Seawrack and the Mother

David Stockhoff · 23 Sep 2012, 22:27 · from 2012-September.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: dstockhoff at verizon.net (David Stockhoff)
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 18:27:38 -0400
Subject: (urth) Seawrack and the Mother
In-Reply-To: <8F94BDDA-74B5-45CB-8D47-1217A66B5F09 at gmail.com>
References: <SNT123-W63AD7A71AA72E63BFCD663CF9F0 at phx.gbl>
	<505F12D9.7030307 at verizon.net>
	<8F94BDDA-74B5-45CB-8D47-1217A66B5F09 at gmail.com>
Message-ID: <505F8CDA.5000105 at verizon.net>


On 9/23/2012 1:22 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
>> Yes, I had meant to include a passing comment on that as well. If the universe is double-sexed (dioecious?)
> di + oikos = two dwellings = two kinds of individuals, male and female.
>
>> >like us, it must be either hermaphroditic or dyadic. Either way it must mate with itself to produce or create or even to become itself.
>> >
>> >If it is single-sexed (monoecious),
> one dwelling = only one kind of individual, with the implication that it possesses both sexes (I.e. hermaphrodite; in botany, one usually reserves this latter term to mean that the flowers themselves have both sexes, instated of the individual having male and female flowers).

I did kind of screw that up, didn't I.

It doesn't quite fit. I meant (1) two sexes (a) separate or (b) 
combined, or (2) no sexes, but also pointing out that a single male or 
female seeder/birther/creator isn't really any of those. That is, you 
can't have only one sex. Incest is a bit like two-housed 
hermaphroditism, from this perspective.

>   
>
>> >then I guess we're just supposed to forget about the missing sex. (In the same way, we're not supposed to notice that Eve's offspring either mated with others or mated with one another.)
> I don't know that we are; the Good Book doesn't dwell on the issue, but biblical literature has, since forever. There are even names for Cain's sisterwives. Incest, like a lot of other things, only became unlawful at Sinai, and only some of the things that were unlawful at Sinai were mentioned to always having been unlawful. Lot's daughters' aren't condemned at all.
>
> It turns out that sex is a big part of religious thought. It's hardly surprising that it's prominent in Wolfe's writings.

Absolutely. It's huge, as the Donald would say.

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net