Parasitic Castration.

[John D. Brey]

Parasitic castration is the strategy, by a parasite, of blocking reproduction by its host, completely or in part, to its own benefit. This is one of six major strategies within parasitism.

Wikipedia, Parasitism.
​

Abraham castrated (at least ritually) right back at you. The creation of the phallus (Genesis 2:21) is a parasitic castration strategy used by the fallen angels to block the birth of the messianic-male, the so called "living word." In an irony worthy of its place in the Law (the written Torah), the fallen angels, i.e., the nephilim, create the very flesh associated with "castration" in their "phallic castration" strategy employed against God and the first human. In a statement as paradoxical as any saying could possibly be, the creation of the phallus castrates the original non-phallic (virgin) reproduction mechanism designed by God for his son(s). The existence of the phallus blocks the original, God-given reproductive mechanism ---virgin conception and birth ----thereby castrating non-phallic birth. The creation of the phallus castrates the first human so that he can't birth the messianic people of God who were slated to be born before, without, against, the creation of the phallus.

So Abraham castrates (ritually) right back at the fallen angels. He thwarts, ritually at least, the castration-strategy of the fallen ones, the nephilim. He castrates the flesh that castrates the virgin conception and birth of the one slated to be the firstborn of the non-phallic, i.e., virgin, birth mechanism of the original pre-Genesis 2:21 human: Messiah. Messiah is slated to be born of the virgin, ha-adam, until the creation of the phallus castrates ha-adam by adding a phallus to block a non-phallic birth: a virgin birth. The virgin birth of Messiah was stillborn because of the castration of ha-adam whereby the first human acquires a phallus. Nevertheless, Messiah is still born, and is still born of a virgin conception and birth.

If Adam had not sinned the world would have entered the Messianic state on the first Sabbath after creation, with no historical process whatever.

Gershom Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism, p. 46.

​

John

 

[dybmh]

Soon to be published by Dark Horse for mature readers?

 

[AlexanderG]

You might just want to take up a new hobby, namely carving African style sculptures of people with exaggerated, gigantic phalluses?

You seem to think about and make frequent posts about the metaphysical significance of penises, angel penises, primordial penises, etc. Just do it. Make the sculptures already. Put them all around your house. Sit in your recliner and drink a martini.

 

[John53]

Maybe ivermectin clears it up.

 

[John D. Brey]

You seem to think about and make frequent posts about the metaphysical significance of penises, angel penises, primordial penises, etc. Just do it. Make the sculptures already. Put them all around your house. Sit in your recliner and drink a martini.

Sigmund Freud pointed out that one of the first instances of conscious metaphysical speculation and meditation --- so far as human biology is concerned ---- occurs when a young male or female sees the naked genitalia of the opposite sex for the first time. Prior to that they assume their opposite is identical down there even as ha-adam and Eve actually were identical down there prior to Genesis 2:21. The initial revelation that that's not the case causes the human psyche to speculate in two different manners depending on which genitalia is possessed by the speculator.

According to Freud, the female experiences the revelation of the male genitalia as loss ("penis envy"). Why doesn't she have one? What happened? On the other hand, the male doesn't experience the female organ as something he should have but doesn't. He experiences it as a wound marking where, for some unknown reason, the girl had her organ removed.

Since we know from science that the female form is original, and the male is an evolutionary addendum, why is it that the innocent male and female both experience the female's genitalia as loss rather than evaluating it according to the truth that the male genitalia is the anomalous flesh? The male should be ashamed not the female. Why is that not the case?

This questions point to an important key to understanding the very foundations of metaphysical speculation so long as the conundrum of the genitalia noted above is taken seriously and meditated on.

In Jewish thought, the origin is the host, and superior to, the epiphenomenon that comes after the host, and which is thus (because of its secondariness) technically speaking a parasite living off of, or because of, the existence of the host. In Jewish thought, the further back you go in the Law (the written Torah) the more seminal, original, and important are the concepts found there. A Jewish sage is technically supposed to work his way backward in the text of the Law so that he doesn't attempt to deal with the most seminal aspects (like the evolution of gender ---Genesis 2:21) until he's at the peak of his spiritual insight long after his fortieth birthday.

But this sets up a metaphysical problem: if the origin is superior to the secondary (evolutionary) epiphenomena, then why does the female feel shame when she sees an evolutionary addendum rather than feeling sorry for the male who doesn't have the original, superior, organ? Why do most humans experience the phallus, in its secondary nature, as superior, more seminal (so to say) than the original, the vagina?

Why is the feeling of superiority associated with the phallus, over the vagina, so exaggerated that the most accepted Jewish interpretation of the Law (the MT) claims, against the literal Hebrew text, that the first human was created with the phallus from the get-go? Why is something so wrongheaded forced into the membrane the original Hebrew text is written on thereby giving birth to the raising of Cain concerning the true meaning of God's revelation to mankind, rather than allowing the origin, the original, Law, text, to birth the true messianic people of God in a virgin manner that makes the unsullied vagina the place where God's intended firstborn opens the membrane on the way out of the text, rather than allowing some swinging Richard with what the pen-is in his hand to rewrite the text to anoint the second, and inferior, as the first, and superior?



John

 

[dybmh]

In Jewish thought, the origin is the host, and superior to, the epiphenomenon that comes after the host, and which is thus (because of its secondariness) technically speaking a parasite living off of, or because of, the existence of the host. In Jewish thought, the further back you go in the Law (the written Torah) the more seminal, original, and important are the concepts found there. A Jewish sage is technically supposed to work his way backward in the text of the Law so that he doesn't attempt to deal with the most seminal aspects (like the evolution of gender ---Genesis 2:21) until he's at the peak of his spiritual insight long after his fortieth birthday.

"In Jewish thought ... " The secondary is sometimes deemed holier than the origin because it is the ultimate purpose for the creation. "In Jewish thought" it is normally the women who are believed to be holier than the men in spite of their being believed to be formed second directly from Adam's body.

"Women are more soulful than men. While men may excel in physical prowess, women are far ahead when it comes to spiritual strength. Women are more sensitive to matters of the soul, more receptive to ideas of faith, more drawn to the divine than men. The feminine soul has an openness to the abstract and a grasp of the intangible that a male soul can only yearn for. This is why G‑d told Abraham, the first Jewish man, "Whatever Sarah your wife tells you, listen to her voice." She was the greater prophet, her soul more intuitive than his."

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2576222/jewish/The-Gender-Gap.htm​

 

[John D. Brey]

Why is the feeling of superiority associated with the phallus, over the vagina, so exaggerated that the most accepted Jewish interpretation of the Law (the MT) claims, against the literal Hebrew text, that the first human was created with the phallus from the get-go? Why is something so wrongheaded forced into the membrane the original Hebrew text is written on thereby giving birth to the raising of Cain concerning the true meaning of God's revelation to mankind, rather than allowing the origin, the original, Law, text, to birth the true messianic people of God in a virgin manner that makes the unsullied vagina the place where God's intended firstborn opens the membrane on the way out of the text, rather than allowing some swinging Richard with what the pen-is in his hand to rewrite the text to anoint the second, and inferior, as the first, and superior?

For someone not really versed in the biblical verses, the same question negotiated above is given serious consideration by one of the high priests of Neo-Darwinism, Richard Dawkins, in his intro to another Neo-Darwinist's book, Jeff Hawkins, One Thousand Brains: A New Theory of Intelligence. The Neo-Darwinist Dawkins anoints the secondary phenomena, intelligent thought (which came millions of years after genetic life) as superior to its origin:

It is the glory of the human cerebral cortex that it -----unique among all animals and unprecedented in all geological time ---has the power to defy the dictates of the selfish genes. We can enjoy sex without procreation. We can devote our lives to philosophy, mathematics, poetry, astrophysics, music, geology, or the warmth of human love, in defiance of the old brain's genetic urging that these are a waste of time ---time that "should" be spent fighting rivals and pursuing multiple sexual partners: "As I see it, we have a profound choice to make. It is a choice between favoring the old brain or favoring the new brain. More specifically, do we want our future to be driven by the processes that got us here, namely, natural selection, competition, and the drive of the selfish genes? Or, do we want our future to be driven by intelligence and its desire to understand the world?"

Richard Dawkins, introducing Jeff Hawkins, One Thousand Brains: A New Theory of Intelligence (bracket mine, based on earlier comment in intro. Last quotation is Dawkins quoting Hawkins).​

In the physics, or metaphysics, of the duality between the host (origin) and the parasite (secondary phenomenon), the parasite is technically dependent on, and not able to exist apart from, the origin that hosts it and comes before it. Parasitism is a strategy for the secondary life-form to piggy-back the origin in order to share in the life of the original. The idea that the parasite, the secondary epiphenomenon, could jettison the host, the origin, to claim it's own, superior, existence, is contrary to everything we know to be true about science, evolution, and physics.



John

​

 

[AlexanderG]

But this sets up a metaphysical problem: if the origin is superior to the secondary (evolutionary) epiphenomena, then why does the female feel shame when she sees an evolutionary addendum rather than feeling sorry for the male who doesn't have the original, superior, organ? Why do most humans experience the phallus, in its secondary nature, as superior, more seminal (so to say) than the original, the vagina?

Wow. Citation needed. I don't think this is true at all.

Do you maybe just need to hook up with another guy? I'm serious, especially in light of your many past derogatory comments about women. You may need less philosophy and more tips touching. Don't be one of those guys who performatively hates and belittles women due to secret yearnings for other men.

 

[John D. Brey]

"In Jewish thought ... " The secondary is sometimes deemed holier than the origin because it is the ultimate purpose for the creation. "In Jewish thought" it is normally the women who are believed to be holier than the men in spite of their being believed to be formed second directly from Adam's body.

"Women are more soulful than men. While men may excel in physical prowess, women are far ahead when it comes to spiritual strength. Women are more sensitive to matters of the soul, more receptive to ideas of faith, more drawn to the divine than men. The feminine soul has an openness to the abstract and a grasp of the intangible that a male soul can only yearn for. This is why G‑d told Abraham, the first Jewish man, "Whatever Sarah your wife tells you, listen to her voice." She was the greater prophet, her soul more intuitive than his."

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2576222/jewish/The-Gender-Gap.htm​

The irony in this is that, as you may have perceived, my claim is that the female body is the original such that that's what we would expect (the female body being original) if the origin is superior to what comes secondary as an evolutionary novelty. The phallus, and the male body, is an evolutionary novelty so that the male should be secondary to the female.

In one aspect of Jewish metaphysics, the origin, say God, is always superior to what comes out of the origin. What comes secondarily is supposed to be dependent on the origin from which it comes, and is thus secondary, and we could say "parasitical" in a non-pejorative use of the word. The parasite requires the origin, and can't even come to be, or exist, without the origin.

And yet evolution clearly implies that what comes out of the original can be superior to the original. An I-phone 14 is surely superior to the Motorola brick from the 90's? Evolution seems to imply that the parasite, the secondary phenomenon, can be superior to the origin, the host (see Richard Dawkins quotation above)?

So which is it? Is the female like the I-phone 14, and the male like the Motorola brick (assuming the female is superior to the male) or is the male the I-phone 14, and the female the Motorola brick?

We know that it's the latter since in the sense of power to do a particular task men typically beat out women even as an I-phone 14 beats out the Motorola brick. God uses men exclusively to receive and transmit his revelation into the world, even as most people who might still possess a Motorala brick are more likely to use their I-phone 14 if they have serious communication engage.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Wow. Citation needed. I don't think this is true at all.

Do you maybe just need to hook up with another guy? I'm serious, especially in light of your many past derogatory comments about women. You may need less philosophy and more tips touching. Don't be one of those guys who performatively hates and belittles women due to secret yearnings for other men.

I wonder if, should someone else be reading what I'm writing, they're reading so against the grain as you? Everything I've said of late implies that the female is not only superior to the male, but I go so far as to imply that the reading of the holy text that implies the female is an afterthought, second to the male, is as wrongheaded as can be.

Everything I've written in the last month implies the opposite of what you're reading out of it if you're reading out of it that the woman is hated, secondary, inferior. Everything I've written implies the female is superior.

Something Freudian seems to be affecting the way I'm being read from the black and white on the screen? Are you reading the white shapes, that are secondary to the black, in one sense, and yet come before the black shapes in another sense? Or are you reading the black pixels? Which do you consider male, and which female? Or have you never considered that it takes the white shape in and around the black, to make sense, just as it takes two to tango or reproduce sexually?

The black shapes come from what the pen-is in reproduction of thought on the virginal page. So in that sense, the black shapes could be considered the semen come from what the pen-is in relationship to the page where the birth of secondary thought (the written word) occurs.

In Jewish thought, the letter is considered DOA compared to the spoken word, which, being carried on breath, rather than come, through what the pen-is, is more alive, authentic, such that we could even consider writing with what the pen-is a form of the original sin such that what comes through what the pen-is spreads death to what it births even as taught by Augustine, Acquinas, Luther, and Judeo/Christian thought as delineated through the concept of the original sin. Writing, with what the pen-is, is, in a sense, the writer's original sin. The best he can do is circumcise his pen before using it to reproduce his original thought.



John

 

[dybmh]

The irony in this is that, as you may have perceived, my claim is that the female body is the original such that that's what we would expect (the female body being original) if the origin is superior to what comes secondary as an evolutionary novelty. The phallus, and the male body, is an evolutionary novelty so that the male should be secondary to the female.

Everything I've written in the last month implies the opposite of what you're reading out of it if you're reading out of it that the woman is hated, secondary, inferior. Everything I've written implies the female is superior.

It's the approach. If your reasoning is based on Jewish thought, then it doesn't matter who was created first. Created first is important, created last is important. If you want to show that women are superior, and you want to show that using "Jewish thought" you can look to the popular opinion that in Judaism women are holier than men. That's it.

 

[John53]

For someone not really versed in the biblical verses, the same question negotiated above is given serious consideration by one of the high priests of Neo-Darwinism, Richard Dawkins, in his intro to another Neo-Darwinist's book, Jeff Hawkins, One Thousand Brains: A New Theory of Intelligence. The Neo-Darwinist Dawkins anoints the secondary phenomena, intelligent thought (which came millions of years after genetic life) as superior to its origin:

It is the glory of the human cerebral cortex that it -----unique among all animals and unprecedented in all geological time ---has the power to defy the dictates of the selfish genes. We can enjoy sex without procreation. We can devote our lives to philosophy, mathematics, poetry, astrophysics, music, geology, or the warmth of human love, in defiance of the old brain's genetic urging that these are a waste of time ---time that "should" be spent fighting rivals and pursuing multiple sexual partners: "As I see it, we have a profound choice to make. It is a choice between favoring the old brain or favoring the new brain. More specifically, do we want our future to be driven by the processes that got us here, namely, natural selection, competition, and the drive of the selfish genes? Or, do we want our future to be driven by intelligence and its desire to understand the world?"

Richard Dawkins, introducing Jeff Hawkins, One Thousand Brains: A New Theory of Intelligence (bracket mine, based on earlier comment in intro. Last quotation is Dawkins quoting Hawkins).​

In the physics, or metaphysics, of the duality between the host (origin) and the parasite (secondary phenomenon), the parasite is technically dependent on, and not able to exist apart from, the origin that hosts it and comes before it. Parasitism is a strategy for the secondary life-form to piggy-back the origin in order to share in the life of the original. The idea that the parasite, the secondary epiphenomenon, could jettison the host, the origin, to claim it's own, superior, existence, is contrary to everything we know to be true about science, evolution, and physics.



John

​

What do you mean by neo-darwinism? There's a few different definitions that come up in a google search.

 

[paarsurrey]

Parasitic castration is the strategy, by a parasite, of blocking reproduction by its host, completely or in part, to its own benefit. This is one of six major strategies within parasitism.

Wikipedia, Parasitism.
​

Abraham castrated (at least ritually) right back at you. The creation of the phallus (Genesis 2:21) is a parasitic castration strategy used by the fallen angels to block the birth of the messianic-male, the so called "living word." In an irony worthy of its place in the Law (the written Torah), the fallen angels, i.e., the nephilim, create the very flesh associated with "castration" in their "phallic castration" strategy employed against God and the first human. In a statement as paradoxical as any saying could possibly be, the creation of the phallus castrates the original non-phallic (virgin) reproduction mechanism designed by God for his son(s). The existence of the phallus blocks the original, God-given reproductive mechanism ---virgin conception and birth ----thereby castrating non-phallic birth. The creation of the phallus castrates the first human so that he can't birth the messianic people of God who were slated to be born before, without, against, the creation of the phallus.

So Abraham castrates (ritually) right back at the fallen angels. He thwarts, ritually at least, the castration-strategy of the fallen ones, the nephilim. He castrates the flesh that castrates the virgin conception and birth of the one slated to be the firstborn of the non-phallic, i.e., virgin, birth mechanism of the original pre-Genesis 2:21 human: Messiah. Messiah is slated to be born of the virgin, ha-adam, until the creation of the phallus castrates ha-adam by adding a phallus to block a non-phallic birth: a virgin birth. The virgin birth of Messiah was stillborn because of the castration of ha-adam whereby the first human acquires a phallus. Nevertheless, Messiah is still born, and is still born of a virgin conception and birth.

If Adam had not sinned the world would have entered the Messianic state on the first Sabbath after creation, with no historical process whatever.
Gershom Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism, p. 46.
John​

​

Isn't one's post/s putting layers after layers of hyperboles/distortions on Genesis 2:21, one gets to know, please?

Regards

 

[John D. Brey]

​

Isn't one's post/s putting layers after layers of hyperboles/distortions on Genesis 2:21, one gets to know, please?

Wouldn't that question depend on what one considers the true and or authoritative interpretation of Genesis 2:21? Why don't you share what you think the verse is saying such that I'm distorting it?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

What do you mean by neo-darwinism? There's a few different definitions that come up in a google search.

Charles Darwin never insinuated that evolution explained many things the "Neo-Darwinists" claim evolution explains. Neo-Darwinism is often the atheist's replacement for theistic theories of the origin of life. Many atheists use Darwinism as though it's a comprehensive theory that makes God unnecessary. Charles Darwin never insinuated such a thing.

One of the primary concepts of the Neo-Darwinists is the belief that you can get profound design products by a collection of random accidents. This belief is quasi-religious since the difference between design and randomness is binary: one is the antithesis of the other. The Neo-Darwinist's disbelief in a Designer requires him to dispense with the binary relationship whereby random accidents are the antithesis of design. For the Neo-Darwinist, something as profound as the human brain, or a Shakespearean play, in no way proves design is something different than random accident or chance.

For the Neo-Darwinist, design appears to equate with purpose, and purpose with "good," or valuable, versus random and worthless. Thus, if there is such a thing as genuine design, there is probably a purpose. And if there is a purpose, it's a small hop, skip, and jump, to morality, and laws "designed" to privilege purpose. It's a small step from the existence of Design to the existence of purposeful and thus commendable (command-able: don't murder), ideas, decisions, and actions. It's a small step to a criterion, a yardstick, with which a Designer might be able to judge the thoughts and actions of people who prefer to think of themselves as nature's ultimate free-agents. So much better randomness be equal to design so that binary thinking be striped of its ability to make binding judgments against nature's free-agents.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

It's the approach. If your reasoning is based on Jewish thought, then it doesn't matter who was created first. Created first is important, created last is important. If you want to show that women are superior, and you want to show that using "Jewish thought" you can look to the popular opinion that in Judaism women are holier than men. That's it.

I don't think it's that simple since the word "holy" is subject to multifarious definitions. We could say women are more "holy" than men but still believe they're useless in comparison to men when it comes to anything outside of holiness. Holiness can be used as an abstraction to lessen the weight of the fact, and it is a fact, that the Jewish interpretation of the Hebrew of Genesis chapter 2 makes the woman secondary, and thus less than, the man.

There are two conflicting traditions of thought that I've been labeling "Jewish" thought. It's the conflict between them (and potentially its resolution) that's an important part of this examination.

First, in Judaism, the origin, first, host, is technically superior to what comes out of, from, or after, the original: the original is closer to God than what comes out of the original. Secondly, Judaism claims (wrongly in my opinion) that the first human was a male. In this sense the male is closer to the origin of humanity, is closer to God, and is technically superior to the woman, who, in the traditional Jewish reading of Genesis chapter 2, comes after, and out of, the male.

Anyone whose read anything like the amount of Jewish commentary on the creation of the woman that I have can't be unaware that the brilliant Jewish sages know something is seriously amiss in the traditional interpretation of the creation of man and woman. In the traditional Jewish reading the woman is created more or less as a tool for the man, his helper and toy, the mother who raises his of his offspring while he does important things like building cities, writing poetry, and conquering pagans.

Though the Jewish interpreters do everything in their power to deny the weight of the exegesis that makes the woman less than the man (since they realize that concept is problematic), no serious thinker can with a straight face deny that the way the traditional Hebrew is interpreted in the MT makes the woman man's lesser.

The conflict between the two forms of Jewish thought can be fixed simply by reading the Hebrew text of Genesis chapter two more literally, so that Eve is cloned as an identical twin sister of ha-adam, with the existence of the phallus being the result of the fact that the place where the original flesh is torn open (to remove the clone-able flesh) is thereafter sown up סגר to form the perineal raphe and thus the new flesh that creates binary-gender in the human race. In this potential fix, which is the literal meaning of the Hebrew text, ha-adam and Eve are originally clonal facsimiles and thus equal such that the rise of the phallus becomes the fall of that original equality in the human race.

The acceptance of the Phallus is immoral. It has always been thought of as hateful; it has been the image of Satan, and Dante made it the central pillar of hell.

Otto Weininger, Sex and Character.​

John

 

[dybmh]

I don't think it's that simple since the word "holy" is subject to multifarious definitions. We could say women are more "holy" than men but still believe they're useless in comparison to men when it comes to anything outside of holiness. Holiness can be used as an abstraction to lessen the weight of the fact, and it is a fact, that the Jewish interpretation of the Hebrew of Genesis chapter 2 makes the woman secondary, and thus less than, the man.

Holiness means closer to God.

Regarding "secondary, this less than" is simply not true. Go back to Genesis 1. Who is superior, humans or plants? Which order were they created? If you want to continue to assert the secondary is lesser, please bring a Jewish source. That will clear this up.

First, in Judaism, the origin, first, host, is technically superior to what comes out of, from, or after, the original: the original is closer to God than what comes out of the original. Secondly, Judaism claims (wrongly in my opinion) that the first human was a male. In this sense the male is closer to the origin of humanity, is closer to God, and is technically superior to the woman, who, in the traditional Jewish reading of Genesis chapter 2, comes after, and out of, the male.

Who was born first, Jacob or Esau?

Anyone whose read anything like the amount of Jewish commentary on the creation of the woman that I have can't be unaware that the brilliant Jewish sages know something is seriously amiss in the traditional interpretation of the creation of man and woman. In the traditional Jewish reading the woman is created more or less as a tool for the man, his helper and toy, the mother who raises his of his offspring while he does important things like building cities, writing poetry, and conquering pagans.

So, in other words, just believe you because you've read and researched a lot. Maybe you're right about woman's position in the story, but it's not been established that this is due to being secondary.

Though the Jewish interpreters do everything in their power to deny the weight of the exegesis that makes the woman less than the man (since they realize that concept is problematic), no serious thinker can with a straight face deny that the way the traditional Hebrew is interpreted in the MT makes the woman man's lesser.

Wait, what? Why bother with exegesis, if the traditional interpretation proves your point. Again your approach is bizarre, it seems like you're doing a lot of work without reason.

The conflict between the two forms of Jewish thought can be fixed simply by reading the Hebrew text of Genesis chapter two more literally, so that Eve is cloned as an identical twin sister of ha-adam, with the existence of the phallus being the result of the fact that the place where the original flesh is torn open (to remove the clone-able flesh) is thereafter sown up סגר to form the perineal raphe and thus the new flesh that creates binary-gender in the human race. In this potential fix, which is the literal meaning of the Hebrew text, ha-adam and Eve are originally clonal facsimiles and thus equal such that the rise of the phallus becomes the fall of that original equality in the human race.

That's the "simple" solution?

Anyway, Eve's subservience to Adam results from Eve's conversation with the serpent. That's part of the story. It makes more sense to stick with the text in this case.

 

[John D. Brey]

John D. Brey said: ↑
I don't think it's that simple since the word "holy" is subject to multifarious definitions. We could say women are more "holy" than men but still believe they're useless in comparison to men when it comes to anything outside of holiness. Holiness can be used as an abstraction to lessen the weight of the fact, and it is a fact, that the Jewish interpretation of the Hebrew of Genesis chapter 2 makes the woman secondary, and thus less than, the man.​

Holiness means closer to God.

Regarding "secondary, this less than" is simply not true. Go back to Genesis 1. Who is superior, humans or plants? Which order were they created? If you want to continue to assert the secondary is lesser, please bring a Jewish source. That will clear this up.

Your questions point out one of the problems of exegesis and interpretation. If someone researches the great Jewish sages they'll see that Akiva often says one thing is the case, while Ishmael insinuates the opposite is true. Nachmanides often claims Rashi appears to be provably in error on a given interpretation, while Abarbanel often throws up his hands exasperated claiming none of the sagely interpretation of a given verse can be correct. (This isn't a pejorative against the sages but merely pointing out the difficulties involved in interpretation.)

The concept of the ****iya stone (the stone of the foundation אבן השתייה), is a Jewish formulation that's similar to the Christian idea of a root, or transcendental signifier, through which all things emanate according to their level of holiness. The foundation stone is, as stated, the foundation, and thus the most holy thing in creation. From that emanates the holy of holies (the holiest place of the temple) and from that the temple, and from that Jerusalem, and from that Israel, and from that the rest of the world in order of holiness.

Unfortunately, the concept of the ****iya stone contradicts the order of creations in the Law. In Genesis chapter one, the plants and animals come before the human (though in Genesis chapter 2 the human comes before the plants and animals).

Part and parcel of this problem is the words tohu תהו and bohu בהו (without form and void) in the second verse of Genesis chapter one. Midrash Rabbah claims God doesn't create his world as, or from, a garbage dump. In other words God doesn't create the ****iya stone, the rock of foundation,"without form and void" תהו ו בהו. Something happens between the original creation (God's original perfect creation), i.e., between Genesis one verses one and two, that's related to the division and conflict that rises for the first time with the original sin of man as allegorized in the braking of the ****ya stone-s (Exodus 32:19).

After the fall that occurs between Genesis 1:1, and 1:2 (where the earth is suddenly without form and void) a new asymmetry begins where a more perfect product evolves out of tohu and bohu (without design perfection and something design would a/void) ----i.e., a more perfect product evolves out of a less perfect product rather than the original, the first, the foundation (stone) being the quintessence of perfection.

The god in Genesis chapter one is a Neo-Darwinist. The Zohar claims that in strict Hebrew exegesis he isn't creating a thing, but merely, like the Darwinist scientists of his materialist clan, taking note of what already is. He has no origin theory so he implies the evolution found in Genesis chapter one is somehow an origin theory ala the Neo-Darwinists who though they have no origin for life, assume that evolution must somehow account for the origin of life.




John

 

[John D. Brey]

Who was born first, Jacob or Esau?

Who's born first, Cain or Abel, Cain or Jacob, Cain or Abraham? We could say Cain or Christ?

Cain is the tohu wa bohu from whence Abraham (and Christ) allegedly evolve if we accept the Masoretic tradition for reading the text. And to correct the Masoretic tradition for reading the text requires a violence even greater than the one afforded the innocent youth on the eighth day.

To correct the interpretation of the Law come down through the Masoretic Text requires the mohel to cut deeper into the scroll, producing even more blood to flow from that scroll. And who can conscience that? Why not accept a flesh-wound and its sacerdotal-scar rather than endangering the flow of the two intact stones our evolving world is built upon even if these foundation stones are a lie and without divine form, i.e., void of the signature of God's original intent?

The signature of God's original intent is castrated and the mark of that castration is the perineal raphe. When Abraham removes some flesh from the evolved flesh, producing a horizontal scar that crosses (so to say) the vertical scar of the perineal raphe he produces (or reveals) the signature mark, or sign, revealing God's original intent.




John

 

[John D. Brey]

Anyway, Eve's subservience to Adam results from Eve's conversation with the serpent. That's part of the story. It makes more sense to stick with the text in this case.

Although the exegete should always seek the literal meaning, there are undeniable places where the text is probably speaking allegorically. A talking snake could be literal but it seems allegorical. A snake possessing the knowledge of good and evil prior to man could be literal but it seems allegorical.

Genesis 2:25 says that the man and the woman were "naked" ערום but not ashamed. The translations of the next verse tend to cover up a key to the meaning of the narrative since in the Hebrew, just after pointing out that the man and woman were "naked" ערום but not ashamed, the text tells us that the serpent was the most "naked" ערום beast of the field. It's as though this level of nakedness will eventually make even Adam and Eve blush when they come to "know" what this level of nakedness has in store.

After Eve's encounter with this most naked serpentine guide to the loss of innocence we learn that Adam and Eve are no longer unashamed of their nakedness. They make garments to cover up their genitalia (and Eve finds out she's pregnant because of experiencing this level of nakedness).

Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan points out the historical fact that throughout all or most cultures, the serpent represents sexuality. He also notes that even in primitive cultures where women are allowed to go naked, the male will often cover up the serpentine flesh.

Even in Hollywood, no bastion of sexual shame, full frontal nakedness for women is passe, while full frontal male nudity is rare. In pornography, the female's nakedness is often unashamedly front and center while the male's is often hidden. And even when the male's nakedness isn't hidden, his face often is. The female is less ashamed of the pornographic escapade than the male. Female nakedness isn't as shameful as male nakedness since the serpent is the flesh that's the most naked in the world; so naked in fact, that it's shameful to gaze at it face-to-face; and doing so led, and leads, in all cases, to death, except when it's nailed to a wooden rod, in which case its former death-dealing stare becomes, ironically, salvific.



John