iconography. We can see that the Mother Goddess used to be on almost an equal footing with the Life Force and Libido Symbols, the Serpents. The Trees of Life and all that.

D~~not 'almost', LEO.

We can compare those Icons to the most recent Supernatural Images -- not developed by Committee but witnessed by Visionaries and Seers -- we have the Goddess Mother now standing upon the Serpent with the World at Her Feet. It is a symbol for Transcendence.

D~~ah yes...the New Age-ists. they are all into 'transcendence'. of escaping the grip of Nature. same ol same old fear, but the couch it in terms which helps their self-denial
Actually the Virgin Mary standing on the Serpent is of EXACTLY the same ilk-motif as the St's Michael and George, etc slaying the dragon/serpent. It is an image saying that 'we, the patriarchs are in charge'...it is FEAr of Nature, especially in 'Her' WILd aspect. this means obviously outer AND inner

We need to consider that Humanity has only be experimenting with Civilization. We have had no real Civilization yet. Maybe we had the motor cranking, and the ignition caught a few times, but it never really revved up and got going. the Religious Mix was never quite right.

D--true. not since patriarchy started on its linear path to destruction

I suppose that as we advance spiritually, we are permitted higher visions of Divinity, and with these Higher Visions, Civilization is given the subliminal support which alone can support the collectivity and the morality which could sustain a lasting, a perpetual Civilization -- The Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.

All of that vision seems dodgy and sinister to me. just the term "kingdom of "GOD" on earth" (emphasis mine) is speaking for the patriarchy. it is all there in that sentence
 
duendy said:
All of that vision seems dodgy and sinister to me. just the term "kingdom of "GOD" on earth" (emphasis mine) is speaking for the patriarchy. it is all there in that sentence

You have to remember who was writing. I must be one of the most stauchest Marians who have ever lived. I used the word "Kingdom" because there is no such word as Queendom. Believe me, I was not thinking in terms of gender at all. It is like in the French Language -- some words are masculine, and some are feminine, but it all has nothing to do with sexual gender or patriarchies or matriarchies.

Indeed, if gender terms are to be brought into Spirituality then absolutely everything that would deal with anything Created or in Nature would have to be Feminine. That is Everything, no? The Only Masculine Principal would be Indwelling Spirit -- the Thread which hold together the Oneness of Everything. But the Everything being held together is Feminine.

But all of that applies only if one is making such distinctions.
 
DUENDY says, "...you think we are 'mature' NOW? we are about as mature as some 10 year old spoilt brat. and the present 'god' is profit "

That is hard to refute. That is true, true, true.
 
Also, I love how you two can go back and forth about what is masculine and what is feminine, anthropomorphizing the universe. hahahahahaha.
(sorry about the extra ha's, I went to a show and it seemed that some social drinking was in order, but I am far from drunk. I'm just trying to express my amazement at the audacity of humanity, and felt this was a more good-natured way to post than being clinical about it)
 
cole grey said:
DUENDY says, "...you think we are 'mature' NOW? we are about as mature as some 10 year old spoilt brat. and the present 'god' is profit "

That is hard to refute. That is true, true, true.

Maturity is relative.

If you read enough of Hellenic and Roman History you are struck with the impression that they were giving far greater indulgence to their appetites, and had far less the charitable instincts than we have today.

Yes, I do see how there is still great room for pessimism. But I think every one or two thousand years we should have an advent of a Messiah, whether we are truly ready or not, just to see what will happen; simply to establish a historic metric so that later intellectuals will be able to look back and decide whether they can determine, indeed, whether there really is such a thing as moral progress.
 
cole grey said:
Also, I love how you two can go back and forth about what is masculine and what is feminine, anthropomorphizing the universe. hahahahahaha.
(sorry about the extra ha's, I went to a show and it seemed that some social drinking was in order, but I am far from drunk. I'm just trying to express my amazement at the audacity of humanity, and felt this was a more good-natured way to post than being clinical about it)

One of the greatest failures of historic and traditional Mysticism is in being able to conceptualize the experience. The problem with not being able to attach concepts to the Mystical Experience is that without concepts there is nothing by which the experience can be nailed down to comprehension. Mystics know that they have had Mystical Experiences, but they can't tell you of what they consisted... they know of emotional, and even of some intuitive content, but as far as any information, intellectual content, they draw a huge blank.

If there is such a thing as Evolution, then perhaps this evolution might consist in finally developing a Conceptual Inventory whereby the Mystical Experience of God, of Allah, can finally become Comprehensible... the way that a Salt Solution can finally reach saturation and for the first time in Creation a Salt Crystal could form.

I know of the snobbishness in the Mystical Communities that takes a snotty pious delight in rejecting all Mind, all Concept, all Thought. Yeah, I can see how it works -- leaving behind all mental and perceptual faculties, they can rise higher, not being weighed down. But I can also see that it has been virtually useless for any practical or moral purposes. We need to reach that Stage where someone can see God with their eyes open, and be able to bring back some of the things of Heaven with hands that can grasp.

This is why some of us insist on trying to develop a Conceptual Matrix with which we can capture God.
 
cole grey said:
Also, I love how you two can go back and forth about what is masculine and what is feminine, anthropomorphizing the universe. hahahahahaha.
(sorry about the extra ha's, I went to a show and it seemed that some social drinking was in order, but I am far from drunk. I'm just trying to express my amazement at the audacity of humanity, and felt this was a more good-natured way to post than being clinical about it)

Hey Cole grey, & Leo Volont--btw, cole grey, i love your nickname. dont ask me why...i just do
about your mirth. i am always for humour. and one doesn't have to be churchy serious, or just serious to get insight.
i really got err insight into that when i had a Trip last September--which i will relate about another time

About Kings Queens, and gender, and 'masculine' indwelling spirits

First, i really must point out that this is no little subject--IMO--it is vital to understand. because due to it--to emphasizing the masculine, in ACTUAL life women, and people of a darker colour than white, and poor peoples INCLUDING whites, and other species, and NATURE is under attack. so it is extremely important we take this seriously, though like i said also not oppressing humour
Regardingh Leo saying that using terms has no effect. i challenge that assertion. of course it has. when we say 'king'dom, 'man'kind, and always use 'He' when referring to 'God'--this is all backing up patriarchal indoctrination. patriarchy is about POWER OVER. ultimately ,power over Nature, because since time immemorial, Nature has been understood to be feminine. so, please understand that if MYTH is demonizing the feminine, and thus Nature, then things can only get worse and worse, as it ACTUALLY seems to be. if you dont think it is, well maybe whatEVEr i say woldn't convince you, cept maybe making you live in one of the 'underdeveloped' coutries and really experience the reality of capitalism, which is born from patriarchal industrial fascism

"The Egyptian hieroglyph for "King" is a beautifully drawn bee, thus indicating that it was originally the hieroglyph for 'Queen'. There are no King bees, as Egyptian beekeepers knew perfectly well."
(Shamanism and the Drup Propaganda, by Dan Russell)

And the belief that spirit is masculine is also a patriarchal upstart strategy. saying it is masculine gives it the lordin it over role. it can then claim that Nature/matter/MAter is feminine and thus only a mere receaptacle for the male thrusting spirit, which is "of course" "superior"

Of course cole greay, i know what you mean, and ultimately the MYSTERY is more hermaphrodite, androgynous, ambiguous....but the keeping to a masculine emphasis isthe wrong way, for that patriarchal attitude cares not at all for the deeper side of things. in fact it FEARS the Deep, and that is really dangerous
 
Religions and true? BWHAHAHAHA
Joseph Campbell was and is a great man, you don't even reach to his ankle.
 
Avatar said:
Religions and true? BWHAHAHAHA
Joseph Campbell was and is a great man, you don't even reach to his ankle.

shite...not even his ANKLE??!...ohhh, how lowly i am in the faaace of the looord!"...riipping my vestments. and err what does "BWHAHAHA" mean?
 
Avatar said:
Actually I was addressing the starter of this thread Leo Volont not you :p

oooo p s. sorry. actually i really respect Campbell. have learnt lots from his efforts. but of course i also disagree with some of his conclusions
 
Back
Top