Ea și el în România

4 comments

• Otilia Kloos

  8 februarie, 2011 19:46

  

  Articolul de fata, an ideal comparison and contrast paper, soseste la țac, Parinte.

  Chiar mai acum vreo citeva zile ma gindisem sa scriu un articol-rafuiala a gindirii dihotomice barbat/femeie cu titlul: „Vai voua, barbatilor!”.

  Dar iata ca mi-ati luat-o inainte: vorba ceea, „Ce poti face azi, n-amina pe miine!”.

  Deci, ziceam de dihotomie, pentru ca asa ne cladim parerile, opiniile, hotaririle, taifasurile, in mod dualistic. Nu stiu care-o fi radacina acestei nerozii, dar se pare ca e foarte greu sa gindesti aruncind un al treilea val asupra contextualului : comparatia ne ajuta in selectare, solutii, etc.

  In cazul de fata, „mama naste tatii”, si invers, betia e suvoi de „taifunuri” galgaind de copii (nu v-am spus de senzatia pe care o am cind pacienti de-ai mei vin la spital pe ETOH protocol, ceea ce inseamna ca ti se sugereaza din capul locului ca acesti bolnaviti in ale spir(I)tului trebuie tratati cu atentia cea mai mare; daca intra in withdrawal, pregateste-te, neica, de Ativan shots, Valium, violenta, neastimpar comportamental); ea e „vagin, menajera, femeie cu cap sau suflet, refractara”, cu sâni bibelou sau cu sâni bombă (ati uitat de slabiciunea sânilor grei de amfora a doua piepturi cu doua piepturi fac patru, regasire, numarul patru e, la evrei, simbolul lumii de acum, asteptind o alta lume, spunem noi); el e „penis, porc, misogin, la patru ace”.

  Sublim aspect, sublima alcatuire!

  Mai apare pe undeva si solutia prin rastimpul de „suflet duhovnicesc” ce tamaduieste „mintile separate”.

  Sau :”barbat cu constiinta si femeie cu noblete sufleteasca”.

  Cea dintii solutie mai mai ca iti da o idee de ce ambele persoane ar trebui sa fie privite ca tot in sinea lor intreaga, neconfundati, nedespartititi (vezi online Sinoadele ecumenice despre Ipostasul lui Hristos). Oricum, ce e important e ca se simte de unde vine sciziunea in gindire , in general, in manifestarea femeie/barbat, in special. Si asta ne bucura.

  A doua solutie de „barbat cu constiinta…”(v. mai sus)sparge din unirea nedespartita a celor doua constiinte. Ambilor li se cere constiinta, ambilor trup, ambilor folosirea creatoare a partii de sus a sufletului care este duhul (cred ca IPS Nafpaktos vorbeste undeva despre „nous’ sau despre teologia Pr. Ioan Romanide, trebuie sa ma uit in ce carte).

  Deci vad articolul ca o incercare de largime sufleteasca incercind sa explice colosul din imbinarea trup/suflet/duh, si modul in care femeia si barbatul devin „parteneri de dialog”(v. Paul Evdokimov, Femeia si salvarea lumii).

  Si asta se intimpla nu numai in Romania, ci global, de parca nimic nou sub soare de cind cu caderea lui Adam.

  Am vazut oameni indulcindu-se infometat de romane de dragoste pe paturile spitalelor, am vazut sotii tirindu-si sotii pe welfare, pe ajutor social, antrenindu-si copiii in aceeasi baltoaca a dependentei de mila populatiei ce plateste taxe pentru trindavi si escroci, am vazut taraba asexuatilor, a bigotilor, a homosexualilor cu zimbet de curca, a curvelor (nu critic aici deloc, doar descriu, eu sunt desfrinata desfrinatelor, deci nu-mi sterg numele de pe lista; intotdeauna am apreciat insa smerenia la care rugaciunea lor se ridica deasupra tuturor celor ce se cred sfinti atunci cind eles realizeaza maretia la care am fost chemati ca oameni…) ce-abia mai stiu cu ce barbat s-au culcat mai ieri (o adolescenta marturisea ca s-a culcat cu 54 de barbati deja; abia daca avea 17 ani…), site-urilor ce-ndeamna la sex oral, de parca pintecele si uterul femeii ar fi ceva laptos si demn de zgiriat cu miini nevolnice ce-abia mai stiu de sucurile zacamint al fiintei noastre…

  O sa revin cu citeva surse ale tematicii acesteia din Fer. Augustin, Sf. Grigore de Nisa, Berdiaev, Merezhkovsky, Soloviev, Boehme, Platon, gnostici, Origen , Filon de Alexandria, Sf. Clement de Alexandria, Sf. Pavel. Doar citeva idei la care sa meditam impreuna.

  Am degustat articolul si mi-a placut indrazneala gindului!

  Răspunde
• Otilia Kloos

  9 februarie, 2011 7:15

  

  Deci venisem cu precizarea ca o sa mentionez citeva din pozitiile gindite de emigrantii rusi, in general, desi, de cite ori ii abordez, tin minte cit traiesc ca, atunci cind e vorba de ei, ma cam namolesc in „nebuloasa”, dupa spusele par. Staniloae.

  Dar se cuvine sa-i amintim.

  Vladimir Soloviev scrie intre 1892 si 1895 The Meaning of Love. Una din ideile subliniate va fi infrinarea sexuala. Trupul e lacasul Duhului, dar carnea e pura animalitate. Numai iubirea infrinata, adevarata va duce la intregire. Numai ea va invinge egoismul. Relatia erotica desavirsita e una si a perfectei infrinari. Nu neaparat sa aduci plozi pe lume, ci sa creezi pentru vesnicie.

  Merezhkovsky in cartea sa Taina Apusului insista pe faptul ca relatia barbat-femeie trebuie sa treaca de limitele acestei lumi. Si la aceasta transcendere ajunge toata creatia.

  N. Berdiaev in Noima actului de creatie (1914) pistoneaza pe ideea androginului. Mi-amintesc tonul cartii. Eram prin Vaslui, in vacanta, cind citeam cartea. Se cam inspira din Böhme.

  Böhme e acela care distingea intre Fecioara (Intelepciunea) si femeie. La cadere, Intelepciunea s-a cam desprins, si ce-a mai ramas a fost femeia. De aici îmbucătățita femeie de azi.

  Pentru Sf. Grigore de Nyssa, sexualitatea a adus toate patimile in noi. Mi se pare ca scrie chiar un tratat: Despre Feciorie. Am trecut prin el acum vreo 20 si ceva de ani.

  Celalat pol al gindirii nu prea tine de crestinism: e vorba de Platon, gnosticii valentinieni, kabalistii (v. si Annick de Souzenelle in ultimul timp), Böhme. Pentru ei, faptul ca suntem impartiti in barbat si femeie, ne-am cam ars cu starea desavirsirii de la-nceput. Trebuie sa ajungem la statura androginului, ceea ce ginditorii rusi au si mentionat.

  Pt. Fer. Augustin, femeia nici nu-i creata dupa chipul lui Dumnezeu; Th. De Aquinas va zice ca femeia e doar facuta pt. nasterea de copchii („mas occasionatus”). Poate ca, intr-adevar, facem parte din alt regn, cine stie. Pina ajungem la inviere, trebuie sa gasim vreo cale de-a ne omeni in barbatus!

  Altfel, nu prea mare sansa!(…”a theme going back at least to Clement de Alexandria, who discusses the possibility of woman in the end becoming „non-female, manly and perfect” (Christianity and eros, P. Sherrard, Limni, 2002)

  Acuma, ne mai ramine sa gindim cum femeia e acel „TU” adresat lui Adam. Cineva trebuie sa fie la polul celalalt al principiului activ si ontologic al barbatului. Oare cine?

  Sf. Pavel spune ca barbatul e capul femeii. Cine inima?

  Si cu Maica Domnului cum ramine? Ea ne e modelul, ea e Prototipul Fecioara Maica.

  Multe concluzii de tras…

  Răspunde
  • Pr. Dorin

    9 februarie, 2011 9:52

    

    Am un singur amendament la comentariul dumneavoastră, doamnă Otilia: afirmația despre Sfântul Augustin e o aiureală de la distanță.

    Numai cine nu a citit niciodată pe Sfântul Augustin (și în română s-a tradus foarte prost, catolicizant) ar putea crede nerozia, că ar fi putut spune că femeia nu e creată după chipul lui Dumnezeu.

    Ca și Sfântul Ioan Gură de Aur, Sfântul Augustin e un teolog prea mare, cu mii de pagini de studiat și de tradus corect…ca să îți poți permite să spui orice tâmpenie…

    La noi s-a spus și se spun despre el și despre alți Sfinți ai Apusului multe enormități…și asta doar din neștiință.

    Deci fiți mai atentă cu teologi pe care nu-i citiți la prima mână!

    Nu preluați necritic informații despre Sfinți!

    Când găsiți, la vreun teolog, că vreun Sfânt ar fi spus afirmații aiurea…nu preluați ideea până nu cunoașteți sursa, originalul din care s-a citat și pe baza căruia s-a conchis un adevăr.

    Răspunde
• Otilia Kloos

  9 februarie, 2011 17:34

  

  Aveti dreptate aici.

  1. Uitasem sa precizez despre impresia generala a articolului: atitea atitudini fata de problema „el/ea’ pe cite inflectii ale sufletului gasesti pe clapele pianului ; deci trebe sa fie o organizare undeva, un ghid care sa ne lumineze calea.

  2. N-am gasit epitetul referitor la Fer. Augustin in original; in Marriage and concupiscence se vede doar lupta pe care o duce in a defini Taina nuntii, ceva din lupta care se vede si la Sf-voastra in Cuvintele duhovnicesti;

  In Confessions, se hotaraste a abandona viata de altadata, cind isi vadeste o alta noima a vietii_dragostea de Dumnezeu. Includ citeva citate gasite:http://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine/confessions.xvi.html

  http://plgo.org/?page_id=618-are patrologie

  http://plgo.org/http://www.iep.utm.edu/

  Foarte interesanta-IEP-enciclopedia filosofica

  In those years I had a mistress, to whom I was not joined in lawful marriage. She was a woman I had discovered in my wayward passion, void as it was of understanding, yet she was the only one; and I remained faithful to her and with her I discovered, by my own experience, what a great difference there is between the restraint of the marriage bond contracted with a view to having children and the compact of a lustful love, where children are born against the parents’ will–although once they are born they compel our love.

  CHAPTER XV

  25. Meanwhile my sins were being multiplied. My mistress was torn from my side as an impediment to my marriage, and my heart which clung to her was torn and wounded till it bled. And she went back to Africa, vowing to thee never to know any other man and leaving with me my natural son by her. But I, unhappy as I was, and weaker than a woman, could not bear the delay of the two years that should elapse before I could obtain the bride I sought. And so, since I was not a lover of wedlock so much as a slave of lust, I procured another mistress–not a wife, of course.

  Thus in bondage to a lasting habit, the disease of my soul might be nursed up and kept in its vigor or even increased until it reached the realm of matrimony. Nor indeed was the wound healed that had been caused by cutting away my former mistress; only it ceased to burn and throb, and began to fester, and was more dangerous because it was less painful.

  Chap XI/BK 8

  26. It was, in fact, my old mistresses, trifles of trifles and vanities of vanities, who still enthralled me. They tugged at my fleshly garments and softly whispered: “Are you going to part with us? And from that moment will we never be with you any more? And from that moment will not this and that be forbidden you forever?” What were they suggesting to me in those words “this or that”? What is it they suggested, O my God? Let thy mercy guard the soul of thy servant from the vileness and the shame they did suggest!

  And now I scarcely heard them, for they were not openly showing themselves and opposing me face to face; but muttering, as it were, behind my back; and furtively plucking at me as I was leaving, trying to make me look back at them. Still they delayed me, so that I hesitated to break loose and shake myself free of them and leap over to the place to which I was being called–for unruly habit kept saying to me, “Do you think you can live without them?”

  26. It was, in fact, my old mistresses, trifles of trifles and vanities of vanities, who still enthralled me. They tugged at my fleshly garments and softly whispered: “Are you going to part with us? And from that moment will we never be with you any more? And from that moment will not this and that be forbidden you forever?” What were they suggesting to me in those words “this or that”? What is it they suggested, O my God? Let thy mercy guard the soul of thy servant from the vileness and the shame they did suggest!

  And now I scarcely heard them, for they were not openly showing themselves and opposing me face to face; but muttering, as it were, behind my back; and furtively plucking at me as I was leaving, trying to make me look back at them. Still they delayed me, so that I hesitated to break loose and shake myself free of them and leap over to the place to which I was being called–for unruly habit kept saying to me, “Do you think you can live without them?”

  CHAPTER XXX

  41. Obviously thou commandest that I should be continent from “the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.”348348 1 John 2:16. Thou commandest me to abstain from fornication, and as for marriage itself, thou hast counseled something better than what thou dost allow. And since thou gavest it, it was done–even before I became a minister of thy sacrament. But there still exist in my memory–of which I have spoken so much–the images of such things as my habits had fixed there.

  These things rush into my thoughts with no power when I am awake; but in sleep they rush in not only so as to give pleasure, but even to obtain consent and what very closely resembles the deed itself. Indeed, the illusion of the image prevails to such an extent, in both my soul and my flesh, that the illusion persuades me when sleeping to what the reality cannot do when I am awake. Am I not myself at such a time, O Lord my God? And is there so much of a difference between myself awake and myself in the moment when I pass from waking to sleeping, or return from sleeping to waking?

  Where, then, is the power of reason which resists such suggestions when I am awake–for even if the things themselves be forced upon it I remain unmoved? Does reason cease when the eyes close? Is it put to sleep with the bodily senses? But in that case how does it come to pass that even in slumber we often resist, and with our conscious purposes in mind, continue most chastely in them, and yield no assent to such allurements? Yet there is at least this much difference: that when it happens otherwise in dreams, when we wake up, we return to peace of conscience. And it is by this difference between sleeping and waking that we discover that it was not we who did it, while we still feel sorry that in some way it was done in us.

  “A man turns to good use the evil of concupiscence, and is not overcome by it, when he bridles and restrains its rage . . . and never relaxes his hold upon it except when intent on offspring, and then controls and applies it to the carnal generation of children . . . , not to the subjection of the spirit to the flesh in a sordid servitude” (On Marriage and Concupiscence, bk. 1, ch. 9).(from
  http://www.iep.utm.edu/sexualit/#H2) . A man turns to use the evil of concupiscence, and is not overcome by it, when he bridles and restrains its rage, as it works in inordinate and indecorous motions; and never relaxes his hold upon it except when intent on offspring(from

  On Marriage and concupiscence-)

  Sau: Chapter 30 [XXVII.]— The Evil Desires of Concupiscence; We Ought to Wish that They May Not Be.

  For the concupiscence of the flesh is in some sort active, even when it does not exhibit either an assent of the heart, where its seat of empire is, or those members whereby, as its weapons, it fulfils what it is bent on. But what in this action does it effect, unless it be its evil and shameful desires? For if these were good and lawful, the apostle would not forbid obedience to them, saying, Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that you should obey the lusts thereof. Romans 6:12 He does not say, that you should have the lusts thereof, but that you should obey the lusts thereof; in order that (as these desires are greater or less in different individuals, according as each shall have progressed in the renewal of the inner man) we may maintain the fight of holiness and chastity, for the purpose of withholding obedience to these lusts.

  Nevertheless, our wish ought to be nothing less than the nonexistence of these very desires, even if the accomplishment of such a wish be not possible in the body of this death. This is the reason why the same apostle, in another passage, addressing us as if in his own person, gives us this instruction: For what I would, says he, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. Romans 7:15 In a word, I covet. For he was unwilling to do this, that he might be perfect on every side. If, then, I do that which I would not, he goes on to say, I consent unto the law that it is good. Romans 7:16 Because the law, too, wills not that which I also would not. For it wills not that I should have concupiscence, for it says, You shall not covet; and I am no less unwilling to cherish so evil a desire. In this, therefore, there is complete accord between the will of the law and my own will. But because he was unwilling to covet, and yet did covet, and for all that did not by any means obey this concupiscence so as to yield assent to it, he immediately adds these words: Now, then, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwells in me. Romans 7:17

  (aici se vede lupta Fer. Augustin)

  3. Rationalistul din Kant vede in femeie „an object of appetite”-v. International Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

  4. Multumim pentru sugestia lecturii!

  Răspunde