If I understand, the idea is female came first, then male, which communicates, in your view, female divinity and supremacy and also male subservience and impurity? This is the lesson you take from ritual circumcision. The male-ness is removed and discarded to reveal the feminine.
The idea is that in the material (temporal) world, everything is technically female (or same-gendered before the male comes, so to say). All the initial life-forms were what we would define as female up until a particular stage in evolution when organisms began experimenting with sex and gender. I've quoted Phd. biologists noting that programmed-death (cellular senescence) began, as the Bible implies, when organisms began experimenting with gender and sexual reproduction.
If, for millions of years, all biological life-forms were initially what we would describe as female, then when the male evolved he would be little more than an anomalous, or newfangled, female (the male would just be an evolutionary mutation, or re-adaptation, of the female body).
And we see that in the womb, the ovum begins as a female and only begins to transform into a male if testosterone causes the default form to transform into the phallic version of the default female.
. . . is the great truth Plato missed that female came first, or is there another scientific truth you're referencing?
The "great" truth is firstly that human thought and reasoning is based in all cases on binary oppositions. Our language works the way it does because humans possess a true binary opposition between natural brain function (like animals possess) versus a new kind of thought that's never existed in the world until the arrival of modern man. I've quoted Daniel Dennett saying:
Human freedom is not an illusion; it is an objective phenomenon, distinct from all other biological conditions and found in only one species, us. The differences between autonomous human agents and the other assemblages of nature are visible not just from an anthropocentric perspective but also from the most objective standpoints (the plural is important) achievable. . . Human freedom is younger than the species. Its most important features are only several thousand years old--- an eyeblink in evolutionary history---but in that short time it has transformed the planet in ways that are as salient as such great biological transitions as the creation of an oxygen-rich atmosphere and the creation of multicellular life.
Freedom Evolves, Daniel Dennett, p. 305.
What Dennett is calling "freedom," and all the stupendous advantages that come with it, is based on the fact that the human, unlike any other creature we know of, possesses a true, binary, relationship between normal, biological, logical, reasonable, logical, brain function (like all mammals possess), versus some other kind of thought that no one can put a finger on so far as describing it within the natural, biological, logical, reasonable, brain functioning. It's this true binary relationship between biological thought versus what I'm defining with the word "meontological" (outside of natural, or biological, ontology) that makes the argument potentially great.
Understanding this duality between natural, ontological, normality, versus the human kind of thought that appears to come through meontological reasoning (reasoning that appears to come out of nowhere), lead Plato to posit his "world of perfect forms" as a meontological entity the existence of which creates the duality that allows humans to do the amazing thought acts that they do.
What I'm pointing out that really is potentially great, is that if we merely accept scientific fact, i.e., that there's no ontology for "maleness" (the fleshly male, or the male-organ is merely transformed female flesh, newfangled fe-male), then true male-ness is a meontological entity (and not a natural, biological, or logical opposite of female-ness, femaleness being the true state of all natural ontological entities).
This doesn't imply female divinity, but rather, male-ness, in its lack of natural, physical, ontological, natural-ness, is divine in its meontological reality.
Where the greatness of the foregoing comes in is when we accept the legitimacy of Jewish monotheism. In Jewish monotheism, God is the sole source of meontology, his being ---is--- outside ontology, and as such cannot become, or be accepted, as flesh, material, etc., without becoming idolatrous. When we thus think of "male-ness" as meontological, then any fleshly male, or male-organ, becomes idolatrous (i.e., by incarnating a meontological entity ---male-ness --- that cannot incarnate without being an idol). Furthermore, in Jewish monotheism, even to look at a meontological entity, God, causes death.
With only a handful of exceptions, single-celled organisms reproducing exclusively by simple fission lack one feature that ultimately brings death to all single-cells that have sex, and all multicellular organisms, including human beings: senescence, the gradual, programmed aging of cells and organisms they make up, independently of events in the environment. Accidental cell death was around from the very first appearance of anything we would call life. Death of the organism through senescence ---programmed death----- makes its appearance in evolution at about the same time that sexual reproduction appears.
Professor William R. Clark, Sex & The Origins of Death, p. 54.
Death, the literal dis-integration of the husk of the body, was the grim price exacted by meiotic sexuality. Complex development in protoctists and their animal and plant descendants led to the evolution of death as a kind of sexually transmitted disease.
Lynn Margulis, Symbiotic Planet, p. 90.
So, as stated earlier in the thread:
Death, is, to the phallus, the male organ, as [natural, biological] life is to the vagina and the female organ. The New Testament concept of original sin is scientific to the core: life, immortal life, life without death inside it, comes through the vagina. Death, comes, literally, and is transferred through, the male-organ, the phallus, so that the binary relationship between life and death, the true opposition between the female and the male, is the duality between life and death.
Life is female. Death is male. Such that when a male arrives through the female organ without receiving the death sentence (
Genesis 2:21), i.e., with no phallic father, he represents, at a minimum, the return of immortality to living things. All we need as the sign of the arrival of this stupendous firstborn of immortal humanity is to know that the veil of immortality, the veil sealing the sanctity of the temple of the female body (specifically the female organ), is intact at his birth, as it is in all other cases outside his own just prior to conception but never at birth: he must open the female body at birth, since his father ---
brit milah ---didn't open it at his conception (
Exodus 13:2).
All of this leads to the question of why, if masculinity is divine, does it cause physical, carnal, death, if incarnated (Jewish monotheism 101). This question is huge since it sits there right between Jewish monotheistic aniconism (rejection of images or emblems of meontological divinity, i.e., the phalus) and the Christian belief that, at least once, a meontological entity incarnated, a "male" was born, who transcended and transgressed the otherwise fatal distinction between ontology (female-ness) and meontology (male-ness).
John
