re-visited old posts @ agonist:
let me take off my patriarchial hat for a moment, and note that for maybe 50-60,000 years, the womb not the phallus was the predominant cultural metaphor.
Sex therefore served as an icon of the self becoming itself, a very different representational value, relating to erotic desire of divine becoming itself. We are made from stardust and we seek to return to the stars.. We are all neighbours, sharing in the cosmic dance.
The symbol of the womb is not a thrusting, pulsating overwhelming power representation. Rather the womb prefigures the whole human being, a being to be inclusive, embracing, nurturing, intimate - a gentle energy but more overwhelming than the brief pulse of the penis.
The long oppressive history of patriarchal dominance and interference, instilled by male models of philosophy initially and then male led medical practice, debased and decreased a holistic understanding of sexuality that included the female perspective.
As humanity settled into the city lifestyle and war became male dominated, the very idea of neighbour changed.
Today, as in Jesus' day neighbour is someone who lives nearby and implicity has the same value system.
Hence love your enemies became a profound metaphor for early christians. By the middle ages the dictum became personified and thus legitimised warfare between cities/states and countries.
Tolstoy railed against militant nationalism, and used the injunction to love thy enemy as his primary text.
I am continuall amazed by customers who come in and abuse me for stocking books on Buddhism, Islam, and Judaism; truly we have a long way to go in understanding who our neighbour is.
Peter Kreeft writes a reflection as Jesus: So the universe was a womb for humanity, and humanity was a womb for Israel, and Israel was a womb for Mary, and Mary was a womb for me. Thus, Mary is the point of the universe, and I am the point of that point but I have not got the book so cannot check if he is quoting someone else.
turns out the book in question was
Peter Kreeft,The Philosophy of Jesus(South Bend: St. Augustine Press, 2007), 90.
nailed it at last!...
Re-reading Kreeft, I realise with 12 lectures on Pauline literature under my belt, that Kreeft's attempt to write 'The Philosophy of Jesus' was flawed from the start. The gospels are not first hand sources for Jesus' philosophy, rather are edited constructs to re-present his thoughts at the end of the 1stCenturyCE. Ah well I've learnt something...
