Comment : the ellipses here are mine. Please pardon me for breaking into a paragraph like this, but a lot is going on in this particular passage.
So, I take it from this remark that we are to dissect God himself, and know Him by His parts? A futile effort, should God be there for us to know Him, and an unfruitful one, should He not.
Were I to enumerate and describe all of the influences that made somebody the man he is today, much of my audience wouldn't live long enough to hear me get to the end of the lecture. As a species, we can not even understand ourselves, fully. How vain of us, then, if we should imagine that we could understand those who would be so far beyond us!
Perhaps one must be a scientist to have the proper sense of awe at what it would be to be God. Imagine the mind that could conceive this universe. In even its tiniest corner, one will find structures within structures with structures, a wealth of complexity that could easily occupy many lifetimes and still only be understood by way of a simplified approximation. If one couldn't fully grasp what was to be found in even the tiniest corner of a work of art, how foolish to imagine that one could truly comprehend the artist.
Let's return to that paragraph, and take a look at more of it. Starting the paragraph, again ...
Aset then IS a specific collection of forces/energies that we identify with the power of the thrown, with intuition and magical abilities, with engaged strategic intellectual ability (which appear to those dominant in certain other energies as "manipulation"
) ...
Keep in mind that Aset (Isis) is Leah's patron deity. Nothing wrong with that in general, but here, it seems to have associated itself with a problem.
Consider the body of myth associated with Aset, one of those myths in particular.
One might remember Aset as the goddess, or netjer, who manages to get Ra stung by a scorpion and then refuses to heal him until he shares his secret, hidden name with her, giving her power over him. "Manipulation", here, is no term of art. It means exactly what most people would expect it to. Such a myth, arising in a Kemetic Orthodox context, is startling from some points of view. Yes, the Olympians, in Hellenism, are certainly far from perfect but they're also lesser divinities. Aset, in Kemetic Orthodoxy, is supposed to be one of the aspects of the Almighty, who many would expect to be without moral blemish. Certainly, Aset is not, as this myth tells us.
This is a startling point of view, but on behalf of the Kemetic view, one should point out that it does solve "the problem of evil" in a very tidy and simple way, which speaks in its favor as a theological viewpoint. Rationality should never be confused with optimism.
What does not speak well for Kemeticism in its various forms is what appears to be a widespread attitude that one has a license to adopt one's patron deity's failings as one's own, to a severe extent, as if the caricatures of the Divine seen in mythology were faithful portraits of the netjeru and models to emulate, as far as present day society will allow.
Tangent over. Let's get back to the paragraph.
We have come to what some might refer to as a moment in which Ms. Levant "accidentally tips her hand". The last sentence is certainly disturbing. "Engaged strategic intellectual ability"? That sounds like something that everybody should want, doesn't it? Yet, all that it is, by Renee's own description, is skill in manipulating others, ie. using words in such a way as to stifle independent thought in others, channeling their thoughts in a direction one likes and undermining their free will, rather than to encourage and be supportive of the other's attempt to find his own, rational conclusions, bolstering his free will.
To merely defend the practice would be bad, but Leah goes the extra step and tries some corporate-style spin doctoring as she tries to manipulate the reader into thinking of this as being something worthy of his respect and admiration.
Are we to be surprised, though? Looking back, this entire post of hers, has seemed to be a prolonged exercise in manipulation. The only difference is, now we have seen our suspicions confirmed. Leah views words as tools for getting others to do as she wishes, not as a vehicle for open and honest communication between equals.
As we assess Leah's motives in the future, we should make a conscious effort to keep this in mind. Really, Renee, "Leah made me do it"?
Let's finish that paragraph.
Aset then IS a specific collection of forces/energies that we identify with the power of the thrown, with intuition and magical abilities, with engaged strategic intellectual ability (which appear to those dominant in certain other energies as "manipulation"
) and a number
of other "traits" that we can pick out from what that energy enhances
in its purest form. From this perspective the myths are not literal
stories of what happened but attempts to make the reality of these
interactions of spiritual forces palpable or at least thinkable.
'Traits' in this Kemetic context, are what modern Hellenists might call 'offices', ie. the areas in which the diety focuses its attention. For example, rulership of the sea would be a 'trait' of Poseidon.
For once, Leah would be in agreement with almost every Traditionalist alive. "Myth as metaphor" has become such a widely embraced view, as to be a cliche. Really, how could it not be, in this era? When solar astronomers train their telescopes sunward, they don't see Helios in his blazing chariot, or Ra in his boat, they see a very large ball of plasma. Where the differences lie, is in our thoughts regarding the significance of the metaphors.
In other words, Leah is promoting a questionable theological innovation by knocking down a 'straw man' argument, clearly implying that her opposition holds a a fundamentalist position, which almost no Traditionalist would agree with. By doing so, she will incline many newcomers to Traditionalism to not even examine the arguments of her opposition, which they will assume to be childishly absurd.
She will resort to this technique again, shortly.