At the centre of the belief in "mankind" is the premise:
2 man consists of man and woman, as human.
Since we saw in blog 2 that, 1 male 'part is the whole' of the species it was easy to pass off sounds like "wo" and "hu" added to man to embed bias and get away with it.
Do the sounds 'wo' and 'hu' change man male to man, not male? To test this simply imagine you have a bias for figs. You express this bias by naming the apple an apfig. (ap from ap/ple) Does adding 'ap' to fig change what the fig is in reality?
From this test then we see that 'wo' and 'hu' do not change man, male. 'Wo' and 'hu' are sounds. Sounds cannot change man being male into man being not-male. In all these names man means male. The embedding of man using 'wo' and 'hu' reinforces (male) part is the whole species as "mankind."
The embedding of man in names shows us that the attitude towards deception and falsehoods is not wrong when one wants power. Man as both part and whole, wo +man, a not-male man, and hu +man, two men of "opposite" sexes make the thesis "mankind" appear to be correct. As a set they appear coherent and people believe them to be knowledge. All the while it is belief in a seemingly coherent set of falsehoods using the same common name 'man.'
Allegro shows us with impeccable skills his linguistic knowledge of the 9000 year-old Sumerian script by showing us step by step the streamlined strategy of inventing names for the sacred phallus and adding these to make God (as phallus) prominent in names. He shows us that it is a long development of tactical moves putting into practice the embedding of phallic bias into the concept of Creator/god to make the strategy appear seamless and thus quite invisible to the ordinary thinking being. The phallic bias raises male being as possessing divinity in being male.
Man as species, wo +man and hu +man all mean man, male. This set of names does not reflect the reality of our species.
No comments:
Post a Comment