What To Write On My Dogs Grave

Jarrett's Encore from Tokyo

DGD: Networks 110 (clonografía), 2009

*

Keith Jarrett's Encore from Tokyo

Daniel González Dueñas

*

Translated from the English original by Gonzalo Melchor

*

For Rafael Castanedo, Who Put God on loop, and for Claudio Isaac
, WHO COLLABORATE so much

*

The religious consensus by which God is a mountain of fire, thundering into the heart of the heavens, has always sounded to me a bit like the Wizard of Oz. Pure theatricals. No. God must be something closer to Keith Jarrett’s Encore from Tokyo . Not the Deus Irae , and not the Deus ex machina —not the frightful thunder, not the scorching gaze—but perfect serenity, the mathematical perfection of beauty, of simply being there, sitting in the Garden of Eden, without time, burdens, pain, in pure being . And not euphoria, rapture, being devastated by ecstasy. No. Only calm, the delicious smoothness of the moment, without the least ballast but also without the least distraction.

*

Keith Jarrett was born in Allentown, Pennsylvania, in 1945. At the age of 3 he began studying piano and at seven he gave his first recital; ten years later he was able to give his first 2-hour solo concert made up exclusively of his own material. In 1972 he began his concert tours based on free improvisation, without any previous planning. Such important albums as Solo Concerts (1973), Köln Concert (1975) and the great Sun Bear Concerts (1976) grew out of these tours. For Jarrett’s followers, these concerts are monumental in the history of music; his detractors admit they are stirring but end up reducing them, as one of them states, to “long and slow exercises in self-indulgence”.

*

The album Sun Bear Concerts has been called “the ultimate ego trip”, mostly by those who’ve never listened to it. When it was first released, it was huge black box with ten heavy vinyl long plays, and with the advent of digital technology it was reduced to a small box-set of 6 CDs. It spans over seven hours of continuous, applied and exact creativity; the shortest piece is 31-minutes long; the longest, 43.

*

We must be grateful to Manfred Eicher, producer of ECM Records, for abiding by Jarrett’s request to release all of the material as a whole, and not just extracts; the album’s price-tag wouldn’t make it overly attractive in the market, but—as Jarrett told Eicher—“music works better as a coordinated whole”. Thanks to this, we have a complete record of that experience, including the essential encores (there are three in the album, from Sapporo, Nagoya and Tokyo, each between four and ten minutes long), which may not have been included in a synthesized version.

*

The album’s technical virtuosity has led some critics to state that at times it seems Jarrett has four hands, especially in the sections where he simultaneously handles several musical themes. But technical expertise is not enough to explain the quality of this material; a critic has said metaphorically that Jarrett “is transcribing words into music”; another, that it is “images” that Jarrett translates into sounds.

*

Nevertheless, it is neither words nor images, but something located half-way, and which still lacks a name. Someone has put forth the argument that Jarrett’s subconscious is composing all the time (no matter whether the artist is at the piano, strolling down the street without a care or even asleep), and that this way he “archives” in his memory a huge amount of music to interpret at the right time later on. Perhaps; but in my opinion, his method consists in sitting at the piano on stage, calling forth something similar to Zen silence and going on to translate his thoughts, feelings, moods: his intuitions, sure—but also his blood flow. Jarrett’s skill is such that it isn’t hard to imagine it is his fingers that take care of the technique, while Jarrett, almost unaware of them, simply lets himself flow. More than “created” music, what we listen to is the process of creation within the interiority of genius.

*

How is he able to do this? How can he improvise, enter into a state of satori , on the one hand let himself flow, and on the other maintain the highest technical perfection, while knowing that thousands of people are watching and listening, and that the concert is also being recorded for History itself? As few other artists have, Jarrett manifests the great mystery of creativity. Other musicians find shelter in a long and solitary process of composition; they have all the time in the world at their disposal to analyze each note on paper, rehearse at the piano, write bit by bit the work they will interpret on stage reading the score. What Jarrett does is comparable to a writer getting up on stage and, without any preparation, taking hold of the microphone and improvising The Waste Land or Juan Rulfo’s El llano en llamas .

*

The analogy would have to add that the writer not only enters another state of consciousness: he also remains in it by means of certain words and its rhythm. Jarrett connects himself but at the same time allows himself no distraction: while his deep mind sets sail, his consciousness remains in his fingers and in the crystalline and marvellous translation of what he is seeing: of what he is living .

*

It would hardly be exaggerating to say that his whole body immerses itself in his subconscious, with the sole exception of his hands (and his feet on the pedals). He himself has stated, in one of his most ineffable and challenging statements: “Playing is what matters the least, it’s the left over scraps, the activity of being musical”—that is to say (as the Argentine critic Guillermo Bazzola has written), that “what we habitually know as music is no more than the reflection of an ideal entity, the telling of an experience, of something spiritually lived through”.

*

Applying Jarrett’s dictum to any other artistic field would be greatly beneficial: the emphasis remains on the connection, not on the technique. Doesn’t this contradict the fact that Jarrett has gone so far as to cancel a concert if he considers the piano’s quality is lacking? Not at all: technique is what matters the least, but in itself it must be as polished as possible. Only this way, by comparison, can that something else, without a name—all that is left over —come truly into being.

*

It’s true that at times his travels cross through dense, even nightmarish atmospheres; certain passages turn into a ritual tam-tam, like a dialogue with ancient gods. Nevertheless, Jarrett never loses his way, and even in those cases of frantic enjoyment, his fingers bring discoveries to this side.

*

All of the material in Sun Bear Concerts was, then, improvised on the go before five Japanese audiences in the cities of Kyoto, Osaka, Nagoya, Tokyo, and Sapporo. Those who, after having listened to the concerts, find out that they were all improvisations, are surprised by the high quality of the album, and by the fact that each concert has a distinctive character. Indeed, improvisation in Jarrett is never a mechanical exchange of standard phrases, or a mere filling of gaps between two momentary inspirations. The musician is famous for not repressing cries of pleasure, sobs or even howls, which have been preserved in his live recordings. Yet this habit is mostly absent from the Japanese concerts.

*

Jarrett began the tour on the 5th of November 1976, in Kyoto, a city that is as reserved as Tokyo (its acoustic opposite) is vociferous; in this concert there is a clear gospel element in the artist’s improvisations. The concerts from Osaka (8 November) and Nagoya (12 November) are more lyrical and melancholic, while Sapporo’s (18 November) is more dissonant and dense. But it was in Tokyo that the miracle took place, on the 14th of November 1976—and not in the concert itself, but in an unplanned piece (that is, doubly unplanned, given that the concert itself was already improvised) which the artist created to thank the audience for their fervent clapping. This means that the Encore was on the brink of not existing, had the audience’s reception been different (it is well known that Jarrett has interrupted concerts if the crowd speaks or makes noise).

*

Without doubt, it was a most special alchemy, an unrepeatable mixture. The ground for invocation came about by a combination of factors—the specific nature of the long concert that had just ended, the audience’s receptivity, the spiritual state of the artist…(and here, in all seriousness, one would have to make a long list including not only what Jarrett ate that day, but also the alignment of the planets, the stains on the Sun, the air’s electrical charge, what was borne by cosmic rays…). The fact is that, after the ovation, Jarrett came back on stage, sat in front of the piano and, as silence fell, he began an encore . But this time, instead of playing, he opened the gates of heaven for exactly eight minutes.

*

Perhaps one could think that the technical complexity of the concert he’d just given had exhausted his mental resources more than ever before—that is to say, that in it all his thoughts had been translated. The Tokyo concert had lasted 75 minutes with only one break. When the crowd’s ovation almost brought down the theatre, the artist who came back on stage to give his audience the gift of a surplus, had already thought it all out: he had nothing left, therefore, except feeling, pure intuition. What he offered then was a small piece stripped completely of rationality. This doesn’t mean that the Encore isn’t complex, but that, miraculously, it has the complexity of what is truly simple . This one time, Jarrett translated something that goes beyond thought—and doesn’t need it: a receptivity (and herein lies the miracle) that doesn’t depend on any translation.

*

Very few human creations can be called “perfect”, and when such a word is used it is metaphorically, as when Borges speaks of La invención de Morel by Bioy Casares, or when Théophile Gautier marvels at Velázquez’s Meninas . Human perfection is something complex and tangled, which must go through all imperfections so that, out of their sum, it may bring forth grace. Astoundingly, for once in his life (and for many other lives), Keith Jarrett achieved it: he was not devastated by satori , but instead laid back on it as if on a hammock for eight minutes of pure grace.

*

The great musicologist, editor and film maker Rafael Castanedo encountered Sun Bear Concerts around 1980, thanks to the then very young film maker Claudio Isaac, who worshipped the concerts and wanted to show them to Castanedo notwithstanding the latter's aversion to jazz and its derivatives. The way of entry into the record and the pianist was precisely the Encore ’s most evident kinship with the music Castanedo revered (Schubert, Grieg); Isaac presented it as a unique, hypnotic and masterful work. And although Castanedo used to say that he considered the Encore from Tokyo a mere “little tune”—that is to say a light piece, a beautiful “melody” without any further complexity—he still taped it in order to listen to it frequently, and what is more in a most special way: recorded again and again until it took up both sides of a cassette.

*

And it was that way that Castanedo introduced me to the concert, via a copy of his tape. For me, therefore, more than a “repeated piece”, the Encore was a continuum, a flow, a loop, an acoustic Moebius. (I don’t know of any piece of music that can withstand such treatment, and certainly none of the Japanese concerts can, nor the other two encores, nor anything in Jarrett’s work. Certain lines, certain songs carry at times a need for repetition, but they are transient dazzles, and end up tiring the listener.)

*

In this manner I’ve listened to the Encore for years, and it has never been exhausted in my imagination. On the contrary: every time is the first and each one provides more discoveries, more amazement, more delight. Placed in one of those devices that can be programmed to play again and again without having to manually turn the tape (or, even better, transported onto a CD and played on endless repeat, in a beautiful sensation of eternity and infinity), the Encore becomes something more simultaneous than successive, a state of consciousness, an androphany and at the same time a theophany.

*

Maybe Jarrett would share this certainty: his concerts have visited every range (and each one is a different opening of genius), but only the Encore is the dialogue of human genius with divine genius...“like a coordinated whole”.

*

The Encore from Tokyo , more than music, is a letting-through of grace. God must be that: a little tune, not a symphonic storm; a light piece, not the bellow of the planets crashing against one another; a melody based on nothing more complex than the immense pleasure of connecting with the universe and hearing it flow. God is an encore resulting from an ovation, from a collective moment of plenitude.

*

Of course, it isn’t a lone case, and what it does is to prove (if anyone needed proof) that music is the most profound way for the human being to feel the divine. Castanedo experienced it with Mozart’s Requiem ; for me, another undoubtable connecting-point is the Prelude to Bach’s Cello Suite No. 5 , interpreted at the very centre of Paradise by Pablo Casals. What singles out Jarrett’s small piece? Perhaps that nothing Seems to single it out: Jarrett is Not standing Before the burning bush, Overwhelmed by an infinite solemnity, pero Merely nakedly plays around in the grass, in total grace.

* For a few privileged moments, John Keats Was the historical small bird pecking at window. For eight minutes, Keith Jarrett WAS eternity: the smoothness of God.

* * *

[The original text in English, is available by clicking here .]

[TRANSLATION Original Can Be read by clicking, here . ]

* *

How Should Your Cervix Feel 1 Week Before Period

The power of forgetting

DGD: Textile 90 (clonografía), 2009

* *
1. The omnipotence

* Theology is also a certain form, sometimes very sophisticated, revenge. What a tasty, for example, Pliny's revenge on those paragraphs of the natural history that exclaims, with falsísima humility, that the smallness of man has a great comfort when we consider that God can not do everything, ie the divinity is by no means omnipotent. And to prove it, Pliny adds that God "does not owns suicide if he wanted, which is the greatest advantage lies in our condition, [...] can not prevent two times ten than twenty, [...] can not make the fatal immortal, or raise the dead, or that he lived did not live, nor do the honors he enjoyed not enjoyed, and the author of the Natural History concludes that divinity has no power " forgetting about things that were. " God everyone does what is best for you depending on the nature and the passion that dominates their thinking, the divinity of Pliny is not only omnipotent but has only one power: the oblivion.

* *

2.

fictional memory

*

Pliny the face of this idea (which scandalized, among others, Montaigne) is not only possible but inevitable to raise the opposite idea (both are just that, ultimately, ideas, and boldness does not alter one of its opposite): God may well take his own life, to prevent two times ten are not twenty, to turn mortals into immortal, raise the dead, cause he lived and did not live that Honors enjoyed not enjoyed, and so on.

* Divinity is capable to do so that nobody notices that it has happened, or that is created that can not happen. In a word, God can do all this so that we are able to affirm the idea that you can not. Because make no mistake: Pliny is not celebrating the non-divine power but human omnipotence, or whatever it is, to the omnipotence of the human imagination. Oblivion does not sing (which Pliny gives a last resort to divinity), but the memory: the fantasy is not nothing but force us to remember everything that has happened from the imagined.

* *

3. Fiction Rememberer

*

Horacio agreed with Pliny: "God will cover the sky with dark clouds and illuminate with a bright sun, but can not destroy or alter the past, or restore what time shooting took away" (Odes , III, 29, 43, we do see Montaigne, upset because "the lips of a Christian should not ever utter such words.") But how would we know if the deity has been destroyed or altered the past? At some point Borges is the idea that the world has been created just a moment, endowed with a humanity with false memories. Pliny suspect that memory is not fictitious imagination adjust to the past at every moment. The only power of oblivion (oblivion is based on all power) is to keep the man away from his own divinity.

* *

4. The invention

* Well

Augustine says: "Since men are not capable of knowing God, attempting to guess really think believing in themselves to think of it, and I imagine not as it is, but as they are "(City of God , XII, 15). But is not it so simple that mechanism. Just imagine an amnesiac, unable to remember himself, to invent a a fictitious being, an alter ego that he can remember what was lost or ignored it himself. The invention can be more than the inventor, has capabilities that it lacks, it is superior: it is created. Art has no other way.

* *

5. The foolishness of God

* Metaphors have their own life. In the Epistle to the Corinthians (I, 1, 25), St. Paul, to exalt the divine, he writes: "The weakness of God is stronger than the force of men, the foolishness of God over the wisdom of rope men "( Infirmus fortius est Dei hominibus: et est hominibus stultum sapientius Dei). Has it achieved its purpose with sufficient cogency, but perhaps inadvertently coined in the corpus of Scripture, the notion imaginable trigger, "the foolishness of God." Is there no better definition of theology that: stultum Dei. And, in the hall of mirrors, the foolishness of God is the only possible human sanity.

* *

6. The act of believing

* Once a child I was talking about her friends the fairies and at one point I was wrong in choosing of words (how precise must be the language when speaking to a child) and said, "That's the tale, if imagine them." Then she, with a notable disappointment, said: "If you do not believe no joke." Then I saw very clear why there is only one religion: the belief is collective or no joke. I believe because you believe, you believe because he believes, because I think he believes. What I think is joke if that's what we believe: many to one ( com-unit), in partnership, brotherhood and complicity. This I think I was alone (or being alone in expressing that belief) is not a joke, ie sense com-Unit. Only you can rebind to the many.

* It is significant that Pliny imagines God incapable of a long series of actions but does not mention the most disturbing, they stop believing in himself. God could not believe in himself if no other (no matter if other gods or humans, because by now the difference is not mythical sense) to perform the final rupture I believe is called .

* *

7. Fantasy

* "Every fantasy is real for those who believe in it, "says Bioy Casares Plan evasion. Therefore, the act of believing is ultimately created. Whoever believes in God, believe it, but whoever does not believe in God does not destroy it: it does is give reality to a world without God. There is only creation, no destruction. Reality is one thing that "happens" is something that depends on our act of believing. And here's the devilish scale: belief, credulity, credibility, faith. To act, we believe, and believe, we must create (create with all our ability to believe: it only creates our ability to act). Faith not only moves mountains, also created. And religious faith (in the sense re-link) is at the bottom of the more secular and atheistic beliefs.

* *

8. Limits

* Pliny and Horace To demonstrate the fundamental weakness of God is a comfort, but obviously not happy about it, it just means in support of human weakness, it is evident in his ideas a malaise, a bad conscience, or a wink perceptible only to those who experience the same discomfort. And no one back terrified at the idea that God has no limits, which is another way of saying that imagination is unlimited. Just imagination has to do with belief: No one needs to believe in the unicorn to admire. The scary thing is not believing in the "real" this or that creature, or idea, but also in the unlimited nature of the imagination. Pliny and Horace deny omnipotence to the imagination, a way to set limits. Believe these limits makes them real. The power just created humanity in a few moments that constantly creates a reality limited, weak, fatal and closed. And believe it forces us to believe it. The power is fed to our belief. The power of forgetting is to make us forget, to make us believe in oblivion, to convince us that "the lips of a modern must not utter such terms ever. " Pliny, Horace, and many other thinkers hail the limits with supreme discomfort, and perhaps in the arrogant claim to devalue the boundaries and reinventing believe, after creating a new reality.

* *

Best Waxing In Jacksonville

Metaphysics of bolero love

DGD: Figure 17 (clonografía), 2010

*

The bolero "Sabor a mi", written by Alvaro Carrillo, contains mysteries concentric

*

so long enjoyed this love, our souls
approached so much so that I keep
your taste, but you carry me also
flavor.

*

If deny my presence in your life,
enough to hold and talk;
much life I gave you, that will necessarily carry them
taste of me.

* not pretend to be your master.
I'm nothing, I have no vanity. In my life I
good;
am so poor, what else I can give.

*

over a thousand years will pass, many more.
I do not know if eternity has love, but
there, as well as here in the mouth will carry
taste of me.

* In this song, the lover tells his beloved: "If you deny my presence in your life, / enough to hug and talk." Presence is important. These lines mean that if she denies the importance he had in his life, would be enough to hold her and talk show bearing his "taste", meaning that he was and is important in the life of the beloved. However, the lover should not be reinforcing both the "is" if it were not so painfully aware of "was", ie that has lost so unforgivable. Moreover, she has denied the importance of this relationship last .

* So the first verse has a clear taste of the past tense: "So long enjoyed this love / our souls came as well, / I keep your taste, but you also wear / taste of me ". The first line of the next verse uses a misleading tense: "If you deny my presence in your life." This line is actually a certainty: "You have denied my presence in your life." And to show that denial not only exists but is useless or false, "would suffice hug you and talk, / I gave you life so that you take by force and / flavor to me. "

*

The apparent serenity is contradicted by that other misleading line: "I gave so much life." The lover gave no "much" but "any" life: he feels dead. No choice but to state something that should happen necessarily "that you take by force and / flavor to me," this can not mean a mere "taste to me" but "my self", ie "take my life" . If "much" and not "all" is perhaps to be noted that very little life that remained it only serves to realize "so" that he is dead.

* Then comes an apparent self-affirmation: "I do not pretend to be your master. / I'm nothing, I have no vanity. " The lover is not the owner of the beloved: The freedom to get away while she leads the life of him, which means that he recognizes in her the freedom to kill. It remains to be determined whether this man has always been nothing or if it is precisely from the time he was "killed" by her (since she refused his presence in his life).

* However, he has vanity is undeniable and, indeed, at this level throughout the song love is just a celebration for the vanity: he voluntarily keeps the flavor of it, but it retains the flavor of it by fate, almost a curse. In his weeping content, suggests that the lover she takes the life of him, but is reversed, and it is "by force." She tries to forget the "flavor" of the relationship, he condemned not only to remember that "flavor" but can not forget.

* Vanity exists in the lover and the only thing that exists in it: if the addressee of the song would deny the intensity of this last group, the male you have only to look sing, talk to her and, as a last resort if the above fail-hug. Then she would have to accept 1) life he gave, 2) the fact that in rejecting this gift, she killed him. The song does not speak of a nostalgia, but a punishment.

* This man's vanity is primarily self-pity: "In my life I give the good, / I'm so poor, what else I can give." And what is the life that he gave? First she says that her life is good, meaning that it is able to select the good and bad not to, but then says he can not give something else that good, since it is "so poor." No choice then, and therefore it is not self-select what is good to give, but it is good a priori all the way down.

*

may be noted also that this man offered as justification for being "poor", implying that if it were not, could give "something else": the regular and the bad. Is so poor that all you have is "good" precisely because he has nothing. If it were not poor, it would be good, and could be wrong. (At this level of love, might take revenge on the unfaithful lover, who denied the presence ie the importance "of him in her life.)

* And in a superb final blow, vanity is projected to eternity:" It will take more than a thousand years, many more. / I do not know if eternity has love, / But there, as well as here in the mouth will carry / taste to me. " Although I had no love of eternity, that is, but earthly love relationships stop making sense as unearthly, she will "taste to me," no matter what they become beings who ever lived. And it will take in the mouth, which is a part of the physicality that most likely cease to interfere in the other world.

* Speak, then, a vanity masked. The lover does not know if the other world will love, mouths or flavors, but condemns his beloved to be chained to those elements. In eternity it will bring the lover left me, one that makes the act of "giving so much life"-act whose significance was denied "in the act of being killed.

* However, once taken this song love this framework, the result of an overwhelming clarity. Considered not as a lover but as an individual, the ego of this song is for all those who deny its presence and, to deny, render "no" (Nobody). Hence the powerful strength of the line "I'm nothing, I have no vanity."

*

be "something" (someone) a question of vanity, and as this guy does it, quietly accept being anything ("no"). But that serenity is ambiguous. And it is because if anyone says always and forever (in which case it would be against a universal reference frame), or if it is precisely when others deny their presence (in which case it is from a mere framework social referencing).

* In the first case, no one with a capital letter (the No cosmic), the second, lower case (the social one). If the latter says "In my life I give the good, / I'm so poor, what else I can give," nothing remains but the "flavor" of a pitiful self-pity: what's good?, Who judges what is good and what is not? Like everything he has and gives is "good", could well retaliate-with varying degrees of malevolence, of all those who have denied their presence in the world. At this level, the song would be a grain of sand in the great universal praise of evil, ie the Revenge Against the World.

* However, the way is open to another level. So Therefore, it is only the cosmic Nobody who can say without lying: "In my life I good, / I'm so poor, what else I can give," because then there is no misunderstanding, "lean" means nothing but "poor spirit "(in the sense that Meister Eckhardt gives this term, of whom nothing is and nothing you want:" The humble man does not need to ask God, may well send to God, because the elevation of the deity can not consider nothing except in the depths of humility. The humble man and God are one and not two "), which can only give good since that spiritual stage and know that evil is nothing but absence of good.

* *** *

[De Book No 5 , in preparation.]

* *

Why Does Pregnancy Test Fail

we going to the Tagus. Firstly

empezaré diciendo that at last I conseguido lo, I emigrated from conseguido hey Locks and scribe from London (Even I'm on my 3 month trial but I hope to pass them and stay a season).

first thing I will say is that here the news is scrotumtightening, is the massacre in the camp of Al-Aaiun? It has not happened, the news hardly have echoed this in what I have seen, that as I do not like the TV newspapers are free, and based on that seen in Espanya (Que!, 20minutes, DNA) are usually the most outrageous and those who seek more covers. But the British brought the world the weak, care about what happens in their city, their country, and counting.

I personally believe that yes there would have landed hundreds of peacekeepers to "pacify" (We know their reputation on how to pacify these gentlemen) and Morocco say that democracy and restrict the press do not go together. The good thing is that, officially, Spain has not said anything "because no one has said anything" (the link

is in Catalan, the 3cat24) ... There, there! Leading by example!

second thing I want to say is how strange it seems to me that here in England everyone knows where Barcelona (which I like, I was born there: D) but few know who are the Catalans. With a roommate joked that "of course, is that we do not put bombs like the Basques" (referring to ETA, not all the Basques in general, not their you go to on) and the guy started to laugh saying that is likely to be so. I guess the phrase you may have noticed that yes they know who the Basques.

And finally, of course, speaking of the electoral campaign shit who is living Catalunya (comment by the way that the postal voting system is a real bullshit, and you have to hand deliver the papers, not your parents , couples, families ... no, you ... in person ... I'M NOT IN THE COUNTRY OF USELESS PANDA! DNI-E both for what?). I said what the fuck political campaign because every 4 years we are the same thing. PSC that if a bogeyman (do not use the same words but warn that with CKD and / or CiU will break Spain), CiU that if they are the only ones able to clean the crap left by others, the PP now using xenophobic tactics because they know that having people stop you get a tad xenophobic vein of "I have no work / aids and the fucking black / Moor / Chinese if" Ciutadans now warns of the xenophobia of the PP and says they just want a Catalunya in Tale (ideally stepping Catalan to see if they manage to disappear), ICV that if Republicans are about potheads. Total for the coming of the Laporta saying Reagrupament nonsense and those who do not know if they come, or what.

Total I can not vote because the computer that contract our government (also known as meat, yes, I speak of Indra, T-Systems and other shit like that) are a bunch of incompetent - or they or their project managers who put their time impossible with a shoestring budget, which could also be. And more I say goodbye to the last sentence I said in Espanya when the plane took off.

Adeu ESPANYA! FINS

DESPRÉS CATALUNYA!

Some Good Quots On Ceremony Of Lighting Of Lamp

The Androgynous and their exiled brothers (III of III)

DGD: Textiles-White Series 25 (clonografía), 2010

* *

III

*
The horror of confusion
*

Tomás Segovia has devoted substantial texts on human sexual polarity, in one of them, "Letter to Women" tries fairness "is not [that] the love-o-heterosexual desire is 'natural' and the homosexual 'unnatural': they are the same love and desire, all love and all desire, which are not 'natural'" . [1] To Segovia, modernity has changed to a chaste disguise what was in the Greek tragic acceptance of beauty (which was essential to the meaning of pedophilia, while a mature male relationship with another very whereby young one, in a sense recovered both metaphorically and literally lost beauty and youth), according to Segovia, this acceptance is no longer possible in societies contemporary Western, "I say that this route is impractical because" he writes, "simply because they imagine, because I want-and because I believe that our entire civilization desired imaginary civilization rather heterosexual."

* Why "rather"? Attempt an answer to that question goes beyond all space, but could experimentally be assumed that the "rather" emerge in times when humanity requires repopulated after disasters and wars. Since Androandro Ginógina and in themselves do not guarantee procreation, societies "Prefer" to remove these two models of collective imagination and the range of possible choices on individuals. It should be stressed that this retreat is secular and socio-es-extradition is deeply rooted in religious and archetypal, is an excommunication, "unless banished from the imaginary, and Androandro Ginógina have been almost surgically excised from the collective psyche. This has become confusing , which is precisely (in a frenzied circle) the reason given, if you come to give reasons, to have "preferred" to remove them. Hence the catch: there's really a "rather" when there is a certain imbalance between the "options" (one of which is recognized in connection with the sacred while others weigh about curses).

* funny thing is that the androgynous model continues to prevail in the current period of intense global overpopulation, which suggests that rather than stocking factories and armies, modernity, and the prevailing patriarchy-is "more either "interested in avoiding confusion ; this trend, it is quite well known, not only results in a much more pernicious confusion whose expressions are obvious sexism, misogyny and homophobia and ideologies of supremacy (racial, political, economic, religious, cultural), the fanaticism of all kinds, and numerous individual and social psychopathy.

* Even in times that call themselves liberal and democratic, the State and the Church are decided by citizens, as if the dominant power was sure that every single individual and wish to imagine a civilization heterosexual rather, that it offers them the opposite of confusion, uncertainty and chaos, ie stability, security, order, and even, at the height of hypocrisy, happiness.

* *

A symbolic construction

*

The sexologist Cristina Martin refuses to eliminate two-thirds of the foundation myth of human sexuality:

*

I think there are two sexes that are combined to reproduce, and many other uses of sexuality, genital and non-genital, without purpose of biological reproduction, but may be unable to reproduce, sublimated in other areas-where behavior and values \u200b\u200bgenerally attributed to the male and female are combined in many and such diverse forms as the human imagination. There may, hypothetically, as many genres as if every human person interprets and reconstructs in its own way sexual imagery. Indeed the usefulness of the concept of gender as a symbolic construction is the understanding that the biological predisposition is not an absolute determinant and the plurality of experiences of sexuality is best understood in the field of gender. [2]

* The term "sexual imagery" seems to imply that planted on the biological truth, humans construct a world of conventions that only confirms one unchanging base. The so complex imagination could soar without a strong foundation in the simple (not confusing) fact: both sexes represented by the Androgyne. If "the usefulness of the concept of gender as a symbolic construction is the understanding that the biological predisposition is not an absolute determinant," even more useful would accept that the concept of sex is no less a symbolic construction . Biological predisposition, in fact, not an absolute determinant, nor is biology. It is necessary to reiterate: the universe is not biological but when looks a biologist, is a human being with certain predispositions. This could be balanced against the sexual bipolarity is not only human but the very foundation of humanity is, of course, but like everything human: as a creature, a project, a proposed operating a convention, not a "fact given. " Nurture, not nature .

*

is true: it could be as many genres as persons hitherto happy and proud to accept that "each head is a world, or at least could be," if every human being interpreted and reconstructed in its own way sexual imagery. " Why what arouses so much reluctance, therefore, postulate that sex could be as many as people? Why vanish joy and pride when, although it is postulated, each head would still be a world? Does it say "could be as many genres as people", or "could be as many sexes as individuals," is tantamount to saying that there is only one gender and sex, at least in the conventional sense of there is a world for all heads? Everything depends not on universal truths of "facts" scientific, eternal categories of biological divisions "real", but that every human being interpreted and reconstructed his way (which ultimately is but one way) human reality. Whether a suspect like this, as monumental as it seems, is that encloses the figure of the Androgyne barely acknowledges the existence, equally real , his two brothers myths.

* Western modernity falls heterosexism when deleting two mythic roots to privilege one, the one that best suits the structure of power. But Aristophanes fell into something like a "homosexismo" when it devoted almost exclusively to demonstrate the supremacy of the Androandros. And here it is worth noting some curious correspondence reverse in the founding myths. By Aristophanes homosexismo directly opposes homophobia of St. Paul in the verses that became the act of excommunication Androandro: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God "(1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

*

Aristophanes extends praise for the Androandro and just talk about the Ginógina, the Apostle Paul clearly includes Androandro between cast out of heaven (even bother to make a distinction between "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with men") but completely avoids the Ginógina (not just reads what is inferred : a reference to the "masculine" or "the women themselves with mankind"). The homosexismo of Aristophanes and homophobia of Paul allude to the male.

* The reasons for both failures of Ginógina (and, by extension, a similar silence has spread over centuries in the patriarchy) are interviewed by Carlos Espejo Muriel:

*

Since these civilizations [women] did not hold a special rank, his active participation and minimal footprint, more so when we refer to the sexual field, which enters the private plot. By this we mean that if the Greco-Roman world was a man's world, logically speaking, are dramatized, and efforts were made consisted fun just for men, then women did what no one cared (except if they did not expectations from them were: having children, be worthy wives, bringing the domestic economy, which included controlling the bondage of the house, offering pleasure the lord and master when asked, not to frequent public places, etc.). This is the reason that, unfortunately, only know a female character name of love "gay" among women, so beautiful Greek name: Sappho. Which means, first, that a real study on lesbianism is yet to be done (a good start would be to track the female initiation rites). Second, that everything that we can talk about lesbians do about speculation, since no data or facts that corroborate our hypothesis (that does not mean we can not think that they would also impose the model of submission to their slaves, and consequently to derive pleasure from them in the enclosed space of the home, or even access to other meetings such as those festive events that were held exclusively for women in Greece and Rome, but, again, all this although I agree it is in danger of collapse unless it is proven conclusively).

* However, the two omissions in the lesbian world, that of Aristophanes and St. Paul, fully reflect the emerging realm of patriarchy, and deliberate ignorance about women . The questions pile up: in the mythic basis of a matriarchy have also been three original sexes?, "also one of them would have been exalted and then rejected and emphasized regardless of the other?, and above all, would there be an imbalance existed in the Trinity tends to favor only one of the three models through eradicate the remaining collective memory?

* Beyond the hypothetical answers to these questions is necessary in an overview: none of the three models is "better" than others (clearly indicated by the simultaneous creation of three genders in the primal myth Plato wanted to claim) is its full reintegration which requires sexuality based on a human to complete myth, that of the true diversity (to associate it with confusion and chaos is nothing but a ploy to reaffirm the prevailing mythical paradigm). The look of both the original myth is clear: The founding meeting occurs just at the diversity, ie the peaceful coexistence of the three models, recognized on an equal potential and riches. A trinity rebalanced (ie, a range in which all individuals can choose between options equally powerful, integrated and connected with the sacred, which is the only way to connect with immediately.)

* Undoubtedly the moment lucid The banquet is one in which Plato, Aristophanes' lips, thus lays claim trinary founding myth:

*

We try not to commit any offense against the gods, fearing to expose a second division, and not as in-profile figures in the reliefs, which have no more than half a face, or cut into two dice. [...] If this ancient state was the best, must necessarily also be the one that best approximates it in this world, which is to possess the person you love as desired.

*

Every society is founded on a myth. Handle this myth and even mutilated to fit the requirements of power over individuals has serious consequences, especially if that myth is the eroticism: that makes sense of greater intimacy, the more unique individuality. Because there is nothing more subversive and more hated by the ruling power to return to the primordial human capacity: to choose the beloved as desired.

* *** *

Notes

* [1] Tomás Segovia: "Letter women, in inappropriate Notebook , FCE (Cuadernos de la Gaceta 42), Mexico, 1987.

*

[2] Cristina Martin, "Reading Notes on the concept 'gender'," in La Ventana. Journal of Gender Studies , v. 1, n. 2, Universidad de Guadalajara, Centre for Gender Studies, 1997.

* *

German U-boat Diagram

The Androgynous and their exiled brothers (II of III)

DGD: Textiles-White Series 29 (clonografía), 2010

* *

II

*
Revisionism

* The first and second chapters of Genesis seem to speak of separate creations, two different humanities. In the first chapter reads:

*

God created man in His own image, the image of God he created him, male and female he created them. [Genesis 1:27]

* Drafting Reina-Valera (1960) jumps from one "man" in the singular, a "created" in the plural. (The King James version of 1995 added an "s" brackets to correct this discrepancy: "So God created man [s] in his image.") is the same in the Vulgate: et creavit Imagine me Deus suam ad hominem, ad Dei creavit Illum Imagine me, masculum eos et feminam creavit (Illum jump to eos), and also in English from the King James Bible to the New International Version: "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God have created him, male and female created I them "(jump to him Them).

* You can understand the simultaneous creation of two children, one male and one female, but the verse is also susceptible of another reading, although she is disowned by the orthodox interpretation, and precisely why ": the creation of any number of creatures they were, each, male and female at the same time. In any case it is obvious that only figure of the Androgyne rescues while the Ginógina and Androandro are eliminated.

* That first human race does not seem to lower the current population of the Earth, but the second, that of speaking the next chapter of Genesis, here is the Edenic pair mythical ancestor of a race whose substrate is sucesivista: God created man (Genesis 2:7) and then the woman (Genesis 2:18-23). And once again rescue occurs exclusive of the Androgyne, even if metaphorically, since it notes: "and they become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24). This first revisionism is curious: it seems that the Hebrew God ignores the first human to focus on the second, which no longer exist "confusion" no man and no woman, it created from the rib of man.

* *

Second parentheses around the names

*

In beginning of the fifth chapter of Genesis seems to refer to the first humanity, "Male and female he created them, and blessed them, and they called his name Adam the day they were created" (Genesis 5:2), thus apparently all beings from the initial creation received the generic name Adam. However, it would appear that Genesis 2:23 is located on the second building when the child requires male name to her companion, "Adam said, This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because male was taken. " This tells the King James version of 1960, while in 1995 Edit: "And Adam said: 'This is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh! Will be called 'Woman', because the man was taken. " It is both the translation of the Hebrew words Ish for male and ishshah for women.

*

Later there is a new baptism: "And Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living" (Genesis 3:20), because in Hebrew the name Eve and the word that means "life" or "living" have a similar sound. The same in the Vulgate that in most versions, the name Adam is first mentioned in Genesis 2:19, and although some is called "man", it still noted that the Hebrew term meaning "man" (adam ) is related to which denotes "earth" (adama ). This implies, although it is not supported by any exegetical text, which in the first humanity (whose creatures were called Adam), creation and baptism were simultaneous, while the second was successive (God created Adam and then baptized, then creates Eve and then Adam named his partner).

*

if two founding myths, the result is a simultaneous triumph of the rescue despite the insistent hereinafter: the world of the Old Testament, Adam is named after the Earth which, in the Greek world, was the Original Women's origin. The reading unit reverts hereinafter: Baptizing Adam Eva (given name is a metaphor not only create but connect to the created ), but before she had named Adam.

* *
Ginoginia, and androgyny androandria

*

The revisionism practiced Hebrew God from the creation of the first and second humanities: it leaves the simultaneity of concentrating on the events of this was built so that the combination erotic child no longer supports the "confusion" (while eliminating the "unnecessary overlaps") and is subject to a universal order represented in the heterosexual couple. An order, by the way, which is also the successive subordination (the man of God, women to men) and adherence to a destination tax. As disclosed the story of the expulsion from Paradise, the Old Testament also inherits the notion of hubris very punishable in Greek tragedy (wanting to be equal to the gods take heaven by assault, leaving its assigned site, disobedience: all these are acts of the rebel who wants more than the part that has been assigned in the hierarchy of the destination).

*

in Plato's time also had introduced a revisionism: the Greek pantheon had created Androgynous pace of two archetypes that were unnamed and we have called Ginógina and Androandro, but soon rid of the two original creatures in order to "avoid confusion". Knowing that the result was confusion worse, Plato attempts to rescue (ie the myth back to its original integrity ternary) from certain that any record that is won by legendary support is outside human reality.

*

Greek revisionism Rome inherited hatred of confusion. Good example is found in the paragraphs of The Twelve Caesars Suetonius that talks about the fate of children born hermaphrodites, which were drowned in the sea. As explained in a note the translator The Twelve Caesars, the Romans imposed the punishment "so-called androgynous or hermaphroditic, considering how bad omen birth. They were drowned, either because they believed the water, mainly sea as a source throughout purification, either because the poets have made the ocean the abode of monsters, or, for that inhabited the earth there is no memory of these beings, whose birth was thought to be a public calamity. " [1]

* Being thrown into the Tiber (as would be the very body of Emperor Elagabalus confusing) or the ocean was the greatest insult that could be done in antiquity, since it did not allow relatives or friends to honor this person, overseeing the day of the dead or to worship in the family. The waters were the symbol of the amorphous realm of monstrosity and inhuman (which is what lies outside of human reality). Strange handling of the myth: if the three models had claimed only one, the androgyne, then a human being who resembled him (the hermaphrodite) should have been adored as divinity archetypal figure, far from it, was wiped out without circumspection, as an intolerable monster.

* The difficulty of unraveling these old without applying mechanical fatally those of today is focused by Carlos Espejo Muriel, sexuality historian and teacher at the University of Granada:

*

In Rome relations "homosexuals" are not linked to anything to education is more, they find abhorrent and called (the Romans and right-thinking founding fathers) as "the Greek habit." However, it is tolerated and allowed since they do not put into question their value system and the stability of the law. What does this mean? Very simple: first, that in Rome a young man could maintain relationships "gay" during her adolescence, and secondly, that it tried to harm anyone (unless such conduct worship and prostitute), but when it came time the couple had to leave behind these practices and engage to procreate, which is one of the fundamental pillars of the ideology of slavery (called the status Familiae ). Third, once married, if this guy could and would maintain such relationships, there would be no problem if developed with less, or slaves or boys (who were not of noble birth), but as long as he was the active subject of the action. The problem came when he did not like that role both as the opposite, because here it was unloaded on him the entire state apparatus, as their evil was annulling the legal status and was assimilated to the bottom of Roman society social-and such an imbalance would not tolerate ever a society as stratified as the Roman archaic. I mean his attitude is facing directly to civiltatis status and status libertatis therefore submitting to another man, what you are doing is nothing to take the role that the slave has no choice but to star, then, is reversing its right to freedom (beginning, lest we forget, excluding a slave production system) and secondly, to cancel its right to freedom, is denying the principle that gives greater advantage in the world Roman citizenship (since one can not be a citizen if you do not meet the above two requirements: be free and member of a family where respect and revere their ancestors, that after all shape the historical memory of a people). [2]

*

From all this evidence is clear: the imbalance of the trinity myth of eroticism is less responsive to direct hatred toward alternative sexualities that a rejection of the "confusion", this puts a strain on the system of values \u200b\u200bon which society as a whole (the handling is, therefore, less erotic than political). Banished two thirds of the primal erotic myth in the Roman Empire remained the model of the Androgyne with their sub-deities associated: heterosexuality monogamy and marriage, in patriarchy, marriage primarily took the form of institutionalization of the feminine. It is not free expression matri-monium, which stems from Roman law and is therefore well before the advent of Catholicism, which was inherited, "means the authorization given by the State to a woman in order to be mother within the framework of legality.

* All this is present today: more to talk about respect for diversity, there is no real diversity and a real range of choice while still Androandro Ginógina and banished from the collective mythopoetic . And word "tolerance" the complaint: mutilated their archetypal roots, both figures, even if you try to lay claim in the civil or secular grounds, basically not remain anything but abnormal. Even more serious, the holders of alternative sexualities personally only take seriously their respective worlds. The myth connected to the part with the whole, is, in terms of Jung and Bachelard, a cluster of immediate and tangible symbols which in turn are loaded with resonant archetypal meanings in the human psyche. In other words, the myth places the individual stars in constellations of meaning.

*

In Western modernity, the myth has almost single-erotic ritual expression, connected with the major religions: the marriage ceremony, heterosexual archetypal world exclusive, ie the realm of the accepted model, that of the androgyne. Heterosexual couples have only this area to experience a sense of transcendence (connection) out of these moments, they lack any sense of the sacred. And perhaps not even in those moments, because the ritual, in times characterized by materialism, becomes a mere series of utility representations. The rites of marriage, the couple whether they believe in them or seen as process "symbolic", the higher spheres connect with a universal whole, this is what archetypal level "take seriously" overwhelm the individual and recognizable parts of a larger concert, give them a sense mythopoetic.

* Although in some countries appears to increase the "tolerance" to relations between persons of the same sex, lesbians and gays are still unsubstantiated myth, with no real ritual, which means you do not end up feeling that their preferences are part of a whole. His love has no scale of immediacy: it is not just a game, a simulacrum, a representation that sometimes takes a pagan attitude and carnival but also, again, as a pure externality. In the words of the original myth, eroticism is not reversed in the universe.

* *

Impurity

*

A great writer like Katherine Mansfield, characterized by a refined, acute sensitivity, providing the key word in this process. In his diaries, Mansfield is always transparent, but has taken his bisexuality, pound inside some inner struggle about; in these pages speak of a lesbian relationship that held in the first decade twentieth century with a young Maori Mahupuku Maat, which had met in Wellington, New Zealand, and who later reunited in London. In a diary entry for the month of June 1907, writes: "I want to Maat in the same way that I had: terribly. This is shady, I know, but true "(Maat I want-I want as I Have Had her brother terribly. This is unclean I know but true ). In this last sentence, Mansfield uses an adjective revealing unclean part of a verbal nuance exists only in English. It can literally dumped as "unclean," the fact that such formulas English are completely unusual, has sometimes led to translate directly as "dirty", which is gross. "No target" does not necessarily mean "black." Similarly, unclean not necessarily a "dirty" or "suspicious", but go in that direction.

*

prefix denotes one- absence of denial, and the different English translations illustrate the wide range that covers particle, one can see that range on the way in which words that show gaps or partial denials or pressing, as unaggresive ("very aggressive") Uncaught (still free) or unkind ("unfriendly") differ from the fixed or absolute, as Unable ("incapable"), Unafraid ("no fear") or unsought ("spontaneous"). In this range which is strongly reflected beyond the euphemisms and relativizations as unadoptable ("rejected"), unallowed ("Forbidden"), unqualified ("incompetent"), unreal ( unreal "), unremembered (" forgotten ") or unsuccess ("failure").

*

The same game can be seen in the term undead, of which there is no precise translation into English, for not pouring literally as "not dead" has laid hold of the resource "living dead", an oxymoron works in terms of the horror genre (as a synonym for "zombie" significant myth of modernity) but has no dramatic effect in other areas. The same could be done with unclean , ie, translated as "clean murky", but would have to add "not entirely clean or the all suspicious "(and the zombie be understood as" not quite dead nor completely alive. ")

* In any case, regardless of the cultural, psychological or historical lesbian relationship alluded to by Katherine Mansfield, is well known that the powerful intuition of this writer takes to collect, in one word, the prevailing feeling at the bottom in any alternative sexuality. For beyond the specific or unique circumstances particular way in which each participant of these alternative sexualities assumes the sexual preference, an overwhelming majority of these experiments, with varying degrees of awareness, a sense that their sexuality and all its manifestations is precisely unclean. (No matter how mature is the individual self-acceptance, since the establishment of patriarchy, the whole culture, the whole spirit of the times, they do infer the turbid at all times.) Is the direct result of the withdrawal of the psyche collective archetypes of Ginógina and Androandro.

* Angela Smith, biographer of Mansfield, attempts to show that bisexuality of this author is to be understood as an expression of his "momentum transgressor" (Transgressive impetus), without realizing (even if their intentions are progressive and rebellious), Smith maintains, as his biography, the same sense of uncleaniness to insist that Mansfield continues having sex with men while trying to suppress their feelings towards women. As the passage quoted from the diary of Mansfield, the biographer is based on the adverb used by the writer: "terribly" ( terribly ). This, connected with unclean , appears to be based demonstration of something that transcends the biography of Mansfield and applies for granted, to any alternative sexuality, the fact that heterosexuality be inferred, by itself, like clean , while on the elemental contrast, the range of LGBT sexuality is coated at the outset, with the inference from the unclean . Is free at all, in religious language English, unclean corresponds to "impure" in direct reference to demons, unclean spirits ("evil spirits"). Of unclean there is just one step unholy (literally "no saint", "not sacred" and especially "not blessed") in the level of respect meaning "wicked" or "profane" and the absolute refers directly to "hell."

*

This implied is undoubtedly due to the lack of an archetypal support for so-called alternative, and manipulation that has become the archetype on which heterosexuality. The alternative is "dirty" just because the purity has been concentrated in the official version of sexuality: heterosexuality only receive the blessing of purity agreed. Just a metaphorical way, it is clear that Androandro Ginógina and have not only been banished, but specifically excommunicated.

* *

A cosmic sense

*

minorities in the search for a founding myth is that of a reshuffle in the world whose primary function is to turn disadvantage to advantage, to shield marginality weapons, to expulsion from paradise divine gift. However, once served this purpose, there is still another, broader (breaking the notion of "minority", which depends on its opposite, "majority" and to rely on this concept is reaffirmed), while deeper (reshuffling the world no longer depends on the convenience, but of transcendence): put on a sense cosmic.

*

must say, on the other hand, it is precisely this lack of "seriousness" of socially accepted ritual in which lies the "advantage" that take lesbian and gay worlds: both feel free of the empty trappings that companies have made every liturgy erotic. [3] But this emptiness is the effect of having maimed two thirds of the original myth to provide social validity to only one-third, the Androgyne emerged.

* It is not about to claim for so-called "alternative sexualities" erotic heterosexual morality; not enough to establish religious marriages for lesbians and homosexuals, and in fact that is marginal and, yes, here symbolic claim is not the empty rituals for Ginógina and Androandro, in which case there would only repeat at liturgical performances stripped of meaning in the realm of heterosexuality. It is a question of returning an indispensable spiritual dimensionality even for atheists and agnostics, it is, ultimately, to lead a thorough review of the heterosexual world once recognized as that, "a" sacred among three other world possible and not "the" world.

* The land lay

requires myths, rituals and symbols no less than religious. Civil marriage has no more than two centuries old, before which was religious in nature. The major religions have at all mythical androgyne as a paradigm and has only been partially possible to change this paradigm in the civilian world. In several countries, increasingly, has admitted the marriage between same sex by means of modifying the above legal definition of marriage ("the union of man and woman" to "the union of two persons"), without But still no real support mythic purity no real archetypal, that is, without having yet recovered their original contact with the sacred.

* Be based on a myth gives cohesion and sense only when it begins in the individual interiority and then reverts collective action. Only when androandria ginoginia and are returned to the mythopoeic dimension that has been recognized for millennia exclusively to androgyny may be a primitive erotic myth reintegration. So every human being can truly assume ( take seriously in the same sense that an artist undertakes the building) the quality of your desire.

*

* * Notes

*

[1] Suetonius: Twelve Caesars , Pearl, Paez y Cia., Madrid, 1917, trad. Latin by F. Direct Norberto Castilla.

* [2] Carlos Espejo Muriel: "Transgression power. The emperor Heliogabalus ".

* [3] when Mexico adopted the law of marriages between same sex, a large segment of the gay male community refused to celebrate this achievement with the argument that marriage, standard that is legalized, would destroy the quality inherent in that group: the transgression. It is possible to imagine that those who made this statement, for the same reasons and because the same position, they would celebrate the lack of an archetypal support in more than a yoke would be a form of freedom. This would correspond to be in a precarious level and only connected with immediately. Because on a deeper level, the archetypal support can be compared with the foundations of a house. Without foundation, the house remains completely free ... to collapse to the first stirring. Without a true archetypal roots (not necessarily "religious"), including transgression that capacity that is mentioned as the supreme characteristic of alternative sexualities is not merely a façade, a hollow convention question anything, nothing changes and even ends up confirming what supposedly transgresses. (No other reason will be "tolerated.")

* *** *

[ Read the third and last part .]

* *

Slim Quick Vs Hydroxycut

Internationalized

Spain disgusting.

And who doubts the facts I refer.

Da

so disgusted that I took almost two years looking for work outside this country of tambourine (showing off my independence say that I want to leave Spain and come back when this is Catalonia, to see if things are better.)

Today is a day of general strike and can be more or less agree with the unions and the reasons but you have to respect everybody.

I say this because I am in favor of the strike and pickets against, and I can not agree with someone who uses fear to control the actions of others.

But that is precisely what the government and it has become clear in the political campaign for election to the 29-N in Catalonia (PSC saying "no voteis to those who are the bad guys, look what I made whoooole if they leave).

I want to live in a country like Belgium, whose government resigned en bloc after a scandal but temporary government made a national holiday.

do not want a country where one of the two political parties say that only force the resignation of those with a ruling against it. Come on, that if they can buy the judge here did not resign nor tato.

And on labor reform, well, no comment. I recommend you to do the exercise to read it (or its key points) and see how many leaves you no foaming at the mouth.

I said, Spain disgusting and I'm still sending out resumes but not catch me (thanks to the half espanyolito inflated his resume with lies, and what we have we have worked but did not inflate cvs courses or we eat the mucus).

Country ....

Gum Swollen After Months Wisdom Tooth Extraction

The Androgynous and their exiled brothers (I of III)

DGD: Textiles-White Series 26 (clonografía), 2010

[I read an abridged version of this text, under the title The original and erotic myth unbalanced trinity - as a paper at the XIII International Meeting of Writers (general theme was "Sexuality and Literature), held in Monterrey by the Council for Culture and Arts of Nuevo Leon from September 29 to October 5, 2008. I submit the entire text in three parts.]

*

I

*

A trinary base thought

*

No group of people without a myth founding. As for the essential grounds of love, sexuality and gender, the West is based on the myth of the androgyne, and such a degree that archetype has become the stereotype essential. Thus, the "idea" that literature and mass media spread the myth of the androgyne is the original single-sex, this being had a half man and half woman and taken away by pride, he wanted to be equal to the gods and was punished with demediación.

*

The original story is in that passage of The banquet that Plato puts into the mouth of Aristophanes' explanation of this myth. In these pages, Aristophanes says that in the beginning there were three sexes: male, female and androgynous. Interestingly, the latter said that "no longer exists and its name is in disrepute," but in an archetypal level, as glimpsed here, try the opposite happens: the androgyne as a myth is the only one there and the other two not only disappeared but they were never given name. Aristophanes tells the events after the rebellion:

*

Then Zeus and other gods deliberated, were faced with a dilemma, since neither could kill or get rid of its kind, the lightning glared as the giants Disappear, because then the honors and sacrifices that the men were taxed, nor allowed to continue being arrogant. After much reflection, Zeus finally had an idea and said: "I think I have a ploy to continue having men and stop being arrogant, and is reducing its forces. Right now, in effect, "he continued," I will cut in two each, and so will be at the same time weaker and more useful to us, having increased their numbers. " [...] So, once the nature of this being was cut in two, each party missed the half, and when he met her, surrounded with arms of one another, driven by the desire to regain his former unit.

*

modern reading that makes this myth is so simple and the West needed to "avoid confusion" after being divided, the Androgyne disappeared leaving only the two fundamental human equality:

* Already in Plato's time there was a tendency to "avoid confusion" as the author of Dialogues decides to discuss the confusion surrounding the eroticism even then, it does not without daring and risk. Very significantly, forgetting a very timely coverage in the millennia following the explanation in The banquet .

* Aristophanes says that man originally came from the Sun, the Earth's Original Women and the Androgyne of the Moon, "that part of the Earth and the Sun." The "official version" of the myth used to this last item to affirm the suggestion that only the Androgynous rebelled, because it was like the moon, changeable and unpredictable. But Aristophanes not only give those items to the androgynous and actually refers to the three sexes when he says: "On these principles [Sun, Earth, Moon] received as and how to move, is spherical. The bodies were robust and vigorous and courageous heart, and thus conceived the bold idea to climb the sky and fight with the gods. "

* Therefore, it is not the exclusive Androgynous would be equal to the gods because he only changed as the moon, but there was pride (hubris ) in the three genders, simply because they were all spherical, and no less unpredictable. In other words, Zeus punished not only the excess (insolence, lack of restraint) of androgynous, separating each one in two individuals but also to the men and Original women-in the logic of myth itself is shown by a mere quantitative consideration, since it was to make everyone "at the same time weaker and more useful to us, having increased their numbers."

* The official version is based on a misrepresentation of levels: if she accepts the existence of three original sexes, it immediately just to provoke the understanding that after the separation of Androgyny in a male half and other women, these new beings were matched, at the same level , the original Women and Men, those who, by this account, would not have been broken, "thereby discredited the latter are and beyond the myth as mere" repetition ": the male half of the Androgyne" repeats "the whole man, while the female half represents only a" redundancy "Women's Original. (Obviously not: be a serious imbalance Androgynous punish the separation and leave intact the Man and Woman, which exceed in strength and skill that halves.) This maneuver is based the idea of \u200b\u200ba single original sex and therefore, there is a unique legendary support to heterosexuality.

*

But what explains Aristophanes is very different: the split gave rise to androgynous heterosexual love (half man half woman looking for), while the original Women and Men, after separation gave rise to love homosexual (each half will look to his neighbor). Aristophanes says

*

Each of us is nothing more than a half has been separated from her primarily as a road is divided in two. These halves are always looking for your half. Men from the separation of these compounds beings, called androgynous, love women, and most of the adulterers belongs this species, as well as women who love men and violate the laws of matrimony. But women from the separation of primitive women, do not call attention to the men and women more inclined, on this species belong tribadism. Similarly, men from the separation of primitive men seeking men.

*

The original outline of the myth, then, is very different from how he is remembered. If you would like to return to that original vision, at the same level would be essential symbolic Androgynous relocate the other two myths removed from the collective memory. The first thing that stands out is that no name, and therefore should be baptized, this would not be arbitrary, since their titles are already in the word Androgynous. In this way the propose here, to call it Original Women Ginógina and Original Man, Androandro .

* *

Prime parentheses around the names

*

exceptionally

When it comes to correct the distortion widely practiced in the mythical descriptions of The banquet, etymologically absurd you say things like this that sits on a popular online encyclopedia: "The philosopher of Athens also speaks of an androgynous-made before the separation-of two bodies of men and an androgynous composed of two female bodies." None of them can be called "androgynous" if they are to their respective names in fact reflect its nature, calling them "androgynous" is, even if inadvertently, to give primacy to one of three base models and the other two character of "anomalies ".

* The issue of names is significant in light of a similar Greek myth, in Metamorphoses, Ovid tells the story of the Hermaphrodite, the son of Hermes and Aphrodite, whose body was fused with a nymph, or Salmacis Salmacis, with the result of an individual possessing the characteristics of male and female sexes. So not a little curious, Hermaphrodite, when it was only male sex and gender, biogenerics already had a name (this name expressed offspring of Hermes and Aphrodite, but also marked its destination), so that after integration with the Naiad , if he had wanted to keep the name legendary loyalty to both sides of their nature, they should have been called Hermafrócide.

* Numen

This corresponds, in modern terminology, a simultaneous hermaphrodite, unlike the sequential or successive; example of the latter is Tiresias, the blind seer who appears in the Oedipus cycle and the Odyssey (Tiresias, born a boy, the goddess Hera changed woman for seven years, after which he returned masculinity). In both cases one speaks of a transformation, or metamorphosis, in the terminology of Ovid. Disturbing mirror symmetry: The Androgynous mentioned in The banquet birth has a dual nature and is then halved, the reverse of the Hermaphrodite and Salmacis, whose natures originating are individual and are later merged into a single being. The line is clear: all demediación is the demand for reinstatement.

* *

The three primeval beings

*

The banquet In Aristophanes points out an essential effect of separation on the three main creatures: the insatiable anxiety each half looking for her "better half" (as stated by the vox populi ), but does not describe the three beings with the same application. In the case of the Androgyne, generator of heterosexuality, is limited to mention adultery, ie polygamy Women's Original (here called Ginógina) seems to care to speak, and only gives the example of tribadism-word from the Greek verb that corresponds to rub, mashing, squeezing, scraping, grinding -; only abundant in the description of Man Original (here called Androandro) and his descendants: "While they are young, love men, are pleased to sleep with them and be in his arms are the first among adolescents and adults as they are of a much more manly. No reason reproaches are living without shame, because it is the lack of which makes doing so, but, ensouled strong, manly courage and manly character, seeking their fellows, and proves that over time are more likely than others to serve the state. " Aristophanes adds:

* Acts

men turn to young love, and if they marry and have families, it is because nature inclines them to it, but because the law requires. What I prefer is to spend life with each other in celibacy. The only purpose of the men of this character, love or be loved, is to meet those who resemble them. When the one who loves the young or anyone else ever find your half, sympathy, friendship, love unites them in a way so wonderful, they do not want in any way be separated even for a moment. These same men who spend their whole lives together, they can not say what they want from each other, because if they find such pleasure in living in this way, it is to believe that this is the cause of the pleasure of the senses. Evidently his soul desires nothing, she can not express, but who reads and implies [...], that is, the desire to be united and confused with the beloved object, to form but one being with him. The reason for this is that our original nature was one, and we were a complete whole, and given the name of love, desire and pursuit of this ancient state.

*

In his time, Plato does the same thing over the centuries, philosophers and poets do: search the founding myth, and not without risk tracked with extreme caution, perhaps remembering the fate of Orpheus myth, which treat to convince men of Thrace to practice pedophilia was dismembered by the Maenads. However, it is essential that Aristophanes (ie Plato, Socrates ie, ie deeper Greece) states her search from a database creation myth trinary thought totally alien to our modern binary mindset, the same way Plato had said in the Republic that a man who has dominated both his mind (head, intellect) and their appetites (sex, instinct), wakes up one third where wisdom resides, "is when reality catches better." [1]

* * *

Note

*

[1] In Le Sexe incertain. Androgynie et dans l'Antiquité romaine hermaphrodisme (Belles Lettres, des Mythes Vérité, Paris, 1997), Luc Brisson trinary examines the basis of thought not only in the Platonic Symposium and the myth of Salmacis and Hermaphrodite, but cosmogonic mythology in the poetry of Hesiod, the Orphic Rhapsodies, Gnosticism, the Hermetic Corpus and so-called Chaldean Oracles. That study had begun in another book Brisson: Platon, les mots et les Mythes. Comment et pourquoi Platon Nommo Mythe him? (La Découverte, Textes à l'appui, Paris, 1982).

* *** *

[ Read the second part.]

* *