Islamic-Christian misogyny & sexual repression

[Sean]

More notes-

Original sin from Adam is in terms of the forbidden fruit ie sex (fruit having sexual and reproductive connotations), prompted by the serpent or penis and desire that's supposed to be wrong; the heart of life is lost from the start and treated as sin-passed on through sex in Augustinian thought. Eve also tempted Adam to eat the fruit...

The snake said 'you can take the fruit for yourself' ie sex is for-itself, the essence of reality where our relations are be subject-subject not subject-object.

The Bible begins with sexual repression and the establishment of a religion based on Apollonian principle and perspicuity: this is the real 'fall' ie before the Bible has begun, and why they were expelled from paradise- not because they tried the Dionysiac, which is paradisical.

Islamic societies similarly try to deal with sex by denying women. The characteristic Islamic tense air comes from the deeply confused attempt to reconcile sexuality by denying one half of it- women: sex is wrong therefore women are wrong (why not deny men, of course? and get them to wear a burka so they can't see women, and then women can then wear what they like).

Sicko Islam pursues sexual repression as much as Christianity, and indeed more logically ie once you've lost holistic life it follows that you pursue relativity and try to eliminate the Dionysiac. Women are covered up in a pathetic attempt to reconcile sex in a broader Apollonian culture clashing with it. Instead of thinking that there's something wrong with the wider culture they're living, sex or the core of life is denied: men are stopped from looking at women with a view to suppressing the Dionysiac, when only an alignment with it is required. Sex and the sight of a woman are irreconcilable in Apollonian terms.

Sexual repression in the Abrahamic religions is men's affinity and desire for women being 'blamed' on women- men try to blame women for their own humanity, having contempt for themselves and building a web of lies for their model of the world.

There's also the notion of sex and its isolated interpersonal communication as antisocial and in opposition to the wider community, along with the confused idea of the nature of the sensation as destructive (of Apollonian order) or selfish (obliterating Apollonian relational concerns etc). Sex isn't forgroundable or perspicuous, instead being isolated and hidden, and inscrutable in nature: of course it's this that is the intersubjective not ostensive reality that we all share- not Apollonian contrivances.

[Josquin des Prez]

The Bible begins with sexual repression and the establishment of a religion based on Apollonian principle and perspicuity: this is the real 'fall' ie before the Bible has begun, and why they were expelled from paradise- not because they tried the Dionysiac, which is paradisical.

Still trying to rationalize your frustrated sexual perversions i see. I'd recommend Weininger but i doubt it would help.

[Sean]

Perversions?

[71 dB]

More notes-

Yeah, but why? What's your point? 

[david johnson]

groan   ...step away from the mushroom bin.  you're hallucinating again.

dj

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

why not deny men, of course? and get them to wear a burka so they can't see women

Because they wouldn't be able to walk around without bumping into things

[Florestan]

Sex isn't forgroundable or perspicuous, instead being isolated and hidden, and inscrutable in nature: of course it's this that is the intersubjective not ostensive reality that we all share- not Apollonian contrivances.

This is what we get from Sean
When he drinks from dusk till dawn.

[The new erato]

But what does it all mean?

[Sean]

This is what we get from Sean
When he drinks from dusk till dawn.

I was hoping you understood what I was saying there, which has depths of meaning evidently beyond your fathoming. Oh well, thanks for the replies folks.

[david johnson]

I was hoping you understood what I was saying there, which has depths of meaning evidently beyond your fathoming. Oh well, thanks for the replies folks.

there is NO depth, sean.  just your imagining.

dj

[Sean]

I'm deeper than the oceans and higher than the mountains, but the present forum is obviously beneath me.

[karlhenning]

You really, really worry about sexual repression, don't you, Sean?

[DavidW]

Sean if you need to proclaim your greatness yourself because no one else will, chances are you are not great.

[karlhenning]

I'm deeper than the oceans and higher than the mountains . . . .

Not coincidentally, Eric makes exalted pronouncements on himself, too. [see DavidW's sig!]

[The new erato]

I'm deeper than the oceans and higher than the mountains, but the present forum is obviously beneath me.

You didn't expect to find experts on sexual repression on a musical forum did you? That's not what most of us are here for, not even a subject of any interest to most of the forum-members I should think.  

[DavidW]

Hey you didn't need to link it Karl, it's still my sig!

[karlhenning]

Hey you didn't need to link it Karl, it's still my sig!

Hah! Brilliant!

[karlhenning]

You didn't expect to find experts on sexual repression on a musical forum did you? That's not what most of us are here for, not even a subject of any interest to most of the forum-members I should think.  

Perhaps Sean's insistence that Western music is (supposedly) in irreversible decline, is a mental condition parallel to his repressed sexuality?

[Todd]

I'm deeper than the oceans and higher than the mountains

It's possible to make a case for the latter part of this . . .

[david johnson]

I'm deeper than the oceans and higher than the mountains, but the present forum is obviously beneath me.

i know you're high...that's why i said leave the 'shrooms alone  deep?  as in deep bulls**t?  amen!

dj