Monday, September 12, 2011

The Maligned Androgyne. Adam the Androgyne. Or Adm Hermaphrodyte. Adm Humankind.

.
We are Back To Adm and Adam, this Eve of Election Season.
The Issue:  Androgyny; Hermaphroditism; Homosexuality.
Why the Fear?

North Carolina may introduce a bill to ban gay marriage. Our culture shows great interest in people's plumbing and what they do with it. Peek! See http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63230.html.  But texts and early interpretations suggest that in earliest times, including in Eden (even if you take Eden figuratively), mixing it up was fine.  The male, the female, attributes back and forth in Eden, still shown in our XX clearly female; and X shaky squiggle little y, the male not clearly X and what else. 

Is that the problem.  Women know who they are at deepest levels.  Men do not.  Men must create what they are.  And others then judge it. 

Other cultures have no difficulty with a range of aspects in every human, see http://www.reconnections.net/androgyny.htm; and http://androgyne.0catch.com/2spiritx.htm; and roots at http://cnx.org/content/m18804/latest/  Other species also: see http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/21/science/21squid.html?scp=1&sq=animal%20homosexuality%20bonobo&st=cse

I.  Theory A - Biblical
.
Adm Humankind was originally both - see Genesis 1:26-27, at http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen1.pdf; and Genesis 5:1 ff. The original being, Adm, was either separated out into Adam and Eve; or humankind was originally created, one of each (two creation tales, one with details, one without the tails), but which is which?
.
The first creation story in the text: created both at once.  Created he them.  Was it then gradual further differentiation as role and later selectivity issues evolved?  That would explain the variation in our own behaviors?  Culture and time decide who does what, largely, an efficient, flexible framework.  That did not bother early Christians.
.
Early representations of Eden show Adam and Eve with similar attributes, and Adam with the leaf. Or are they both Eves?  Transcribers of old texts do have their own agendas.  Perhaps that was so.
.
II.  Theory B. Also Biblical.
.
Genesis 2:5-7. The second story in the text is full of detail.  The deity needs a being to till the ground. A specific job description, so the deity creates a being to perform those functions.  Deity needs an Adm as a gardener-custodian, so the deity makes the Adm, put "him" [English permits no genderless human, so a "he" is ascribed] in the garden.  Then the Adm "himself" needs help so the deity creates it. Out of the Adm.  "She", separated out, to be the guide, is the upgrade; "he", what remains, is the prototype, and the one originally lacking to meet the purpose (here, gardener), as are all prototypes.   And remaining overall is the ambiguity:  what was the gender first created, and what attributes constituted that.  What is the cultural role of patriarchy in gender-bending.
.
This also is consistent with gender blending in early times. See http://kngdv.blogspot.com/2010/10/theologys-gender-blending.html
.
Genesis and the kngdv for Adm, the guide as is in front of him, at Genesis 2:18-27. See http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen2.pdf;
.
More gender ambiguity. Out she came, full-blown, rib area:  but how much of her was left inside the Adm now Adam? We know men are X and Y mixed, with the Y a little odd, hardly developed. Her two X's are firm. Identifiable. Adam doesn't know who he is any more. Never did. Scares him.
.

.
Theory C. 
.
Theories A and B are symbolic, not literal. There is no scale of "values" among people with varying X and Y behaviors or attributes.  Just culture, money to be made, supremacisms to be asserted, so on with it! Make that money!  Assert that supremacy!  Adm the Human cannot stay that way: define as a this or a that, despite texts.
.
Recall, however, that the most famous angrogynes are the angels. Angels: ultimate androgyne. See http://www.glbtq.com/arts/subjects_androgyny.html.  Supremacism issue settled.  No need to fear.  Ambiguity is in us, ambiguity in texts, and ambiguity in what was intended, if anything. interpretations.

No comments: