Aryanism

Æon wrote:

Aryanism is an ancient, spiritual concept directly referring to Nobility, Achievement, Success, Splendor, and Pride of humans, basically meaning "the best of the best".

Aryanism is the "religion of excellence".

Drome wrote:

I know about Hitler, Evola and Nietzsche espousing it, but its a bit complicated.

Lyssa wrote:

Drome wrote:

I know about Hitler, Evola and Nietzsche espousing it, but its a bit complicated.

What do you find complicated?

Æon wrote:

Drome, what are you asking, is there some other, probably 'higher' authority than ourselves, to define what it means to be Noble?

You want us to point you in the direction of your God?  To refer to His Highest Judgment?

Since ours, and yours, will never suffice you?  Isn't it Authority that you seek, one to "own" the title of Aryanism?

Buddhism and stoicism provide mindfulness without the mandatory ignorance of Abrahamic religions. Even still, stoicism tells us to adapt to power over the world, and Buddhism to adapt to withdraw from it. Aryanism provides mindfulness in the struggle and victory over the world.

— Curt Doolittle (Gab: curtd) (@curtdoolittle) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quigley, Carroll wrote:

It seems to me that Classical culture was aristocratic; it was clarid; it was urban; it was balanced; and it was mundane. One of these words will not be found in any dictionary. When I say that Classical culture was ‘clarid,’ I mean that it was lucid, clear, rational, in some ways like the Mediterranean sunlight infusing the atmosphere to an astounding clarity. Classical culture kept certain elements of its aristocratic outlook, and never, like the Hebrews, came to regard man as a helpless and cringing worm.
When we say that Classical culture was aristocratic, we mean much more than that it was the possession of an upper-class minority. We mean that this culture refused to regard either profit or power as goals of life, but rather tended to regard honor and the esteem of one’s equals as at least equally worthy goals. It was quite willing to accept a goal for and an organization of life that functioned economically on a deficit basis, that could not be made available to all men or was not comprehensible to all men, but that had to be supported by many men who could neither share in it nor understand it. This point of view had an aversion to anything practical or vocational; it regarded its goal (honor) as one whose appeal is not (like wealth or power) automatically appreciated but one that is achieved by breeding and discipline. It regarded man as by nature close to the gods but very remote from the animals; it did not accept the equality of men, but did insist on a fraternity of equals within a select group of participants. It emphasized the dignity of the individual, at first only the individual within the chosen group; but later, as democratic influences spread, it tended to grant equality and individual dignity to all, not by bringing the outlook of ordinary men into the select group, but rather by spreading the outlook of the select group outward to ordinary men. To do this it was necessary, while allowing the select group to grow constantly larger, to continue to emphasize the superiority of the members of the group over outsiders. At first the group consisted only of those of noble birth; later it was the citizens of the city-state. As this group was expanded, emphasis continued on the distinction between free men and slaves, between Greek and barbarian, between those who had the political franchise and those who lacked it. Only when Classical culture was in its decline (after the time of Christ) did it begin to accept the equality of all men. Even then it insisted that all men had human dignity, had a kind of divinity, and were worthy of respect. Thus to the very end, Classical culture kept certain elements of its aristocratic outlook, and never, like the Hebrews, came to regard man as a helpless and cringing worm. One last characteristic of an aristocratic outlook that Classical culture maintained to the end was its belief in social regression rather than social progress and its conviction that the golden age was to be found in the past rather than in the future. This gave the culture an underlying pessimism redeemed by the fact that man’s fate, however hopeless, must be borne with dignity…
In saying that Classical culture was clarid, we mean that it possessed the qualities of rationality, lucidity, and clarity. This culture sought explanations rather than sensations. These explanations were regarded as satisfactory if they led to some concept that could be grasped by man’s conscious mind…
When we say that this culture was urban, we mean that it was possessed by a city-dwelling group who knew one another personally, saw one another frequently, exchanged views by conversation or letter, rather than by media of mass communication, were remote from the productive system, either agriculture or commerce, and regarded loyalty to the state and tis gods as the chief duty and chief privilege of existence.
When we say that this culture was mundane, we mean that it was humanistic, anthropocentric, and this worldly. It regarded man as the center of everything; it interpreted everything in terms of human aims; it had no real concern with life after death or with the gods, and no real idea of eternity or of reward or punishment in the afterlife. It had no real idea of the nature of divinity until very late, and then achieved this idea as a consequence of an aristocratic pursuit of truth, a rationalistic pursuit by men with leisure and with no real regard for wealth or power. This mundane character of Classical culture meant that this culture, in extreme cases, was materialistic in its outlook; but it was able to escape the ordinary consequences of materialism because of its ideals of aristocracy and moderation.

Simonides of Ceos wrote:

Go tell the Spartans, you who passeth by, that here, obedient to their laws, we lie.
{Ω ξείν', αγγέλλειν Λακεδαιμονίοις ότι τήδε κείμεθα, τοις κείνων ρήμασι πειθόμενοι} [O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti tede keimetha tois keinon rhemasi peithomenoi]

Nietzsche, Friedrich wrote:

Let us look one another in the face. We are Hyperboreans…’ Neither by land nor by sea shalt thou find the road to the Hyperboreans’: Pindar already knew that of us.
Beyond the North, beyond the ice, beyond death.

Drome wrote:

I was actually looking for a fuller explanation of this, thats all. I searched the forum, but Aryanism wasnt mentioned ,or explained what the concept even was, that much.

I got some authors , and a better picture of what Im dealing with now, from Lyssa,  that Im going to look up.


The people on this forum definitely suffice to explain anything on the subjects dealt with here, and that I would ask, Im sure - I just dont want to bother anyone with something that you all already seem to be familiar with. Thats why I asked for resources to study on my own.

If you would like to expand your thoughts on Aryanism ,go ahead, I would be interested in reading them.

Wikipedia wrote:

Aryan or Arya ([You must be registered and logged in to see this link.];^{[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]} [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] *arya) is a term originally used as an [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] self-designation by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] in ancient times, in contrast to the nearby outsiders known as 'non-Aryan' (*an-arya).^{[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]} In [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], the term ā́rya was used by the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] of the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] as an [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (self-designation) and in reference to a region known as [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ('abode of the Aryas'), where the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] culture emerged.^{[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]} In the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] scriptures, ancient [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] similarly used the term airya to designate themselves as an [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], and in reference to their mythical homeland, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ('stretch of the Aryas').^{[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]} The root also forms the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] source of place names such as [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (*Aryānām) and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (*Aryāna-).^{[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]}
Although the root *arya- may be of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (PIE) origin,^{[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]} its use as an ethnocultural self-designation is only attested among Indo-Iranian peoples, and it is not known if PIE speakers had a term to designate themselves as 'Proto-Indo-Europeans'. In any case, scholars point out that, even in ancient times, the idea of being an Aryan was religious, cultural and linguistic, not racial.^{[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]}
In the 1850s the term 'Aryan' was adopted as a [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] by French writer [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], who, through the later works of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], influenced the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].^{[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]} Under [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (1933–1945), the term applied to the inhabitants of Germany of non-Jewish origin; 'non-Aryans' were discriminated against, then the target of mass and systematic killings known as [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].^{[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]} The atrocities committed in the name of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] supremacist ideologies have led academics to avoid the term 'Aryan', which has been replaced in most cases by '[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]', with only the South Asian branch still being called '[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]'.^{[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]}

Cambridge Dictionary wrote:

[size=36]Aryan
adjective

UK 
 /ˈeə.ri.ən/ US 
 /ˈe.ri.ən/[/size]


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] or [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] to a [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] who [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] about 4,000 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ago and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] an [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]:
[size=17]This [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] has a [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] that [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] the Aryan [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
 

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] or [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] to a [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] with [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] to be [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] than other groups
[/size]

Quote :

Plato's Five Regimes
The Classical Greek philosopher Plato discusses five types of regimes. They are Aristocracy, Timocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy and Tyranny. Plato also assigns a man to each of these regimes to illustrate what they stand for. The tyrannical man would represent Tyranny for example. These five regimes progressively degenerate starting with Aristocracy at the top and Tyranny at the bottom.
Read more about Plato's Five Regimes:  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :

Aristocracy
Aristocracy is the form of government (politeia) advocated in Plato's Republic. This regime is ruled by a philosopher king, and thus is grounded on wisdom and reason. The aristocratic state, and the man whose nature corresponds to it, are the objects of Plato's analyses throughout much of The Republic's books, as opposed to the other four types of states/men, that are studied primarily in Book VIII.
The aristocratic state that Plato idealizes is composed of three caste-like parts: the ruling class, made up of the aforementioned philosophers-kings (who are otherwise identified as having souls of gold); the auxiliaries of the ruling caste, made up of soldiers (whose souls are made up of silver), and whose job in the state is to force on the majority the order established by the philosophers; and the majority of the people (souls of either bronze or iron), who in contrast to the first two classes are allowed to own property and produce goods for themselves, but are also obliged to sustain with their own activities their rulers' - who are forbidden from owning property.
The aristocratic man is better represented by Plato's brand of philosopher: a man whose character and ambitions have been forged into those ideal for a just ruler through a rigorous education system designed to train intellectuals that are selfless and upright, and whose souls have been made calm and aware of the absolute Good by learning the Truth based on the Platonic Ideas. Plato envisages for this philosopher a disposition and ability that makes him the ideal governor of any state precisely because his soul knows the Truth of the Good and he is therefore not only dedicated to establishing the Good in the state but is also incapable of desiring anything but the Good, for both the state and himself. Thus this man is not tempted to abuse power for his own gain; and, through his knowledge of the true virtues, is able to establish the ideal conditions for the citizens of his state to live the Good life.
In contrast to historical aristocracies, Plato's resembles a meritocracy or proto-technocracy of sorts. In it, a big government state keeps tracks of the innate character and natural skills of the citizens' children, and then directs them to the education that best suits those traits. In this manner, a child with a gold soul born to parents with silver, bronze or iron souls will be educated to levels above his kin according to his golden qualities, and, conversely, from parents with gold and silver souls, a child born with a bronze or an iron soul is educated to only the level earned by his natural aptitudes.

Quote :

Timocracy
Aristocracy degenerates into timocracy when, due to miscalculation on the part of its governed class, the next generation of guardians and auxiliaries includes persons of an inferior nature (the persons with souls made of iron or bronze, as opposed to the ideal guardians and auxiliaries, who have souls made of gold and silver).
A timocracy, in choosing its leaders, is "inclining rather to the more high-spirited and simple-minded type, who are better suited for war". The governants of timocracy value power, but they seek to attain it primarily by means of military conquest and the acquisition of honors, instead of intellectual means. Of the man who represents a timocratic state, Socrates says that his nature is primarily good: He may see in his father (who himself would correspond to an aristocractic state) a man who doesn't bother his soul with power displays and civil disputes, but instead occupies himself only with cultivating his own virtues. However, that same young man may find in other persons in his house, his mother for example, a resentment of the father's indifference to status. The future timocrat thus becomes divided in the following manner: by observing his father and listening to his reasoning, he's tempted to the flourishing of his own intellect and virtues; but influenced by his mother or other persons in his house, or city, he may become power craving. He thus assents to the intermediate portion of his soul (see Plato's tripartite theory of soul), the one that is aggressive and courageous (thus the timocracy's military character).
The young timocrat may be himself somewhat contemptuous towards money and money-making activity, but he becomes increasingly focused in saving his goods as he ages, since the virtues of his soul have not been purified by the salutary effects of reasoning activities and aesthetic experiences. The timocrat is further described as obedient towards authority, respectful to other free citizens, good at listening, and aggressive rather than contemptuous towards slaves.

Meisner, Dwayne wrote:

The Rhapsodic Succession Myth

The royal succession myth of Ouranos, Kronos, and Zeus is the narrative backbone of the Rhapsodies no less than it is the core structure of Hesiod’s Theogony. As a traditional narrative in Greek theogonies, the succession myth remained remarkably stable in the Orphic tradition. It is central to the Derveni poem, and there appear to be references to the myth in our sources for the Eudemian and Hieronyman theogonies. This succession myth was fundamental to the way the Greeks understood their gods, so it is not surprising that in the Rhapsodies, the third, fourth, and fifth divine rulers are Ouranos, Kronos, and Zeus. Certain details of the narrative are different from Hesiod: Ocean chooses not to participate in the plan to castrate Ouranos, Night advises Zeus to drug Kronos with honey, and Zeus castrates Kronos. But the basic narrative structure is the same one we find in Hesiod. Ouranos and Gaia give birth to the Titans (of which there are twelve in Hesiod, fourteen in the Rhapsodies), but Ouranos forces the children to stay inside Gaia, so Kronos castrates his father.
Kronos swallows his children to avoid being overthrown, but Rhea tricks him into swallowing a stone, and Zeus is raised in secret, guarded by the Curetes.
The Orphic poet seems to have built upon the traditional narrative without departing from the major pattern of action, but he added a few new details.
One thing that stands out as a significant departure from Hesiod is the castration of Kronos. Here is an episode in which Zeus commits a scandalous disgrace against his father as part of the process by which he claims royal power for himself. This could be compared to the story of Zeus swallowing his grandfather’s phallus in the Derveni poem, or to the Hittite myth of Kumarbi castrating his father and swallowing his son. The fragments indicate that the author of the Rhapsodic narrative did not just compile this material from previous Orphic tradition, but expanded and modified the tradition to create a unique version of the narrative. Kronos castrates Ouranos and then Zeus swallows the phallus of Ouranos, but between these two events, where is the phallus? In the Rhapsodies, the narrative progresses a little more smoothly.
Kronos castrates Ouranos, and the phallus falls into the sea, giving birth to Aphrodite as in Hesiod. Then Zeus commits violence against the phallus of Kronos, except now instead of the act of swallowing it is the act of cutting
that secures royal supremacy for Zeus (the act of swallowing happens afterward, when Zeus swallows Phanes). The story of Kronos in the Rhapsodies is thus best summarized by the phrase τέμνων καὶ τεμνόμενος (“cutting and being cut”), which appears to be a direct quotation of the poem.
Unsurprisingly, this episode provided the Christian apologists with ammunition in their literary battles against the Pagans as an example of the scandalous deeds of the Greek gods, while the Neoplatonists interpreted it as an allegory of their own metaphysical system. Accordingly, the key phrase for understanding the Neoplatonists’ allegorical reading of Kronos in the Rhapsodies is also τέμνων καὶ τεμνόμενος. These two acts of castration— Kronos castrating Ouranos and being castrated by Zeus— were interpreted as the dividing point between the immaterial realm of ideas (i.e., Platonic Forms) and the material realm of physical objects. Or, as Brisson explains it, this is the monad that separates the transcendent gods from the inferior gods of the cosmos. What better image for a dividing point could there be than the act of cutting? The monad that represents this dividing point is not seen as a deity, but as the combination of these two actions: the castration of Ouranos and the castration of
Kronos.
As we saw in the last section, Ouranos was interpreted by the Neoplatonists as the middle triad in the Intelligible- Intellective level, with the individual members of the triad represented by the back, arch, and vault of the sky. In the myth, Ouranos and Gaia give birth to the Hundred- handers, who appear as the next triad in the Neoplatonic metaphysical system. However, the sources are not so neat and tidy. Hermias says that both the Hundred-handers and the Cyclopes are orders that proceed from Ouranos and Gaia, and elsewhere he notes that “there are many orders of Intellective gods from Ouranos to Zeus and many Forms.” In the Rhapsodies, Ouranos and Gaia give birth to fourteen Titans, which is different from the twelve Titans in Hesiod, but it is unclear how they fit into the Neoplatonic scheme at this level. The Neoplatonists instead connected the Titans with the lowest order of Encosmic gods; but we will return to this matter in chapter 6. Finally, Gaia herself does not appear to play a role in the triadic structure, even though she is crucial to the narrative. Further down in this section, we will see how the Neoplatonists read the royal marriages of Ouranos and Gaia, Kronos and Rhea, and Zeus and Hera, but for now we can observe that, in the Neoplatonic interpretation of the Rhapsodies, these marriages do not seem to play as significant a role as the narrative of succession. The simple fact remains that there was more in the Rhapsodic narrative than just the elements with which the Neoplatonists were interested.
Brisson explains how Kronos fits into the Intellective level of the Neoplatonic system. The first Intellective triad consists of Kronos as “pure Intellect,” the source of generative power, who is paired with Rhea as “Intellective life,” the source of rest and movement. They give birth to Zeus, who completes the triad as “demiurgic Intellect,” the “source of identity and alterity.” Chlup calls Kronos, Rhea, and Zeus the “triad of paternal gods,” and he calls the second triad— Athena, Kore, and the Curetes— the “triad of immaculate gods.” Athena is associated with love and wisdom, Kore with purity, and the function of the Curetes who guard Rhea and Zeus is to protect the transcendence of both triads. Below them, the monad of “cutting and being cut” (τέμνων καὶ τεμνόμενος) represents the separation of the gods in the Intellective sphere from the Encosmic levels below. This monad could also be understood as Zeus, not his actions, following Westerink, who identifies Kronos as “pure Intellect which is the first Intellective order,” and Zeus as “the third order of the Intellectives.” The first triad represents the generative power by which the physical creation is made. It is the source of change and differentiation, but the transcendence of this triad is protected by the second triad through wisdom, purity, and protection. The actual dividing point between the creation that proceeds from Kronos and the generative power that produces the creation is represented by Kronos cutting and being cut, which is essentially equivalent to saying that it is represented by Zeus castrating Kronos.

Orphic Tradition and The Birth of the Gods

Meisner, Dwayne wrote:

Brisson explains how Kronos fits into the Intellective level of the Neoplatonic system. The first Intellective triad consists of Kronos as “pure Intellect,” the source of generative power, who is paired with Rhea as “Intellective life,” the source of rest and movement. They give birth to Zeus, who completes the triad as “demiurgic Intellect,” the “source of identity and alterity.” Chlup calls Kronos, Rhea, and Zeus the “triad of paternal gods,” and he calls the second triad— Athena, Kore, and the Curetes— the “triad of immaculate gods.” Athena is associated with love and wisdom, Kore with purity, and the function of the Curetes who guard Rhea and Zeus is to protect the transcendence of both triads. Below them, the monad of “cutting and being cut” (τέμνων καὶ τεμνόμενος) represents the separation of the gods in the Intellective sphere from the Encosmic levels below. This monad could also be understood as Zeus, not his actions, following Westerink, who identifies Kronos as “pure
Intellect which is the first Intellective order,” and Zeus as “the third order of the Intellectives.” The first triad represents the generative power by which the physical creation is made. It is the source of change and differentiation, but the transcendence of this triad is protected by the second triad through wisdom, purity, and protection. The actual dividing point between the creation that proceeds from Kronos and the generative power that produces the creation is represented by Kronos cutting and being cut, which is essentially equivalent to saying that it is represented by Zeus castrating Kronos. Damascius explains how Kronos as Intellect relates to the levels above him in De Principiis, where he considers how the “unified” is an intermediate between the One and Intellect. He refers to “Orpheus, recognizing Kronos as Intellect . . . [and] Night as first [monad in the level of ] Being . . . celebrating her in song as having reared Kronos in particular, as being the Intelligible
object [known by] Intellect.” Night represents this intermediate, and it is through contemplating her that Kronos as Intellect comprehends the One. In the other direction, Kronos is the generative power from which all of physical creation proceeds, but he is at rest and untouched by it. Therefore, Proclus argues that Kronos is “Intelligible in relation to all the Intellective gods.” His transcendence is maintained by “his freedom from contact with matter, his undividedness and his unrelatedness.” On the basis of this allegory, Proclus explains how Kronos relates to the inferior members of the Intellective level:

Such is the superiority of this god in relation to any coordination with inferior things, such his immaculate unity in relation to the Intelligible, that he does not need the protection of the Curetes, as do Rhea, Zeus, and Kore. For by reason of their processions into what is subsequent to them, all of these require the constant protection of the Curetes. But Kronos, being stably situated in himself and having removed himself from all things secondary to him, transcends any need for a guard from the Curetes, but uniformly contains even their cause. For this pure and untainted aspect of his provides subsistence to all the processions of the Curetes.

The other, lower members of the Intellective level consist of a series of intermediary points, under the protection of the Curetes, between Kronos and the physical creation. The Curetes are understood as guardians, protecting Rhea, Zeus, and Kore from contact with physical matter, but Kronos transcends the need for their protection because he is nowhere near having contact with matter. This is the exact opposite of the actual purpose of the Curetes in the myth, which is to protect Rhea and Zeus from Kronos.
The first intermediary between Kronos and physical matter is Rhea, whom Proclus places in this triad because “both Plato and Orpheus say that she is the mother of the Demiurge of the universe, but the second deity of Kronos.” Perhaps the best way to understand her role is by observing the way the Neoplatonists read divine marriages in general. In his commentary on the Parmenides, Proclus discusses the unification and separation of Platonic Forms and suggests that the intermingling of Forms has a generative capacity that we
understand as cause and effect:

These are not distinctions that we have invented. But the theologians have expressed them symbolically through the sacred marriages.
In general they call a “marriage,” in their mystical language, a homogeneous union and community between two divine causes.
Such a union they sometimes find between beings of the same rank, and so speak of the marriages of Zeus and Hera, of Ouranos and Ge, of Kronos and Rhea.

The marriage of two deities is allegorized as the combining of two divine causes, which results in some aspect of creation. In his Timaeus commentary, Proclus contrasts Hera with Rhea in terms of their functions as divine causes.
Linking Hera with Zeus as Demiurge, he says that Hera is “the source of all Titanic division,” while Rhea is the one “who comprehends in herself all the life- giving powers, and who at last brings forth Nature itself.” In other words,
Rhea contains within herself the generative power she receives from Kronos, and she projects this generative power from herself, while Hera receives the differentiation of the Forms from Zeus the Demiurge and projects them down toward the division of physical matter.
This metaphysical explanation of marriages as an allegory for the combining of divine causes overlaps to a large extent with the literal meaning of sexual procreation. The female deity is envisioned as the receptacle of the male deity’s generative capacity, as Proclus explains in his Timaeus commentary:

Everything that proceeds from the male is also brought to birth by the female, preserving its subordinate role. So Hera proceeds in company with Zeus, giving birth to all things together with the father; for this reason she is also called “his equal accomplisher.” And Rhea proceeds in company with Kronos, for this goddess is the recess that harbours all the power of Kronos. And Ge proceeds in company with Ouranos, as Ge is mother of all that Ouranos has fathered.

Kronos, possessing the generative power from which creation proceeds, fills Rhea with this power, and she acts as a receptacle, the “recess that harbors all [his] power.” She does not give birth to creation as such, but to Zeus the Demiurge, as Proclus explains in Platonic Theology: “Plato following the theologians copiously unfolds them to us, celebrating in song after the Kronian monad the kingdom of Rhea, constituting from these the Demiurge of the universe, and all the multitude of gods that is woven together with him.” This metaphysical explanation does not ultimately escape the concept of sexual generation. Filled with generative power, Kronos inseminates Rhea, and she gives birth to Zeus, whom Proclus calls “the Demiurge of the universe.” Thus we have the first Intellective triad, consisting of Kronos, Rhea, and Zeus. Kronos contemplates the Intelligible Forms and passes his generative power through the intermediary of Rhea to Zeus, who initiates creation through the lower orders. In this way, Kronos is the source of the Demiurge’s creative power, but he remains transcendent from creation by channeling his creative energy through Rhea.
The second Intellective triad consists of Athena, Kore, and the Curetes. As in Hesiod and Greek tradition generally, so in the Rhapsodies Zeus gives birth to Athena out of his head, so even in a strictly narratological sense Athena
literally proceeds from Zeus. Proclus reads this allegorically as Athena being the leader of the Curetic order that proceeds from the Demiurge, in the metaphysical sense of a lower level proceeding from a higher one. Traditionally associated with wisdom and war strategy, Athena is seen as a sort of executive manager of the creative work of her father or, to put it in more metaphysical terms, she represents the top intermediary level between the demiurgic Intellect and the inferior orders that proceed from him. According to Proclus, Athena “reveals rhythmic dance by the motion that she also shares first of all with the Curetic order, but secondly with the other gods as well; for by this power Athena is leader of the Curetes, as Orpheus says.” Putting in motion,
so to speak, the creation of the Demiurge, Athena becomes the leader of the Curetes, who are known first and foremost for their rhythmic motion.
Characterized by their dancing and by the crashing of drums and cymbals, the Curetes are often associated with mystery rites in which the ῥόπτρον (“tambourine”) and τύμπανον (“drum”) are used. They are associated with both Zeus and Dionysus, since they also protect Dionysus in his infancy, and their association with Zeus appears to be based upon ancient practices of the use of drums in cave rituals in archaic Crete.235 In the Rhapsodies, the Curetes protect Zeus by standing outside the cave of Night and playing musical instruments loudly in order to drown out the cries of the infant and protect him from Kronos. In Apollodorus’ account, Rhea gives birth to Zeus “in a cave of Dicte” on Crete and hands him over “to the Curetes and to the nymphs Adrasteia and Ida, daughters
of Milesseus, to nurse.” Hermias says that Adrasteia and Amaltheia raise Zeus “in the cave of Night,” and Proclus tells us that Adrasteia takes up “copper tambourines” and a “clear- sounding drum” and begins “to guard the Demiurge of the universe . . . thus to produce a sound so loud that it made all the gods turn to her.” By making noise outside the cave of Night, the Curetes guard the infant Zeus and his mother Rhea until Zeus is ready to overthrow his father Kronos. In the same way, the Curetes guard Persephone and Dionysus (presumably from the wrath of Hera), which explains in part how Kore fits into the Curetic triad; but we will return to this in chapter
6.
This point is obvious, but worth repeating: in the myth, the reason why the Curetes gather around Zeus is to protect him from Kronos. The Neoplatonists read it the opposite way. Proclus argues that Kronos “does not need the protection of the Curetes, as do Rhea, Zeus, and Kore; for by reason of their processions into what is subsequent to them, all of these require the constant protection of the Curetes.” In other words, since the lower levels of the Neoplatonic metaphysical system proceed from Rhea, Zeus, and Kore, these deities require the protection of the Curetes in order to maintain their transcendence in the realm of immaterial Forms on the level of Intellect. They do not need protection from Kronos, but from having direct contact with the physical matter of creation, while Kronos maintains his transcendence at the highest point of the Intellective order, filtering his contact with material creation through Rhea. On this point, the Neoplatonists wander so far astray from the traditional meaning of the story that they argue its opposite, but at least it is based on one substantial fact about the Curetes in traditional Greek myth, namely their function as guardians.
Finally, what appears at the bottom of the Intellective order is not a deity, but an action: Zeus overthrowing Kronos by means of castration, at the climax of a non- Hesiodic episode encapsulated by the phrase “cutting and being cut.”
In the Rhapsodies, before Zeus castrates his father, he first puts him to sleep with a honey- based drink. Night advises him, “As soon as you see him under trees with high foliage / drunk with the works of loud- buzzing bees, / bind him.” Zeus follows Night’s advice, according to Porphyry’s paraphrase where “in Orpheus, Kronos was ambushed by Zeus by means of honey; for filled with honey he was drunk and he was blinded as if from wine and he slept.”
Kronos “steps aside from his rule to the advantage of Zeus, ‘cutting and being cut,’ as the myth states.” Elsewhere, Proclus refers more explicitly to Kronos “being castrated by the mighty Zeus.” Here the Rhapsodic poet follows the same pattern of action as Odysseus and Polyphemus in Odyssey 9: first Zeus gets Kronos drunk, and then he attacks him in his sleep, mutilating not his eye but his phallus.

Orphic Tradition and The Birth of the Gods