A simple consideration of what we are here to do, as a group, and the needs implied by this, has thus lead us, not only to the realization of the need here for some distinct, future group, but to some understanding of the nature of that group. Given the multiply aspected nature of the Olympians, this does not come as an absolute shock, historically. The kind of place we are describing here is one more suited to the presence of Aphrodite Pandemos than Aphrodite Urania, the patron deity of the Shrine. (*) In the introductory note to "constructing God, we mention the need to seperate the rational, quasi-empirical aspect of Hellenism, as we practice it (what some would call the "Apollonian" side or "strain" of Hellenism) from the mystical or ecstatic (the "Dionysian strain"), for the sake of the emotional stability of the participants. "So now you need three groups", some will ask. Perhaps. But no, at this point, we've only argued for the presence of two.
|
|
While we have seen the need, in some ways, to curb sexuality where rationality is to be prized, and a need to put the ecastic at a respectful distance from the empirical, no reason has been placed on the table to seperate the ecstatic from the more overtly sexual. Nor did the ancients seem to invariably see the need to do so. (Consider the the sacred marriage of the Basilenna to Dionysos, as possibly represented by the Arkhon Basileus (her husband) wearing a mask, during the Khytroi, on the third day of Anthesteria, "The Festival of Flowers", when the new wine could first be enjoyed, as explained on the Hellenic festival schedule page linked to here. Certainly, if Dionysos enters the basileus in any real sense, that will be an ecastic experience, and sex could not be more present than it is in this observance). And, really, why would they have ? "Sexual ecstasy" is almost a cliche, and even in our own era, albeit in a non-Western setting, we have the concept of "tantric yoga". If one seeks to raise the soul out of its usual torpor, the power of sexuality would seem to be a useful potential ally. (Amusingly enough, given the "no conversations" rule placed upon the participants in our hypothetical group, silence was required, as a rule, during the drinking contest Khoes, on the second day of the festival, when an intense connection to Dionysos was to be encouraged.
Would Jesus like this? Probably not, if he is being invited to watch. Millenia of cultural precedent make this much clear : to make love inside a church is considered to be sacrilege, even though marital bliss, in general, is not considered to be such. So, out of our respect for said deity, or said aspect of a deity as the case may be, we would not include Jesus on the list of deities to be worshipped at such gatherings. On the chance that, as we suspect, Moros, Janus and Yahweh are one and the same, we would leave mention of the Almighty aside during such sexual rites, or rites which hint of sex, given the traditional Jewish concepts of propriety, which may be taken as speaking to the preferences of Moros/Janus/Yahweh, whose cult Judaism may be considered to be, though some would suggest an identification of Him with Dionysos instead. The group, in practice, would be more purely "Pagan" than the Shrine.
Some might say that Jesus would be present, in a sense. Some would argue that Jesus is, himself, an aspect of Dionysos. We might be presented with two aspects of Dionysos, then: one highly sexual, who is honored in our hypothetical group, and another far less so, who would be honored at the Shrine. Of this, though, we are skeptical.
"Two groups, then?", the reader might ask, "two fully distinct groups?". Perhaps not. A real concern raised by the autocratic structure of this hypothetical group, and the "no conversations" rule, is that the Host, whoever he would be, might abuse his privileges, given a lack of oversight on the part of the membership, and the isolation of those membrs who might be mistreated from the support of their peers. Certainly, we have seen such problems arise in Wiccan groups in which similar protests are often stifled in the name of "coven secrecy", and to assume that Hellenic groups could not posibly succumb to similar problems would be overconfidence. Reproducing a social setting, historically, has been a great way of recreating its pathologies.
|
So, how do we take care of this problem, without undoing the solution which we have been constructing to this point?
If, as we have already argued, the member should not be turning to his fellow members (with whom he is not to converse when all are gathered, putting him at a serious disadvantage should he wish to organize the embership, and intentionally so), and he can not turn to the hierarchy (as it is the hierarchy with which he has his dispute) then, by elimination, he must carry his appeal to somebody outside of the hypothetical group. Who would that be? How about the membership of the Shrine, or some similar group, in which discussions would be more open ones, less prone to be corrupted, as they would offer so little of interest to the corrupt? (No money, no sex, ...)
The Host and his hierarchy, then, might be appointees of some less risque group, like, say, the Shrine. "Doesn't this take us back to where we began?", the reader might ask. "Instead of being offered the promise of naked women running around as a perk of his membership in the Shrine, the lusting would-be Shrine member is offered it as a perk of his membership on an oversight committee". Except that, as we have already noted, nudity is mandatory only for male group members, and the Shrine is a heterosexual group, which would kill much of the corrupt appeal for male Shrine members doing oversight. If we require that Shine members doing oversight be as nude as any of the participants, any female members hoping for a cheap thrill will probably be turned off as well. Besides which, relatively few people would be doing oversight, so those seeking to join the Shrine for all the wrong reasons will be presented with the near certainty of lengthy philosophical discussions, with any sort of gratification of their baser desires being a long shot, years of at best. The crowd we are worried about, here, is not noted for its interest in deferred gratification, and would be unlikely to stay.
"Yes", might come the response, "but you overlook the possibility that somebody might join the hypothetical group for 'all of the wrong reasons', as you say, and then join the Shrine in the hope of sneaking onto that oversight committee, leaving us where we were before". A real concern, but one easily addressed : simply require that all Shrine members who aren't currently on the oversight committee refrain from taking part in our hypothetical group, whenever nudity (or anything else with worrisome implications, politically) is a serious possibility. As, indeed, the oversight people probably would - they would know that, being recognized as members of said committee, they could not drop by, and hope to see anything which those they oversaw would not want seen.
"Putting on a good performance for the boss" is something that Americans are good at. No, far more effective would be an attempt to keep an eye on the place by having friends of the oversight committee join, and report back, as latter day "eyes and ears of the King", to borrow a Persian concept. Given the existence of this alternative, we could insist on a rule that the oversight people may not visit an event at which nudity or anything else of potentially prurient interested is expected without cause, and then only based on the report of a witness sent out by a different oversight committee member.
End result: those joining the oversight committee can't manufacture an excuse for themselves to go pay a visit without serious teamwork, which would get them thrown out of the Shrine if (as would be likely in a recently assembled group of strangers) they ended up being exposed, for the breach of an oath to not try to circumvent the rules, say, by having each oversight committee member have one of his contacts fabricate a report, so that the other could drop by ("one hand washes the other") . There would be no expectation that joining the Shrine would give one influence where some, probably futily, would go to see naked young women. The lowlived crowd we have spoken of, would be left with little incentive to come bother us.
Some might say that the two groups don't seem very equal. The Host, who, given the general exclusion of Shrine members from this other group's events, would probably be taken from said group's membership, once it was large enough, and established enough, to offer a good selection of candidates. Likewise for the Host's hierarchy. But even so, they would owe their authority, ultimately, to a committee drawn from the membership of another group, which could unseat them (let us say, with a vote of 2/3 of the committee, plus one member, to borrow a ratio from the constitution of the US, which seems to have worked out well, to date). How accurate would this perception be?
|
Somewhat accurate, and rightly so. Let's face it - while fun shouldn't be an alien presence in the Shrine, those in it, under these rules, will be forgoing more than a little pleasure for the sake of the greater good, while those in the other group will be indulging themselves a little more. Discipline and sacrifice, when it serves a valid purpose, are things that deserve respect. If the Shrine's function here is to keep the other group sane and just, then full equality would be out of the question - how can the overseer do his job, if he is to be on a level with those overseen? But it would not be a matter of simple dominance, as was (and is) the case with the Wiccan priesthoods and their flocks. Consider what this group would offer, and what the Shrine would offer. Which do you think more post-baby boomers would prefer ? Obviously, not the Shrine. As we have said, in the introduction, we do believe in holding parties around here, and let's face it, the smaller, more scholarly Shrine's low key little gatherings would probably not be able to match those a group like this would hold, for sheer 'wildness'.
We can't order people to be enthusiastic, and as, from many points of view, our most fun events would be those that occured when we dropped by for this group's non-clothing optional gatherings, the individual member of the other group could easily voice his displeasure in a way we would be unable to prevent : simply by not getting into the spirit of the event. If enough people do this, our good time will be spoiled, as will that of our own guests, which is a bad thing in its own right, and works to undermine the Shrine, if we should ever fail to take this problem seriously. (Remember, the building of community is why we are here, to a large extent). There is, then, a natural sort of check and balance built right into the very nature of the groups, as they are described here. Out of the thoughts raised here, then, comes a concete suggestion for a group located in Chicago which might get going.
your options :
(*) Yes, I know, that word ("patron") rings badly on the ears when applied to a goddess, but it is proper usage, regrettably. "matron" carries some unfortunate connotations of its own, anyway.