Note : Before we proceed, the reader should be aware of the fact that Ankhesenamun is currently a shemsu in Renee's organization and did not acknowledge that fact during this discussion.

At the time I responded, I was not aware of this. What I think we are seeing is a sales pitch, done in the style of the old snake oil salesmen, complete with a planted "audience member", ready to read the script that the salesman will play off of.

Note : the underlining, links, footmarks, etc. which you see below are mine. Ankhesenamun submitted plain text.

Click here to return to "Setting the tone"

(1) Does Ankhesenamun mean this, the way it sounds?

What a comforting illusion it would be, taken literally! Even the most casual study of the histories of science, medicine, engineering, etc, however, will quickly tell a different story, one of man's frequent helplessness in the face of a natural world which he doesn't understand well enough. As time goes by, much of what was once hopeless in the light of what was then current knowledge, becomes soluable with the knowledge that has since been gained, but still all too much is still beyond our understanding or control. This reality should shatter the illusion that man ever had knowledge of the sort suggested, and yet Occultists will still hold onto it.

Such illusions are not harmless, because by shielding us from the reality of our own broad ignorance, they blind us to the possibility of, and need for, real learning on our part. They stunt our growth and perpetuate ongoing tragedies which might otherwise be ended. If they bring us illusory comforts, then one might point out that the same is to be found at the bottom of the drunkard's bottle of wine, and is purchased at the same price: the growing knowledge of the long-denied reality of our own needless misery in the real life which our illusions have made too easy to neglect.

A more positive view of Ankhesenamun's comment would be to take it to mean that what the worshipper gains is some understanding of those supernatural influences which act upon the natural world, a far different proposition than actually knowing the inner workings of that which gives rise to the collection of phenomena which we experience as the natural world. (Modern analogy: think of experiencing a virtual reality, then learning about the software that is used to create that virtual reality and the hardware the software runs on. In a sense, one might say that the virtual world is the "phenomena" and the technology the "noumena", the hidden workings of inner reality which give rise to the phenomena we experience).

The latter possibility may be the correct one, but we make history through what is seen and heard by others, not through the thoughts we keep to ourselves. By leaving behind a statement which she could reasonably have been expected to forsee would be misinterpreted, Ankhesenamun would, in that case, be speaking on behalf of that which she did not believe in, herself. I would like to hesitate to tar her with the same brush as Leah, or at least, to lay down as thick a layer of tar with that brush, because, unlike Leah, who stubbornly refused to ever express herself in explicit terms, Ankhesenamun has, at least on the surface, seemed to be willing to express her views in a direct fashion when asked. However, this act would, at the very least, be negligent, and past experiences with the Neopagan community incline me to even doubt negligence as an explanation, as explained in another note.

back to where you were

(2) A Kemetic Orthodox objection to this conception of the netjeru has already been raised, on the "Netjeru and Natural Forces" thread, and, to date, never answered by Leah's camp. (I'm writing this on April 22, 2002). I would like to borrow it. How, exactly, does one develop a 'loving relationship' with gravitation or electricity? "Forces", as the word is commonly defined, are impersonal, mechanistic entities, incapable of awareness. Leah has argued that this English word means something different in an African context, but has yet to explain the difference (or the concept) as she understands it.

Words are meaningless until we define them, and when the meaning of an English word is so at odds with that of the Yoruba or Bantu word that it is being used to represent, the significance of this is clear. One has produced a bad translation, not a deep and misunderstood philosophical text.

back to where you were

(3) Ankhesenamun will later seem to back off from this point, in response to an apparent criticism from Ramessu, who argues that the texts show that the netjeru are "within us", a position which Leah would find most useful for her purposes. (See her post in the "Netjer and Natural Forces" thread). The sales pitch continues?

back to where you were

(4) A convenient observation for the Occultist, when the student discovers that reality won't be constrained by his chants.

back to where you were

(5) How can a worshipper repay a deity? It's an interesting question whose answer depends on one's theology. Some would say that we repay the gods through the wealth we "give them" in our sacrifices, but this is a little naive. If all comes from the gods, then what could we give them that would not pale beside what they already have? A more sensible answer is that we repay them in kind with our love, the gifts given by each merely being an expression of that love. We can not hope to relate to the Divine as partners in a business, but we can do so as children relate to their parents, in a setting in which the spirit behind a gesture means more than the resources available to the one making it. Keeping the nature of that relationship in mind, we can think of a third possibility, to be used in combination with the second, perhaps, in the expression of that 'parental' love.

One of the greatest gifts a parent gives to a child is to help the child grow to be an adult, in spirit as well as body. The child learns how to provide for himself and become independent. In order to help make this a reality, the adult must guide the child, as the child does more and more of the work needed to meet his goals. This puts us in mind of the Judaic doctrine of a God who works through history (a theme found in other Eastern Mediterranean religions, I understand). In this view, man becomes the instrument of God's will, rather than God making His will manifest, directly. So, what is His will, in a larger sense?

Jews, Christians, Hellenes, and, I suspect, Kemetics, will all agree that what God wants out of man, above all else, is righteousness. That is to say, He wishes man to live in a way that will allow him to live in harmony with his neighbors, as well as in harmony with God. He wishes for man to grow up. By making man the instrument of His will, much as the adult helps the child to grow by guiding the child in the child's efforts (rather than doing the child's work for him), God helps man grow to be more in His likeness. To an increasing degree, man should be doing God's will with a minimum of coaxing, ie. man should become socialized through God's guidance, much as a child is, through adult direction.

For such a scheme to work, though, each must do his part to maintain the same system he benefits from. God can come to our aid in a manner that fosters our growth as a species, because some of us are willing to be the agents of His will. Each of us should then ask himself, "if others, then why not me?". Repayment, then, comes in the willingness to do one's part in the maintenance of this social contract, which God has subtly guided us, as individual worshippers to make with each other, each agreeing to do his part to maintain the order which God has inspired. Jews will speak of "mitzvot", Catholics of "good works". Under either term, the worshipper is doing his part, to see that God's will is done.

back to where you were

(6) Considering our earlier remarks, one would hope so, wouldn't one? What sort of growth would we be experiencing, if we dropped onto our backsides, and hoped that the gods, or God, would do our work for us? Even without that theological perspective, though, there is basic civility. To ask another to do one's work for one, so one doesn't have to make an effort oneself, is to ask the other to be one's servant. I know of no traditional religion, that encourages the 'worshipper' to place himself above his god.

back to where you were

(7) Do we take what we see at face value or don't we? Let us say that we do. In that case, we would be left with this, in light of her later remarks, in this paragraph, in particular: that this recognition of Divine involvement in our world is harmful when it encourages fatalism (as it sometimes does), but can be helpful when it gives us the strength to face problems which we can't solve, and to face the reality that we can't solve them, ourselves. In the latter case, it reminds us that we still have somebody to turn to, namely, God. That certainly sounds sensible, doesn't it?

Yet, I would suggest that we ought not do so. If you would like to know why, click here. Otherwise, you can click here to return to the body of the letter, going back to where you were.