Soul Gender?

[Semperviva]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 26 2005, 03:00 PM'] I have never said, nor has Apotheoun, that there is nothing to "distinguish" one soul from another.

Hopefully this analogy works at least to get the point across - a human soul, while anticipating its human body cannot be said to have a given sex, despite the differences between one soul and another, because sex exists only in the union of body and soul.

[right][snapback]624540[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Forgive my incoherence. I just don't know how to ask my questions.

yes, it helps...but i was not disputing that at all...i just meant you have different strings on a bass then on an acoustic

[Guest JeffCR07]

Yes, it seems perfectly logical to assert that one person's soul is different in some respects than another person's soul. All souls share certain things in common, all human souls share even more in common, but each soul is unique to itself.

[Snowcatpa]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 26 2005, 04:07 PM']So, it seems that the proper understanding would be put thus: Each human person, who is constituted by a union of body and soul, is either male or female. The soul of a human person, whether male or female, anticipates the particular sex of the body though the sex of the person cannot be found within the soul itself. Rather, it is the human [i]person[/i], body and soul, which has a given sex.
[right][snapback]624434[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jun 26 2005, 04:25 PM']OK, so each soul HAS some a particular quality, in which it
......[i]anticipates[/i] the particular sex of the body though the sex of the person cannot be found within the soul itself.......
that seem like a distinguishing quality between a male or female soul, or no?
[right][snapback]624464[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 26 2005, 05:00 PM']It seems to me that you are arguing in circles. I have never said, nor has Apotheoun, that there is nothing to "distinguish" one soul from another. Rather, we have said that sex is an attribute of a human [i]person[/i], which is a unity of body and soul. A person's sex does not lay only in the body, nor can it be found exclusively in the soul. the sex of a person resides precisely in the unity of body and soul together.[right][snapback]624540[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 26 2005, 05:23 PM']Yes, it seems perfectly logical to assert that one person's soul is different in some respects than another person's soul. All souls share certain things in common, all human souls share even more in common, but each soul is unique to itself.
[right][snapback]624564[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[color=purple]
I always love your analogies, Jeff. You should make a book of them one day to help the rest of us I think what Semperviva [and myself!] are more specifically asking then is, since there are different male and female souls, anticipated through the connection with the body, each "unique to itself", to what extent can we discuss these different souls? Are there differences between them?

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jun 26 2005, 10:15 AM']"Masculine Soul" or "Feminine Soul" what is the full meaning of this...and as we are ensouled bodies, embodied souls, body-soul composites, etc etc what is the relationship between the bodies gender and the soul...does the soul overcome gender, transcend it?  Does a masculine or feminine soul have differnences?
[right][snapback]624208[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The relationship between the body's gender and soul has been answered...but what about the differences between the gendered souls?

Thanks [/color]

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Snowcatpa' date='Jun 26 2005, 10:50 PM'][color=purple]
The relationship between the body's gender and soul has been answered...but what about the differences between the gendered souls?

Thanks  [/color]
[right][snapback]625021[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The soul and the body coming into being simultaneously, and it is the hylomorphic being that has sexual properties. The soul has no sexual distinction (or gender, to misuse the word).

[Snowcatpa]

[color=purple]To the extent that the soul anticipates the particular sex of the body, can it not then be considered a gendered soul? (and I still do'nt think I'm on your page with the terminology...cause you say that saying that is misusing the word). [/color]

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Snowcatpa' date='Jun 26 2005, 10:59 PM'][color=purple]To the extent that the soul anticipates the particular sex of the body, can it not then be considered a gendered soul? (and I still do'nt think I'm on your page with the terminology...cause you say that saying that is misusing the word). [/color]
[right][snapback]625031[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The soul in itself has no sexual characteristics, it is an immaterial spiritual reality. The soul is created simultaneously with the matter that it informs, thus it is the hyplomorphic composite that has sexual properties, and the soul.

[Apotheoun]

Feminism began the trend of using the word "gender" as if it were the equivalent of sex. I don't subscribe to their views on the use of the word.

[quote]Gender:  a subclass within a grammatical class (as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms b : membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclass c : an inflectional form showing membership in such a subclass.[/quote]

[Apotheoun]

The word "table" in Spanish is feminine, while in French it is masculine. So although the word "table" in these two languages has gender, it is quite clear that tables do not have sex.

[Snowcatpa]

[color=purple]That's interesting... then how do you describe what I would call "gendered" characteristics. The use of the words feminine and masculine themselves are indicative of assigning a gender to something and not a sex.

A "masculine action", for example, might be let's say, a protective action, like when a brother guards his little sister from the ravages of a killer Viking!!! , but... the action of protecting is abstracted...it isn't having sex, nor is assigning it the word masculine it based on any linguistic case agreements. (and Females can be protective too). It's purely about the action being associated with a particular sex (gendered) even though it itself does not have sex.

Do you reject the abstraction of sexual characteristics away from the corporal realm? If so, how do you describe such characteristics or components (obviously not capable of having sex themselves) that are merely being attributed to a sexed being? [/color]

Edited June 27, 2005 by Snowcatpa

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Snowcatpa' date='Jun 26 2005, 11:24 PM'][color=purple]That's interesting... then how do you describe what I would call "gendered" characteristics. The use of the words feminine and masculine themselves are indicative of assigning a gender to something and not a sex.
[right][snapback]625060[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Normally, you are talking about sexual characteristics. Almost fixating upon them at certain times.

[Snowcatpa]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 27 2005, 03:44 AM']Normally, you are talking about sexual characteristics.  Almost fixating upon them at certain times.
[right][snapback]625083[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[color=purple]
Being protective is not sexual... You'resaying that normally I'm talking about sexual characteristics...what then are you implying about the abnormal times they're not sexual characteristics? [/color]

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]I always love your analogies, Jeff. You should make a book of them one day to help the rest of us  I think what Semperviva [and myself!] are more specifically asking then is, since there are different male and female souls, anticipated through the connection with the body, each "unique to itself", to what extent can we discuss these different souls? Are there differences between them? [/quote]

[quote]The relationship between the body's gender and soul has been answered...but what about the differences between the gendered souls?[/quote]

Thanks for the compliment, I know the analogies don't always work, but for me analogies help to make abstract concepts more accessible and understandable.

The one thing I would caution is that we cannot call souls "gendered" (even apart from Todd's complaints, which I think are valid) nor can we say that souls have a particular sex, anymore than we can say that guitar strings are instruments in themselves apart from the guitar body to which they should be strung.

When I speak of my soul, I can say that, because it is [i]my[/i] soul, it anticipates my masculinity, just as I can say that it anticipates [i]my[/i] rational nature and [i]my[/i] free will. It doesn't anticipate any of these things in a general way, but rather, in a particular way - particular to me - precisely because [i]my[/i] soul was made for [i]my[/i] body.

This doesn't mean that there are "male and female souls" - but rather, it means that there are souls which will be united to human bodies, and in that unity will produce either a male or female person.

I know that might seem like a semantical detail, but it is really important that we always attribute sex to a [i]person[/i] rather than to a soul. If we get into the mindset of the soul being the essential part of the human being, having all of the characteristics which make us who we are - like our sex, etc - then we inevitably will begin to view the body as just a secondary thing - a shell inhabited by our "true" selves, or, even worse, a prison containing our spirit, from which we seek freedom.

In fact, when considering ourselves, it is the [i]human person[/i], a unity of body and soul, that is the fundamental, central focus.

If you really want to study water, we study H2O. Certainly we CAN study Hydrogen and Oxygen in and of themselves, seperated one from the other, but then we aren't studying water anymore. In the same way, if you want to look at sex and the differences/complimentary natures of the sexes, we should study the human person - body and soul together.

Trying to find gender (sorry Todd) or sex by looking exclusively at either the body or the soul would be as futile and misguided as trying to find water by studying a single atom of oxygen.

- Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Snowcatpa]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 27 2005, 08:49 AM']This doesn't mean that there are "male and female souls" - but rather, it means that there are souls which will be united to human bodies, and in that unity will produce either a male or female person.

I know that might seem like a semantical detail, but it is really important that we always attribute sex to a [i]person[/i] rather than to a soul. If we get into the mindset of the soul being the essential part of the human being, having all of the characteristics which make us who we are - like our sex, etc - then we inevitably will begin to view the body as just a secondary thing - a shell inhabited by our "true" selves, or, even worse, a prison containing our spirit, from which we seek freedom.

If you really want to study water, we study H2O. Certainly we CAN study Hydrogen and Oxygen in and of themselves, seperated one from the other, but then we aren't studying water anymore. In the same way, if you want to look at sex and the differences/complimentary natures of the sexes, we should study the human person - body and soul together.
[right][snapback]625120[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[color=purple]
Hmm... ok.... so what I took as like, the bass strings anticipating the bass guitar wasn't really meant to show that they were both "basses" in contrast to "acoustics" [what I took to be male in contrast to female, for example]. I think I got confused because I understood how they weren't musical instruments... just like souls are not a complete human beings, but that didn't shut off to me the distinction that some are bass and some are acoustic. I think I got ya know though... when you pointed out the soul having all our characteristics could have greater implications.

Then why do people talk about feminine and masculine souls? Like various authors, or St. Edith Stein. Are they talking about just people's inner personalities or something, even though they think they're talking about "souls"? [/color]

[Guest JeffCR07]

While I have not read much of Stein's work, from the little that I do know, she always discussed the soul in the context of the unity of soul and body. Thus, when she speaks of the woman's distinctive soul, it seems that she is discussing its distinctiveness in the context of the interplay between body and soul (and therefore is really speaking of the human person).

Moreover, even if I am wrong in this interpretation (and I very well might be) and St. Stein did really believe that souls are actually feminine and masculine in and of themselves, rather than being distinctive in terms of being the soul-of-a-masculine-person or the soul-of-a-feminine-person, this would only be the personal theological views of a single Saint, and would have to be considered in light of the whole of the writings of the Saints.

Aside from St. Stein, I am unfamiliar with any serious theologians who argue in favor of the idea.

[Semperviva]

[i]The one thing I would caution is that we cannot call souls "gendered" nor can we say that souls have a particular sex, anymore than we can say that guitar strings are instruments in themselves apart from the guitar body to which they should be strung.[/i]

No, your're right their not instruments at all, but say you look at the string you as someone who knows about guitars would know: this kinddof thing works for this kindof instrument, correct? It has [i]some[/i] feature to it which gives you the knowledge of what its proper end is?

Now, as to souls having a particular sex, I am not saying, for example, like I tried to emphasize earlier, but I guess my way of speaking doesn't really work in arguments, when a baby's born you say [i]oh gosh [/i]it's a______, because that is by seeing what the sex of the baby is. I am talking more along the lines of say you are not simply masculine in your sex but in your way of thinking, praying, understanding, perceiving, acting, touching, speaking, and everything! I am trying to say that masculinity or feminity is something which [i]is[/i] the whole body soul composite, which must be it seems inherent in body and soul, in such a deep way, in which it affects how they know and understand God, and it is so intimetely connected with not just your sex/gender whatever you want to call it (language evolves, deal with it! haha, ok that was not nice of me sorry-in your sex) but your whole nature as a body soul composite and who you are created by God [i]as[/i] either male or female[/I]. (gasp for breath) LOL Of course you know that, but does it make any sense at all?

[i]This doesn't mean that there are "male and female souls" - but rather, it means that there are souls which will be united to human bodies, and in that unity will produce either a male or female person.

I know that might seem like a semantical detail, but it is really important that we always attribute sex to a person rather than to a soul. If we get into the mindset of the soul being the essential part of the human being,
having all of the characteristics which make us who we are - like our sex, etc -[/i]

Not all characteristics, but in some aspects. and not neccesarily sex, I'm sorry i can't say sex, this is too confusing- Gender! my brain can't deal with too many phantasms here! ha. I never mean to argue for the existence of a male/female soul in the sense you are thinking of it, Jeff. I don't mean to say: this soul right here has feminine sex or male sex, but that it has attributes made it fit/work for/in either an acoustic or bass, and make the right sounds, etcetc we'll just make the acoustic feminine, shall we, ha. Also, I never meant to say the body and soul are created seperately, Todd seemed to think I thought that. i diden't intend to create that particular phantasm but if i did inadvertently, lo ciento.

[i]then we inevitably will begin to view the body as just a secondary thing - a shell inhabited by our "true" selves, or, even worse, a prison containing our spirit, from which we seek freedom.[/i]

This would be true if we did see the soul as having ALL characteristics which make us who we are, but I don't mean to imply all. This view of the soul trapped in the body does not seem to follow from the idea i am attempting to vivify.

[i]In fact, when considering ourselves, it is the human person, a unity of body and soul, that is the fundamental, central focus.[/i]

Def.

[i]Trying to find gender or sex by looking exclusively at either the body or the soul would be as futile and misguided as trying to find water by studying a single atom of oxygen.[/i]

Righto. I'm only trying to emphasize the opposite, you see. I'm trying to emphasize that [i]this union of body and soul IS just so great[/i] that the one aspect is not exclusive to the other. agh! i mean, i can't express what i mean its so frustrating, do you know what i'm saying?/? Like, I meant to say that masculinity in you is not just a matter of your sex!!!! Do you understand? And therefore I am trying to say that I think it makes sense for some aspects of you being a man are inherent in your everyway of being and seems inherent in your soul-body composite, not just in your body as anticipated by soul. do you understand?

Edited June 27, 2005 by Semperviva