Soul Gender?

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jun 27 2005, 10:13 AM'][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?
[right][snapback]625201[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I do understand what you are saying, and it seems that this point that the difference in what we are saying is terminological. When Apotheoun and I use the term "sex" we do not intend for it to signify simply the biological presence of certain genital organs. In this discussion, each time we refer to "sex" we are refering to masculinity and feminimity in its entirety, which does not reside only in the body or only in the soul, because it necessarily proceeds from the union of body and soul.

As long as you maintain that masculinity/feminimity, which [i]is[/i] "sex," is neither of the soul or of the body, but rather, is of the union of one to the other, then we are on the same page. Certainly each individual soul has certain features which anticipate the sex of the person, but these features could not properly be called sex or gender itself.

[Semperviva]

This brings me to another question:

Sirach, in Hebrew tradition is considered the representation of the spiritual child.

Ecclesiates, the spiritual adolescent,

Song of Song the spiritual adult.

Now, in light of this Jewish tradition, which carried over into Christianity, in which the Church and the individual soul are reprensented by the woman, in tradition originating, lol, with Origen, I believe. How does affect spirituality of guys? How do they see themselves in relation to Christ, in the manner portratyed by Song of Songs? I know various male saints have accomplished this...

[scardella]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 27 2005, 10:47 AM']I do understand what you are saying, and it seems that this point that the difference in what we are saying is terminological. When Apotheoun and I use the term "sex" we do not intend for it to signify simply the biological presence of certain genital organs. In this discussion, each time we refer to "sex" we are refering to masculinity and feminimity in its entirety, which does not reside only in the body or only in the soul, because it necessarily proceeds from the union of body and soul.

As long as you maintain that masculinity/feminimity, which [i]is[/i] "sex," is neither of the soul or of the body, but rather, is of the union of one to the other, then we are on the same page. Certainly each individual soul has certain features which anticipate the sex of the person, but these features could not properly be called sex or gender itself.
[right][snapback]625235[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

There is something still bothering me, and maybe I'm misunderstanding what's being said about "anticipating the sex of the person", but...

The way you are describing it, it would seem to lend credence to the idea of a "guy trapped in a girl's body" or vice versa ridiculousness. For lack of a better way of describing it, a male body is a man's body. It's not going to be a woman's body. In the same way, considering that apparently all embroiled in the discussion admit to immaterial differences (ie intellectual or spiritual differences) between a man and a woman. As a result, a man's soul (and intellect) is going to operate differently than a woman's soul, and, I would presume, it will be different from a woman's soul.

Apparently, we have a male body, a male soul and a male intellect which come together to make the totality of a male human person, and only the full human person is a full instance of a man. Likewise, the female body, female soul and female intellect together comprise a woman.

Is this just a matter of semantics/vocabulary here?

[Semperviva]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jun 27 2005, 01:20 PM']There is something still bothering me, and maybe I'm misunderstanding what's being said about "anticipating the sex of the person", but...

The way you are describing it, it would seem to lend credence to the idea of a "guy trapped in a girl's body" or vice versa ridiculousness.  For lack of a better way of describing it, a male body is a man's body.  It's not going to be a woman's body.  In the same way, considering that apparently all embroiled in the discussion admit to immaterial differences (ie intellectual or spiritual differences) between a man and a woman.  As a result, a man's soul (and intellect) is going to operate differently than a woman's soul, and, I would presume, it will be different from a woman's soul. 

Apparently, we have a male body, a male soul and a male intellect which come together to make the totality of a male human person, and only the full human person is a full instance of a man.  Likewise, the female body, female soul and female intellect together comprise a woman.

Is this just a matter of semantics/vocabulary here?
[right][snapback]625352[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I think you are getting at the same thing I was trying to express when I said the soul would have attributes of being male or female, but would not be fully such unless completed by the body soul union. I'm unsure, like you, if that conflicts with...

[i]As long as you maintain that masculinity/feminimity, which is "sex," is neither of the soul or of the body, but rather, is of the union of one to the other, then we are on the same page. Certainly each individual soul has certain features which anticipate the sex of the person, but these features could not properly be called sex or gender itself.[/i]

[Guest JeffCR07]

I will confess at the outset of this post that the following is entirely speculative, and I can provide absolutely no writings of Saints, or even secular philosophers to back this up. I am not at home and I have no resources readily accessible to me in order to really give a meaningful and dependable response.

That said, I can only offer my initial thoughts and responses:

I am very, very hesitant to subscribe to the theory that you two are positing, which (correct me if I'm wrong) would result in a formula arguing:

male soul + male body (+male intellect?) = masculine person/ person-whose-sex-is-male

The reason that I object to this is because it "locates" the sex of a person to at least some degree in both the soul and the body, even when considered seperately.

That thinking will lead you to some very bad conclusions.

For example, if one applies this theory to a person born with both male and female sex organs, one would be forced to say that this person is either both masculine and feminine simultaneously, or more/less masculine/feminine than someone born normally.

I am not prepared to conceed this point, as I maintain that a person who happens to be born with both male and female sex organs is [i]either[/i] male or female, and, whichever it is, that person is [i]fully[/i] masculine or [i]fully[/i] feminine.

This however, would be an untenable position if the theory that you (plural) have put forward above were to be kept, for in it at least some degree of masculinity/feminimity resides in the body irrespective of the soul.

Thus, I still maintain that the "sex" of a person is wholly and totally a result of the union of body and soul, and does not reside in either body or soul alone to any degree.

[Semperviva]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 27 2005, 02:14 PM']
I am very, very hesitant to subscribe to the theory that you two are positing, which (correct me if I'm wrong) would result in a formula arguing:

male soul + male body (+male intellect?)  = masculine person/ person-whose-sex-is-male

The reason that I object to this is because it "locates" the sex of a person to at least some degree in both the soul and the body, even when considered seperately.

That thinking will lead you to some very bad conclusions.

For example, if one applies this theory to a person born with both male and female sex organs, one would be forced to say that this person is either both masculine and feminine simultaneously, or more/less masculine/feminine than someone born normally.

I am not prepared to conceed this point, as I maintain that a person who happens to be born with both male and female sex organs is [i]either[/i] male or female, and, whichever it is, that person is [i]fully[/i] masculine or [i]fully[/i] feminine.

This however, would be an untenable position if the theory that you (plural) have put forward above were to be kept, for in it at least some degree of masculinity/feminimity resides in the body irrespective of the soul.

Thus, I still maintain that the "sex" of a person is wholly and totally a result of the union of body and soul, and does not reside in either body or soul alone to any degree.
[right][snapback]625417[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[i]I am not prepared to conceed this point, as I maintain that a person who happens to be born with both male and female sex organs is either male or female, and, whichever it is, that person is fully masculine or fully feminine.[/i]

I would agree with the above, however, I do not think this neccesarily conflicts with our theory on the soul. The presence of two sets of sex organs, (def. had no idea this happened) would be an exceptional case which would come under the same reason why any other body has a birth defect, ie original sin. Perhaps the situation described is a lacking of a proper physical order and the good due to this person [i]and a presence of an un-due good[/i], an evil, resulting from original sin and would be considered a "birth defect," and present for the same reason a person is born with more or less of the form due to man. (same in the case of two people born connected to their twin, etc etc)

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jun 27 2005, 02:54 PM'][i]I am not prepared to conceed this point, as I maintain that a person who happens to be born with both male and female sex organs is either male or female, and, whichever it is, that person is fully masculine or fully feminine.[/i]

I would agree with the above, however, I do not think this neccesarily conflicts with our theory on the soul.  The presence of two sets of sex organs, (def. had no idea this happened) would be an exceptional case which would come under the same reason why any other body has a birth defect, ie original sin.  Perhaps the situation described is a lacking of a proper physical order and the good due to this person [i]and a presence of an un-due good[/i], an evil, resulting from original sin and would be considered a "birth defect,"  and present for the same reason a person is born with more or less of the form due to man.  (same in the case of two people born connected to their twin, etc etc)
[right][snapback]625467[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

When thinking about the problem, this was the first attempt that I took in order to escape the problem. However, I don't think it works. If, as your theory posits, some degree of the sex of the person resides solely in the body while another degree resides solely in the soul, it [i]must[/i] logically follow that a person who is born with the bodily aspects of both genders would have some degree of both sexes.

If this is rejected - even with recourse to the "birth defect" argument - then you are necessarily arguing that no degree of the sex of the person resides solely in the body, but rather, that some degree of the sex of the person [i]might[/i] reside in the body contingent upon that body's lacking of "birth defects."

But I think both of us will agree that the latter is a ludicrist position.

Therefore I still maintain that the best way to deal with this issue is to assert that the sex of an individual cannot be found in either the body or the soul alone, to any degree, but resides wholly and totally in the union of body and soul together.

[Semperviva]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 27 2005, 03:16 PM']When thinking about the problem, this was the first attempt that I took in order to escape the problem. However, I don't think it works. If, as your theory posits, [b][i]some degree of the sex of the person resides solely in the body while another degree resides solely in the soul[/i][/b], it [i]must[/i] logically follow that a person who is born with the bodily aspects of both genders would have some degree of both sexes.

If this is rejected - even with recourse to the "birth defect" argument - then you are necessarily arguing that no degree of the sex of the person resides solely in the body, but rather, that some degree of the sex of the person [i]might[/i] reside in the body contingent upon that body's lacking of "birth defects."

But I think both of us will agree that the latter is a ludicrist position.

Therefore I still maintain that the best way to deal with this issue is to assert that the sex of an individual cannot be found in either the body or the soul alone, to any degree, but resides wholly and totally in the union of body and soul together.
[right][snapback]625492[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Hmm...to the first paragraph. I don't hold that some degree of masculinity or femininity would exist "solely" in the soul or body, but that that certain aspects of individual personhood, which include either masculine or feminine attributes, are in both, and are not excluded from one, and that perhaps [i]some[/i] immaterial aspects exist equally in both body and soul. I am not sure, but I am perhaps thinking of the tendency towards specific virtues or vices as one example, in which the soul's reflect masculine or feminine desires or tendencies. I don't know if this shatters my whole theory by some unseen tenet. Hope not.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jun 27 2005, 03:45 PM']Hmm...to the first paragraph.  I don't hold that some degree of masculinity or femininity would exist "solely" in the soul or body, but that that certain aspects of individual personhood, which include either masculine or feminine attributes, are in both, and are not excluded from one, and that perhaps [i]some[/i] immaterial aspects exist equally in both body and soul.  I am not sure, but I am perhaps thinking of the tendency towards specific virtues or vices as one example, in which the soul's reflect masculine or feminine desires or tendencies. I don't know if this shatters my whole theory by some unseen tenet.  Hope not.
[right][snapback]625527[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Just a few comments here:

First, the catholic definition of a person is a unity of human body and rational soul. Therefore, anything pertaining to the [i]personhood[/i] of an individual cannot be attributed simply to the soul, but must by necessity be attributed to the unity of body and soul which is the person.

Second, regarding the statement that:
[quote]I don't hold that some degree of masculinity or femininity would exist "solely" in the soul or body, but that that certain aspects of individual personhood, which include either masculine or feminine attributes, are in both, and are not excluded from one, and that perhaps [i]some[/i] immaterial aspects exist equally in both body and soul.[/quote]

This comment is somewhat muddy. You could mean either

a.) Masculine/Feminine attributes are "in both" [body and soul] purely on account of the union of the two.

b.) Masculine/Feminine attributes are "in both" [body and soul] on account of the body naturally possessing some of those attributes and the soul naturally possessing some of those attributes (and the attributes possessed are not necessarily mututally exclusive).

Now, A implies an ontological change (though not a substantive change) in the composite parts - the soul changes on account of its union with the body and the body changes on account of its union with the soul.

B implies that body and soul each individually possess some degree of, or attributes of, masculinity and feminimity.

B collapses into the problem that I have previously illustrated, and therefore I reject it.

A does not seem to have that difficulty, and if you did indeed mean in your post that the soul and body both undergo some kind of ontological change at their unification, then I could, perhaps, accept this as a viable solution, as it does not substantially differ from what I have posted previously, and it would allow for, in common usage, reference to a "feminine soul" and a "masculine soul" - understanding that it is talking of the soul which has been united with a body and is acting as an element of the union which creates a human person.

[Snowcatpa]

[color=purple] Sounds good to me [/color]

[Semperviva]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 27 2005, 03:16 PM']If, as your theory posits, some degree of the sex of the person resides [b][i]solely in the body [/i][/b]while another degree resides [b][i]solely[/i][/b] in the soul, it [i]must[/i] logically follow that a person who is born with the bodily aspects of both genders would have some degree of both sexes.

If this is rejected - even with recourse to the "birth defect" argument - then you are necessarily arguing that no degree of the sex of the person resides solely in the body, but rather, that some degree of the sex of the person [i]might[/i] reside in the body contingent upon that body's lacking of "birth defects."

But I think both of us will agree that the latter is a ludicrous position.

Therefore I still maintain that the best way to deal with this issue is to assert that the sex of an individual cannot be found in either the body or the soul alone, to any degree, but resides wholly and totally in the union of body and soul together.
[right][snapback]625492[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[i]
I hope I did not post this response twice-the 1st time diden't go through on my computer[/i]

Edited June 27, 2005 by Semperviva

[Semperviva]

...........just ignore the above, LOL, so does the feminine tendency to hate computers exist equally in the soul and BODY

Edited June 27, 2005 by Semperviva

[Semperviva]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 27 2005, 04:14 PM']Just a few comments here:

First, the catholic definition of a person is a unity of human body and rational soul. Therefore, anything pertaining to the [i]personhood[/i] of an individual cannot be attributed simply to the soul, but must by necessity be attributed to the unity of body and soul which is the person.

Second, regarding the statement that:
This comment is somewhat muddy. You could mean either

a.) Masculine/Feminine attributes are "in both" [body and soul] purely on account of the union of the two.

b.) Masculine/Feminine attributes are "in both" [body and soul] on account of the body naturally possessing some of those attributes and the soul naturally possessing some of those attributes (and the attributes possessed are not necessarily mututally exclusive).

Now, A implies an ontological change (though not a substantive change) in the composite parts - the soul changes on account of its union with the body and the body changes on account of its union with the soul.

B implies that body and soul each individually possess some degree of, or attributes of, masculinity and feminimity.

B collapses into the problem that I have previously illustrated, and therefore I reject it.

A does not seem to have that difficulty, and if you did indeed mean in your post that the soul and body both undergo some kind of ontological change at their unification, then I could, perhaps, accept this as a viable solution, as it does not substantially differ from what I have posted previously, and it would allow for, in common usage, reference to a "feminine soul" and a "masculine soul" - understanding that it is talking of the soul which has been united with a body and is acting as an element of the union which creates a human person.
[right][snapback]625551[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Yes, I meant this idea in accord with the Catholic definition of the human person, and I'm not really sure if what you are saying in position A actually has anything to do with whats in my head because

A it is quite esoteric [i]or[/i]
B my knowledge of philosophy is lacking
C both A and B

...so I really have no idea what your talking about, however, most likely position A is somewhat what I had in mind, just not in those exact terms.

[Guest JeffCR07]

okey dokey, like I said, I am not certain, even in the loosest use of the term

[scardella]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 27 2005, 02:14 PM']
For example, if one applies this theory to a person born with both male and female sex organs, one would be forced to say that this person is either both masculine and feminine simultaneously, or more/less masculine/feminine than someone born normally.
[right][snapback]625417[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I maintain that, as far as someone is imperfect, he is not fully human. Thus, until we are made perfect in Christ, we are not fully human, and, therefore, not fully male or female.

[quote]First, the catholic definition of a person is a unity of human body and rational soul. Therefore, anything pertaining to the personhood of an individual cannot be attributed simply to thesoul, but must by necessity be attributed to the unity of body and soul which is the person.[/quote]

Your conclusion does not follow from your thesis and seems flawed. The personhood's attributes can only arise from attributes coming from its component parts. There's no magical extra that happens at the union.

(I'm running out, so that's my initial thoughts.)