It is clear that “the good mother of early childhood” is not one’s actual mother. It is either an inbuilt intuition of the Divine Mother or an idealization of our own mothers that for some reason we all possess. Modern psychology, which is committed to explaining all things in terms compatible with a fully materialist universe, can only opt for the latter. However, whichever way one takes it, it is clear that there is no equivalent “good father of early childhood” hard-wired into the fundamental workings of the human psyche. It is surprising, then, that modern patriarchal academics are so hostile to all the evidence of the universality of the Religion of the Mother in ancient times. Even if one wishes to “psychologize away” religion as a phenomenon of the human mind, the historical primacy of Our Mother God is the only thesis that makes sense.
____ I find it fascinating that the phrase that emerged from this research was "Mommy and I are one". Union with Godhead is the aim of religion. From a humanist point of view the wish to re-merge with the Mother, to negate one's own individuality and move to a point of pre-separation would seem a very strange one. On the other hand, from the Filianist perspective, which sees our separation from the Mother as the fundamental problem of human existence: the real nature of "original sin". "Mommy and I are One" from a secular humanist standpoint can only be seen as a strange, world-denying wish for the individual non-existence that preceded our birth. From the Filianic perspective "Mommy and I are one" is a concise statement of the goal of the individual and, indeed of the cosmos, when all creatures shall return to Dea "even to the last blade of grass". So it is either a psychotic death-wish, or the supreme aim of the world's first Faith. It seems to be the root desire of the human mind, so it would seem to be that at its deepest level the mind is either mad - in the sense of wishing to negate its own existence - or devoted to Our Mother God. I would tend to believe the latter.