Let me begin this by saying I have attended exactly one ritual thus
far, and we didn't delve into high mysteries or anything of the sort since
of the six participants, three were novices.  So what follows is based on
limited experience and your mileage will vary.  End of disclaimer.
     Several times in discussion with members of the group to which I
currently belong, the idea of a differentiated male and female energy has
come up.  This could be anything from the moon/sun symbolism that seems very
important in Wiccan practice and astrology to the idea of actual separate
energies that "feel" different.  We were discussing the appropriateness or
lack thereof in rituals with only men or only women in them.  And now, we
are trying to figure out what makes sense as an observance for the upcoming
lunar eclipse.
     This poses something of a problem for me.  I have some basic
ideological problems with such sharp gender distinctions.  My bisexual
fiancee has even more problems with it.  While I am deeply pro the idea of
choosing one's own sexual or gendered identity, I am just as deeply opposed
to having this role imposed on myself or on anyone.  So I get a little
uncomfortable when the discussion takes this particular turn.
     Which brings me to the point.  What do you folk think about the
masculine-feminine energy concept?  How does male energy "feel" different
than female energy?  How would one go about embodying both energies?  Is the
distinction a false one?  Are the terms masculine and feminine misleading
here?  That aught to be enough questions to start a discussion.
     Cheers, and I'm back in ten days to see what you've come up with.
     Chris

43 responses total.

I think perhaps you're getting hung up on the words "male" and "female"
with relation to the actual genders.  These two types of energy are
at the opposite ends of the spectrum and individuals have doses of
them to differing degrees. Balancing them takes more than simply
choosing an equal number of males and females, because the males may
have a lot of female energy and vice-versa.

I'd not get hung up on this and realize that they are just two poles of
the same energy.

     I think that you and I actually agree about this Dan, but I apparently
wasn't clear.  My question was fueled by a discussion before ritual when we
were just getting comfortable with some basic concepts and terms, and the
subject of men's and women's rituals came up.  But let's remove gender
politics from the discussion?  
     How does energy from the "male" pole of the continuum differ from the
energy from the "female" end of the spectrum?  What uses do they have?  How
do they feel?
     Chris

I am responding only for the sake of responding.

To put it *very* simply 

Female energy = quiet, passive, nurturing, soothing.  Think of a warm
                scented bubble bath or a swim in a tropical place.

Male energy = brash, active, challenging, results oriented.  Think of
                a hot or cold shower or a tsunami.

There's alot more to say, but I'll leave that to someone who's more
eloquent than I am.

Is there any "neutral" energy?

Mic; Gwens Husband responds:
Their are social and surival differances that translate as differances
in life energy. These are in how we use the energy that is in each of
us and how we react to the energy without. Because of these gender based
views (I DO NOT mean this politicallyg y n
-line noise again-  we limit ourselves and also give ourselves gifts through
this precept. There are many good books for looking up rituals of northern
European early religions. That is if you are following any of them. I myself 
find it strange at the lack of men who are willing to tap into both the 
mentor and wild man sides of the inner aspects of the male undermind (read as
group memory). Hope this was helpful and may your lessons be not to hard."."
"."

ttyh2 Sucks!

Misti, your view of "male" and "female " energy doesn't quite match my
experience.  I've found that some people run higher energy than others, and
some seem "smoother", more as a factor of personality and training than of
gender.  It may indeed be that more guys seem to run high and harsh than
women, but I don't see the gentler feeling guys as "feminine"- just easier
to work with...  Moreover, I've known enough male healers and female
"warrior" types that I can't even make that generalization about how people
work.  so I'm not entirely sure what differentiates gendered energy for
most purposes.  There's sex magic, but even there I'm not sure what makes
the genders feel different in practice- just that there needs to be a 
strong sense of polarity.

I'd have to agree with Kami on the complexity of gender. I don't think it's
that easy. There are so many influences and factors, it's tough to draw any 
standard conclusion. Though MTS's description is a good general rule of the
"feel".
I think gender is as unique as people are.
Mic, I hear you, I wish more men were searching for what it is to be a man too.
It's discouraging to those of us that *are* trying.

Hmmmm...I see energy "gender" as unrelated to people "gender".

Kinda like the spanish word for House is female -- but houses aren't
intrinsically feminine..

re:#10- that makes sense as far as it goes, but for many purposes I think
one still needs to take into account the range of gradation and "flavour" in
gender/ energy.

To respond to an item that is more than five years old...

I'm not sure one can define the feel or flavor of "male" or "female" energies.
Actually, I'm pretty sure one can't, however, that's not really the point.
Female/Male is just one set of opposites, one set of poles. It's a way of
describing the natural duality of our universe. There are many others such
as Good/Evil, Passive/Active, Order/Chaos, North/South, and
Regular/Extra-Crispy, and they are all as appropriate for use in rituals as
the Male/Female set. 

Naming and defining these pairs is a way of making ineffable cosmic forces
understandable for us humans and mortals. Traditional systems of magic
including both "High Magick" and "Earth Magick" often use Female/Male as their
duality of choice and this as well as Earth politics have led people to assign
other opposite traits as either Male or Female. 

While this is good fun, I would like to suggest that there is a dynamic
balance that is maintained: when the god sits on the "North" side of the
see-saw, the goddess must sit on the southern side. This is not permanent,
and if the goddess begins to walk north, the god will in turn move south. They
may pass each other and switch places without tipping the seesaw one way or
the other. The footsteps of the deities cause the disturbances seen when a
thing is in a state of flux.

An infinite number of these seesaws are in motion at any given moment. They
are not all aligned with a specific plane, so an up-down movement of one would
affect the up-down balance of another and that one would tip another, and so
on. The footstep disturbances mentioned above are the rebalance of other
scales. If a candle is carried from one room to another, the scales affected
include heat, light, air currents, air content, number of moths, etc. 

_My point_ is that male and female used as examples of opposite energies are
not static in nature. There is a traditional man image (bigger, logical) and
a woman image (smaller, intuitive) that stay fairly constant over time, but
that is just one magnet whose poles are wandering, and may or may not someday
shift. Trying to tack halves of opposites to the ideas "female" and "male"
is an exercise in futility, but as I said, good fun. 

**The above is based on the teachings of the Rectified Church of Eris***

        Er, that's a joke religion ... and the were into Hodge and Podge
anyways. :P

This response has been erased.

   all hail discordia!  :)

I think it in very poor taste to describe someone else's belief system as a
"joke religion", though that probably is not what you were doing. I believe
you are speaking of the "original" Eris cult formed in a bowling alley by G.
Hill and K. Thornley. This group appeared on the surface to be only joking,
but as one delves deeper into their mysteries one discovers more and more of
the underlying seriousness until finally it is realized that it really IS a
joke after all. The *Rectified Church of Eris* took the ideas and symbols of
the original joke, and formed it into a viable religion. The Most Holy Hodge
and Podge are indeed symbols that the original group was "into" and are even
now used by the Rectified Church. The Hodge and Podge are a set of opposites
which may be described as "organic" and "inorganic" (for those of you who
haven't heard of these obscure Jokes before), and make up a large part of the
Erisian myth system. 

All Hail Discordia indeed, Mr. Void...

        I can't believe anyone actually typed that.

        Politically correct new-think aside, if a religion is admitted to be
a joke by it's founders, and propogated as satire, then it's a point of fact
that it's a joke.  If someone then believes in the joke, then they do so with
the understanding that it's a joke (and they're then presumably Bokonists,
from Vonnegut's _Cat's Cradle_, and would *get* the joke, and recognize it
for what it is) or they'd be completely ignorant of their own beliefs and
rather daft.

/e still thinks someone should sit down and write the book of Bokonon

Two different concepts:
(a) A religion which is a joke
(b) a joke religion

A religion which is a joke is not necessarily an invalid religion, it is
merely a religion which has been forme around a joke. Recent examples include
not only the Erisians and the Discordians, but also the Subgenii and the
Slackers, as well as Ann Arbor-local Pythonic Wicca and my own Pop Culture
Paganism (PCP). They vary on the degree to which their own propoentnts take
them seriously as actual belief systems (PCP, for instance, is VERY serious,
while the Subgenii hardly seem serious at all).

The phrase "joke religion" carries the baggage, though, that not only was the
religion created in jest, but that it is utterly non-functional, and contains
no spiritual validity whatsoever.

I assume you didn't mean that, John. I assume you merely meant that  Modern
Erisianism was formed as a joke, and serves to satirize other religions more
than it attempts to be a religion in its own right.

(Keep in mind that Eris *is* a Demigoddess, a member of the GraecoRoman
pantheon.)

        "Carries the baggage?"  In order to carry 'baggage' a phrase has to
be repeatedly used in a certain context - or be composed of elements that are
in themselves, or as recognizable parts of other phrases, repeatedly used in
a certain context.  That isn't the case here.  The DEEP structures for "joke
noun" and "noun which is a joke" are identical.

        So if there's any baggage here, it's the sort you've brought along for
yourself.  Please place it in the designated racks above or under your seat.
 :)

The difference is simple: is the faith being said to originate from a humorous
concept, or is it being said that it is only worthy of being called a humorous
concept, as a whole?

the deep structures for "joke noun" and "noun which is a joke" are hardly the
same.
Why can't you just say you misspoke and didn't mean any offence, and leave
it at that?
;}

        Simply put, because the accusation made is ridiculous.

        Please enlighten me as to the deep structure difference between "joke
noun" and "noun which is a joke".

which accusation? That you misspoke, or that you didn't mean offense?
A joke noun would be something which is both a joke and a noun... the two
concepts would be equal. A noun which is a joke is a noun that has many
characteristics, one of which is that it's a joke. Cf:
She's a woman doctor.
She's a doctor who's a woman.
He's a black actor.
He's an actor who's black.

People frequently take offence at the first of each pair, but not the second,
because the first tends to place the two concepts on equal footing (she's not
a doctor, she's a *woman* doctor), while the second tends to place the first
concept as more important, and the second as being ancillary.

Notice that the construction here is N N, not Adj N. We don't have the same
discord with an Adj N structure:
He has a blue book.
He has a book which is blue.

BTW, this also illustrates that you're wrong that a phrase can't carry baggage
unless it or its components carry baggage. A phrase can also carry baggage
if its structure -- independent of its component parts -- carries baggage.

Sounds like a religion that was invented as a satire or
parody has been accepted by some people as valid.
Logically, there is no reason why a religion that was
created as a parody can't be valid, but it would have 
to involve some extraordinary coincidences.  That is,
if it *was* valid, it would be by accident, not by design.
It might be a humiliating surprise to someone who had
accepted such a religion to learn the truth about it, but
if you care at all about the person you have to let them
know the truth.  

Why would it have to involve some extraordinary coincidences?
Trickster dieties are perhaps the most universal deity type.
It seems to me that a religion created in jest has as much likelihood of being
accurate as a religion created in total sincerity, if not more.

Brighn, I agree entirely, except that it would depend on the deity that the
religion was based upon-- If the deity in question is a trickster (or
humorous) type, then indeed, and jesting faith practice might be the only type
that would revere the deity properly.
On the other hand, If the deity being worshipped was a very solemn and serious
type, then such a faith practice would not be welcome, most likely.
The problem people have with the idea of "jest-based faiths" is that we've
lived, as a culture, for a long time with a dominant faith that worshipped
a rather solemn, serious, and oft-times grumpy diety.  With such a cultural
background, it is little wonder that many have trouble embracing the humorous
faith as a concept.

It's just surprising that anyone would look at a
religion that was created as an elaborate gag,
miss the point, sign on, and then be anything but
grateful when someone informs him of the truth.

As I said, though, there is no reason why a parody
religion can't be a valid one.  And I'd add to my
"as it happens" reason brighn's idea that there
may be a god or gods who actually choose the
parodist as the vessel through which their 
message will pass.  I kind of like the idea.  

I also have to add that adherence to a religion you 
*know* is only a parody, just for the fun of it, is a 
whole other matter.  When someone tells you your
religion is a parody, you have the privilege of
responding with a parody of the "How dare you
attack my personal faith?" reaction.  I like that
idea, too. 

What I don't like is the idea that it's wrong to 
inform someone who's been duped that he's 
been duped.

My point (which I think has been seen) is that just because YOU think
somebody's been duped, that doesn't mean they have been. Deities are odd
things at times. ;} Then, as aldous points out, we all have our own
perspectives, and I'm coming from the perspective of someone whose patron
Deity is one of the most famous tricksters of all (Loki) and whose fey
affiliation is another of the most famous tricksters of all (Pan). My totem,
likewise, is one of the more anomalous creatures (the cheetah, which is
officially a cat but has notable characteristics -- body architecture, claw
structure, etc. -- which is more typical of a dog). In short, I have quite
an affiliation with troublemaking. =}

        Re #24:

        Neither of which has anything to do with deep structures. 

        Now, you're correct that the order implies emphasis.  Emphasis isn't
necessarily a bad thing - consider the following expanded concepts:

        * She was one of Manhattan's first woman doctors.
        * She was one of Manhattan's first doctors who was a woman.

        * He was a black actor at a time when Hollywood did not accept black
actors.
        * He was an actor who was black at a time when Hollywood did noy accept
actors who were black.

        The latter sentences are simply ungainly and semantically ill-formed,
because the emphasis is placed on the wrong portion of the concept (N woman
eq N doctor).  But you'll notice that both phrases are complimentary rather
than derogatory.  The only conclusion that I can come to out of this is that,
when viewed in the context of a complete sentence or thought, the N1 N2 versus
N2 who is a N1 stucture cannot carry inherent insult, but can indicate
emphasis.

        Now since the point I was making is that Discordianism was founded in
satire, the emphasis would logically be on that it was founded in satire, not
that it was a religion.  The emphasis is not only consistent, but logically
necessary:

        * Did you know Discordianism is a joke religion?
        * Did you know Discordianism is a religion which is a joke?

        The second sentence is not only semantically ill-formed, but carries
a different meaning because of it's emphasis.

        Enough about the structure of the English language;  the issue at hand
is that I am aware of the fact that Discordianism is satire, and I do not
believe that a religion, in the sense of other entities defined as religions,
can be founded off of grounds known to be merely satirical or humorous.  The
government does not draw such a distinction;  it's not the government's job
to make such distinctions.  But it is an indivdual's right.  

        I do agree with Michael, however, in that I believe a religion can be
founded off of a satirical concept being found to be true (which is different
than being founded off of a satirical concept), but that such an occurence
would be exceptionally rare and should be treated skeptically.

        Unfortunately, this isn't politically correct in an era when people
can decide that pumpkins are the incarnate spirit of Zeus and tomatoes of
Bast, and establish a church on those premises. :)

It is true that modern-day Discordianism was founded half as a joke and half
as social satire, but it may have been a *real* religion in the sense that
the deities existed and were worshipped in earnest rather than in jest. I
don't know, but I would suspect not. The fact that it is based largely on
smoking cannabis and copulating with apples does not automatically disqualify
it as a religion. It does, however, mean that fewer people take it seriously.
I think that if the Discordians truly wanted to be taken seriously, they
wouldn't have been so public about the apples. 

The question of whether a religion is real is unique for everyone (boy oh boy
do I sound new-agey.) Some people have the opinion that anything is a religion
(the Cult of the Great Pumpkin, etc.)  Some people believe in a religion's
validity while realizing that they could never take it seriously enough to
participate in its rites. Some people these groups have the religious validity
of cow farts. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion and I respect that.
However, if the cow fart people insist on telling the "joke religion" people
what they think, they have to expect other people to take offense. At the
same, those who share with strangers their belief that peanut butter and
anchovies are the way to salvation must expect to be laughed at. 

What defines a religion? What makes a religion real as opposed to a joke? My
opinion is that the difference lies not in what the members of the "religion"
believe, but their sincerity. If they sincerely believe that enlightenment
can be found through meditation on their belly buttons (omphaloskeeopos or
something like that) then I would classify theirs as a religion. I am
interested in finding out other people's thoughts on the matter.  

For the record, I would like to state publicly that The Rectified Church of
Eris is not affiliated with the POEE or the LDD or any other Eristic group.
It is a new, complete entity that may be classified as a viable religion (if
you're into that sort of thing).

John, if two phrases have the same deep structure, they have the same
semantics. Therefore, if phrase A is semantically well-formed, and phrase B
is semantically ill-formed, then phrase A and phrase B can't have the same
deep structures.

Don't argue linguistic terminology with me. You'll lose. You just did.

(BTW, the opposite isn't true... it's not necessarily the case that if two
phrases have the same semantics, they have the same deep structure.)

        Either you have a serious misunderstanding of your own chosen field,
or you're badly confused about my last response - I'm presuming it's the
latter.

        It is possible for phrase Asub1 to be semantically well formed, and
have deep structure SofAsub1, and for the phrase Asub2 to be semantically well
formed and have deep structure, but for two sentences that include As1 and
As2 to be different in meaning, semantic well-formedness, and meaning.  

        Want proof?  Look it up.  I have no time for individuals who, when
corrected, respond with inanities like "Don't argue linguistic terminology
with me. You'll lose. You just did." 

        Forget.

The jokester god is definitely involved
in this item.

Do you think we've veered a little off topic?

Given sentence A of form "X is Y1" and sentence B of form "X is Y2", if Y1
and Y2 have teh same deep structure, the following conditions hold:
-- A and B have the same deep structure
-- Y1 and Y2 match in ssemantic well- or ill-formedness
-- A and B match in semantic well- or ill-formedness

the following statements are also true:
-- The whole CONCEPT of deep structure in this concept has been largely
abandoned by Chomskyan generativists
-- The whole CONCEPT of semantic well- or ill-formedness is, IMHO, irrelevant,
since it ignores the issue of pragmatics, which is a much larger portion of
functional interpretation anyway, and which was the original point of this
discussion.

Now, if your point was that Y1 and Y2 can match in deep structure (such that
it is) and semantic well-formedness but differ in pragmatic interpretation,
than I agree fully. But use the correct terminology. But structure is built
off of semantics, and it's additive (meaning that if two phrases have the same
semantics and are embedded in the same sentence context, then the sentence
context will also have the same semantics).

Semantics is a mathematical/logical framwork, at least in the context of deep
structures, not a linguistic framework. As such, mathematical principles such
as additiveness, apply fully.

There. That's all for everyone else, to show off, since it appears that John
has forgotten this item.

Besides, it isn't my chosen field, because it's all so irrelevant to anything
in the real world. Pragmatics is the only field in central linguistics that
I would even consider to be a useful field of study. You were the one who felt
it necessary to bring in all the GG/GB silliness.

ANYway... going back to the pre-derail thread, which was:
Can a religion which was begun as a joke become legitimate?

It occurred to me that Isaac Bonewitz' original motivation for becoming
involved in paganism wasn't a joke so much as a prank protest. He was forced
by his college to practice a religion, so he and some buddies came up with
a mock form of Druidism, which (much later) evolved into Ar nDraiocht Fein,
the largest Druid church outside of Ireland. (At least, this is *my*
understanding... I've been known to be wrong.)

Pretty much correct, except Isaac wasn't one of the founders of
the original group.  The RDNA (Reformed Druids of North America)
was founded in Minnesota in 1964, and Isaac didn't join until
he started attending college a few years later in Berkeley, CA.
He did become very prominent in the group within a very short
time, though.

Oh, and should we include the many folks who first got involved
in paganism so they could have an easier time getting laid?  >8)
Or is that a new topic?

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss