"'Feminine' Gnosis and the Eroticisation of Culture"

Abstract

The term "feminine" gnosis is used to denote a particular episteme, that is, a particular way of knowing.  (See K.-C. Voss, "Is There a 'Feminine' Gnosis?" ARIES, 1992) While "feminine" gnosis as such is a-historical, it is by no means disembodied; it is a phenomenon, and, like any other, can only be embodied (i.e., manifested, actualized) in time and space. In the context of the late 20th century, conscious adoption of such an episteme would not only have radical ecological implications, but ontological ones as well, since it would entail actualizing the connection between human beings and Nature. 

The progressive distancing of human beings from Nature that has its roots even earlier than the period of the so-called Enlightenment has now reached a critical stage:  throughout the world, technology is equated with science, the complexity of existence is purportedly accounted for in terms of mechanistic models, questions of meaning are reduced to quantifiable matters.  I note that the resultant dis/ease may be one reason for the resurgent interest in nature religions.  In this paper, I will compare and contrast two views of Nature:  Nature as Machine and Living Nature and examine the behaviors associated with each.  Then, after describing the phenomenon of "feminine" gnosis, I will explain why, in my view, adopting this episteme could produce a veritable hierosgamos between Humanity and Nature; henceforth we would be engaged in the eroticisation, rather than the mechanization, of culture. 

*  *  *

This paper was presented at the International Conference, "Nature Religion Today: Paganism, Shamanism, Esotericism," held at Lancaster University, Great Britain, April 9-12, 1996. 

_______________

Introduction

The progressive distancing of human beings from Nature has roots which can be traced back even earlier than the period of the so-called Enlightenment to a time long before the teachings of Democritus and Aristotle, who were in fact engaged in generat­ing new ideas within an already extant framework.  In my view, although it may not be obvious, the resultant dis/ease which has now reached critical proportions and is being experienced by persons everywhere throughout the developed and developing world is one of the major underlying reasons for the resurgent interest in nature religions.  Without exception, all of the ideas con­nected with nature religions -- paganism, the goddess, the cosmos as living, the earth as holy (encountered in earth-based spiritu­ality groups), sexuality and the sacred, to name only a few -- are characterized by hope, all of them have to do with healing something which has been broken, with discovering and rediscover­ing something which has been lost. [1]

In this paper, I will compare and contrast two views of Nature:  Machine Nature and Living Nature and examine the causal­ity, behaviors, and attitudes associated with each.  I will conclude by describing and discussing the phenomenon I call "'feminine' gnosis," and by explaining why adopting this episteme would amount to an eroticisation of culture that could produce a kind of hierosgamos between Humanity and Nature.

Essentially two attitudes towards Nature have vied with one another for centuries:  Nature seen as object, Machine Nature, and Nature seen as subject, Living Nature.  Let us look first at Machine Nature. 

Machine Nature

The view of Nature as machine prevails in contemporary culture.  Somewhat ironically, this appears to be a view that is even more valorized in developing countries where traditional modes of life still co-exist (albeit under strained circum­stances) with those of modern life (e.g., Turkey, Rumania, and the former Soviet Union), than in already developed countries (e.g., the United States and western Europe), where there tends to be a much wider range of tolerance for individualism and for ideas outside the mainstream.  It is ironic because one would think that familiarity with and proximity to traditional ways of life would mean that the bond between human beings and Nature is still keenly felt and that there would be a tendency to protect that bond.  Instead, what we discover in developing countries clearly indicates that if a choice must be made between preserving the environment (to take just one example) and fostering economic growth, it is generally the latter that prevails. 

Mythico-religious symbolism and conceptual frameworks that are considered metaphysically speculative are eschewed in favor of those that are secular and relatively positivistic. [2] In any case, Machine Nature means seeing Nature as merely the lifeless background, backdrop, or stage upon which we enact our lives.  (We shall return shortly to consider the relation implied by the preposition "upon".)  Within this conceptual frame human beings are considered as separate from or even superior to Nature.  Human beings are nonetheless curious about Nature and since we are certain that Nature is intrinsically knowable, i.e., intelli­gible, and since we are equally certain of the evolving capaci­ties of human intelligence, we are sure that in time we can learn what Nature is.  Since we suspect that Nature is more like a machine than anything else, in order to know it we tend to examine its parts rather than to examine it as a whole, still less as a whole to which we are intrinsically connected.  Nature has been made the object of countless experiments in which a vast array of analytic methods for interpreting the results of those experi­ments has been employed.  Finally, aside from the question of whether or not Nature can be known, the physical universe remains an invaluable commodity that we are able to use in a variety of ways; a kind of limitless storehouse from which to extract all the things we need and want. [3]

Earlier I mentioned that the roots of the present distancing between human beings and Nature could be traced to a period preced­ing that of Democritus and Aristotle.  Textual evidence attests to the presence of this idea in germ in the Enuma eliş, a cosmo­gonic myth from Mesopotamia dating from early in the second millennium (circa 1900 b.c.e.).  While space precludes an exhaustive analysis of this text, the dynamics of the relationships it describes are significant and merit consideration. [4] Perhaps most easily recognizable as an early manifestation of the self/other dichotomy (which may well be the most basic of all), the text of the Enuma eliş is by no means unrelated to the type of thinking which underlies much of contemporary thought.  Consideration of a myth like this can be fruitful and relevant for us since we find precisely the same dynamics at work in the story of the Enuma eliş as we do, for example, in newspaper accounts of one or another military or social conflict.  By means of the mythic idiom, the reader is privy to the formation of a system -- the creation of a world, our world.  In terms of an­thropologist Clifford Geertz's analysis of symbolic function, like any cosmogonic myth, the Enuma eliş purports to be both a model of and a model for reality and creative process. [5]   It is therefore extremely revealing to examine closely the kind of creative process that it portrays.    

The opening verse of the Enuma eliş conveys an image of wholeness in which two largely undifferentiated elements, Tiamat (vaguely, amorphously feminine), and Apsu (equally vaguely and amorphously masculine), harmoniously co-exist in the watery chaos of the beginnings: 

When on high the heavens had not been named,

Firm ground below had not been called by name.

Naught but primordial Apsu, their begetter, (And)

Mummu-Tiamat, she who bore them all,

Their waters commingling as a single body. [6]

As the narrative continues, these two elements become increasing­ly personified; feminine and masculine become increasingly differentiated and finally, polarized:  Tiamat becomes the personification of chaos, i.e., the non-systemic environment, while her masculine descendant Marduk personifies both one who organ­izes and systemic organization generally.  What happens is that two camps spring up:  one remains loyal to Tiamat, the other proclaims Marduk "King of all Lands" and charges him with the task of conquering her.  Her allies valiantly assemble to defend her, but Marduk defeats them.  Finally, Marduk and Tiamat con­front one another and become locked in mortal combat. 

They swayed in single combat, locked in battle.

The lord spread out his net to enfold her,

The Evil Wind, which followed behind, he let loose in her face.

When Tiamat opened her mouth to consume him,

He drove in the Evil Wind that she close not her lips.

As the fierce winds charged her belly,  

Her body was distended and her mouth was wide open.

He released the arrow, it tore her belly,

It cut through her insides, splitting the heart.

Having thus subdued her, he extinguished her life.

Having slain her, Marduk "cast down her carcass to stand upon it."  Next, he dealt with her allies, and, when all were fettered and bound, Marduk turned back to Tiamat whom he had bound . . .

Then the lord paused to view her dead body,

That he might divide up the monster and do artful works,

He split her like a shellfish into two parts . . . [7]

          Considered on a purely abstract level, these actions signify the beginning of the formation of a system.  A clear delineation of sky and earth is now accomplished.  It functions to firmly establish a concept of hierarchical dualism that henceforth becomes paradigmatic.  Geometric concepts are also introduced at this time, as Marduk creates the universe from parts of Tiamat, naming each as he assigns it a position within a clearly defined hierarchical order.  Initially, Marduk's primary focus is on the creation and subsequent ordering of various divinities and their functions.  Only after these divinities have been assigned spe­cific areas to oversee (in itself an example of increased differentiation and hence, evidence for increasing complexity within the system) does Marduk's attention turn toward the establishment of norms governing the relation between human beings and the gods.  The destruction of Tiamat and her subsequent characteriza­tion as object is portrayed as being the necessary prerequisite for the work of creation.  It is significant that although chaos (Tiamat) and the system (Marduk) were viewed as polarized the boundary between them was not impermeable.  Indeed, a close analysis of the text shows that although the created system manifested some of the characteristics associated with closed systems, the boundary between system and chaos functioned to keep Tiamat away, while simultaneously permitting the utilization of her body by Marduk to continue:  although chaos (viewed in the Enuma eliş as environment relative to the system) provided the necessary substance for ongoing creation, it is important to recognize that the relation between system and environment was not one of mutual reciprocity, but was characterized by a one way crossing into the environment for the purpose of its exploita­tion.  Marduk was the vanquisher, meaning that the Marduk model won.  By winning, it became an accepted model of reality and thus became a model for future activities and behaviors as well. 

Living Nature

.         It is Living Nature that we find in the context of the old nature religions, where Nature was often imaged and experienced as divine Mother.  The goddess Tiamat was referred to as "She who bore them all"; Cybele was designated "Magna Mater" ("Great Mother"); and Isis was called "Giver of life."  Not only did the image of powerful female divinity persist; we can find ample trace of it in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity.  Eve is called the "Mother of all the living," and, although strictly speaking Mary is not Goddess, but "Theotokos", Mother of God, she retains many of the symbols of her divine predecessors.  Islam too car­ries traces of the goddess:  before the time of Muhammad, among various other divinities, central Arabic tribes had worshiped Allah and three goddesses, the so-called "daughters of Allah":  Manat ("Destiny"), Al'Uzza ("the Powerful"), and Allat (the feminine form of Allah). [8]

The connection between human beings and Nature was an intimate one; in fact, the entire universe was experienced as a kind of web of symbolic and real connections and correspondences.  The connection between microcosm and macrocosm was not only honored, but also lived as an integral part of daily life; it was embodied in the relation between individuals and the cosmos as well as in that between earth and heaven.  Nature was hardly experienced as some fortuitous accident furnishing us with various useful com­modities; rather, Nature was experienced as a sacred, living text that could be an endless source of wisdom and successive revela­tion. [9] The same astonishing energy that flowed through Nature was available to us because it flowed through us as well.  Although we no longer understand Nature in such storied ways, I am absolutely convinced that the most promising, most fruitful, and most hopeful context in which to explore questions of meaning in this as in any other epoch is one which is shaped by a view of Nature as a living system. 

A view of Nature as systemic, that is, as a complexly interactive natural system governed by laws and structures has lent itself to theoretical and methodological approaches which are themselves systemic.  Machine Nature is a particularly insidious paradigm, however, and has the capacity to don numerous only apparently living masks; [10] we must therefore take great care lest we be seduced:  a systemic view of Nature is not necessarily synonymous with a view of Nature as Living.   One may understand Nature as complex but the mere fact that something is complex by no means entails that it is living.  On close examination, even a view that holds that Nature is comprised of incredibly complex interactive systems often proves to be a view of Nature as ob­ject.  It is quite possible to regard Nature as being a machine-like object, albeit a complex one.  Second, one may view Nature as a living system, without ever examining or coming to terms with the place of human beings vis a vis that system.  Third, and finally, it should be noted in passing that living Nature is comprised of many, perhaps infinitely many levels, not only one level. [11]

In any case, it is critically important not to mistake the quality of complexity for that of reality.  For example, although computer technology now affords simulations of innumerable possi­ble worlds; i.e., virtual environments, virtual reality is just that -- virtual reality, not reality itself.  Similarly, artificial intelligence is not, nor can it ever be, real intelligence.  However complex computers and computer programs are, they are not living systems, they are mechanistic systems. 

Causality and Behaviors

A key that can help us distinguish a view of Machine Nature from a view of Living Nature is the causality operating in each.  The operative causality in Machine Nature is very different than that which is operative in Living Nature.  Machine Nature is characterized by what one can call substance or mechanistic causality.  This is the kind of causality associated with a "means/ends" approach, the kind which anthropologist Gregory Bateson once described as "cause from behind," [12] meaning that there is a chain of discrete causes and effects.  Here, the cause is located outside that which it affects, and is directed towards an object, external to and unrelated to itself.  This is the type of causality we find in the view that Nature is essentially a commodity, that reality is comprised of only one level, and that all of its elements can be manipulated as one manipulates a machine, for example, a lawn mower.  Earlier I stated that Ma­chine Nature means seeing Nature as merely the lifeless back­ground, backdrop, or stage upon which we enact our lives.  Here, the word 'upon' is extremely important for us:  is the fact that after Marduk slew Tiamat he "cast down her carcass to stand upon it" without significance?   The once resplendent and utterly alive "She who bore them all" was reduced to the status of a piece of dead meat.  As befits a Subject, Marduk stood upon Tiamat, the Object.  Today, it is we ourselves who are recapitu­lating the dynamics of this relation.  It is not Marduk but we who stand upon Nature, as if Nature were Other to us, as if we ourselves were not part of Nature.  The causal principle of any machine, even the most compli­cated, can always be reduced to a series of discrete causes and effects.  The basic model of mechanistic causality is linear and binary, and even when that basic model is modified -- for exam­ple, by using various systems models which can help map exceedingly complex interactions: indicating circular relations, demon­strating various feedback loops, etc., it still remains mechanis­tic.  The only difference is that a more complex model is being used to show complex relations between two or more groups of elements (i.e., systems).  These relations are still mechanistic relations; they consist of discrete causes operating on objects that are external and unrelated to them.     

In contrast, Nature viewed as a living system, as Living Nature, encompasses everything, including things that operate according to what I have called mechanistic causality, but also exhibits a markedly different type of causality -- cause from within, 'process causality.'  One of the best examples of this view of Nature can be found in the cosmology of Giordano Bruno (d. 1600).  Bruno saw Nature as a living system that included both modes of causality, but he made a very careful distinction between a maker who operates from outside a thing, working as he said "on the surface of matter" and the "inner artificer" who works from within.  Wherever this causality is at work we find not a linear series of discrete causes and effects occurring on one level, but rather, an infinite number of gradations of the movement from potency to act, occurring on many levels.  Accord­ing to Bruno, a World Intellect or World Soul is the "universal efficient cause," the divine energizing principle of Unity, that which "intrinsically contributes to the constitution of a thing and remains in the effect," [13] whereas ordinary cause is that which "contributes to the production of things from outside and has its being outside the composition." [14] He used the image of a tree to help illustrate his notion of an "inner artificer," or "craftsman," which "works continuously in wholeness everywhere":

We call it the inner craftsman, since it forms matter and shapes it from within, as from within the seed or root is sent forth and unfolded the trunk, from within the trunk are thrust out the branches, and from within the branches the formed twigs, and from within these the buds are unfurled, and there within are formed, shaped, and interwoven, like nerves, the leaves, flowers, and fruits.  As from within, at certain times, the sap is recalled from the leaves and fruits to the twigs, from the twigs to the branches, from the branch­es to the trunk, and from the trunk to the root. [15]  

Almost four centuries have passed since Bruno wrote these words, but they are far from being just some quaint relic of an outmoded world-view.  The discoveries of contemporary science have shown us that his idea about a causality that "works con­tinuously in wholeness everywhere," an energizing principle that "intrinsically contributes to the constitution of a thing and remains in the effect," albeit poetically described, was stun­ningly accurate. [16]    

Attitudes and Behaviors

Earlier I noted that a view of Nature as object is a large contributing factor, perhaps the sole contributing factor, to the dis/ease from which we are currently suffering.  Each of the two attitudes towards Nature that I have discussed here is mani­fested in actual behaviors in the world.  If we consider the actions that are consistent with a view of Nature as object we see behaviors that are either performed non-reflexively, or that result from deliberate calculations based on primarily quantitative criteria, usually economic. [17]   Examples of such behaviors?  Beginning with the environment we can include things like disposing non-biodegradable materials or untreated waste products on the land or in the water; the irresponsible use of dangerous chemical products for the sake of relatively short-term goals; the commercial decimation of rain forests for timber, of the earth for various mineral products, and of various animal species for pelts, skins, or tusks.  Then there is the incessant destruction of human beings by other human beings, which in this century, as George Orwell aptly pointed out, is most often couched in terms of "doublespeak."  We refer, for example, to various "problems," for example, there is "the Jewish problem" or "the Kurdish problem," thus rendering the human beings involved abstract, and making it easier to ignore the fact that extermina­tion camps and systematic torture were, and still are, employed as part of the "solution."  We cannot forget the countless small deaths we inflict, on one another, either.  Always, at base, is a forgetting that the Other is not some lifeless object, but is rather, a living Subject.

When we consider behaviors like these we see that they could only occur in contexts in which people believed, consciously or unconsciously, that Nature was in fact an object, unrelated to ourselves.  Generally speaking, as I have already said, Nature has become for us the paradigmatic "Other," whose "body" merely provides us with raw material for various projects.  In contrast, if we consider what actions informed by a vision of Nature as a living system would involve, we would see very different behav­iors with implications for each of the examples I have provided.  If we view Nature as a living system, and if we recognize our­ selves as being a part of it, we realize that we are therefore affected by what is done to Nature. [18]

A view of Nature as Living Nature is the only view that supports the inclusion of qualitative realities, like those relating to the massive environmental problems we must face today; moreover, it is the only view that gives human beings their proper place.  On this view, men and women are neither the masters nor the slaves of a mechanistic process, but rather, an integral part of a natural process, of Living Nature.  Moreover, on this view it is entirely appropriate to introduce philosophi­cal consideration of values and ethics and meaning ("soft" con­cerns) into the university, even in "hard" fields like environ­mental sciences or history, to name only two examples.  (In this context it is interesting to note that while western European scholars use the term "human" sciences to designate those disci­plines which North American scholars generally refer to as the "humanities," the European designation is increasingly accompa­nied by methodological and other approaches which are anything but human; but rather, are increasingly dehumanized -- the scholarship which is currently considered the best is precisely the scholarship in which there is nothing to indicate that a human being -- a subject -- produced it.)       

To turn briefly once again to the Enuma eliş, some years ago, when I was discussing this text with a specialist in ancient Near Eastern languages and myths, she told me that there is internal textual evidence (an abrupt change in the text which is obvious even in an English translation that sets the stage for Marduk's destruction of Tiamat) suggesting that this text reflects historical events connected with the change from matrifo­cal to patriarchal culture. [19] Whether or not this is true, we can clearly see that acceptance of the dynamics of emergence which characterize the opening verses of the Enuma eliş as para­digmatic; i.e., as a model of reality would have entailed viewing both system and environment as a whole.  Thus, Tiamat would not have been regarded as though she were separate from the system; instead, the boundary would have shifted to encompass both system and environment.  We would have conceived the world as having gradually emerged from out of the womb-like mode of the prima materia, rather than as having been violently carved from it, and although individual elements would still have been distinguisha­ble, relationships among them would have tended to operate in terms of mutual reciprocity and inclusiveness.

'Feminine' Gnosis and the Eroticisation of the World

    The term "feminine" gnosis is used to denote a particular episteme, that is, a particular way of knowing. [20] While "feminine" gnosis as such is a-historical, it is by no means disembodied; it is a phenomenon, and, like any other, can only be embodied (i.e., manifested, actualized) in time and space. In the context of the late 20th century, conscious adoption of such an episteme would have not only radical ecological implications, but ontological ones as well since it would entail actualizing the connection between human beings and Nature.

Allow me to explain.  First of all, for a variety of cultural and historical reasons, the term 'feminine' is qualified by single quotes because the word (which comes from the Latin 'femina', meaning 'woman') has acquired, a plethora of negative conceptual baggage which are unacceptable to me personally, but more importantly, inaccurate as well.  In 1992, when I first conceived and began working with the idea of 'feminine' gnosis, I was inclined to think that it was inevitably and probably exclu­sively linked to female persons, but I was then not yet sure.  As I have discussed elsewhere, there are some complex reasons for thinking that there is perhaps a privileged connection between 'feminine' gnosis and persons who are biologically female, which is different than claiming an exclusive connection. [21] Obvi­ously, this is a complicated as well as controversial issue, and we cannot consider it here.  What does concern us here is my present view that is that gnosis is always 'feminine,' by its very nature, and thus, like the Spirit, is something which goeth where it listeth, first here, then there, something which in fact permeates and enlivens everything, not only persons who happen to be biologically female. 

'Feminine' gnosis is less a method of knowing, than a fluid way of knowing.  It is deeply rooted in the body and in Nature.  'Feminine' gnosis is produced by nature, supported by Nature.  Like Nature, it is characterized by emergence, process, and infinite creativity.  'Feminine' gnosis approaches Nature as a repository of signs, as a text which must be read, interpreted; more than that, however, 'feminine' gnosis approaches Nature not only as a repository of actual signs, but as a repository of potential signs, like a book which is still being written by us in participation with Nature.   It places great value on personal experience, i.e., on the Subject.  It is a way of knowing that entails opening, not closing; a way of knowing in which a subject opens onto an object thereby entering into relation with it, and experiencing a change of being as a result. [22] A subject that opens onto an object is in stark contrast to a subject that stands upon an object.  The opening of a subject onto an object entails the experience of that "object" as a subject.  Thus, it is a dialectic movement; it does not occur in only one direction.  It is rather a question of a mutual, reciprocal, exquisitely nuanced movement, on all levels of Reality, whether seen or unseen, actual or potential. 

As for Eros, in the popular mind, the term has become synonymous with 'sex,' whereas in fact, such an understanding is flawed and results from a flattening reduction of its meaning.  Eros is not merely sexuality, although it certainly encompasses that, but rather, the enabling power of Nature itself, which I understand in the broadest possible sense, to mean all of reality, the entire universe.  The movement of Eros is the dialectic of gnosis, which in the Tabula smaragdina (Emerald Table) is called ‘thelema,’ meaning, 'the will of the world.'  Eros does not simply transform, it transmutes; thus, it entails an ontological change.  It is fluid, processual, emergent, the source of infinite creativity.  The reason why I spell the word with a capital 'E' is to make a precise and important distinction between 'eros' in its currently impoverished sense and Eros in its full and correct sense.  Let us look more closely at the hermeneutical tradition that pertains to Eros.

Eros

In the Christian tradition, there has long been a distinction made between Eros and Agape; the former is invoked to refer to human love; the latter, to refer to divine love.  Now almost thirty years old, Anders Nygren's monumental work, Agape and Eros, is still perhaps the most formidable defense of the view that Agape is not only qualitatively different from, but also infinitely superior to Eros.  Referring to a distinction made early in the text of Plato's Symposium between "vulgar" and "heavenly" Eros Nygren writes: 

Between vulgar Eros and Christian Agape there is no relation at all, and if we had only this form of Eros to consider the problem . . . would be solved. [23]  

.         He continues by saying that the real rival of Agape is "heavenly Eros."

:. . only the highest form of Eros, Eros in the most sublimated sense, "heavenly Eros", is capable of entering the lists against Agape. [24]

In Nygren's view, "heavenly Eros" is disembodied Eros, that is, Eros which is separate from, and infinitely superior to Nature.   It is worth examining the passage from the Symposium on which Nygren relies.  As the reader will no doubt remember, the Symposium relates the events of a banquet, a feast, at which a group of men have gathered in order to discuss the nature of Love.  The passage to which Nygren refers is Pausanius's definition, and reads as follows: 

. . . without Love, there could be no such goddess as Aphrodite.  If, then, there were only one goddess of that name, we might suppose that there was only one kind of Love, but since in fact there are two such goddesses, there must also be two kinds of Love.  No one . . . will deny that there are two goddesses of that name--one, the elder, sprung from no mother's womb but from the heavens themselves, we call the Uranian, the heavenly Aphrodite, while the younger, daughter of Zeus and Dione, we call Pandemus, the earthly Aphrodite.  It follows, then, that Love should be known as earthly or as heavenly according to the goddess in whose company his work is done . . . [therefore,] the earthly Aphrodite's Love is a very earthly Love indeed, and does his work entirely at random.  It is he that governs the passions of the vulgar.  For, first, they are as much attracted by women as by boys; next, whoever they may love, their de­sires are of the body rather than of the soul . . . the heavenly Love springs from a god­dess whose attributes have nothing of the female, but are altogether male, and who is also the elder of the two, and innocent of any hint of lewdness. [25]

.

To make a long story short, it turns out that Nygren appears either not to have read the entire Symposium or to have chosen from it in curiously selective fashion by citing the authority of a statement that was never intended to be le dernier cri.  The fact is that Pausanius was one of those who spoke very early in the evening.  Socrates was late, and when he at last arrived and was asked to speak, he said he would tell the men what Diotima, the woman who was his teacher, told him about the nature of Love.  Diotima told Socrates that Love, Eros, is neither heavenly nor earthly; rather, it is an intermediary spirit "halfway between god and man."  Such spirits, she said are the envoys and interpreters that ply between heaven and earth, flying upward with our worship and our prayers, and descending with the heavenly answers and commandments, and since they are between the two estates they weld both sides together and merge them into one great whole. [26]

.

The dichotomy between spirit and body is the most significant and complex element in the western conceptual framework, and provides us with a rationale for a plethora of distorted ideas and behaviors concerning the nature of Nature.  It is no news that the tendency to dichotomize spirit and body has resulted in a destructive (read: 'life-negating') relationship with the natural world in general and the body in particular.  Nature (which can also be understood as Body with a capital 'B') is, as I have said, regarded as an 'Other.'  (Concomitant with that, although not directly relevant here, is the fact that because women have been identified with both Body and Nature, women as a group have been thought to embody the Other.)  This conceptualization of Nature is now extremely old, and if there was ever a "Golden Age," matrifocal or otherwise, it preceded even the Enuma eliş.  The Enuma eliş ends with a prayer, the essence of which runs like a leitmotiv through the subsequent history of western thought:

.

May [Tiamat's] life be strait and short!  Into the future of mankind, when days have grown old.  May she recede without cease and stay away forever. [27]

.

A veritable recipe for self-destruction, that, relying on a fatally false premise:  that the Self (whatever form it takes) is ontologically separate from the Other (regardless of the form it takes).  The development and refinement of this model runs through Plato, continues through the Church fathers, and mani­fests over and over again -- from the Inquisition to the Enlightenment, from the Industrial Revolution to the Age of Technology -- everywhere, the ancient scenario is repeated.  Throughout the centuries we see that the script is the same; only the names of the actors change.  The conceptual frame that I have described here has only very rarely been distinguished from ontology.  It has not only shaped and distorted our view of women, but also of the body, of Nature, and of Eros.  Each has been devalued. 

There is a complex web of connections among the things I have mentioned:  women have been identified closely with the body and with Nature and sexuality, while men have been considered closer to spirit, made in the image of God.   However, the under­lying problem stems from our wholesale refusal to acknowledge that human beings have an essential connection to Nature, because we are all part of Nature.  It is this that has given rise to the excruciating dis/ease to which I referred at the beginning of this paper; in turn, it is that dis/ease which accounts for the resurgence of contemporary interest in Nature religions. [28]

'Feminine' Gnosis and the Eroticization of the World

While much has been written concerning the issues raised here for the most part, it appears to me to be comprised of pseudo-palliatives, symptomatic treatments of various kinds.  Clearly, a kind of revolution is needed, but what kind?  Politi­cal revolutions have been tried with results ranging from the merely ineffectual to the tragic.  There seems to be more than a little truth in the maxim that "You cannot put new wine in old skins."  Indeed, revolution is needed, but an epistemological revolution in which the only weapons (if they can be called that) are powerful, living ideas.   Adopting what I have described as 'feminine' gnosis as an episteme would enable an end to the age-old conflict between human beings and Nature.  Indeed, this could produce a kind of hierosgamos between Humanity and Nature.  In its most general sense, the term hierosgamos refers to any profound union (which may or may not include physical expression) between two divinities, or between a human being and a divine being, or even, under certain conditions, between two human beings.  More specifically, it is used to refer to the ritualized sexual union between the king and a hierodule ('sacred prostitute’) in ancient Mesopotamia. [29] All of the forms of the hierosgamos are thought to entail regeneration and renewal, transforma­tion and transmutation. [30]   Since these things are precisely what are called for in the relationship between Humanity and Nature, it seems entirely appropriate to speak of the hierosgamos in this context. 

If people were to adopt a view of Living Nature on a wide scale, it would necessarily follow the dialectic of gnosis, as I have described it.  What would follow from that is the Eroticisation of culture itself.  The Eroticisation of culture would necessarily give rise to institutions founded on the idea that the state was for the people, not against them; education and training of all kinds which was informed by the idea of openings, not closings, by the idea that doing scholarship and other work from out of love of the work itself was the ultimate desideratum; there would be businesses founded on the idea that the economy is meant to serve the people, people are not meant to serve the economy. [31] The alternative is to continue as we have, em­broiled in personal and public conflicts, in innumerable wars, on a path that can only end in the self-destruction of the human race. [32] What is needed, in place of the fragmentation and brokenness that currently prevails, is wholeness.  Humanity has become estranged from Nature, but it is an estrangement that need not be permanent.  Nature still waits for us, as the Bridegroom waits for the Bride.  The choice of course, is ours. 

There is an old Sufi verse whose author I have not been able to trace, calling for persons to return to God.  An exuberant supplication employing the metaphor of a wedding, it seems appropriate to recall it here, by way of conclusion:  

Hurry, for the hour for the celebration of the long-awaited nuptials draws nigh.  Come.  Prepare yourself for the wedding.  You are hungry?  So, you shall eat.  You are thirsty?  So, you shall drink.  You yearn for the touch of the Beloved, who is waiting, who has always waited?  So, at last, you shall enjoy his touch.  Wash.  Anoint yourself with precious oils and perfumes.  Bedeck yourself with jewels and sumptuous raiment. You are ready?  Then come.  Come, now.  [33]   

*   *   *

Karen-Claire Voss                                                                                   25 August 1996

Adjunct Professor of Religious Studies                                                   Istanbul

San Jose State University

San Jose, California U.S.A.