The Chalice and The Blade

[Green_Manalishi]

Hi. I'm reading for the second time Riane Eisler's The Chalice and The Blade. I thought that as i read it i could post excerpts that i think are important, so they can perhaps be discussed, or other material could be indicated for further understanding of the matter in discussion. I apologize in advance for the poor quality of the quotes because they will be translated from a Portuguese translation of the original, in the middle of all this translations something is bond to be lost.
Probably the general themes are all well to known or discussed through out the forum, but still perhaps some new insight will arise if not for everyone at least for me, with the help from others :).
One of the first subjects she covers is the art in the neolithic period.

One could argue that what the academics designate as the ctonic or teluric aspects of the goddess – It's representation under a surrealist or grotesque form – represents an attempt, by our ancestors, of dealing with the more obscure aspects of reality, naming and giving form to our human fears of the dark unknown. This ctonic images – masks, paintings and small statues symbolizing death under fantastic and some times humoristic forms – could equally be a conception to grant the religious initiated a sense of mystical unity with malign as well with the benign forces that rule the World.

Another example of the way those ancient people looked at nature as a complete whole and the wondrous insight they had about natural processes.
I would be more inclined to the explanation of it being an expression of the union or integration of the benign with the malign aspects of nature and not merely a projection of some collective fear into art, because by acknowledging the maligns aspects of nature one as really to lose it's fear of it, opening it's mind and being amazed at it all.

The fact becomes more apparent if we do the analogy with the only human relation, that even in male dominate societies, is not generally conceptualized in terms of superiority – inferiority. This is the relation between mother and son – and this perception could in true be a leftover from the pre-patriarchal world view. ... From the testimonies of the past examined until now, we can conclude that it [the notion of power] cannot be considered matriarchal ... Using on the other hand the theory of cultural transformation that we have been developing, it fits in an other alternative for human organization: a society of partnership, in which none of the half's of humanity is graduated above the other, and diversity is not in equation with superiority or inferiority.

For me this last quote indicates an almost anarchical (in terms of real anarchy, not the image so many people tend to have of anarchy of some one throwing a “cocktail molotov into a McDonald's restaurant”) tendency in this societies.

 

[Green_Manalishi]

As a side note I would like to just add another example of a concept, or word, distortion. The concept being anarchy.
First of all I'll put some definitions from three different sources:


htp://www.anarchy.no/intro.html

The words anarchy and anarchism are a bit problematic. Sorry to say, anglophone languages are very much twisted in an Orwellian "1984" "newspeak" way, to fool the people via the education to worship authority, compared to Nordic language, say,
A. Rules, rule = regler, regel (relatively fixed ways to settle things in an orderly way, i.e. regulations and regulatory means); but also

B. Rules, rule = hersking, hersker, herske (to be an arch/ruler, act as an arch, bestiality).
Thus in English/American the words 'archein (Greek) = herske (Nordic)' is translated to B. "rule" = to be an arch etc., but "rule" also is used as A. 'regel' = "rule" (i.e. rule(s) in the meaning of relatively fixed way(s) to settle things, disputes and conflicts in an orderly way, i.e. regulations and regulatory means = regel/regler). And thus, due to using one word to mean two very different things, i.e. A. and B, the anglophones are forced in an authoritarian way to think very much false and wrong about realities, with respect to anarchy, freedom and authority, that the Scandinavian people are not to the same extent. See the point! Anglophones are very much fooled by the authorities in this way, thus you probably cannot easily think free, but like a slave via psychological ruling, to think authority = ruler is necessary to keep order. In Norwegian a situation "an (without) arch(y)" "uten hersker" may very well considered to be with 'regler' because "hersker" = rules, and "regler" = rules, are quite different words. This is very difficult to understand with an anglophone basis.

C. Furthermore the Greek word "an" is not meaning "without" in general, but just as "an" in anaerobe and similar words, i.e. "an" means without what is mentioned in the suffix, but keeping what is essential in the matter, i.e. management in the meaning of coordination related to anarchy. Thus the whole thing gets often mixed up in the anglophone sphere, the language falsely forcing people to think that rule and rulers are necessary to settle things in an orderly way.

...

E. The word anarchism origins from the word anarchy. The word "anarchy" origins from Greek. The original meaning, that everybody should stick to, is the following: The prefix "an" means " negation of" , as in anaerobe vs aerobe, anandrous vs -androus, anhydride vs hydride , etc; i.e . "an" means without what is mentioned in the suffix, but keeping what is essential in the matter. The suffix "archy" means "rule (not rules or law) , ruler, rulers, superior in contrast to subordinates, etc. ", from Greek "archein" , "to rule, to be first" ; and "archos" , "ruler" i.e. in a coercive , repressive, etc. manner, slavery and tyranny included. As mentioned "an" means without what is mentioned in the suffix, but keeping what is essential in the matter, i.e. in this case management in the meaning of coordination, but without ruling and rulers. The 'ruling' is not essential, but an evil alienation, i.e. bestiality. Bestiality is especially the hall-mark of systems with more than 666 per thousand (ca 67%) authoritarian degree, see Economical-Political Map . [The term “ca” is an abbreviation for the latin circa , which means about or approximately.] Thus " A narchy" doesn't mean " without coordination, management , administration , etc." . Anarchy is management, coordination and administration etc. without ruling and thus without rulers. NB! Remember D. Anarchy and anarchism also of course have and use regulations and regulatory means when necessary and optimal, i.e. significant selfregulation. That anarchy, means an-arch-y, i.e. management and coordination without ruler(s), not just "without rule", a vague term that superficially may be interpreted and manipulated in a lot of inconsistent ways, i.e. non-authoritarian as well as authoritarian, must never be forgotten. "An" means "without" as in an-aerobe, etc, "arch" means "superior" or "boss" broadly defined, and "y" in this connection stands for system, management, coordination, as in monarch-y, oligarch-y, etc. The "an" is connected to "arch", not "y". Thus (an-arch)-y means without arch, but not without system, management, coordination, it means (an-arch)-system, management, coordination. In short an-arch-y = (an = without arch = boss) y = management.
And thus anarchy means coordination, without rule from the bureaucracy broadly defined, the economical and/or political/administrative superiors in private and public sectors (in contrast to the people), down towards the bottom, i.e. in a coercive, repressive manner. b) and thus,"anarchy" is higher forms of economical and political/adminstrative democracy; 1. ideally, i.e. 100% anarchy; meaning 100% coordination on equal footing, without superiors and subordinates, horizontal organization, and co-operation without coercion, or 2. practically, significant i.e. more than 50% degree of anarchy, i.e. more horizontally than vertically organized, i.e. more influence on the societal management from the "bottom upwards", than from the bureaucracy, from "the top downwards to the bottom". The bureaucracy organized as a ruling management , i.e. significant downwards to the people and the grassroots - and not just an insignificant tendency in this direction, is also called authority or authorities, the State as a social concept or in a societal perspective - as well as government. Thus anarchy is a way of organizing society where there is management and coordination without ruling and rulers, tyranny and slavery, i.e. the tendencies towards State, authority, authorities, government, bureaucracy and similar are insignificant or zero. The opposite of anarchy is different types of archies, i.e. ruling and rulers, authority, authorities, State in a societal perspective, government - economical and/or political/administrative. Archies may be mainly monarchy, oligarchy, polyarchy, ochlarchy (mob rule) and/or plutarchy.

...

G. More about what anarchy and anarchism and State/authority/government/archy mean

1. Anarchy and anarchism mean "system and management without ruler(s), i.e. co-operation without repression, tyranny and slavery".

Briefly defined anarchy and anarchism are coordination on equal footing, without superiors and subordinates, i.e. horizontal organization and co-operation without coercion. This means practically or ideally, i.e. ordinary vs perfect horizontal organization respectively. Thus, anarchy and anarchism mean real democracy, economical and political/administrative, in private and public sector. Thus, anarchy means coordination without government, in the meaning of different forms of vertically organized, i.e. chaotic included, economic and/or political-administrative relations among people, (and thus not without public sector). Coercion is defined in the following way: Coerce, from Latin coercere , to surround, from co = together and arcere = to confine. 1. to confine, restrain by force, to keep from acting by force, to repress. 2. to constrain, to compel, to effect by force, to enforce. Anarchist systems have ideally no coercion, practically, as little as possible coercion, taking into account the anarchist principles in general, human rights interpreted in a libertarian way included.

htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

Anarchy (from Greek: αναρχία anarchía, "without ruler") may refer to any of the following:
"Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."[1]
"A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."[2]
"Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."[3]
Without government or law

htp://www.thefreedictionary.com/anarchy

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

...

1. general lawlessness and disorder
2. the absence of government [Greek an without + arkh- leader]

...

an absence of government and law; political disorder, often accompanied by violence.

...

noun lawlessness, revolution, riot, disorder, confusion, chaos, rebellion, misrule, disorganization, misgovernment << OPPOSITE order

...

1 the absence or failure of government Total anarchy followed the defeat of the government.
2 disorder and confusion.

With the definitions given, it seems that a very important concept to understand our hidden past was deliberately turned up side down.
If we take the social organization from the Goddess civilizations (as Eisler calls it) has some kind of anarchist tendency, it is clearly seen that an inversion has taken place with the modern definition of anarchy, has presented in the last two definitions I have posted.
The first definition is from the Anarchy International, which obviously has a different definition and is similar in the general aspects with the social organization from the Goddess civilizations.

 

[Al Today]

Then, can it be said that anarchy has element of a sort of social cooperation? All participants are individuals working towrds the good, the benefit of the whole? As it should be, I think...
:D

 

[Green_Manalishi]

After the user Vulcan59 posted the following site _http://www.etymonline.com on another thread I decided to search the term hierarchy to see its etymology.

hierarchy:

c.1343, from O.Fr. ierarchie, from M.L. hierarchia "ranked division of angels" (in the system of Dionysius the Areopagite), from Gk. hierarchia "rule of a high priest," from hierarches "high priest, leader of sacred rites," from ta hiera "the sacred rites" (neut. pl. of hieros "sacred") + archein "to lead, rule." Sense of "ranked organization of persons or things" first recorded 1619, initially of clergy, probably infl. by higher.

Priceless, i mean, it just had to come from an institutionalized religion, to determine the different ranks in christian priesthood.

 

[Green_Manalishi]

Some more points i found relevant in the rest of the book.

The author identifies the invaders of the Goddess societies (a people that cultivated the land and lived in valleys) as the Kurgan people, invaders that came from the territorial peripheries of Europa. It also mentioned that in this group of invading hordes it was included the Hebrew people, and that this group was also the one that destroyed the original (or at least former) Indian civilization, the Dravidian people. But this, I believe, has been already discussed in length in some other part of the forum.

At the beginning of the sixth chapter there is an interesting example of how the mind set of the people was turned from the older traditions (partnership, female as symbol) into the new one (dominance, male as symbol). Not surprisingly it was in the form of entertainment, theatre to be more precise. the play in question is Oresteia from Aeschylus.

In trying to respond the question of what is the normative function of Oresteia, the academical interpretation was it's intention being the explanation of the origins of the Areopagus, or the homicide court of Greece. In this court, which was a novelty for the time, it was supposed to obtain justice through legal, but impersonal instruments, of the government, instead of having to resource to clan vengeance. [...] To answer what kind of norms Oresteia really expresses and affirms, we should consider the trilogy in it's integrity

I'm going to copy the play from wikipedia, so I don't have to translate from the book.

Agamemnon:
The play opens to Clytemnestra awaiting the return of her husband, having been told that the mountaintop beacons have given the sign that Troy has fallen. Though she pretends to love her husband, she is furious that he sacrificed their daughter, Iphigenia. This is not made clear here, but it would have been familiar to the audience. A servant stands on top of the roof, reporting that he has been crouching there "like a dog" (kunos diken) for years, "under the instruction of a man-hearted woman". He laments the fortunes of the house, but promises to keep silent: "A huge ox has stepped onto my tongue." However, when Agamemnon returns, he brings with him Cassandra, an enslaved Trojan Priestess of Apollo, as his concubine. This serves to anger Clytemnestra further.
The main action of the play is the agon between Clytemnestra and Agamemnon. She attempts to persuade Agamemnon to step on a purple (sometimes red) tapestry or carpet to walk into their home. The problem is that this would indicate hubris on Agamemnon's part, and he does not wish to do this. Eventually, for reasons that are still heavily debated, Clytemnestra does convince Agamemnon to cross the purple tapestry to enter the oikos, where she kills him in the bath: she ensnares him in a robe and as he struggles to free himself she hacks him with three strokes of a pelekus. Agamemnon is murdered in much the same way an animal is killed for sacrifice with three blows, the last strike accompanied by a prayer to a god.
Whilst Clytemnestra and Agamemnon are offstage, Cassandra starts discussing with the chorus whether or not she ought to enter the palace, knowing that she too will be murdered. Cassandra has been cursed by Apollo for rejecting his advances. She has the gift of clairvoyance, but the curse means that no one who hears her prophesies believes them. In Cassandra's speech, she runs through many gruesome images of the history of the House of Atreus as if she had been a witness of them, and eventually chooses to enter the house knowing that she cannot do anything to avoid her fate. The chorus, in this play a group of the elders of Argos, hear the death screams of Agamemnon, and frantically debate on a course of action.
A platform is soon rolled out displaying the gruesome dead bodies of Agamemnon and Cassandra, along with Clytemnestra, who attempts to explain her action. Later, Aegisthus struts out and delivers an arrogant speech to the chorus, who nearly enter into a brawl with Aegisthus and his henchmen. However, Clytemnestra halts the dispute, saying that "There is pain enough already. Let us not be bloody now." The play closes with the chorus reminding the usurpers that Orestes, the son of Agamemnon, will surely return to exact vengeance.

The Libation Bearers:
In the palace of Argos, Clytemnestra, who now shares her bed and the throne with her lover Aegisthus, is roused from slumber by a nightmare: she dreamt that she gave birth to a snake, and the snake now feeds from her breast and draws blood along with milk. Alarmed by this, a possible sign of the gods' wrath, she orders her daughter, the princess Electra, whom in the meantime Clytemnestra has reduced to the virtual status of a slave-girl, to pour libations on Agamemnon's grave. A group of women (the libation bearers of the title) are to assist her.
Electra arrives at the grave of her father and comes upon a man by the tombstone, who has just placed a lock of his hair on the stone. As they start to speak, it gradually and rather agonizingly becomes apparent that the man is her brother Orestes (who had been sent away to the royal court of Phocis since infancy for safety reasons), and who has, in her thoughts, been her only hope of revenge. Orestes believes that he is the snake in his mother's dream, so together with Electra they plan to avenge their father by killing their mother Clytemnestra and her new husband, Aegisthus.
Orestes wavers about killing his own mother, but is guided by Apollo and his close friend Pylades, the son of the king of Phocis, that it is the correct course of action. Orestes and Pylades pretend to be ordinary travellers from Phocis, and ask for hospitality at the palace. They even tell the Queen that Orestes is dead. Delighted by the news, Clytemnestra sends a servant to summon Aegisthus. Orestes kills the usurper first, and then his mother. As soon as he exits the palace, the Erinyes, or Furies as they are known in Roman mythology, begin to haunt and torture him in his flight. The Erinyes do not hunt down Clytemnestra for killing her husband, but they do hunt down Orestes for his crime of matricide as is their function: to them, crimes against blood bonds are far more significant than crimes against marriage bonds.

The Eumenides:
Orestes is tormented by the Erinyes, or Furies, chthonic deities that avenge patricide and matricide. He, at the instigation of his sister Electra and the god Apollo, has killed their mother Clytemnestra, who had killed their father, King Agamemnon, who had killed his daughter and their sister, Iphigenia. Orestes finds a refuge and a solace at the new temple of Apollo in Delphi, and the god, unable to deliver him from the Erinyes' unappeasable wrath, sends him along to Athens under the protection of Hermes, while he casts a drowsy spell upon the pursuing Erinyes in order to delay them.
Clytemnestra's ghost appears from the woods and rouses the sleeping Erinyes, urging them to continue hunting Orestes. The Erinyes' first appearance on stage is haunting: they hum a tune in unison as they wake up, and seek to find the scent of blood that will lead them to Orestes' tracks. Ancient tradition says that on the play's premier this struck so much fear and anguish in the audience, that a pregnant woman named Neaira suffered a miscarriage and died on the spot.
The Erinyes' tracking down of Orestes in Athens is equally haunting: Orestes has clasped Athena's small statue in supplication, and the Erinyes close in on him by smelling the blood of his slain mother in the air. Once they do see him, they can also see rivulets of blood soaking the earth beneath his footsteps.
As they surround him, Athena intervenes and brings in a jury of twelve Athenians to judge her supplicant. Apollo acts as attorney for Orestes, while the Erinyes act as advocates for the dead Clytemnestra. During the trial, Apollo convinces Athena that, in a marriage, the man is more important than the woman, by pointing out that Athena was born only of Zeus and without a mother (Zeus swallows Metis). Before the trial votes are counted, Athena votes in favour of Orestes. After being counted, the votes on each side are equal. Athena then persuades the Erinyes to accept her decision. They eventually submit. Athena then renames them Eumenides (The Kindly Ones), and they will now be honoured by the citizens of Athens and ensure their prosperity. Athena also declares that henceforth hung juries should result in the defendant being acquitted, as mercy should always take precedence over harshness.

With Athena, has direct descendent from the Goddess and has the tutelary divinity of the city of Athens, declaring herself in favour of the change to a male domination system, this new system must be accepted by all the Athenians. [...] In Oresteia every Athenian could even see how the old furies, or Eumenides, finally surrendered. [...] Completely defeated, they retreat to the caverns under the the city, while Athena persuades them to stay in the city of Athens.

So, it seems the techniques we all know the pathocracy uses nowadays, are extremely old, no wonder they have perfected them so much, they had the time. After the barbaric invasions and the use of force to impose the new order, they, the pathocrats, had to turn to the more subtle and more effective ways. Ancient example of alteration of reality.