A Critique of Patriarchy
Our planet, viewed wholly, from the perspective of satellite pictures, is perhaps the most obvious way to perceive holistic consciousness. This image represents our "origin" in particular amongst the five elements. The sublime oceans, continents and atmosphere, bathed in the light of the sun's plasma, reveal to us a beauty par excellence. An aesthetic feeling is evoked which brings us beyond the dialectic. If we are to have any meaning, surely it resides quite literally in our contribution towards enhancing our inheritance, planet Earth. To succeed it is essential to recover the holistic consciousness of our species. Those who are "destroyed" will be shielded by their contact with the ultimate understanding of things.
If anything describes our universe in terms of a character, it is a quality of endurance. Intelligence and wisdom endure best. This is supremely expressed as care and is revealed to us beautifully through the holistic systems of nature. "For beauty is nothing but the beginning of terror, which we are still just able to endure, and we are awed by it because it serenely disdains to annihilate us" [Rilke]. The predicate for this terror is the "existing" self. An exposition of the "self" is wholly necessary, for in understanding this phenomena we are able to transcend it and absorb ourselves into holistic consciousness. This exposition will take the form of a brief analysis of Western philosophy, for so long the home of the "I".
The idea of a reality, external to mind, is a fulcrum myth of consciousness. Consciousness is the cosmos, mind is reflected in this matter. Some cultures are familiar with this notion, native North Americans knew that matter reflects the mind. Metaphor rests at the bottom of the separation between reality and consciousness. Consciousness is so integral to the cosmos that the creative idea and the thing are one and the same. But we are part of an aspect of the one in which only a tiny amount of all potentialities appear actual, thus we are prone to delusion. If we where to achieve knowledge of the ultimate truth of things, we would no longer occupy this delusional aspect of the subject/object dichotomy. In this case there would be no "knower" as such, only nirvana. Jesus said nothing is hidden, except that for the purpose of revelation. This is a very deep understanding, it intimates the karmic principle of existence whereby we are immanent in the context of the whole. At the beginning of the Bible, in Genesis, there is a remarkable description of the evolution of the Earth, in which developments are correctly understood chronologically. This understanding was taken from pre-existing matriarchal civilisation which had a powerful intuitive consciousness because it was a holistic consciousness. Ishtar was generous, the jealous God was the invention of the old patriarchal heart. The modern scientific truth of earth history corresponds with that outlined in genesis (if the word God is omitted). But holistic understanding does not correspond with scientific truths insofar as these latter have been expounded. Ironically this is because "God's" ethos has not so far been taken out of the equation in science! Science reconstitutes God's myth in the form of a division. Thus we find in science the irreducible confusion between mass in space and mass as space. The spirit/matter dichotomy here undermines itself and the mathematical abstractions of science are left to connect with "concrete reality" exclusively in the form of numerical predictions.
The morphology of our divided consciousness is a result of developments pre-dating Christianity which crystallised the error. With the relegation of Aphrodite in favour of Apollo, we have almost the final demise of holistic mentality. The chthonic forces of the Earth cult gave way to the hierarchical sky cult of Apollo, here the ego establishes itself as the real. It justifies itself through reason, which is used as a weapon of power [Foucault]. Nature becomes externalised as a foe to be conquered. Women are perceived as only part of this natural world, in Christianity as specifically its most evil criteria. To be fully human under patriarchy means to be "the man of reason". This turn for the worse intensified after Parmenides, who probably represented philosophy's last holistic contact in the West. The views Parmenides held came to him in a vision from a Goddess. He contrasted the changing perceptible world and the unchanging eternal intelligible world. For him the universe was in truth static and without dimension. The apparent contradiction this made for the will exercised Western philosophy ever since.
Since nature is portrayed as feminine, and women are often thought of as closer to nature than men, women's physiological connection with birth and childcare have partly led to this close association with nature. The menstrual cycle, linked to Lunar cycles, are seen as evidence of women's closeness to the body and natural rhythms. Our cultural image of the "premenstrual woman" as irrational and overemotional typifies this association between women, the body, nature and the irrational. We need to focus on these connections, and analyse how they devalue and oppress both women and nature.
Patriarchal society is built on four interlocking pillars; sexism, racism, class exploitation and environmental destruction. Gender, class, race and nature all must be theorized together if we are to finally move beyond these oppressions... by being aware of how oppression focuses on embodiment we can also theorise other related oppressions such as those against the aged, the disabled and against alternative sexualities.
A feminist analysis of power relations rejects any form of hierarchy. The emphasis is on shared power, finding our own "power-from-within" rather than needing to impose the manipulation and control of "power-over".
Oppression of nature and women emerged with a Western ideology called patriarchy which arose roughly 5,000 years ago.
Western patriarchal thinking is based on "dualism", a world view that orders the world by dividing it into opposed pairs of concepts: mind is split from body, spirit from matter, male from female, culture from nature. One concept in each pair is deemed superior to the other. This "other" is sometimes demonised, and always discriminated against. Concepts on both sides are bound into complex relationships which become mutually reinforcing. Groups that are oppressed in our society are often associated with the body, rather than than the mind, and may be portrayed as intuitive but overemotional.
The classic form of this paradigm creates a hierarchy of value as follows : God, man, woman, children, animals , "nature". This hierarchy clearly shows the common prejudices of sexism and speciesism. Many aspects of racism, classism and imperialism operate through this same hierarchy.
The patriarchal belief system valorises "masculine" qualities of reason and analysis and characterises intuitive, emotional "feminine" qualities as passive, weak and irrational and therefore inferior. Qualities such as passivity, weakness and irrationality are not in themselves bad, but they are within the ideology of Patriarchal dualism. It can be educational to note our own feelings about such qualities. Some theorists have suggested that this degrading of the "other" is driven by fear of nature and mortality, and because of their biological connection with birth women are a constant reminder of death. It defines nature as a reality below and separated from 'man', rather than one nexus in which humanity itself is inseparably embedded. We need a radical critique of the categories of "nature" and "culture" together with an affirmation of the degraded partner in all the patriarchal dualities. "Feminism" qualities such as co-operation, nurturing, being supportive, nonviolent and sensual are especially appropriate for creating an environmentally-aware society. Traditional "masculine" qualities like competitiveness, individuality, assertiveness, leadership, and intellectuality, are valuable in appropriate contexts and should be integrated with "feminism" qualities in a balanced person.
A critique of patriarchy is not just an intellectual attack on men. Most feminists, though not all, do not see men as "the enemy". Patriarchy is a particular way of thinking which can used by any gender, whereas ecofeminism can be a common ground for both sexes: "masculine" and "feminine" qualities are innate to the sexes or are simply human character traits common to us all. Soft "feminine" qualities are socially-imposed as part of a patriarchal strategy of oppression, therefore women's values, centred around life-giving, must be revalued. We know how to feel for others because we have been socialised that way! Although there is a deep connection between women and nature, it is socially-created. Revaluing this bond is important, but it is also vital to change relationships between men and women and between men and nature. Men have as much potential as women to adopt a deep environmental awareness, but they will need to work harder to fully embrace those values. The whole range of human possibilities - aggression, nurture, compassion, cruelty, creativity, passivity, etc - as available to us all; not divided by gender, neither inner nor outer. In a time before written history - some 250,000 years ago - cooperation, not competition, was valued. During this period female deities were worshipped and societies were women-centered. Patriarchy as the root cause of dysfunctional human behaviour, our separation from nature goes back some 20,000 years ago to the time when humans shifted from being a gatherer/hunter culture to domesticating plants and animals. With respect for non-linear, non-rational, emotional understanding, it's not surprising that spirituality is the core element.
The patriarchy can only be negated through the power of the feminine, which permits the foundation of a consciousness suitable for dissolving duality. Female recognition of their own identities as self-negating when they are complicit to patriarchy is becoming endemic. In appreciating the holistic being of the matriarchy (which makes up the bulk of human history), women can unite and experience identities free from meanings constrained under duality. These meanings are extremely negatively loaded under patriarchy. They define females typically as "not man", this union of identity only as absence causes the female to recognise her meaning principally in the passive sense. In this context sexual union translates itself into the submissive orgasm if the subject believes it is expressing "femininity" as a response to ":ity." Female emancipation is hampered by the bodily substantiation of "feminine" identity in the orgasm, people tend to be what they orgasm for. It is the source of our becoming and the pin of our identity. The desire for orgasm plays the tune of our personality, it has dominated the axis of human understanding and prevented it from penetrating duality. As the basis of our persona, sex has kept us unconscious. All religion has occupied this unconscious space between birth and death. The idea of birth and death itself is a function of this unconscious space, for birth and death exist in the mind and nowhere else.
Issues of core identity carried by sex were first raised by Freud, so it is very recent. This alerts us to the incipient nature of patriarchy which, via sexual morality and its agency the church, has successfully suppressed consciousness, making it compliant to its own dimension. The sexual pin of identity is the problematic which the Sanctuary of Female Supremacy wishes to redress. Holistic consciousness is not possible within identities which believe in the existence of male and female essences. Such a meaning, cogent in sexual desire, will always polarise into an immutable truth. This will incapacitate an individuals ability to express itself as whatever, irrespective of its sex. In the construction of identity gender represents the paramount dimension. It is so all pervasive that it pleads for an understanding at the psycho-analytic level. Chodorow argues that Freud's theory, when scrutinised, provides an intriguing platform for theorising gender relationships. She reverses Freud, it is in the idea of masculinity where tension and ambiguity are found. It is the boy who must differentiate himself from the mother, and do so definitively. The girl experiences a continuity of feeling, producing emotional empathy. The boundary of the self is not such an issue for women. These emotional dynamics, developing as part of the very process of self information, are rooted in this contrast of meaning between male and female.
Women's egos are formed less dramatically and are not so emotionally driven to opposition. The primary carer for children is female, the infants early relationship as either reciprocal or oppositional is central to its sense of self. This difference in consciousness grows with the language. By the time the infant is ready to talk, the meaning of female is already understood in the negative passive sense. Language reflects the patriarchal mode of production in the constitution of meaning. So our language always belittles the female with diminutives, inferring an inferior symbolic position. Because she is the producer of human beings (which is anathema to God as the creative principle) her bodily processes become the focus of this negative attribution. Interestingly males become masochists when their own identity inducts a negative appraisal of the body from idioms hostile to nature - like Christianity. This phenomena is most apparent in extremely patriarchal families which incorporate the "high" moral ground. These conditions inflate the ego which goes on to actually invert itself in the face of ineluctable sexual impulses. Sherry Ortner sees the pan-universal relegation of women as a function of their association with nature. Cultures everywhere value their own cultural products above the dignity of the physical world. So it accords that males are identified with culture and women with nature. She specifies that this association is not in itself natural but is a symbolic component of patriarchy. Who, after all, is the one who sees this proximity of women to nature? Do women feel themselves more natural than men? Within reason the proposition seems absurd, but this has been the prevailing belief since the advent of patriarchy, where reason is supposed to rule! Here again reason succumbs to paradox, where it stands not so much as a basis for truth, but as a basis of delusion. Such minds as are based in duality can never know holistic consciousness, by nature they are attracted and repelled by forces thought external. The strongest of these forces is our source of becoming; this sexual impulse, when characterised within the binary opposition of patriarchy, produces conceptual myopia. Marx was unable to fathom the vital nature of the male/female dichotomy in its effective meaning. This is both because, and despite, the fact that for Marx the distinction between "essence" and "appearance" in no sense implies that "appearance" is less "real" than "essence". The distinction between "essence" and "appearance" refers to different levels of determination, that is in the last analysis to the process of cognition, not to different degrees of reality. His failure to identify the meaning of the appearance between men and women as a cognitive state caused socialism to fail. For hierarchies are the product of men realising their identities in the spirit and will to power. This irrespective of any intention for justice, it is ambition which prevails. Words of the ilk of "truth", "spirit" and "essence" are underlined by ambitions of the ego and invariably denote the trail of duality to an origin, viz. the deluded "I".
Let us say straight away what the "I" is. The "I" is a conceived object of the mind. It is as real as the round square or perfect circle, which, in its "airs", appears unrelated to body and mind. Mind is a surface of emergence patterned by discursive practice: That is from peculiar socio-political categories pertaining to identity.
This vivid apparition grasps at a self-identity of the person. But it is the "I" itself which constitutes a refutation of our real universal self as being. Spinoza noted that self preservation is the fundamental motive of the passions; but also self preservation alters its character when we realise that what is real and positive in us is what unites us to the whole and not what preserves the appearance of separateness. The refutation of our universal self by the "I" can be overcome by the Buddhist view of emptiness, a view so empty it is non-existent. All other views are delusional and consequently fall into two types which manifest duality. These are the speculative and the instinctive. The former arose in principle when religion first separated mind and matter by the idea of the creator. To accept a belief in the true existence of a phenomenon, be it "subjective" (as in "I") or "objective (as in "world"), would be identified as a speculative delusion. Instinctive delusions are more "innocent" and are a product of holistic relations. These latter form the Heraclitean side of the antinomy demonstrated by Kant, whereby flux is juxtaposed against Parmenidean stasis.
(Both accounts can be logically "proved" despite being contradictory). Thus the search for the existence of the "I" has led Western philosophy on its merry dance! The intensity of the attempt to prove the "I" has been matched only by the lack of certitude. Indeed such philosophy exists best as an example of the nature of this self grasping for identity. It has been a holy grail for millennia, despite this, the "self" was never found. If anything is distinct, it is the lack of a real self identity of the person. The appearing "I" is just that: an appearance. Reality has to be conceived of as essentially static, with apparent change an artefact of a mental perspective. The "self" is the supreme metaphor created out of the imagination of time. Use of metaphor involves the awareness of a duality of sense and the pretence that the two different senses unawareness of the senses and their duality, are one. Kant thought space was the exterior axis of the self, and time its interior axis. The appearance of self is established by this internality and externality. In schizophrenia, the boundary of self and other are confused. Memory and desire produce a sense of continuity and wholeness, a direction in time which enables the "I" to emerge as a seeming continuous being with an identity. Furthermore this "I" becomes self referent to its own narrative and is not dependent on differences from another.
This internal "I" is usually referred to as conscience. It is the source of Heidegger's "resoluteness". But with Heidegger the ego is not isolated, instead it is in the world. The existentialist view has carried on the struggle to establish the sovereignty of the individual through the concept of authenticity. In Heidegger this is established through an authentic relation with death. Nothingness is never far from the existential heart, nor however is duality. Being for-itself and being in-itself was a contrast heralded in the phenomenology of Husserl and Heidegger. The contrast continued Kants distinction between the perspective of agency or freedom and that of awareness of the ordinary phenomenal world. The in-itself is the contingent being of all things in the world from cliffs and sea to televisions. Being for-itself is the mode of existence of consciousness, consisting in its own activity and purposive nature. Sartre, like Heidegger, uses phenomenology to attack the Cartesian ergo sum. There is no "I" that thinks, but only thought and reflection upon this thought. With Sartre the dissolution of the Cartesian egological "self" initiated by Nietzsche reaches its climax. There is no entity that is original, no basis for a reality of ego. Indeed the self only succeeds in reaching authenticity through the act of evacuating into the world. Solipsism becomes unthinkable from the moment that the "I" no longer has a privileged status. Philosophically, Sartre stands in opposition to Hegels absolute idealism but the male ego follows again the same path in the process of exposition. Having established an understanding within holistic practice their theses suffer complication via the reintroduction of the will. First Sartre contends that "there is no "I" on the unreflected level. The act of directing one's consciousness towards the world of objects Sartre describes as intentional, but is itself an unreflective noetic act. Reflection upon it produces a new object which did not exist before the act was grasped - the ego. Hence this reflected consciousness generates the "I". This becomes the transcendent object of the reflective act but is not in itself a part of that act. Thus this reflection not only discloses objects, but produces and constitutes them. Sartre goes on to state that we have no privileged access to our own ego over and above "the ego of another". The ego cannot belong exclusively to itself. Sartre refers instead to consciousness to instigate beings freedom because the ego's relation to the world is patently a fabrication. For Sartre, the self is an object constituted within the phenomenal field: "The ego is not the owner of consciousness; it is the object of consciousness". Consciousness is a kind of pure transparency, a mere openness to a world to which it adds nothing of its own. Against this, Sartre conceives the character of "authenticity" whereby consciousness is able to make itself free because every intentional act is self-originating, self-determining and "absolutely free". His only reconciliation with holistic meaning rests in his joining Marx, for he says the whole problem of recognising one's own, and others' authenticity, must be shifted to the domain of concrete social and political action.Within my work I recognise this praxis but do not recognise the authentic self in the desire of the male ego to be free in "its choosing". If there is freedom in having to choose it is a poor freedom, especially when this choice occurs in a universe that has already happened!
Males should consider their freedom to choose in the light of growing identities in distinction to the sex they are not. We are not born with perceptions of gender differences, they emerge developmentally and are contingent upon the historical flux for their meaning. Choice rests within the confines of compossibility. The philosophical struggle to establish freedom has vented only the anguish of the patriarchal will. Hegel and Sartre demonstrate this well in their philosophical programmes. They both developed a holistic theory which gained much cogency by virtue of taking root in the Buddhist doctrine of nothingness. Their programmes are oppositional to each other, with Hegel professing conservative compliance with the state and Sartre supporting revolutionary action. These views share the predicate of moral necessity but for different reasons. These reasons diverge in their interpretation of freedom. For Hegel freedom is bound up with necessity, for Sartre it is bound up with the choices made to achieve authenticity. Both codes imply responsibility for the destiny of the self and realise their ambition in terms of an accommodation within the holistic whole.
Although sex is intimately linked with reproduction, it is not essential to it. The early way of multiplying was by splitting the body into two halves, each of which grew into a new individual. In this binary fusion the offspring is not just a detached portion of the parent, for the whole parent becomes the offspring. More complicated forms required a greater richness in mutation. This richness has been the story of evolution. If two individual organisms pool their mutative resources there is a creative gain from the numerous permutations and combinations of these combined variations. Our appearance manifests out of this holistic flux, survival depends on our adaptation to the whole. Differences represent the many ways of expressing this relation to the whole. Sex cells (gametes) are themselves very simple and thus indifferent at the primitive level. Male and female are virtually indistinguishable at the primary level of evolution. Female development depends upon the absence of male hormone rather than the presence of female hormone. The female may thus be regarded as the primary form of the mammalian species and the male as the derivative type. Man hails from woman rather than woman from man. The story of Lilith and not the story of the Garden of Eden is the accurate parable of man's birth. (The Serpent was only trying to warn Eve of the deceptive nature of Ialdaboath, the Gnostics said he was an inferior deity responsible for the creation of the sensible world, it is he who is the Yaweh of the old testament the errant son of Sophia). Man, not woman, represents nature's second thoughts.
Amongst birds, the conditions that determine the development of many external characteristics of sex are exactly the reverse. This serves as an example of the non-essentialist nature of sexual difference in nature. Indeed it is only by the absence of the second "x" chromosome rather than the existence of the "y" chromosome, that a male is produced. Because if one of the two "x" chromosomes gets lost from one of the two original cells and therefore from al its descendents as well, a gynander is produced. Because the cells now possess only a single "x" chromosome they become male, whilst the other half of the embryo, which retains its two "x" chromosomes, continues to develop into a female. So the idea that masculine and feminine are two antagonistic and profoundly differentiated entities is erroneous. Plato himself stated that the two sexes were one until "the Gods became angry". The two sexes are not two well-defined and separate entities standing widely apart. Sex is the ingridiant of maximum plasticity and sexual attraction the most economical method of mixing it.
The differences between the sexes which founds the basic building block of the differentiated "I" rests more within the psychological level of existence. Chodorow explained how the self is not permanent but created and situated. A cognitive sense of the gendered self is established in the first two or three years. It occurs along with incorporations and extentions of others, differentiation stretches and seperation emerges in relationship. So even the deluded "I" depends on holistic interdependencies: it is not a given. A sense of separation emerges as the infant constructs an internal reference system of differences (as in Hegel). At first, these are unconsciously sourced physically through the senses and are immediately re-enforced conceptually by the loaded representation of others. An internal sense of self in relationship becomes part of the self, both in the aspect of the material world and other beings. The ego structure is profoundly relational. But in the concept relativities are solidified into idealised absolutes, the abstracted totality of which make the appearance of the self. Here belief takes its leave of seeming and this effect produces cultures en masse. This shared delusion intensifies belief in the reality of seperateness. It is the sociological counterpart of Kant's explanation of mind made for this world: If you wore red glasses, sure enough everything would appear red, because we wear spatial glasses you are sure of seeing everything in space. The body is after all just an assembly whose members come from all parts of space. Cultural formations localise mind and share this Kantian principle.
In summary, we can say that the formation of the "I" is just that: a formation; it is syntax. There is no substance beyond the effect of interdependent origination. As an example,the photon leaves the sun, traverses space and is bent when it encounters the atmosphere. On hitting the optic nerve it forms an equivalent in the form of a sodium level, which transposes into a signal to the brain. The sun then appears in our perception dislocated in time. This reality is synthetic, and formed specifically as a product of plurality. "The thing" is a package of events made singular only as the appearance of an effect, which is never actual but always becoming. So it is with the "I", all aggregates have, in reality, an absence of ego. The observer and the observed form an integrated unit that cannot be broken down into independent components. The opposite of this view was perhaps represented best by Leibniz. He argued correctly that extension was not a substance because it involved plurality, and can therefore only belong to an aggregate of substances. But because he was attached to the idea of soul he reinvented substance in the form of "monads". Each monad was a soul. Thus Leibniz was led to deny the "reality" of matter and to substitute an infinite family of souls. Here duality re-emerges, creating two kinds of space, one subjective, in the perception of each monad, and one objective, consisting in the assemblage of points of view of the other monads. Hegel, in a certain manner, brought both possibilities to the point where they cancelled each other out. His interpretation of time permitted a remarkable vascillation to manifest in its character, so that time remained objective as being in itself alligned to soul and again objective in the concrete actions of eminent men where time is consciousness. The agonising rift between mind and matter ensues from a consciousness itself formed in duality. "Mind in duality will never know Mahayana" [Milerepa]. All phenomena (other than emptiness) are deceptive truths and all emptinesses are ultimate truths. The person as well as the aggregates of body and mind are deceptive truths whereas the emptiness or lack of inherent existence of the person and the aggregates is an ultimate truth. In regard to any phenomena, its deceptive and ultimate truths are of the same entity although nominally distinct. As long as they are considered to be fundamentally distinct entities the perfect view is unattained. In Buddhism, an ultimate truth is defined as that which is understood by a direct valid perception in which all dualistic appearances have subsided. A deceptive trith is defined as that which is understood by a direct valid perception in which dualistic appearances have not subsided. What is meant by dualistic appearance is the appearance of an object together with the appearance of its inherent or natural existence. "Natural existence" has a specific meaning in Buddhism. It denotes a thing's supposed existence from its own nature or from its own side. In fact, however, such a monad is utterly non-existent, it is a misconception. It is only conceived by a mind that mistakenly grasps at what is known as "true existence". Shantideva (Prasangika school) thinks such terms as "natural existence", "existence from its own side", and independent self-existence are all synonyms, they all refer to the falsely conceived mode of existence. This mistaken view is responsible for all our suffering in Samsara.
Natural existence in terms of our sense of self, the "I", is thus no more real than a dream. In dependence upon our aggregates of body and mind all of us tend to grasp at a self identity. In apprehending this "I" or "the self", two distinct aspects of the mind are functioning. One, which is valid, succeeds in apprehending the conventional and deceptively existent mere "I", and the other, which invalidly apprehends this "I" as a self identity vividly appearing as something entirely separate from the body and the mind. This is the so called essence, soul, or quiddity of the person. However, the mind that conceives of such an "I" is a mistaken consciousness and its object is entirely non-existent. This "I" is a subtle conception to be negated in order to understand emptiness. In a similar manner the vivid appearance of all other phenomena as naturally existent should be understood as objects to be negated in the comprehension of emptiness. The "I" exists as a universal "I" but, in a way, that can only be distinguished as separate from the false sense of "I" by a very sharp and penetrating intellect. According to the Prasangika school, the existent "I" is claimed to be unfindable among the aggregates - either individually or collectively. This false "I" is merely imputed by conception and convention. Other than this no "I" exists outside a universal "I" which is, of course, empty. The Sanctuary complies with the Prasangika school of Buddhism. Those who wish to attain liberation need to develop the wisdom that understands emptiness. The naked slave men of Tarquinnia, in their blurred Etruscan image ["Etruscan Places" by D.H. Lawrence], understood that self liberation is not enough, this does not achieve emptiness. In holistic thinking I and the world are simply one. Separations are perceived to be an appearance manifested by the causes and conditions of existence. The relational form of this existence is not fixed and the appearance of reality is conceived in accordance with the understanding. "Truth appears according to the cognitive level" [Marx]. The entire strength of Marxist understanding issues from its holistic sentiment. Consequently, it exists as the most recent philosophy to enhance humanities understanding of itself as a relationship. Our present social structure exists mostly as an expression of the division of labour. This only happened when a division of mental and material labour first appeared. Marx noted that the first form of ideologists - priests - is concurrent: "From this moment onwards consciousness can really flatter itself that it is something other than consciousness of existing practice, that it really represents something without representing something real; from now on, consciousness is in a position to emancipate itself from the world and to proceed to the formation of 'pure' theory, theology, philosophy, ethics etc". Marx went on to explain how all the theology and philosophy can itself only transform itself through coming into contradiction with existing forces of production, which, in there past condition, created the axis of social idiom then thought revolutionary but now deemed conservative. So even the states of mind held within the delusionary aspect of "self" are themselves shown to be compossible only by virtue of the holistic environment. Human cultures form out of the relation between existence and its co-efficient encountered in the flux of the natural world. In this way, the two truths - the deceptive and the ultimate - do not contradict but mutually assist one another. It is necessary to posit an object's ultimate nature without refuting its deceptive nature. When metaphysics and materialism are understood as non-contradictory then we can comprehend truth. Until then, we will find "true being existing in ruins and traces [Adorno] more than anywhere else. Such states are attractive by virtue of an instinctive decency against the self. They predicate drug culture, as if holistic nature desired a "hands on" approach to remedy the mistaken self which thinks "it is". "The entire psycho-physical datum is not one that is but one that lives; this is the germinal point of historicality. And if the consideration of the self is directed not at an abstract 'I' but at the fulness of my self, it will find me historically determined, just as physics know me as cosmically determined. Just as I am Nature, so I am history" [Count Yorck].
Understanding that we are all of one body enables us to consciously congregate and work towards making the planet most beautiful. Self seeking attributions only make for trouble and strife: they are based on the deluded self, a tragic misunderstanding profoundly manifest in the ego of patriarchy. Humanity is out of balance, Malthusian panic is not entirely unwarranted. Earth's environment is already compromised, the habitat of our fellow beings is being destroyed. According to Richard Leaky even if modest estimates of the current rate of extinction's is accepted, it is still 120,000 times greater than background levels, making humans the "biggest catastrophic agent since a giant Astroid collided with earth 65 million years ago. Any policy under patriarchy will fail. Our demographic imbalance must be redressed. Women must recreate the "golden era" mentioned by Empodocles "when only Aphrodite was worshiped and the bull's blood was not spilt upon the altar". This can be embraced if women reject their complicity to patriarchy and assume identities true to holistic understanding. Hamlet taught us that understanding kills action, that action is dependent on a veil of illusion. The understanding that Hamlet possesses is the knowledge of the unalterable nature of things, and therefore to be dignified as "wisdom" and opposed to mere knowledge. Women must reinstate the wisdom of Sophia. Nietzsche said that men must not be "passive spectators of the witches' sabbath of existence": this statement makes tragedy a cognitive affair. Now is the time for men to be the slave of the witch. She is acquainted with a liking for paradox and paradoxicality is a mark of truth. Reason and reasoning are valuable activities. But they pertain to the world of illusion, or appearance and are powerless to instruct us as to the nature of the real. Our idea of Heaven is the fixed diameter of Hell.
The holistic universe is alone in the shape of the Goddess: this appearance is her magic which transcends causation. Betwixt, without, and within, she is the embrace of nothingness: she is awesome. Her name is ineffable. Her image in the curved mirror of space can only be perceived in the reflection of her own Light. Origination is her slave, as all things emanate from her power of love which drew her reflection forth, and she made love to herself.