Page 2 of 5

Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 11:36 am
by Saffron
Thomas Hood wrote:
Saffron wrote: It seems impossible that anyone, anyone could write these lines . . .
Saffron, the prehistoric paradigm for sexual reproduction was the agricultural sowing of seed. According to this view, since the male possessed the seed, he was the originator of life. Everything else follows from this paradigmatic assumption.

Tom
Tom,
Not all peoples have been agrarian. There definitely have been groups that do understand human conception to be the planting of a seed or at least not the male as the source of the seed.

Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 11:46 am
by DWill
Thomas Hood wrote:
Saffron wrote: It seems impossible that anyone, anyone could write these lines . . .
Saffron, the prehistoric paradigm for sexual reproduction was the agricultural sowing of seed. According to this view, since the male possessed the seed, he was the originator of life. Everything else follows from this paradigmatic assumption.Tom
Tom, I'm sure Saffron will respond, but are you saying there is just one paradigm that can be drawn from myth concerning the source of procreation? I'm no expert in myth, but it seems that many do take the other side in the matter. The point in regard to Genesis is that it issued from a patriarchic culture; therefore, no surprise it would bend over backward to give the male primacy after God.

Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 12:03 pm
by Thomas Hood
Saffron wrote:Not all peoples have been agrarian. There definitely have been groups that do understand human conception to be the planting of a seed or at least not the male as the source of the seed.
True, but isn't it true that every culture that has persisted and developed has had an agrarian base? Most people today (I imagine) have no idea of the importance of seed. Once the main task of life was getting food -- not sex, shelter, clothing, . . . . If no seed were saved and carried through the winter, then starvation. Seed were the family's treasure. The seed paradigm is a consequence of the real importance of seed.

Tom

Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 12:14 pm
by Thomas Hood
DWill wrote:. . . are you saying there is just one paradigm that can be drawn from myth concerning the source of procreation?
Yes, to the best of my knowledge the seed paradigm was dominant over all major cultures -- those I've looked at anyway. Actually, the seed paradigm probably originated with women because the preservation of the seed was a woman's task. In traditional Chinese culture, seed were stored in Kun, the sector of the mother in the southwest corner of the house.

Tom

Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 12:08 pm
by MaryLupin
Thomas Hood wrote: Saffron, the prehistoric paradigm for sexual reproduction was the agricultural sowing of seed. According to this view, since the male possessed the seed, he was the originator of life. Everything else follows from this paradigmatic assumption.
With respect to the cultures that claim intellectual descendance from ancient Greece, one of the most power evocations of this basic idea was Plato. Here is a link to Timaeus where the following passage is taken. (note: for those of us who come from cultures that do not claim descendence from Plato et al, there are other stories that explain the relationship between mind and matter very differently, and with very different results.)

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/5/7/157 ... tm#2H_SECT

"Wherefore also in men the organ of generation becoming rebellious and masterful, like an animal disobedient to reason, and maddened with the sting of lust, seeks to gain absolute sway; and the same is the case with the so-called womb or matrix of women; the animal within them is desirous of procreating children, and when remaining unfruitful long beyond its proper time, gets discontented and angry, and wandering in every direction through the body, closes up the passages of the breath, and, by obstructing respiration, drives them to extremity, causing all varieties of disease, until at length the desire and love of the man and the woman, bringing them together and as it were plucking the fruit from the tree, sow in the womb, as in a field, animals unseen by reason of their smallness and without form; these again are separated and matured within; they are then finally brought out into the light, and thus the generation of animals is completed."

This stuff goes along with Plato's idea of matter as empty without what is "really real" - that is Form (reason being the only way to perceive Form). Aristotle expressed this concept of matter as materia prima. The basic idea for Plato is that women are essentially materia prima, dumb to the higher calling of reason and essentially an animal vessel for the growth and embodiment of form as it descends into the earthly plain. This "seeding," of course, is the role of men, who are, according to Plato, capable of reason. A good article about the concept of prime matter viz Aristotle is "Aristotle and Prime Matter: A reply to Hugh R. King" by Friedrich Solmsen. I originally got it from JSTOR so I can't provide a link to the text.

Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 1:04 pm
by Thomas Hood
MaryLupin wrote:The basic idea for Plato is that women are essentially materia prima, dumb to the higher calling of reason . . . .
But in The Republic Plato allows women a full role in rulership, so he considers them equally possessors of reason with men. "Wherefore also in men the organ of generation becoming rebellious and masterful, . . . ": desire in men also overrides reason.

Tom

Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:34 pm
by MaryLupin
Thomas Hood wrote:But in The Republic Plato allows women a full role in rulership, so he considers them equally possessors of reason with men.
He does say that women can be rulers. He had a rather ambivalent view of women. I always wondered if he had a female patroness during the time he was writing The Republic. But perhaps that is mean of me.

His ambivalence shows in many places but one I remember is his ideas about the movement of the soul after death. I think how it went was that when a soul left a body, if that soul was rational it found rebirth in a male body. If that soul was midly wicked or irrational, it found rebirth in a female body. If the soul was really wicked it found rebirth in a non-human animal.

One of the reasons he can allow women to become rulers is that rulers did not partake in childrearing and such social duties. In a sense, he could allow women to become rulers because rulers became fundamentally disembodied. I wonder what would he would have done if, like Pope Joan, one of his rulers had the temerity to get pregnant.

Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 8:34 am
by Thomas Hood
MaryLupin wrote: I always wondered if he had a female patroness during the time he was writing The Republic. . . t.
Diotima of Mantinea :)

http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/phil/phil ... otima.html

Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:56 pm
by Grindle
Speaking of the dead, Sir Walter's prose could be used by the CIA
for verbal waterboarding:

Sorry, but I agree...and with Samuel Johnson as well..(although his style is nothing to crow about in my opinion0) . And on to Bk lV :cry:

Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:59 pm
by Grindle
[
quote="Grindle"]Speaking of the dead, Sir Walter's prose could be used by the CIA
for verbal waterboarding:

Sorry, but I agree...and with Samuel Johnson as well..(although his style is nothing to crow about in my opinion) . And on to Bk lV :cry: