John the Baptist by Donatello John the Baptist by Martini
Iakov Levi
Talking Socrates and Jesus
(An abstract of discussions on Sumvivo in July 2000)
I am searching inspiration listening to Mozart's "Don Giovanni",
which begins with a Father's murder and ends with a very harsh punishment.
As every major piece of art, from Attic Tragedy to Shakespeare's "Julius
Caesar", "Macbeth", "Hamlet", to Handel's "Julius Caesar', "Samson" and
so on.
Let's return now to our poor horde of confused Apes, who could not cope
with their sense of guilt.
The modern equivalent is, of course, European and American Universities
and therapists' couches.
However, the continuous flat line between those pre historical Apes and
modern Universities' professors has not been undisturbed.
Now, first of all I send this piece, before the Western machine program
its vengeance.
Iakov Levi [email protected]
I have always been puzzled by the phonetic association between "Socrates"
and "Secret".
Now, back to our task.
We have left the Greeks searching for Apollo's wisdom at Delphi.
Eventually, to decode Western Truth, the right way is through
the eye and not through logic.
But let's take a small step back.
(By the way, in Orphic myth it is the Wind who fertilized the Egg of Chaos
and engendered Eros Protogonos, the source of all life. In Hebrew
myth is the same, as Wind and Spirit of Life are the same word, Ruah,
and God engendered life breathing "into man's nostrils the breath of life
(Ruah) and man became a living soul" (Gn., 2:7)
The pre - Socratic philosophers: Pythagoras, Democritus, Empedocles, Anaxagoras.
Anaximander and above all Heraclitus of Ephesus, letting the wind to enter
themselves reached a new level of consciousness. Their research was exactly
the opposite of later Platonic intellectual speculations.
Socrates understood very well what all those "pre-Socratics" were after.
The second lapsus is delivered by Plato himself.
We have seen, through Diogenes Laertius' and Plato's lapsus calami,
that Socrates was very different from the one consciously described by
Plato. He was not the rationalizing speculator who arrived to truth through
meaningless syllogisms.
But first, the Aeschylean connection.
In 6th and 5th century Greece, we had truth unveiled through three concomitant
means: Apollo's Oracles and art, pre-Socratic philosophy and reconnection
to ancient myths, and, the most important of all, the Aeschilean Tragedy.
They could indeed retain their truth and freedom for quite a long time.
Freeing himself from the oppressive Law of the Father had the byproduct
of weakening kinship bonds, and, as a consequence, also the weakening of
the disposition to mutual sacrifice in the interest of common goals: first
of all the very defense of the political institutions, instituted to guarantee
their very freedom.
Socrates saw this development and tried to warn his fellow countrymen.
And when the Athenians could no more of Socrates whip, because they
were on their way to disconnect again, they condemned him to death.
Therefore, Socrates was murdered because he would not let the Athenians to
forget the Murder of the Father, and relapse again from the Oedipal breach
achieved into polyformous homosexuality.
One of the first things Plato ordered into oblivion, was of course the
myth of Cronos castrating his father Ouranos, as he said: "It is not convenient
to the education of the youth".
This is what D. H. disclosed, associating himself to the "accusations"
against Socrates, and reacting so violently to my associating him to Platonic
speculations and burying bulbs into the ground.
I let the flows flow, and for a while I had before my eyes (literally
must be "under" my eyes) all those noses, my nose, the posts with the noses,
mirror noses and real noses. In short a lot of noses.
What can possible be the link between Freud, Ham, FATHER of Kenaan,
Noah, FATHER of Ham, and all those noses?
It began to become obvious to me that I am going to "see the nakedness"
of some Father figure, and "TELLING TO MY TWO OR THREE BRETHREN OUTSIDE",
i.e. to YOU.
So, it seems that I am going to expose Freud's nakedness and de - nosing
him.
This is also the condensation trapped in the Jewish prohibition to make
images.
The Freud whose nose I am going to de-face is the one in "Moses and Monotheism",
Third Essay, in The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Tran. and Ed. by James Strachey, vol. XXIII, pp.85 ff.
7 July 2000
In Moses and Monotheism, Freud continues to follow the thread he
had in his hand since the days of the discovery of the Oedipus complex
and that he had developed strongly 25 years before in Totem and Taboo.
As he had written to Fliess and to Andrea Salome', some years before
the final version of the work, Moses' problem had tormented him all his
life.
Although his own strong resistance to see lucidly all the picture, he
managed, until p.85, to organize the work in a reasonable way, even if
with some obvious obsessive repetitions, due to the urge to declare the
Unity and Eternity of the Father and to de-nose de-face Him in the same
condensation.
It took him more than four years to complete a work, which had it not
been so charged with affective ambivalence, it would have taken only a few months.
Suddenly, at p. 85, instead of an argument, a reason, he takes out of
the sleeve a rabbit, who has nothing to do with the rest of the associative
chain, a pure declaration of Faith, i.e. a dogma:
"No other portion of the history of religion has become so clear to
us as the introduction of monotheism into Judaism and its continuation
in Christianity"
Says who? Paulus of Tarsus?
The strength of the statement witnesses the weakness of the argument.
Some lines before he had already tried to warn us that he was going
to lie:
"... logical objections ... powerless... "creo quia absurdum"...delusions
of psychotics...delusional ideas... distortions and misunderstandings...compulsive
conviction...delusion...errors...around...dogmas of religion...psychotic
symptoms...curse...isolation"
And then, in the next pages he continues to lie, telling us Paulus
of Tarsus' version that Jesus had been murdered as a Son and not as a Father.
This is Paulus' lie, and Freud repeated it.
Why?
8 July 2000
But, since we are dealing with Freud, to repeat the lie of another is
a particularly miserable thing to do. And at the very end of an entire
life dedicated to unveiling Truth.
Now, to the extent of the lie.
As we have seen in the previous post, Freud began, at p.85 of Moses
and Monotheism, with that dogmatic statement, out of the blue: "No
other portion of the history of religion has become so clear to us as the
introduction of monotheism into Judaism and its continuation in Christianity".
Now, at p.86, to be able to make the lie convincing, reconnected with
a piece of truth:
"The re-establishment of the primal father in his historic rights was
a great step forward..."
Consciously, Freud was speaking of the Jews.
Freud understood very well the compromise solution of the Covenant
with the Father and its meaning, as he himself reminds us in the following
pages, to the end of the chapter.
Nevertheless he continues to lie, as for the sacrificial Son, murdered
instead of the Father and as a retaliation for the murder of the Father,
as an affair which had its roots in Judean soil.
But the most astonishing thing is that Freud was one generation younger
of the most brilliant minds ever, who had dissected the 6th century B.C.
Jewish Covenant with the Father.
The so called unconscious inferences can be traced back to
the all-preserving memory, which presents us with parallel experiences
and hence already knows the consequences of an action. It is not anticipation
of the effects; rather, it is the feeling: identical causes, identical
effects...
(Friedrich Nietzsche, Unpublished Writings,
19[147] ).
With him was introduced the greatest and weirdest illness,
from which human beings today have not recovered,
the suffering of man from his humanness, from himself,
a consequence of the forcible separation from his animal
past, a leap and, so to speak, a fall into new situations
and living conditions, a declaration of war against the
old instincts, on which, up to that point, his power,
joy, and ability to inspire fear had been based.
(F.Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals, Second Essay, 16)
We must consider the Return of the Father as the last psychosexual stage of this process. Only through the identification with the Father a child can successfully
pass through the Oedipal level and gain mastery of his genital heterosexual
needs. Monotheism is therefore parallel to the Oedipal and the genital
level, on condition that it occurs through the process of identification,
and not through sense of guilt and repression. Otherwise, another long period of psychosexual regression might be in the cards. Only after the return of
the Father, and therefore his presence, the process of identification can
be worked out. Identification with the Father is also a precondition to
maturity, independence, freedom, and democracy. It is a delicate equilibrium, which is periodically aborted by the sense of guilt induced by the peoples' own success.
My Theory of History sustains that the process is not linear and
one way up, but that every time the Oedipal - genital level is approached
(at the collective level) it triggers a wave in the opposite direction:
repression, amnesia, and a retreat into anal, oral, and even placental borderline
contents.
Different societies move in different directions, and while one
culture may be on its way up towards the Oedipal - genital level, another
may be moving in the opposite direction. (Cf. Without Borders: the Borderline Case of the European Union)
The following talk deals with that issue.
5 –7 July 2000
Socrates' secret
In other pieces of art the murder is more concealed, and the emphasis
is on segments preceding or following the central event, but, hidden behind
the scenes or explicit, the event is omnipresent in every artistic expression.
After all, this is the best path in which unconscious contents find their
way to the threshold of consciousness, and discharge the energies trapped
in them.
We had left them disbanded. So they will remain for tens of thousands
of years.
After having breached briefly the Oedipal threshold and enjoyed for
a while that genital orgy of the beloved female body (in our case Truth
and Freedom = A garden is a beautiful thing, Got wot), because of their
sense of guilt, regressed to a polyformous pre-Murder homosexuality and
anal behavior.
For tens of thousands of years they wandered as aimless, homeless,
homosexual Apes, leaping and jumping and blablabing pointlessly on the
bared hills of the Peloponnese, near the springs of Arcadia and in the
forests of Macedonia.
Indeed today the difference is only a technicality, but in the past
there had been more than a trial, even successful, to breach again that
Oedipal threshold of genital truth.
I have detected clearly at least two successful trials: pre Socratic
Greece and the Nietzschean - Freudian experience.
I am sure there have been more, but for the moment I can focus only
on these two cases.
This kind of phonetic similarities is never casual.
After the last Doric invasions began to settle down, at the beginning
of the first millennium B.C,
the Greek tribes entered a process of amalgamation between the various
waves of penetration into the Mediterranean area. Mycenaeans, Dorics and
Ionians found a new cohesion, probably because of the mnemonic traces of their own pre-historical
abusing common Father, as happened to PH rebellious group.
That cohesion allowed them to enter also a process of self liberation
from the oppressive tribal Law of the Father. They began contemplating
a new type of fidelity. A Law, which will not be the indiscussed, imposed,
Law of the Father but their own Law, the law of the brotherhood.
Discussed and then accepted.
The process was already well advanced in the 6th century B.C. and
found expression in Solon's legislature where, for the first time in the
history of the West, individuals were granted some rights as such,
and not only as members of a clan, a tribe or a family.
This is also the period in which the main god of the Greek tribes,
Apollo, changed his face.
If the Homeric Apollo was still the god, "Threatening and spreading
terror from afar" (Iliad 1:1-25), the Father figure initiating sons' tribe
before the walls of Troy, the female body, to be conquered by the phallic
symbol of a horse, from which the young Heroes will spread into the city
in a liberatory orgy of ejaculation, the Apollo of the first Greek Poleis
became the god of wisdom. Wisdom to be delivered through oracles, and no
more through repressing menaces.
We have here an ulterior confirmation of the equation Truth = female
body, and not only the Biblical one.
If, in the Homeric saga, Apollo initiates the Greek tribes by his threats
and delivers death in the camp of the Achaeans, before allowing them the
heterosexual penetration, the same Greeks, 500 years later (if we take
1200 B.C. as the time of the Trojan war) go to Apollo's Oracle in Delphi
to ask for his Wisdom, i.e. for his permission for heterosexual penetration.
Therefore, Biblical Knowledge, who has been captured from the assassinated
and castrated Father by the Hebrews, is delivered by Apollo to the Greeks
through his Oracle, after they have successfully passed the initiation
rite, and renounced the assassination.
Theodor Reik has shown how The Tree of Knowledge of Biblical myth is the body of God Himself, and eating from the Tree is the mnemonic trace of the primeval act of murder and cannibalism perpetrated on the Father (Myth and Guilt, Braziller, New York 1957)
The Hebrews too, will renounce the assassination and enter a Covenant
with the Father, in order to have His Wisdom, in the form of the Holy Torah.
The compromise is the same: the female body (Torah = Wisdom of Apollo),
is delivered by the Father, although only through secrets, i.e. to the
ones who deserve her.
At the beginning Hebrews and Greeks were very similar, before the divergence
which took place after the Platonic interference.
The Pythia wrote her responsa on leaves and dispersed the god's truth
into the wind.
They ran after those leaves, but even if they reached them, the meaning
was always ambiguous.
You had to be initiated to Truth, if you wanted to decode her.
Therefore, the Greeks began to search truth not in directed answers, but in
the other aspect of the god.
Apollo became the god of art, Revelation through art, not direct answers.
All Western civilization developed under the sign of Apollo's eye.
Western culture, from the 5th century B.C onwards, became iconodule.
At the same time the Greeks were still running after the leaves dispersed
in the winds and their god's responsa, a group of men, freed from the oppression
of the Law of the Father, encouraged by the newfound liberation and genital
Oedipal threshold, began re-connecting to the lost Truth. The same Truth
genital level, who had been at first renounced after the Primeval Murder.
Instead of running after the wind and his leaves, they let the wind
enter themselves.
It was much more similar to free associations, and mainly reconnecting
to ancient myths.
Of Heraclitus, Socrates said:
The concepts I understand are great, but I believe that the concepts
I cant understand are great too. However, the reader needs to be an excellent
swimmer like those from Dilos, so not to be drown from his book" (Diogenes
Laertius, "Socrates 22", in Lives and opinions of Eminent Philosophers )
Beautiful revealing association: Delos, the Island where Apollo was
born, the Dolphin and his Oracle. From Delos the ship will arrive to
announce to Socrates his own Death (Crito: 43c).
Water, of course, is the body of the Mother herself and the symbol
of birth.
We have here a further association between Truth and the body of the
mother, through the water, and the swimmer who searches for truth swimming
in her.
Truth is associated to intra-uterine fantasies.
This is an interesting condensation between the genital level of truth
and truth as a reconnection to the body of the mother through prenatal
fantasies.
He disclosed to us, in this way, through a lapsus of Diogene
Laertius, that he himself, Socrates, was a "pre Socratic", and NOT a pre
Platonic.
Socrates knew that truth is to be achieved "swimming in the water of
Delos", Apollo's island.
In Crito 44a-d, Plato discloses the dream of Socrates on the night
before his execution:
Socrates: "I will tell you, I must die on the day after the
ship comes in, must I not?" [again the association ship-water and death-eternal
life]
Crito: "So say those who have charge of these matter"
Socrates: "Well, I think it will not come in today, but tomorrow. And
my reason for this is a dream which I had a little while ago in the course
of this night. And perhaps you let me sleep just at the right time" [sleep
= death].
Crito: "what was the dream?"
Socrates: "I dreamed that a beautiful, fair woman, clothed in white
raiment, came to me and called me".
After all, even in all of the Phoedo, according to Plato at least,
Socrates associated between Death and eternal truth.
Socrates knew that Truth is in "swimming in the water of Delos" , in
the "fair woman, clothed in white raiment" and in the Delos' ship which
is coming to take his life.
Therefore, if an Athenian tribunal condemned him to death, the reason was
probably not the one abducted by Plato: Socrate's searching for Truth through
chains of syllogisms.
Parallel to the Oracles of Apollo in Delphi, and to the pre Socratic
searching for truth through reconnection to ancient myths, the Attic tragedy
reached its peak.
The Aeschylean Tragedy was a clear staging again of the original Primal
Tragedy .
The Chorus of the Goats, dressed in the skin of Dionysus, the assassinated
Father, told all the story: the rage, the pain, the guilt.
The new freedom from the oppression of the Law of the Father had released
the real thing from repression.
staging again and again the acts of the Tragedy, the Greeks could
reach the discharge of energies, as Aristotle said, through Catharsis,
and prevent a relapse from the Oedipal threshold.
They knew, of course, that this is a male affair.
No woman was allowed to assist to the periodic restagement of the tragedy,
and one who entered a theater, carved out of the rocks of Attica's hills,
was put to death.
In that case, as in our, that had nothing to do with misogyny.
The ones who have read Aristophanes' plays, know very well that Athenian
women lead their men by the nose whenever they wanted.
However, there was an Achilles' heel.
He wanted them to stick to their roots: the Truth so hardly achieved,
the fair woman, clothed in white raiment, the swimmers in the water of
Delos, all the pre Socratic achievements.
There are many lapsa calami in Plato writings, which unwillingly
disclose the real Socrates, and he appears quite antithetical to the official
image described by Plato himself.
Socrates uses patronymics, speaks of Apollo as if he were the only
god. He ponders the way of the Oracle, but NOT through intellectual speculation,
but through his Daimon, the ghost who visits him during the nights to inspire
him.
He witness of himself as an Erotikon, but this aspect is left
unanswered.
All those are only fragments disclosed by Plato in the way of unconscious
lapsa calami.
Officially he describes Socrates as a rational man, committed to syllogisms.
The official charge and rationalization was ASEBEIA: disrespect for
the gods, wickedness.
Socrates rightly sustained that he was the only one who really cherished
the god, Apollo, the god of the truth and of the responsa.
He was the only one left in Athens who did not want the original murder
to be forgotten.
At his time the Aeschylean tragedy had also degenerated into Euripides'
comedy. The Chorus of the Dionysian Goats had disappeared. Dionysus, from
being the original murdered Beast, had been transfigured into a Gigolo,
whose name was associated to the Priaphoi, with whom Athenians women masturbated
(remember? The Washington Monument?!).
Plato took on himself the task of mystifying the real reason for Socrates'
trial and execution, and to build a skyscraper of rationalizing syllogisms,
to bury deep into the grounds all those bulbs, all the Truths achieved
before Socrates and so much cherished by him.
He attacked the Aeschylean Tragedy, art, made of Apollo an homosexual
model. Made of all homosexuality the principle of beauty and truth.
All the Phoedo is an apology of homosexuality as the key to Truth,
and so ordered into oblivion the previously reached breach beyond the heterosexual
Oedipal threshold: the genital knowledge.
Of course his resistance had already extended, from the very beginning,
to the all issue of the murder of the Father.
There is not a single thing I posted on the thread of the Murder that
he allowed to himself to let float without
been filled by overwhelming rage.
That is Socrates' secret.
7 July 2000
Why had I that sudden urge to praise Freud, and refer directly
to him ("You are all speaking nonsense only he KNOWS)?
Then came into my mind the verse: "And Ham, the father of Kenaan saw
the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren outside" (Gen. 9:22).
Therefore, I went to the comment of Rashi (XI century AD), the most
important of all the Biblical commentator, who commented free associating
between the verses of the text, and he says:
" What it means: "Ham saw the nakedness of his father?" It means he
castrated his father during his drunkenness - sleep".
(As you see the Jews too, have their own version of the myth of Cronos
castrating his father, Ouranos, as a repetition and confirmation of the
myth of man, eating from the Tree of Knowledge).
As Rashi said: "saw his nakedness is castrating him", as every good
iconoclast knows: "de - nosing" - "de-facing him".
The Arabs, when invaded the Byzantine Middle East, the first thing
they did was to cut the noses of all the statues, the iconoclasts Byzantine
Christians in the 7th century did the same, and so does every respectable
Jew, if only he can.
This is the reason of my declaration of faith on Freud, to Joan and
to everybody.
Before desecrating a father figure is important to make the Ritual:
"He is One and the only One"
On one side, making an image is rationalized as desecrating God, but
the latent reason is that Jewish iconoclasts, while they "de-face" - "de
- nose" an image, the repeat also the original act of castration - assassination
of god, in the same condensation.
Smart, ah? To castrate God with the rationalization of respecting him,
and protecting him from our own aggressive drives?!
I suggest you read also the rest.
Of course, he intended: the problem of the murder of the father.
If two opposite drives cohabit the same soul, the quantity of energies
to be invested in order to make even a small step forwards, must be enormous.
Nevertheless, until p. 85, the rings of the chain are well coordinated
in a very convincing discourse.
As Nietzsche said: "Is the Cross an argument?"
If "NO other portion...has become SO clear", it means that it is not
clear at all.
The weakest the argument, the strongest the declaration of faith.
(By the way Nietzsche never swallowed that lie; see the Anti-Christ)
Why Freud lied to us?
Before we try to analyze why Freud lied to us, we must understand,
first of all, that Freud was not a liar.
He dedicated all his life to his own Oedipal drive: to unveil Truth.
To uncover bulbs others had buried so deeply into the ground.
The lie was not even his own: he only repeated, like a parrot, the
lie of Paulus of Tarsus, the Hellenized Jew, the borderline traitor
of his own Horde.
But the Jews had resolved their own Oedipal tension entering a Covenant
with the Father, many centuries before Jesus and Paulus of Tarsus, as a
matter of fact in the 6th century B.C., after the return from the Babylonian
exile.
They formally renounced the assassination, and in exchange they had
the Holy Torah, the body of the Mother. They obtained what they wanted,
so there was no point in staging again the Primal Tragedy. The tension
was always there, of course, but:
1) Having reached a satisfactory solution, the Murder was no more so
deeply buried into the unconscious, but was, how to say? semi-conscious.
2) Having The Law, the drive was no more in danger of going out of
control. There were GUIDELINES, on exactly what the Father wanted, in exchange
for the satisfaction of the incestuous Oedipal needs.
He will contradict himself, when, in the following pages, is compelled
to admit that the Jews had indeed never accepted this Son - affair.
Julius Wellhausen had explained it from the angle of text criticism analysis,
and Freud was very fond of Wellhausen.
William Robertson Smith, the Scottish son of a protestant minister,
had very well explained it to him, from the angle of anthropological research,
in Lectures on the Religion of the Semites, and ALL Totem and Taboo is
based on W. Robertson Smith research, as Freud himself admits, quoting
him in an extensive way.
Nietzsche, the other son of a Protestant minister, through his dagger
- sharp hunches and intuitions, and had reached the only natural
conclusion when he says that the New Testament is an Hellenistic affair which
has nothing to do with Judaism.
I do not like the "New Testament", that should be plain ...[Omissis]...The Old Testament - that is something else again; all honor to the Old Testament! I find in it great human beings, a heroic landscape, and something of the very rarest quality in the world, the incomparable naivet{ of the strong heart; what is more, I find a people. In the New one, on the other hand, I find nothing but petty sectarianism, mere rococo of the soul, mere involutions, nooks, queer things, the air of the convencticle, not to forget an occasional whiff of bucolic mawkishness that belongs to the epoch (and to the Roman province) and is not so much Jewish as Hellenistic (Genealogy of Morals, Third Essay, section 22)
Therefore, Freud had before him these three hard - core Protestant gentlemen, all of them one generation older than himself, who protested strongly, everyone in his own way, the Hellenistic - Catholic lie and he, the Jew, instead of drawing inspiration from them, UNDID his own work: from the Oedipal discovery, through Totem and Taboo, and until p.85 in Moses and Monotheism, repeating a Catholic lie, stating that Christianity is a continuation of Judaism.
Well, to me happened the same, when Paul, six months ago, had that beautiful
association Jesus - Zeus, and I disregarded it, because I myself was busy
repeating the same lie.
I should have listen to my Protestant brother more attentively.
Now a link, that may be is not clear enough.
In the Catholic world the association between Socrates and Jesus is
omnipresent.
I have spent a long time in Italy.
As a matter of fact, my mother tongue is Italian, having being myself
born there, even if I have been raised in Israel.
So, if there can be at all such a thing, I am a "Catholic" Jew.
I am in love with Catholic art. Much less, of course, with Catholic
logic.
Catholic art is truth. So, if we want to understand their truth
we must do it on their own terms, which are ART and not Platonic logic.
I love entering churches and rest, in the middle of the heat of the
day, in the refreshing shadow of those Romanesque - Gothic - Renaissance
arcades, pillars and vaults.
Several times it happened to me to be present at a Mass, and I had the opportunity
to listen to Catholic priests' sermons.
Even if they failed to impress me on the ground of the strength of
their arguments, I was indeed impressed by the recurrence of the association
between Jesus and Socrates:
"Jesus responded to Pilatus with Socratic calm"..."As Socrates before
him, unjustly accused"..."Jesus accepted the sentence as Socrates had accepted
his"...and so on, and so on, many times.
Moreover I have in my hand now an Italian translation of "Socrates'
Apology", by an expert in Platonic thought.
Half of the book is comments on parallels between Socrates' trial and
Jesus'.
It is just amazing. It seems that he is speaking of the same person.
And it is very convincing.
Same accusation (Asebeia = subverting the Law of the gods (Socrates); subverting the Law of the Father (Jesus). The same: "You said it Meletus" (Socrates); "You said it" (Jesus before Pilatus, Matt., 27:11).
It is as Jesus' experience was only a repetition of Socrates'.
So, if we have well understood the substance of Plato's mystification on Socrates, we are well positioned to understand Paulus of Tarsus' mystification on Jesus.
I shall quote now an entire paragraph from Nietzsche, "The Anti- Christ",
par.29:
The first part (until "down to us") is obvious: The real character of
Jesus can be captured from the Gospels, despite all the effort to distort
and conceal the real thing. The all description is an absurd, but through
the lapsa calami we can nevertheless capture the truth.
Then N. directs his arrows towards Mr. Renan.
Yes, of course, this is the lie that Paulus of Tarsus sold us and Freud
swallowed.
To me, Nietzsche's mention of Renan, has a further level.
"What is the meaning of "glad tidings"? --The true life, the life eternal
has been found-- it is not merely promised, it is here, it is you:
it is the life that lies in love free from all retreats and exclusions..."
We already know what it means the "glad tidings", the eternal life in
the garden of Eden, love = Eros = life, FREE FROM ALL RETREATS, i.e. free
from regression.
10 July 2000
So he invented his own Jewish Son-god who dies and resurrect.
The original message of the real Jesus, as is relieved from the repression
in the Gospels themselves, is that he came IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER..
Moreover it is not casual that all the theory of Death and Resurrection
is articulated in the Letter to the Romans (5 and 6).
Moreover, all this apology of abstinence from women (I Lett. to the
Cor.,7),
Paul,
No way a Jew would have ever spoken in this way.
Now, there is also another issue.
12 July 2000
"The anointed one." Christos, or The Christ,
was a title given to many gods -
Jesus Christ
b. c. 6 BC, Judaea
also called JESUS OF GALILEE, or JESUS OF NAZARETH, founder of Christianity,
which today claims a
The gospel tradition
Sources
Non Christian sources
The mention of Jesus' execution in the Annals of the
Another Roman historian, Suetonius, remarked in his life of the
Josephus, the Jewish historian at the court of Domitian who has
In the Talmud, a compendium of Jewish law, lore, and commentary,
These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the
Now, since circumcision, as Freud explains very well in the third
essay of "Moses and Monotheism" (op.cit., p.122), is a Father affair,
the association "pernicious superstition and Law of the Father, seems
obvious.
It seems to me a very clear suppressed trace of the knowledge that the
Jesus affair and early Christianity was in his nature, before the Pauline
and Gospels cover up operation, a Father affair. A Father affair, a thorn
in the throat of the Hellenistic-Roman culture, addicted to the cult of
the Son. Therefore, the early persecutions of Christians in the roman Empire.
Paulus took on himself to make of a Father affair a Son one, and so,
on one side, he satisfied his own Hellenized Jew hallucinations to have a
Jewish Son-god who dies and resurrects and, on the other side, he achieved his aim of becoming to the ecumenic Roman - Hellenistic world what Moses had been to
the Jews.
15 July 2000
What I have not still explained is why, at the end of his life, Freud
repeated the Pauline lie, instead of sticking to the Oedipal
truth he had rediscovered.
1) Why Plato repression held "only" 400 years and the Pauline
held 1900.
2) Why Freud repeated the Pauline lie at the end of his life.
There is a third thing that I have to explain, but it is not still completely
clear to me, and it is why the 19th century was ripe for a renewed relief
from the repression.
It seems to me that Freud lied in 1939, at the eve of the Holocaust, in making of Christianity a continuation od Judaism, as an effort to take the sting out of the growing ferocious Anti- Semitism of his time. In saying that Jesus is a continuation of Moses, and Christianity of Judaism, it is like he were saying: "You see?! There is no reson for you in persecuting us". Paulus was a Jew, and his legacy is the continuation of Judaism. ----- Original Message -----
16 July 2000
Iakov:
Yes, this is the most interesting part.
When I entered PH I saw immediately that this is a child affair, and
Paul:
Iakov:
America becomes really relevant to our issue only after the WW II ,
with
18 July 2000
We have seen how Plato task had been to repress the real reasons for
Socrates trial and murder.
There was only one problem: The Jews and their Covenant with the Father.
Now we are getting closer to see why the Platonic repression, which
had been the Standard and the flag for the reunification of the all civilized
world, under the disturbing presence of the Jews and their Covenant with
the Father, in the first century A.D. was ripe for the crisis.
18 July 2000
Iakov,
This segment blazes with the light of truth. Hell, this topic
alone is
Jesus himself emphasized that the best thing was to do as he did, not
to
Paul
19 July 2000
Iakov wrote:
I want to add, a pro pos this segment, a very strange verse, in John
4:22 :
20 July 2000
What concerns me is the psychological type of the Savior.
This type might depicted in the Gospels, in however mutilated a form and
however much overladen with extraneous characters -- that is, in spite
of the Gospels; just as the figure of Francis of Assisis shows itself in
its legends in spite of his legends. It is not a question of mere
truthful evidence as to what he did, what he said and how he actually died;
the question is, whether his type is still conceivable, whether it has
been handed down to us -- All the attempts that I know of to read the
history of a "soul" in the gospels seem to me to reveal only a lamentable
psychological levity. Mssr. Renan, that mountbank In Psychologicus has
contributed the two most unseemly notions to this business of explaining
the type of Jesus: the notion of the genius and that of the hero
But if there is anything essentially unevangelical, it is surely the concept
of the hero. What the gospels make instinctive is precisely the reverse
of all heroic struggle, of all taste for conflict: the very incapacity
for resistance is here converted into something moral: ("resist not evil"--the
most profound sentence in the Gospels, perhaps the true key to them), to
wit, the blessedness of peace, of gentlessness, the inability to be an
enemy. What is the meaning of "glad tidings'? --the true life, the life
eternal has been found --it is not merely promised, it is here, it is in
you; it is the life that lies in love free from all retreats and
exclusions, from all keeping of distances.
Every one is the child of god --Jesus claims nothing for himself alone--
as the child of god each man is the equal of every other man.. Imagine
making Jesus a hero! --And what a tremendous misunderstanding appears
in the word "genius" ! Our whole conception of the "Spiritual", the whole
conception of our civilization, could have had no meaning in the world
that Jesus lived in. In the strict sense of the physiologist, a quite different
word ought to be used here....[dots of N. not mine] We all know that there
is a morbid sensibility of the tactile nerves which causes those sufferings
from it to recoil from every touch, and from every effort to grasp a solid
object. Brought to its logical conclusion, such a physiological habitus
becomes an instinctive hatred of reality, a flight into the "intangible",
into the "incomprehensible"; a distaste for all formulae, for all conceptions
of time and space, for everything established -- customs, institutions,
the church; a feeling of being at home in a world in which no sort of reality
survives, a merely "inner" world, a "true" world, an "eternal" world...[dots
of N.] "The Kingdom of God is within you"...[dots of N.]
Now we shall analyze every relevant sentence.
It is not a mistake that he calls him Mssr. Renan and not Mr. Renan.
Mssr, stands for the late Latin and old Italian Messere. A very ironic
form for "an important person". In the times of N., Renan was famous for
having published a very mediocre book, The Life of Jesus, which
became a best-seller thanks to its mediocrity. N. was almost unknown at
that time. Renan was famous. But history, eventually, gives to Caesar what
belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.
Renan depicts Jesus as an Hero, in the sense of the young heroes, as
described in Western mythology, the likes of Heracles and his deeds, and
all the others young heroes who do heroic deeds, to defeat the monster
and conquer the Lady. That is indeed the unconscious message which permeates the Gospels and that Freud adopted.
At p.86 of Moses and Monotheism F. writes:
"A son of God had allowed himself to be killed without guilt and had
thus taken on himself the guilt of all men. It had to be a son, since it
had been the murder of a father. It is probable that traditions from oriental
and Greek mysteries had had an influence on the fantasy of redemption."
Fortunately N. did not.
I myself, did at the beginning, but when I saw DH running for the exit
when Socrates (=Jesus) AND his trial had ben mentioned, I finally understood
what N. intended.
Plato and his lies = Paulus, the Gospels, and their lies.
The Gospels indeed make the interpretation of Jesus as the archaic
hero, and that is the version that bestowed upon us, but comparing Jesus'
trial with Socrates' we can finally decode the all affair.
NO son- gods were really involved here. A Socrates = Jesus, WHO
WANTED TO REMEMBER TO THEIR FELLOW COUNTRYMEN (THE GREEKS-ROMANS) THE MURDER
OF THE FATHER, THE OEDIPAL BOTTLENECK BREACHED, THE FREEDOM REACHED, THE
GENITAL LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE ACHIEVED.
Socrates and Jesus wanted to prevent Western civilization the relapse
into pre Oedipal homosexuality.
This is the real reason why an Athenian tribunal had condemned Socrates,
and the Romans crucified Jesus.
I remember I had read that book, and I recollected what he said
of Jesus. Renan did not expressively compared Jesus to Socrates, of course
(the secret, in that context, would have been too close to exposure), but
Renan called Jesus: "The Great Ironic", as you, Paul, called Socrates,
rightly, a few days ago.
We have all experienced that, as a merry liberated Horde, for a few
days.
The genital level of freedom and Truth, of course, as we have experienced
in our own Garden.
Before the sense of guilt made us disbanded homosexual Apes
Paul,
I don't know exactly what to do with the next segment, but it seems
very improbable that at the time of Pilatus could have been a crucifixion
in Jerusalem. The Roman procurator sit at Caesarea, and every time
the Romans approached Jerusalem there were big troubles. At the time of
Tiberius Caesar, the Romans were very afraid to enter Jerusalem.
Only at the time of Nero and the procurator Florus, seems that there
have been crucifixions in Jerusalem as Josephus reports in Wars,
II, 13 (2), who says that 2000 Jews were crucified for the first time in
Jerusalem by him.
At the earlier times of Pilatus, the Roman tribunal was at Caesarea:
"Now Pilate, who was sent as procurator into Judea by Tiberius,
sent by night those images of Caesar that are called ensigns into Jerusalem.
This excited a very among great tumult among the Jews when it was day;
for those that were near them were astonished at the sight of them, as
indications that their laws were trodden under foot; for those laws do
not permit any sort of image to be brought into the city. Nay, besides
the indignation which the citizens had themselves at this procedure, a
vast number of people came running out of the country. These came zealously
to Pilate
to Caesarea, and besought him to carry those ensigns out of Jerusalem,
and to preserve them their ancient laws inviolable ; but upon Pilate's
denial of their request, they fell (9) down prostrate upon the ground,
and continued immovable in that posture for five days and as many nights.
3. On the next day Pilate sat upon his tribunal, in the open market-place,
and called to him the multitude, as desirous to give them an answer; and
then gave a signal to the soldiers, that they should all by agreement at
once encompass the Jews with their weapons; so the band of soldiers stood
round about the Jews in three ranks. The Jews were under the utmost consternation
at that unexpected sight. Pilate also said to them that they should be
cut in pieces, unless they would admit of Caesar's images, and gave intimation
to the soldiers to draw their naked swords. Hereupon the
Jews, as it were at one signal, fell down in vast numbers together,
and exposed their necks bare, and cried out that they were sooner ready
to be slain, than that their law should be transgressed. Hereupon Pilate
was greatly surprised at their prodigious superstition, and gave order
that the ensigns should be presently carried out of Jerusalem.
(Josephus,War II,9)
10 July 2000
The parallel with Mithra is not a very good one, because in Mithra's cult it was a Bull (a Father imago), which was sacrificed.
You must go to all the fertility cults of the Roman - Hellenistic world,
where
a young god dies and resurrect: Dionysus, Attis, Adonis, Tamuz, Osiris,
Those cults, which were present also before Roman times, during the
Empire
had a renewed strong push and became the main cult of all the Western
world.
It is THIS cult that Paulus, the Hellenized Jew, hallucinated to unify
and
impose, not only as "cults", but as an articulate religion.
Jesus had come "In THE NAME OF THE FATHER", as Socrates, and
Paulus made of him a Son - god.
This is the Pauline lie.
We shall dissect and analyze all the aspects of this lie and eventually
all the ends will meet.
The Romans were addicted to the oriental cults of Death and Resurrection
of a young God.
They had even taken into Rome the Egyptian cult of Osiris, the Syrian
cult of Attis and that of Adonis , from Asia Minor.
is for sure not a Jewish affair, but reminds the Symposium and Platonic
homosexuality.
In this way he tried to make of Jesus an homosexual, as Plato had tried
with
Socrates. But as the Platonic lie on Socrates' homosexuality had been
relieved from repression in the Crito, in Socrates' dream, and in the
Symposium in the story of his non affair with Alcybiades (217-8).
So Jesus
heterosexuality is hinted, in a disguised form, in many parts
of the
Gospels. Most important, after the discovery in 1945 of the Nag Hammadi
Library gnostic gospels it became clear that Jesus enjoyed very much his
heterosexual ties with Mary Magdalene. In The Gospel of Philip is said:
And the companion of the [Savior is] Mary Magdalene. [But Christ
loved] her more than [all] the disciples [and used to] kiss her [often]
on her [mouth]. The rest of [the disciples were offended] by it [and expressed
disapproval]. They said to him, "Why do you love her more than all of us?"
The Savior answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you like her?
When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are
no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will
see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness" (NHC II.3.63.32ff)
(Robinson
1977: 138).
Therefore, it was the Pauline interpretation that made of Jesus some sort of eunuch.
Jesus' message on heterosexuality was very different from that of Paulus.
As Socrates message on sexuality had been very different from that of Plato.
if you go to John 7:14-25, it seems Jesus was not a Jew at all, because
the text speaks of Jews as "others".
In 7:15 the text says: "The Jews marveled at it, saying, "How is it
that this man has learning, when he has never studied?"
If Jesus had been a Jew, nobody would have wondered that he knew the
Scriptures.
The Jews were supposed to know the Torah. There was no illiteracy in
Palestine among the Jews, that is for sure.
So the Jews wondered that he knew The Law, even if he was a Gentile.
Also, in 7:22, Jesus says: "Moses gave you circumcision..."
If he had been a Jew, he would have said: "Moses gave US circumcision".
John's Gospel delivers much more repressed information than the Synoptic
Gospels, on Jesus heterosexuality, too.
Whenever I ask priests, they say that Jesus spoke Aramaic.
Jews in Palestine have never spoken Aramaic, only in Babylon.
In Palestine, Jews have always spoken Hebrew among themselves.
In Palestine only Semitic Gentiles spoke Aramaic.
Jews spoke Hebrew. Only the intellectual and political elite spoke
also Aramaic, Greek, and later Latin. Aramaic was the lingua franca
among Semites and it was occasionally used in writing official texts, letters
and on mosaics in Synagogues floors.
In the Talmud, Aramit is synonymous of Gentile (Berakot
8b).
The reason is that Semite Gentiles were much more anti-Semitic than
the Greeks, and there was a deep hatred in Palestine between Hebrew- speaking
and Aramaic- speaking.
So is written in the Talmud: "What has Syrian [Aramaic] tongue to do in Palestine? Speak either Hebrew or Greek" (Bab.Talmud, Sotah 49b). Meaning, the Rabbis hinted that it is better for Jews to speak Greek, a non Semitic language, than Aramaic which was the tongue of their Gentile Semitic neighbors.
In Babylon it was another matter, since there the Jews used the tongue
of the land which was indeed Aramaic.
If tradition reports that Jesus spoke Aramaic, there is no way
he could be a Jew.
I have searched in my computer what I have that may be relevant to
our research.
The first segment is very relevant. Unfortunately I have not the source
of this segment. So, take it only as an indication:
Adonis, Attis, Dumuzi, Hermes, Osiris, and
Priapus among them - and the
name given to Jesus of Nazareth by his followers.
The practice of anointing
began with the sacred marriage ritual, when
temple virgins - as
embodiments of the Goddess - poured holy oil
over the head and phallus of
a stone god, and subsequently deflowered themselves.
Variations of this
practice were common throughout Asia and the
Middle East. In Rome,
perfuming this ceremony before the consummation
of a marriage was thought
to make the couple's firstborn god begotten."
d. c. AD 30, Jerusalem
third of the world's population. His deeds and message are recorded
in the New Testament.
Because of the theological motifs and presuppositions in the faith
of the early church, however, it is
difficult to write with certainty an authentic life of Jesus.
The history of the life, work, and death of Jesus of Nazareth
reveals nothing of the worldwide
movement to which he gave rise. He lived and taught in a remote area
on the periphery of the Roman Empire. His life was of short duration, and
knowledge of it remained hidden from most of his contemporary world. None
of the sources of his life and work can be traced to Jesus himself; he
did not leave a single known written word. Also, there are no contemporary
accounts written of his life and death. What can be established about the
historical Jesus depends almost without exception on Christian traditions,
especially on the material used in the composition of the Gospels of Mark,
Matthew, and Luke, which reflect the outlook of the later church and its
faith in Jesus.
("Jesus Christ" Encyclopedia Britannica Online.
<http://members.eb.com/bol/topic?idxref=466226&pm=1>
[Accessed 18 February 2000].)Jesus Christ
Roman historian Tacitus (XV, 44), written about AD 110, is,
nevertheless, worthy of note. In his account of the persecution of
Christians under the emperor Nero, which was occasioned by the
burning of Rome (AD 64), the Emperor, in order to rid himself of
suspicion, blamed the fire on the so-called Christians, who were
already hated among the people. Tacitus writes in explanation: "The
name is derived from Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate
had executed in the reign of Tiberius." The "temporarily suppressed
pernicious superstition" to which Jesus had given rise in Judaea
soon afterward had spread as far as Rome. Tacitus does not speak
of Jesus but, rather, of Christ (originally the religious title
"Messiah," but used very early among Christians outside Palestine as
a proper name for Jesus). The passage only affords proof of the
ignominious end (crucifixion) of Jesus as the founder of a religious
movement and illustrates the common opinion of that movement in
Rome. An inquiry of the governor of Asia Minor, Pliny the
Younger, in his letter to the emperor Trajan (c. AD 111) about how
he should act in regard to the Christians (Epistle 10, 96ff.) comes
from the same period. Christians are again described as adherents
of a crude superstition, who sang hymns to Christ "as to a god."
Nothing is said of his earthly life, and the factual information in
the
letter undoubtedly stems from Christians.
emperor Claudius (Vita Claudii 25:4; after AD 100): "He
[Claudius] expelled the Jews, who had on the instigation of Chrestus
continually been causing disturbances, from Rome." This may refer
to turmoils occasioned among the Jews of Rome by the intrusion of
Christianity into their midst. But the information must have reached
the author in a completely garbled form or was understood by him
quite wrongly to mean that this "Chrestus" had at that time appeared
in Rome as a Jewish agitator. Claudius' edict of expulsion (AD 49)
is also mentioned in Acts 18:2.
depicted the history of his people and the events of the
Jewish-Roman war (66-70), only incidentally remarks about the
stoning in AD 62 of "James, the brother of Jesus, who was called
Christ . . ." (Antiquities XX, 200). He understandably uses the
proper name "Jesus" first (for as a Jew he knows that "Christ" is a
translation of "Messiah"), but he adds, though qualified by a
derogatory "so-called," the second name that was familiar in Rome.
(Some scholars have suggested, however, that this reference was a
later Christian insertion.) Scholars also have questioned the
authenticity of a second passage in the same work, known as the
"Testimony of Flavius" (XVIII, 63ff.), which is generally thought to
contain at least some statements, apparently later insertions, that
summarize Christian teaching about Jesus. (See "Antiquities of the
Jews, The,".)
only a few statements of the rabbis (Jewish religious teachers) of
the
1st and 2nd centuries come into consideration. Containing mostly
polemics or Jewish apologetics, they reveal an acquaintance with the
Christian tradition but include several divergent legendary motifs
as
well. The picture of Jesus offered in these writings may be
summarized as follows: born the (according to some interpretations,
illegitimate) son of a man called Panther, Jesus (Hebrew: Yeshu)
worked magic, ridiculed the wise, seduced and stirred up the
people, gathered five disciples about him, and was hanged
(crucified) on the eve of the Passover. The Toledot Yeshu ("Life of
Jesus"), an embellished collection of such assertions, circulated
among Jews during the Middle Ages in several versions.
opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus,
which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at
the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th
centuries.
("Jesus Christ" Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
<http://members.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=109559&sctn=2>
[Accessed March 7 2000]. )
As for the : "The temporarily suppressed pernicious superstition",
mentioned by Tacitus, it must be mentioned that the Latin writer, who uses
this expression in the Annals (XV:44) for the Christians and adds:
"As every trouble, comes from Judea", uses the same words "pernicious superstition",
also for the Jewish rite of circumcision in Histories, V:5.
To a Roman writer, heavily invested in the rites of death and resurrection
of a young Son - god, every Father affair was a "pernicious superstition",
which, as every trouble, comes from Judea.
Hencefore, all the associations of the Gospels - Pauline message with
Moses.
Paulus, with his new Son - affair message, tries to reassure
the Romans:
1) He has a Son message and not a "pernicious superstition", Father
affair. (The Letter to the Romans is a declaration of non - Jewishness
of his message, and of damnation for the Jews, in the spirit of Tacitus'
"Histories" and later "Annals")
2) The authority of the Roman State, the Law of the Polis. God and
the Roman State and his Son- cults are one (Lett. to the Romans, 13).
Aeschylus staged again on the scene the Primal Tragedy, i.e. the murder
of the
Father, the pain and the guilt.
That is true philosophy, in contrast to Platonic philosophy, which
was meant
to repress the Truth of the Murder.
This is the reason why Plato, in the Republic, wanted to censor the
myth of
the castration - assassination of Ouranos by his son Cronos, and wanted
to
prohibit Aeschylean tragedy.
Plato suggested also to prohibit art, because of the fear that the Truth
of Apollo
will disclose the secret.
True philosophy is not what today is perceived as such, but
Aeschylean Tragedy, Myth, and the art of Apollo and his ambivalent
responsa.
Plato took on himself to repress that truth, which is associated
with the Oedipal bottleneck, as every genital truth, through a
regression to pre-Oedipal homosexuality.
The repression worked very well until Jesus came again to Western
civilization, in the Name of the Father. He was crucified because
he wanted
to disclose again genital truth (The Glad Tiding) and
the
reality of the Murder of the Father.
The repression enacted by Paulus of Tarsus, worked for 1800 years,
as
Plato's repression had worked for 400 years, until Nietzsche-Freud
who,
each in his own way, relieved from the repression the murder of the
Father.
Now came deMause, and all Western psychiatry, and are out again
to repress it, and reinstitute the lie of the Kingdom
of the Son, as had been done before by Plato, and by
Paulus of Tarsus.
Why Nietzsche, a Protestant Minister' son, went straight to the jugular
of
Truth and why it was a Jew, Freud, who articulated the relief. Of course,
this is connected also to the question why Freud, in 1939, felt compelled
to lie. It is connected on why the Pauline-Gospel lie made of
Jesus a Jew, even if now it is clear to me that he was not.
To understand exactly why Jesus could not have been a Jew, we
must still
speak of the Trial before Pilatus.
Until now we have some hints, particularly lapsa calami from
the Gospel of John, but the trial which, as we have seen is a repetition of Socrate's,
will disclose the final evidence that Jesus could not have been a Jew.
Stating that Christianity is a continuation of Judaism was nothing new, of course, but Freud reiterated the lie "on a scientific ground"
I have written on Freud's Moses and Monotheism, and the link with the Holocaust in Freud and Reik. Was Moses an Egyptian?.
For the Gospels's interpretation of Jesus as a Son-god, see Pinocchio. The Puberty Rite of a Puppet
From: iakov levi <[email protected]>
Paul wrote:
> Yes, I agree with you that the regressions come about because of
the
> sense of guilt over the murder of the Father. What I am still
wondering
> about is why the regressions seem to wax and wane, and why they
> apparently do so in the context of long historical cycles.
It is not the regression which comes in long cycles. It is the breach
of the
genital oedipal level, which comes in long cycles.
Apparently, the condition of regression is the rule and not the exception, most
of the
time.
The question you must ask is: "why, in long cycles, there is a "regrouping"
of strength and the renewed breach of the oedipal threshold?
I believe that the reason is that the drive AND destiny of mankind,
as
for the single, IS to breach upward the oedipal threshold.
The problem is that the sense of guilt pushes them back.
But who knows? May be one day "the bearer of glad tidings" will no
more be
crucified.
This is the real Second Coming and the days of the Messiah.
therefore a Catholic affair.
At the beginning, I was deceived into believing that the Second Coming
is the
Kingdom of the Child, but I was wrong, of course.
Catholicism brought the Kingdom of the Child, to defuse the First
Coming, in order to undo it. The First Coming was the kingdom of the Father,
i.e the
genital level, the identification with the Father and the breach of
the
oedipal threshold, which can come only with the identification.
The Second Coming is necessary because the First was defused, repressed
and
pushed again into oblivion. It was crucified.
The Second Coming will be that of the Father and will bring to
us
genital Truth and Salvation.
The glad tidings, indeed.
> One explanation of the American historical shifts since WWII is that
> medicine began the routine use of drugs during childbirth around
that
> time. The result is that a majority of our population was drugged
> during their own births, with a wide range of possible PH consequences.
> Regardless of what it was, something caused the shift during the
18th
> centuries, and I believe that something else caused the reverse shift
> during the latter half of the 20th century.
In the 18th and 19th century the history of America was not yet THE
history
of the West. It became only in the 20th century, with the shift of
the
epicenter from England and central Europe to America.
So, we must search in Europe the causes of the Nietzschean-Freudian
breach,
which, by the way, is a 19th century affair, and not a 18th century's.
"post Freudian" psychiatry and now with deMause, whose aim is to repress
Freudian achievements.
Modern psychology is
burying Truth for the next thousand years. Until the next attempt
to breach the oedipal threshold, who knows when.
We have seen, so far, the real reason for Socrates' trial and murder.
Pre Socratic genital truth had unfolded all the acts of the Primal
Tragedy.
The Oracle of Apollo at Delphi had disclosed it through the terrible
stare of the god, the Pythia ambiguous sentences, written on the leaves
and entrusted to the wind, and the art of the archaic and classic
period, in which the energies of the orgy of Dionysus, the Primeval Greek
Father, the sacrificed Totem, the Goat, had been channeled to the sublime
expression of the face of the god.
The truth there, disclosed on the metopes of the Temple
and his thympanos, in Delphi, in Athens, in every temple in Attica, for
the benefit of whoever was ready to be entered and filled by the archaic
smile of the Delphic god.
Then, the the events were staged through
the Aeschylean Chorus of the Goats, covered with the skin of the murdered
Father, dancing and leaping, shouting in pain the all story.
As the say goes: lies are like cherries, one draws the other.
But also truth has the same peculiarity: one cycle of truth draws after
it another, unless a counter investment is triggered to bury
and repress it.
After the Aeshylean tragedy came Sophocles, and re-told the same story.
The Oedipus Rex was not only a re-stage of the Primal Tragedy, but,
for the first time, was also a finger directly pointed towards the public
itself.
With Sophocles, everything is ready for the breach with the past
and the disbandment of the horde.
In order to understand this point, it is necessary to focus on the difference
between the Aeschylean tragedy and Sophocles'.
In the Aeschiylean tragedy the acts are staged again. The pain of the
Beast is felt, and the Chorus revives it. The public who assisted was not,
as in our days, a group of persons in search of entertainment.
They identified with the murdered Father, with the Hero who is delegated
to act out the murder, and with the final act of the pain the Hero has
to sustain.
In the Aeschylean tragedy the identification of the public is complete.
The Chorus is the public and wears the skin of the goat.
The Hero who performs the murder is the delegate, and his suffering
is the suffering of the public. There is no distance between the Hero and
his audience: they are one.
Freud in "Totem and Taboo" has described the contents of the
Tragedy.
What Freud failed to focus on is the difference between Aeschylus
and Sophocles.
Sophocles presents to us a different kind
of hero.
Oedipus Rex is no more the delegate of the horde to perform the murder
in the name of the all congregation. His mission is no more sacred. He
acts out the murder not as delegate sent in mission by his brothers, but under the
pressure of the urges of his own personal drives.
For the first time since the ancient myths of Zeus killing Cronos and
Prometheus rebelling against the Father of the gods, who act in the name of the collectivity in delivering the horde from
their pain, Oedipus becomes a criminal.
The public takes distance from the crime. He is no more able to sustain
the burden of guilt, and the Hero is left alone to bear the punishment.
Left alone by his brothers who take distance from him, he falls into
despair and auto - castrates, blinding his own eyes.
This is the difference between the archaic tribal Hero, as described
in all Greek mythology, and Oedipus, the Polis tragic Hero, who is fingered
out as a criminal. The Sophoclean tragedy becomes moralistic.
This is the preface to the repression of the murder itself.
From now on, and into our very days, people go to theater to discharge
their accumulated energies through Catharsis, partially identifying
with the Hero, but they take distance from him. They assist to the acts on the stage
through the eyes of a moralistic attitude. The public identifies with the
criminal through the acts of the crime, but takes distance when it comes
to the pain and the punishment. They know that the criminal is the
bad guy: He and not Us.
Sophocles had taught this device and, in this way, he had prepared the stage
for the repression of the murder.
If it is Oedipus who performs patricide and incest and not ourselves,
they can be repressed and denied.
Freud failed to underline this point.
As Theodor Reik has shown ("Oedipus and the Sphinx", in Dogma and Compulsion, International Universties Press, New York 1951, pp. 320-1), the story of Oedipus is the condensation
of two different myths: the archaic one, in which he kills the Sphinx,
the Phallic Monster, liberates the city of Thebes and obtains the Queen
and the Kingdom, and the later Polis overlay, as described by Sophocles, in
which he kills his real father Laios and commits incest with his
mother.
The archaic myth spoke by symbols (The Sphinx). In this myth Oedipus
is the delegate of the horde, commits the patricide in a symbolic form
and becomes king.
In the archaic myth, he is not a criminal. He is the Hero and the people identify with him.
He is like Achilles, who kills Hector, the
Father figure who inhibited the Achaean Horde from committing the incest.
As described in the Iliad, Achilles knew that his destiny is to die immediately
after the death of Hector. But he had a job to do. He had to act the
patricide to permit to his brothers to commit the incest ejaculating into
the city. Therefore, he kills the Father, he is punished by Death, and he
is THE Hero of the horde. He is buried with all the honors and his soul
goes to the Island of eternal life.
The public, listening to the song of Homer identifies with the
Hero and his destiny.
It is the same with Prometheus and his destiny. Punished, but Hero of the
Horde.
So it was with all the archaic pre - Polis Heroes.
The same with the original myth of Oedipus. It is the later overlay
in which, instead of the Sphinx, the common symbolic father, appears Laios,
the personal father of Oedipus. If he is his personalfather, there is
no more need to identify with his punishment. He is no more the delegate
of the horde, and he becomes a criminal.
For the two layers of Oedipus' myth, see "Da iniziatore a oracolo", in Sapere e conoscenza. Dai riti iniziatici alla filosofia platonica.
At this stage, all was ready for the regression and the repression,
and when Socrates came, admonishing his countrymen to beware, and
not to repress the Murder, the genital truth and freedom, he signed his
own death sentence.
He succeeded building a skyscraper of beautiful lies.
Apollo became a Son - god.
The Hellenistic ecumenical civilization forgot the real meaning
of the ambiguous Oracles of Apollo, the initiator god, who had threatened
with death the Achaean horde under the walls of Troy, and became a culture
where Truth was represented by homosexual youngsters, who undressed before
a mirror, to display their ephebic hairless forms.
Phoebus, "The Purifier" (this is the meaning of the word) became "Ephebic",
hairless youth.
As Plato builds in the Symposium and in the Phoedus, Beauty = Homosexuality
= Truth = Eternal life.
Even the soul becomes eternal, thanks to its homosexuality.
In the Symposium, the "Third Sex" becomes the perfect one.
Alexander's invasion of the East, and his cults of Death and Resurrection
of pubescent gods, presented the perfect occasion to create a cultural
ecumenical message of Ephebic truth.
The repression of the murder of the Father was buttressed in every
aspect.
The legend of Alexander killing his best friend at a banquet, because
he had reminded him that his father Philip had been a great king no less
than himself, is not casual.
Fathers, as in Lloyd's PH, have to be repressed and never mentioned.
An entire culture under the sign of the Son, a young god, like Alexander
himself, had conquered the world. The Hellenistic world was the Empire
of the Son.
They were a thorn in the flank of the civilized world.
The Jews had been praised, lured in every way possible, and granted
special rights by Alexander himself, Ptolomeus I and II, Seleucus
and Antiochus III.
The Jews themselves had made space for a great deal of Hellenistic
influence and penetration in their own culture, but there was one thing
on which, after the 5th century B.C, there was no way they could be lured
into: the fertility cults of young gods dying and resurrecting.
Judea was the Kingdom of the Father.
The tiny Judea could well have been erased into oblivion, as Antiochus
IV tried time after time.
Instead of been destroyed, in 132 B.C. Judea became the only independent
state in the Hellenized world, after a bloody fight, in the name of the
Father (Maccabee I and II).
The real problem, and from here we shall understand also why they had
to do of Jesus' murder a Jewish affair, is that the Jews were dispersed
in all the Hellenistic word, from Rome to Asia Minor, and particularly
in the most important center of Hellenistic civilization: Alexandria
of Egypt.
In the first century B.C. they were 15% of all the civilized world.
Seven million on an approximate number of 50 million.
To make a comparison. If we take Europe and the Americas, without Israel,
there are today 5-6 million Jews on a population of approximately 1 billion,
i.e no more than 0.6%. Including Israel, ten millions, i.e. 1%.
Not to mention that in Alexandria, in Syria and almost everywhere they
were conspicuous as for their presence and literacy.
In Alexandria in particular, they were so Hellenized that they had forgotten
Hebrew and spoke Greek even among themselves, and actively participated
to public life, even at the expense of Jewish traditions.
They had even made of Moses and the Patriarchs the parallel of Greek
heroes.
They were sending their sons to the Gymnasium, to compete in the nude
with their Greek counterparts.
But there were two things, which the Jews were not ready to accept:
The kingdom of the Son and giving up circumcision: the two symbols
of the kingdom of the Father.
From the second century B.C. on, the hatred for the Jews was running very high in all the Hellenized world .
With their stubborn attachment to a Father - religion, they were an omnipresent
threat to the repression of the Murder and to the Kingdom of the Son.
This is the real root of anti-Semitism, which is a phenomenon peculiar
to the West and its Son - culture.
As Tacitus said : "ALL the troubles come from Judea".
The Father, Tacitus' "Pernicious Superstition", comes from Judea.
So, it is not Jesus, and his "glad tidings", who comes from Judea.
It is the trigger to the destabilization of the Platonic lie, who comes
from Judea, which is the household name for Jews and Covenant with
the Father.
Jesus - Zeus, as your association, Paul, correctly disclosed, came
to the Hellenized world to announce the coming of the Father, the genital
level, the oedipal breach, the glad tidings.
As we have already seen from the disclosures of John's Gospel and
other hints, Jesus could not have been a Jew, but it was because of Jewish influence
that he had that hunch that the Kingdom of the Father is coming again to
the Gentiles.
A Galilean, where the tension between Jews and the Semitic population
permeated by Hellenistic values was running very high, Jesus went
to the synagogues, not to preach in them, as the later mystification tells
us, but to search inspiration for his sermons to the Gentiles. How to disclose
to them Jewish truth of the Kingdom of the Father.
This is the reason why his Gentiles countrymen insulted him and delivered
him to the Romans to be crucified: "You are the king of the Jews !".
Hellenistic anti-Semitism could not have found an insult worse than
that: "King of the Jews !!".
This is the real sense of the sign on the Cross: "This is the end which
deserves the one who comes to preach a Jewish Kingdom of the Father".
"You preach a Jewish religion, so you will be crucified as one of the
five thousands Jews" who, according to Josephus, have been crucified in
Palestine in that period.
"You behave as a Jew, so you will die as a Jew, and you will be delivered
to the Romans and to History as a Jew"
And to make the lie perfect and the repression assured: "They were
the Jews, who delivered him to the Romans"!
Almost the perfect lie.
As we have seen, at the trial Jesus behaved like Socrates. A man who
knows very well where the truth is, but knows very well that he is
dead meat. As during the trial Socrates entrusts his own truth to Apollo,
the Father god, as originally he had been, skipping the lie of Apollo the Son
- god, so Jesus entrusts himself to the Father, as he does on the Cross,
until the very last moment.
The Hellenistic world took its vengeance on Jesus himself
and on all the Jews, where they are, because of their reminding them the Murder with their very presence.
Next we shall speak of John the Baptist, that strange figure dressed
in a Beast's skin, like the Chorus of the Goats of the Aeschylean tragedy.
Who was this man? who came before Jesus (John 1:15).
worth doing an article on - if not an entire series. You see,
I've been
working on Jesus as a psychotherapist, exposing some of the
psychotherapeutic principles he utilized. He was absolutely brilliant
as
a psychotherapist, so much so that I am struck at the prospect of how
much incredibly rich information Christians totally miss out on by
worshiping him as the Son of God. They gain about as much that
way as
any college student would gain by worshiping their sociology professor
as the Son of God. I've been heading in the same general direction
as
you, uncovering the fact that Christians lost the core message.
I
attributed that to Constantine, but I see that even such a figure as
Constantine could hardly be too much more than a puppet in the larger
scheme of things.
worship him. A good friend (who is no longer physically present,
bless
his soul) pointed out that Jesus NEVER said "Pray to me." Rather,
he
said when you pray, pray to "Our Father, who are in heaven ..."
[email protected]
"As we have already seen, from the disclosures of John's Gospel and
other
hints, and we shall see even more clearly dealing with the trial, Jesus
could not have been a Jew, but it was because of Jewish influence that
he had that
hunch that the Kingdom of the Father is coming again to the Gentiles."
"...Salvation will come from the Jews".
A very strange verse, isn't it?
What does it mean, if not that the Father religion of the Jews will
bring
Salvation?
You see how many lapsa calami has the Gospel of John.
(The following segment has been later published as John the Baptist; Father and Lover)
Some years ago, I was driving on an Alp's pass, between Italy and France,
at 9000 feet above sea level. The highest point of the pass is also the
border.
Borders are always charged with high emotional contents.
A border is the line between an identity and another. A borderline
is the one who is confused as for his own identity. He has not passed the
line to a secure identity, and so regresses to the wrong side of the "border".
On the line of the border between Italy and France, in the middle of
the mountain, there was there a huge statue of a man dressed with an animal
skin: huge, threatening, apotropaic mean of defense against the barbaric
invasions from the "other" side of the border.
The Pass is named "Il Grande San Bernardo", meaning: "Saint Bernard
the Great".
Oddly enough, some days later, on my way back from France to Italy,
I changed route, and I took the way some miles to the South. There the
Pass is called "Il Piccolo San Bernardo", meaning: "St. Bernard the Little".
A Great man, dressed in skins, at defense of the border, and some miles
away, the same man, but this time "Little".
How couldn't I associate the little man, who announces the Great, or
the other way around, both dressed by animal skin, with the first chapter
of the Gospel of John?
The Gospel speaks of a man, dressed by an animal skin, a Goat skin,
who announces the coming of another man "Greater than himself".
Confusing, ah?!
But if, as in the interpretation of dreams, sometime the real meaning
emerges only if the manifest significance is inverted, so in our case,
if we make an inversion, the real significance emerges.
Was John coming to announce the coming of Jesus, or, may be, the other
way around?
The first chapter of John is deliberately very confused. A lot of smoke.
Who is who? Who the Light, who is, and who is not?
A lot of smoke, in order to deliver a simple statement.
Why all the smoke? What is the Gospel out to hide?
John the Baptist is always represented dressed with an animal skin.
The beastly representation is the masterpiece
statue of Donatello, in Santa Maria Gloriosa dei Frari, Venice. The savagery of the
Beast and his pain are in the sacred figure of the Saint.
Similar, is the statue by Francesco Di Giorgio Martini in Siena, and by Michelozzo da Bartolomeo at the "Museo dell'Opera del Duomo", in Florence.
In Florence, in the South gate of the Baptistry called after the name of the Saint, carved
out of the concrete of bronze as if it were clay, is the story
of John and his execution by decapitation, by Herod Antippa's soldiers.
Andrea Pisano represents the Baptist on his knees, bent with his head
almost touching the ground, and the enormous sword of the executioner befalling,
in a tragic acute angle with the arm of the soldier, on his neck. The Saint
is in a position, with his long hair meddling with the skin dress, in which
he seems a real sacrifical goat.
We have here the representation of the murder of the Goat, the Father,
Dionysus, the primal Western god, as had been represented by the Chorus
of the Goats in the Aeschylean tragedy.
The one "who came first", and the version of the Gospel that
belittled him versus Jesus, was the subject of the all affair, the assassinated
Beast.
The Gospel, on one side tells us the whole story, on the other makes
a lot of smoke to conceal the ocus pocus, the magic of the substitution
of the Father with the Son, in the spirit of the Pauline hallucination.
Jesus came in his name, was baptized by him, meaning, was born from
him, as every baptism is synonymous of birth.
As in any initiation puberty rite, the son is born again from the Fathers
of the tribe.
Even today, the new born is kidnapped from his mother to be re-born,
through the baptism, from the Father, as Jesus was re - born from his
Father, John the Baptist, the Holy Goat. In Christian theology, the compromise between the Father and the Son finds its expression in the condensation between the two, and the new- born is baptised "In the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost".
APPENDIX
From Nietzsche's The Birth of Tragedy:
Links:
The Image of God in Judaism: Father or Mother?
Mikis Theodorakis, Anti - Semitism, and Castration Terror
Without Borders: the Borderline Case of the European Union
Medusa the Female Genital and the Nazis