A response to Sheik’s article
To begin with one of your final comments: “People following his ideology will not arise as the intellectually superior, they will rather break a leg or two on the journey and come back home limping.”
Sheik, I do not think Dan Brown is presenting an ideology of any sort! And I disagree that the average person will not gain from reading his books. I would ask you to recall the philosophy of John Stuart Mill, specifically his ideas of censorship and knowledge. Now, I know you aren’t calling for the Da Vinci Code to be banned but following Mill’s logic you must conclude that even inaccurate knowledge will lead to the eventual disclosure of truth (if there is a free flow of information). As I mentioned before, evidence for this is the drastic increase in interest of religion, symbolism, mythology and the esoteric over the past few years. I see this as a very step in the right direction of consciousness. We need people asking questions!
To respond to the topic of the divine feminine:
Once again, a Matriarchy is not a female-dominated society. Please read the following:
A Matriarchy is a type of society, which is distinguished from all other types of societies by the absence of power structures and institutionalized hierarchies. This is why rural sociologist Christian Sigrist refers to it as an ‘adjusted anarchy’, and culture sociologist Thomas Wagner calls it an ‘egalitarian consensus democracy’.
The means of production are commonly owned and set of rules prevent the accumulation of possessions or power. Compared to socialist or communist systems they are characterized by the absence of a centralized administration and ruling authority. Decisions concerning every area of life are made by consensus including all genders and generations.
You were right, taking into account archaeology, ethnology and anthropology one will find the decline of matriarchal societies began circa 5000 B.C.E with the rise of monotheistic religions (Sumer, Old-Egypt, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism). There are many more examples of matriarchal peoples then you acknowledge, such as the Minoan Culture of Crete, the indigenous groups of the Old Europeans, North American Iroquois, the Goajiro-Arawak of Columbia and Venezuela, the Minangkabau of Sumatra, the Mayan Tojolabalians, Korean and Siberian shamanic societies, etc. Please also consider the idea that theoretically matriarchal societies predate patriarchal societies, therefore archeological evidence as well as names of such societies will be next to impossible to find.
Most historians describe prehistory as a time of perpetual war and danger. These ideas resemble those of Hobbes or Bertrand Russell in which humans are inherently bad. However, there is very little evidence to support these claims. The image of cavemen bonking women on the head is an illusion. If someone perceives this description of human nature to be true, as the vast majority of politicians do, then it is no wonder that we live in a constant state of paranoia in which fear is ever present even when the quality of life is reasonably high. The battle for resources, the hoarding and gluttony is partially the result of a worldview in which your enemy is just around the corner plotting to destroy your life. One reason why war is all too prevalent in our world is because we believe it to be inevitable. Personally, I hold a grudge against the ‘realist’ belief because it is essentially a self-fulfilling prophecy. Of course, this is not to deny that war is also the result of territorial conflicts, greed, hatred of race/ethnicity, the lust for power and so on.
Some historians claim that matriarchal societies were common in the time of prehistory. Critics state that these historians paint a rosy picture of a world during which we lived in harmony with nature and where conflict was next to non-existent. Truth probably lies somewhere in the middle of the two theories but to make sweeping judgments of historians who study matriarchies as well as their work is in my opinion the result of ignorance and the desperation of clinging onto a fading paradigm. The amount of hostility that is projected towards these academics in some circles is astounding.
What conclusions could you make when considering these theories and evolutionary psychology? It occurred to me that we might have existed most often in a peaceful state in which battles were rare yet still very real. Battles are incredibly traumatic and commonly result in what we refer today as post traumatic stress disorder. To an evolving mind this may ingrain an overemphasis of the inevitability of war because to be unprepared for a fight results in a de-emphasis in evolutionary ladder and makes life not so fun in general. This would explain our self perpetuating worldview of hostility which I described.
Terrence McKenna presents the idea that our longing for paradise, the Garden of Eden in the creation myth might be a long forgotten memory of times similar to those described by historians of matriarchal societies. Of course, it is an assumption that such genetic memory capabilities are true but the idea itself is an interesting one.
I would also like to put these ideas of prehistory in perspective. It is generally accepted that Homo sapiens emerged sometime between 250,000 to 200,000 years ago and Cro-Magnons with their tools, woven clothing and huts, somewhere between the dates of 40,000 to 10,000 years ago. Taking these dates into account the rise of male-dominated patriarchal societies, is a fairly recent occurrence.