Metaphysics of Gender.

[Estro Felino]

. . . In the translation the most important word in the quotation is deceiving. Avodah Zarah 27a actually says a virgin בת is considered circumcised. Catholic scholars implied as much; that a virgin is gender-less just as a Jewish male is ritually gender-less after the ritual removal of the genesis of gender.



John

Jewish male genderless? What?

 

[John D. Brey]

But since this is just a made up story and sexual reproduction existed millions or billions of years ago...

. . . That's a different thread and a different subject. This thread takes the literalness of Genesis for granted. Irregardless of whether or not sexual reproduction existed millions of years before the creation of the first self-conscious human, the existence of this new state of affairs has to date not been explained by non-theological theory.

In many recent books by atheistic scientific materialists, the author has been forced to concede that nothing in science can account for the fact that the human mind clearly transcends its biological home. So much so in fact, that in less than 10,000 years, not even a twinkling of the eye in cosmological time, man has gone from riding horses and writing on stone walls, to standing on the moon, placing a machine on Mars to send back selfies, and instantaneous communication and commerce across the globe through the Internet. Man has now all but taken over the process of evolution and is redesigning himself in the laboratory. . . And the growth pattern is exploding exponentially. What will man be in another thousand years?


John

 

[John D. Brey]

Jewish male genderless? What?

. . . Symbolically, ritually.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

But what 'brilliance', exactly, do you attribute to Heidegger?

. . . That's definitely another thread. Suffice it to say that men like Derrida and Wolfson, who are two of the most brilliant thinkers of the last century, speak of Heidegger at times in a tone of crushed fervor.



John

 

[Estro Felino]

. . . Symbolically, ritually.



John

You mention Adam often. What about Eve?
What do you think of Eve vs Lilith ?

 

[blü 2]

. . . That's definitely another thread. Suffice it to say that men like Derrida and Wolfson, who are two of the most brilliant thinkers of the last century, speak of Heidegger at times in a tone of crushed fervor.

I should add that I'm no great fan of Derrida, who never quite got round to deconstructing his own views, and neither you nor Amazon are telling me anything about Wolfson.

So what do you intend this thread to be about, in the absence of both Wolfson and Heidegger?

 

[sealchan]

. . . That's a different thread and a different subject. This thread takes the literalness of Genesis for granted. Irregardless of whether or not sexual reproduction existed millions of years before the creation of the first self-conscious human, the existence of this new state of affairs has to date not been explained by non-theological theory.

In many recent books by atheistic scientific materialists, the author has been forced to concede that nothing in science can account for the fact that the human mind clearly transcends its biological home. So much so in fact, that in less than 10,000 years, not even a twinkling of the eye in cosmological time, man has gone from riding horses and writing on stone walls, to standing on the moon, placing a machine on Mars to send back selfies, and instantaneous communication and commerce across the globe through the Internet. Man has now all but taken over the process of evolution and is redesigning himself in the laboratory. . . And the growth pattern is exploding exponentially. What will man be in another thousand years?


John

Entering into the world of the story, I think it is ambiguous but possible that Adam was originally male and female. An examination of contemporaneous myth may reveal this to be the common interpretation.

However, given that there are many instances where the authors of Genesis appear to take traditionally Goddess oriented myth and alter it in a way to intentionally subvert the role of the Goddess and her female representatives, I suspect that making the woman come from the man was a response to the "Isis as throne of Horus" sort of mythic attitude and was an intentional effort to devalue the feminine divinity. The effort was to humiliate Yahweh's wife into obscurity.

 

[John D. Brey]

So what do you intend this thread to be about, in the absence of both Wolfson and Heidegger?

The phallus is the fleshly mediator between fleshly man and woman. It's the connector that puts the poles (male and female) into a singular union. Therefore, since a mediator must share the essence of the two poles it brings into union, the phallus must be both male and female flesh. And in fact we know the phallus is both male and female flesh since the ovum begins female. A transformation is required for what otherwise becomes labial flesh, the vagina, to become a penis. In this sense the penis begins as the same flesh as female genitalia and is transformed into male genitalia. The penis thus mediates between two things it essentially knows and is, since it’s female flesh as much as male. It’s ironic therefore that at least in this case the mediator creates the very distinction between the two things its presence as a mediator unifies.

Using the scientific fact that human flesh begins as what we define "female" (once a phallus is present to create binary distinction) we could say that the first human began with a female body. In that case Eve would have been a perfect facsimile, a clone Adam of Adam's female body so that at that point you'd have two females with no means of congress.

Genesis 2:21 speaks of that fact that when some of Adam's body was taken to produce a clone (Eve), the place the material used to clone Eve was taken was sealed up and sutured (penile-raphe) to form the first phallus.

Now you have two female bodies with a newfangled mediator organ being used to allow the two female bodies to have congress, intercourse, and to produce offspring.

What does it mean that Adam, rather than Eve, got the phallus? What does it mean that the one who possesses the phallus gets to be the boss? And more importantly, theologically speaking, why does the written text of scripture get interpreted to imply that the male is antecedent when we know that that's factually false?



John

 

[blü 2]

The phallus is the fleshly mediator between fleshly man and woman. It's the connector that puts the poles (male and female) into a singular union.

The penis is the male sexual organ in mammals, with an equivalent in reptiles, though not in fish or birds. Across all species that reproduce with two sexes, there are highly evolved behaviors between the sexes for reproduction. As you know, surviving long enough to breed is the great imperative of life.

Therefore, since a mediator must share the essence of the two poles it brings into union, the phallus must be both male and female flesh.

That's a question for biology, and the answer doesn't support your argument. If you take a cell (in this case from a human) into the lab, whether from the penis or otherwise, you can determine whether a Y chromosome is present or not ie whether the cell is from a male or a female.

Nor does your argument take male homosexual intercourse into account.

Genesis 2:21 speaks of that fact that when some of Adam's body was taken to produce a clone (Eve), the place the material used to clone Eve was taken was sealed up and sutured (penile-raphe) to form the first phallus.

That's myth. In fact we have a reasonable outline of the evolutionary path of H sap sap from near the start to the present. The evidence indicates that sexual reproduction becomes an aspect of living things very early, perhaps two billion years ago, and so is found not just in animals but in plants and fungi.

What does it mean that Adam, rather than Eve, got the phallus?

The name Adam is the Hebrew word for 'man'. No surprise if a character called 'Man' is the one with male traits, surely?

What does it mean that the one who possesses the phallus gets to be the boss?

The fact that males have extra testosterone seems relevant. Most mammals have gender roles. With humans the division of labor between immediate feeding and care (female) and protection and providing (male) has been particularly acute because, unlike other primates, human infants don't reach a level of independence until about age 5.

And more importantly, theologically speaking, why does the written text of scripture get interpreted to imply that the male is antecedent when we know that that's factually false?

It's called 'patriarchy'.

 

[John D. Brey]

The penis is the male sexual organ in mammals, with an equivalent in reptiles, though not in fish or birds. Across all species that reproduce with two sexes, there are highly evolved behaviors between the sexes for reproduction.

The account in Genesis is ontological and not necessarily logical or, on the surface, scientific. Nevertheless, my belief, and the theories based on my belief, is that Genesis is before, and transcends, logical or scientific accounts.

This isn't to say I discount science or logic; it's just that bible exegesis is at least one important iteration before, and above, logic, and science. It takes aeons for theology to trickle down into logic and science, but it does, and for that reason the USA, the most theologically attuned nation that has ever existed, is the premier bastion of scientific discovery.

That's a question for biology, and the answer doesn't support your argument. If you take a cell (in this case from a human) into the lab, whether from the penis or otherwise, you can determine whether a Y chromosome is present or not ie whether the cell is from a male or a female.

The Y chromosome is unnatural. It's a deformity. It's a defect. And it causes the deformity that is the male form in nature.

. . . we have a reasonable outline of the evolutionary path of H sap sap from near the start to the present. The evidence indicates that sexual reproduction becomes an aspect of living things very early, perhaps two billion years ago, and so is found not just in animals but in plants and fungi.

Reproduction by combining the genes of two individual organisms represents the end of immortality:

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.

William Clark, Sex and the Origins of Death: (prologue XI).​

The name Adam is the Hebrew word for 'man'. No surprise if a character called 'Man' is the one with male traits, surely?

In Hebrew, adam האדמ mean "human" not male. The Hebrew word for male is zakar זכר or Ish איש.

The fact that males have extra testosterone seems relevant. Most mammals have gender roles. With humans the division of labor between immediate feeding and care (female) and protection and providing (male) has been particularly acute because, unlike other primates, human infants don't reach a level of independence until about age 5.
It's called 'patriarchy'.

. . . Again, I wouldn't be interested in arguing against science or psychology, or history, for that matter. Wittgenstein said that only someone who had already thought the thoughts he dealt with would appreciate his take on them. . . Only someone able to take a biblical-view (i.e., take theology seriously . . . or more importantly, accept that it's metaphysical, above physics, and meta-historical, before history) is likely to find any value in any of my theories. . . Which isn't a diss of skepticism. Skepticism is wired into all good examinations of reality.



John

 

[blü 2]

The account in Genesis is ontological and not necessarily logical or, on the surface, scientific. Nevertheless, my belief, and the theories based on my belief, is that Genesis is before, and transcends, logical or scientific accounts.

Science delivers the only ontology derived from examinable evidence. On what basis other than personal emotion can one argue against the superiority of that approach>

Indeed, it brings up John's Pilate's question, what is truth? . My own view (the 'correspondence' view') is that a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / conforms to / accurately reflects objective reality. What test for truth do you use?

bible exegesis is at least one important iteration before, and above, logic, and science.

This could only make sense as an emotional statement, a choice based on personal satisfaction rather than facts, evidence and sound reasoning.

Is emotional satisfaction your test for whether a statement is true or not?

The Y chromosome is unnatural. It's a deformity. It's a defect. And it causes the deformity that is the male form in nature.

You really don't understand evolution, do you. After two billion years of sexual reproduction, the idea that the male-defining chromosome is a deformity is indefensible. Were parthenogenic reproduction a better system for larger critters to survive long enough to breed, then we'd see parthenogenesis everywhere, and not just in a few odd places.

Reproduction by combining the genes of two individual organisms represents the end of immortality:

Again you seem not to understand the survival benefits of gene-swapping and mixing. And I think it's the case that certain kinds of lobster (a creature that reproduces sexually) have no inbuilt use-by date, hence die by predation or mishap but not old age.

But in the real world there's never been an immortal creature, and even if some species of microorganism appear not to deteriorate with age, they can, like the lobster, nonetheless be killed.

(I've never understood what's so desirable about living forever anyway. In order to accomplish what?)

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.

William Clark, Sex and the Origins of Death: (prologue XI).​

I take it you're aware that in order for larger creatures to grow, particular cells must switch off=die to enable them to be replaced with different cells and structures? Do you instead have in mind a world of eternal infancy?

 

[John D. Brey]

Science delivers the only ontology derived from examinable evidence. On what basis other than personal emotion can one argue against the superiority of that approach>

Karl Popper answered that question: deduction. The most seminal element in the scientific-method is the deductive hypothesis which according to Popper, and I concur, isn't subject to, or derived from, the scientific-method. The revelatory deductive inferences, or hypotheses, which lead to things like I-phones, space travel, heart-transplants, etc., don't come from inductive reasoning or logical thought. As Roger Penrose, with Popper, and many others point out, these deductive inferences are miraculous so far as scientific thought is concerned.

Indeed, it brings up John's Pilate's question, what is truth? . My own view (the 'correspondence' view') is that a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / conforms to / accurately reflects objective reality. What test for truth do you use?

. . . Subjective reality. A reality that isn't based on the false-inferences that come from empirical observation that come to us already fatally contaminated by the premises and theories reified in out biology and our genes. As Kant showed to be the case, using pure reason (so to say), if we eliminate every quality, size, color, taste, smell, weight, solidity, etc., that's added by our physical sense perceptions interacting with our brain, all that would be left, would be a bloomin buzzin confusion. It seems to me that Kant plagiarized Galileo:

I feel myself impelled by the necessity, as soon as I conceive a piece of matter or corporeal substance, of conceiving that in its own nature it is bounded and figured in such and such a figure, that in relation to others it is large or small, that it is in this or that place, in this or that time, that it is in motion or remains at rest, that it touches or does not touch another body, that it is single, few, or many; in short by no imagination can a body be separated from such conditions; but that it must be white or red, bitter or sweet, sounding or mute, of a pleasant or unpleasant odour, I do not perceive my mind forced to acknowledge it necessarily accompanied by such conditions; so if the senses were not the escorts, perhaps the reason or the imagination by itself would never have arrived at them. Hence I think that these tastes, ordours, colours, etc., on the side of the object in which they seem to exist, are nothing else than mere names, but hold their residence solely in the sensitive body; so that if the animal were removed, every such quality would be abolished and annihilated.
​

This could only make sense as an emotional statement, a choice based on personal satisfaction rather than facts, evidence and sound reasoning.

It's an occupational hazard of those who prefer non-being to being ("I've never understood what's so desirable about living forever anyway") that they consider subjective thought, which is our inherent deity, to be nothing more than emotional nonsense.

But in the real world there's never been an immortal creature, and even if some species of microorganism appear not to deteriorate with age, they can, like the lobster, nonetheless be killed.

. . . I take it you're aware that in order for larger creatures to grow, particular cells must switch off=die to enable them to be replaced with different cells and structures? Do you instead have in mind a world of eternal infancy?

Every one of us was immortal at one point in our ontogeny. The female ovum, post meosis, pre-fertilization, is immortal, like a cancer cell. If that cell could be made to begin splitting, developing, without the sperm cell piercing the outer membrane and thus destroying the perfection of that cell, the resulting human being would be immoral.

It's only happened one time.

Embryonic stem cells develop when the female ovum is fertilized by the male sperm. The early cell-division creates what are known as "totipotent" (or pluripotent) cells. These cells can become any specific cell in the human body. As cell-division continues the stem cells lose the ability to become any cell. The multipotent cells have specific instructions about what kind of cell they can become.

The female ovum, post meiosis and polar body, pre-fertilization, are "omnipotent" stem cells. The unfertilized seed of the woman is the God-cell.

If the totipotent cells can become any cell in the human body, what amazing trick does that leave for the omnipotent cell to do?

Answering that question requires that the totipotent cells be distinguished from the pluripotent cells? The only difference between the totipotent cells and the pluripotent cells is that the totipotent cell can become something other than the actual embryo. For instance, the totipotent cells can become the placenta, which isn't even a part of the embryo-fetus.

The omnipotent cell can do the totipotent cells one better. It can become any living organism on the planet. And even that doesn't extinguish the bag of tricks that comes with the omnipotent cell. The omnipotent cell can become an organism that has never entered into the mind of man: a God/man.

The Omnipotent Stem-Cell.​

John

 

[blü 2]

Karl Popper answered that question: deduction. The most seminal element in the scientific-method is the deductive hypothesis which according to Popper, and I concur, isn't subject to, or derived from, the scientific-method. The revelatory deductive inferences, or hypotheses, which lead to things like I-phones, space travel, heart-transplants, etc., don't come from inductive reasoning or logical thought. As Roger Penrose, with Popper, and many others point out, these deductive inferences are miraculous so far as scientific thought is concerned.

The workings of reason which produce deduction are evolved capacities of many brains, not just humans. And the fact that scientific method uses deduction is no argument against it. (And Penrose has declared himself to be a mathematical platonist, f' cryin' out loud!)

I'd be interested to hear what alternative method you think better answers the question, What's true in reality?

. . Subjective reality. A reality that isn't based on the false-inferences that come from empirical observation that come to us already fatally contaminated by the premises and theories reified in out biology and our genes.

What's an example of a premise "reified in our biology"?

What's an example of a theory "reified in our biology"?

Why would such a reification automatically be a "fatal contamination"?

As Kant showed to be the case, using pure reason (so to say), if we eliminate every quality, size, color, taste, smell, weight, solidity, etc., that's added by our physical sense perceptions interacting with our brain, all that would be left, would be a bloomin buzzin confusion. It seems to me that Kant plagiarized Galileo:

[...] I think that these tastes, ordours, colours, etc., on the side of the object in which they seem to exist, are nothing else than mere names, but hold their residence solely in the sensitive body; so that if the animal were removed, every such quality would be abolished and annihilated.​

​

I proceed on three assumptions ─ that a world exists external to me, that my senses are capable of informing me about that world, and that reason is a valid tool. You obviously share the first two or you wouldn't be posting here. (I assume you share the third one, but if you don't, please say so straight away.)

The information about the external world which our senses have evolved to provide for us is the basis of everything we know ─ including our knowledge of the limitations of the senses, and of sensory illusions, and so on. Our understanding of the real world, based as it is on empiricism and induction, can't make absolute statements, but meanwhile the methods of science do ongoing work that provides the only sufficient approach presently known, questions in biology, physics, medicine, the brain, all the qualities of objective reality.

So I ask again ─ what test do you use to determine whether a statement is true or not?

It's an occupational hazard of those who prefer non-being to being ("I've never understood what's so desirable about living forever anyway") that they consider subjective thought, which is our inherent deity, to be nothing more than emotional nonsense.

You want to live forever? Be sure to take something to read ─ as Woody Allen is said to have said, 'Eternity is very long, especially towards the end.'

Every one of us was immortal at one point in our ontogeny. The female ovum, post meosis, pre-fertilization, is immortal, like a cancer cell.

The ovum is not a person, simply a specialized cell in a specialized environment. Take it out of that environment and it dies. 'Every one of us' gets just half our genes from the ovum. We are not half our genes either. There's no 'we' or 'I' being offered 'immortality' at any point.

If that cell could be made to begin splitting, developing, without the sperm cell piercing the outer membrane and thus destroying the perfection of that cell, the resulting human being would be immoral.

That's harsh ─ just because it's female wouldn't automatically make it immoral.

It's only happened one time.

Jesus was a male. Are you saying Mary was male too? Or if Mary was a female, as the authors of Matthew and Luke think, where do you say Jesus got his Y-chromosome?

 

[John D. Brey]

. . . Philo supposed "maleness" is immaterial, while "femaleness" is material. If we take that presupposition to the bank, then Adam's original body should have been non-gendered female. In other words, Adam's original body should have been what today we think of as "female" though before there was a "male" body, the original body would have been non-gendered since there would be nothing to compare it with in a binary or dualistic sense. It would have been just as male, notwithstanding female genitalia, as it was female, until the arrival of the phallus (Gen. 2:21) caused a distinction to be made.

Which is to say that if Philo is correct about immaterial maleness and material femaleness, then the original, material body, of humanity, should have possessed what we now consider female genitalia.

That being the case, normal gender metaphysics may have been distorted from the very Genesis of the written word.

In Rabbi Boyarin's recently quoted book, Carnal Israel, he notes that Philo (with no small number of predecessors and followers, and no small precedent) considered "masculinity" to be immaterial (like mind, or spirit) while materiality is fancied "female." The body is feminine, and the soul, mind, or spirit (these three words may speak of the same thing) is masculine.

The acceptance of this metaphysical foundation for gender creates fertile ground for examining the differences gender metaphysics display throughout Jewish and Christian theology, ritual, and practice. As Rabbi Boyarin points out, Judaism eschews the strict distinction between mind/spirit/soul, versus physical body. Judaism rejects the concrete duality of body and soul, or body and spirit, and teaches, ritualizes, and practices, a religion whereby what is real bodily is real spiritually; since the two binary concepts (body and spirit) don't, in Judaism, have a dis-unified or separate reality.

As is most often the case, I accept the basic foundation of Jewish thought, and metaphysics, such that my guiding principle in the examination of the metaphysics of gender is that gender metaphysics mustn't allegorize or metaphorize physical, biological, reality (in this case gender), allowing theory and practice to distort the literal truth of the physical body. This being the case, on the surface I would appear to be in perfect league with Judaism's theology of gender whereby it ---gender--- appears to be reified in the physical, biological, reality, of the Jewish body, which, just like the god-given text of the Torah, is the anchor and foundation for all legitimate speculation and interpretation.

This is to say that since I accept the Chazal's claim that no interpretation of the text of the Torah can stray from the literal meaning of the words and their grammar, so too, I accept the Talmudic belief that the body, the flesh, of the Jew, which I believe is tantamount to God's textualizing of the reality of mankind in that fleshly body, should therein imply that I wouldn't want to stray too far from the reality of the body, as understood in Judaism, to erroneously present some allegorical or mystical interpretation of gender freed from the anchor of biological reality.

And yet, as I showed, in the thread Ibn Ezra's Demon, there are many places, if not most places, in the literal text of the Torah, where interpreted in the most common meaning of the words and grammar, the text of the Torah is itself clearly, undeniably, allegorical, or metaphorical, and to a degree unacceptable to Jewish tradition, such that in these cases we see Jewish exegetes forced to stray farther even than any Christian exegete from faithfulness to the literal text, which in these cases, presents no acceptable meaning within the broader traditions of what the text has always been thought to be saying, i.e, what it simply must be saying, if Jewish tradition is properly anchored to the literal text (the thread Ibn Ezra's Demon demonstrated this through careful exegesis of Psalms 2:6-7, and 110:1).

Using the same exegetical principle that showed the impossibility of Jewish exegetes interpreting Psalm 2:6-7, or 110:1 correctly, i.e., according to the plain and clear meaning of the text and the grammar, it can be seen here too, that in the metaphysics of gender, the Jewish interpretation of gender strays too far from the literal genetics of the body to be acceptable except where Jewish tradition is allowed to override and stray far from the very foundation that allegedly anchors it to its traditional understanding.




John

 

[John D. Brey]

In Rabbi Boyarin's recently quoted book, Carnal Israel, he notes that Philo (with no small number of predecessors and followers, and no small precedent) considered "masculinity" to be immaterial (like mind, or spirit) while materiality is fancied "female." The body is feminine, and the soul, mind, or spirit (these three words may speak of the same thing) is masculine.

The acceptance of this metaphysical foundation for gender creates fertile ground for examining the differences gender metaphysics display throughout Jewish and Christian theology, ritual, and practice. As Rabbi Boyarin points out, Judaism eschews the strict distinction between mind/spirit/soul, versus physical body. Judaism rejects the concrete duality of body and soul, or body and spirit, and teaches, ritualizes, and practices, a religion whereby what is real bodily is real spiritually; since the two binary concepts (body and spirit) don't, in Judaism, have a dis-unified or separate reality.

As is most often the case, I accept the basic foundation of Jewish thought, and metaphysics, such that my guiding principle in the examination of the metaphysics of gender is that gender metaphysics mustn't allegorize or metaphorize physical, biological, reality (in this case gender), allowing theory and practice to distort the literal truth of the physical body. This being the case, on the surface I would appear to be in perfect league with Judaism's theology of gender whereby it ---gender--- appears to be reified in the physical, biological, reality, of the Jewish body, which, just like the god-given text of the Torah, is the anchor and foundation for all legitimate speculation and interpretation.

This is to say that since I accept the Chazal's claim that no interpretation of the text of the Torah can stray from the literal meaning of the words and their grammar, so too, I accept the Talmudic belief that the body, the flesh, of the Jew, which I believe is tantamount to God's textualizing of the reality of mankind in that fleshly body, should therein imply that I wouldn't want to stray too far from the reality of the body, as understood in Judaism, to erroneously present some allegorical or mystical interpretation of gender freed from the anchor of biological reality.

And yet, as I showed, in the thread Ibn Ezra's Demon, there are many places, if not most places, in the literal text of the Torah, where interpreted in the most common meaning of the words and grammar, the text of the Torah is itself clearly, undeniably, allegorical, or metaphorical, and to a degree unacceptable to Jewish tradition, such that in these cases we see Jewish exegetes forced to stray farther even than any Christian exegete from faithfulness to the literal text, which in these cases, presents no acceptable meaning within the broader traditions of what the text has always been thought to be saying, i.e, what it simply must be saying, if Jewish tradition is properly anchored to the literal text (the thread Ibn Ezra's Demon demonstrated this through careful exegesis of Psalms 2:6-7, and 110:1).

Using the same exegetical principle that showed the impossibility of Jewish exegetes interpreting Psalm 2:6-7, or 110:1 correctly, i.e., according to the plain and clear meaning of the text and the grammar, it can be seen here too, that in the metaphysics of gender, the Jewish interpretation of gender strays too far from the literal genetics of the body to be acceptable except where Jewish tradition is allowed to override and stray far from the very foundation that allegedly anchors it to its traditional understanding.

Throughout numerous threads composed over the last decade or so, I used Philo's metaphysics of gender to propose something so seemingly absurd, and unique, that I was at a loss to find any Jewish or Christian sages, kabbalah or otherwise, directly, or even, really, indirectly, willing to posit the theory that has become a foundation for all my most recent exegetical forays into the Tanakh. I proposed, in threads like Lilith, and, The Original Jewish Mother, even, Creating the Phallus-Satan Incarnate, that based on the material nature of the "feminine," the first human --the adam-- possessed what we today consider a female body (though without a binary male, that alleged "female" body would be non-binary, non-gendered, or at best androgynous with its "male" element initially hidden.)

Naturally this hypothesis stands Jewish theology on its head since as interpreted from the text of the Torah, Judaism understands the first human to have a "male" physical body, which is either non-binary, non-gendered, or at best androgynous with the "female" element initially hidden (though I should add that I've seen kabbalistic theories of hermaphrodidic-androgyny).

All of Christian and Jewish theology hinges, as can be shown, on the distinction between the adam, the first human, possessing either the physical body we now consider "female," or initially possessing the physical body we now consider "male." ------Get this fundamentally important fact wrong, backward, and the theology that follows will at best be born physically alive, but spiritually dead. It will serve the flesh, and the body, just fine, for a time, but will find itself in opposition to a binary, or gendered, spirit, or soul, which, as the "male," would be hidden, invisible, unknowable, in the origin account based on Philo's feminization of physical bodies.




John

 

[John D. Brey]

The workings of reason which produce deduction are evolved capacities of many brains, not just humans. And the fact that scientific method uses deduction is no argument against it. (And Penrose has declared himself to be a mathematical platonist, f' cryin' out loud!)

. . . I've quoted Daniel Dennett, in this forum, to state that he is now aware, for there is no way out of it, that the human "mind" transcends physics. That's an incredible surrender forced out of this atheistic scientific materialist (who probably shares your prejudices) by facts that are becoming too evident to deny.

I've quoted another atheistic, scientific, materialist, Ray Kurzweil, stating the same thing: that the human mind is able to perform feats that imply it's free of, above, transcends, the physics of the world.

That it's taken so long for scientific materialists to use their god-given mind to realize their mind isn't part of the physical creation is astounding since Jewish nomads made the arguments that prove such a thing, and have force the recognition of such a thing, thousands and thousands of years ago.

Physical things have evolved. Our bodies have evolved. Mind, not so much. . . That atheistic scientific materials are allowing their minds to come out of the closet of their physical bodies is, again, astounding. . . Kurzweil is hoping to transfer his mind to a new body manufactured in a way that will allow it to be continually updated and modified forever. . . Unlike you, he seems to prefer being to non-being. <s>



John

 

[blü 2]

. . . I've quoted Daniel Dennett, in this forum, to state that he is now aware, for there is no way out of it, that the human "mind" transcends physics. That's an incredible surrender forced out of this atheistic scientific materialist (who probably shares your prejudices) by facts that are becoming too evident to deny.

What does the good doctor mean by 'transcend' here? The rules of physics are abstractions, which like all concepts are only found in individual brains. I don't see how abstractions 'transcend' physics, considering they're integral to physics. I await your explanation.

I've quoted another atheistic, scientific, materialist, Ray Kurzweil, stating the same thing: that the human mind is able to perform feats that imply it's free of, above, transcends, the physics of the world.

That leads yet again to many questions, such as:

How does he define 'mind'? (In other words, what real thing is he talking about?)
What aspect of reality makes such operations possible in place of physics, in his view? Magic? If not, then what, exactly?​

That it's taken so long for scientific materialists to use their god-given mind to realize their mind isn't part of the physical creation is astounding

Then I look forward with an enthusiast's interest to your answers to the questions above.

.Physical things have evolved. Our bodies have evolved. Mind, not so much.

This time, what do you mean by mind, exactly?


Oh, and what's the test you use to determine whether a statement is true or not? I regard your answer as of major importance to understanding your arguments.

 

[John D. Brey]

The information about the external world which our senses have evolved to provide for us is the basis of everything we know ─ including our knowledge of the limitations of the senses, and of sensory illusions, and so on. Our understanding of the real world, based as it is on empiricism and induction, can't make absolute statements, but meanwhile the methods of science do ongoing work that provides the only sufficient approach presently known, questions in biology, physics, medicine, the brain, all the qualities of objective reality.

If your first statement were true we would be perpetual aboriginals. There's nothing in the physics of the world that tells any creature that it's possible to harness the atom to provide power for laboratories where Pentium chips can be manufactured. There was no blueprint anywhere on the planet telling the human animal how to manufacture Pentium chips and how to transplant hearts or land rovers on Mars.

Someone will suggest that Pentium chips are the product of millions of experiments and test which eventually eventuated in them. And yet every single theory, test, hypothesis, on the road to the Pentium chip occurred without a blueprint, or a suggestion that any one of the steps required to get to Pentium chips was possible or likely. The hypotheses that led to modern science are miraculous. They are not the result of physics or evolution.

There are aborigines today who live like men lived prior to the scientific revolution, prior to the rise of Judeo/Christian thought. They don't build Mars rovers. They don't do heart transplants. And given a billion years, they will not have advanced one iota for the simple reason that there is no blueprint telling them they can or should. A spark, a deductive, miraculous, hypothesis, is required at every single stage or iteration of the scientific endeavor.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

That leads yet again to many questions, such as:

How does he define 'mind'? (In other words, what real thing is he talking about?)
What aspect of reality makes such operations possible in place of physics, in his view? Magic? If not, then what, exactly?​

Then I look forward with an enthusiast's interest to your answers to the questions above.
This time, what do you mean by mind, exactly?

Most, or at least many, physicists believe that time-asymmetry is an illusion caused by how sentient lifeforms interpret their experience in the world. In a symmetrical universe (like the one Einstein believed in) mind is the force and power from the end of time, acting on the beginning of time, guiding physical fields and forces to their eventual completion in something like an Omega Point where space and time cease to be and an eternal state ruled by Mind (rather than matter) arises as an epiphenomenon of the Omega Point.

The chaos at the beginning of time must become organized until all matter, all energy, is place at the disposal of Mind, at the end of time.

You and I possess material bodies which, because of the state of the world in our day and age, possess access to highly potent mind. Those of us who use that mind to organize things further, and most importantly to organize thoughts for the sake of mind over matter, take part in the eventual eschaton where the Divine Mind will reward each and every agent in the development of the eschaton according to the role they played in guiding matter and thought toward the eventual victory of Mind over matter.



John

 

[blü 2]

If your first statement were true we would be perpetual aboriginals. There's nothing in the physics of the world that tells any creature that it's possible to harness the atom to provide power for laboratories where Pentium chips can be manufactured.

Of course there is ─ the external world, reality, itself. We study it via our senses, form falsifiable hypotheses, test them, and depending on the circumstances we then turn them into concepts, procedures, abstractions and generalizations. That's what our senses are for, that's how reasoned enquiry works, of which scientific method is a subset.

And note that skepticism is integral to the honesty of reasoned enquiry and the maximizing of objectivity when the question is, What's true in reality?

There was no blueprint anywhere on the planet telling the human animal how to manufacture Pentium chips and how to transplant hearts or land rovers on Mars.

Why would you think there was? Do you dream of a technological Garden of Eden where equipment and instruction manuals grow on trees?

Someone will suggest that Pentium chips are the product of millions of experiments and test which eventually eventuated in them. And yet every single theory, test, hypothesis, on the road to the Pentium chip occurred without a blueprint

So what?

Most, or at least many, physicists believe that time-asymmetry is an illusion caused by how sentient lifeforms interpret their experience in the world. In a symmetrical universe (like the one Einstein believed in) mind is the force and power from the end of time, acting on the beginning of time, guiding physical fields and forces to their eventual completion in something like an Omega Point where space and time cease to be and an eternal state ruled by Mind (rather than matter) arises as an epiphenomenon of the Omega Point.

In what sense did Einstein, who believed in the arrow of time and as far as I know never doubted entropy, think time was nonetheless symmetrical in those contexts?

The chaos at the beginning of time must become organized until all matter, all energy, is place at the disposal of Mind, at the end of time.

So now it's more relevant than ever that you give me a useful definition of 'mind'. (For me, 'mind' is a term for a basket of brain functions, the contents of the basket being loosely, variously and situationally defined. It's a word I don't use when precision is required.)

You and I possess material bodies which, because of the state of the world in our day and age, possess access to highly potent mind.

Same question.


And you STILL haven't told me what test you use to determine whether a statement is true or not. Is it the case that you don't have one, and 'truth' is whatever sounds good to you? If not, what?