BACK to site navigation
BACK to list of published material
PROPOSITION 79
We live in an age when it is fashionable to think that something is fundamentally wrong with life, the universe etc. There isn't anything wrong, it's just that we only see part of the game, our vision of the whole is clouded by necessity, and we distort it by placing an over-emphasis on what we can see. Man is an imperfect being and he projects his imperfection onto everything he sees; the truth is that Man is just as much an instrument of Nature as a tree is. Judging by the number of large bits in the universe and the fact that nothing seriously big has hit us in several million years, the universe seems somewhat fond of us. Man with his supreme egotism thinks that he can damage Nature, but he can't even breathe on the screen that conceals her mystery. Man thinks that he is an independent entity, divorced from the universe and nature, having free will, whatever that might be. In reality Man is an integral integrated part of the universe, he has no choices, he must always play his part in the scheme of things. Everything is intimately connected with everything else. Nothing can ever act independently.
The whole of Nature is a book whose story symbolises the entire course of human existence. We are dependent on nature for everything, we take everything from her: our food, clothing, the air we breathe; and yet we ignore her story and her secrets and her mystery. In the past man looked to nature to try and understand the riddle of existence, and in desert countries where the Sun ruled harshly and without compromise God was seen as an implacable deity who had clearly defined rules which had to be obeyed. If you went out into the desert without obeying the rules you died. The Sun will not compromise therefore God would not. This is but a reflection of the desert man's experience of Nature, and from it were developed the extreme 'good versus evil' religions of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. Thus we have been taught by desert religions that nature is the enemy and there is nothing to be learned from her.
Only Nature, ever changing Nature holds the key to the Truth. The whole universe is one giant uncertainty, nothing can ever be ultimately proved about anything. The whole edifice of Science could be tumbled tomorrow, because the theories upon which Science is based are themselves uncertain. Nobody really knows what light is, or how gravity works or indeed the benzine ring, upon which the whole of organic chemistry is based. Physics was once confident that it had the atom licked: it contained electrons, protons, and neutrons; and everything was right with the world for a while, but with better equipment the atom was found to contain so many different particles that it turned itself into a Greek alphabet soup. The Scientific mind reels at the unreality of it all, so we turn to religion in our search for one factor in the whole edifice that is constant, and we're still on a loser, God is every bit as unreliable as all the rest. The whole religious theory outrages reason.
The absurdity that the universe is of the nature of a God who somehow produced a Son without a fully functioning female violates the very principles of Nature. The female has always given birth to every living thing and yet we are always persuaded that all this is of a male origin. This is the pseudo-religious view, everything was created in seven days including God's day off, but what seven days? What sun to measure seven days with? I think God was cheating a bit, someone had got there before him and made the sun and the earth, and sleep and all those other whacky concepts that populate that macho edited text 'the Bible'. Nope, by the time God got in on the act there were already lots of toys to play with. Knowing God's track record it strikes me that the reason he kept quiet about who did the real work was that all the graft of setting things up was done by a female, and God was never very keen on females. In fact wherever God pops up whether as Allah or Jehovah woman comes in for some stick - hmmmmm. Man is always born of woman and Gods are all born of Goddesses. A God is nothing more than a Goddess with an idea or a message. Gods are concerned with doing. Goddesses are concerned with being, it is what a Goddess is that matters, not what she does.
Nature is the best illustration of the Mind of the creator that we have got, and she's female, as sure as we were born from her as a species we were born from woman as individuals. She will guide, limit, love and chastise, but she will no longer obey us than will our mothers. Nature continuously adjusts and compensates, creates and re-creates; she must have something in mind for us. It is not the universe's chaos phenomena that is interesting so much as her fundamental way of getting things done and sorting things out; even though some of her ways lack beauty, they never lack subtlety. We are what the universe is about, we are her way of expressing herself.
To suggest that there were physical scientific laws existing at the moment of creation is as silly as saying that the origin of creation according to the Bible is true, because there was nothing to define these laws. To posit a creation without characteristics as science tries to do is clearly silly because nothing would always remain nothing. It is silly to suggest that the Universe was created from a big bang because at the beginning of the universe there was no space for a big bang to extend into, time didn't exist, and there was nothing to destroy - so why a big bang, why should the creator have a nervous breakdown before he or she thought anything to get nervous about? What evidence in nature is there for a big bang as a formula of creation? Events quite often end with a big bang, but nothing in nature to my knowledge begins with a big bang. Nature does things gently and with precision when she creates. She destroys dramatically and sometimes explosively but only to put something else in its place. It is hardly likely that having created particles in a particular way the creator should give up the formula and go for an up to date solution to everything by blowing it all up. No, the Big Bang theory is a sort of Izzy Wizzy let's get busy sort of creation theory, an attempt to interpret creation in terms of twentieth century barbarism. It works on the principle of, we don't know what it is, so let's blow it up anyway.
The big bang theory of the creation of the universe is not about the beginning of the universe at all but an attempt to understand the behaviour of particles after creation. The beginning of the universe is synonymous with the creation of the original fundamental particles and their subsequent behaviour. The creation process is as follows: two negative forces of unknown magnitude contract in on themselves until they unite and leave negative existence, their unity creating a positive force that is instantly repelled by this immense negativity: an expansion outwards of two united negatives and a positive in Nothing. To all intents and purposes this positive force defines God. Now you have the possibility of a big bang because we now have the building blocks of atoms or energy tending toward change.
The Entity responsible for the Creation and the created universe must be one. That means that the supreme deity is at once the creation and everything contained within it. Any antagonistic forces within creation must be subject to that original will. To say that in the beginning there was a supreme deity and something that was not the supreme deity is absurd, because the deity could not be supreme if there was something else to challenge that supremacy. No! in the beginning was God or Goddess and that deity had the potential to be everything and the universe is that everything.
The origin of the universe can only ever be described poetically. In the beginning there must have been absolutely nothing, a concept that can only be poetical because there is no concept in science that can delineate Nothing. To comprehend Nothing one must become nothing. Nobody, either physically through science or poetically through mysticism, nobody has ever comprehended the ultimate nature of Nothing. If in the beginning there was Nothing then there would still be nothing, unless that Nothing had a tendency to become Something other than nothing. This suggests that Nothing must have some quality or property - which is a contradiction in terms - and yet it must be true. The ultimate divinity must have been Nothing with the possibility of becoming Something: in which case the ultimate Zero is in a perpetual state of becoming, and that is as close to the beginning of things that you can get. All ancient ideas of the supreme being resume the concept of becoming rather than being.
If Nothing is to become Something then that something must be less than nothing - it must still have the quality of nothingness, or the complete absence of phenomena that is negativity. The negative to the minds of the ancients in more cultured times was feminine. The beginning and creation are always described in terms of living beings. The creation of the universe thus depends on the Goddess, Zero, dividing into two negative forces or two Goddesses. The two negatives then recombine to produce a positive force or God.
The most basic phenomenon of maths and physics confirms this concept. A negative multiplied by a negative gives a positive - two Goddesses produce a God. It is an irrefutable law that a positive in any equation cannot produce a negative without the intervention of a negative quality. This proves the superiority of the female, or at the very least proves that she was around before God.
The Goddess alone in Eternity created an image of herself, according to all the rules she could only reproduce another female, and they were stuck as to what to do next so they created a third entity that was a result of the dream of their union. It must have been the one difference between them - their clitoris - that created the first male: by concentrating that difference between them they in their turn combined to create a stable positive particle, force, or God. It was an inspiration of the moment her clitoris said "Yes" and that clitoris had its apotheosis in the male phallus, poor thing. The Goddesses created man to amuse them and the whole edifice of the universe for the drama to take place, simply to stave off boredom.
If we look at reality with an unbiased view we can only conclude that the beauty of a woman must be of the most supremely divine origin. In ancient mystery schools it was said that the genitals of a woman were a kiss of the Goddess imprinted between her legs. The penis is nothing more than an elongated clitoris, Man is nothing more than a dream of the Goddess using all her attributes of pleasure.
The idea that a God made man is ridiculous, he was never equipped to do it. God would have had a hard time making woman out of man because there was nothing there that he could make her from. A woman has breasts, a clitoris, a vagina and womb, and an anus: a man merely has an enlarged clitoris (phallus) and an anus, even his breasts are vestigial. The idea that God made woman from the rib of Adam is bloody silly, but the idea that the Goddess made man from her clitoris makes sense, giving him an enormous one between his legs to remind him who his mistresses were. The human male is no problem, all you've got to do is block up the vulva, make the clitoris bigger, turn sexuality back to front and you've got a man; a pretty confused creature indeed, but one capable of amusing a woman and through her, the Goddess, indefinitely. We can well imagine Astarte, Persephone, Isis, and the other great Goddesses creating a man but there aren't any Gods to my knowledge who could really get it together to create anything as incredible as a woman.
The concept of two Goddesses creating a God or two negatives creating a positive is intrinsic to all creation myths. The supreme Goddess divided herself for love's sake. Love is fundamental to the nature of creation, it is the basis of reproduction and manifestation. The power of Love is reflected in mankind today. Humanity does everything for love of something or other. Love in this sense means the tendency to unite through similarity or singularity.
The beginning of things must have been a pretty spectacular event - something from nothing. The creation of things from nothing must be happening now because the process of creation is still going on all around us all the time, it hasn't stopped. Admittedly there are bits of the universe that get bored and bland out, as in the case of entropy, but generally speaking the show seems to be well and truly on the road. You'd think that the Creator having figured out a way to get things started would use the same formula to keep things going. This is such a good trick that the deity is not going to throw it away, but use it in the structure and nature of everything: this seems reasonable to me. Everything in existence must rehearse the imprint of the formula that originally created the universe.
The Son of God must have been created in the same way as God. If you are going to create or incarnate a God there are very good reasons why you should do it in such a way as to initiate the creation of the universe - to establish your credentials at least. You know, "I created the universe and I'm going to produce a Son in the same way just to show you how clever I am. So here goes..." After all if you are going to make a God you aren't going to merely use the means by which ordinary children come into the world. A deity would use the same method that was used to make the universe as no less a formula could produce a God. So, God goes off and, er, gets these two females. Hold on, why can't God do it himself on the Izzy Wizzy principle? Why involve these two women? - after all, God isn't too keen on women, he's had some pretty bad experiences from them. The only answer I can think of is that these females were superior to him - oh, horror of horrors! God was probably a bit peeved that there were already three females, Zero and two negatives, and only one of him, and so he eventually complained to the Goddesses that he was alone and lonely, and he demanded a Son. The Goddesses, ever accommodating, created a son of God, or in scientific parlance, an unstable positive particle, whose destiny is to ultimately return to the Zero state. The slight imperfection of this unstable proton, an infinitely small disturbance in space, was responsible for the kicking off of space and time. In the beginning perfection went perversely wrong resulting in the creation of the universe.
The principle behind this creation process is that an infinitely small particle in Nothing or a neutral medium will ultimately obsess it. There are two ways in which things come into being - Creation or Reproduction. Science is concerned with reproduction. Creation is concerned with an infinitely small particle's capacity to obsess a medium. The creation principle says that the less you use the more powerful the effect. Science says the more you use the greater the effect. On the one hand it doesn't take much material to create an atom but the universe is made from atoms. Yet combined together as molecules it takes lots of molecules (reproduction) to make a gram of material. Make the atom and let the molecules take care of themselves. Whether the medium be a glass of water, a person, a space, or the universe, the quantity used is so small that it cannot produce an opposing force and therefore can meet no resistance: as in the case of Homeopathy. It is the twist of cosmic improbability that gave rise to life on this planet in the beginning, and continues to nurture and sustain it in all its outrageously varied beauty.
The creation formula is represented graphically thus:
Who or what is it that loves everything and everyone. By whose blood do we all live on this Earth; who is the source of all of us, the aspiration of all of us, the inspiration of all of us. Who or what was it that sheds blood that we might be redeemed. Who is it that has never struck a blow in anger and yet has the power to control the world, is all mildness and has never spoken a word except that that word be life. Who or what is it that has never caused pain but only joy and yet is the source of war.
Jesus is a male God propounding the philosophy of a Goddess, he had the body of a man with the soul of a Goddess. He is hermaphroditic in that you worship him as a female, and he gives his power as a male. Man is consciously male and unconsciously female: it is the female unconscious that drives the conscious male just as it is Venus or the Holy Ghost that is the power behind Christ. The one thing about early Christianity that has been well and truly consigned to the top secret file is that Christianity was in those days more fun than any other religion in that it raised sexuality to new heights of expression.
The division for love's sake does not conceal a hostage to fortune, but a means of compelling life to realise its identity through an endless series of ecstatic reunions with its source. This is the essence of real Christianity and the purpose of dividing for love's sake. All human experience is based in the absence of the beloved one, however that beloved one is perceived, whether it be wealth, health, love, or whatever. It is the absence of perfection that makes incarnation viable.
Although the Goddess commands the creation of her Son, the power she uses is male - God. The supreme deity is female in principle and male in action. This is where the confusion arose to give the idea of the supremacy of God. This is not so. God is but the positive expression of Her will. This is reflected in human beings, where the woman always puts a man in front of her to be the instrument of her will, usually to beget and sustain children. Man is merely an idea, a dream of the Goddess, a Man is an ideal aspect of Woman brought to birth by a woman. He is an expression of all the desire and loneliness of the Goddess. That is why man eternally seeks her through his desire to unite with woman: because she is the expression of the power of the union of the Goddess with her image. He has a huge clitoris, the symbol of his will to be, just as the clitoris in woman is the symbol of self expression; in man it reaches its apotheosis with man's obsession with being something in his own right. A fragment of the division for love's sake seeking rest in whatever aspect of the divine woman he sees as an object of love at any given time. Woman has the nature of the Goddess and man the nature of all that she desires, if he's any good - that divine uncertainty that woman loves. The more divinely he can wrap up this uncertainty the more a woman loves him, It is the Goddess's loneliness and boredom that created man. Man rids woman of both these factors. To this day the only sin you can make against a woman apart from insulting her is to be boring, she will forgive you anything provided you don't bore her.
Man's desire to make love to a woman is but a desire to unite with his Soul or himself, his root self that is female. Freud, Jung and all the rest agree that the body of a man is male but his unconscious is female, the body of a woman is female but her unconscious is male. A true man has usually an intense understanding of woman from this fact, indeed the more male a man is the more feminine are his sympathies.
Man is made in the image of the dreams of woman. Do not blame man if he falls short of a woman's desires: she has created him literally and metaphorically, it's her lack of imagination that makes him the boring mediocrity that he is. Man will never ultimately act against the wishes of woman. If women greeted man's warlike impulses with hysterical laughter, if it was seen by them that all these masculine games were trivial pursuits performed by inadequate men to hide their impotence, and they (women) made their contempt obvious then men would cease immediately and behave in accordance with woman's wishes. A woman bore a man in the first place, it is her approval that he seeks, and if she approves of violence and greed and man acts out her requirements, don't blame man: blame her, she is responsible for the will of man, she created sustained nurtured and educated the little beast! The poor sap is only doing what he thinks she wants. He must forever strive towards whatever his mother considers to be the path to perfection.
The power of the Goddess in man always seeks to subjugate woman because unconsciously he knows that although he comes from her, he is superior to her because she needed him in the first place. If woman had been superior to man there would have been no need to create the universe. Yet man is the instrument of woman. He is the individualised aspect of a part of the will of the Goddess or woman. It is the fact that he is only an aspect of woman that gives him his power, the fact that he is illusion gives him movement and direction; whereas woman who is stable, a reflection of the divine Goddess, can only enact the will of the Goddess. As the Goddess is perfect she too must emulate that perfection by being as beautiful as possible, and reproduce i.e. create as the Goddess creates. Man has no such perfection and he knows it. He perpetually seeks the one to make him whole. The idea of oneness he sees as being all powerful so he seeks power instead of woman, who is ignored in his lust to mend his inadequacy. He marries but proceeds to ignore the source of his salvation and continues his silly lust for power: but when he succeeds he lays his success at the feet of a woman who invariably scorns him because of his ignorance.
Oh men, oh poor men. When a group of men and women are together and the men are pontificating on this or that, the women are having a more intense conversation, silent yet charged with power. It must be understood that in woman the clitoris contains another sense which can transcend time and space in its communication: a woman can communicate at a distance with another woman or women to find out anything. The clitoris of woman both unites and divides women.
Notice how the pseudo religions have damned our most sacred object. To refer to what we all came out of and half of us spend our lives trying to get back into in derogatory terms is to deny our own validity. To call someone a cunt is to state a fact, because if we aren't one we certainly were made in one. The Cunt is our most revered living word. It is the entrance to the world of all of us, its law of sustenance nurtures us, and its beauty inspires us, and our desire to possess conquer and make it our friend is the ambition of every virile man.
It is every woman's desire to incarnate a god whether she knows it or not. She seeks out a man who represents her idea of a survivor i.e. God. This is why woman always tests man to destruction. She passes a man between her sister and herself until they have taught him all he can know about woman, then one will reproduce by him, but she is not interested in man, she wants to create a god. A daughter expresses a woman's spiritual nature: a son expresses her humanity. The male may fertilise the female but it is her female soul that is the drive toward that creation although the act is performed by a male.
Any woman who is fucked by a man who hasn't got a story to tell is being abused. Man is but a woman with an idea, and that idea is symbolised by the Phallus and actualised by his semen. When he gives the idea of himself, his semen, to a woman then for a moment he loses his maleness by ejaculation and is temporarily female. They become two women with one possessing the life of the other. This is confused with post-coital depression.
A man makes love to a woman and he gives her a direction to go in by giving her what he essentially is. This direction needs space in which to travel. To provide this space, a woman makes love to another woman. She rises in consciousness to embrace everything in one vast orgasm. This orgasm creates space for the woman to travel in emotionally in a direction. When the destination that the man has given to her by his direction has been reached or the woman has lost interest in it or whatever then she will repeat the process. She begins to feel discontented with herself, she lacks direction so she returns to the man.
Man ideally shows the hidden self of woman to her and aids her to reunite with herself so that she becomes free of him. She transcends man and returns to an earlier memory of the Goddess face to face, from this vision she is enabled to embrace her vulnerability as a Goddess and thus regain her birthright as creatrix of the universe and man. She knows that it is the duty and privilege of every man to love and venerate her.
Every woman is a facet of the Goddess and any man who can awaken that facet will automatically become the object of love for that woman. By awakening and affirming that aspect of womanhood that is peculiar to that woman alone, i.e. her divinity, that divinity will possess the woman and express itself as love for the man. It doesn't really matter to a woman what a man looks like: charm in a man is simply the degree of his ability to surprise which facet of the eternal woman an individual woman represents.
This is the development of the personality of woman. Ideally the development of the personality of woman should cause her highest aspect, the facet of the archetype that she is to concrete in her personality and become her personality. She will be the most perfect expression of humanity that the archetype is capable of expressing within its own terms free from disease and the sickness of saying "no". Her beauty will be the limit that her physiology can sustain. This is so by definition because that aspect of the archetype that she, the woman, tries to express is the limit of which her physiology is capable of sustaining.
It should be possible to contact more and more sophisticated archetypes until one reaches the supreme archetype. In this state it ought to be possible to question that archetype as to the secrets of the universe; furthermore, the reaction manifested during this period of exaltation should have remarkable properties. It is this concept that is basic to Tantra and alchemy. The theoretical possibilities of theosexuality are almost boundless. With this type of sexuality two women should reach the highest states of Yoga. A woman can learn more in a month as a theosexual than a Yoga devotee can learn in five years.
Woman is nature and the universe's supreme expression. Within woman is the truth, by definition, and it is only by appeal to her judgment can the truth be defined. Our philosophy requires that everything is alive and in a constant state of change even if that change is nothing more than being in a different part of the universe. Everything, no matter how primitive, has the will to be, to explore the possibilities of its own nature just as a child grows and explores its own nature: and if in the attainment of that being joining together with others of the same nature helps in that particle's expression of itself, then it will join with others; whether it be a proton, neutron, or electron, or a man, woman or child, the principle is always the same. If it appears in nature then the more important the function is, the more likely it is to extend macrocosmically and microcosmically.
Wherever two similar phenomena exist together they are divided by a single though quite different phenomena. Our most essential molecule, water, is composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Hydrogen itself, the simplest atom, consists of a proton and an electron orbited by a neutron. Two eyes are separated by a nose; roots and branches of a tree are separated by the trunk, and so on. The state of Matrimony used to consist of the husband and two females, the wife and Mother Church, but now the credibility and relevance of the religious establishment has crumbled and the divorce rate is climbing accordingly. In a relationship between a man and two ladies although one of them may go on the blink the other two can always keep things going. A system based upon reproductive duality will always come apart because the formula is always antagonistic - God and the Devil, the goodie and the baddie, the prisoner and the warder, the husband and the wife, and so on. Psychology fails because it tends to base itself on the reproductive transactional theory which in a system of continuous change cannot work, its results can only be temporary. Whatever state that psychology can produce must be subject to death (change); that means that Neurosis itself can only be temporary. If we base society on reproduction we get endless profit and loss, boom, bust, and war. If we base social systems on creation we get continuous expansion and exploration of ourselves. Ecology is a dim idea of this necessity.
We live in an age of proofs: there is no reason for faith, this is an excuse for ignorance and lassitude. Knowledge is what is needed - what the hell are we, and what are we supposed to do? We are all here together, we have no choices, we are all going to grow old and die: let's stop bickering and take a look around - don't you think it's about time after ten million years of missing the point? Let's start on the great adventure, let no religion stand in our way, throw dogma out the window; let's settle down in our part of the universe and get to know the neighbourhood whether it be animated or not. Never in our recorded history have we been better equipped.