Click HERE if you want to join Alchemy Forums!

Patrons of the Sacred Art

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 48

Thread: Secret Societies and Emotions (derailed)

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In the moment...
    Posts
    7,376
    Blog Entries
    2

    Secret Societies and Emotions (derailed)

    Warning: this thread is a train wreck and all over the place... why so serious?

    Just had a funny idea. I make a few assumptions and these can be debated I guess... but I ignore those things and just post "the thought/idea" as is.

    1. Generally women are better skilled at paranormal activities throughout history.
    2. I think it is because they are more in tune with their emotions so it is easier for them to sense energies and vibrations.
    3. Men are not allowed to cry and generally have to be hard and strong.
    4. Perhaps secret societies became a thing, because men did not want other men to know that they had gatherings where they behaved like women: being all emotional and crying etc.

    Last edited by Awani; 03-23-2017 at 12:25 AM. Reason: add warning

    Don’t let the delusion of reality confuse you regarding the reality of the illusion.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    4,582
    Blog Entries
    1
    Generally (as in 'generalization'), not only women, but also gay men tend to be more in touch with their emotions, intuition and psychic abilities. Just as a simple example, gays have to develop a 'Gaydar' (a sort of heightened intuition to recognize each other, possibly bordering on a psychic ability), while heteros usually grow up 'taking it for granted' that everyone around them (men AND women) is most likely hetero as well.

    In some indigenous cultures, gays were often recognized as 'differently gifted' (having a different variety of skills) and were in many instances nurtured as such and assigned to develop their abilities with the local Shaman(s), to better serve the needs of the tribe.

    Maybe that's also the reason that some (not all) 'secret societies' are reluctant to accept gays as well.

    But all this doesn't mean that hetero men are without feelings or without psychic abilities. I think that in most cases it's the social programming that 'teaches' them to repress those and 'man up'.

    It's interesting to notice, sociologically and anthropologically speaking, how especially since the 1980's, many gay men have started to embrace a more 'macho' culture (growing mustaches, wearing leather, body-building, etc) while many women, especially in the 'West', are displaying more 'masculine' traits - all part of a compensation mechanism for millennia of repression, I guess. And even to this day, words like 'gay' and 'woman' are still used (especially by & between men) as derogatory terms.

    Quote Originally Posted by dev View Post
    Just had a funny idea. I make a few assumptions and these can be debated I guess... but I ignore those things and just post "the thought/idea" as is.

    1. Generally women are better skilled at paranormal activities throughout history.
    2. I think it is because they are more in tune with their emotions so it is easier for them to sense energies and vibrations.
    3. Men are not allowed to cry and generally have to be hard and strong.
    4. Perhaps secret societies became a thing, because men did not want other men to know that they had gatherings where they behaved like women: being all emotional and crying etc.

    ------------------------------------------------
    Last edited by Andro; 03-20-2017 at 02:16 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In the moment...
    Posts
    7,376
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    Maybe that's also the reason that some (not all) 'secret societies' are reluctant to accept gays as well.
    Could it be that this is just a saftey measure so people don't find out how "gay" the activities are within the secret society? Perhaps?

    Wherever you find objection there is usually a hidden acceptance.


    Don’t let the delusion of reality confuse you regarding the reality of the illusion.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,349
    Quote Originally Posted by dev View Post
    1. Generally women are better skilled at paranormal activities throughout history.
    False... I think it is quite a patriarchal belief, though it can be traced to very ancient ages. The idea is always that the females are irrational and intuitive and the males are rational and wise.

    I.e, at the Oracle of Delphi the pythia (who received the visions) was always a female, but the prophētēs (who interpreted the visions) was always a male.

    This logic can perfectly be understood by reading Plato's "Ion" (even if the 2 characters are males). Socrates discusses with a poet there. The idea of the dialogue is about the Greek idea of Enthusiasm (enthous -and yes, the idea of "Entheogen" comes from that same root). The Greeks considered that the Poets were inspired by Gods, an idea that Socrates doesn't question at all... BUT he discusses with the Poet who is better at understanding the SENSE of the Poems, if the Poet or the Philosopher. Socrates supports the idea that the Poet brings the message, but the Philosopher understands it.

    I love, adore and have devotion for Plato, but he had a BIG problem with the arts. I do not agree with the thesis of the "Ion" dialogue.

    I bring the "Ion" because historically the females have been considered some sort of "Ions": intuitive, non rational, emotional, etc...

    All I have to say on the subject is: bullshit... and fuck gender roles. That's just a prejudice.

    Quote Originally Posted by dev View Post
    2. I think it is because they are more in tune with their emotions so it is easier for them to sense energies and vibrations.
    Are they more in tune with their emotions? I honestly think that both genders are pretty equal. This is not a political statement or a SJW statement... but we can get rid of some myths... and listen to Juana...

    "You foolish men that accuse
    women, without a reason
    without seeing that you´re to blame
    of the same thing you accuse.

    (...)

    The stubborness of your crazy ideas
    seems to me, from the outside,
    that of the child who speaks of the boogeyman
    and then is afraid of him."


    Quote Originally Posted by dev View Post
    3. Men are not allowed to cry and generally have to be hard and strong.


    Quote Originally Posted by dev View Post
    4. Perhaps secret societies became a thing, because men did not want other men to know that they had gatherings where they behaved like women: being all emotional and crying etc.
    My favorite "secret society" is no other than the School of Pythagoras... It is a known fact that the school accepted men and women of both genders (yes, I am plagiarizing Allen Ginsberg) as Akousmatikoi (non-initiates)... and there's always discussions about if the the school accepted men and women as Mathematikoi (initiates), but MOST scholars consider that both men and women were accepted as Mathematikoi. [There are some discussions about it though, because it's not 100% clear].

    Other than that, the Gnostic "secret societies" in most cases accepted men and women... and you can easily find that out in "Against Heresies" by "saint" Irenaeus (the saint of idiocy probably). He clearly states that Marcus used his Valentinean school to seduce and have sex with the female initiates (which is the interpretation of an idiot, but it's clear that the school or "secret society" had both men and women).

    So we are talking about "Secret Societies which are exclusive for males"... rather than "secret societies" in general. I have a simple opinion about them: they have ZERO worth... they are useless and sunk into their own prejudices.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    Generally (as in 'generalization'), not only women, but also gay men tend to be more in touch with their emotions, intuition and psychic abilities. Just as a simple example, gays have to develop a 'Gaydar' (a sort of heightened intuition to recognize each other, possibly bordering on a psychic ability), while heteros usually grow up 'taking it for granted' that everyone around them (men AND women) is most likely hetero as well.
    LOL... My gaydar works VERY well and I'm 100% hetero. BUT it is useful to find friends (I prefer gay persons as friends simply because they are more interesting for me... in a strange way this is unrelated to their sexual choice, but more related to the fact that in our societies the gays are somehow FORCED to adopt an "alternative lifestyle", I can't have friends who are not FORCED* by some reason or other to have one).

    *The word "Choice" can be used, but I think the word "Forced" is more legitimate... some things can't be chosen or faked.

    I have to say that I do not think that the gays have a better access to their psychic abilities... Probably the QUEERS have it... but using QUEER in the broad sense of the word.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    Maybe that's also the reason that some (not all) 'secret societies' are reluctant to accept gays as well.
    Again, we are talking about "secret societies for males only" (I gladly stay away from them). You are not wrong, a lot of them are secretly homophobic...
    Some of them accept gays, but then make their life impossible as to force them to leave.
    ... or they do weird things... i.e, a well known "males only secret society" used to have a specific wedding ritual... BUT when gay marriage became legal (here), the super secret society decided to stop celebrating weddings. Why? Because they didn't have the guts to simply say that they didn't want to celebrate a "gay wedding", so they stopped celebrating ALL weddings. Pathetic.

    So... Why there are "secret societies for males only"? Maybe that's the question. A part of the answer is that females were considered unworthy of them a long time ago (because of the same reason that in several democratic countries the females were given quite recently the right to vote).

    BUT there is another reason... which is quite silly: in lots of cases they work as "clubs" for men who don't want to spend their time with their wives... and visits to brothels are not uncommon (source: I know a lot of persons who are into male only rites... most of them confess that they are completely idiotic and can't explain even to themselves why the hell they stay there).

    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    But all this doesn't mean that hetero men are without feelings or without psychic abilities. I think that in most cases it's the social programming that 'teaches' them to repress those and 'man up'.
    That's not untrue... It can be avoided though, but sometimes it does have a cost. I can give personal examples, but I would not go that far this time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    It's interesting to notice, sociologically and anthropologically speaking, how especially since the 1980's, many gay men have started to embrace a more 'macho' culture (growing mustaches, wearing leather, body-building, etc) while many women, especially in the 'West', are displaying more 'masculine' traits - all part of a compensation mechanism for millennia of repression, I guess. And even to this day, words like 'gay' and 'woman' are still used (especially by & between men) as derogatory terms.
    The Punk movement was quite important in that "change"... Whilst some gay performers didn't exactly adopt a "macho" style (i.e, Pete Shelley of the Buzzcocks) they still were openly gay and adopted the "aggressive" harsh and "in your face" attitude of the other punk bands. A lot of the performers of the greatest bands were openly gay and some of them were singing like rabid dogs (I ADORE Tomata du Plenty of the band The Screamers, who had been a drag queen, but changed his style to adopt a "punk attitude" and he didn't look like someone anyone wanted to mess with when he was playing live... same thing goes for Nervous Gender, who were as harsh as they could). The examples are almost countless.
    (The very first "Punk Movie" was openly gay -"Jubilee" by Derek Jarman, of course).

    And, of course, you have the Beat Generation with Burroughs and Ginsberg and their friends... who were not really "feminine" in their attitude, but openly gay in most cases... and mostly showing how is it to be FORCED to live an "alternative lifestyle" that was probably harsher than most very masculine heteros could stand.

    No surprise that BOTH the Beat Generation and the Punk movement are QUITE linked to times in which the repression was not reduced, but increased.

    Of course, there is no need to be so Freudian and assume that the ONLY reason to be forced to adopt an alternative lifestyle is a sexual orientation. Some people simply cannot afford to live in the Chaos of the Normal (I can't... and it's completely unrelated to sexual orientations, even if I despise the super-macho ideology, but that's not MY reason... I simply can't "play the game" I was thrown into -the World- and made my own rules).

    Anyway, going back to the homophobic male only super secret clubs... they are a nightmare I would never get into (shiny medals and silly rituals without any depth). Even the Catholic Church is less idiotic than them.
    I'm not so sorry if my opinion offends someone.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    4,582
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by zoas23 View Post
    I prefer gay persons as friends simply because they are more interesting for me... in a strange way this is unrelated to their sexual choice, but more related to the fact that in our societies the gays are somehow FORCED to adopt an "alternative lifestyle".
    Sexual orientation (which gender/s one is attracted to) is NOT a 'sexual choice' (it's not a 'choice', period), nor is it 'forced'. It is technically not a 'lifestyle', either.

    However, a culturally 'alternative' lifestyle (i.e. 'subculture') can be 'chosen' or appear as 'forced' simply because of being rejected by so-called 'mainstream' cultural 'lifestyles'.

    'Choice' is only when you have more than one option to choose FROM

    It's like god making Eve out of Adam's rib and then asking him to 'choose' a wife . Sounds like communist elections - one candidate only, who always gets 're-elected'
    Last edited by Andro; 03-21-2017 at 08:37 AM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,349
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    Sexual orientation (which gender/s one is attracted to) is NOT a 'sexual choice' (it's not a 'choice', period), nor is it 'forced'. It is technically not a 'lifestyle', either.
    Somehow off topic, but you misunderstood my words.
    I never had the idea that sexual orientation is a choice, nor that it is forced. It is.

    I did mean, however, that people who are gay, lesbian or transgender (which is not really a sexual orientation) are usually FORCED to adopt a way of life that differs from what is the "normal" lifestyle of an average person... and not that it's an "alternative" lifestyle in itself (I mean, it's not something intrinsic, but mostly social... or not "mostly", but absolutely social).

    Though I also meant that other persons are also FORCED to do the same by other circumstances which are quite unrelated to sexuality.
    FORCED for the lack of a better word.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    4,582
    Blog Entries
    1
    We already clarified this on Skype, so I'm just posting this for future generations

    Quote Originally Posted by zoas23 View Post
    Somehow off topic, but you misunderstood my words.
    I never had the idea that sexual orientation is a choice, nor that it is forced.
    Well, you wrote:

    I prefer gay persons as friends simply because they are more interesting for me.. in a strange way this is unrelated to their sexual choice.
    So I know you didn't mean it like that, I'm just clarifying it for posterity

    Now back to the misogynistic, repressed but entirely brotherly butt-fucking Freemasons

    Here's a new term I just put together: Ritualistic, Initiatory & Strictly Brotherly Butt-Sex. No homo! Because 'brotherly' sex doesn't count! LOL

    -------------------------------------------------
    Last edited by Andro; 03-21-2017 at 10:58 AM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In the moment...
    Posts
    7,376
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by zoas23 View Post
    False... I think it is quite a patriarchal belief, though it can be traced to very ancient ages. The idea is always that the females are irrational and intuitive and the males are rational and wise.

    Are they more in tune with their emotions? I honestly think that both genders are pretty equal. This is not a political statement or a SJW statement... but we can get rid of some myths...
    No, I don't agree. Yes it is true that everyone is an individual but if you make a survey of all men and women on the planet you will find (I assume, based on my life experiences) that women are more connected to their emotions

    Both genders can have these traits, but the fact is that women have been ALLOWED to have emotional traits to a greater degree than men. This is pretty obvious IMO.

    Where I work there are about 30 girls and 30 boys. I know them pretty well and if I tell the 30 boys that "they are a useless fucking cunt" they will either laugh, become angry or say something back to me. If I say this to the 30 girls I know that at least 15 of them will go home crying and the rest will "fight back" (although probably 29 will cry).

    There have been about 3000 people where I work in the last 10 years and half have been women and I can recall one time when a man cried at work, but there have been a woman crying at work about (at least) one time every 14 days in those ten years. Often for no reason (none they admit to anyway).

    Women ARE in general more in tune with their emotions and able to express them. I don't care if a person is a feminist, SJW or a republican. This is "fact" as much as something can be a "fact"... if I can be so bold.

    Should it be like this? That is another topic and not the point of this thread.

    Also women have been, throughout history, the wise old woman, the soothsayer, the witch, the shaman in many cultures and in great numbers (but thanks to the patriarchy not often recorded in history by name)... for example everyone has heard of Merlin, but not as many has heard of Morgana... this I know you cannot doubt. Yes there have been men also that have been wizards and warlocks... but women have usually taken this role.

    Pre-Patriarchy or Paternality or Dominatior Culture the GOD of all the major beliefs in those days were a GODDESS.

    Just because something is a stereotype does not mean there is not some truth in it. Right or wrong, if something generally is... it is. A stereotype of Amercians where I live is that they are fat patriotic Jesus loving people... when I have been in America (and lived there) I have to say that 80 % of my experience show that it is a true stereotype (some states are fatter than others - I have never been in California where silicone whores and SJW armies are in great numbers... will I see a lot of this when I go there... PROBABLY YES... but of course I will meet individuals that are different as well).

    Finally 1: the theory put forth by me in this thread was just a "funny" idea that could be true... I would not take it so serious.

    Finally 2: Masons call each other brothers, feminist women call each other sisters... hmm... I see a pattern. LOL.

    Last edited by Awani; 03-21-2017 at 01:03 PM. Reason: clarify

    Don’t let the delusion of reality confuse you regarding the reality of the illusion.

  9. #9
    Apart from the secret society guff the assertion that emotional intelligence is directly linked to sexual orientation is very questionable. All I see here is yet another critical theory driven debate. Neonate lack of close physical contact with parents is I feel the basis of such fanatical nihilism as we see with critical theorists. The neonate lack of prolonged close contact produces a deprivation motivated fanatical nihilism. A driving need to put forward any paradigm which is against the primary norms and values of the culture within which the critical theorist resides because all of human culture that ever existed must be negated. From the contact/affection starved infant the nihilistic critical theorist emerges filled with hatred and angst for every human value and achievement. Thus this continual need to raise counter-culture debate as shown here.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,349
    Quote Originally Posted by dev View Post
    No, I don't agree. Yes it is true that everyone is an individual but if you make a survey of all men and women on the planet you will find (I assume, based on my life experiences) that women are more connected to their emotions

    Both genders can have these traits, but the fact is that women have been ALLOWED to have emotional traits to a greater degree than men. This is pretty obvious IMO.
    I do not agree at all... There's LOTS of emotions which are socially prescribed to men and somehow forbidden to women. i.e, the "romantic declarations of love" are still quite prescribed to men.... and we have built a whole pop culture based on such thing...







    Just three examples of somehow popular artists who do not play with gender roles at all and clearly focused on the emotions (you can add most of the "Crooners" to this short list).

    Quote Originally Posted by dev View Post
    Also women have been, throughout history, the wise old woman, the soothsayer, the witch, the shaman in many cultures and in great numbers (but thanks to the patriarchy not often recorded in history by name)... for example everyone has heard of Merlin, but not as many has heard of Morgana... this I know you cannot doubt. Yes there have been men also that have been wizards and warlocks... but women have usually taken this role.
    Hmmm... Merlin and Morgana is not exactly the fight between male and women, but two mystical religious representations... Merlin of Christianity, Morgana of Paganism. There is a religious sub-text there and it's not surprising that the Christian became the "famous" one... I do not really relate it to genders. The whole story of Arthur is quite biased towards Christianism.

    Quote Originally Posted by dev View Post
    Finally 2: Masons call each other brothers, feminist women call each other sisters... hmm... I see a pattern. LOL.
    It is interesting though how Masons call their wives... I don't know the English expression, but in Spanish it is "cuñada" ("Sister in Law") and NEVER "wife", "Spouse", etc.... Which is quite derogatory. As if at work you were asked not to call your "daughter" using the word "daughter" and were asked to use the expression "niece". Never saw or heard anything more absurd.

    You say that it was just a funny comment and not something "serious"... It is possible to be VERY serious about funny things though. Our "jokes" are VERY serious (Umberto Eco's "The Name of the Rose" just came to my mind).

    Quite often our "jokes" conceal a very deep (or intrinsic) ideology... so deep that we only can express it as a joke. LOL... if you wanna know the truth about someone, just ask him to tell you a few funny jokes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Axismundi000 View Post
    Apart from the secret society guff the assertion that emotional intelligence is directly linked to sexual orientation is very questionable. All I see here is yet another critical theory driven debate. Neonate lack of close physical contact with parents is I feel the basis of such fanatical nihilism as we see with critical theorists. The neonate lack of prolonged close contact produces a deprivation motivated fanatical nihilism. A driving need to put forward any paradigm which is against the primary norms and values of the culture within which the critical theorist resides because all of human culture that ever existed must be negated. From the contact/affection starved infant the nihilistic critical theorist emerges filled with hatred and angst for every human value and achievement. Thus this continual need to raise counter-culture debate as shown here.
    Thus the avant-garde is a product of " Neonate lack of close physical contact with parents"... LOL.
    Honestly, if you wanna go Freudian... then at least remember the basics. This deprivation of contact will not produce an "ideology", but rather a psychosis (which is not a nihilism anyway).
    I can testify that I am as neurotic as it gets... And I can state that my dear Andro is another neurotic (he doesn't even allow us to go too far from the original topic or he creates a new thread... and even made me clarify the expression "sexual choice" for "sexual orientation" for the posterity when he certainly knows how I think and that we have no disagreements there... and even if the expression was wrong, the context already made clear the intention).

    My criticism of society and Andro's criticism of society are a bit different though... but if such thing was the product of a "Neonate lack of close physical contact with parents", then we should also have psychotic structures... and I am unable to say who is more neurotic, but probably we are even* (two typical neurotics without any psychotic traits).

    *Probably Andro is a bit more obsessive and I am a bit more of the romantic type (the need to satisfy some persons, the need to have a partner, etc). If you wanna play the psychology game, then remember that neurosis is caused by an EXCESSIVE close physical contact with the parents rather than the lack of it.

    Last, but not least, Neurosis and Psychosis are NOT ideologies.

+ Reply to Thread

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts