From the Garden to the Grail
By criticizing patriarchy or puerarchy, I do not want to
deny spirituality, but only to show that it has been used in ways
which hinder giftgiving. One of the reasons for our
misunderstanding of giftgiving is that we see God as the greatest giver, and he
is male. Thus, we mix giftgiving characteristics with
the characteristics of masculation.
If we understood God, the giver, as female, perhaps we
could come to consciousness of the paradigm more easily. Perhaps
s/he is really pure altruism, a 'you-first' spirit, and that is why s/he
is invisible. S/he creates things and loves them in a 'you-first'
way and then goes on creating and loving others. If we cannot
love each other, we block her movement. Perhaps nature
spirits, fairies, and angels are only slightly less 'you-first' parts of
Putting giving into the province of the male model
hides the fact that women have already been doing it everywhere,
all the time. Even the sacrifice of Christ's life distracts our
attention from the amount of sacrifice that has been done everywhere
by women for their children, husbands and others. Our gratitude
is turned towards a male giver as the source, disguising the
I believe the most harmful aspect of Christianity is
the glorification of sacrifice because it does not address the
situations which make sacrifice necessary. The system which creates
scarcity, war, environmental and human degradation must change, and
this need should not be upstaged by the sacrifices of those who
are making the best of the terrible situation. We must have the
socio-political courage not to sacrifice ourselves, but to recognize
the causes of the problems and unite with each other to change
them, giving that general gift to all. If we can change the
paradigm, which includes changing the reward system and the ego
structure of exchange, we will be able to give without self-depletion.
the transition from one paradigm to the other, we have to
create alternative organizations, use our energy, our imagination and
our resources. We must decide whether to let ourselves be depleted
or destroyed in the process, or to give up, or whether to try
to maintain ourselves as models of givers who do not sacrifice.
In a situation of scarcity, it is all too easy to give to
one's own depletion because giving is not generalized and,
indeed, others may not give to the isolated giver. Women
throughout history have been givers, because children's needs require
itbut, trapped by the exchange paradigm, we are often
crucified, made to give our lives in order to keep satisfying needs,
because the situations we are in are so hostile that they murder
us. Women are right, giving is the Way. But we have to
generalize giving and change the context because, by doing it
individually, we are destroyed.
Masculation and exchange put themselves forward,
self-validate and call forth the gifts of others. Thus, those who
are practicing giftgiving cannot see what they themselves are
doing or give it dignity as the norm. They have accepted the
ego-oriented values of others; so, paradoxically, they may not have
the courage of their own other-oriented values and actions.
Women may even believe that giving is wrong, though usually they do
it anyway. They are afraid of the paradigm they are practicing
and confuse the threat of self-sacrifice due to scarcity (a real
danger coming from the social context) with the idea that giving
creates the scarcity. Sacrifice for something may be a way of saving
it from destruction, giving value to it, or a way of recognizing
or naming it though 'paying for it.' On the other hand, sacrifice
is often a product of domination by force.
The only thing we did wrong in the beginning was to
shift from the gift to the exchange paradigm. Perhaps this is what
the story of the Garden of Eden was all about. In the gift
paradigm, no repayment is necessary. Only when we shift to the
paradigm do we find the necessity to repay. By treating the
eating of the apple as a sin of disobedience, which required
repayment, the Bible shows humans effectively entering into the
exchange paradigm with God, casting Him into the role of
punisher, providing 'just' reprisal. A God who was for giving,
functioning according to the gift paradigm, would not have
required repayment. S/he would have taught the children giftgiving
by modeling it.
Perhaps Christ's self-sacrifice was an attempt to model
giving and forgiving, but the Goddess (mother) model was canceled
by the male model of the Father and the Son. (All those images
of Madonna and Child could have shown to us that boys needed
to follow their nurturing mothers. Instead, the other-orientation
of the mother never became self-validating. We never took
the logical step up. The focus was always on her 'other.') Thus
the only appropriate place for giving seemed to be in motherhood to
a male child. Moreover, women's values were not presented as
such for social solutions, but were altered and translated through
a male figure.
If Christ was a male model of giftgiving, the
exchange paradigm was still the frame for interpretation, so he was seen
as 'paying for' humanity's sins. His death 'evened the score,' but
that could not get humanity out of the exchange paradigm. Even if
he was paying in advance also, for the sins people were going
to commit, exchange was still the issue. The exchange
archetype underlies everything we do, and influences our consciousnesses
to a great degree. Even when our spiritual intuition and our
hearts draw us towards altruism, these patterns pull us and
our interpretations of religion back to the masculated model. In
fact, as we have been saying, our consciousness and the re-ality we
live in are formed according to the values of
masculation. Giftgiving--the female model--comes to consciousness
filtered through masculation and exchange. Now feminism and
the worldwide women's movement have allowed us to detach
the mother from her 'other' and to see women as the bearers of
the other-tending values of the species.
Communicating with the Gods
Humans have always tried to establish co-munication
with the gods, giving them innumerable 'gifts' from animal sacrifice
to human sacrifice, from novenas to tithes. The 'gift' of Christ's
life to God can also be interpreted as an act of
co-munication--the Word. Because we have not recognized the gift paradigm and
its part in co-munication, we may see our attempt at interaction as
a moment in the logic of exchange. We bribe the divinity: "I
will give you this, if you give me that."
Perhaps because of our distress over masculation, or
because of the ideology of exchange, or even because of a defect
of imagination, we consider major sacrifices to be the kinds of
gifts which would satisfy the needs of the gods. Maybe our difficulty
in communicating is that those kinds of gifts distress the Divinity
as much as they do ourselves. The scream of the sacrificial
animal whose throat is being cut horrifies Her/Him--or Hum. We
need to devise some other, kinder and easier gifts, such as words are
for us, like incense, music, flowers and food. Our cruelty to
each other makes a toxic atmosphere, where the spirit cannot
flow freely from one person to the other.
Maybe our masculated attitudes simply do not allow for
large enough collective units to form as a co-municating subject,
who can hear and be heard by Hum. If we could really shift onto
the gift paradigm, and disentangle the logic of communication
from the logic of exchange, perhaps we could find again the garden
of Eden. This could be God's or the Goddess's kingdom come.
I don't think it will be a kingdom though, or even a democracy,
but some new kind of government.
From Complex to Concept
In our Christmas celebrations, we put our joy at babies'
being born, our desire for the best humans can be, our salvation,
the solution to our problems. We see the solution to our problems
in the child. In fact, this is one outcome of the gift
paradigm/exchange paradigm struggle. The woman gives the child.
The man gives the name, the inheritance. The child takes the place
of the parents. The future is exchanged for the present, or takes
its place, and the conflict is handed down, as the 'gift'
from generation to generation. This heritage is a strange kind of
gift, involving a contorted division of labor, like that between
salaried husbands and unsalaried wives.
We exchange in the present in order to give to others in
the future. In the future, will the others exchange or give? Now,
at the end of the 20th century, we are taking both the present
and the future into exchange. We are making the future a present
to ourselves, and we are not handing down a good earth. We
are creating scarcity, making the gift economy impossible for
our children and future generations. We are validating the
system, giving a meta judgment in favor of exchange, so the
very possibility of giftgiving is destroyed.1
The mother has been giving the gift of her children to
her husband. The ancient right of primogeniture was one form
taken by masculation in families of wealth and power. In the logic
of Christianity, if Christ was God's son and also a man, and if
men were brothers, Christ's one-many relation with them was like
that of the first son to his brothers. The one-many relation of God
the creator to mankind is equal to the one-many relation of Christ
to mankind. In this, the relations are similar to one-many
sample and one-many word.
Though the relation of artisan to products (which he made
in his image) or father to children is a 'complex' of
family resemblance, it can transform into a concept relation when
the common quality of the items is discovered. The common
quality of humans is expressed in their 'saved' souls, which are related
to Christ as the one-many sample Christ is also equal to God in
that relation, and is His incarnate word or re-presentative on earth.
Figure 39. God, Christ and the Word.
If Christ is God, and the son is the father, he stands on both sides of the equation between the word and the sample. The Christian mythos can also be read as an exploration of the concept formation process. (See Figures 39 and 40.)
Some of the other elements of exchange we have been discussing are also evident here. For example, Christ is also the general equivalent, and his life is the means of exchange--money--that pays for men's sins. If people are sinful, they are unequal to each other and cannot enter the concept relation with God as 'many-to-One' because they lack the common quality. Many stories in the Bible describe the sins of humans. The sin of Eve and Adam made them different from God and, revealing their nakedness, made them conscious of being different from each other. Cain's murder of his brother, Abel, also made Cain different from other men. The Old Testament is a chronicle of human differences. By paying for and for-giving humanity, Christ implied that humans were equal to each other again in value and able to enter into the concept relation with himself as a sample identical with his Father.
Adam and Eve's disobedience seemed to cause a debt towards God and the idea of
Figure 40. The concept formation process, Old and New Testament.
debt made people feel they should give to God (creating co-munication), which was gift-like motivation, but which was actually payment for a wrong. Maybe it seemed that by paying for the sin, there would be no more debt, and then the gift paradigm would return. However, it was not a sin humans committed, or a debt they incurred, or an act of not-giving they indulged in (not-giving obedience to God). It was just taking on the idea of paying back, exchange, that made humans appear to have to pay back. Unfortunately, as subsequent history demonstrated, Christ's 'payment' did not disqualify the exchange paradigm, even if he was 'for-giving.'
Paying for humanity's sins was an exchange, even though the sacrifice of Christ's life was perhaps an attempt to show the giving model in a situation of scarcity of justice and real lack of kindness. Actually, many women sacrifice in similar situations all the time, not to pay for anything, but to satisfy the needs of those in their care.
Perhaps being born from a Virgin shows Christ as the child of the gift paradigm, outside of genitalized sexuality, as well as beyond the male ego.2 Proposing giftgiving as coming from a male model is dangerous, however. Churches organized to honor Christ's teachings set up misogynist, masculated religious hierarchies, which supported political and economic hierarchies, invaded other territories and slaughtered people with other beliefs in order to teach them 'altruism.'
To change paradigms, we must identify the gift paradigm with women generally, follow their leadership, and not repeat the masculated one-many structures which self-propagate, spawn hierarchies, and promote competition and domination. Indeed the over-valuing of the 'one' concept sample position is an important part of the problem. It is an element in the process of masculation, which must be dismantled in order to return to the gift paradigm as the norm. Unfortunately, both the
logic and the organizational aspects of Christianity have
merged the image of a giftgiving male god with the 'one' position
and with the masculated characteristics of over-taking
Giftgiving on the social scale is being continually
misread, while the gift mode on the individual internal scale is unseen.
In fact, internal giftgiving does not just give a static picture, as
we mentioned in regard to the homunculus. Internal giftgiving
is often paralyzed and rendered unconscious, however, by the lack
of validated models of giftgiving on the external. Perhaps
the models of Christ's sacrifice and the sacrifice of religious saints
do provide a context which, at least partly, validates giftgiving
for the individual. However, by making giftgiving sacrificial and
the gift paradigm saintly, instead of recognizing its existence in
what women and many men are already doing in daily life, we push
it out of everyone's reach.
The Authoritarian Father
Patriarchal religion provides a number of false images of
the male giftgiver. The Father, who supposedly would not abuse
his children, did actually send them out of the Garden of Eden
for eating an apple, and therefore, like human fathers, requires
our blindness and denial towards his injustice. As a model of
the giftgiver, internally and externally, Godliness leaves room
for many transgressions, especially along the lines
of authoritarianism. How many children have been abused in
the name of the will of God, what violence performed upon them
in the name of sanctity of their father and the necessity of
filial piety? It is really wrong to call the God of these fathers
'good,' because compassion seems to be secondary to what they think
of as right action--action which reinforces their masculated
egos. Having projected their values onto an all-powerful Patriarch,
men use him to justify their reinforcement of their egos,
judging authoritarian ways as good.
When we question the presence of evil and suffering in
the world, we are told it is beyond our knowledge. Actually,
the authoritarian image of God validates abusive patterns in
men, and does not validate women's nurturing and
compassion--because it says that the male God, who is also authoritarian,
is all good, and does not allow for a female image of God at
all. This is part of the cause of the suffering. Thinking that
we cannot understand it just feeds the denial of the abuse. We
have a taboo on the thought that our concept of God might
be causing masculated men to continue to create that suffering.
Similarly, mothers often refuse to see the abuse
their husbands are perpetrating on their children, and have faith in
his good side, and in 'God's unfathomable will.' This lets them
allow the abuse and, in so doing, become party to it themselves as
well. The image of the giftgiver is thus either assimilated into
the image of the authoritarian masculated ego, or is feminine
and powerless, nurturing the male, at best interceding with him
like the Virgin Mary, humbly pleading the case of her child to
the male Authority.
Meanwhile, the boy she is raising is really him, the
male authority in miniature. So, our Mother within is transformed
into little other-oriented initiatives within or into ineffective
twinges of conscience tugging at the coat tails of our masculated will
to power. We discount her intercession in favor of others
as unrealistic compassion, quivers of a bleeding heart. If she
succeeds in awakening some moment of other-orientation in us, credit
is given to the Good Father, the 'beneficent' masculated
ego. Perhaps we could cancel this illusory father image and have
Mary as our model. We would have to change our image of
her, redirecting her other-orientation away from
obedience and intercession and towards the empowered nurturing of
humanity and the planet--especially of women and children. Recently,
in fact, the women's spirituality movement has restored to us
many female images of the Divine, as giftgiving goddesses who
are powerful as well.
The Holy Grail and Alchemy
The Holy Grail is the free source of abundance. The
Grail, the cup, is symbolically also the cornucopia or womb. Perhaps
the spiritual aspect to this story about the search by legendary
heroes for the chalice of the Last Supper tells us again that the
problem is not biological but social. The Grail is not a material thing but
a logic, a way of organizing our economic behavior. The Grail is
the gift paradigm. It is not a physical object--not womb,
vagina, breast or penis, not horn nor sword, chalice nor blade--but
a refusal to mis-align the microcosm and the macrocosm, a
refusal to create the shift into the artificial structure of exchange and
its ego, where abundance and nurturing should be. The Holy Grail
is the gift that gives, the gift of the gift paradigm which we
all receive from our mothers--we only have to overcome
our childhood complexes and our masculated misunderstandings
of language and life in order to be able to receive it at last.
This social interpretation of the Holy Grail can be
supported by interpreting the practice of alchemy in
Marxist terms. Any commodity could become the socially-chosen
general equivalent, money, though gold is the one that actually did.
Alchemy was really posing a question about a social choice. Transforming
base metals into gold is the physical projection of the problem,
"How does something become money?" This question harks back to
the question, "How does a baby become male?" or, "How does a
body part become a penis, the mark of the category 'male?'" or the
even more hidden question, "How does a body part become a
vagina, womb or breast, the producers of life and nurture?" and,
"How might the womb or the breasts become the 'sample?'"
Both alchemy and the story of the Holy Grail show aspects
of the social problem of masculation interpreted on a material
plane. We have seen how the position of sample is socially
attributed and is not a quality belonging to the material objects
themselves. The special value of gold does not come from the metal
itself; rather it is a social quality, coming from the use of gold as
the general equivalent--the value sample--in exchange.
We could socially assign that role to specially designed
pieces of lead, just as we have with printed paper. The relative
scarcity of gold made it a functional means of exchange. That
relative scarcity is also made possible by the special printing of
paper money in limited quantities. We could just as easily print
pieces of lead, though they would be harder to carry in our
pockets. Ironically, if the alchemists had succeeded in transforming
lead into gold, there might have been so much of it that gold could
no longer have served as the general equivalent, and the purpose
of the transformation would have been lost.
The transformation of base metals into gold has
actually happened. The only element that has not entered into
the process is the physical material identity of lead, and of gold.
In the transformation, the physical identity of the items
under transformation was actually irrelevant. What was essential
was the similarity of items being used as money material to
each other (as paper bills, coins, etc.) and their production in
a limited quantity. This permitted their social use as
general equivalent. The lead that was relevant, finally, was the
printer's lead, used for printing paper money. The choice of gold
or printed paper as general equivalent is due to many social
and historical factors. The fact that we choose any object as a
sample of economic value is due to masculation and its
psycho-economic expression in exchange.
The search for the Holy Grail demonstrates a
similar problem: it is a search for change at the wrong level.
The physical object, the grail, is not the source of all
abundance. Neither is the womb, as the symbolic equivalent of the
cup. While the womb does bring up the idea of the mother, and
the sought-for Grail the idea of a privileged object, the solution
to the puzzle does not lie in finding that object or
contemplating the womb, or in giving men a physical womb or castrating
them in order to do so (or giving them a 'vagina' by wounding
them). Nor is the answer the search itself.
Rather, the answer lies in changing planes from
the physical, and metaphysical, to the social and psychological.
understanding and dismantling the social process
of masculation, we can restore the mothering model for
all, providing a nurturing economy (a social cornucopia), which
will abundantly satisfy all needs. A nurturing economy would
not require any changes in male or female physical
bodies--no castration or adding on of organs where they originally were
not. Only a change in our interpretations of these differences
would be necessary, together with the dismantling of
their psychological, economic and social projections. We have
been forced to search for the source of all good because we were
not asking the (right) question--the right question was not,
"What ails the knight?" though it did bring up the issue of
castration in its connection with the search for giftgiving. (In fact,
that question is a lot like our greeting, "How are you?" which
can potentially initiate a co-municative interaction.)
The question they and we should have been asking
is something like, "How can we provide abundance for all?"
to which the reply, then and now, would have been symbolically
the Grail, "Follow the life-giving and nurturing mother
model."3 The final question of Percival: "Whom does the grail serve?" is
similar to the question, "Who is it for?" which is at the basis of the
split between giftgiving and exchange. Is it for the other or for the
ego, for the present or future Fisher King or for God? Or shall we
apply to the Grail Marx's answer to the question of language and see
its infinite creativity in the other-tending logic of
human socialization, the logic that has the extra step: "For others,
and therefore, really for me as well?"
In a recent book on the Holy Grail, Graham
Phillips4 connects the medieval French Romance, La Folie Perceval with the Tarot and especially with the 'Popess' card (the figure of
a woman in the papal one-many position). Phillips also makes
a tentative identification of the Grail with the secret
Gnostic Gospel of Thomas Didymus, a complete copy of which
purportedly discovered in Egypt in 1945. A section of the text
he cites seems related to the mother model and liberation
"Jesus saw children who were being suckled. He said to
his disciples, "These children who are being suckled are like
those who enter the Kingdom." They said to him, "Shall we then,
being children, enter the Kingdom?" Jesus said to them, "When
you make the two as one, and when you make the inner as the
outer and the outer as the inner and the above as the below, and
when you make the male and the female into a single one, so that
the male will not be male and the female not be female, when
you make eyes in the place of an eye, and a hand in place of a
hand, and a foot in place of a foot, and an image in the place of
an image, then shall you enter the Kingdom."
Several elements of this passage recall the restoration of
the nurturing mother model, especially the unmasculated unity
of male and female, and the breast model. The unity of
opposites, and the return to substitution of things for things, are perhaps
a transposition of material co-munication.
Transubstantiation through definition or naming, "This is
my body. This is my blood," really proves the point of
alchemy. God or Christ as the sample for the concept of mankind transforms
the bread and wine into the sample (himself). As the
sample nurturing man, he makes himself into food and
drink.5 Transubstantiation demonstrates the power of
definition, as masculation does. The effect of naming is not physical, as
it would be in a miracle (as in changing water into wine),
but social. The Holy Grail, the mother symbol, is the locus
for making a nurturing male, by reinterpreting and reforming
social mechanism of naming, especially the
naming of gender. Sub-stance is only under-standing.
Perhaps, in the sacrament of the church, more attention
is given to the sample character in the transubstantiation
process than to the material bread and wine character. From the
material bread and wine, we only have to pass to the sample character
of God, not to another physical material. And God is the
"human form divine," a social idea, following the process of other
social ideas, whether s/he exists as such or not.
'Transubstantiation' is a lot like exchange or masculation.
It is a change in the status of something, which takes place
by relating it to a new word as its name. The 'sample of
samples' names (and points out) something as itself, and the priest
repeats this process. If the male God is the general equivalent One,
his making himself into food transforms both this matter into
the sample and makes the male sample nurturing. Communion
is, after all, only a taste, a sample. At the same time that bread
and wine change into body and blood, the model shifts from male
to female, from over-taking to nurturing--and this is really the
taste of a better world, though it is hidden within the tabernacle
of author-itarian patriarchal religion.
The symbolic form of the Grail coincides with its
contents, transposing real into symbolic sacrifice, giving a gift that
can easily be given (bread and wine) instead of a gift that
cannot (body and blood). Male priests then potentially have
something to give, by their words becoming more similar to
nurturing women, modeling free giving. By their words, "This is my
body, this is my blood," in the ritual, they presumably change
the substance of the things, bread and wine. By changing our
gender words, we could change the substance (under-standing) of
males into nurturers. Communion points toward the ungendered hum-an, hidden within the model of the nurturing male.
What we need now is the restoration of the model of
the nurturing female. Either model or both must serve to change
the masculated system to which sacrifice is functional. With
change, we will create a system by which we will be able to
share not symbolic but real food locally and globally,
thereby transforming reality. We will understand words as the power
of the collective to transform our understanding, and 'ones'
as elements of our conceptual processes, liberating the spirit
At present, we are wasting wealth on things which do
not satisfy our needs in order to stimulate the economy, and our
gifts of value are therefore given not to each other but to the
economy itself. Wasting and destroying products creates scarcity.
High prices ensue because goods do not accumulate and thus do
not create the abundance which would make the whole
system unnecessary. Those who participate as sellers in the cycle
of creating false artificial needs and waste receive greater profits
in return for their efforts. Not only do they receive the gifts of
the surplus value of the producers at home and abroad (and the
issue of exchange-rate differential makes the whole economy of
one country give to the whole economy and to the
individual economic agents of another country), but they receive the gifts
of the shadow of all the needs that remain unsatisfied
because abundance has not been allowed to accrue.
'Trickle down' cannot happen because the cup which
might have been the Grail is never allowed to fill up or to run over.
The gifts run out as waste through a crack in the bottom.
Meanwhile, the unsatisfied needs of millions of people, including the
forty thousand children who die daily worldwide from hunger
and preventable disease, are human sacrifices giving value to
the 'needs' of the free market. The ritual human sacrifices
that maintained the pyramidal society of the ancient Maya
involved the slaughter of only a chosen few in view of all. Perhaps
the Maya were, after all, both more compassionate and
more conscious than we are.
We sacrifice millions of human lives to create the
scarcity necessary for our system to function, to maintain the
social pyramids, hierarchies, upward chains of gifts, and
downward chains of masculated definitions and commands. But
these sacrifices for many of us occur 'elsewhere.' The gifts which
are given to us are invisible and, if they are seen at all,
their interconnection with our economy is not
acknowledged. Rebellions 'elsewhere' are quelled by the use of
abundant armaments, the manufacture of which diverts energy and
money into the means of destruction, and brings more profits to
their producers and sellers, while depleting the store of the means
of nurturing still further.
In the 'First World,' if we see the pictures of the starving
and the maimed in other countries (or across the tracks), we
attribute their condition to local calamities of nature or 'human
nature.' However, because in an alternative system, in abundance,
their situation would have been otherwise, their deaths, which are
the consequence of artificially created scarcity and their
excessive gifts to us, give value to our system by giving-way. Our own
well-being seems to come from localized good fortune or
'deserving,' and we deny any transfer of wealth and value to us from
other countries and classes.
The Mayan civilization ended; rituals of human sacrifice
were no longer performed. Much speculation has been generated
about the cause of its apparently abrupt end. Drought, disease,
conquest have been suggested. I prefer to believe that someone
finally changed her under-standing and said the sacred words, "This
isn't working. Let's stop now." Then the whole group, in a great act
of civilization, decided to go back to the countryside, to
live peacefully with their loved ones, to give up attributing value
to the pyramid by sacrificing and giving goods and
obedience pyramidically. We can do the same.
The Maya originally sacrificed the 'one' as a gift in
material co-munication with the gods, who would presumably give gifts
of abundance in return. Blood was also let from the tongue
word) and the penis (the 'mark' of the one position) of the
king. As happened in many other cultures, the Maya sacrificed
the privileged 'one' as the representative of the group.
Now we are sacrificing the lives of millions, not to gods, not
as representatives, but to give value to a masculated system, which
we perceive as nurturing us, our natural and only source of
livelihood. The cultural value that we give to profit and wealth is also given
by the sacrifice of the children and mothers of the future, since
their means of nurturing are now being destroyed
through environmental degradation. Cancer, due to nuclear radiation
and hazardous chemicals, attacks the symbol and source of
women's giftgiving, the breasts. In the US there is an epidemic. One
in every eight women is expected to get breast cancer.
Actually, almost half of the population will have some
kind of cancer. The disease also attacks the 'mark' of masculation
in cancer of the prostate, and even the sperm count, especially
in white men, has been drastically reduced in recent
years, presumably by environmental causes. Because we do
not challenge the incomplete accounts of cancer given by the
free market apologists, such as the American Cancer Society and
the American Medical Association, the sacrifice of our breasts,
our capacity to reproduce, and our lives gives value to the
exchange economy. The cancer-causing nuclear radiation and
toxic chemicals that free market industries release into
the environment remain invisible and continue to accumulate
and become permanently abundant, while life-giving
resources become scarce.
Those who are trying to heal the diseases receive
their livelihoods from the system and give it their gratitude
and credence, making it unlikely that they would consider it as
the cause of the cancers. Like women who over-value
masculation, they give value to the very processes that are causing
the problem, while at the same time trying to care for
the individuals who have been injured by those processes.
The system is not just a beneficent, though sometimes
husband, whom we must value and follow, doing
damage control; it is a hazardous mechanism, which we must
recognize, understand and dismantle step-by-step, so as not to destroy
all those who live in and around it.
In so doing, we will change our consciousnesses and begin
to attribute value, not to exchange, but to the needs of all and
their satisfaction at all levels. We will stop sacrificing ourselves,
our children and unknown billions of human beings to maintain
our system of pyramids, and we will direct our gifts towards
co-municating with everyone in abundance. We can begin to
fashion the Holy Grail for society at large, the cornucopia of
co-munication, by saying the holy words of
tran-substantiation, changing our social under-standing: "Let's stop now."
1Perhaps the "Star
Wars" space shield was actually shielding exchange
from giftgiving, doing this at meta (above) in space. The metaphor of
meta was carried that far, with billions of dollars spent on it, because we just don't understand what
we are doing.
2In fact, the relation between God, Mary and Joseph, and Jesus is reminiscent of
the societies in which the mother's brother (a person who does not have sexual
relations with the mother) takes over some paternal roles for the boy.
3The Grail (or cup of abundance) is the symbolic opposite of the 'cap' of cap-italism.
4 Dr. Graham Phillips, The Search for the Holy
Grail, Arrow Books, Random House, London, 1996. pp.170-171. Dr. Graham Phillips also claims to have found the
actual material artifact which was the Holy Grail.
5The Christian idea was not new. For example, in the tradition of the great
goddess, the son-god Dionysus in his many forms was also ritually eaten. "As a
Vegetation God he was ritually sacrificed, usually on a tree (prototype of the later crucifix).
His flesh was eaten as bread, his blood drunk as wine..." from Monica Sjoo and
Barbara Mor, The Great Cosmic Mother: Rediscovering the Religion of the
Earth. San Francisco, Harper and Row. 1987, p. 121.