My Pet Peeve: How I'd restructure the entire world

I have this thing about people who profoundly investigate the co-option of Western society's images symbolism by the Judeo-Christian androcracy... and then refuse to investigate the term "hierarchy."

It's a small hobby, but just recently re-invigorated by being ill. Being ill gave me time to read The Da Vinci Code, which inspired me to pull The Chalice and The Blade off of my shelf for another look. On page 106, though, I got distracted...

"This leads to a critical distinction between two very different kinds of hierarchies that is not made in conventional usage. As used here, the term hierarchy refers to systems of human rankings based on force or the threat of force. These domination hierarchies are very different from a second type of hierarchy, which I propose be called actualization hierarchies. These are the familiar hierarchies of systems within systems, for example, of molecules, cells, and organs of the body: a progression toward a higher, more evolved, and more complex level of function." (italics in original; bold added)

Two vital points...

First, the biological example provided for the "second type of hierarchy" isn't a hierarchy.

Secondly, who says "higher" functions are superior, more evolved?

Let me provide some food for your thoughts on this matter.

The definition of "hierarchy":
hier- or hiero- sacred: holy
hierarch n 1: a religious leader in a position of authority 2: a person high in a hierarchy
hierarchy n 1: a division of angels 2 a: a ruling body of clergy organized into orders or ranks each subordinate to the one above it b: church government by a hierarchy 3: a body of persons in authority 4: the classification of a group of people according to ability or to economic, social, or professional standing; also, the group so classified 5: a graded or ranked series [Christian __ of values] [a machine's __ of responses]

From: Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary

The origins of the word "hierarchy":
hierarchy [14] Greek hierós meant 'sacred, holy.' Combined with -arkhes 'ruling' (as in English archbishop) it produced hierárkhes 'chief priest.' A derivative of this, heirarhía, passed via medieval Latin hierarchia and Old Franch ierarchie into Middle English as ierarchie (the modern spelling was introduced on the basis of the Latin form in the 16th century). At first the word was used in English for the medieval categorization of angels (into cherubs, and seraphs, powers and dominions, etc), and it was not until the early 17th century that it was applied to the clergy and their grades and ranks. The metaphorical use for any graded system soon followed.

From: The Bloomsbury Dictionary of Word Origins

Back to the first point - despite numerous writings which I've seen insist that the notion of hierarchy must be preserved in order to describe the organization that we notice in living systems, there is no need to invoke a hierarchy to describe that organization. Nor is the nested biological organization of molecules, cells, tissues, organs, organisms, populations, communities, and ecosystems similar in kind to the graded system of angels. The second is providing relationships between distinct entities; the first is focusing on the behavior of the exact same living materials at different levels of granularity. A hierarchy of biological those biological entities is only possible with specimens. A nested organization of the angelic system would focus on the angel at one level of granularity, and on the harp, wings, gown, sandals, curly hair, and spirit body at the next smaller level of granularity. These are smaller parts of the same entity, not the subordinate entities.

And now the second point - "hierarchy" and the superiority of "higher" locations are so intricately entertwined with Judeo-Christian value systems that they should probably be abandonded - or if they are to be re-interpreted & co-opted, it requires great care and thoroughness. In the hierarchy, the angels on top are more holy, being closer to God on high. Heaven is up, Hell is down. Doesn't that provide some fundamental evidence for where we derive a value structure that deems "higher" functions to be "more evolved"? As Eisler strives to elucidate the impact of Judeo-Christian androcracy on our societal images of how-things-are, shouldn't we strive for language that only continues those images with explicit intent, not through un-thinking common usage?

I'm sure I'll have another installment in this rant ;)