Seed of Ha-adam.

[John D. Brey]

We are not that far apart. If we associate the flesh with female and mind/consciousness/soul as male, then to become fully male is the path of the Messiah. With the flesh, there are many paths, but with consciousness, there is only one.

The Messiah Christ seeks the Sophia - the mustard seed, or spark of the divine that exists within every human being. As we become more male and live the Christ story, the mustard seed grows into a tree “greater than all the herbs”. The love story between Christ and Sophia is the understanding of true love (the Bridegroom)

The Son of Man is the offspring of Christ and Sophia. The Son of Man is the Crucified One who brings forth the Kingdom. I agree that this is all a secret.

Wow. Awesome. You almost took the words right out of my mouth. Though I was going to quote some scientists like Daniel Dennett, and Ray Kurzweil, to support the notion that "mind" (male) is not an outgrowth of body (female), but appears to be either an emergent phenomenon, that's difficult to account for in agnostic scientific-materialism, or something like the theological emanation that theology implies was there before the body; hidden, perhaps, in biology, for a time, and a place, where it would arrive supernaturally and begin it's own form of procreation (having little to do with phallic-sex).



John

 

[Treasure Hunter]

Wow. Awesome. You almost took the words right out of my mouth. Though I was going to quote some scientists like Daniel Dennett, and Ray Kurzweil, to support the notion that "mind" (male) is not an outgrowth of body (female), but appears to be either an emergent phenomenon, that's difficult to account for in agnostic scientific-materialism, or something like the theological emanation that theology implies was there before the body; hidden, perhaps, in biology, for a time, and a place, where it would arrive supernaturally and begin it's own form of procreation (having little to do with phallic-sex).



John

This has been one hell of a dialogue. Much of this I am articulating for the first time.

 

[John D. Brey]

Where we understand that the Hebrew word isn't the lowest common denominator of meaning (letters have sacred significance) exegesis of the Hebrew words for "male" and "female" provide a real gem for the serious Hebrew exegete.

The Hebrew word for "man" is אישׁ. The Hebrew word for "woman" is אשה. . . which is to say that the Hebrew word for "woman" is the word for "male" with some revelatory transformations.

In Hebrew letter symbolism the heh ה represents “woman," such that the addition of the heh transforms the word “boy” into the word “girl.” -----Rabbi Munk explains that, “The Torah uses just one letter, ה, to illustrate the distinct characteristics of a woman. . .” (The Wisdom in the Hebrew Alphabet, p. 89). In the Genesis 2 creation-account, a heh ה is added to the word for "man" איש, resulting in אשה, the word for "woman."

איש becomes אשה.

And yet a careful exegete notices something more fundamental about the transformation from "man" איש to "woman"אשה since the yod י in the word for "man" א–י–ש, appears to be missing in the word for "woman" א שה. In the word for “man” איש there’s a yod between the alef א and the shin ש that appears to be missing when the heh ה is added to transform “man” איש into “woman” א?שה.

איש becomes אש ה. When the heh ה is added, the yod י appears to disappear.

And yet when it’s realized that Hebrew letters are often constructed from a combination of other Hebrew letters we realize that the yod in "male" איש isn't really missing from the word for "female" א–שה, it's just hidden beneath the dalet ד that’s part and parcel of the construction of the Hebrew letter heh ה. The rules for a Jewish sofer (professional scribe) tell him that a heh ה is constructed by placing a dalet ד over a yod י, resulting in ה. The yod that's missing in "woman" isn't really missing after all. It's just covered up, hidden, in the last letter of the Hebrew word "woman" אשה.

The Jewish sages tell us that this world was created with a heh ה while the next world, the world-to-come, is created with a yod י. So it’s ironic that the heh ה is a yod י covered up by a dalet ד. And it’s more ironic that when Ha-adam is transformed from a woman to a man, the letter representing a man in Ha-adam’s belly, the yod א–י–ש is moved from Ha-adam’s belly, or rib, and hidden under the dalet of Eve אשה. The seed of Ha-adam becomes the seed of the woman (Eve) once Ha-adam is transformed into a man (Gen. 2:21).



John

 

[Treasure Hunter]

I think I understand the problem you're pointing out. And I think there's a solution to it in the theosophy I'm propounding.

Within the framework I'm working there's first parthenogenesis, which I'm using as a catchphrase for all pre-gendered sexual propagation. In parthenogenesis (as I'm using it) all organisms are female and procreate to create females.

Next comes an emergent "male-female," (a female with male sexual paraphernalia: ha-adam after Genesis 2:21). And with dual-gender comes insemination, producing both male-female offspring, and female offspring. This is the stage where, in order for the male-female to emerge from the formerly immortal female world, cellular-death (through senescence) enters the scene and biology: Cain, and all his offspring.

Lastly, but not yeastly, comes Messiah: the emanation of true male-ness (rather than male-female-ness). There's only One. And can only be One. In Hebrew he's echad אחד, singular, utterly unique, true deity in-fleshed (in bodily form).

But with incarnate deity comes the fundamental problem. True masculinity, ironically, in it's singular manifestation, is sterile. It can't reproduce with females or male-females since it's from a different kingdom altogether. It's uniqueness makes it sterile.

Which leads to perhaps the greatest secret in theology: Messiah isn't sterile. The singular male isn't impotent, infecund, or infertile. That's the great theological secret hidden in Jesus of Nazareth's birth, life, and death: he wasn't unable to procreate and in fact has proven himself to be the most fertile creature ever to walk this planet. And he procreates without using the male-female organ of masculinity. He procreates by using the true, singular, male-organ. The sacrificial cross.



John

I’m curious why you go from “emergence” describing the transition from female -> male-female to “emanation” describing the transition from male-female -> male?

Why do you not see it as a combined emergence + emanation for both transitions?

Edit: I found your explanation in the other thread. It’s very complicated, trying to process it.

Another question:
Is this male-female stage a known part of evolution? Or is it primarily a theological idea?

 

[Treasure Hunter]

I see it representing immortality but not everlasting life. Clearly Adam and Eve were in the Garden and yet they died. If they had everlasting life, they wouldn't be subject to death.

So they were immortal. And so long as they obeyed the lord of the garden, who was an environmental factor for them, they wouldn't die. But they were nevertheless subject to death from outside of themselves: the law, or commandment.

So in what I'm proffering, everlasting life is what exists on the other side of the realm of death. It's not a return to Eden, and mere immortality. It's a life that isn't subject to commandments or any external threat whatsoever; a life where death no longer exists forever and ever and ever.


John

Here is how I see it:
Eating the forbidden fruit represents emanating the male. The female ate first, sacrificing immortality for senescence, and bringing forth maleness and sexual reproduction. But she didn’t eat for no reason. The desire emerged from the disunity caused by contact with the chaotic, destructive environment represented by the tyrant (Satan) who calls himself “God”. The same being that splits Eve from Adam.

After the female takes the first bite, it is up to the male, Adam, to emanate more maleness. The messianic male comes about incrementally with each bite of the forbidden fruit. Each bite also brings forth a fuller manifestation of Satan, so it’s no wonder that we obey the less threatening form of Satan in order to avoid the more threatening version.

Jesus was referred to as the Second Adam or Final Adam. The first Adam obeys the tyrant. The traditional Garden of Eden story is told through the perspective of a traumatized Adam.

 

[John D. Brey]

I’m curious why you go from “emergence” describing the transition from female -> male-female to “emanation” describing the transition from male-female -> male?

Why do you not see it as a combined emergence + emanation for both transitions?

As you seem to have intuited, a lot rests on the distinction between "emergence" and "emanation" in the argumentation. "Emergence" is being used in the sense of an evolutionary adaptation that grants some meaningful advantage whereby the mechanics of the emergence, and the deepest purpose of what emerges, seem to be hidden (at least for a time).

For instance, when Professor Clark implies that death seems to enter into the cell-structure of the immortal organism at the point of gender-division, and thus sexual propagation, it appears that gender-division comes out of nowhere, almost accidentally (ala Darwinism), and yet in the gender-division, death, arguably the very thing organisms fear most, is now, with the very form of propagation that leads to the greatest survival dynamics (mammals propagate through sex), allowed to enter into the very temple of the formerly immortal organism?

To touch on something you've implied in another message, the immortal, female, organism, that's the original form of life, sacrifices immortality by swallowing the fruit from the tree of death (bringing death inside the immortal temple) thereby causing the "emergence" of her groom, death, the organ through which death passes (Dante's mezuzah at the gates of hell): the "emergent male."

At this stage, in a chronological, or asymmetrical approach to evolution and development, masculinity seems to represent death. And the male organ is the symbol of the serpent, who is the symbol of death (the poison, death, exists in his jowls, connected to his testemonial concerning death). The "emergent" male is the first high priest who brings death (blood represents death in Jewish symbolism) into the very bedchamber (Rashi) of the temple.

The first high priest of humanity is the first Adam (post Gen. 2:21). He is an "emergent" male in that he was initially a female. He gains the male organ in Genesis 2:21 after Eve has already been cloned from his DNA.

Which leaves the second male, the second Adam, and the second high priest of humanity (Hebrews 7:13-22): the "emanating" male (as opposed to the "emergent" male).

In this conceptualization, "emanation" is the revelation of something that pre-existed all that emerged from the original, the prototype, and which "emerged" in a manner that veiled the very existence of the true prototype such that all things appear subject to mindless evolutionary "emergent" processes which, ironically, lead, at the completion of their purpose, to the "emanation" of the true prototype.

At the point of the "emanation" of the true prototype, all the illusions, mechanisms, and machinations, of the allegedly mindless cosmos (codified nicely in Darwinian theory), have come to be refuted and corrected by the appearance and revelation of what was hidden in a manner that left theories like Darwinism viable.

Now it's merely a matter of a very short time (in cosmic terms) before the world that began through a hiding of its true origin, comes to terms with its actual origin, retroactively to be sure, in a manner that will end the epoch began billions of years ago with the first female life-form which can now be known to be a mere shell, temple, body, protecting a seed of truth hidden inside it for protection until the completion of the epoch its revelation (the revelation of that which was formerly hidden) brings to an end.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Is this male-female stage a known part of evolution? Or is it primarily a theological idea?

It's a known stage in evolution:

The very first life forms, as we have seen, were not animals in the ordinary sense of the word, but free-living individual cells we now call bacteria. The entire being in this case consists of just a single cell. Yet by any biological criterion that would define us as alive, so were they. The earliest of these organisms represented then, as now, the simplest possible structure for carrying out the cardinal functions of all living things: the reproduction of their own kind through replication of their DNA, and the transmission of that DNA to offspring.

But it is less obvious that the earliest forms of these single-cell organisms shared then, or share now, the second cardinal feature of life as we know it----obligatory, programmed death. We, like virtually all other multicellular animals, must die, and there are many mechanisms built into us to be sure that we do. . . Many single-celled organisms may die, as the result of accident or starvation; in fact the vast majority do. But there is nothing programmed into them that says they must die. Death did not appear simultaneously with life. This is one of the most important and profound statements in all of biology. At the very least it deserves repetitions: Death is not inextricably intertwined with the definition of life.

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 and the Origins of Life, p. 53-63 .​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

Here is how I see it:
Eating the forbidden fruit represents emanating the male. The female ate first, sacrificing immortality for senescence, and bringing forth maleness and sexual reproduction.

As I laid out in a previous message, in my opinion, eating the forbidden fruit represents the causation of the "emergent" male who is originally a female body such that in Genesis 2:21, the very labial flesh where DNA was extracted to clone Eve is sutured סגר to form the first male organ, the first male flesh, and the first female-male.

When a male emanates from a female temple with its veil still intact (the first high priest not having entered or opened that sanctified place), then and there, the true firstborn male of creation, the true prototype and origin of creation, and the original high priest (galivanting as the second Adam) is revealed, late, stillborn from the genesis so far as Genesis is concerned, but born still, having lost nothing of his true authority or power over creation.

His latter day revelation reveals, perhaps in a way still shaking off the shells of its hidden-ness, that his true creation, like he himself, was hidden, for a time, in this broken creation, according to the councils of the will of his Father, that only after his birth might the original seed, of the original creation of God, be planted in the hearts and minds of the soil from whence it will sprout.



John

 

[Treasure Hunter]

It's a known stage in evolution:

The very first life forms, as we have seen, were not animals in the ordinary sense of the word, but free-living individual cells we now call bacteria. The entire being in this case consists of just a single cell. Yet by any biological criterion that would define us as alive, so were they. The earliest of these organisms represented then, as now, the simplest possible structure for carrying out the cardinal functions of all living things: the reproduction of their own kind through replication of their DNA, and the transmission of that DNA to offspring.

But it is less obvious that the earliest forms of these single-cell organisms shared then, or share now, the second cardinal feature of life as we know it----obligatory, programmed death. We, like virtually all other multicellular animals, must die, and there are many mechanisms built into us to be sure that we do. . . Many single-celled organisms may die, as the result of accident or starvation; in fact the vast majority do. But there is nothing programmed into them that says they must die. Death did not appear simultaneously with life. This is one of the most important and profound statements in all of biology. At the very least it deserves repetitions: Death is not inextricably intertwined with the definition of life.

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 and the Origins of Life, p. 53-63 .​

John

I’m convinced that I need to read this book. I can follow the transition from asexual reproduction without senescence to sexual reproduction with senescence, but I’m still having trouble understanding this in between stage that you’ve mentioned of females and male-females. Is that covered in the book?

Also, I’m guessing that multicellular organisms sprang up shortly after senescence was introduced. Is that a safe bet?

 

[John D. Brey]

I’m convinced that I need to read this book. I can follow the transition from asexual reproduction without senescence to sexual reproduction with senescence, but I’m still having trouble understanding this in between stage that you’ve mentioned of females and male-females. Is that covered in the book?

Also, I’m guessing that multicellular organisms sprang up shortly after senescence was introduced. Is that a safe bet?

The book is very good and has important elements I've not yet even discussed, notwithstanding the essay I composed with the same name as the book: Sex and the Origins of Death. That essay delves into much of what we're discussing now.

Actually, multicellular organisms were still immortal, still female, for some time. Sexual reproduction began after multicellular organisms existed.

The concept of a difference between an "emergent" male (a female-male) versus an "emanating" male is clearly theological since science doesn't accept that a Jewish male in the first century was born from an asexual conception that required him to open the veil on the bedchamber of his mother's temple on his way out since the serpent of death didn't open it on its way in as is the case in all the pregnancies accepted by science.

Virgin births are typically parthenogenetic such that only females are produced by females without males. That being the case, for Jesus to be born a male, without the contribution of a father, implies he is the first male, merely hidden inside the human genome (from the very beginning) awaiting a time, not to be manufactured through sexual mechanisms, but to "emanate" out of the biology of the human genome, i.e., to come out from his hiding place, in order to begin a new form of procreation, and a new kind of humanity, based on a new kind of male: a singular emanation (the origin hidden in the beginning ---Wolfson) who can only procreate through cannibalism (John 6:53) since being a singular organism makes him sterile so far as sexual unification is concerned.



John

 

[Treasure Hunter]

The book is very good and has important elements I've not yet even discussed, notwithstanding the essay I composed with the same name as the book: Sex and the Origins of Death. That essay delves into much of what we're discussing now.

Actually, multicellular organisms were still immortal, still female, for some time. Sexual reproduction began after multicellular organisms existed.

The concept of a difference between an "emergent" male (a female-male) versus an "emanating" male is clearly theological since science doesn't accept that a Jewish male in the first century was born from an asexual conception that required him to open the veil on the bedchamber of his mother's temple on his way out since the serpent of death didn't open it on its way in as is the case in all the pregnancies accepted by science.

Virgin births are typically parthenogenetic such that only females are produced by females without males. That being the case, for Jesus to be born a male, without the contribution of a father, implies he is the first male, merely hidden inside the human genome (from the very beginning) awaiting a time, not to be manufactured through sexual mechanisms, but to "emanate" out of the biology of the human genome, i.e., to come out from his hiding place, in order to begin a new form of procreation, and a new kind of humanity, based on a new kind of male: a singular emanation (the origin hidden in the beginning ---Wolfson) who can only procreate through cannibalism (John 6:53) since being a singular organism makes him sterile so far as sexual unification is concerned.



John

Right, of course sexual reproduction wouldn’t have occurred until later in the multicellular stage, so then senescence would have been later as well. That makes sense.

The story gets convoluted trying to make Jesus born of a virgin and sinless. Like I said before, I understand the extrapolation and why it would have happened this way, but we will eventually get to the point that it’s understood that the first male began emanating when the female accepted death (senescence), and that the emanation of the male has been incremental until Jesus completed it first ~ 2000 years ago at around age 30. In that way, Jesus is indeed the first male.

I just had a thought that what we consider “male” is actually XY (female-male). That could be nothing, but it’s given me pause.

To be clear, when I say the male has been incrementally emanating, what I mean is that at the religious/cultural level, we have incrementally progressed in providing environments, stories, ideas, etc that facilitate this process within the individual.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

So our ancestors had insights into the following truths:

1) Everlasting life is associated with the emanation of the messianic male
2) The price for everlasting life is death / engagement with Satan
3) One has to be sinless to access everlasting life

But they couldn’t square those with
4) The emanation of the messianic male simultaneously brings forth death/sin/Satan

The result is that we get a story with #4 either entirely absent or at least largely absent.

 

[John D. Brey]

I just had a thought that what we consider “male” is actually XY (female-male). That could be nothing, but it’s given me pause.

That's very far from nothing. <g> An "emanating" male would be just a Y chromosome. Which means his ovum would be a Y and not an X. Which is why (so to say) he must "emanate" and not "emerge."

When a Y chromosome is added to an X, the default human body (female), of no fault of its own, begins to deform, to grow an ugly appendage, a true deformity; while if an X is added to an X you get the normal default human form.

This implies that though you can mix two X chromosomes, you can't mix an X and a Y (shatnez) without dire consequences. The Y chromosome creates a monstrosity if mixed with an X; and yet only one time in human history has a woman possessed a Y chromosomal ovum. And ironically it began to divide on its own, without having its outer veil pierced by the seed of the serpent; and also without having the first veil in the temple entered by the serpent.



John

 

[Treasure Hunter]

That's very far from nothing. <g> An "emanating" male would be just a Y chromosome. Which means his ovum would be a Y and not an X. Which is why (so to say) he must "emanate" and not "emerge."

When a Y chromosome is added to an X, the default human body (female), of no fault of its own, begins to deform, to grow an ugly appendage, a true deformity; while if an X is added to an X you get the normal default human form.

This implies that though you can mix two X chromosomes, you can't mix an X and a Y (shatnez) without dire consequences. The Y chromosome creates a monstrosity if mixed with an X; and yet only one time in human history has a woman possessed a Y chromosomal ovum. And ironically it began to divide on its own, without having it's outer veil pierced by the seed of the serpent; and also without having the first veil in the temple entered by the serpent.



John

Another example of how the patterns at the level of consciousness reflect at other levels.

It’s no small feat to have reconciled Judaism + Christianity + evolution the way you have with a coherent, meaningful story. It would be helpful for the Christians who struggle with evolution to be made aware of your work.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

John,
Do you see the virgin birth of Jesus as symbolizing the advancement beyond female selection driven, sexual reproduction? Symbolizing a leap to a mind based, male driven, new stage of evolution?

 

[John D. Brey]

Another example of how the patterns at the level of consciousness reflect at other levels.

It’s no small feat to have reconciled Judaism + Christianity + evolution the way you have with a coherent, meaningful story.

I said something like that in the addendum to Sex and the Origins of Death:

Perhaps the scientists should set aside their biology books and look at what the greatest Book ever written has to say about meiosis and polar body as it relates to Messiah? And while it’s true the word "meiosis" doesn't exist in the biblical text, the concept associated with the word is completely detailed in the ancient myths and symbols codified in the language of scripture. Which is to say scripture wasn’t merely written in ancient languages, Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew (mostly), but in an ancient manner whereby signs and symbols condense complex scientific-knowledge into myths, symbols, rituals, and hieroglyphs.

Meiosis: The Science of Messiah.​

In another recent thread I argued that Karl Popper, the eminent historian/philosopher of modern science, claimed modern science evolved from ancient myth. In my opinion the truth is that the most important elements of a post-modern science are mostly still hidden in ancient myth; particularly those found in the Bible.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

John,
Do you see the virgin birth of Jesus as symbolizing the advancement beyond female selection driven, sexual reproduction? Symbolizing a leap to a mind based, male driven, new stage of evolution?

Absolutely. Emanation implies that the origin, hidden, from the very foundation of the world, once revealed, is intended to redeem (through a retroactive domino-affect) all the wrongheaded, thorny logic, reason, and science, that was wound around the origin to protect it (perhaps even from itself) until its time has come.

We find prophesies of this retroactive redemptive process all through the Tanakh. But they don't actually come to fruition until a virgin birth in the first century of the current era implies that the son conceived himself in his mother before he was actually born.


John

 

[Treasure Hunter]

Absolutely. Emanation implies that the origin, hidden, from the very foundation of the world, once revealed, is intended to redeem (through a retroactive domino-affect) all the wrongheaded, thorny logic, reason, and science, that was wound around the origin to protect it (perhaps even from itself) until its time has come.

We find prophesies of this retroactive redemptive process all through the Tanakh. But they don't actually come to fruition until a virgin birth in the first century of the current era implies that the son conceived himself in his mother before he was actually born.


John

It’s like how once mind/male originally emanated, the sinful/senescent, female, somatic cells formed around to protect it. This is reflected in the feminine bent of traditional theology protecting the deeper truths of the male/consciousness until the time has come.

Just like how mind emerges from the body, the more masculine theology will emerge. It’s why Jesus spoke metaphorically so often in parables. The body still needed more time to form.

 

[John D. Brey]

It’s like how once mind/male originally emanated, the sinful/senescent, female, somatic cells formed around to protect it. This is reflected in the feminine bent of traditional theology protecting the deeper truths of the male/consciousness until the time has come.

Your statement was rattling around in my head while I was searching through files for something else when I came upon some ideas gleaned from a thread here long ago (2016) that are very close to what you're saying. So I whipped them together as an essay I just posted named (from the name of the original thread), Phrenological Phallus Theology.

The gist of the essay is kind of cool in that it implies an almost ridiculous relationship between the phallus as the authority over gene reproduction, and patrilineal authority, culture, kingship, etc., versus the Jewish production of what the essay calls a "memetic-prosthesis" erected by symbolically emasculating the phallus (brit milah) and therein making the scar from the ordeal the true means of Jewish reproduction, memetic reproduction, based on the meme of the circumcision scar, whereby it represents the end of what Professor Elliot R. Wolfson calls the "reign of the phallus." The circumcision scar is made a memetic-prosthesis growing out of the now defunct propagation tool that was defrauding the truth concerning its alleged seminality in relationship to "mind" and mind-products: memes.

Another Professor, Norman O. Brown, implied that both the genealogy, and the seminality, of the word "genius," comes from the idea of a "genital in the head." The "genius" is the person who fixates on memes, thoughts, and ideas, with the same passion the profligate or profane man gets his rise out of phallic-sex.

Similarly, Eastern thought speaks of the kundalini slithering from the first home in the testes, up the spine, to reside, at the point of enlightenment, as the genital in the head.

The circumcision scar is the perfect meme for the idea of the end of genes, and the beginning of the new-world, the world-to-come, based not on genetic authority, or paternity, but on the matriarchal meme par excellent: the death of male flesh; the death of the flesh that makes genetic procreation usurp its secondary role in relationship to the "mind" that's the true organ of a production, propagation, producing immortal offspring.

. . . Btw, I liked the last sentence in the second paragraph of this message so much that I just attached it as a memetic-prosthesis to the end of the essay noted above.



John

 

[Treasure Hunter]

Your statement was rattling around in my head while I was searching through files for something else when I came upon some ideas gleaned from a thread here long ago (2016) that are very close to what you're saying. So I whipped them together as an essay I just posted named (from the name of the original thread), Phrenological Phallus Theology.

The gist of the essay is kind of cool in that it implies an almost ridiculous relationship between the phallus as the authority over gene reproduction, and patrilineal authority, culture, kingship, etc., versus the Jewish production of what the essay calls a "memetic-prosthesis" erected by symbolically emasculating the phallus (brit milah) and therein making the scar from the ordeal the true means of Jewish reproduction, memetic reproduction, based on the meme of the circumcision scar, whereby it represents the end of what Professor Elliot R. Wolfson calls the "reign of the phallus." The circumcision scar is made a memetic-prosthesis growing out of the now defunct propagation tool that was defrauding the truth concerning its alleged seminality in relationship to "mind" and mind-products: memes.

Another Professor, Norman O. Brown, implied that both the genealogy, and the seminality, of the word "genius," comes from the idea of a "genital in the head." The "genius" is the person who fixates on memes, thoughts, and ideas, with the same passion the profligate or profane man gets his rise out of phallic-sex.

Similarly, Eastern thought speaks of the kundalini slithering from the first home in the testes, up the spine, to reside, at the point of enlightenment, as the genital in the head.

The circumcision scar is the perfect meme for the idea of the end of genes, and the beginning of the new-world, the world-to-come, based not on genetic authority, or paternity, but on the matriarchal meme par excellent: the death of male flesh; the death of the flesh that makes genetic procreation usurp its secondary role in relationship to the "mind" that's the true organ of a production, propagation, producing immortal offspring.

. . . Btw, I liked the last sentence in the second paragraph of this message so much that I just attached it as a memetic-prosthesis to the end of the essay noted above.



John

Yeah, we act out rituals before we fully understand cognitively what is happening. There is definitely a lot that is symbolized by the circumcision ritual. The quote from Thomas’ Gospel (#53) about circumcision is relevant to point out that the goal is to get beyond the ritual. It is the “circumcision of spirit” (the messianic male from the sinful male) that proves to be useful and profitable.

Rereading my posts, I was a little sloppy in associating the sinfulness of the body with the feminine body. Sin is associated with the male (Satan); it’s just that the body is built on a foundation of sin. I’m reminded when Jesus warned about building your house on sand rather than rock. Also, his statement about destroying and restoring the temple represents the breakdown of the sinful body for a new body. Of course, the crucifixion + Resurrection is the ultimate symbol.

The archetypal hero story of the masculine hero (messianic male) saving the virgin/princess (female body) from the dragon (sinful body) is also applicable.