John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
Meditating on the metaphysics of gender can lead to some interesting antinomies and or contradiction in the orthodox party-line. According to accepted physics, the universe began in darkness such that light came later. Likewise, in general biological orthodoxy, living organism were initially female, with males coming along later. In the standard metaphysics of religion and mythology, females are generally related to darkness, and males to light.
Notwithstanding the science and mythology, the Masoretic orthodoxy of Genesis chapter two has the male coming before the female even though, with natural science, it has darkness coming before light? The Masoretic orthodoxy reverses, or inverts, what we know to be true according to biology (females are antecedent to males) even though it agrees with science that darkness comes before light?
Additionally perplexing is the fact that in the science of biology, males aren't even binary oppositional entities that come along to court females. On the contrary, males are, in truth (so far as biology is concerned) merely faux-males and not males through and through (males able to exist before, or parallel to/with females). This suggest that in the same sense males are in fact merely faux-males, since they're just deformed or reformed females, so too, light must be faux-light, and not light through and through, since it too comes from darkness and is not, so far as scientific orthodoxy is concerned, a true binary opposition to darkness, since light would then have to exist before, or parallel with darkness in all cases.
John
Notwithstanding the science and mythology, the Masoretic orthodoxy of Genesis chapter two has the male coming before the female even though, with natural science, it has darkness coming before light? The Masoretic orthodoxy reverses, or inverts, what we know to be true according to biology (females are antecedent to males) even though it agrees with science that darkness comes before light?
Additionally perplexing is the fact that in the science of biology, males aren't even binary oppositional entities that come along to court females. On the contrary, males are, in truth (so far as biology is concerned) merely faux-males and not males through and through (males able to exist before, or parallel to/with females). This suggest that in the same sense males are in fact merely faux-males, since they're just deformed or reformed females, so too, light must be faux-light, and not light through and through, since it too comes from darkness and is not, so far as scientific orthodoxy is concerned, a true binary opposition to darkness, since light would then have to exist before, or parallel with darkness in all cases.
John
Last edited: