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.")
* *** *
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.) 
