XI. DO 'ALL GOOD THINGS COME FROM ABOVE'?
Participants in Judaeo-Christian culture commonly perceive a beneficent God who invisibly resides somewhere above (viz, in 'Heaven') the Earth.
From above, He (sometimes also now referenced as 'She' in gender-neutral parlance) is reputed as providing everything that is good on Earth and in the cosmos.
Explicitly or implicitly, a hierarchy ('chain) of power, good intention and beneficence is conceptualized whereby God provides good things for the church, the church provides good things for the Government, the Government provides good things for social institutions, institutions provide good things for professionals, men provide good things for women and parents provide good things for children.
While it is obvious that a new-b0rn baby seems to need everything done for him/her, this blogger submits that in addition to providing emotional resources and a sense of well-being for those around him/her, the baby has 'spiritual' and virtually 'magical' power that provides a beneficial reality/environment for all concerned.
In a more complex manner, adults continue to be beneficiaries of what maturing children provide; but the former commonly fail to respect, constructively use and appreciate this - leading to emotional distress, misbehavior and drug use in the younger generation.
Similarly, while it is commonly perceived that a woman is dependent on the emotional resources and reality/environment that a man provides, this blogger believe that the situation is covertly very much the inverse. Drawing on the power of her existential affinity with Nature, she provides a 'universe' of time, space and events for him - the best possible in accordance with how the man has 'impregnated' (i.e., effected, informed, defined) her psychologically, socially and 'spiritually' (see earlier Posts).
In summary, this blogger submits that 'all good things come from BELOW' and that, in fact, everyone and everything in the universe loves and takes care of God. And the latter has no existence that is independent of that provided for Him by the cosmos - especially human beings.
Sorry, 'Virginia' and 'Virginio', there is no Santa Clause; and God has no 'free-standing' existence or capacity to love, provide for or take care of anything or anyone.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Monday, August 3, 2009
X. 'MR. MOM': HYPOTHESIS REGARDING ETIOLOGY OF "E.D."
Male 'paternalism' of the bad-old-days whereby a man expected everyone to believe in him as a father has been replaced by a politically-correct male 'maternalism' wherein a man expects everyone to believe in him as a mother. (In each case, the man plays the role of 'the be-all and end-all'.)
Thus, a politically-correct man does not work to make money to purchase food (the traditional male fathering role) for his wife to prepare and cook (the traditional female mothering role) but, rather, demonstrates a compulsion to do the food preparation and cooking himself regardless of who has financed the purchase of the food. (Commonly, the female kitchen role is now limited to washing the dishes.)
This blogger suspects that this psycho-social 'breast' functioning of a man may, over the course of decades, result in a diminution of his physical phallic functioning - hence the epidemic of impotence, now known as "erectile dysfunction".
This hypothesis could readily be tested by seeing whether there is, in fact, a correlation between male family food preparation (as distinct from working as a chef in a restaurant) and the incidence of the currently famous E.D.
Addendum: The traditional Christian Grace before a meal thanks God for (directly) providing the food. God is implicitly ascribed an androgynous status as though he has a female functioning breast.
In the Jewish tradition, I understand, the pre-meal Blessing thanks God who (indirectly) through the Earth has provided the food. God is not perceived as having breast capacity; and a Jewish woman naturally takes her place qua nature in the preparation and serving of a meal.
Male 'paternalism' of the bad-old-days whereby a man expected everyone to believe in him as a father has been replaced by a politically-correct male 'maternalism' wherein a man expects everyone to believe in him as a mother. (In each case, the man plays the role of 'the be-all and end-all'.)
Thus, a politically-correct man does not work to make money to purchase food (the traditional male fathering role) for his wife to prepare and cook (the traditional female mothering role) but, rather, demonstrates a compulsion to do the food preparation and cooking himself regardless of who has financed the purchase of the food. (Commonly, the female kitchen role is now limited to washing the dishes.)
This blogger suspects that this psycho-social 'breast' functioning of a man may, over the course of decades, result in a diminution of his physical phallic functioning - hence the epidemic of impotence, now known as "erectile dysfunction".
This hypothesis could readily be tested by seeing whether there is, in fact, a correlation between male family food preparation (as distinct from working as a chef in a restaurant) and the incidence of the currently famous E.D.
Addendum: The traditional Christian Grace before a meal thanks God for (directly) providing the food. God is implicitly ascribed an androgynous status as though he has a female functioning breast.
In the Jewish tradition, I understand, the pre-meal Blessing thanks God who (indirectly) through the Earth has provided the food. God is not perceived as having breast capacity; and a Jewish woman naturally takes her place qua nature in the preparation and serving of a meal.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
IX. A HETEROSEXUAL READING OF GENESIS 1
This blogger suspects that the original rendering of Genesis 1:1 was 'In the beginning God impregnated the heaven and the earth.'
Certainly, Genesis 1:2, "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep." is more than a little suggestive of female vaginal functioning. And, surely, "And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" is readily analogous to the motion of a phallus leading to ejaculation.
This blogger submits that God's subsequent words, "Let there be light", etc., may be perceived as male 'soul' genetic input that animated and defined "the heaven and the earth" (viz, the laws of nature) in a process quite analogous to how the genes/chromosomes of a sperm cell inform/define the egg.
The God of Genesis 1 is, then, entirely and merely male; while every female life form is an incarnate "...heaven and the earth" for a male to impregnate - microscopically, macroscopically and psycho-socially.
[When a man says, "Let there be..." to a woman, she responds for him as did "the heaven and the earth" for God. But a woman has her own 'laws' - as nature (i.e., the heaven and the earth)had its own laws when responding for God. If the laws of nature had not provided for the possibility of light, God could have kept on saying, "Let there be light, etc." forever and no light, etc. would have ensured.]
This blogger suspects that the original rendering of Genesis 1:1 was 'In the beginning God impregnated the heaven and the earth.'
Certainly, Genesis 1:2, "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep." is more than a little suggestive of female vaginal functioning. And, surely, "And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" is readily analogous to the motion of a phallus leading to ejaculation.
This blogger submits that God's subsequent words, "Let there be light", etc., may be perceived as male 'soul' genetic input that animated and defined "the heaven and the earth" (viz, the laws of nature) in a process quite analogous to how the genes/chromosomes of a sperm cell inform/define the egg.
The God of Genesis 1 is, then, entirely and merely male; while every female life form is an incarnate "...heaven and the earth" for a male to impregnate - microscopically, macroscopically and psycho-socially.
[When a man says, "Let there be..." to a woman, she responds for him as did "the heaven and the earth" for God. But a woman has her own 'laws' - as nature (i.e., the heaven and the earth)had its own laws when responding for God. If the laws of nature had not provided for the possibility of light, God could have kept on saying, "Let there be light, etc." forever and no light, etc. would have ensured.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)