You are here
Home > Thelemic Philosophy > Tantrums in the Temple: On the Unspoken Fruit of the Holy Whore

Tantrums in the Temple: On the Unspoken Fruit of the Holy Whore

Tantrums in the Temple: On the Unspoken Fruit of the Holy Whore

by Sister Georgia


“She loves me for my work… She knows and loves the God in me, not the man; and therefore she has conquered the great enemy that hides behind his clouds of poisonous gas, Illusion.”

The child, that most problematic of esoteric concepts. For the child is key to the symbolism of the new aeon – and yet children themselves appear anathema to effective ritual. What to make of this divine conundrum? We must understand, however, that ours is a unique and privileged position. The ‘choice’ of parenthood, the division of adulthood from this invention called childhood; these things are new, and they are only ours.

Why do we fear so, to see the interruption of the child as its own form of gnosis? For we have shored up the walls of rationality and non-interference and we now, as a culture, struggle to cope with this strange category of the not-yet-rational – of the not-yet-human. These children, they are all that we have fought not to be; they are unpredictable, all Will, and yet all animal, a trickster – entirely unpredictable, wholly outside of our control. They are divine; they are our own divinity, before we dress it in cultural shackles.

This is the unspoken fruit of the whore; for the holy whore is not barren, nor has she ever been. Her children are unquantifiable and divine; like her, they escape the libidinal economy.

For, of course, in my discussions of rejecting reciprocity in love, in rejecting the I-thou promise of fidelity, I have shamelessly skirted round the key issue, the very reason for these structure’s sad existence: offspring. Monogamy and marriage do not only guarantee the other will act in a predictable way (or so we hope); they promise ownership of offspring, a guarantee that there will be no woodpecker-children.

What of this? To begin, we must understand that our biological concept of parenthood is a weak and woeful one – a recent development, and one that has been foisted upon us as part of the program of control we call the nuclear family. We are not the norm; in most cultures other than the western, family is a far more fluid concept.

Let us learn from the mongols; a woman will choose her man. A woman will have children and, biology be damned, their father is the man of her choosing. What joy, what potential here lies – what power. And hence western repression, a great cultural program declaring the mother-father-son triad as a biological fact, rather than a structural law.

The whore rejects the category of fatherhood – she recognizes only the divine father, and his emissary the priest; she recognises their authority, but does not bow before them. The whore is radical, destructive, because her child has no father (or potentially infinite fathers) – her child is wholly her own.

This, then, is an alternative model of divine parenthood – one which is radically disruptive, denying the separation of sex from offspring, of mother from whore; one which shows us the constructed, ephemeral yet insidious nature of the cultural norm of family and parenthood. The mother-whore cares not. She struggles, as she has always struggled – and she overcomes, as she always has.

She recognises that imparting fatherhood to the other puts her in a position of weakness; she refuses the very category of ownership, she denies the woman-as-chattel. Her parenthood follows saturn, and it is divine.

The secret of Non-Reciprocation is the key to the Magical Relationship. Such a thing is anathema to our current social economy – our colonized minds are convinced that we need the other, one other – that we need promises, and loyalty, and eternal devotion. But these things are anathema to divine community.

The child rears his crying head, and problematizes this happy freedom; but we must come to see that this is neither inherent nor necessary. Children are the site of the greatest economic propaganda. With the child, we are reconstituted; we are vulnerable, at the beginning of a new strength. The other has come forth from within our very selves, a shocking, visceral gnosis. Thus the child must be policed, controlled, its place in the libidinal economy shored up with shame and pride.

But all this is falsity. The true magical relationship produces the true child; the child of the whore, whose father is the all-father, and who belongs to no man – just like his mother.

Consider the multiplicity of possible children. The religious path demands the denial of traditional social/ethical connections. Thus: Reject victimisation. Reject feeling sorry for yourself. Reject blaming circumstances. Reject hatred, reject anger at the Other; for there is only you, and you will remain.

Think on the experiment at cefalu – were not children the catalyst? All else is blindness, for two shouting toddlers are the key to this mystery.

I say again: in motherhood one finds the true secret of Babalon, the unspoken fruit of her whoredom. We are reminded that in the New Aeon Babalon is situated in Binah, displaced from Malkuth through the birth of the child, the signal of the new aeon. For what takes place in the experience of that holy event, which is the most base and banal process, shared by all bleeding things? The Western woman has been conditioned since birth to experience herself as a bounded and discrete individual; the child rips from her body, and proves this great foundation false. This is a closely-guarded secret of the Hermetic mysteries; our zealous cultural taboo about children and sexuality, as well as the continued cultural ambivalence towards the body of the mother, has allowed this archetypal structure to go unexamined by all but a few adepts.

Much is lost to the abyss by she who struggles against this new truth. The zombification of the mother in the first few months of new-motherhood is result of this ego destruction, as the mother struggles to reconstitute her sense of self, and reconcile her individuality faced with the parasitism of the new-born. Eventually the mother rebuilds herself anew, reconstructing her ego around the new knowledge and new practice which accompanies motherhood. Because of the nature of motherhood in this post-christian milieu, in which the servant-mother is placed upon a pedestal, this new ego is often constructed around a resigned or devotional view, an outlook of service. Thus the economic/libidinal status-quo is maintained.

This myth of the bounded individual, it is this great lie which western society perpetuates; it is this which we resist, which we deny, by fucking, eating, excreting – and by giving birth. Hedonism is nothing more than recognition of this fundamental contradiction of humanity – we feel ourselves great spirits, but we are indistinguishable from dirt. Thus all is dirt, and all is god; these experiences of the unbounded self, the self that eats/excretes, this is the way to that feeling of sublime we worms all crave.

All our words – what we are really describing – our basic fascination with that which goes in, and that which goes out, and where do they go, and how can we manipulate the stop and flow? And what can we find there, among the dirt and skin – what can we learn of taboo and the socious, of the nature of self and physicality?

This discussion must, as it always does, come back to that most ancient tree. With Binah the cosmic energy crystallises into form; however, with form comes the necessary eventuality of the dissolution of form. It is for this reason, “any god who has an analogy with Saturn will be referred to Binah”; for Binah contains the ideas of life and birth, and their necessary concurrents time, finitude, and death. Binah is dual aspected, and these aspects are distinguished as Ama, the Dark Sterile Mother, and Alma, the Bright Fertile Mother. This duality can be witnessed in “any goddess who might be termed the primordial mother” and it is for this reason the feminine is mythically associated with evil and death, for “implicit in the ascetic religions such as Christianity and Buddhism is the idea that woman is the root of all evil, because she is the influence which holds men to a life of form by their desires”.

In this formulation, woman is she who produces the burden, the commitment, the tie; but this is a misunderstanding of the nature of form, which is subjective, malleable, and nothing in-and-of-itself. In order to free woman from this prison in which she has been placed; in order for her to come to her full flourishing as the sun rises over the new aeon, there is but one path – she must reject FATHERHOOD, that Moloch of a deity which we have constructed as ownership, debt and obligation.

I will say something contentious here, but I will say it nonetheless, for experience gives me the right. Your child’s father owes you nothing; the child is your child, your innate other, your strange miracle, your parasite. Only by knowing this, by rejecting the demands of this imaginary fatherhood, of what you are owed by that eternal he – only then will you be free.

I say again; the true root of all patriarchy is this desire-and-trial of ownership of the child. It matters not whose fault this is or was, for it is our responsibility, now, to free ourselves from such foolishness. There is no ownership in divine community; the child of the whore is the temple child, and his disruption must be recognised as the voice of god.

We as a culture are obsessed with images of the mother, of fecundity and creation and its analogy birth – but we are at a loss when faced with the crying child. We are fools; consider why the child has been codified, condemned. As Foucault well knew, the school serves the same function as the asylum or prison – and there lies the key! If we recognise the way that divinity lurks in liminality, in madness and in crime – then so too we must understand the divinity in the child, the child that is our divine self, before it becomes fettered by the shackles of culture, before it needs to ephemera of ritual – for the newborn has direct and all-encompassing access to the divine. We must stop seeing children as a pendant, as the unspoken malkuth to our spiritual quest: for the child is the height, and the depth. This is the meaning of Christ the lamb. Thus we have done ourselves great disservice, for in rejecting that which in loud, and messy, and out of our control, we have lost our own divinity.

But all this, of course, is deeply bound with our sense of property and propriety, with the constrictions with which we bind up our social lives, as we slice and circumscribe and and say ‘this is yours, and this is mine’; we are such fools, for all this is mine, and this world is ours.

I swear to thee – the nuclear family will be overcome, replaced with the joy of the divine community, the only context in which divinity can flourish – necessarily, eternally liminal – and thus always and eternally holy.

“…see the fabric of reality as so many before have — as the living tissue of an immense womb within which all of creation dwells.”


Enjoyed the article? Take a second to support the Thelemic Union on Patreon, and keep us ad-free!

Leave a Reply

Top
%d bloggers like this: