PDA

View Full Version : Dianic Cosmology



Mithrea
May 15th, 2008, 03:17 PM
I'm doing some research for an essay I'm writing and ran across this essay:

http://www.paganet.org/pnn/v07/i1/feature_sample2.php

Maybe some of you have seen it, but I had not. I tend to be a isolationist Dianic (which I figure some Dianics would see as an oxymoron) so it's been a while since I actually looked into what others were saying. Anyway, Sage Starwalker's premise is basically that arguments of polarity are inconsequential and distract us from the true work of witches.

She goes on to describe Wiccan cosmology--I never realized just how not-Wiccan I am until I read this article.

Anyway, thoughts, comments on the article?

alwaysfallingup
May 17th, 2008, 03:24 PM
I thought the article was an interesting read. I've really become fascinated by physics and it's relatedness and inter-relatedness to spirituality.

On the polarity issue, I really find that "polarity" just tends to divide us into groups, neat little categories that we may or may not wish to be identified with. Dualism doesn't let anything just be itself, it aligns and alienates and connotes. I think that polarity magick is an effective way to raise energy, but I feel that personally I feel like I can't embrace a system that cuts and cauterizes everything into "THIS OR THAT" and never allows "this AND that and maybe another, too."

Mithrea
May 17th, 2008, 04:33 PM
I think that polarity magick is an effective way to raise energy, but I feel that personally I feel like I can't embrace a system that cuts and cauterizes everything into "THIS OR THAT" and never allows "this AND that and maybe another, too."

Not to mention that when there is a "THIS OR THAT" situation, there is always one side that is clearly the higher ranking, preferred one. Black/White, Female/Male, Dark/Light . . . one is always "good" or preferred.

The Goddess is to me, this and that and this other and that other and those others and so on and so forth. This is why I'm Goddess focused instead of Wiccan. I have trouble seeing the God as whole (because he has never been presented to me as whole).

But I ramble . . . and I'm not sure I'm being so eloquent or even if I make sense :weirdsmil

alwaysfallingup
May 18th, 2008, 07:19 PM
Not to mention that when there is a "THIS OR THAT" situation, there is always one side that is clearly the higher ranking, preferred one. Black/White, Female/Male, Dark/Light . . . one is always "good" or preferred.

The Goddess is to me, this and that and this other and that other and those others and so on and so forth. This is why I'm Goddess focused instead of Wiccan. I have trouble seeing the God as whole (because he has never been presented to me as whole).

But I ramble . . . and I'm not sure I'm being so eloquent or even if I make sense :weirdsmil

No, I get what you're saying. :thumbsup:

I was just talking to my husband the other night about how it's really frustrating to me that in a duality-based system, something can never be just "dark." Because in this world, "dark" means bad/dangerous/ignorant/less. It frustrates me that something just can't be itself.

Mithrea
May 18th, 2008, 10:14 PM
No, I get what you're saying. :thumbsup:

I was just talking to my husband the other night about how it's really frustrating to me that in a duality-based system, something can never be just "dark." Because in this world, "dark" means bad/dangerous/ignorant/less. It frustrates me that something just can't be itself.

Erg, that's one of my big pet peeves about people. I have a bumper sticker that says "Be What You Are" -- and I mean it! LOL :weirdsmil

RavenStars
May 22nd, 2008, 12:10 AM
I, too, have always had problems with duality. Personally a male god has never spoken to me. Surely some of this is rebellion against my Catholic roots. For a long time I felt that I could better relate to the Goddess because she was female---although I never found a traditional name for her. As I get a more pantheistic approach to immanence I find at times that I don't have to have a gender to the Divine. I choose to call her Goddess, but the universe and all it contains is not limited by a gender. I like "this, that and the others". I too spent time in the Wiccan world view, but I've never found power through gender opposites. I most certainly don't need to empower or enable male energies within myself! Today, I just hate to leave anything else out of the equation because of a dualistic world view.

RainInanna
May 26th, 2008, 11:35 AM
Uh oh, the link comes off as broken to me, I'll try it again later.

Not sure how I missed this discussion earlier.

I will say that I tend to disregard polarity. I find too often it requires fitting things into one pole or the other, and focuses too much on their differences, even as some insist poles are ends of a spectrum. To speak of polarity is to literally refer to the poles - the opposite ends. So even if you say "well the poles are just ends of a spectrum" then I think, why speak of poles at all, rather than the whole spectrum. Know what I mean?

Too often people use the polarity excuse to argue whether women's mysteries and goddess paths are ok. After all, if the goddess exists, surely the god must also exist in this dual, polar idea of deity, right? Except I don't think in dual or polar, I find it divides people as often as it helps them. It insists that both poles are necessary and arbitrarily assigns them opposite values, whereas there's no need to. All values lie within my spectrum, and I choose to focus on the unity of that spectrum, rather than the duality imposed by marking poles on it. YMMV.

alwaysfallingup
May 26th, 2008, 08:29 PM
Too often people use the polarity excuse to argue whether women's mysteries and goddess paths are ok. After all, if the goddess exists, surely the god must also exist in this dual, polar idea of deity, right? Except I don't think in dual or polar, I find it divides people as often as it helps them. It insists that both poles are necessary and arbitrarily assigns them opposite values, whereas there's no need to. All values lie within my spectrum, and I choose to focus on the unity of that spectrum, rather than the duality imposed by marking poles on it. YMMV.

I really like the way you've expressed these ideas, especially the idea of the unity of the spectrum.