Scholem's "Primal Flaw."

[Harel13]

Most of my orthodox Jewish friends consider the Zohar dangerous.

I don't believe there are many Orthodox Jewish people today who believe that the Zohar is dangerous in a bad way, but dangerous as in, if you go past the base understanding of Zohar and try to actually unlock the deep meanings of Kabbalah, and you have yet to reach the right spiritual level required to fully grasp those teachings, you can harm yourself spiritually. That doesn't deny the importance of the Zohar.

Personally, I consider the Quran to be just as authentically faithful to God as the Torah, Tanakh, or Gospels and Apostolic writings

Hmm. You're in the minority, by Christian standards. Muslims won't grant you the same, as they hold that the Torah and the NT are wrongful accounts of the traditions of those people described there.

 

[PruePhillip]

This is a he can of worm, but I can't resist openning those. Pray tell, mr Brey, would you care to enlighten us all on the identity of that "primal flaw" according to Dr Scholem (or yourself if it differs)?

It's easy, the "primal flaw" in us is our primate background.
Until recently there were at least six hominin "species" on
earth - we killed them all, probably ate them too.
So humans are endowed with "human nature" which is "red
in tooth and claw."

 

[rational experiences]

The primal flaw are the dinosaurs that replaced the life of a man/male living in the Garden Nature....the giant nature took his place when he irradiated Earth.

Animals are natural to their own species and are each a separate life and body pair, who has sex like humans and have their owned babies. If they die out, it is more than likely because human radiation science attacked their bodies and killed them off with sickness....seeing sickness seems to manifest first in primates before it attacks our life....so we take longer to destroy in science formulas and equating...to say I will give life a beginning and an end...when we were taught we owned no end.

 

[wellwisher]

Are you implying that gender is the "primal flaw"?

Humans have two centers of consciousness, the inner self and the ego. The inner self came first and is also the center of consciousness of animals. The inner self is based on DNA and uses an operating system connected to the DNA and natural instinct.

The secondary center or ego came later and is unique only to humans. It provides a secondary POV that allows one to make choice in harmony or conflict with natural instinct and the inner self. Our biological sex, based on X or Y chromosomes, is connected to the inner self, while the fad of gender is based on a shallow and superficial subjective assessment created by the ego. The ego is the flaw in creation. It's POV can mess up more than just sex and gender.

Adam was the first human to get an ego. The two centers of consciousness created a new type of human. Both biology and religion say the same thing if you understand the inner self was consistent over the past 1 million years of paradise but the ego is very new. This new type of human was different from the prehuman in terns of the operating system of the brain. Humans went from DOS to Windows when Adam appears. Civilization would follow.

Male and female brains differ in that men are more visual and females are more verbal. Men try to attract women with verbal illusion; romantic flattery and lies, while women try to use visual illusions; makeup and seductive dress. Each panders to the default strengths of the other.

Visual is more self sufficient while verbal is dependent on language which require human interaction. Adam evolved the ego first due to his self sufficiency, and then through language, gets Eve's primed and ready of Satan to consolidate. The modern ego has its own fantasy reality not connected to natural common sense. The fatal flaw is the ego.

The tree of life and tree of knowledge are essentially connected the two operating systems; inner self and ego, respectively. The ego can get seduced by its own fantasy and choose poorly; tree of knowledge and Satan. The tree of life was sealed, meaning the inner self became more unconscious and repressed. It still operates and functions but is less within conscious awareness. All the woes of the world are connecter to the ego center.

 

[blü 2]

It's easy, the "primal flaw" in us is our primate background.
Until recently there were at least six hominin "species" on earth - we killed them all, probably ate them too.
So humans are endowed with "human nature" which is "red in tooth and claw."

Ah, you misquote and misunderstand Tennyson, who actually wrote (in In Memoriam LVI, these verses written by 1836, published 1850) ─

Man, her last work, who seem’d so fair,

Such splendid purpose in his eyes,
Who roll’d the psalm to wintry skies,​

Who built him fanes of fruitless prayer,

Who trusted God was love indeed

And love Creation’s final law—
Tho’ Nature, red in tooth and claw​

With ravine, shriek’d against his creed—​

 

[dybmh]

@John D. Brey , The flaw is described in the the story if you pay very close attention to what is said *and* what's not said. Although I think you need to look at the Hebrew to see it.

Also, keep an open mind. And looking for it as a flaw will obscure it. It's more of a weak point in the human psyche.

It has nothing to do with gender, both Adam and Eve have it, it was granted to Adam pre-split.

 

[John D. Brey]

How do we know that?

In the genetic history of humans, there was no single "first H sapiens", no single first "H sapiens sapiens"; there were merely generations with genetic variations. "Y-chromosomal Adam" and "Mitochondrial Eve" are concepts, not identified persons placed in time or space. We don't think they existed within thousands of years of each other.

We all begin, in the womb, females. Only after the Y chromosome causes deformities to the natural development does the labial flesh suture, naturally, to transform the vaginal opening into the penis.

The penis, and fleshly masculinity, is an evolutionary leap part and parcel of which was death becoming genetically programmed through senescence. As my favorite biology Professor said, male flesh, and sex, were truly the loss of immortality and innocence so far as gene programmed death is concerned.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

What, specifically, do you identify as the problem? The fact that human females tend on average to be slightly smaller than human males? Tend on average to have lower levels of testosterone? What, exactly?

. . . The problem is ginormous. Our civilization, culture, psychology, our very epistemological development, and our religions, glorify and sanctify female qualities under the destructive belief that they're male, and thus, ordained, through antecedence and first-ness, originality, to control and inseminate the weaker principles . . . which in truth are the real power and authority abel, so to say, to stop the Cain raising that's gone on since the murder of the truth in Genesis.



John

 

[blü 2]

We all begin, in the womb, females. Only after the Y chromosome causes deformities to the natural development does the labial flesh suture, naturally, to transform the vaginal opening into the penis.

NO, that's simply wrong.

The zygote is the union of the ovum and the winning spermatazoon. The Y chromosome either succeeds in being present at the time of union or is never present. There is NO time at which the zygote ─ 'we' ─ is entirely female but then becomes male.

The penis, and fleshly masculinity, is an evolutionary leap part and parcel of which was death becoming genetically programmed through senescence.

That 'evolutionary leap' happened over two billion years ago. Later, when our evolutionary ancestors were fish, they had two sexes but no penis. When they were amphibians likewise, mating by amplexus. As reptiles, they evolved the proto-penis. Monotremes, the most primitive mammals and like the reptiles still oviparous, have a penis.

That's to say, our division into two sexes is older by a billion or more years than the penis.

As for the death of cells as a built-in aspect of growth in multicellular creatures, this goes back to the pre-cambrian. Without it neither humans nor other large critters can grow in size.

And that's true whether they're women or men.

I see no basis in the science for any such claims as you're making.

Our civilization, culture, psychology, our very epistemological development, and our religions, glorify and sanctify female qualities under the destructive belief that they're male

That's simply nonsense. The difference between male and female has been basic to breeding for billions of years. Male dominance in primates is connected to additional testosterone and to evolved physical size and muscle bulk linked to male-to-male competition, as well as to the male role of provider and protector for the offspring.

and thus, ordained, through antecedence and first-ness, originality, to control and inseminate the weaker principles

The status of women has varied from civilization to civilization. It's presently being addressed in ways I regard as positive in First World countries. But until we develop and embrace Brave New World technologies, the role of female animals as layers of eggs and with mammals as bearers of children will simply continue to be part of the system.

abel, so to say, to stop the Cain raising that's gone on since the murder of the truth in Genesis.

Cain and Abel are metaphoric characters ─ cultivator and herder ─ and simply one element in one culture's system of myths. You speak like you think it's history. It ain't.

 

[John D. Brey]

John D. Brey said: ↑
We all begin, in the womb, females. Only after the Y chromosome causes deformities to the natural development does the labial flesh suture, naturally, to transform the vaginal opening into the penis.​

NO, that's simply wrong.

The zygote is the union of the ovum and the winning spermatazoon. The Y chromosome either succeeds in being present at the time of union or is never present. There is NO time at which the zygote ─ 'we' ─ is entirely female but then becomes male.

. . . The sperm has both an X chromosome (the chromosome associated with the ovum singularly) and a Y chromosome. Why?

Why is there not an X and a Y chromosome associated with the ovum? The Y chromosome (associated only with the sperm) appears to be novel. And only if it wins the swimming contest does the deformity of natural biology, the penis, develop.

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.​

The foundation of the Bible, and Judaism, began with Abraham taking a knife to the novel flesh. In brit milah, the primary purpose associated with the hateful flesh, i.e., mediating between gender-duality, becomes associated not with the ******* "male" flesh (which is a farce) but with the blood (death) of that farce.

Judaism is the end of gender-duality. At least so far as the seminal rituals are concerned.

Why do men have breast? And nipples?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

That 'evolutionary leap' happened over two billion years ago. Later, when our evolutionary ancestors were fish, they had two sexes but no penis. When they were amphibians likewise, mating by amplexus. As reptiles, they evolved the proto-penis. Monotremes, the most primitive mammals and like the reptiles still oviparous, have a penis.

That's to say, our division into two sexes is older by a billion or more years than the penis.

. . . And the Bible is thousands of years older than modern science and yet it tells us, through myth perhaps, precisely what science is only now coming to understand.

Biology Professor William R. Clark tells us that the original cells (pre-sexual) were all immortal (like the Bible claims Adam was prior to sex).

Even more telling, Professor Clark reveals that death came along with dual-gendered reproduction: sex. The Bible nailed that over 3000 years before Professor Clark reveals it as though it's a profound, new, revelation of science. He says:

Obligatory death as a result of senescence – natural aging – may not have come into existence for more than a billion years after life first appeared. This form of programmed death seems to have arisen at about the same time that cells began experimenting with sex in connection with reproduction. It may have been the ultimate loss of innocence.​

This was all nailed down in the Bible. And yet when the living version of the Bible was nailed down the new testament version of the Bible revealed something truly profound that science is again about to confirm: death can fairly easily be eliminated and immortality regained simply by finding out, as Professor Clark concedes, precisely where death enters the picture during fetal development since at the earliest stages of development the stem-cells are immortal. It's only at a certain point that programmed-death, through senescence, enters the picture.

The new version (testament) of the Bible not only nails down the return of immortality to biological organisms, but it also, amazingly, explains how, and why, the greatest trade ever made, i.e., immortality for death and senescence, was designed to create something that has never existed in this universe or any other. Not mere immortality. Not a mere return to what we had before accepting death into our biology. But the product we gained by accepting death into our biology: everlasting life.

The new version of the Bible explains, in scientific terms, colored, perhaps, by mythological signs, symbols, and language, how some organisms living this very day have received not immortality but everlasting life by accepting death with Christ: the greatest trade ever made.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

As for the death of cells as a built-in aspect of growth in multicellular creatures, this goes back to the pre-cambrian. Without it neither humans nor other large critters can grow in size.

And that's true whether they're women or men.

. . . Size, i.e., the development of mammals, required "death" so that novel new design arrangements could quickly be tried out through natural selection.

Therefore, sex added the most important new product in the cosmos since whereas, according to quasi-Darwinian throught, the environment does the selecting concerning what organisms will survive into the next iteration of the biosphere, sex allowed the organism itself to enter the "selection" fray.

In other words, in mating, the organisms themselves get to "select" a mate, based on inherited and experimental theories about which mate makes reproduction more likely? Which mate is likely to help the next iteration of life survive with my genes inside?

Judaism represents the ultimate revelation of biological-selection as a fundamental aspect of the new reality. Judaism lets the cat out of the bag so to say about why early organism traded immortality for death.

Which is to say that early on, physical strength, vigor, power, muscle strength, were the key to survival such that mates were selected for these qualities.

But Judaism revealed something new. Jewish women don't select for muscles, they select for the final, crowning, achievement of the gene: the brain.

With the brain, a new replicator appeared on the scene: the meme. Jewish women select a mate who can produce powerful memes. Jewish women realize that muscles, flesh and blood, are mortal, while memes are not only immortal, but everlasting. There are memes alive right now that will only, say like a good Dylan song, grow more powerful and more widespread forever and ever amen.

Right now the human brain is the producer and distributor of memes. But in the very new future memes will create their own temple, body, home, which will dispense with genes, muscles, boogers, and feces. Christ assured me that a body created of photos not subject to death or destruction is awaiting the disintegration of my current body. He asked me to trade death of my body for everlasting life. I did. It was the greatest trade I've ever made.



John

 

[blü 2]

. . . The sperm has both an X chromosome (the chromosome associated with the ovum singularly) and a Y chromosome. Why?

I deduce from the emphasis that evolution placed on two sexes rather than one that species who multiply by two sexes have better chances of survival, perhaps because they can adapt to changing circumstances more quickly. And what we see is self-evidently the model winning to this point of time.

The point is that this began among the bacteria two billion years ago. By the time of the Cambrian and modern. larger critters two sexes was simply how it was done.

Why is there not an X and a Y chromosome associated with the ovum?

There's no clear answer to that. A variety of systems is out there. Monotremes have nine or ten sex chromosomes of the X and Y kind, for instance. Birds have ZW instead of XY (with ZZ being male, the default as it were, and ZW the female). The arrangement we have, along with our fellow primates, is XX (default female) variable to XY (male) roughly half the time. I dare say it remains that way because it works, in the sense that the critter resulting succeeds well enough at surviving long enough to breed.

The Y chromosome (associated only with the sperm) appears to be novel.

Life began on earth some 3.7 billion years ago. Mammals and primates (with varieties of XX/XY) have been around for about 100 million years. Genus Homo is a bit over 2 million years old, while modern H sap sap is only about 70,000 years old. So we're looking for a meaningful interpretation of 'novel'.

And only if it wins the swimming contest does the deformity of natural biology, the penis, develop.

It's moronic to call the penis 'the deformity of natural biology'. The growth of the XX and the XY zygote is in each case EXACTLY in accordance with nature. If you don't like your penis, see a surgeon ─ there are gender assignment specialists out there for the asking.

The foundation of the Bible, and Judaism, began with Abraham taking a knife to the novel flesh.

The idea that the penis is novel is YOUR idea. It's not found anywhere in the bible, and on this occasion the bible gets it right, albeit by default.

In brit milah, the primary purpose associated with the hateful flesh, i.e., mediating between gender-duality, becomes associated not with the ******* "male" flesh (which is a farce) but with the blood (death) of that farce.

All these emotional negatives of yours ─ deforming, hateful, farce, death ─ are personal to you. They don't strike me as healthy. They strike me as matters that might benefit from expert medical advice.

 

[rational experiences]

Bible Prophecy | Bible.org

The meaning of which says, when science activated and controlled as a man what never before existed, machine and forced radio wave radiation change, he lost his self to his realisation that he was wrong. First recording of both man and image....in the reaction of God the dust fission.

So no man is God is what is said....but his recorded missing self, his original thinker is recorded now by God fission in AI, as self advice to his own destruction.

 

[John D. Brey]

Bible Prophecy | Bible.org

The meaning of which says, when science activated and controlled as a man what never before existed, machine and forced radio wave radiation change, he lost his self to his realisation that he was wrong. First recording of both man and image....in the reaction of God the dust fission.

So no man is God is what is said....but his recorded missing self, his original thinker is recorded now by God fission in AI, as self advice to his own destruction.

. . . I'm getting high just off the aroma of whatever it is you're smoking. . . Share the wealth bro! . . . If you're gonna smoke it in public, you gotta have enough to share with everyone.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

I deduce from the emphasis that evolution placed on two sexes rather than one that species who multiply by two sexes have better chances of survival, perhaps because they can adapt to changing circumstances more quickly. And what we see is self-evidently the model winning to this point of time.

. . . Absolutely.

The point is that prior to the evolutionary novelty, deformity, i.e., dual-gender, organisms were immortal. They didn't fear the reaper existing in their own DNA.

A trade was made: loss of immortality, loss of innocence in relationship to senescence, for the ability to make selective decision about how to overcome the death that existed outside the organism, i.e., in the environment.

Gender, and sex, were a mindful attempt to make selective adaptations that allow one particular species to rise, survive, in the face of environmental challenges that envelop and destroy other organisms. Sex and gender were an attempt to preempt nature's ornery and onerous rod of authority over life and death; an attempt to subject environment, nature, to mind.

This truism is found throughout myth and religion no matter how far back you go. Which is why Professor Mircea Eliades said modern man, in his desire to assume he's superior to his ancient peers, has in fact lost all touch with the spiritual dimensions even the lesser of men possessed in days past.

For instance, take the concept of the kundalini rising from the penis, the genital, up the spine, to find a new home in the enlightened mind. When the mind is freed from the penis, when the penis is now part of the mind, it's come home from its exile in the biology of the biosphere. It's now ready to transform the biosphere and make it its b---ch rather than being b---ch-slapped by nature and biology. Professor Norman O. Brown said that "genius" is, etymologically speaking, the "genital in the head."

Mind was, is, and will ever be, before, and above, the matter, which, for a time ordained by the omnipotent one, usurped its birth order to pretend that Cain was conceived before Abel (the asininity that mind is a shadow, whisper, or fart, produced by deified matter).



John

 

[John D. Brey]

The point is that this began among the bacteria two billion years ago. By the time of the Cambrian and modern. larger critters two sexes was simply how it was done.

. . . The biology professors, to a man, or woman, scratch their heads to the point of bleeding concerning an intractable problem with mammalian sex: meiosis and polar body.

They explain that there appears to be no way under the sun that meiotic sex could have arisen naturally, since for one, it's irreducibly complex, and two, there appears to be no possible reason for its very existence.

When the great Jewish sages find a great and intractable exegetical problem in the DNA of the cosmos, the Torah-text, they realize it hides the greatest of secrets.

Meiotic sex is that in spades, since, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, sex was a trade made with the angel of death itself.

Organisms allowed the serpent of death (the serpentine organ) to enter the original, non-gendered body (which is the form we now call "female," though before the male it was singular and non-gendered flesh), in a trade-off for allowing the the bride and groom of gendered-sex to have some modicum of authority over evolutionary adaptation.

Ancient religions sanctify and glorify the chuppah, the wedding rituals, understanding mythologically speaking precisely what is being said. Marriage, and gendered-sex is a trade with the serpent of death whereby he enters into the very biology of the biosphere, in trade for bride and groom sharing in nature's power over selection, life, and death.

Meiotic sex is the unfathomable glory revealed in the newest version of the Bible. It reveals that by throwing off the senescent, death-infected chromosomes, preparation is being made for the biggest surprise death could ever get: it was tricked in the trade-off that let it into biology through two-gendered sex.

Meiotic sex, by throwing off the twenty-three chromosomes associated with semen, not only makes the semen the sole carrier of death's authority (senescence and death) but it prepares for the end of the reign of death that Professor Elliot R. Wolfson calls "the reign of the phallus."

By cleansing the ovum prior to re-contamination at the point of conception, the seed of the woman is prepared for a virgin birth whose son will not be subject to the trade made with death in the first place, the garden of immortality.

Death is dumb. It's been tricked. It was on the wrong side of the trade-off between its sole authority over environmental death versus the organism's ability to skirt that death.

Through the virgin birth, death has lost it all. Living organism don't intend to merely return to some form of immortality that leaves the environment still able to destroy life. Through the virgin birth, life is now set to eliminate the environment's ability to bring death to even immortal organisms.

The virgin birth is the myth of how mind tricked death so that all who trade this life, and this mindless realm, for Christ Jesus, will not, per Moses and the Law, return to some realm of mere immortality still subject to death. On the contrary, those who are in-Christ, through virgin birth, being born-again, without the serpentine flesh, will, as Jesus said, never die, ever; will never taste death.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

The idea that the penis is novel is YOUR idea. It's not found anywhere in the bible, and on this occasion the bible gets it right, albeit by default.

. . . The Bible delivers signs, symbols, and myths, that require interpretation. The foundational symbol of the Bible is brit milah, ritual circumcision. It takes a knife and slices the deformed flesh revealing to nature that that reign of the serpent, the phallus, is nearing its ignominious end.

In the Bible, blood outside of a body always represents (is a symbol of) death. Well, as fate would have it, the blood of circumcision is used to ornament the scroll containing the Bible, therein implying that the death of the phallus is the spirit of the Bible. The blood of the phallus is seminal in what the Bible is trying to use intercourse with you to get across to you.


John

 

[John D. Brey]

All these emotional negatives of yours ─ deforming, hateful, farce, death ─ are personal to you. They don't strike me as healthy. They strike me as matters that might benefit from expert medical advice.

. . . Professor Norman O. Brown said that the schizophrenic is suffering not from a distorted reality, but from a dose of reality that so-called normal brains have been told to filter out for the good of the poor soul who must live in his biological cage till death does he depart.

Healthy minds know better than to be enlightened minds. The truth sucks really really bad for those who aren't part of the new testimony and the new covenant between the omnipotent one and his sons and daughters reborn without the use of the outer flesh of the mediator.



John

 

[blü 2]

. . . Absolutely.

The point is that prior to the evolutionary novelty, deformity, i.e., dual-gender, organisms were immortal. They didn't fear the reaper existing in their own DNA.

No, you're confusing two-sex procreation with growth. The first two-sex creatures were microorganisms.

And if evolutionary novelty = deformity, then all animals are simply the sum of their deformities ─ starting with the deformity of having more than one cell, having a cell with a nucleus, having bilateral symmetry, having a stomach with in and out openings, having a notochord, encasing it in bone, having a skull, a movable jaw, four legs, laying eggs capable of water retention, able to breath out of water, having canine teeth, having milk glands, fingers, toes, nails, hair,being viviparous ─ the entire kit.

A trade was made: loss of immortality, loss of innocence in relationship to senescence, for the ability to make selective decision about how to overcome the death that existed outside the organism, i.e., in the environment.

That's simply wrong. No one made a trade ─ there were no parties, no creatures capable of volition or comprehension or agreement on either side. Instead a naturally occurring variation proved successful at living long enough to breed and thus became normal.

Gender, and sex, were a mindful attempt to make selective adaptations

'Mindful'? There was no such mind two billion years ago when the earliest two-sex examples are found. Your claim is baseless romanticism.

that allow one particular species to rise, survive, in the face of environmental challenges that envelop and destroy other organisms.

It's called the food chain. Tell me what you have in mind to replace it with.

Sex and gender were an attempt to preempt nature's ornery and onerous rod of authority over life and death; an attempt to subject environment, nature, to mind.

Attempt by whom, exactly?