I have missed this my friend. Truly.

Now then,... who here is familiar with the legend/story of Bluebeard?

For those who aren't, here's the short version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluebeard#Plot_summary" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I would like to pose the question: Who is the foremost adversary to the protagonist, the young wife?

I would like to suggest that a truer answer is the young wife. It was she who allowed herself to be placed in such a dubious situation without appreciating the potential gravity and/or consequence. However, how could she?

I fell out of my chair and shouted huzzah when I read this. And although I know the question you finish this portion of your post with isn't meant to be answered, I'm going to thusly!: Because it was in her innate nature. His innate nature. They're innate nature, to allow the situation to occur. I'm going to buy you a copy of Iron John by Robert Bly if you don't already own one. You'll dig it. Bly's primary hypothesis is that all, if not most, of the most ancient fairy tales (read mythology, think the first part of Genesis but I didn't tell you that nudge nudge wink wink say no more say no more!) are meant to be read as a kind of initiatory ritual: aspects of every character represent the real protagonist of the stories (that would be you, dear reader!). How's that for a doodle berry!

In her nescience she could not have appreciated the gravity of the situation, no matter how apprehensive she may have felt (expressly); this is a critical aspect to nescience that might be unappreciated, that it occurs even beyond the deliberate pursuit of knowledge.

There's another doodle berry if you look at the origins of the world nescience, namely the latin ne meaning not, and scire, to know...I'm going to stab and say a verb. To not participate in actively knowing. Which means, at least in my swiss cheese of a brain, that the potential to know exists and one way or another, a choice is made...and that opens up all kinds of doodle berries....but I mean think about that. The potential for knowledge existing innately in every single human being on the planet, and the choices we make (re: watching Bruce Jenner transform into Kaytlin Jenner and then appearing on RuPaul's Drag Race season 9.....Ru! You have she-mail!....k...I...didn't actually....just...type....aaaaaw shiznat).

Which is to say, her truest adversary is inexperience. In so saying, there is no individual or group - whether past, present, or future - which is principally 'at fault' for the manner in which the feminine has been deliberately suppressed (and I don't mean the militant, social-justice-warrior variety). That there are agencies that have participated - and do still in some cases - is a result of the natural sequence of things throughout the ages. The human lifespan is too fleeting for an individual to even grasp significant enough awareness of things, and without the prescient awareness of cause and effect on a massive scale it seems unlikely that a group would fare any better.

Aw c'mon man. You're not giving her, or her parents, enough credit. Or you're in turn saying something even more profound that wasn't meant to be caught initially by the reader, and am getting ready to lead us down another garden path, and if that's the case you know I already agree with where you're going. Insert zombie face here. I'm suggesting that the arrow for both of us is pointing in the same direction, but where you are quoting the feminine I'm suggesting it transcends gender, it exists...as part of our hard wiring, our DNA if you have to go that way, or our innate creation in the image of the Divine if you want to go the other route.

I'm saying you're right. But I'm also saying that it's a layer cake. Dammit now I'm hungry.

What we do have now is the opportunity/responsibility to act from a scient (as opposed to nescient) consciousness.[/quote]

Agreed with a caveat. If the protagonist is actually the reader of the story, and every character is an aspect of the protagonist, where does that leave us with Bluebeard? And I almost typed the serpent in place of Bluebeard. Re-read Genesis chapter 3. I recently did and just about fell off my bed.

I am so glad to be back!!!

Now then,... IF the 'devil' is in fact Sophia,... what does that tell you about 'God' (esp. the Abrahamic)?

<pauses for dramatic effect,... and coffee>

Here's something that an interesting fellow once told me:

Jesus (or the individual{s} for whom the story of Jesus were originated) was a priest of the goddess of love. Who is the goddess of love? Venus, according to the Romans,.... And what IS Venus (the planet)? Well, once upon a time, Venus was referred to (and still is) as the Morning Star.

Are you getting it now?

'Jesus' was a Luciferian. 'Lucifer' is Sophia.

Anyone still holding onto preconceptions (especially Abrahamic ones) about 'who is who' in the cosmos,... they might consider tabling those preconceptions under the heading of 'Notions/Ideas', and begin a new inquiry.

I'm not saying 'throw out' those preconceptions, I'm saying RECOGNIZE them as preconceptions, set them aside, and then entertain a NEW inquiry.

The new inquiry I would advise under the heading of 'IF what he (FA) is saying is true, THEN how would that apply to the dynamic in which the information pertains, especially given human nature over the intervening millennia and the manner in which propaganda, conspiracy, artifice, and - lets not forget - murder have their way in shaping a collective perception'.

Happy hunting!

And really, when one looks at it (esp. WRT the control mechanisms) is it really all that surprising? If people were encouraged to embrace and focus their otherwise 'sinful' aspects, the world would change dramatically. The feminine aspect is ABSOLUTELY essential for ANY type of conducive and/or developmental alliance, merger, unification, etc.

The world is divided PRECISELY BECAUSE the Feminine aspect remains obscured by lies, manipulations, and fake substitutions. Mind you, I'm not saying that people should succumb to their every whim/desire, I'm saying they should be encouraged to express them in conducive ways that are neither self-destructive (as ALL of them can be if misappropriated) nor at the direct expense of others.

One does not get better at doing something by NOT doing it! EVERYTHING requires practice!

To shift gears a bit (don't worry, I'll shift back) I want to share with you a very candid fellow whom I have recently become almost fanatically impressed with, a Mr. Milo Yiannopoulos.

[youtube]https://youtu.be/wiESisEL43c[/youtube]

Now, in this video the topic of discussion is quite obviously a critique of feminism. I encourage the viewer to take the dynamic that they are discussing - the fallacies and outright disinformation of the 3rd-wave feminist movement - and THEN observe the manner in which avenues that lead to the divine Feminine are obfuscated, denounced, condemned, and vilified (as in, 'made to appear the villain').

Its a loose association - I admit - but I present it to emphasize the following points.

Who am I kidding, find 'em urself. Xp

If one looks at being OF the divine Feminine as BEING a 'feminist', then TRUE 'feminists' have alot of work to do... and undo.

(pssst...it's spelled "a lot")

Shezbeth wrote: [youtube]https://youtu.be/wiESisEL43c[/youtube]

LOL and LOL and WOW ... did I just watch a "Saturday Night Live" skit? ... little boys discussing feminism ... how old are you Shez?

[youtube]https://youtu.be/uCGsqBn9pog[/youtube]

On the other hand ... we need more "flock of seagulls" types setting us straight about feminist ideology ... for sure ...

Hermit wrote:(pssst...it's spelled "a lot")

You keep informing me of that,... I'm reasonably sure that's the fourth time. I hope you will take offense when I neglect to abide.

And as for your inquiry Dianna,... I'm two, can't you see from my profile?

Here's a woman who did all the research to support the claims of those two little boys.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... g2yDfu7Xmd" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now if we could stop from going all a-flutter and pay attention,....

When the majority can be observed to, and evidence exists to indicate a predisposition for self-deception amongst the aggrigate, what is likely to be said about those who have the clarity to both perceive the deception and speak out about it?

Sorry, that was probably too wordy.

When the mass likes to lie to its self, and then lie to its self about lying to its self, what is the probable reputation of the individual(s) who point out the lie?

Perhaps you're familiar with the whole "The emperor is naked" story,....

Imagine for a moment - in a metaphysical context - that the extant/established religions comprise the Emperor, court, and troves of followers/supplicants.

Imagine further that the Divine Feminine is the one indicating that the Emperor IS naked.

And NOW you know the 'why' of the whole "Devil/Satan/Etc." nonsense.

Sometimes in the details and sometimes in a red dress

Shezbeths, I applaud