Modern Matriarchal Studies

Helheta / Gunilla Madegård Website/Blog

T H E    H I S T O R Y   O F   W E S T E R N   S C I E N C E 

T h e    S h o r t   V e r s i o n

This is the standard image of the hunter and gather-life: About thirteen men all of them busy with feeding the village and building its huts and so one while two or three försynta women are doing nothing or at its height breastfeeeding their children or cooking food.

Riane Eisler sites that


Occasionally when raffel through some extra course in litteraturen, you may notice that Pythagoras was lecturing in ethics by a certain Themistokleia, a priestess from Delphi, or that Diotema , a priestess at Mantinea was teaching Sokrates. We may even encounter that for us very stränge information that ledares from all over Greek world were travelling to the pristess in Delphi called the Pythia in order to consult her in the most important asocial and political questions of the time.

Naturens cykliska enhet o sfärernas harmoni
One of the first manifestation of Greek civilisation was the emergence of the so-called Pre-Sokratic fphilosophers ands scientists. It has been notioned that their world view, still today regarded at as chocking an controversial, was the first known scientific way of approaching rreality. Because here reality for the first time in the history of knowledge isn´t any longer described as a result of divine revelations through sacred myths and religious rites, but as empirically proved or nonprovabal facts. By Homer for example is the rainbow still identifierad with the Goddess Isis. But according to Anaximedesit was created by the sunbeams falling on tight moisty air. In that way the ideas of the Pre Sokratic philosphers, as Xenofanes, Thales, Diagenes, och Pyhagoras a great break to the earlier religious world views - but the most spectacular with these mens fundamental assumptions were


Pre-Socratic philosophy is ancient Greek philosophy before Socrates and schools contemporary to Socrates that were not influenced by him.[1] In Classical antiquity, the Presocratic philosophers were called physiologoi (Greek: φυσιόλογοι; in English, physical or natural philosophers).[2] Aristotle called them physikoi ("physicists", after physis, "nature") because they sought natural explanations for phenomena, as opposed to the earlier theologoi (theologians), whose philosophical basis was supernatural.[3] Diogenes Laërtius divides the physiologoi into two groups: Ionian, led by Anaximander, and the Italiote, led by Pythagoras.[4]

The Presocratic philosophers rejected traditional mythological explanations of the phenomena they saw around them in favor of more rational explanations. These philosophers asked questions about "the essence of things":[6]
• From where does everything come?
• From what is everything created?
• How do we explain the plurality of things found in nature?
• How might we describe nature mathematically?
Others concentrated on defining problems and paradoxes that became the basis for later mathematical, scientific and philosophic study.
Later philosophers rejected many of the answers the early Greek philosophers provided, but continued to place importance on their questions. Furthermore, the cosmologies proposed by them have been updated by later developments in science.

The Swedish science jounalist Eva Moberg who as Erland Lagerroth showed a great deal of interest in the New Paradigm that emerged after the 60s i Esalen wrote once a very good review about the kind of relatio psychology that was developed by Daniel N Stern and he in his turn had been inspired nby to

Eva Moberg is critical of the first sentence in the first Chapter of the book:

”Anyone concerned with human nature is drawn by curiosity to wonder about subjekctive life of young infants.” This first sentence in the famous work of the psychiatrist and psychosanalyst threorist socialising in infamt development Daniel Stren in his fsmous work: The Interpersonal World Of the Infant ” .


Becsuse it is the quite opposite

The Swedish science journalist Eva Moberg as well as literature historian Erland Lagerroth, were both of them open-minded and curious enough to set their eyes on what was going on outside our own little pond of this land, and took inspiration from the New Paradigm that among others emerged from the discussions at Esalen and made great efforts to inform the Swedish public of the great changes in the world-view that took place during the last half of the 20th century. Alas It ended up with them both being banned by the Holy Church of Scientism and the bull from its pope Dan Larhammar. Luckily for them they weren´t born some hundred years ago because then they would have been burnt at the stake.


Furthermore Eva Moberg once wrote a very interesting review about the famous book by Daniel N Stern abut The Interpersonal World of the Infant 1985, starting with this lines:


”Anyone concerned with human nature is drawn by curiosity to wonder about subjective life of young infants.” This is the first sentence in the book The Interpersonal World of the Infant, by the psychiatrist and psychoanalytic theorist, specializing in infant development, Daniel N Stern. And that is the only sentence in this book, in which I find him being completely and hair-raisingly wrong.

And then she continues:


”Because quite the opposite, most of all those who have pondered over, studied, philosophized and been lecturing about the nature of human beings have never cared about studying the little infant. They have seldom been intermingling with infants as a whole. It has been erudite scholars or religious seekers or introvert poets or system building people at their drawing boards.


Subjects as well as objects of the studies have mostly been men, i. e Man and the answer being sought for has most often been what purpose God might have had with us, or why man ranks so much higher than the other animals.


Not until the 20th century male pioneers started to argue for quite another view and eventually even female scholars was let in to pursue research and getting attention.


What has been of the most destructive consequence of patriarchy , for women as well as men, is probably the discrediting and disrespect of the child and the underestimation of the work with children. The infant has been the woman´s area and therefore of low dignity for men´s studies. Whilst the main task of the woman has been to breed and feed her family or clan to survive, her own experiences of that task has been underestimated, even when at last an interest in the first years had arisen.


Mothers have often themselves understood and insisted on that the foetus as well as the infants are active and developed much earlier than the classic theorists have liked to admit. In thew 16th century erudite scholars for example claimed that the foetus was ”dead” - and that it became alive first in the moment it was born. This kind of things did people believe in although lots of mothers could feel the movements of the foetus already from the seventeenth month.


That the lack of relevant knowledge about the foetus have been so total, has got the explanation that ”the psychologists traditionally didn´t have such relations to pregnant women that they through them might have learnt to know their unborn children” That these pregnant women might have been psychologists themselves has obviously been completely unthinkable.


In the introductory chapter of her educational work; Matriarchal Societies. Studies on Indigenous Cultures across the Globe ( 2012) Heide-Göttner Abendroth presents  the history of research of matriarchy since the 18th century as...

"...  not so much a story as it is a series of starts and stops whose repeated "beginnings" keep disappearing into shadow of history. The thread of this history keps breaking off, piecers of the narrativa seem to go nowhere, lines of arguments are not followed up - or are in Western science, eliminated completely."

The same process come into force, whenever a woman against all odds breaks the wall proving herself to be more skilful than her male colleagues, not seldom with the latter simply stealing her ideas findings pretending

And by reading the idea historien Richard Tarnas´ work, quoted above, the presence of the male dominance in history of science as a whole seems to have been total, the number of female contributions to the accumulation of knowledge ZERO ( even in his own report although he cannot be unaware of the existence of quite a few). And what´s more,  it seems to more or less have been their own fault as they according to  Tarnas are supposed to have been involved into  "something archetypal. The masculinity of the Western mind has been pervasive and fundamental, in both men and women, affecting every aspect of Western thought, determining its most basic conception of the human being and the human role in the world."

Yes you bet they have, especially taken into account that they have been scared to death to do nothing but subdue and submit  to just anything whatever, by a witch -hunt thats still going strong as documented on the page: Male Stream Science » and whose contemporary consequences are enclosure from the science community if anyone as much as whisper a word about matriarchy and old Goddesses.

If you by contrast study the other perspective of the history of science representerad by the women themselves and all the opressed aspects of the Western mind that they have had to represent and continue passing down to their daughters, whether they liked it or not, as for example such repressed feminine aspects of the community of being, as imagination, emotion, instinct, body, nature, woman--of all that which the masculine has projectively identified as "other"  - as somebody has to do that if life may go on normally -  well then quite  another story emerges, than the pompous and glorious one of the prosperius Renaissance, Western Enlightment  & Modern Science, which is my attempt to get into more profoundly further down.

Women were not even betrodda att veta om deras foster sparkade i magen och alltsp¨ levde. psykologer etc Eva Moberg

De gamla kloka gummornas tröstande och botande funktioner motades bort till läkarskråets fördel

Over and over again, you get stunned by the frequent use, even by the most humble and intellectually honest man as Tarnas, of all the kind of mystifying and blurring techniques used to obscure simple facts, as for example in Tarnas´ case by holding women partly responsible for what men have been up to in their ivory tower of science, from which they themselves have been harshly excluded up until today, by defining the development of Western science as some kind of impersonal superordinate  archetypal energy in the mind of Westernes as a common mass, women included as well as an "evolution".

Its on such a nonscientifical level that the best thing to do would be to satirises the way Solanas did

In the same way the author to the famous work about the witch hunt Silvia Federici critises  Focoult  for theorising in a unrealistic genderneutral way about the tretises of the body during the, 

Its as fascinating as recognising the talk of "reconsiliation" from Lévi Strauss, who in contrast to Tarnas though, without specifying with whome, why  and for what, the latter contradictory to the notion of women having had an active part in the Promethean enterprise of  of mascuilinity ..., therafter states that its time for this Promethean adventyre to have a break for to reunite and reconsile with the opressed female and so forth.  It reminds me of Elin Wägners referring to  the Erynies revenge in Greek mythologi as well as the myths about Gilgamesh cutting down the cedertrees in the holy Mountains just for the fun of it. The fun of enjoying the power of acting against the holy female law. Just as the men in maktställning comittib abuse agsainst underaged girls just because they can.

The enterprise of having fun by rebelling against the holy laws of Mother Nature  increasingly comprising yet more expansive areas of life handling the world as if it were ones own private laboratory, and therefore being treated as great heroes naming theit findings after their personal names (Watt, Ohm, ) as in earlier time the different parts of  creation of the Great Goddess was given divine names,

All this talk of "reconsiliation" perhaps reveals the kind of bad conscious and fear for revenge, still hoovering in the most remote parts of the Western male mind, where they can feel the wrath of the Erynies from having been robbed their former power of motherhood, brooding over their revenge, but  repressed the memory of it all, only fragments left of all the assaults and wrongs being done diving up in their mares at night.

That´s the only thing I would like to label as "archetypical" in this tragic chapter in human history. And for to label is at "evolution" it would have made as well adapted to our environments - but is that really the case?

We all of us know only too well, right down into the middle, that that kind of Promethean enterprise never has been a realistic alternative for  us, the female half of "man" =humanity who has to taken care of the reproduction as well, not to mention all the other obstacles of more subtile kind whrereof  Elin Wägner has listed some of the most urgent;


To enter the system didn't mean that the women got any real influence there. For the majority education for service in the male system has meant re-schooling, polishing and adaptation. / Alarm Clock


To women, the discovery of their own potentials, will be as big a surprise, as the discovery of the water power and the nuclear energy has been to the leading genius in last centuries. / Alarm Clock


The only safe thing would be an order of things where domestic duties and gainful employement were an organic whole. / Alarm Clock


The History of Men and Women is as Intertwined as Warp and
Weft. They Have Managed to Make a History out of the Weft alone.

 It´s an Enormous Task to Dig Out the History of  Women.
 It´s a Cypher whose Key Lies in a Remote Past.


Alarm Clock, 1941


Most over explicit in this sense of the two diametrically different history writing  is  perhaps the complete discrepance between the elevaterd status of Lévi-Strauss as the "Father of Modern Anthropology", and the opinion expressed by Heide Göttner-Abendroth of his ideas about The Origin of Society as having its impeteus in men´s instincts and exchange of women, and his lack of interest of history and methods based on empirical approaches, has taken us 150 years backwards in time  to even before Bachofen", and stresses this circumstance as one of many examples of to what great extent male stream "sciences" has turned out to be ideologically distorted even during the second half of the 20th century. Not at least regarding the fact that he; Lévi -Strauss, 27 years after the publication of  Robert Briffault´s three volume work The Mothers, 1927 with more than 60 pages recording of matrilineal / matrilocal tribes, he himself getting astonished by the overwehelming richness of data showing the Origin of Society being of female character, succeeded in making an academic career and obtaining a worldwide fame by claiming the opposition to that.


For a more elaborate account of the history of the discipline of anthropology I highly recommend the chapters about that in Chris Knight´s Blood relations, which is available for free to load down from his blog:

As a marxist complement to Chris Knights theorising about the precedes of opression of women in prehistoric patriarchies, I would recommend Silvia Federici´s famous and lauded Caliban and the Witch


Nothing is so practical as a good theory,  is a good advice I have got from reading Heidi Göttner- Abendroth´s the chapter about her method and theory  - and therefore I have myself worked out a little "work hypothesis" in order to structure the material I have gathered in my latest deep diving in the literature about the history of science; looking like this - very "simple and elegant" as good theories are expected to be:


The history of the Western science and Passion of Mind wouldn't  have comprised such a tremendous  threat to the survival of womankind i.e. humankind, leaving just a pile of scrap behind, if it would have continued to develop according to the laws  of the cooperating poles in Yin Yang,prevailing in the matriarchies, instead of imposing some kind of highly unnatural and contra productive "binary oppositions" into this undetangible duality. And in order to succeed in brainwashing people with this new and totally unnatural order of nuclear split, the witch - hunt made up on of its most fundamental premises.


To write a history of science from the BOTTOM - UP perspective of the "others" will by intrinsic logic therefore for the first time in history comprise a history of science developed by womenkind = humankind  i.e. ALL people instead of by just some few men only.




I själva verket utgörd den vöästerländska civilisation bigger pot den ankle konceptet:







One of the reasons why there are so few reports in history about female contributions to the production of knowledge, whether desrving to be classified as "science or not, is the fact that Another common pattern which also tends to repeat itself is the tendency in the male stream etablissemang to steal the findings by their female cillegues while at the same time take part in the mobbing of the witch, as given many exempels of in the history of science written by the women themselves. Not att least the other day in Swedish Daily


A pattern that seems to have been deligent  in rule since the dawn of patriarchy, described in detail in the genesis narrativa in the Bible wherein Eve is chased out of. My partner Issa was only seven years old when he got the hook that most grown up intelligent academics still dosen seem to have grasped: STJÄLA ÄPPLEN!



I kapitlet i HGA.s bok föreläser på ett klart och begripligt sätt hur en ligger upp en korrekt vetenskapligt ansats till ämnet modernt matriarchal research, i klar kontrast till det sätt på vilket det INTE ska gå till; nämligen så som skett hitintills av den etablerade male stream reaerarch, whose convlusion is that there näver ever has been any such, namely looking exactly the same way as patriarchy, thus answering a question nobody has asked, at least n0pne of the researchers in the field expert Bachofen and Mathilde Vaerting. (Although of the thirdwaver Leppänen as having a revival among modern genrer theoris ”modern” in her theorising about her way of reasoning regering women wielding power in the same way as men)



Thus number one if your ambition is to carry out a correct scientific approach must be to set up a DEFINITION of what you are looking for wich doesn´t exclude findings which are not compatibel with your presuppositions - in this case that women are not competent to rule or lead a society whatever - either its similar to patriarchies or of any other kind at all, because that´s not a correct scientific carriage as it is made up by circular argumentation.


The problem with the ideology impregnerade theorierna problem börjar redan med definitionerna - sprocket and comprises a huge problem for those who are openminded enough to be able to imagine quite different ways of creating our world and relations, commented in a note in Riane Eisler The Chalice and the Blade


As this first definition is definition must function as a work hypothesis it mustn´t be to narrow as well as not either too wide, but to start with its better to be wide enough to enable the discovery of something unexpected and new, than too narrrow and thus only eballling things you already know,


With this work tool; a first broad definition and short working theory  in her hand she then sets out on the hunt after the phenomen ”matriarchy” IRL according to the inductive method: partly though scanning and searching through wha´s been written about women in leading positions and so forth in the vast amount of documents written by and partly by visiting andels de indigenous societets around the globe and partly by examine the vast documentation made by ethnologist, anthropologists, archeologists, … in order to work out increasingly more elaborately differentiated definitions of the four aspects of a society; social. economical, political, cultural / spiritual and thus narrowing the primordial wide defintion more and more.


Its really a huge job, not done in a coffee break; and thus deserving a far better reception than being hanged out as the work of a presumptuous and querolous charlatan, by novices as the literature / ideahistorian Leppänen et al (German) who know nothing and are told by their to ban the witches to get their exam.


To make a long history short ( I strongly recommend everybody to read her book to take part of the tremendously exiting and enlightening project she has been undertaking on her own since the 70s - eventually backed up by leading MM- researchers from all over the world) this is what has been the result of this fabulous women´s work - the discovery of quite another kind of society than the one we are used to and are taught is the only possible one:






This kind of society differs from the kind of patriarchal hierarchical capitalist society that we know of as the only possible and "natural" one, in a way that I would label as circular vs pyramidic, unfolding its intrinsic pattern from BOTTOM UP -  versus forcing its ruling laws from TOP DOWN in the latter. Inifrånstyrda självreglerande människor kontra utifrån auktoritärt styrda med våld.


The former characterised by its inclusive BOTH - AND principle versus the exclusive EITHER - OR principle, effecting also the two respectively different worldview when it comes to science /religion/ art  / rite as one and the same practice or seperated in different cathegories as in the latter. Thus the difficulties in analysing the former with the intellectual and terminology apparatus of the latter would be like attempting to put triangular pyramid blocks into round wholes, or as Ken Wilber has expressed it; for people from the flatland  to percieive the muktidinensionalyt in the --- land.


Thus there is an urgent need of continue refining and / or replace  the enormous work of HGA to developing a adeqate methodological and theoretical framework to be able to make more precise analysis, for all those who don´t accept it and critisise it for being inadequate.

Or as well Riane Eislers transformations theory using the termin

Starting to look at history writing and science according to these fundamentala different principles  (athough not to be mixed up with  the kind of oppositions comprising a balanced duality) you get quite another perspective, than the ordinary sanctioned male stream one, as its basis mainly is the hierarchical, patriarchal, excluding, monolithic one: looking from the perspective TOP - DOWN and according to the fundamental principle EITHER - OR.

psychology /pedagogy cild care singing dancing etc acvulturation versus violence, brainwash and oppression.


Unfolding like the natural processas inte fractal geometri patterning anarchistic chains of clanunits all of them governed from within by the same kind of intrinnic values; the core of it repeating itself in selsimilar processes from botom up building long chans of sociteise comprising increasingly larger units; villages towns, queendoms etc as is described in HGA.s MM being the provess in Africa until late times.


The most typical representatives of this male stream carriage is perhaps Claude Levi Strauss with his idea about opposites and women as commodities in mens businesses, but he is really not alone. His big mistake is to förutsätta att kvinnor frivilligt skulle ha gått med på såna arrangemang, utan att det i så fall läste ha föregåtts abv ett ansenligt mått av vå¨lkd och tvång

The ying Yang dance of TWO komponents instead of one monolithic etc

Now I am fully convinced of that there  are no perfect societies in this world and neither any matriarchal such. Furthermore everything changes always as one of the first nature philosophers Thales knew something about when he coined the expression Panta Rei. Nothing in this world is the same as yesterday not even the stones and mountains but neither not new,  the same water comes back that passed by in the river some time ago. And lets think of the processes changing the world in the same way too, as constantly changing and on the move,  so there is nothing like a totally matriarchal or patriarchal society in every aspect, at least not nowadays if there ever has been anyone altogether. Anyway the two different models might make up an efficient work hypothesis and analysis tool and thank you so very much HGA for the great job you have done helping me to come this far in my own perspektiv helikwopterperspktiv and pattern perceiveing.


BALANCING a pendulum whemn total balance= stagnation a certain kind of tension bdetween resistsance and giving in / lead and follow unbalance creates the spiral moving.


Film I am rather certaasin that I am on the right path in my intuition that the physics soon will establiosh a new kind of theory built upon this cineses thinking of bot and and the kind of interpellation between the two polis of yin ands yang

Now I just want to add för säkerhets skull some misconceptions of what matriarch y is NOT according to the findings of HGA: list.




The direction of the transformations from the first matriarchal pole to the much later patriarchal one is taken for given as a "natural" and unavoidable one, and is often expressed by people who at the first hand denies the existence of a prehistoric matriarchy whatsoever. And nobody has yet found out the reason to why  patriarchy has taken over so almost completely as is done the last 6000 years minus 3-2000 roughly  - but no doubt the reasons are many - the processes being incredible complex. It´s often describeds with terms as "successful" but that is questinable seen inm the long run, in compaison with the few matriarchies still existing around the globe as well as som of the patriarhies too who continue their sustainable lifestyle up intil today as for example the Ladhakis in Himalaya Hela Norborg Hodge.What is less difficult to figure out is that we sooner or later must learn from the matriarchal lifestyle how to save the world from being poisoned to death as  result of the devastating loss of respect for its sacred wholeness under the guise of inevitable "rational" development.


Although anthropologists nowadays are consensus about the idea of a linear evolution from lower to higher more developed sophisticated cultures / civilisations, you may still notice a strong tendency to disqualify the few matriarch´hies still existing in this world as making up as civilised societies as the Western patriarchal ones. And whatever their opinion might be, the directives from the world bank and other guiding directives in the globalisational forces doesn't´seem to hesitate from claiming the land grabbing they area up to steeling the food out of the mouth of the poorest of the poorest women in the world and their children is a necessary "development" of thew world economy for to refute mass - starvation. This tendency of encompassing landgrabbing is a process that according to Silvua federici has pågått since the start if history and escalated by the rise of modern Eueopean civilisation and science. enlightment and colonisation that still is running, her perspektiv is wquite the other way around than the established academics makingupo a narrativa seemingly genderneutral, by just omitting the specific circumstancies that has been prevailing for the ewomen´s part, and bekräftat av Ifi Amadiume. critising her male African collegres of imitation their kolonial anthropologists in using the same Top down analysis perspektiv when analysing their own african history and culture.



.Göttner-Abendroth continues therafter in giving a brief report of the history of this research carried out in several different branches:, which I highly recommend as fundamental for everybodies general education:


The pioneers,

The Marxist discussion,

The anthropological-ethnological branch,

The prehistoric branch,

The religious studies branch,

The branch of studie of oral traditions,

The Archeological branch,

Feminist and indigenous matriarchal studies;

...the multidude of branches mirroring the fact that an adequate research in this field, of inherent reasons must be interdisciplanary.





Kimberly A. Hamlin: From Eve to evolution: Darwin, Science, and Women's Rights in Gilded Age America, 


In this I will just give a short and uncomplete survey of the most important events in the Western history of science, partly according to the presentations given by the Swedish science philosopher and litterature historian  Erland Lagerroth, as well as the idéa historien Richard Tarnas, as both of them have made it their task to write as illuminating and comprehensible as possible for youngsters and laypersons to understand the course Western science has taken since its rise in the 17th century with Copernicus, Descartes, Newton and Bacon et al, the latter in his much lauded work   The Passion of the Western Mind 1991. But only partly, though, as their reports lack some very important insights in prehistoric matters as well as to what great and aggressive extent women have been forbidden to metaphorically "eat the fruits of knowledge and life they traditionally always have cultivated themselves in their own gardens", without which history writing about the continuating accumulationc of knowledge as well as the cultures and civilisations which are built there upon, naturally will suffer from great damages. ,


Because; as Richard Tarnas stresses himself by quoting some other famous scientist; "Building a future on a lack of consciousness of what has being going on in the past, is like planting flowers that one has cut off from their roots."


Although both of them lament the male dominance and agree of the importance of the reintegration of the female element as well as the women to take part in the scientific prosesses, Richard Tarnas in the epiloge of his famous work in which his ambition has been to write a pedagogic overwiew of our Western science and idéa history for young people between 20 and 30 c:a: The Passion of Western Mind:Understanding the Ideas that Have Shaped Our World View  as well as Erland Lagerroth in his many books about systems science seems surprisingly unconscious of the strong forces which from not at least the witch-hunt that set in together with the modern science and Enlightenment as well as the great amount of knowledge production that´s already done by women themselves creating the cultures wich were the foundation of the later patriarchal "civilisations"


Erland Lagerroth is generously offering equal terms with women, not at least by incorporating the works of many female scholars and intellectuals in his reviews as for example not at least the works of the Swedish ecofeminists Eva Moberg and Elisabet Hermodssons, but not of the one of our most brilliant author of the 20th century and bright science philosopher and critic far ahead of her time Elin Wägner, although she too, as Lagerquist himself, wrote a dissertations about Selma Lagerlöf´s literary career, the latter being greatly lauded and rewarded with a chair in the Swedish academy, but omitted from history in the same way and of the same reasons as Gimbutas. And regarding Elisabet Hermodsson´s in her science critic work "Där världen blir till"  theorising about matriarchal  theme, is rejected in a way that reveals the same kind of totally unreflected attitude to the notion of women being able to wield power, as is so surprisingly common even by the brightest of the brightest of scholars - which I always have found so hard to understand, as female leadership is so frequent in the mammals world.


Erland L:s trivialisation of the matter of  "matriarchy" and Tarnas  magnanimously admitting he doesn't´t conclude  "women  to be less intelligent than men" as well as his idea that even the Western women  by free will has made up an integrated part in the masculin endeavour, are mediating the fact that they doesn't´t seem to be able to imagine women  wielding power or being actively creating advanced knowledge on their own, neither of the processes that omitted them from . Men afraid of the concurrence seeming feeling threatened by Medeas and  revenge therefore having to construct heavy bariers for women to get access again ti the tre of life and knowledge garden --- chased away by God.


Richard Tarnas presents an interdisciplinary framework that may help deepen our understanding of the history just recounted in his work. After having begun with a brief overview of the background to our present intellectual situation he then pruposes some few concluding reflections on where we, as a culture, may be headed.
and Erland Lagerroth are well aware of the great weaknesses of male dominance and male biased thinking in the Western history of science and promotes a reconciliation and reunion with the female, neither of them seem to realise to what great extent and by which means of violence and oppression against women, this male trajectory of development has been possible to pursue. Quite the contrary Tarnas agues that:


And this is what I attempt to show with this little review, as I stressed above; not complete at all. My aim with this Website cannot be others than to awaken my readers curiosity to go on study this forgotten parts of our history on your own, giving tips of where to start to look.






First of all: For the project of rewriting the history of science you have to change perspective 180° and stop using the top - down  and either - or - thinking, for to instead look at it the other way: with a  bottom - up and both - and- thinking.


Because as we all know:  It takes two to tango,  and;  One hand cannot applaud,  - two wellknown proverbs all over the world, stemming from earlier times of visdom based on the deep knowledge about and respect of the kind of balancing harmony wich might be achieved only with the two of them dancing  tango together and the two komponents needed to enjoy life - a consciousness about basic necessities in life of balancing harmony.


But sad to say most of what Western Science have representerad up until lately shows an unbelievable lack of understanding of such fundamental and basic things in life as is representerad by symbols like these:



Elisabet Hermodsson´s presentation in her science and civilisation critical work Där världen blir till  2002 (Where the World Emerge) and her Swedish predecssor in the ecofeministic tradition; Elin Wägner´s Väckarklocka 1941 (Alarm Clock)


For a more elaborate presentation of the conventional history of science I highly recommend the famous idea historian work by Richard Tarnas The Passion of the Western Mind


The kind of science we have today, and especially the one delineated by the science jounalist Eva Moberg as “high status research”, is a product from the 17th century and is anachronistically still called “modern". For the creators of this science are the great inventeras of a new way of thinking; the “modern science” from the 17th century; Francis Bacon, Galilei, Descartes and Newton et. al. This invention, you might say, makes up the greatest success of human thought ever beheld. We didn´t only get a new world view and a new way of thinking thereby, but from its basis, (and from predecessors like Euklides) was also the whole artificial and constructed world created, in which we live the major parts of our lives, from houses and towns full of technicalities to cars, airplanes, radio TV and computers a.s.o. Nowadays people are even planning to go to Mars.


Whenever talked about this development its stressed how much gratefulness we owe this modern science as it has delivered us so much comfort and health. But as shown by Elisabet Hermodsson´s presentation in her science and civilisation critical work Där världen blir till  2002 (Where the World Emerge) and her Swedish predecssor in the ecofeministic tradition; Elin Wägner´s Väckarklocka 1941 (Alarm Clock) there might have been other, less destructive ways to choose, if women and the kind of female values that has been holding our lives together since time immemorial had been integrated in the processes forming our societies during the patriarchal millennia.


A notion that seems convincing when comparing the life standard in the few contemporary matriarchal societies that still exist around the globe; not at least the one in Juchitan and as well regarding the Minangkabue people in Sumatra and Mosuo in China etc.


As soon as I have finished these introductionary pages about philosophy of science / history  and mythology I will continue giving a more detailed report of  them and their very fascinating way of and history

The very much lauded idea historian work by has a promising epilogue which ststes that



But this separation necessarily calls forth a longing for a reunion with that which has been lost--especially after the masculine heroic quest has been pressed to its utmost one-sided extreme in the consciousness of the late modern mind, which in its absolute isolation has appropriated to itself all conscious intelligence in the universe (man alone is a conscious intelligent being, the cosmos is blind and mechanistic, God is dead). Then man faces the existential crisis of being a solitary and mortal conscious ego thrown into an ultimately meaningless and unknowable universe.

Cohen Mäns hjärnor för små - Tarnas modig conclusion kvinnor  lika intelligenta; men verkligheten talar ett annat språk sett från ett bottom up perspektiv - Riane Eisler kallar det för partnerskap Härskare, Ifi Amadiume argues that history become suite different seen from the bottom up perspektiv than top down showing woemens important roles in matriarchy and HGA stressing the fact that matriarchies being "anarcic" instead of --- all thesre aspects taken together are pointing in the same direction - that it it is necessaru to rewrite the history of science to if.


Elin Wägners great fasa was women becoming men...


Have heard many scholars löike Spretnak and Hermodsson complaing over the loss of the change talked so much about fuss about postcolonial paradigmshift


Jag läser normalt inte DN och vet därför inte om det intryck som jag fått av dess artiklar om vetenskap stämmer. Men efter att ha ögnat igenom de av Karin Boys, tycks de flesta av hennes artiklar handla om naturvetenskap och fö verkar hon inte särskilt väl uppdaterad på ngt annat än just bara det. Idag läste jag dessutom den här artikeln av den andra kvinnliga redaktören på DN vetenskap; Maria Gunther, om bortglömda o negligerade kvinnor i vetenskapshistorien och den handlar också enbart om kvinnliga NATURVETARE. Det tycks vara på DN på samma sätt som i SR P1:s vetenskapsradion att trots att dess redaktioner nästan uteslutande består av kvinnor, så har den traditionellt "manliga" slagsidan mot en simplistiskt ensidig scientism fullständigt kommit att ersätta begreppet "vetenskap". Men frågan är om scientism ens kan anses representera sann vetenskap öht, för en sådan måste omfatta BÅDA vetenskapskulturern och dessutom innehålla en ständigt pågående kritiskt ifrågasättande process, istället för att bara gapa o svälja allt som de mest högröstade och minst mångsidigt reflekterande vetenskapskändisarna Dawkins o Dworkins och såna opportunister som tex Dan Larhammar i säng med läkemedelsindustrin tutar ut.


Än en gång förstärks intrycket att dagens tredjevågenfeminister och dess företrädare i medierna har begränsat de / den feministiska frågeställningarna / kampen till hur kvinnor ska kunna slå sig in i manssamhället på dess egna premisser som om det skulle utgöra ett slags "könsneutralt" icke "essentialistiskt" alternativ och vara precis lika duktiga på att göra atomvapen och hålla sig med "onda" gudinnor etc etc som männen i patriarkala kulturer alltid varit / fortfarande är.

Plus Helena Granström.

När jag såg den här scenen ur filmen Color Purple med Whopie Goldberg njutningsfullt spottandes i det vattenglas som hon blivit beordrad att servera sin hatade svärfar, slog det mig för första gången i ett enda slag, hur lätt det måste har varit under gångna tider - innan "vetenskapen" uppfanns - för kvinnor att på ett eller annat sätt skada eller tom ta livet av djävliga karlar, utan att ens riskera att bli avslöjade. Och vilken himla makt det måste ha utgjort att ensamma stå för den sorts botaniska kunskap som var förbehållen det traditionellt kvinnliga verksamhetsområdet. Den förvaltades under stort hemlighetsmakeri av kvinnorna själva och traderades muntligt från mor till dotter, och det var denna hemliga kunskap, som enligt Slivia Federici i henne "Caliban and the Witch" vetenskapsmän som Bacon, Hobbes, Descartes o & i den nymornade maskinåldern uttryckligen menade sig tjäna ett högre syfte genom att avtvinga naturen = kvinnan under tortyr. Det ansågs vara helt o hållet nödvändigt att ersätta alla såna tidigare kunskaper och värderingar med de nya som skulle möjliggöra maskinålderns inträde, inte minst genom att skaffa sig total kontroll över arbetskraften och dess reproduktion.

Om de kurer som det läkarskrå begagnade sig av som medelst den sk "vetenskapens" hjälp hade kunnat ta över de tidigare kloka gummornas arbetsmarknad och den disciplinerande pedagogik de tutade ut i avsikten att anpassa proletariatets arbetskraft till maskinernas värld genom att skamma och förbjuda allt som inte ansågs gagna kapitalackumulationen (svära, supa, gå på lokal, uppträda naken etc), har författaren o filosofen Karl Göran Ekewald följande att berätta i sin bok "Ciceros barn", i kapitlet med rubriken: Det sublima och det skamlösa

(Tyckte det illustrerade och bekräftade Federicis teorier så väl att jag översatte det till engelska för att använda spå min Hemsida.)

The Sublime and The Shameless

The Journals from pastor Richard Napier´s clinic in London are well preserved. From the beginning on to his dead 1634 he had over 60 000 patients. Over a half of them were of the opinion that they had been bedevilled - that someone had cast a spell on them. To be ill was at that time nothing that was considered to be natural.

His cure consisted of bloodletting and laxative. Tobacco was used as vomit and against pain and great despondency - opium.

Napier´s kind of treatment stack up during all of the 18th and 19th century. De Quincey is not the only opium consumer. He is in good company with Samuel Johnson and Robert Luis Stevenson.

The very fashionable illness among the more wealthy in the beginning of the 17th century was melancholy. Almost 65 percent of the upper middle class peoples in England were complaining over melancholie. Because what can cause more melancholy than constipation. What might look like metaphysical misery, has, as a matter of facts, quite prosaic reasons.

What more is of interest in this journal is a certain Edward Cleaver. He visited pastor Napier for to complain about his suffering of “godless thoughts” and that´s together with a “laughing heart”.

Its is like he is standing beside himself. Edward is looking upon that Cleaver and get appalled by what kind of despicable creature he is. Edward is trying to admonish Cleaver - but is then just refuted with him laughing in his face.

Edward tells doctor Napier: “One day when I had thanked God for the dinner an evil impulse got into my mind and I said. “Kiss my ass!”

And he was ashamed of this! And he fears retaliations

Its obvious that he has been thinking far too good about himself. He doesn't understand how he can be so shameless and wretched. He refuses to be the one he is. He imagined himself being much better than this.

Here a chasm is consolidated between the ideal picture of an existence and the real one. Cleaver is totally broken. He cannot accept himself the way he is.


A definition which soon will fall apart when examined more closely, as the





A fascination aspect of the analyses of how many researchers has landed on the same conclusion the rutters endeavor to rewrite the myths in the Bible were so successful that the prophecy of Orwel´s are descriptions of something that already has happened. Because it is not just the fact that it has erased our prehistory and together with that The Godess - the shrinkage of the minmdset caused by the expurgation of gender equal  vocabulrayhas made it impossible to follow heretical thoughts no longer than to admit them breing heretical.

Elin Wägner jag vet att det är förbjudet...



The obligatory scholarly sanctioned history of science normally begins with the Ancient Greek civilisation around year zero (from 12-9th centuries BC to the end of antiquity c. 600 AD) to give a report of the most fundamental ideas and findings among the Greek philosophers and scientists as for example Sokrates, Pythagoras, Euklides, Platon,  Aristotle et al, without mentioning a word of what´s been before of knowledge-production, Phoenix out of the ashes.


But if one might trust the writings of Riane Eisler in her The Chalice and the Blade, and I can see no reason why not, one might notice that Sokrates as well as Pythagoras and others got their fundamental education in ethics by female priestesses who made their services in the old temples that were driven by women, but gradually disappeared the more ”civilisation” set in. We are thus learnt that the great antiquity that makes up the fundament of European civilisation grew out of nothing like a fhoenix rising from the ashes.



As a  result of the same narrowminded one-sided  and monolithic attitudes prevailing in overall history writing, the history of science is perhaps even more an exclusive male business, with a heavy bias towards a simplistic scientistic approach, although, according to the common discourse,  it should have been outdated long ago, not at least due to the so called "postcolonial paradigm shift" after WWII, which Kuhn and others declared would have had a strong impact on science, not so much because of new findings in science itself, as of other decisive cultural and social contextual influences,  altering our worldview, as for example  the loss of the West Allie´s former colonies after WWII, and the former oppressed colonial inheritance empowering themselves by questioning the given "objectives" in Western science, as did also the Western women of different reasons recorded here on my Website on the pages under the heading of Swedish scholars, often joining each other in a common antiracial / sexist fight against capitalist patriarchy.  (...often disponering that women in other culturs were better off than rthemselves USA India Swedish visiting Kerala, a new psychology emerging in USA body language status etc.


But as Elisabet Hermodsson argues in her -- there has been a lot of talk about such a "paradigm shift" which one has experienced very little of in practise, though; herself having been involved in a rather harsh polemic against the kind of analytical philosophy she attended as a young student in the 60s representing a positivistic approach, which she viewes as incompatible with the subject of philosophy; commented by the Swedish philosopher of science:


The ardent endeavour to extrapolera the truth, ironically satirized  and adequately questioned by EH already in the 60s in her "Rit och revolution" has not had its followers among the younger generations of female scholars up until now 50 years later. But typically not by someone with EH.s humanist approach, but who is a nature scientist, namely Helena Granström, quotinng other nature scientists as for example. I heard her the other day in a broadcasting question the simplistic attitudes towards the crisis contemporary scince; (commented by Richard Tarnas descriobes vcery well in his Passion of the Wsestern Mind) facing the fact that there is more difficult than ever before, to define "truth", but in such indiscriminate way regarding the apparatus of that it left oneself even more confused after having listened, than before.

Now these people suggest transformations if  the content in the word being used, for to solve the problem of the false dichotomy between science sand religion as well as science and art in a way that reveals their total  lack of  a basic education in humanitets.


Its two different kinds of paradigm shift. Kuhn outer contextual


HGA et al inner critique of theveway science is carriede out and has been critisesed for thus notnusing the word in the cvorrect way. Hårklyverier.


HGA DEFINITION and lack of a systematyical scioentific approach has lagt ner ett jättejob på att vaska fram et ramverk som kan handha ett helt NYTT paradigm

Så snart man har börjat se på den historiska utvecklingen från bottom - up perspektivet istället för det gängse top-down som tillämpas i gängse male-stream history writingf såväl här i Väst som i Afrika öppnar det upp sig väldiga perspektiv som fortfarande är totalt outforskade, såväl vad gäller common history and history of dsvience as well as .... which altogether rewquires a interdisciplinary approach.

It wouldn´t perhaps make up an acceptable reason to continue drone on about this obviously inadequate weaknesses of male stream science, as Heide  Göttner- Abendroth once for all has delivered  a new elaborate framework for the research of MMS  comprising a totally new paradigm, described in her Matriarchal.... and she further has a cheaper in her book to give a report of the way earlier research about the topic has been carried out by .. restricted to that and not to an overall view of the history science in common. You have to constrain yourself - you cannot relight the whole stoty in a time?? and certainly not alone.

She is totally right arguing that male stream science use totally unsceitifical ... häxjakt. People seem to get very provocateur by any talk of matriarchy.

That reminds me of Elisabet Hermodssons referring to the of Salman Rushdie: what it all was about was Allah.

And me myself has been blocked from Wikipedia for the rest of my life for trying to review the article in Swedish Wikipedia about Matriarchy. And commenting this on Wikipedias FB-side some days ago I got threatened of being murderded.


After having read the Richard Tarnas I got annoyed of two different reasons that I would like to


But actions like that and their consequences for women to take part in the accumulation of knowledge in society as well as the are seldom dis used or in male stream history writing, although you might think i must have shad a gre4at impact on the processes way science work at all.

I am therefore writing this page as a complement to hers -  truing to give som exampes and hits of a more overall view of the history of science viewed from the perspectives of bottom -up and  womes contribution to the accumulation of knowledge from the dawn of human history to where we stand today.



if it weren´t for the fact that about else although it has been why it Or wouldn't´t it according the the supposed selfregulating potential inherit in the process of accumulating knowledge in the strict scientific way? I will attempt to touch the subject of "paradigm-shifts" further down.  Anyhow  there is a huge job waiting for future modern matriarchal researches to write both of them right again. Not at least regarding the prevailing mess in the conceptual apparatus regarding phenomenas as  for example "science" vs "religion", "science" vs "aesthetics" "science" vs "humanities", "patriarchy" vs  "matriarchy" "dichotomy - duality",  used in the academic language which  sometimes - or rather very often indeed- makes a meaningful discussion impossible. Other such problematic words are "power" and "politics" used in a  surprisingly  inconsiderate and indiscriminate ways. Studying the history of science, as well as philosophy of science and religion historian,  it doesn't´t take long before  you come to the same conclusion that Heide Göttner-Abendroth; that its made by men about men and for men only. Elin Wägner did apparantly react in the same way when writing:




The Caliban and the with Desscartes Bacon etc Witchhunt.

Riane Eisler systems theory idéstöld 343


Two opposite perspectives BOTTOM UP - OR TOP DOWN


In West- Afriaca as well as on many other places around the world, as for example also Iran, there is a common proverb telling us that: One hand might not applaud alone! reflecting the fact that nothing in this world can be done with only one of the two fundamental balancing components in action - the other one doing nothing or just watching the other in action.

Thats not the fundamental viewpoint in Western science though. Quite the contrary so, even in the much louded idea- historian work of Richard Tarnas which in the Epilogue declares the weakness of

Compared with HGA, Ifi Amadiume..... quite another perspective traders fram, and you cannot stop wonder why not even such a conscious man as RT not even mention their contribution of a veritable paradigmatically shift

Also the story of RT is to great deal the story of scientism instead ion science. MY IMPRSSSION - get


Amadiume botton up is congruent bekräftar HGA.s theorising about the anarchist structure of matriarchy unfolding like a fractal pattern, repeating its fundamental balanced duality inits smallest entity into increasingly more voluminous extensions, controlled from bottom up in an efficient eay shown by Siegrist. Quoting HGA:


The other way of organising a society is the concept that we know of and was initiated in the antique Greece.

example of how completely brainwashed we are with this only idea of how a society might be constructed are many not at least in social sciences and humanities.

Although there are a lot of examples of societies not built on that principle, the western scientist prefers to overlook that. Faktaresistens.

Helena Norborg Hodge






As Ifi Amadiume argues in her rewriting you get quite another historical narrative looking from downside up instead of  Top Dstory


Hassle more about this old stuff: Solana it would have been put to an ends. Not much to puzzle about, but reality look quite different - everyday you come upon examples of not only two steps backwards in the backless but threee or four five. The end of civilisation.




Evelyn Reed:

Elin Wägner: Åsa Hanna An old woman dosen´t wanrt to pass over her secrets to her daughter

The Caliban and the Witch. Kloka gummor



Beginning with the Greek Antiquity

Riane Eisler The Chalice and the blade

Occasionally when raffel through some extra course in litteraturen, you may notice that Pythagoras was lecturing in ethics by a certain Themistokleia, a priestess from Delphi, or that Diotema , a priestess at Mantinea was teaching Sokrates. We may even encounter that for us very stränge information that ledares from all over Greek world were travelling to the pristess in Delphi called the Pythia in order to consult her in the most important asocial and political questions of the time.

Naturens cykliska enhet o sfärernas harmoni
One of the first manifestation of Greek civilisation was the emergence of the so-called Pre-Sokratic fphilosophers ands scientists. It has been notioned that their world view, still today regarded at as chocking an controversial, was the first known scientific way of approaching rreality. Because here reality for the first time in the history of knowledge isn´t any longer described as a result of divine revelations through sacred myths and religious rites, but as empirically proved or nonprovabal facts. By Homer for example is the rainbow still identifierad with the Goddess Isis. But according to Anaximedesit was created by the sunbeams falling on tight moisty air. In that way the ideas of the Pre Sokratic philosphers, as Xenofanes, Thales, Diagenes, och Pyhagoras a great break to the earlier religious world views - but the most spectacular with these mens fundamental assumptions were



Pre-Socratic philosophy is ancient Greek philosophy before Socrates and schools contemporary to Socrates that were not influenced by him.[1] In Classical antiquity, the Presocratic philosophers were called physiologoi (Greek: φυσιόλογοι; in English, physical or natural philosophers).[2] Aristotle called them physikoi ("physicists", after physis, "nature") because they sought natural explanations for phenomena, as opposed to the earlier theologoi (theologians), whose philosophical basis was supernatural.[3] Diogenes Laërtius divides the physiologoi into two groups: Ionian, led by Anaximander, and the Italiote, led by Pythagoras.[4]



Evelyn Reed

Chris Knight

Ifi Amadiume

Cheik Anta Diop

Riane Eisler


Greek antiquity; Riane Eisler

Aristotle - Salinas

Birgitta Onesll

Nons in the monasteries / herbs

Federiic Caliban

Modern time



As the continuation of the narrative of the production of Western science is an exclusive male one; written by men about men for men only, you consequently tend to get the impression that women never ever made any contribution at all of importance to the production of knowledge that facilitated the emergence of civilisation, as this chapter in the history of science is totally omitted, as well as to the fact that women from around year zero or even earlier around 3500 years ago when the Bible was written,  actually were forbidden to continue consuming the fruits of knowledge from the trees in their Gardens of Eden, since God chased them out from their Paradise in order to grab their lands, for his own private use. A story also omitted from history writing as well as that of the demonisation and trivialisation of the former Holy Goddess Hewwa to the little helpless sinner Eve and the witch hunt needed for to facilitate this huge abuse to the earlier holy principle of Mother Nature´s generous abundance meant for everybody alike.

During the 2000 thousands of years needed for to lay the foundation to European civilisation there was a long sequence of male "scientists" very very important such, who without too much reflections of  their own, just carried on the ideas about the female inferiority due to the less "dry" biology as the one of man, with which Aristotle came up, as well as the idea that this weaker female biology wasn't´t even potent enough to contribute any ?? to the conception, and therefore couldn´t be looked at as the real parent to her own offspring, which instead belonged to the father. An opinion that lasted as long as until late modern times and formed the ground to the patriarchal lawmaking, although the female contribution to the conception was made already 1821. Yet less did this weaker kind of female biology enable intellectual records  of the same calibre as the male one.

Our brilliant Swedish author Elin Wägner commented this in her Väckarklocka already 1941 and Solana made a really harsh satire of the giant stupidity in this simple handing over  "science" about the female Nature during the last 2000 years from Aristotle and continuing with Rosseau, Comte ?? et al Darwin as well as the fanatic women hater Otto EWeinibger and all his admireres around the sekelskiftet and the first decades of the 20-th centuries



The Christian ideology molding the Western Mind from year zero:


Ever since I was a little child I was confused by the tame reaction and lack of questioning reflections most people seemed to encompass regarding  the incomprehensively sense- and heartless crueltry of the story told in Genesis in the Bible about Adam & Eve. That´s why I found it so satisfactory that my close friend Issa anyway seems to have been struck by the same instant rebellion reaction of indignation as me myself, when as children we were told the story about the fall that Eve was blamed for just because of having eaten an apple; me suspecting this childish reaction by a God, being nothing but the same ridiculous immature one of my father, when not enduring me knowing something better, or asking questions too difficult for him to answer, and Issa just seven years old in the Quaran school crying; "No, my mother would never ever steal  an apple from anybody elses apple tree!"



Ever since I have been pondering a lot over such male attitudes against women and what might be their origin, not at least over the appalling tendency of motherblaming and to make a Scapegoat of Eve, having to bear her children in great pain, for having commited the sin of eating an apple - a story as farfetched and pettyminded as the one about Ham, whose punishment was a life long slavery to his brothers for having caught a glimpse of his father Adam´s more privat parts of the body when he was sleeping drunk and the blanket slipped off his bed. A punishment that then was considered to be the will of Jahweh to be inherited by the children of Ham,,  i. e. all the black Africans.

Not for one minute I would have drawn the conclusion that this  strangely contraproductive  behaviour so destructive to humankind itself would have had its origin in male "nature", as nothing in nature might  function according to such unbalanced principles between the Yin and Yang-poles comprising the the unfoldning unity in the organic and cultural evoltutionary spiraling system.


Frederici is giving us a report of the way the catholic church cooperateing molded the western society  with the landlords for to create a proletariat and the role that the withchunt played.


The obligatory narrative of the history of science in the Western world is the one of a successful defeat of the earlier clergial oppression of man´s mind,  and as making up  the most fundamental component for the emergence of the modern society and its advanced technology as the great facilitator of human freedom and democracy, as well as that this glorious development has its starting point in the antique Greek culture, as if there was no kind of development of science before that; all of it arising like the Bird FPhelix out of nothing.

But tyhat´s not the way Ferederici view upon the development


And as we shall se further down, this is really the way patriarchal ideology has been carried out in our highly cultivated and civilised Western part of the world, while women in a lot of other parts continually have contributed actively to the development of knowledge   and exploring the world and the nature and the planets in the sky the way they always have done, and finding out new techniques how to use the soil for better harvesting, cooking foods, and mixing recipes by herbs for curing illnesses, building their houses, weaving their carpets and clothes, mixing the clay and colours for their pottery and housepainting and inventing yet new stories and songs about their proud backgrund and history and the Great Mother from whom they all originate. All these fundamental contributions to the accumulating knowledge that has been omitted from historywriting or simply routinely looked upon as too trivial to be worth naming, or believed having been made by men while women were sitting by the heard breastfeading their children.


The process has been the same in the islamist and hinduist countries if not even yet worse, as they all share the same kind of fundametal patriarchal religion from the very beginning, namely the one who among others emerged in Sumeria and Babylonia, where the jews took up the most of their religious baggage for to mould it to the message that´s carried out in  Old Testament.


The obligatory history writing of the Western History of science sets off with the ancient greeks.



The Swedish anthropologis and humanecologist prof. Alf Hornborg has been focusing on the problem of technology fetischism in his work "Th Maskin" and the more or less deliberate excluding use of abstract terminologi that´s inaccessible for other than the academics themselves to handle and therefore totally  devastating consequences for indigenous people not being ablöe tyo communicate their kind of  in their attempt to defend and preserve their indigneous surroundings abstraktionens egenvärde.

And when it comes to women and their supoposed lesser capacity for abstract scientific as well as philosophical thinking the problem still remains although women nowadays since long have received






Reading the officially sanctioned history of science offers you somewhat of the same astonishing discovery; namely the encounter with the incredibly shortsighted naivety that it would be possible for men alone to build up a trustworthy system of knowledge about the phenomena in the world, as well as about human beings and even about the womenkind itself without women themselves being heard about their opinion. Although its they who have beget and fead  these men to the world.


Reading Elisabet Hermodssons critical work "Where the worlds Emerge" As well as the Article by


A notion that gets confirmed by taking part in  the diskussions about science on the net,and Wikipedia, which almost always to about 90 percent is carried out by men,  most of them pursuing the notion that science=nature science of the reductionist mekchanist kind i.e Scientism, and thus totally ignorant of other kind of scientific approaches than the positivism by Popper and the racer of Occham and or the facit that postmodernism makes up a general problem even


In Sweden we have had three prominent women, although, whose first names all of them begins with an "E" Elin Wägner, Eva Moberg and Elisabet Hermodsson as well, as a man, whose first name also begins with an "E" namely Erland Lagerroth, unfortunately all of them gone nowadays, but who have been ardently occupied with the questions of philosophy of science, delivering a great deal of adequate critique of the unrealistic and dangerous turn modern science has taken in its still far too much reductionist mechanistic view in relation to the vulnerable reality of the organic as well as cultural systems, as well as its lack of female aspects and interference ecofeministic.


Intresset för vetenskapsteori och vetenskaps - o civilisationskritik har dock som Erland Lagerroth redan påtalat, inte varit alltför stort och dessutom blivit aktivt motarbetat av en förening här i landet som heter Vetenskap o Folkbildning which has taken om the task of hålla uppsikt över att folket inte hemfaller åt avvikelser från den rätta högkyrkliga scientistiska läran, genom att dela ut förnedrande förvillarpriser åt alla dem som avfallit från den rätta tron, varav


Elin Väckarklocka, Elisabet Hermodsson Där välrlden blor till, Eva Moberg science (about children psychology) journalist all of them abn ecofeminist perspective the latter two commented by EL, but strangely not Elon Wägner - probably because her reputation as a "matriarchalism" although Seöma Lagerlöf.


By reading EL who has made a lot of reporting of the new systems oriented theories in his books I got in contact with Richard Tarnas famous extensive work;  by several contemporary scholars  louded for its outstanding be able to present a ramar comprise the greater historical perspective som ramart in  the short survey of Heide Göttner Abendroth of the history of matriarchal research. The often quoted part of the epilogue seemed to offer a  promisingly unconventional grasp of the subject not omitting the women from the history of science.




If your carriage is that one ought to maintain an ambitious and high qualitative insight and knowledge in fundamental questions of philosophy of science and hermeneutic (= the art of interpretation) as well as logic reasoning, in order to approach and evaluate scientific issues in a relevant way, one also ought to realise the prevalence of postmodern ambiguity and multiple complexity in all kinds of contemporary science, not at least also in nature science, and to the extent that it actually might be said that it doesn´t exist anything such as a truly reliable knowledge at all.


That Nietsche´s statement; ”There are no facts, only interpretations!”, is more true than ever before, becomes quite clear in the ideahistorian work of


Richard Tarnas vetenskapsteoretisk / filosofiska och idéhistoriska verk ”The Passion of The Western Mind, Understanding the Ideas that Have Shaped Our World View: in which it gradually is more and more accentuated how the scientific revolution due to its one-sidedness and Promethian endeavour to distance oneself from and master nature as well as ones female origin, continually has been digging an increasingly deeper grave to mankind consisting of alienation and self-denial in an empty, barren and enchanted world abandoned by God, beauty, hope and truth long ago. As well as nature ……???


After having had the ambition to read all the 500 pages in Richard Tarnas extensive work ”The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding the Ideas that Have Shaped our World” i eventually gave up due to its its being too heavy stuff, taking far too much time and energy away from my main project to build up a Website about Modern Matriarchal Studies and indigenous matriarchal societies around the globe. Anyway I wanted to use Richard Tarnas writings as a reference to the more overall issues regarding philosophy of science and was then happy to find Dibias excellent summory of it, even shorter than the epilogue written by Tarnas himself and published for free on the net. I congratuate Dibia to his job, because its really not done by some amateur whatever and would like to ask for his permission to quote parts of it on my Website.


Of Richard Tarnas' The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding the Ideas that Have Shaped our World

It would be very interesting to read a paper about your scientifically grounded reasons to dismiss the relevance of Heide Göttner -Abendroths extensive work in building up a new paradigm of modern matriarchal studies. I dont see that there are any reasons at all to draw the conclusion that they aren´t consistent just because andro- and etnocentric Western male stream biased academics and their so called "feminist" thirdwavers backup dont seem to be able to evaluate any research about matriarchial societies at all, not even if it is made by women and / or men all over the globe who themselves are born and raised up in and represent matriarchal societies, as for example my own partner who grew up in a Serere-tribe in Westafrica. How come you think you have any better idea about these things as a religion historian than the researchers who have specialised in this anthropologiocal questions at the first hand, not at least on a darwinian ground as for example Chris Night in his "Blood relations". Are you as much a Daddy´s girl as the dummie Cynthia Eller, who, as Pallas Athena, was born out of Zeuvs head, or what´s your problem? Are there really any consistent scientific way of proving anything at all in these utmost delikat questions in our relativist postmodern world? To me it seems as if you haven´t got the most fundamental education for undergraduates in basic philospohy of science and hermeneutic selfreflection. There is neither any strict scientific reason to draw the conclusion that all the different cultures all over the world not might be related to one another by a fundamental primordial matriarchal pattern. Quite the contrary there are many heavy fact-related reasons to discriminate that pattern exactly the way Heide Göttner Abendroth has done as long as it is congruent with many other researchers findings out of partly different perspectives, and especially so from the perspectives of people around the world who themselves consider their socities to be matriarchal.

In writing the history of science there are obviously two totally different kinds of narratives; one that is limited to mens narrative about themselves and their patriarchal society as if there never have been anything before its late millenial existence and specially not so of any other kind than their own patriarchal type of society.

The idea of an earlier different kind of more or less matriarchal society seem to send such strong shock waves through the brains of the modern scientists that their normal cognitive functions get knockad out. Or at least I cannot find any other reason to why a whole chapter of extensive research about earlier and contemporary matriarchies mostly are totally omitted from the writings of history of science as well in the teaching litteraturs as in the most famous encyclopaedias as well as on Wikipedia.

Yet there has been a long and discussion about this issue in the Western history of science which has fundamentala influensen many of the greatest philosopher and sociologis / anthropologists of the last centuries as for example Marx and Engels, Freud, Erich From,

In this hence its really very interesting to compare the grejat difference between the German Wikipedia with the Swedish.
As I have read so many overwhelming reviews of RT extensive wok, not at least because of its promising epilogue, quoted at many different reviewers
It was with a considerably deal of expectation I began my reading of it

But it didn´t take lon before I understod that I was out on the wrong track, as R Tarnas´s perspective otherwise is the same limited snarrative as always in the male stream histopry of science. According to what I have succeeded to find out from my incomplete reading so far, is that the whole chapter of research about matriarcjal socities is omitted from his history-writing.

Just to make a short comparison to