aphrodite hemp hermes hermaphrodites & mydibaptism
'there is no male & female'
~*~
~*~
IN
short
what Socrates
has shown
is
that gender
is NOT a pertinent criterion
for dividing
the human race
except
in the realm of biology
where childbirth
and engendering are
distinct
functions
in social life
where personal aptitudes are ALL that matters
sex cannot be THE determining
characteristic
was Plato therefore
an advocate of equal rights for women
a male who acknowledges the aptitudes and talents
of females?
shall we
allow ourselves
to fall under the spell of this
thinking?
IF we do
we incur the penalty of Plato's overestimation of identity
of ALL human beings:
his denial of
difference
~*~
CRUCIAL
to an understanding of PAUL on gender
is a proper appreciation of the history of the ohrase
"THERE IS NO male & female"
in GAL 3:
28
IT
has been
recognized
at least since
the publication of
Wayne Meek's landmark
"The Image of the Androgyne,"
that Paul
is here
citing GENESIS 1:27:
"AND G D
created the earth-creature
in ITS image;
in the image of g d,
"IT"
created
'it':
male & female
'it'
created
"IT"
...
ONE of the proofs
that the verse is being alluded to
in the Pauline formula
is linguistic:
Paul shifts from nouns
- Jew, Greek, slave, free -
to adjectives
using 'male' & 'female'
['zachar' & 'nekevah']
INSTEAD of the expected 'man & woman'
['ish' & 'ishah']
SECOND
the use of 'and'
in place of the 'or'
used int the other phrases
gives this away
THE
"ungrammaticality"
marks THIS as a site of intertextuality
socio-linguistic heterogeneity
dialogue in the Bakhtinian
sense of the word
~*~
MEEKS
and more recently others
[Dennis Ronald Macdonald]
have demonstrated
that in THIS
baptismal formula
is encapsulated a very early Christian mythic formation
and its liturgical expression
in the pre-Pauline
church
WHAT
was the meaning
of this "original"
baptism?
According to M.,
THIS
was a
"performative"
ritual
utterance
in which
"a factual claim
is being made,
about
an 'objective' change
in reality
which fundamentally
modifies
social roles"
...
WHATEVER
the "original meanings," however,
I think that the entire context of the passage in Galatians
leads rather to the conclusion
that what is being referred to is an ecstatic experience,
in which are modified
not social roles
but ontological categories
in the pneumatic moment of
INITIATION.
PAUL's
whole claim
at THIS moment
is based om an appeal to the Galatian's memory
of their ecstatic experiences
at baptism.
THIS
interpretation would tend,
of course, to make Pauline baptism
MORE similar to the initiatory rites
of the Mysteries, in which, as M. himself argues,
"the exchange of sexual roles,
by ritual transvestism for example,
was an important symbol for the disruption
of ordinary life's categories
in the experience of
INITIATION.
THIS
disruption,
however, did NOT ordinarily reach
beyond the boundaries of the initiatory experience
- except, of course, in the case of devotees who went on
to become cult functionaries"
...
FOLLOWING
the researches [of DRM]
we can further assume that the expression "NO MALE & FEMALE'
originally referred indeed to a complete erasure of sexual difference
in some forms of earliest Christianity
and is cited by Paul HERE
from SUCH
contexts.
In SUCH groups,
the declaration that there is no male or female
may very well have had radical social implications in a total breakdown
of hierarchy and either celibacy
or libertinism.
THE KEY
to my interpretation
of PAUL HERE
is that though he did NOT
intend a social
meaning
and function
for baptism,
namely,
the creation of a NEW humanity
in which indeed ALL difference
would be
effaced in the NEW creation
in Christ,
he did NOT
- and THIS IS CRUCIAL -
think that THIS
NEW CREATION
could be entirely achieved
on the social level
YET ...
SOME
of the program
WAS already
possible;
SOME
would have to
WAIT.
THIS
interpretation will,
I hope, be further developed
in some future
myDi-Stories.
FIRST,
I must return for a while to PHILO,
whose ideas are much more EXPLICIT than PAUL's,
forming, I claim, an important PARTIAL analog
to them.
~
~
IN
short
what Socrates
has shown
is
that gender
is NOT a pertinent criterion
for dividing
the human race
except
in the realm of biology
where childbirth
and engendering are
distinct
functions
in social life
where personal aptitudes are ALL that matters
sex cannot be THE determining
characteristic
was Plato therefore
an advocate of equal rights for women
a male who acknowledges the aptitudes and talents
of females?
shall we
allow ourselves
to fall under the spell of this
thinking?
IF we do
we incur the penalty of Plato's overestimation of identity
of ALL human beings:
his denial of
difference
~*~
CRUCIAL
to an understanding of PAUL on gender
is a proper appreciation of the history of the ohrase
"THERE IS NO male & female"
in GAL 3:
28
IT
has been
recognized
at least since
the publication of
Wayne Meek's landmark
"The Image of the Androgyne,"
that Paul
is here
citing GENESIS 1:27:
"AND G D
created the earth-creature
in ITS image;
in the image of g d,
"IT"
created
'it':
male & female
'it'
created
"IT"
...
ONE of the proofs
that the verse is being alluded to
in the Pauline formula
is linguistic:
Paul shifts from nouns
- Jew, Greek, slave, free -
to adjectives
using 'male' & 'female'
['zachar' & 'nekevah']
INSTEAD of the expected 'man & woman'
['ish' & 'ishah']
SECOND
the use of 'and'
in place of the 'or'
used int the other phrases
gives this away
THE
"ungrammaticality"
marks THIS as a site of intertextuality
socio-linguistic heterogeneity
dialogue in the Bakhtinian
sense of the word
~*~
MEEKS
and more recently others
[Dennis Ronald Macdonald]
have demonstrated
that in THIS
baptismal formula
is encapsulated a very early Christian mythic formation
and its liturgical expression
in the pre-Pauline
church
WHAT
was the meaning
of this "original"
baptism?
According to M.,
THIS
was a
"performative"
ritual
utterance
in which
"a factual claim
is being made,
about
an 'objective' change
in reality
which fundamentally
modifies
social roles"
...
WHATEVER
the "original meanings," however,
I think that the entire context of the passage in Galatians
leads rather to the conclusion
that what is being referred to is an ecstatic experience,
in which are modified
not social roles
but ontological categories
in the pneumatic moment of
INITIATION.
PAUL's
whole claim
at THIS moment
is based om an appeal to the Galatian's memory
of their ecstatic experiences
at baptism.
THIS
interpretation would tend,
of course, to make Pauline baptism
MORE similar to the initiatory rites
of the Mysteries, in which, as M. himself argues,
"the exchange of sexual roles,
by ritual transvestism for example,
was an important symbol for the disruption
of ordinary life's categories
in the experience of
INITIATION.
THIS
disruption,
however, did NOT ordinarily reach
beyond the boundaries of the initiatory experience
- except, of course, in the case of devotees who went on
to become cult functionaries"
...
FOLLOWING
the researches [of DRM]
we can further assume that the expression "NO MALE & FEMALE'
originally referred indeed to a complete erasure of sexual difference
in some forms of earliest Christianity
and is cited by Paul HERE
from SUCH
contexts.
In SUCH groups,
the declaration that there is no male or female
may very well have had radical social implications in a total breakdown
of hierarchy and either celibacy
or libertinism.
THE KEY
to my interpretation
of PAUL HERE
is that though he did NOT
intend a social
meaning
and function
for baptism,
namely,
the creation of a NEW humanity
in which indeed ALL difference
would be
effaced in the NEW creation
in Christ,
he did NOT
- and THIS IS CRUCIAL -
think that THIS
NEW CREATION
could be entirely achieved
on the social level
YET ...
SOME
of the program
WAS already
possible;
SOME
would have to
WAIT.
THIS
interpretation will,
I hope, be further developed
in some future
myDi-Stories.
FIRST,
I must return for a while to PHILO,
whose ideas are much more EXPLICIT than PAUL's,
forming, I claim, an important PARTIAL analog
to them.
~
~
05 aug 2005 - bewerkt op 05 aug 2005
- meld ongepast verhaal
Log in om een reactie te plaatsen.
- O 09 feb 2006 extremisme & censuur?
- O 09 feb 2006 knuppels kenmerken kerkvaders ketters & flauwe kul
- O 09 feb 2006 mydimenopenopauze tussen versterkte mydimuren ...
- O 09 feb 2006 modderige valentijnsmydigeest, ~ziel & ~stof ensow
- O 03 feb 2006 mydielya's hippie birthday & many happy returns?!?
- O 03 feb 2006 red hot chilipeppers & marteldood
- O 03 feb 2006 mdmacho bonobo pichu struggle for life & survival!
- O 25 jan 2006 sodomie {81+} & gonorroe/qoemran {?} op 't randje!
- O 22 jan 2006 lang niet alle veranderingen zijn verbeteringen?!! ( 3 )
- O 21 jan 2006 tranen
- O 20 jan 2006 oude & nieuwe mydibijbelvertalingen?
- O 19 jan 2006 myditoekomst
- O 07 dec 2005 hopeloosheid per ongeluk & winstbejag uit gewoonte
- O 30 nov 2005 gespreksgroepje ( 2 )
- O 26 nov 2005 big brother & little sister busy to annihilate ...