Culture Madrianism, the reprise

[Shipmaster Sane]

I am a conservative traditionalist adherent of a non-Christian, dharmic religion.

Does it have a name?

 

[Deleted member]

Does it have a name?

Filianism a.k.a. Madrianism, or if you wish, in outside scholarly terms, the Oxford Goddess Revival. I posted a fair amount about it in the Essays and Commentaries section when the board first started, but, I didn't want to dominate conversation there or anything else, and of course, there was a lot of melodrama at the time with the attacks on our community and so on. However, we would consider ourselves to be "in communion" if you will (permissible to attend the religious services of and in alignment on major doctrine) with the conception of Shakta Hinduism as fellow Déanists. So our religion is monotheist, but in the same sense that Hinduism is, and centric on Our Mother God, not using the term Goddess (though outsiders do).

The Chapel of Our Mother God

You might find this article by our most prominent gentleman scholar, Race MoChridhe, to be of interest. "A Feminism of the Right?"

Race cited this article, interesting in its own right, in that article of his;

Less charitably, but for the sake of fairness, I'll observe that Martin Sedgwick did document us in "Against the Modern World: Traditionalism and the Secret Intellectual History of the Twentieth Century"; Sedgwick of course is an anti-traditionalist but as they say, any publicity is good publicity.

The Clear Recital is currently published in the Aristasian Authorised Version by Sun Daughter Press and in the Eastminster Critical 4th Edition by the Society for Filianic Studies.

A critical philosophical work composed from the esoteric traditionalist and Filianic perspective is The Feminine Universe, by Sr. Alice Lucy Trent.

 

[Deleted member]

I am honestly shocked: I was convinced you were Christian.

Oh, absolutely not. I am an apostate from Orthodox Christianity by conviction. To be honest, I am a little surprised; I only promoted my belief and faith so strongly when I started this forum that people asked me to ramp it back. I had assumed everyone had noticed.

 

[Lanmandragon]

Well, that is an interesting philosophy, but it isn't congruent with eastern Dharmic teaching, of course, where transsexuality reflects an accrued failing of dharma on the part of the soul, so we merely disagree on that point, on a grounds that it isn't productive to debate.

As for the biological matter, consider that we have demonstrated fertile XY females who give birth to presumptively fertile XY females. Therefore, we can state that while XY karyotyping may be presumptively male, it is not axiomatically male (it does not demonstrate maleness only by itself). Because human features are statistically mediated and men and women will share overlap in almost all traits, what's left at that point? Sexual organs.

So if those are removed, as they are in someone who is completely castrated or in a male-to-female transsexual, then such a person is objectively biologically neutral. They are not male, and not female. Now, in our society we expect people to be either male or female, and how do we actually code people into those categories on a day to day basis? Based on appearance, mannerism, voice, etc. All of these can be mastered by a sincere transsexual woman who puts serious effort into it. So the biologically neutral person, who spiritually identifies as female (but this is unprovable in the physical world, I grant), behaves like a woman, speaks like one, acts like one, and based on appearance looks like one. In that case you have spiritually someone who asserts they are female, socially someone who behaves as females do, someone who possesses the secondary sexual characteristics (appearance, to be simple) of a female, and someone who is biologically neutral, lacking any features which may be axiomatically assigned to one sex or the other.

In that case, it is much more socially disruptive, as well as ethically cruel, to attempt to rely on non-axiomatic features which trend toward maleness, or past history, to code someone against the Nature of the majority of their defined traits.

Now, of course, this renders bankrupt the entire ideology of transgenderists. We can actually see from this exercise that transgenderists, by saying that surgery is unnecessary for one's identity to be valid and that people do not need to put serious effort into passing, that gender itself is a mere category which can be violated at will, are objectively wrong. Because those are exactly the only ways that a transsexual can be a woman! Transgenderists literally argue against the only way that a transsexual woman may be called a woman! This is why there is a fundamental tension between primary transsexuals and the autogynephilia/"secondary transsexual" led "transgender rights" movement. The former is a fundamentally conservative act which upholds social norms; the later is self-defeating.

I've noticed you use "dharmic" alot. Presumably it's part of your faith. The thing is though why should we put stock in "dharmic principles"? Not meant as offensive simply a question.

 

[Lanmandragon]

Oh, absolutely not. I am an apostate from Orthodox Christianity by conviction. To be honest, I am a little surprised; I only promoted my belief and faith so strongly when I started this forum that people asked me to ramp it back. I had assumed everyone had noticed.

What made you leave Christanity?

 

[Deleted member]

What made you leave Christanity?

The fact that the denomination I was raised in was clearly both the most correct according to my understanding of the universe and had agreed to reunification with a morally bankrupt and corrupt secret police auxiliary whose Patriarchs and Metropolitans were all KGB informers. I couldn’t take seriously any other variant of Christianity and I couldn’t take seriously God giving power to KGB informers either.


After being atheist for some years I realised atheism was totally morally bankrupt and just caused depression and nihilistic hopelessness. Then having read Schopenhauer I was very impressed with him and, learning about Ungern-Shternberg’s syncretism in Mongolia, found my way to Rene Guenon and, with my life circumstances very changed, the Aristasian movement. I am a Filianya but to some extent I see Filianism as just a reencapsulation of the core tenets of Shakta Hinduism for a west which has lost the tradition of the Mother God through our arrogant, atheistic rationalism.

 

[Scottty]

The fact that the denomination I was raised in was clearly both the most correct according to my understanding of the universe and had agreed to reunification with a morally bankrupt and corrupt secret police auxiliary whose Patriarchs and Metropolitans were all KGB informers. I couldn’t take seriously any other variant of Christianity and I couldn’t take seriously God giving power to KGB informers either.

Seems to me that the logical course of action there would be for all the people who believed in Russian Orthodoxy but considered the ROC as an organization to have become corrupt to get together and start their own separate group. Or something.

 

[Deleted member]

Seems to me that the logical course of action there would be for all the people who believed in Russian Orthodoxy but considered the ROC as an organization to have become corrupt to get together and start their own separate group. Or something.

I was raised in the ROCOR. The ROCOR intentionaly rejoined the ROC after a decade of debate... Those who wanted reunification at all cost without forcing the ROC to address this were the ones who won out.

 

[Scottty]

I was raised in the ROCOR. The ROCOR intentionaly rejoined the ROC after a decade of debate... Those who wanted reunification at all cost without forcing the ROC to address this were the ones who won out.

Oh yeah - we get people like that in some Protestant circles as well - they want organizational unity as an end in itself, with utter disregard as to whether the people they want to "unify" with are on the same page about anything. Because unity.

But people in your church community being idiots should not have been a reason for you to stop believing in God!
Not unless your faith was based on loyalty to the denomination, rather than the other way around...

 

[Deleted member]

Oh yeah - we get people like that in some Protestant circles as well - they want organizational unity as an end in itself, with utter disregard as to whether the people they want to "unify" with are on the same page about anything. Because unity.

But people in your church community being idiots should not have been a reason for you to stop believing in God!
Not unless your faith was based on loyalty to the denomination, rather than the other way around...

As goes Orthodoxy so goes the Church. It’s different than for Protestants, who slide between denominations on a dime. My parents went to other churches after that and it all seemed like a joke (they left before the formal reunification in 2007 because it was obvious what was happening. My father wasn’t going to be a slave to communism). By the time I was living on my own I was nominally an atheist, but the soul of belief never left me, so I flirted with pagan revivalism and watched my atheist friends get steadily more depressed amd neurotic as the inevitable wages of atheism. Then I found Guenon and the Aristasians.