View allAll Photos Tagged hierarchical
John T. Phillifent - Hierarchies
Ace Double 53415, 1973
Cover Artist: Kelly Freas
"She and her pet were only a cover-up for the theft of the Crown Stones—and the few who knew might have to die for it!"
In the hierarchy of man-made beauty does a Gibbsian doorcase outrank an Ionic capital? Was the Renaissance better than the Baroque? Does a painting by Sir Frank Dicksee, RA, "trump" a Kelmscott Chaucer? Idiotic questions, of course, and what could be more foolish than the bureaucratic attempt to draw up a league table of such matters, for the benefit of the heritage and tourist industries? With that proviso in mind, I will mention that Bath is Britain's only World Heritage City. Large parts of it have been ruined, partly by the Luftwaffe, but probably even more by our postwar would-be commissars, who bestowed upon the city these flats in London Road which, when I used to pass them on the X4s, gave me the feeling that I was looking at coke-sorters' apartments in the suburbs of Smolensk.
Across the road is evidence of another act of hatred against English identity ...the alien decimalised currency introduced some eight years before the photograph was taken on Saturday 28th April 1979. I don't think people have ever taken it to their hearts ...and why should they? You hear it in the clumsy nomenclature. "One pence", "five pee", pence always pronounced in full, rather than the old "p'nce" contraction, no telescopings such as "tuppence" or "ha'penny", let alone demotic locutions such as "tanner" or "bob". The only identifiable price in the Co-op's window is 12p for cans of Coca-Cola (not yet "Coke"). The half penny ("half a pence") was still in circulation.
The bus is, of course, one of the FLF Lodekkas acquired by Bristol Omnibus Co. from Western National with the handover of the latter company's Trowbridge operation in 1970. Their side-by-side destination screens were a good early warning identifier and, at closer range, the Exeter registration marks.
in fall the leaves are at the top of the tree's glory hierarchy, followed by branches then the trunk...
This image cannot be used on websites, blogs or other media without explicit my permission. © All rights reserved
one at the top has all the fun..
(This image is under full copyright, kindly contact me before any usage - selvink@yahoo.com)
Classic Star Control ships in Intercept Orbit sizes!
The Ur-Quan Dreadnought is clearly a capital ship with frame catapults. (Launch fighters!)
Others can be negotiated into different roles.
Detolf Rules
Hierarchy
a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority.
Today was the second running of the Peterborough to CF Booth scrapyard in Rotherham and the final journey for a number of four wheeled self discharge hoppers. I picked it up at Holmes Junction with several other local enthusiasts to catch some images of rare main line reversals. 66706 does the honours on 6Z70 1030 Peterborough West Yard to CF Booths.
The warm up act was 66428 on the 7XXX 1227 Toton North Yard to Doncaster Up Decoy with Railvac in tow.
In civilizations of a traditional nature, intellectual intuition lies at the root of everything; in other words, it is the pure metaphysical doctrine that constitutes the essential, everything else being linked to it, either in the form of consequences or applications to the various orders of contingent reality.
Not only is this true of social institutions, but also of the sciences, that is, branches of knowledge bearing on the domain of the relative, which in such civilizations are only regarded as dependencies, prolongations, or reflections of absolute or principial knowledge.
Thus a true hierarchy is always and everywhere preserved: the relative is not treated as non-existent, which would be absurd; it is duly taken into consideration, but is put in its rightful place, which cannot but be a secondary and subordinate one; and even within this relative domain there are different degrees of reality, according to whether the subject lies nearer to or further from the sphere of principles.
Thus, as regards science, there are two radically different and mutually incompatible conceptions, which may be referred to respectively as traditional and modern. We have often had occasion to allude to the 'traditional sciences' that existed in antiquity and the Middle Ages and which still exist in the East, though the very idea of them is foreign to the Westerners of today. It should be added that every civilization has had 'traditional sciences' of its own and of a particular type. Here we are no longer in the sphere of universal principles, to which pure metaphysics alone belongs, but in the realm of adaptations.
(…)
By seeking to sever the connection of the sciences with any higher principle, under the pretext of assuring their independence, the modern conception robs them of all deeper meaning and even of all real interest from the point of view of knowledge; it can only lead them down a blind alley, by enclosing them, as it does, in a hopelessly limited realm.
Moreover, the development achieved in this realm is not a deepening of knowledge, as is commonly supposed, but on the contrary remains completely superficial, consisting only of the dispersion in detail already referred to and an analysis as barren as it is laborious; this development can be pursued indefinitely without coming one step closer to true knowledge.
It must also be remarked that it is not for its own sake that, in general, Westerners pursue science; as they interpret it, their foremost aim is not knowledge, even of an inferior order, but practical applications, as can be deduced from the ease with which the majority of our contemporaries confuse science and industry, and from the number of those for whom the engineer represents the typical man of science.
(…)
Modern experimentalism involves the curious illusion that a theory can be proven by facts, whereas in reality the same facts can always be equally well explained by several different theories; some of the pioneers of the experimental method, such as Claude Bernard, have themselves recognized that they could interpret facts only with the help of preconceived ideas, without which they would remain 'brute facts' devoid of all meaning and scientific value.
Since we have been led to speak of experimentalism, the opportunity may be taken to answer a question that may be raised in this connection: why have the experimental sciences received a development in modern civilization such as they never had in any other?
The reason is that these sciences are those of the sensible world, those of matter, and also those lending themselves most directly to practical applications; their development, proceeding hand in hand with what might well be called the 'superstition of facts', is therefore in complete accord with specifically modern tendencies, whereas earlier ages could not find sufficient interest in them to pursue them to the extent of neglecting, for their sake, knowledge of a higher order. It must be clearly understood that we are not saying that any kind of knowledge can be deemed illegitimate, even though it be inferior; what is illegitimate is only the abuse that arises when things of this kind absorb the whole of human activity, as we see them doing at present.
(…)
One of the characteristics of the present age is the exploitation of everything that had hitherto been neglected as being of insufficient importance for men to devote their time and energy to, but which nevertheless had to be developed before the end of the cycle, since the things concerned had their place among the possibilities destined to be manifested within it; such in particular is the case of the experimental sciences that have come into existence in recent centuries.
There are even some modern sciences that represent, quite literally, residues of ancient sciences that are no longer understood: in a period of decadence, the lowest part of these sciences became isolated from all the rest, and this part, grossly materialized, served as the starting-point for a completely different development, in a direction conforming to modern tendencies; this resulted in the formation of sciences that have ceased to have anything in common with those that preceded them. Thus, for example, it is wrong to maintain, as is generally done, that astrology and alchemy have respectively become modern astronomy and modern chemistry, even though this may contain an element of truth from a historical point of view; it contains, in fact, the very element of truth to which we have just alluded, for, if the latter sciences do in a certain sense come from the former, it is not by 'evo-lution' or 'progress' - as is claimed - but on the contrary, by degeneration.
(…)
These are the two complementary functions proper to the traditional sciences: on the one hand, as applications of the doctrine, they make it possible to link the different orders of reality and to integrate them into the unity of a single synthesis, and on the other, they constitute, at least for some, and in accordance with their individual aptitudes, a preparation for a higher knowledge and a way of approach to it - forming by virtue of their hierarchical positioning, according to the levels of existence to which they refer, so many rungs as it were by which it is possible to climb to the level of pure intellectuality.
It is only too clear that modern sciences cannot in any way serve either of these purposes; this is why they can be no more than 'profane science', whereas the 'traditional sciences', through their connection with metaphysical principles, are effectively incorporated in 'sacred science'.
The ways leading to knowledge may be extremely different at the lowest degree, but they draw closer and closer together as higher levels are reached. This is not to say that any of these preparatory degrees are absolutely necessary, since they are mere contingent methods having nothing in common with the end to be attained; it is even possible for some persons, in whom the tendency to contemplation is predominant, to attain directly to true intellectual intuition without the aid of such means; but this is a more or less exceptional case, and in general it is accepted as being necessary to proceed upward gradually.
The whole question may also be illustrated by means of the traditional image of the 'cosmic wheel': the circumference in reality exists only in virtue of the center, but the beings that stand upon the circumference must necessarily start from there or, more precisely, from the point thereon at which they actually find themselves, and follow the radius that leads to the center. Moreover, because of the correspondence that exists between all the orders of reality, the truths of a lower order can be taken as symbols of those of higher orders, and can therefore serve as 'supports' by which one may arrive at an understanding of these; and this fact makes it possible for any science to become a sacred science, giving it a higher or 'anagogical' meaning deeper than that which it possesses in itself.
Every science, we say, can assume this character, whatever may be its subject-matter, on the sole condition of being constructed and regarded from the traditional standpoint; it is only necessary to keep in mind the degrees of importance of the various sciences according to the hierarchical rank of the diverse realities studied by them; but whatever degree they may occupy, their character and functions are essentially similar in the traditional conception.
What is true of the sciences is equally true of the arts, since every art can have a truly symbolic value that enables it to serve as a support for meditation, and because it’s rules, like the laws studied by the sciences, are reflections and 'applications of fundamental principles: there are then in every normal civilization 'traditional arts', but these are no less unknown to the modern West than are the 'traditional sciences'. The truth is that there is really no 'profane realm' that could in any way be opposed to a 'sacred realm'; there is only a 'profane point of view', which is really none other than the point of view of ignorance.
This is why 'profane science', the science of the moderns, can as we have remarked elsewhere be justly styled 'ignorant knowledge', knowledge of an inferior order confining itself entirely to the lowest level of reality, knowledge ignorant of all that lies beyond it, of any aim more lofty than itself, and of any principle that could give it a legitimate place, however humble, among the various orders of knowledge as a whole. Irremediably enclosed in the relative and narrow realm in which it has striven to proclaim itself independent, thereby voluntarily breaking all connection with transcendent truth and supreme wisdom, it is only a vain and illusory knowledge, which indeed comes from nothing and leads to nothing.
This survey will suffice to show how great is the deficiency of the modern world in the realm of science, and how that very science of which it is so proud represents no more than a deviation and, as it were, a downfall from true science, which for us is absolutely identical with what we have called 'sacred' or 'traditional' science. Modern science, arising from an arbitrary limitation of knowledge to a particular order-the lowest of all orders, that of material or sensible reality-has lost, through this limitation and the consequences it immediately entails, all intellectual value; as long, that is, as one gives to the word 'intellectuality' the fullness of its real meaning, and refuses to share the 'rationalist' error of assimilating pure intelligence to reason, or, what amount to the same thing, of completely denying intellectual intuition.
The root of this error, as of a great many other modern errors - and the cause of the entire deviation of science that we have just described - is what may be called 'individualism', an attitude indistinguishable from the anti-traditional attitude itself and whose many manifestations in all domains constitute one of the most important factors in the confusion of our time; we shall therefore now study this individualism more closely.
----
excerpts from The Crisis of the Modern World by René Guenon
Chapter 4: Sacred and profane science
----
Dekoulou Monastery, Greece
To see the cosmos as theophany and not veil, it is necessary to return again and again to the truth that reality is hierarchic, that the cosmos is not exhausted by its physical aspect alone.
The cosmologies which appeal to the immediate experience of the cosmos by terrestrial man have no other aim but to convey this metaphysical and central truth concerning the multiple states of existence in a vivid and concrete fashion. Cosmologies based on Ptolemaic astronomy or other astronomical schemes based on the way the cosmos presents itself to man are not in any way invalidated by the rejection of this geocentric scheme for the heliocentric one, because they make use of the immediate experience of the natural world as symbol rather than fact, a symbol whose meaning like that of any other symbol cannot be grasped through logical or mathematical analysis.
If one understands what symbols mean, one cannot claim that medieval cosmologies are false as a result of the fact that if we were standing on the sun we would observe the earth moving around it. The fact remains that we are not standing on the sun and if the cosmos, from the vantage point of the earth where we were born, does possess a symbolic significance, surely it would be based on how it appears to us as we stand on earth. To think otherwise would be to destroy the symbolic significance of the cosmos. It would be like wanting to understand the meaning of a mandala by looking at it under a microscope. In doing so one would discover a great deal about the texture of the material upon which the mandala has been drawn but nothing about the symbolic significance of the mandala which was drawn with the assumption that it would be looked upon with the normal human eye. Of course, in the case of the cosmos the other ways of envisaging and studying it, as long as they conform to some aspect of cosmic reality, also possess their own profound symbolism—such as, for example, the heliocentric system, which was in fact known long before Copernicus, or the vast dark intergalactic spaces—but the destruction of the immediate symbolism of the cosmos as it presents itself to man living on earth cannot but be catastrophic. To look upon the vast vault of the heavens as if one lived on the sun creates a disequilibrium which cannot but result in the destruction of that very earth that modern man abstracted himself from in order to look upon the solar system from the vantage point of the sun in the absolute space of classical physics. This disequilibrium would not necessarily have resulted had the type of man who rejected the earthcentered view of the cosmos been the solar figure, the image of the supernal Apollo, the Pythagorean sage, who in fact knew of the heliocentric astronomy without this knowledge causing a disruption in his world view. But paradoxically enough, this being who abstracted himself from the earth to look upon the cosmos from the sun, through that most direct symbol of the Divine Intellect, was the Promethean man who had rebelled against Heaven. The consequences could, therefore, not be anything but tragic.
“All a guy needed was a chance. Somebody was alway controlling who got a chance and who didn't.”
― Charles Bukowski, Ham on Rye
My second Photo Walk Aarhus - this time with the very liberal theme "Rule of thirds" - I didn't apply it. Instead, I went around the Marselisborg Castle gardens, scraping together whatever subject I could with my 35mm on a very cloudy April's day.
The Australian sea lion (Neophoca cinerea) is one of the rarest species of sea lion in the world and are only found in Western Australia and South Australia. The total population of these animals is estimated at 15,000. They can live up to 20 years of age.
HIERARCHY
660. There is no hierarchy in the Centre and from the Centre; but this is much more the case with the realisation of the Centre.
661. The grades in the sphere of beings are the grades of the withdrawal from the Centre of Being and the grades of the returning to the Centre of Being.
662. Being superior is being more archaic, i.e. being closer to the arkhé.
[The Greek arkhé means »beginning« and »dominion« at the same time.]
663. Superiority means being close to the spirit; being close to the spirit means being close to myself, and »being close« means that forces arising from the direct contact with myself pervade states and processes of consciousness just as they pervade the context of being - the being itself - emerging from the states and processes of consciousness.
664. Every hierarchy is gradual, but not every graduation is hierarchical, since only those grades can be considered hierarchical which, on the one hand, are stages on the path leading from the general forms of existence and consciousness toward transcendence, and, on the other hand, which are stages on the path of becoming leading from transcendence toward the world in esse.
665. The superior precedes the inferior both in essence and in time, but not especially in essence and not especially in time, because »temporalness« is only a projection of essentiality.
666. Superior things never originate from the inferior. Everything that came into existence is manifested by the descent of the superior.
667. The hierarchy of castes: the ativarna brahmana is both polar and solar; the brahmana is polar and lunar; the ksatriya is solar; the vaisya is lunar; the sudra is terrestrial; the pañcaka is subterrestrial; and the avarna is subterrestrial and infernal.
[The ativarna brahmana is the proto-caste above all the castes, where the brahmana and the ksatriya compose an integral union. The brahmana is the sacerdotal, the ksatriya is the noble, the vaisya is the craftsman-merchant, and the sudra is the workers’ caste. The pañcaka (»the fifth«) is the collective name for the subcastes below the casts. The avarna is the extra-casteness in the sense of subcastesness. Polarity is the manifestation of the celestial and extra-samsarian origin, while solarity represents the regal and ruling power over the conscious forces.]
668. The advancement of a technical civilisation does not assess superiority. Superiority can only be measured by the relation to the origin, beyond the origin to the beginning, and beyond this to the unbegun.
669. Each stage of existence has its level of truth.
670. The hierarchy of existence corresponds to that of consciousness.
QUALITY AND QUANTITY
672. The quantitative approach will emerge and gain importance as soon as the capability for considering the essence of things declines and ceases in man.
673. Quantitative aspects have no value at all, because value is, essentially, attached to quality.
674. The potentia passiva pura is neither quantity, nor quality - but actuality that transfers to the pure passive potentiality by the abandonment of its actuality in quality.
675. Each loss of quality drifts towards the »nothing«, because the pure quantity, that is, the potentia passiva pura, the prima materia, or the nirguna mula prakriti is considered »nothing« from the side of actuality.
676. Quantity is by the side of chaos.
677. In the cosmos - right because it is cosmos - quantity cannot gain full control.
678. (René Guénon) If there were absolutely no qualitative difference between two beings, there would be no quantitative difference between them either, i.e. the two beings would be one.
BODY - SOUL - SPIRIT
679. Spiritus est regulator. Anima est mediatrix regulationis. Corpus est regulatum.
[Latin: »Spirit is the ruler. Soul is the mediator in the rule. Body is under rule.«]
680. Spirit is not an entity, and even less is it a substantial entity. Spirit: subiectum in actu - is the self-postulating Subject in action.
681. Spirit is the light of Consciousness. (Spirit is the central relation of being.)
682. Spirit is subiectum in actu, i.e. subject in action. The more it is subiectum, the more it is in, and the more it is actu, the more it is spirit. Spirit is untouchable not because it is so fine and subtle that one cannot touch it anymore, but because it cannot be mentally perceived either, viz. there is nothing palpable in it. The spirit is a relation in fact; moreover it is the most internal relation. The spirit is the central relation of being.
683. The true understanding in understanding is the direct presence of the spirit.
684. Spirit qua spirit cannot fall sick, but the relation of spirit and soul can become sick, which is called pneumatosis.
685. There are many people who are almost completely healthy bodily and psychically, but who suffer from an advanced phase of pneumatosis at the same time.
686. The idea of »spiritual soul« means that the spirit controls the soul. The spirit that works as a »council of state«, a parliament or a central committee cannot rule the soul. Spirit can only function monarchicly towards the soul, just like a king. The person who cannot realise the monarchic rule of the spirit in his soul by rights cannot be considered a man. He seems to be one, but he is not a man at all.
687. Man is conscious in his soul, but he is conscious by virtue of the spirit.
688. Soul is my soul, but I am not identical with my soul. Soul is an environment; moreover it is the closest environment of my self-postulation, i.e. that of the spirit. My balance, my self-control means that I cannot allow my closest environment to become disharmonious with myself. This can be realised in one way only: when my closest environment and circumstances do not govern me, but I control them.
689. Inner life or the state of mind is one of the strongest antagonists of the spirit that manifests in the realm of soul. Inner life is nothing other than spirit in the state of subjection by psychic activities. The self that manifests in the soul is not the subject, but the endurer of emotions.
690. Body in its deepest sense is not a figural reality, but a state of mind, viz. such a state of mind that limits and exterminates all the other states of mind. Body is an internal wall.
691. Body is the denial of the spirit.
692. Body is where the spirit as spirit gradually extinguishes.
693. Among body, soul and spirit, body has fallen from the highest to the lowest.
694. When body becomes unlimited, i.e. fully pervaded by the spirit up to a stage where it turns into consciousness, this is called the »resurrection of body« in various traditions. The resurrection of body as body is the conquest of the body as a border.
695. The resurrection of body is but the re-placement of the body onto a grade in the hierarchy, which is appropriate to its original rank.
696. When man turns more and more to the quantitative world rather than himself, then he practically turns to nothing. By losing spirit man kept his soul, which still had some spiritual properties. After this he kept only the body, which still has some psychic properties; and slowly he will come to the nothing, which will only have some somatic properties.
Abraxas or Abrasax (Gnostic, from Greek Αβραξας) From the Theosophical Glossary: "A mystical term used by the Gnostics to indicate the supreme entity of our cosmic hierarchy or its manifestation in the human being they called the Christos. Abraxas has the value of 365, based on numerical equivalents in the Greek alphabet. Since 365 represents the cycle of one revolution of our planet around the sun, they argued that Abraxas mystically contained the total number of families of entities making up a hierarchy. Illuminator, Abraxas, the streams of life and inspiration that govern their existence, Abraxas is therefore the supreme cosmic soul, Brahma, the Creator or Third Logos. The Basilidian Gnostics [see: Basilides] taught that from this supreme God was created noûs (mind). Abraxas was also identified with the Hebrew Adonai, the Egyptian Horus and the Hindu Prajapati. The Gnostic amulets known as the Abraxas gems described the god as a pantheos (all-god), with the head of a rooster, herald of the sun, representing foresight and vigilance; a human body clad in armor evoking a guardian power; legs in the form of sacred asps. In his right hand is a flail, emblem of authority; on his left arm, a shield decorated with a word of power. This pantheos invariably bears its proper name, IAO, and its epithets Abraxas and Sabaoth, and is often accompanied by invocations such as SEMES EILAM, the eternal sun (The Gnostics and Their Remnants 246), whom Blavatsky equates with the "central spiritual sun" of the Qabbalists (SD 2: 214). Although written in Greek characters, the words SEMES EILAM ABRASAX are probably of Semitic origin: shemesh sun; `olam secret, occult, hidden, eternity, world; Abrasax Abraxas. Therefore, in combination, the phrase can be rendered "the eternal sun Abraxax".
gnosticpublishing.org/apprendre/glossaire/glossaire-a/abr...
C. G. Jung possessed an intense and sympathetic interest in the early alternative Christian tradition now known as Gnosticism. Both in his published writings and in his private reminiscences one finds frequent and insightful comments about Gnostic tradition, although during much of Jung’s life the subject of Gnosticism was virtually unknown to all but a few scholars of religion.
One of the key documents bearing early testimony to Jung’s vital Gnostic interest was his finely designed book, Septem Sermones ad Mortuos—“Seven Sermons to the Dead.” Jung had the work privately printed in 1916 and over subsequent decades gave copies of it to a select number of friends and associates. With Jung’s approval, H. G. Baynes translated the text of the Sermons into English and this edition was privately printed in 1925. Again, Jung distributed the English edition only to persons whom he felt to be properly prepared for its message.
What remained generally unknown was that around 1917 Jung also transcribed a much-expanded version of the Septem Sermones into the third and final portion of his draft manuscript of Liber Novus, the section entitled “Scrutinies.” There the Sermons appear as the summary revelation of Liber Novus. Jung never publicly revealed the existence of this longer form of the Sermons, and until the publication in 2009 of Liber Novus: The Red Book this version of the Sermons remained entirely inaccessible.
Those who were fortunate enough to become acquainted with Septem Sermones ad Mortuos usually found it intriguing, but they were often somewhat puzzled by its contents. Authorship of the book was attributed not to Jung, but to a historical Gnostic teacher named Basilides. And its place of composition was stated to be “Alexandria, the city where East and West meet.” Over ensuing years, those who had read the book sometimes referred to it as Jung’s Gnostic revelation. But of course, during Jung’s life few people knew much about Gnosticism, nor understood what really made this little book “Gnostic.” Nonetheless, following the publication of Liber Novus, it has become evident that the Sermons are indeed the revelation of C. G. Jung’s Gnostic myth. The Sermons might even be seen as the heart of his New Book—The Red Book: Liber Novus.
Since Jung’s death in 1961, a great deal more information regarding Gnosticism has become available, and it has become a subject of wide popular and academic interest. A major impetus to this awakened attention was the publication in 1977 of the Nag Hammadi library of Gnostic scriptures, the most extensive collection of original writings of the ancient Gnostics discovered thus far. The Nag Hammadi texts have shed new light on many details of the Gnostic mythos that were previously obscure. They also help place Jung’s Gnostic tract into a broader context.
The Septem Sermones ad Mortuos has proved over past years to be a difficult book to categorize. Some writers have termed it a “cosmology,” but that remains an inadequate formulation. The document might perhaps more accurately be termed a “psycho-cosmology.” Since Gnostic scriptures typically approached their psycho-spiritual themes in the form of myths, one might propose that the Septem Sermones exemplify the contemporary formulation of a Gnostic myth. Though Jung's text is not identical with any pre-existing Gnostic myth, it is nonetheless related in form to many ancient Gnostic texts that have come to light over the last century.
The Gnostic themes in the Septem Sermones are further amplified by another document created by Jung during the period in which he recorded the Sermons. In early 1916 Jung constructed a detailed and artistically impressive image—or mandala—that diagrammatically represented many of the elements discussed subsequently in the Sermons. He titled it Systema Munditotius, “the system of the entire world.” Jung did not include this image among the many illustrations within his Red Book. Much later in life he did, however, allow it to be published—it appeared in a 1955 issue of the German periodical Du that was dedicated to the Eranos conferences (Jung did not, however, allow his name to be given explicitly as the image’s creator). The illustration was subsequently included as a full-page plate in C. G. Jung: Word and Image. The Systema Munditotius is now reproduced beautifully in The Red Book: Liber Novus, where it appears in Appendix A. The amplified text of the Sermons present in Liber Novus and the diagram of Systema Munditotius together provide a foundation for the following discussion.
Statements substantiating Jung’s affinity with Gnostic tradition run throughout his published writings. Jung held the view that during much of the history of Western culture the reality of the psyche and its role in the transformation of the human being had received scant recognition. In contrast, the Gnostics of old and their later covert progeny—which in Jung’s view included the alchemists and other alternative spiritual movements—affirmed the revelatory importance of the psyche. Jung plainly stated: “For the Gnostics—and this is their real secret—the psyche existed as a source of knowledge.” In response to the recurrent question of whether or not Jung was a Gnostic, one must reply: “Certainly he was, for ‘Gnostic’ means ‘knower,’ and by his own statements Jung was one who knew.” The visions, myths, and metaphors of the Gnostics confirmed Jung’s own experiences recorded in Liber Novus, and this circumstance created a bond that joined him with Gnostics of all ages and places.
Myth of the Demiurge
The myth of the demiurge originated with Plato. In his Timaeus, Plato postulated the existence of a creator deity or “demiurge” who fashioned the material universe. The term demiurge is derived from the Greek word meaning “craftsman.” Although a craftsman and fashioner, it must be understood that the demiurge was not identical with the monotheistic creator figure; the demiurge and the material from which the demiurge fashioned the universe were both secondary consequences of another primary factor. The demiurge is thus an intermediate architect, not a supreme source.
In ancient times, Plato was regarded as the paragon of all wisdom, and his model of a demiurge or cosmic fashioner was further elaborated and adapted within many subsequent schools of thought, including in the myths of the Gnostics. Gnostics envisioned the demiurge as a subordinate supernatural power that was not identical with the true, ultimate, and transcendent godhead. The presence of a myth about this demiurge became a signal characteristic of Gnostic systems. Taking note of the sometimes distasteful character and conduct of the Old Testament deity, Gnostics frequently identified the latter as the demiurge—a being that was not evil, but still of questionable moral stature and limited wisdom.
It has long been apparent to some students of Jung that in Answer to Job he characterized the divine tyrant who tormented Job as a classic Gnostic demiurge. This divinity, as described by Jung, was a being who lacked wisdom due to having lost or forgotten his feminine side—his Sophia (“wisdom”). Notwithstanding this and other evidence, some readers of Jung previously argued that his mythos in the Septem Sermones did not include the controversial Gnostic figure of the demiurge, and therefore it should not be properly called Gnostic. Publication of the Red Book: Liber Novus now makes it abundantly clear that the demiurge is present in Jung’s myth. Indeed, Answer to Job is unmistakably a reformulation of the Gnostic myth disclosed to Jung in Liber Novus and within the Septem Sermones.
Prior to the availability of the expanded version of the Sermons found in Liber Novus, the figure of Abraxas—as portrayed in the published 1916 edition of the Sermons—remained ambiguous. In my book, The Gnostic Jung and the Seven Sermons to the Dead, first published in 1982, I offered an initial commentary on the locus of Abraxas in Jung’s myth. With the long-sequestered text of Liber Novus finally available, I now wish to amend and expand those prior comments composed nearly four decades ago. Based on documentation in Liber Novus, the figure Jung identified as “Abraxas” has finally and indisputably been divulged as a classic Gnostic demiurge.
The mysterious being called “Abraxas” first appears in Septem Sermones in the latter part of the Second Sermon; passages describing him continue throughout the Third Sermon and into the Fourth Sermon. Initially, he is there characterized as “a god about whom you know nothing, because men have forgotten him.” This statement can certainly be taken to apply to an intermediate deity, as is ubiquitous in a large number of Gnostic scriptures.
For some two thousand years Western and Middle Eastern cultures have been dominated by the monotheistic god-image familiar to us today. Prior to the first several centuries of the current era, however, many Mediterranean cultures accommodated religions of a pluralistic nature wherein the image of an ultimate, impersonal divine reality coexisted with a number of lesser or intermediate deities. In such ancient pluralistic systems, the image of a materially powerful but morally and spiritually impaired demiurge often played an important role.
Scholars now widely affirm that the incipient Christian religion harbored various alternative forms; those movements in early Christianity that included a myth of the demiurge are usually categorized collectively as “Gnostic.” While the name Abraxas does occur in a few ancient Gnostic texts (where he is usually identified as a great archon), no evidence exists that the demiurge of classical Gnosticism was specifically called Abraxas. Jung’s assignation of the ancient name Abraxas to the demiurge was thus his own imaginative appropriation.
Abraxas and the Demiurge
So, was Abraxas the demiurge in Jung’s myth? Jung’s Black Book journal entry dated January 16, 1916, and reproduced as Appendix C in Liber Novus, removes all question about this issue: Abraxas was the demiurge in Jung’s myth. As Dr. Lance Owens has previously noted, this journal entry—written around the same time Jung sketched the Systema Munidtotius, and about two weeks before he scribed his initial journal version of the Septem Sermones—records the following words spoken to Jung by the Soul, who assumed the voice of the Gnostic Sophia. Her address to Jung is inarguably a rendition of the primal Gnostic myth of the demiurge, here named Abraxas:
You should worship only one God. The other Gods are unimportant. Abraxas is to be feared. Therefore it was a deliverance when he separated himself from me.
Note that the separation of the demiurge from Sophia—“when he separated himself from me”—is a key element of the classic Gnostic myth of Sophia and the Demiurge. She then exhorts,
You do not need to seek him. He will find you, just like Eros. He is the God of the cosmos, extremely powerful and fearful. He is the creative drive, he is form and formation, just as much as matter and force, therefore he is above all the light and dark Gods. He tears away souls and casts them into procreation. He is the creative and created. He is the God who always renews himself in days, in months, in years, in human life, in ages, in peoples, in the living, in heavenly bodies. He compels, he is unsparing. If you worship him, you increase his power over you. Thereby it becomes unbearable. You will have dreadful trouble getting clear of him. … So remember him, do not worship him, but also do not imagine that you can flee him since he is all around you. You must be in the middle of life, surrounded by death on all sides. Stretched out, like one crucified, you hang in him, the fearful, the overpowering.
This journal entry unambiguously identifies the figure of Abraxas, who a few weeks thereafter appeared in Jung’s initial journal version of the Sermons, as the demiurge of classical Gnostic mythology. The identification of Abraxas with the demiurge is further established in the draft manuscript of Liber Novus, where in several passages Jung substituted the term “ruler of this world” for the name “Abraxas” that was originally recorded in his Black Book journal.
At its beginning, Jung’s Gnostic theogony in the Sermons describes an ultimate, utterly transcendental source called the Pleroma, and then a number of intermediate deities, including God-the-Sun, the Devil, Eros, and The Tree of Life. In addition to these figures, the entire Third Sermon is devoted to introducing the demiurgic figure of Abraxas. In the Fourth Sermon Jung summarizes:
Immeasurable, like the host of stars, is the number of gods and devils. Every star is a god, and every space occupied by a star is a devil. And the emptiness of the whole is the Pleroma. The activity of the whole is Abraxas; only the unreal opposes him.
The version of the Sermons included in Liber Novus contains several crucially important additions to the original text that was printed in 1916. In this expanded 1917 manuscript version, Philemon is identified as the speaker presenting the Sermons to the dead (Basilides was the speaker of the Sermons in the printed version). The text incorporates questions that Jung asks Philemon about each sermon, along with Philemon’s answers. Philemon also adds extended homiletic commentary upon the content of his sermons. All of this additional material enriches and further explicates the meaning of the Sermons.
After the First Sermon, Jung’s initial question addressed to Philemon voices concern that the teachings in the Sermons might be regarded as “reprehensible heresy.” (This query bears the characteristic of a rhetorical question.) Philemon replies that the audience to whom the Sermons are addressed—“the dead”—are Christians whose now-abandoned faith long ago declared these teachings to be heresies. This commentary might be interpreted to further imply that a large number of people in our culture are now abandoning their traditional religion and are thus prepared to listen to ancient heresies, wherein they may find answers to their own portentous questions. Philemon’s statement is clear and to the point:
Why do I impart this teaching of the ancients? I teach in this way because their Christian faith once discarded and persecuted precisely this teaching. But they repudiated Christian belief and hence were rejected by that faith. They do not know this and therefore I must teach them…
Philemon’s words are eminently applicable to the problem of religion in contemporary Western culture. Religion in much of Europe has reached an unprecedented low point in its history, and allegiance to the Christian tradition in the U.S.A. appears to be diminishing. Jung frequently pointed out that the god image in a religion and culture is of crucial importance to the well-being of the collective psyche, and therefore also to the well-being of the individual. A major factor inducing the decline of the Christian religion in the West is unquestionably the disappointment people have come to feel with the traditional monotheistic god.
Prophecy of a New Age and a New God Image
Jung’s epochal Liber Novus is, in the consensus view of informed readers, a book of prophecy. On the initial folio of Liber Novus Jung presents an image of a complex landscape surmounted by a zodiac and showing forth the aeonial passage of the sun from the sign of Pisces into that of Aquarius. This image points forward to his title, The Way of What is to Come. The reader then encounters several prophetic quotations from the writings of the prophet Isaiah, and from the prologue to the Gospel of John. Jung’s Liber Novus thus sets the stage for disclosure of its new prophecy.
Throughout both Liber Primus and Liber Secundus of Liber Novus we find recurring references to the coming of the new age of Aquarius. In an impressive section that Jung titled “The Three Prophecies,” his Soul reveals to him three periods in the forthcoming age: War, Magic, and Religion. In commentary on this vision, Jung wrote,
These three mean the unleashing of chaos and its power, just as they also mean the binding of chaos. War is obvious and everybody sees it. Magic is dark and no one sees it. Religion is still to come, but it will become evident. … I felt the burden of the most terrible work of the times ahead. I saw where and how, but no word can grasp it, no will can conquer it. … But I saw it and my memory will not leave me alone.
Examining the numerous prophetic passages in Liber Novus, it becomes clear that at the heart of Jung’s experience there abides a vision of the formation of a new god image. But what indications did Jung give regarding the nature of this new god image and, moreover, how may contemporary persons facilitate the arising of a new god image in their own natures and in the new religion that is to come?
Liber Novus offers several statements that refer to the coming god image. The tone is set in the early part of Liber Primus; Jung there recounts several visions that he experienced which foretold of the time when “the great war broke out between the peoples of Europe.” He then declares,
Within us is the way, the truth, and the life. … The signposts have fallen, unblazed trails lie before us. Do not be greedy to gobble up the fruits of foreign fields. Do you not know that you yourselves are the fertile acre which bears everything that avails you?
It is clear from the beginning of Jung’s mysterious prophetic book that the future god image is none other than the divine essential Selfhood indwelling in the human soul. Here, again, we must turn to the expanded version of the Sermons for a clarifying commentary. At the conclusion of the First Sermon, Philemon instructs his audience to strive for what he calls their essences. He continues,
At bottom, therefore, there is only one striving, namely the striving for one's own essence. If you had this striving, you would not need to know anything about the Pleroma and its qualities, and yet you would attain the right goal by virtue of your own essence. Since, however, thought alienates us from our essence, I must teach you that knowledge with which you can bridle your thoughts.
Many Gnostic writings explicitly state that the essence of the human is the fragment of the ultimate reality residing at the center of its being. When it is possible for the human to gain access to this essence, all other religious or spiritual endeavors are redundant. It is largely the fault of the demiurge—or so Jung’s old friends, the Gnostics, believed—that this access is so fraught with difficulty. In the Sermons, Jung’s spirit mentor Philemon offers advice regarding the judicious way in which humans may free themselves from the yoke of the demiurge. Unlike some of the more radical Gnostics of old, Philemon advises us to neither flee from the demiurge Abraxas, nor to seek him. In one passage in the Sermons, Philemon says about Abraxas, “to resist him not is liberation.”
The Gnostic demiurge, by whatever name he may be called, is omnipresent in the outer world. While humans are in terrestrial embodiment they must both accept the demiurge’s presence, and equally endeavor to counterbalance his influence by contacting their own indwelling essence. This indwelling essence is described in the Seventh Sermon as the “solitary star” in the heavens. This statement is supplemented by the revelation Jung recorded in his Black Book journal on January 16, 1916, wherein his Soul admonished him:
You have in you the one God, the wonderfully beautiful and kind, the solitary, starlike, unmoving, he who is older and wiser than the father, he who has a safe hand, who leads you among all the darknesses and death scares of dreadful Abraxas. He gives joy and peace, since he is beyond death and beyond what is subject to change. He is no servant and no friend of Abraxas.
What then is the principal deficiency in the god of the old Aeon, the god who is to be overcome? Employing the nomenclature of the Sermons and other statements by Jung, we might say that the god of the monotheistic religions is a compound in which the ultimate god (called the Pleroma in the Septem Sermones) is unconsciously combined with the demiurge, named by Jung as Abraxas.
Based on the numerous paradoxical and even downright evil deeds and utterances of the Old Testament deity, and the fact that this deity was carried forward into orthodox Christianity, one is tempted to conclude (as Jung did in Answer to Job) that the Judeo-Christian god is at best a being who embodies both arrogance and unconsciousness. It seems quite impossible to believe that this god is both almighty and good—for his goodness would thus have to be combined with impotence, or alternatively, his omnipotence would be joined to his absence of goodness. A considerable portion of humanity has thus reached the point where it can no longer endure the unconscious tension embodied by a blind belief in an utterly enigmatic and derisory god image. This circumstance is causing an unprecedented upsurge of atheism and secularism in Western culture.
Throughout the twentieth century humanity has experienced a multitude of terrible events; these have undermined many people’s ability to have faith in a benevolent god. The medieval brutality of modern-day terrorists motivated by commitment to a monotheistic god has only reinforced the rejection of such traditional god images in secular society. Our age cries out for a new understanding of divinity, and a new god image. This was Jung’s prophesy in Liber Novus. As he also noted, this development may take centuries. Until a new god image constellates, we will pass through an epoch of chaos and violence.
When Christendom cast out the salvific myth of Gnosis in favor of an unimaginative literalism, it became spiritually impoverished. Our impoverishment has now reached its terminus. We await the formation of our new myth—a myth that rediscovers the primordial images and myth of Gnosis. As Jung declared,
I hope the reader will not be offended if my exposition sounds like a Gnostic myth. We are moving in those psychological regions where, as a matter of fact, Gnosis is rooted. The message of the Christian symbol is Gnosis, and the [response to it] by the unconscious is Gnosis in even higher degree. Myth is the primordial language natural to these psychic processes, and no intellectual formulation comes anywhere near the richness and expressiveness of mythical imagery. Such processes are concerned with the primordial images, and these are best and most succinctly reproduced by figurative language.
The Self, the Demiurge, and the New God Image
The issue of the coming god image has captured the attention of several of Jung's students in recent decades. Edward Edinger made perhaps the most complete statement concerning Jung’s declaration in his pioneering book, The New God-Image. As Edinger noted, Jung avowed an ancient and esoteric image of a deific consciousness dwelling in the soul. This affirmation is present in Liber Novus, and is restated in various ways throughout all of Jung’s subsequent writings. In Liber Novus Jung offered a startling prophecy: the long neglected indwelling god image would eventually become the orienting god image of the future. On the first page of Liber Novus he made it plain that this prediction was coordinated with the synchronous passing of the world from the astrological age of Pisces into that of Aquarius.
It is now evident that the essential foundation of Jung’s science and psychological language reposed in his long-concealed Liber Novus. A key revelation present within Liber Novus that later emerged as a core affirmation in his psychology—and as a spiritual and archetypal declaration—was the assertion of the presence within the human psyche of a central archetype, around which other archetypes constellate. He called this central principle or archetype the “Self.” In Psychology and Alchemy—published in 1944, and based on lectures given in 1935—Jung stated:
I have found myself obliged to give [this] archetype the psychological name of the “self”—a term on the one hand definite enough to convey the essence of human wholeness and on the other hand indefinite enough to express the indescribable and indeterminable nature of this wholeness. … Hence in its scientific usage the term “self” refers neither to Christ nor to the Buddha but to the totality of the figures that are its equivalent, and each of these figures is a symbol of the self. This mode of expression is an intellectual necessity in scientific psychology and in no sense denotes a transcendental prejudice. On the contrary … this objective attitude enables one man to decide in favour of the determinant Christ, another in favour of the Buddha, and so on.
While the existence of a divine image internal to the psyche, termed by Jung the “Self,” is widely accepted among followers of Jung, the opposing archetype of the demiurge is far less known. Jung claimed that at the heart of early Christianity there existed the insight of Gnosis; he himself had met this Gnosis in the experiences recorded in his Black Book journals, and thence in Liber Novus and in the Septem Sermones. An essential part of the archetypal mythos of Gnosis is the presence of a duality both inwardly in the soul, and outwardly in the cosmos. This duality is composed of a divine spark within the deepest recesses of the soul, and of an outer demiurgic power. Self and Demiurge stand in opposition.
This symbolic opposition is illustrated clearly in Jung’s 1916 mandala, Systema Munditotius. At the lowest point of the circular mandala, seated on the exterior circle, is a being with the lower body of a large serpent, surmounted by a light-colored torso, and topped by the golden head of a lion crowned with a ten-rayed golden halo. On the opposite pole of the mandala, at the apex of the design, we find a winged egg within which stands the figure of the child-god Phanes. The serpent-lion is described as abraxas dominus mundi (Abraxas, Lord of the World). This powerful demiurge dominates the lower creation, while the child-god Phanes above is about to attain to his full stature. The undifferentiated, primitive god-image is about to be replaced by the still developing child-god of promise.
The Systema Munditotius is further populated by images of archetypal beings that arrange themselves in pairs of opposites on the poles of the mandala. These include deus sol (god the sun) and deus luna satanus (god the moon, Satan). We also find paired a winged rodent identified as scientia (science), and a winged worm named ars (art). Despite the abundance of these symbolic images—many of which later appear as figures in the text of the Septem Sermones—the two principal focal points of the diagram are clearly Abraxas and Phanes.
A picture compensates for many words and Jung’s images here illuminate the nature and role of the archetypes depicted, particularly of the primordial demiurge Abraxas, and of Phanes, the new god-image awaiting birth. Of course, in conjunction with this image, the verbal descriptions of Abraxas in the Septem Sermones are also instructive:
Abraxas is the god whom it is difficult to know. His power is the very greatest, because man does not perceive it at all. He is magnificent even as the lion at the very moment when he strikes his prey down. His beauty is like the beauty of a spring morn.
To see him means blindness; To know him is sickness; To worship him is death; To fear him is wisdom; Not to resist him means liberation … Such is the terrible Abraxas … He is both the radiance and the dark shadow of man. He is deceitful reality.
As Jung noted in the Second Sermon, people know nothing about the demiurge because they have forgotten him. This forgetting was aided by the self-declared architects of the early Christian centuries: the heresiologist Church Fathers of orthodoxy. The very thought of a demiurge thereafter became a heretical abomination to orthodox Christendom. Jung’s insights recorded in the Liber Novus, and particularly in the Sermons, declared that in order to move toward greater wholeness we must look to the coming new god image. But to do this, we need also recognize the forgotten demiurge, the god whom Jung declared “difficult to know.”
Present-day humanity is gradually becoming aware of an inner psychic reality, a centering fact Jung identified as the salvific archetype of the Self. In Liber Novus he prophetically proclaimed that a new god image is developing in humanity—and perhaps a new god image has already awakened in some individuals of our age, as it did in Jung. This incipient aeonial development demands further conscious awareness and a conscious union of the opposites. Using the language of Liber Novus and the Systema Munditotius, we might proclaim that Phanes is now stirring and is about to break out of the egg. For this to happen, however, human beings must also consciously recognize the reality of his opposite entity, the demiurge Abraxas.
Western culture has suffered too long from a ruinous one-sidedness. A powerful element in this one-sided perspective is a militant unwillingness to acknowledge the effective reality of the demiurge. With singular symbolic insight, the ancient Gnostics noted how the human spirit is confined on earth by a prison constructed of perplexing opposites. A demiurgic reality has placed us behind these prison bars, which alternatingly assume form in the inexorable struggle of light and dark, good and evil, or wise and unwise components. Denying the reality of this fact merely continues our confinement.
Our extraverted immersion in the world, both in its natural and cultural aspects, perpetuates servitude to the forgotten Abraxas. His fiery, mesmerizing, and infinitely creative powers enthrall us. We worship the terrible Abraxas in the baleful political ideologies of our epoch. Ever increasingly, he holds us captive in the magically scintillating web of modern technology. Only an increase of psychological awareness, leading to the individuation of our psyches, offers a path to liberation from the domination of the internal complexes and external fascinations that are the essence of Abraxas. It is incumbent upon us to accept the reality of this archetypal force, for in the words of the Sermons, “to worship him is death; to fear him is wisdom, not to resist him means liberation.”
The time has come when we must incorporate Jung’s epochal insights into our lives. The teachings of Liber Novus must be met as a form of spiritual discipline. A few months before his death in 1960, Jung wrote to an acquaintance,
I was unable to make the people see what I am after. I am practically alone. There are a few who understand this and that, but almost nobody sees the whole... I have failed in my foremost task: to open people’s eyes to the fact that man has a soul and there is a buried treasure in the field and that our religion and philosophy are in a lamentable state.
Today, after the publication of his monumental spiritual classic, Liber Novus, we may be able to finally reply to Jung that he has not failed at all; that inspired now by his visionary message, we too are ready “to give birth to the ancient in a new time.” In some mysterious archetypal locale, the sage Dr. C. G. Jung awaits such a response to his great work.
gnosis.org/gnostic-jung/Abraxas-Jungs-Demiurge.html
Abraxas by Samael Aun Weor
Abraxasor Abrasax (Gnostic, from the Greek Αβραξας) From The Theosophical Glossary: "Mystical term used by the Gnostics to indicate the supreme entity of our cosmic hierarchy or its manifestation in the human being which they called the Christos. Abraxas has the value of 365, based on numerical equivalents of the Greek alphabet. Because 365 represents the cycle of one revolution of our planet around the sun, they held that in Abraxas were mystically contained the full number of families of entities composing a hierarchy. These entities received from their supreme illuminator, Abraxas, the streams of life and inspiration governing their existence. Thus in a sense Abraxas is the cosmic Oversoul, the creative or Third Logos, Brahma. The Basilidean Gnostics [see: Basilides] taught that from this supreme God was created nous (mind). Abraxas also was identified with the Hebrew 'Adonai, the Egyptian Horus, and the Hindu Prajapati. Gnostic amulets known as Abraxas gems depicted the god as a pantheos (all-god), with the head of a cock, herald of the sun, representing foresight and vigilance; a human body clothed in armor, suggestive of guardian power; legs in the form of sacred asps. In his right hand is a scourge, emblem of authority; on his left arm a shield emblazoned with a word of power. This pantheos is invariably inscribed with his proper name IAO and his epithets Abraxas and Sabaoth, and often accompanied with invocations such as SEMES EILAM, the eternal sun ( Gnostics and Their Remains 246), which Blavatsky equates with "the central spiritual sun" of the Qabbalists (SD 2:214). Though written in Greek characters, the words SEMES EILAM ABRASAX are probably Semitic in origin: shemesh sun; `olam secret, occult, hid, eternity, world; Abrasax Abraxas. Hence in combination the phrase may be rendered "the eternal sun Abraxax." "Remember, beloved devotee, the double tail of the serpent that forms the legs of the solar rooster of Abraxas. The entire process of the Great Work consists of releasing oneself from the enchanted rings of the tempting serpent..." - Samael Aun Weor, The Aquarian Message
I entered this shot at a local fair, and it got the judges' choice award and a purple ribbon along with it! (:
Domenico Beccafumi 1486-1551 Sienne
Vierge à l'Enfant avec Saints Jean Baptiste, Elisabeth, Catherine de Sienne
1540-1550
Parme Fondazione Magnani Rocca
Peintre de l'école maniériste italienne.
Painter from the Italian Mannerist school.
La fondation Magnani Rocca est un charmant petit musée. Le visiteur passe vite d'une époque à une autre. Il m'a paru amusant d'accentuer la transition et de mélanger dans la galerie, pas dans l'album, des époques lointaines. Pour mieux mettre en évidence les ruptures de styles et de thèmes. Ruptures toujours liées aux changements des croyances des hommes.
The Magnani Rocca foundation is a charming little museum. The visitor quickly passes from one era to another. It seemed fun to me to accentuate the transition and to mix distant eras in the gallery, not in the album. To better highlight the breaks in styles and themes. Ruptures always linked to changes in men's beliefs.
LA FEMME DANS LA PEINTURE EUROPEENNE
Une question : Dans quelles grandes civilisations mondiales, à part l'Europe chrétienne (Catholique, Orthodoxe, puis seulement à partir du 17è siècle, Protestante) la femme a, officiellement, gouverné les hommes, et légitimement tenue sa place dans la hiérarchie politique ?
A Question: In what major world civilizations, except the Christian Europe (Catholic, Orthodox, and only from the 17th century, Protestant) woman has officially ruled the men, and legitimately held its place in the political hierarchy?
La peinture (et la sculpture) européennes sont tout à fait remarquables par la place importante qu'elles ont accordé à la femme dans l'art. Une importance que l'on ne retrouve nulle part ailleurs dans l'art des grandes civilisations. Sauf dans l'Egypte antique, la Crète minoenne, et dans l'Hindouisme.
La Grèce et Rome offrent de multiples exemples de représentations de la femme, habillée ou nue. En peinture l'héritage est mince (essentiellement les céramiques), mais la sculpture témoigne de l'importance de la femme comme thème de l'art. Une importance qui n'est pas seulement limitée à la sphère privée ou artistique, mais qui concerne la sphère sociale, publique. Les Déesses grecques et romaines, leur présence permanente dans la peinture et la sculpture, les temples qui leurs sont consacrés, sont le témoignage de ce rôle de la femme dans la civilisation européenne de l'Antiquité. Toutefois la Grèce pose une question intéressante : Celle de la différence entre le rôle tout à fait majeur, de la femme dans la mythologie, et la religion grecque, comparé à son insignifiance dans le domaine politique. Même s'il a existé une évolution vers une importance plus grande de la femme dans les sociétés grecques et romaines au cours des siècles, dans l'Antiquité, l'influence de la femme grecque et romaine reste essentiellement cantonnée à la sphère du privé et de l'art, pas du politique. Le mariage des cultures pré-indo-européennes et indo-européennes conquérantes à partir de l'âge des métaux pourrait expliquer cette dichotomie.
Les vestiges de l'art Minoen en Crète (2700-1200 environ) du musée d'Heraklion sont très clairs : les femmes jouaient un rôle social et politique très évident dans cette civilisation. Or cette civilisation minoenne est une source absolument directe de la culture grecque, et de son évolution vers une civilisation plus complexe. Le rôle de la Crète minoenne dans l'histoire grecque est décisif. Il suffit de rappeler que selon la mythologie classique Zeus a été élevée en Crète sur le Mont Ida, pour échapper à son père Chronos. Ainsi la présence des nombreuses Déesses dans la mythologie et la religion grecque s'explique sans aucun doute, en bonne partie, par l'héritage minoen. Cette importance de la femme dans les civilisations antérieures à l'âge des métaux a nécessairement eu des influences, à terme, sur les sociétés grecques, romaines, ensuite européennes. Mais les conquérants indo-européens de l'âge du bronze ont maintenu la prééminence masculine dans le domaine politique. C'est ainsi que Zeus gouverne seul les Dieux, les Déesses, et les humains, mais trompe son épouse Héra autant que faire se peut, même si cela lui vaut quelques contrariétés dans le privé. Le règne de la Grande Déesse Mère des temps néolithiques est terminé et la société Gréco-romaine est politiquement masculine, même encore dans l'antiquité tardive.
Par contre à partir de l'époque médiévale, aux temps catholiques et orthodoxes, la femme joue en Europe un rôle public et politique qui est loin d'être insignifiant . Princesses, reines, régentes, duchesses et comtesses n'ont pas que des rôles honorifiques, elles gouvernent les sociétés. Elles ont investi le domaine politique.
Il est possible d'apercevoir trois sources principales et directes à l'origine de la civilisation européenne actuelle :
1° La Grèce et Rome, dont nous avons vu que l'influence comme modèle sur le rôle politique de la femme européenne a certainement été mineure.
2° Par le biais de la religion chrétienne héritée du Bas Empire Romain : les sources sémitiques judaïques. Mais chez les sémites, juifs ou musulman, le rôle de la femme est totalement limité à la sphère du privé. La femme n'a aucun rôle politique ou public. Chez les Juifs le rôle public des femmes se limite à tuer ou faire tuer les ennemis du peuple juif (Esther, Judith, Jael...).
3° Les peuples de cultures Celtes, Germaniques, Slaves, et Scandinaves au nord qui formaient la base de la population et ensuite après les grandes invasions toute la haute aristocratie et les familles royales régnantes. Sauf dans les pays scandinaves, la noblesse européenne est essentiellement germanique d'origine. Or il semble que dans les cultures des peuples celtes, germaniques, slaves et scandinaves, la femme a anciennement tenu un rôle public secondaire mais non négligeable, en plus de son activité dans la vie privée. Mais l'art n'en témoigne pas, ou peu.
Avec l'Europe chrétienne, ou plus exactement catholique et orthodoxe, la femme ne disparaît donc nullement de la sculpture ou de la peinture. Elle s'habille. L'art de l'Europe catholique notamment fait une grande place à la femme. Vénus, Diane, les Nymphes disparaissent certes. Mais les Saintes sont innombrables, et la Vierge est omniprésente. La Vierge est, aussi et surtout, la Mère de l'Enfant. Quel art dans le monde a fait autant de place à la mère et à l'enfant ?
La quasi divinisation de la Vierge Marie dans la peinture et la sculpture européenne, qui est une caractéristique des religions catholiques et orthodoxes, est totalement rejetée par les cultures sémitiques (juifs et musulmans) et aussi par le protestantisme, dont l'héritage judaïque est très important de par l'importance accordée à l'Ancien Testament. Cette quasi divinisation de la Vierge pourrait avoir ses sources dans les traditions celtiques, germaniques, scandinaves et slaves et dans la mythologie et la religion grecque, et au delà de la Grèce et de Rome, dans la culture minoenne.
"Quasi divinisation" en effet, car si dans la tradition populaire la Vierge est adorée comme une déesse, dans la doctrine catholique et orthodoxe, dans la théologie, la Vierge n'est absolument pas une déesse. Elle est l'objet d'un culte, supérieur à celui accordé aux saints, mais elle n'est pas adorée comme Dieu. Ces différences entre la religion populaire et la doctrine se retrouvent dans le Bouddhisme : Bouddha est adoré comme un Dieu par les masses. Il n'est pas Dieu dans la doctrine. Le culte de la Vierge n'est d'ailleurs absolument pas dans les Évangiles, il a été organisé ultérieurement par L'Église pour des raisons éthiques et politiques. Cette politique de L'Église, qui est en place dès les temps paléochrétiens et barbares, a eu des conséquences sociologiques très importantes au fil des siècles sur le statut de la femme européenne. L'importance idéologique de la femme dans la religion catholique et orthodoxe a eu des conséquences dans le rôle privé et public de la femme européenne. Par exemple si on compare avec les civilisations chinoises et sémitiques, juives ou islamisées.
La femme catholique et orthodoxe peinte ou sculptée s'habille si on compare à l'Antiquité gréco-romaine, mais un espace non négligeable pour le Nu subsiste dans la peinture catholique, à l'ouest de l'Europe. Pas à l'Est, dans l'art orthodoxe. Quelques thèmes de l'Ancien Testament permettaient aux peintres de ne pas perdre la main dans la représentation du nu féminin, et de satisfaire avec discrétion la libido de leurs clients aristocrates. Adam et Eve en tout premier, ensuite à partir du 16è siècle, Bethsabée au Bain, Suzanne et les vieillards, Lot et ses filles, Samson et Dalila, Judith et Holoferne. Le nu masculin est représenté lui aussi fort souvent, avec le Christ, Adam et quelques saints, Jérôme, et surtout Saint Sébastien, dont les représentations sont toujours très orientées homophiles du moins à partir du 15è siècle. A la " Renaissance" en effet la représentation du nu féminin augmente très sensiblement, en même temps que les thèmes tirés de la Mythologie et de l'histoire gréco-romaine. Les peintres ont désormais la possibilité d'ajouter aux thèmes de l'ancien testament ceux de l'Antiquité. Dans toute l'Europe, au nord (Cranach) comme au sud, c'est une explosion de nus féminins. Et de nus masculins aussi, car le nu a été un sujet de prédilection de peintres de la fin du 15è et du 16è siècle dans leur reconquête technique du rendu réaliste des figures humaines.
Avec la Réforme la peinture religieuse disparaît presque totalement, sauf le Christ en croix. Dans la peinture profane, la représentation du nu féminin (ou masculin) disparaît aussi totalement. Le protestantisme, retour à l'Ancien Testament de culture sémitique, est infiniment plus puritain que le catholicisme. Sauf quelques exceptions dans l'art religieux de Rembrandt qui constitue ainsi une double exception dans le monde protestant (peinture religieuse et nu féminin)
La femme est très présente dans la peinture protestante, profane, des Pays Bas du Nord, mais elle est tout à fait habillée. Il n'y a plus d'Eve ou de Suzanne, ni de Filles de Lot. La femme n'est plus Vierge ou Sainte, elle n'est pas non plus Vénus ou Diane. La femme est bourgeoise, servante, marchande ou paysanne. Et mère. La mère et l'enfant ont conservé une bonne place dans la peinture néerlandaise, mais leur représentation est laïcisée. Ce n'est plus la Mère adorant l'Enfant, c'est la mère épouillant son enfant. Nuances. La femme ivre apparaît, la femme de moeurs facile est suggérée, mais toujours habillée.
A la même époque, le reste de l'Europe au sud, catholique, continue dans la même voie ouverte par la Renaissance : la représentation de la femme est abondante, soit dans le cadre religieux, soit dans celui de l'Antiquité, soit par le portrait. La femme, nue ou habillée, est omniprésente dans l'oeuvre de Rubens. Mais le 17 è siècle finissant et le 18è siècle commençant, deviennent parfois "polissons" ( Fragonard). L'érotisme est plus affiché dans la représentation du nu féminin.
Aux 19è et 20 siècles, à l'époque de l'Art Moderne, entre 1815 et 1950, la femme continue d'être un sujet de prédilection pour les peintres (et les sculpteurs) et ses représentations sont extrêmement diverses. Les thèmes religieux, historiques ou mythologiques se raréfient au profit de la femme contemporaine au quotidien. Il n'est pas toujours certain que la femme gagne en beauté quand elle finit par ressembler à une guitare, qu'elle s'aplatit jusqu'à pouvoir passer sous les portes, ou qu'au contraire ses jambes et son tronc prennent des allures de tuyau de poêle. Mais l'essentiel est qu'elle est toujours là.
La femme, habillée ou nue, a presque totalement disparue dans l'Art Contemporain Institutionnel, celui des Musées. Les exceptions sont rarissimes, quand elles existent les artistes officiels cultivent la provocation par le Laid et l'Absurde, les caractéristique de la peinture contemporaine institutionnelle. L'Art peint et sculpté, "installé", d'après les années 1950 ne fait la place qu'à la femme laide et absurde.
Il est vrai qu'il est possible de voir la femme belle et significative dans les publicités. La femme n'est plus vierge, ni mère, elle n'est plus admirée, elle est consommée. Dans notre société occidentale, éclairée par les "Lumières", serait-ce une libération des obscurantismes du passé ?
L'Art est, à toutes les époques, un excellent révélateur des valeurs qui animent une société.
WOMEN IN EUROPEAN PAINTING
The painting (and sculpture) European are quite remarkable by the importance they accorded to the woman in the art. An importance that can not be found nowhere else in the art of great civilizations. Except in ancient Egypt and in Hinduism.
Greece and Rome offer multiple examples of representations of women, dressed or naked. In painting the heritage is thin (mainly ceramics), but sculpture shows the importance of women as a theme in art. An importance that is not only limited to the private or artistic sphere, but also concerns the social, public sphere. The Greek and Roman goddesses, their importance in painting and sculpture, the temples dedicated to them, are testimony to this role of women in the European civilization of Antiquity. However, Greece asks an interesting question: That of the difference between the very major role of women in mythology and the Greek religion, compared to their insignificance in the political field. Although there has been a shift towards the greater importance of women in Greek and Roman societies over the centuries, in Antiquity the influence of Greek and Roman women remained essentially confined to the private sphere and art, not politics. The marriage of the pre-Indo-European and conquering Indo-European cultures from the Metal Age onwards could explain this dichotomy.
The vestiges of Minoan art in Crete (2700-1200 approximately) in the Heraklion Museum are very clear: women played a very important social and political role in this civilization. Yet this Minoan civilization is an absolutely direct source of Greek culture, and of its evolution towards a more complex civilization. The role of Minoan Crete in Greek history is decisive. Suffice it to recall that according to classical mythology Zeus was raised in Crete on Mount Ida, to escape his father Chronos. Thus the importance of the goddesses in Greek mythology and religion is undoubtedly explained, in large part, by the Minoan heritage. This importance of women in civilizations prior to the Metal Age necessarily had influences, eventually, on Greek, Roman, and then European societies. But the Indo-European conquerors of the Bronze Age maintained male pre-eminence in politics. Thus Zeus alone rules the Gods, Goddesses, and humans, but cheats his wife Hera as much as possible, even if it causes him some annoyance in private. The reign of the Great Mother Goddess of Neolithic times is over and the Greco-Roman society is politically masculine, even in late antiquity.
On the other hand, starting from medieval times, in Catholic and Orthodox times, women in Europe have played a public and political role that is far from insignificant. Princesses, queens, regents, duchesses and countesses not only have honorary roles, they also govern societies. They have entered the political realm.
It is possible to see three main and direct sources at the origin of today's European civilization:
1° Greece and Rome, whose influence as a model on the political role of European women has certainly been minor.
2° Through the Christian religion inherited from the Lower Roman Empire: the Semitic-Judaic sources. But among the Semites, whether Jewish or Muslim, the role of women is totally limited to the private sphere. Women have no political or public role. Among the Jews, the public role of women is limited to killing or having killed the enemies of the Jewish people (Esther, Judith, Jael...).
3° The peoples of Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, and Scandinavian cultures in the north who formed the basis of the population and then after the great invasions all the high aristocracy and the reigning royal families. With the exception of the Scandinavian countries, European nobility is essentially of Germanic origin. However, it seems that in the cultures of the Celtic, Germanic, Slavic and Scandinavian peoples, women formerly held a secondary but not negligible public role in addition to their activity in private life. But art bears little or no witness to this.
With Christian Europe, or more exactly Catholic and Orthodox Europe, the woman does not disappear from sculpture or painting. She dresses. The art of Catholic Europe, in particular, gives a great deal of space to women. Venus, Diana, the Nymphs certainly disappear. But the saints women are innumerable, and the Virgin is omnipresent. The Virgin is, also and above all, the Mother of the Child. What art in the world has made so much room for the mother and the child?
The quasi deification of the Virgin Mary in European painting and sculpture, which is a characteristic of the Catholic and Orthodox religions, is totally rejected by the Semitic cultures (Jews and Muslims) and also by Protestantism, whose Jewish heritage is very important because of the importance given to the Old Testament. This quasi-deification of the Virgin could have its sources in Celtic, Germanic, Scandinavian and Slavic traditions and in Greek mythology and religion, and beyond Greece and Rome, in Minoan culture.
"Almost deification" indeed, for if in popular tradition the Virgin is worshipped as a goddess, in Catholic and Orthodox doctrine, in theology, the Virgin is absolutely not a goddess. She is the object of a cult, superior to that accorded to the saints, but she is not worshipped as God. These differences between popular religion and doctrine are found in Buddhism: Buddha is worshipped as a God by the masses. He is not God in doctrine. The worship of the Virgin is not at all in the Gospels, moreover, it was later organized by the Church for ethical and political reasons. This policy of the Church, which has been in place since early Christian and barbaric times, has had very important sociological consequences over the centuries on the status of European women. The ideological importance of women in the Catholic and Orthodox religions has had consequences for the private and public role of European women. For example if we compare with the Chinese and Semitic, Jewish or Islamic civilisations.
The painted or sculpted Catholic and Orthodox woman dresses if compared to Greco-Roman Antiquity, but a significant space for the Nude remains in Catholic painting in Western Europe. Not in the East, in Orthodox art. Some Old Testament themes allowed painters not to lose their hand in the representation of the female nude, and to discreetly satisfy the libido of their aristocratic clients. Adam and Eve first, then from the 16th century onwards, Bathsheba in the Bath, Susanna and the Elders, Lot and his daughters, Samson and Delilah, Judith and Holofernes. The male nude is also very often represented, with Christ, Adam and a few saints, Jerome, and especially Saint Sebastian, whose representations are always very homophile oriented at least from the 15th century. During the "Renaissance", the representation of the female nude increases significantly, along with themes taken from Mythology and Greco-Roman history. Painters now had the possibility of adding to the themes of the Old Testament those of Antiquity. All over Europe, in the north (Cranach) as well as in the south, there is an explosion of female nudes. And male nudes as well, because the nude was a favourite subject of painters at the end of the 15th and 16th centuries in their technical reconquest of the realistic rendering of human figures.
With the Reformation, religious painting disappeared almost completely, except for Christ on the cross. In secular painting, the representation of the female (or male) nude also disappears completely. Protestantism, a return to the Old Testament of Semitic culture, is infinitely more puritan than Catholicism. With a few exceptions in Rembrandt's religious art, which thus constitutes a double exception in the Protestant world (religious painting and female nude).
The woman is very present in the Protestant painting, secular, from the Northern low countries, but the woman is quite dressed. This is the end for Eve or Suzanne, or the daugthers of Lot. The woman is no longer Virgin or holy, it is not either Venus or Diana. The woman is bourgeois, servant, merchant, or peasant. And mother. The mother and child have maintained a good place in Dutch painting, but their representation is secularized. It is no longer "the Mother adoring the Child" is the mother delousing her child. The drunken woman appears, the woman of easy morals is suggested, but always dressed
At the same time, the rest of Europe to the south, Catholic, continues in the same path opened by the Renaissance: The representation of women is abundant or in the religious sphere or in that of antiquity or by the portrait. The woman, nude or dressed, is omnipresent in the work of Rubens. But the 17 th century ended and the 18th century beginning, sometimes become "coquin" (Fragonard). Eroticism is displayed in the representation of the female nude.
In the 19th and 20th centuries, in the era of Modern Art, between 1815 and 1950, women continued to be a favorite subject for painters (and sculptors) and their representations were extremely diverse. Religious, historical or mythological themes are becoming scarcer to the benefit of contemporary women in their daily lives. It is not always certain whether the woman gains in beauty when she ends up looking like a guitar, flattens out until she can pass under doors, or on the contrary her legs and trunk look like a stovepipe. But the main thing is that it's still there.
The woman, dressed or naked, has almost totally disappeared in Institutional Contemporary Art, that of the Museums. Exceptions are extremely rare, when they exist official artists cultivate provocation through the Ugly and the Absurd, the characteristics of institutional contemporary painting. The Art painted and sculpted, "installed", after the 1950s, only makes room for the ugly and absurd woman.
It is true that it is possible to see the beautiful and significant woman in advertisements. The woman is no longer a virgin, nor a mother, she is no longer admired, she is consumed. In our western society, enlightened by the "Enlightenment", would this be a liberation from the obscurantism of the past?
Art is, at all times, an excellent revealer of the values that animate a society.
Angel-08 - Angelic hierarchy, the powers (la puissance) POTESTATES
Florence, Baptistery, mosaics
Firenze Battistero San Giovanni, mosaici
The hierarchy of angels belongs to the oldest mosaics within the cupola, as they were made in concentric cycles beginning at the top. [1240-1300 AD]
Original photo by courtesy of wikimedia, Marie-Lan Nguyen
Angelic hierarchy
1 First Sphere
o 1.1 Seraphim
o 1.2 Cherubim
o 1.3 Thrones
2 Second Sphere
o 2.1 Dominions or Lordships
o 2.2 Virtues or Strongholds
o 2.3 Powers or Authorities
3 Third Sphere
o 3.1 Principalities or Rulers
o 3.2 Archangels
o 3.3 Angels
3.3.1 Personal guardian angels
Source:
Elegy I
Who, if I cried out, would hear me among the angels'
hierarchies? and even if one of them suddenly
pressed me against his heart, I would perish
in the embrace of his stronger existence.
For beauty is nothing but the beginning of terror
which we are barely able to endure and are awed
because it serenely disdains to annihilate us.
Each single angel is terrifying.
And so I force myself, swallow and hold back
the surging call of my dark sobbing.
Oh, to whom can we turn for help?
Not angels, not humans;
and even the knowing animals are aware that we feel
little secure and at home in our interpreted world.
There remains perhaps some tree on a hillside
daily for us to see; yesterday's street remains for us
stayed, moved in with us and showed no signs of leaving.
Oh, and the night, the night, when the wind
full of cosmic space invades our frightened faces.
Whom would it not remain for -that longed-after,
gently disenchanting night, painfully there for the
solitary heart to achieve? Is it easier for lovers?
Don't you know yet ? Fling out of your arms the
emptiness into the spaces we breath -perhaps the birds
will feel the expanded air in their more ferven flight.
Yes, the springtime were in need of you. Often a star
waited for you to espy it and sense its light.
A wave rolled toward you out of the distant past,
or as you walked below an open window,
a violin gave itself to your hearing.
All this was trust. But could you manage it?
Were you not always distraught by expectation,
as if all this were announcing the arrival
of a beloved? (Where would you find a place
to hide her, with all your great strange thoughts
coming and going and often staying for the night.)
When longing overcomes you, sing of women in love;
for their famous passion is far from immortal enough.
Those whom you almost envy, the abandoned and
desolate ones, whom you found so much more loving
than those gratified. Begin ever new again
the praise you cannot attain; remember:
the hero lives on and survives; even his downfall
was for him only a pretext for achieving
his final birth. But nature, exhausted, takes lovers
back into itself, as if such creative forces could never be
achieved a second time.
Have you thought of Gaspara Stampa sufficiently:
that any girl abandoned by her lover may feel
from that far intenser example of loving:
"Ah, might I become like her!" Should not their oldest
sufferings finally become more fruitful for us?
Is it not time that lovingly we freed ourselves
from the beloved and, quivering, endured:
as the arrow endures the bow-string's tension,
and in this tense release becomes more than itself.
For staying is nowhere.
Voices, voices. Listen my heart, as only saints
have listened: until the gigantic call lifted them
clear off the ground. Yet they went on, impossibly,
kneeling, completely unawares: so intense was
their listening. Not that you could endure
the voice of God -far from it! But listen
to the voice of the wind and the ceaseless message
that forms itself out of silence. They sweep
toward you now from those who died young.
Whenever they entered a church in Rome or Naples,
did not their fate quietly speak to you as recently
as the tablet did in Santa Maria Formosa?
What do they want of me? to quietly remove
the appearance of suffered injustice that,
at times, hinders a little their spirits from
freely proceeding onward.
Of course, it is strange to inhabit the earth no longer,
to no longer use skills on had barely time to acquire;
not to observe roses and other things that promised
so much in terms of a human future, no longer
to be what one was in infinitely anxious hands;
to even discard one's own name as easily as a child
abandons a broken toy.
Strange, not to desire to continue wishing one's wishes.
Strange to notice all that was related, fluttering
so loosely in space. And being dead is hard work
and full of retrieving before one can gradually feel a
trace of eternity. -Yes, but the liviing make
the mistake of drawing too sharp a distinction.
Angels (they say) are often unable to distinguish
between moving among the living or the dead.
The eternal torrent whirls all ages along with it,
through both realms forever, and their voices are lost in
its thunderous roar.
In the end the early departed have no longer
need of us. One is gently weaned from things
of this world as a child outgrows the need
of its mother's breast. But we who have need
of those great mysteries, we for whom grief is
so often the source of spiritual growth,
could we exist without them?
Is the legend vain that tells of music's beginning
in the midst of the mourning for Linos?
the daring first sounds of song piercing
the barren numbness, and how in that stunned space
an almost godlike youth suddenly left forever,
and the emptiness felt for the first time
those harmonious vibrations which now enrapture
and comfort and help us.
Rainer Maria Rilke