As to a European White Mother Goddess---I think you are dreaming more than anything. It's not that I don't like the dream, it is sort of pretty. It's just that it isn't really happening. Also, though women are allowed middle-management positions, and a more feminine ethic is good for the corporate structure (as has been mentioned in other places), I don't see any significant take-over by women, and am unconvinced that anything of this sort is really happening. It is fun and useful to engage in intellectual romanticism from time to time, to see where such formulations might lead, but it is more sober to refer to things 'as they really are' and not, perhaps, how we'd like them to be. Quite often, from what I have read so far, you jump to wild conclusions that seem entirely speculative, but that do not necessarily have a basis in reality. It is a style useful for making subjective, personal points, whatever they may be, but it is not so convincing, as I see things.
"Stoicism would not support slavery either. Christianity did. The hypocrisy we see in Christianity was there from day one."
You could make this
sort of claim time and time again, and in a sense you'd be right, and you would forever justify your (I am supposing) contempt for Judeo-Christian traditions. And this sort of broad statement against (in this case) the Christian tradition or force in history is often made. It is these sorts of statements that, often, become the motive for separating oneself from one's own traditions. It is a classical psychology of ressentiment, it seems to me. All traditions, and all people, will demonstrate their essential hypocricy, either now or later. There is no person, group, religion or philosophy that is not susceptible to hypocricy. The important thing, I think, is to recognize what is positive in each tradition, and to be able to see and describe what are their positive achievements. I am not at all inclined to cast away what are extremely valuable ideas and teaching, practices and modalities, simply on a whim. Or rather, I went through that, and then, more soberly, began to realize that my own tradition (not only Jewish, but Judeo-Christian, philosophical and Occidental) has many very profound elements, and in many areas trumps other traditions for depth and intensity. Stoicism and the Goddess tradition of Europe may have many nice features, I certainly have been impressed, but in no sense could it be represented that either of those is superior to the Judeo-Christian-Western Philosophical-Scientific traditions. But why polarize it in this way? Augustine was a stoic in his way, and was certainly influenced by stoicism. I am not sure what it is you are really selling, but if you'd tell me I might want to buy...
"A renewed faith in the Native European Great Earth Mother, aka Gaia, synergistically works."
Sure, why not? It is a meaningless statement, with no basis in reality, so why not agree with it? I spent a good part of the 8os with women exploring these 'traditions' (or inventing them, which is also valid), and have read considerably on the subject, so none of this is foreign to me, and in my own way I participated, always with reservations. But from where I stand (living in Latin America), and certainly not in any even remote sense in the US, do I see any evidence of this as a movement either in thought or faith. It is all far to vague, your assertion.
What moves the world, it seems to me, is clear ideas and ideas that can be articulated clearly. The traditions that handle ideas, by and large, are masculine traditions. I don't see that this is changing or that it will change, and I repeat, I see little evidence that 'women are taking over', not in substantial ways. And even if it were true, it could all be reversed rather quickly.
"The transnational global market does not look like Jehovah and his heavenly host, but a peer-to-peer system of separate, pagan powers that are just trying to get along in an organic dynamic fashion. Gaia, like all natural mothers, does not rule Her progeny, but sets them free to fulfill their own destiny."
It is a clever idea, a clever
presentation of an idea, and reflects some truths, but I could also suggest it is a little sophistic. I think that this presentation is supposed to support your ideas about a European Goddess who is now emerging as against "Jehovah and His Heavenly host'? But the
fact is, the force that divided the world into regions in the post-war era, and has been working to establish an order, is more like Jehovah with his heavenly host than the peer-to-peer Gaia model you propose. What you are saying obfuscates, it seems, rather than illumines.
But what you say about Gaia and 'natural mothers', as opposed to a ruling father who sets down a law, is interesting. Getting involved with Jewsih philosophical and ethical traditions, I mean in a serious or even semi-serious way, is very challenging, especially to those of us (like myself) who are very 'assimilated'. The Jewish intellectual traditon is very, very strict, and very very sober. I am thinking. say, of
Abraham Herschel who I respect a great deal. It seems to me that this tradition, in a very fatherly way, continually asks you to stop babbling and to demonstrate in what tangible way your understanding of ethics molds your behavior, what tangible things you do. It doesn't care about Goddesses rising from the sea or any mystical nonsense, but it asks you just how you connect with the the real world. It is a very exacting tradition and it is not for everyone. I see this as a very masculine focus. You always have to answer to God when you go inside the Jewsih tradition (Judeo-Christian) and it is different from a tradition where, like with a natural mother, you are let loose to explore, and all exploration is 'valid'.
For me, after so many twists and turns, I choose 'duty' over personal will. Mom says its okay to go out and play for as long as you want, but
dad wants to know what you actually accomplished. In the end, I prefer to hang with dad rather than with mom.
_________________________________________________
Nor have I ever come across references that Augustine tried to set himself up as a God. A reference?