|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Neolithic women |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
tiompan 5758 posts |
Mar 08, 2017, 18:30
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: tiompan wrote: Littlestone wrote: tiompan wrote: Doesn't the Avebury avenue supposed male -female , ying -yang or whatever binary says more about us than the actual setting ? Particularly seeing as doesn't apply i.e. it is far from consistent , in that the shape of the stones is not limited to diamonds and pillars and what would be described "female " stones are found opposed to other "female " stones etc. And if applied to the stone circle we would get a very unbalanced picture . Actually it’s Yin-yang, not ying-yang. ‘Ying’ in Chinese means, among other things, eagle, jade or victorious. The two Chinese characters used to write Yin-yang are ‘Yin’, the ‘shady side’ and ‘Yang’ the ‘bright side’ (of a mountain for example). As such, the concept of Yin-yang may be seen as symbolising the opposites that comprise the whole. The ‘whole’ is the salient bit, not the ’binary’ opposites bit. ‘Binary’ is the ‘in’ word for a lot of things these days but, in the case of Yin-yang, the word ‘dualism’ (in its religious and philosophical sense) is probably a better word to employ. As for the Avebury Avenue and the Avebury Henge, perhaps there were just not enough diamond- and pillar-shaped stones lying around (and as far as I’m aware none of the stones at Avebury have been dressed to make them look male or female). That would not stop the architects of the Avenue and the Henge from bestowing 'non-pillar' or 'non-diamond' stones with male or female attributes if they so wished. At Avebury they may have done that by decorating the more ‘neutral’ stones in a certain way, or they may have seen gender-related characteristics on the surface of the stone. Some of the stones may even have represented children, and might not have been seen as warranting stones that were perceived as having more clearly defined gender characteristics. The original Chinese wouldn't have used capital letters . And writing in mid sentence in english wouldn't need one either , you can use them if you wish . Binary is hardly a “in” word these days , when used in reference to binary oppositions like male and female , it stems from a least Saussure and is central to structuralism . The post I was responding to mentioned “the yin-yang of dark-light, female-male “ (note the perfectly acceptable lack of capital ) , the ying /yang was never going to get special mention of being a dualism in the context of the reply . It doesn't matter if there were not enough stones to fit any binary opposition , the problem is that even with the very limited number of pairs in the Avenue they don't fit into any type of binary opposition , male -female or otherwise . You seem to be missing the point, I was referring to your misspelling of the word ‘yin’ as ‘ying’ (the latter with a ‘g’ at the end). The word ‘ying’ has a completely different meaning (indeed meanings) to the word ‘yin’. For example, in both the Chinese and Japanese writing systems the character ‘ying’ is the first of two characters used to write the word ‘Eng-land’ and can be translated as ‘Excellent’ (quite a complimentary attribute). The second character just means ‘Country’. This has nothing to do with capitalization; there is no such thing in those two writing systems (though there are ways of emphasising a word/character when necessary). By the way, ‘English’ as it appears in the second line of your post, is generally spelt with a capital ‘E’. :-) Silly me . Indeed should have been yin . The misspelling doesn't change the meaning from an english perspective or the actual import , and I doubt anyone was actually confused by it . I don't always bother with capitals and don't bother if others do or not .
|
|||
tjj 3606 posts |
Edited Mar 08, 2017, 20:23
Mar 08, 2017, 20:00
|
||
|
I found this article on Patriarchy quite a useful read - the section about patriarchy in religion is interesting, particularly the bit on (ancient) Chinese patriarchy: "Chinese philosopher *Mencius outlined the Three Subordinations: A woman was to be subordinate to her father in youth, her husband in maturity, and her son in old age. Repeated throughout ancient Chinese tradition, the familiar notion that men govern the outer world, while women govern the home serves as a cliché of classical texts and Confucianism." http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Patriarchy Staying with Mencius, it would seem his own mother played a prominent role in his life - reinforcing the long held concept of Mother being the supreme role for a woman. (Hopefully, not any longer). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mencius
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Mar 08, 2017, 20:49
|
||
What are the odds that Donald Brown's view that is a human universal may still seem likely in a couple of centuries ?
|
|||
|
tjj 3606 posts |
Mar 08, 2017, 21:52
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: What are the odds that Donald Brown's view that is a human universal may still seem likely in a couple of centuries ? Well done you! My link listed him as Robert Brown but I found Donald quick enough. And here are his Human Universals for anyone like me who hadn't come across them .... http://joelvelasco.net/teaching/2890/brownlisthumanuniversals.pdf
|
|||
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Edited Mar 10, 2017, 21:34
Mar 10, 2017, 17:56
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: As for the Avebury Avenue and the Avebury Henge, perhaps there were just not enough diamond- and pillar-shaped stones lying around (and as far as I’m aware none of the stones at Avebury have been dressed to make them look male or female). That would not stop the architects of the Avenue and the Henge from bestowing 'non-pillar' or 'non-diamond' stones with male or female attributes if they so wished. At Avebury they may have done that by decorating the more ‘neutral’ stones in a certain way, or they may have seen gender-related characteristics on the surface of the stone. Some of the stones may even have represented children, and might not have been seen as warranting stones that were perceived as having more clearly defined gender characteristics. And just to add to that; perhaps we should start referring to the so-called 'male' and 'female' stones at Avebury, and elsewhere, as the Lingam and the Yoni stones. Those words do, after all, bestow something rather more on the objects than the rather simplistic attributes of male and female. Indeed, the lost Obelisk at Avebury may have represented a lingam; as it might also have done at Rudstson, and almost certainly did at Plonéour-Lanvern in Brittany (third photo down).
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Mar 10, 2017, 18:52
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: Littlestone wrote: As for the Avebury Avenue and the Avebury Henge, perhaps there were just not enough diamond- and pillar-shaped stones lying around (and as far as I’m aware none of the stones at Avebury have been dressed to make them look male or female). That would not stop the architects of the Avenue and the Henge from bestowing 'non-pillar' or 'non-diamond' stones with male or female attributes if they so wished. At Avebury they may have done that by decorating the more ‘neutral’ stones in a certain way, or they may have seen gender-related characteristics on the surface of the stone. Some of the stones may even have represented children, and might not have been seen as warranting stones that were perceived as having more clearly defined gender characteristics. And just to add to that; perhaps we should start referring to the so-called 'male' and 'female' stones at Avebury, and elsewhere, as the Lingam and the Yoni stones. Those words do, after all, bestow something rather more on the objects than the rather simplistic attributes of male and female. Indeed, the lost Obelisk at Avebury may have represented a lingam; as it might also have done at Rudson, and almost certainly did at Plonéour-Lanvern in Brittany (third photo down). Lol . I think ,if pushed , I'll stick with bod and faighean . Interestingly the irish for ling (the fish ) is bod mor . Fwiw ,watch out for an “actually it's Rudston “ from those who have a problem with mis-spilling/typos .
|
|||
|
tjj 3606 posts |
Edited Mar 12, 2017, 00:34
Mar 10, 2017, 20:07
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: Littlestone wrote: Littlestone wrote: As for the Avebury Avenue and the Avebury Henge, perhaps there were just not enough diamond- and pillar-shaped stones lying around (and as far as I’m aware none of the stones at Avebury have been dressed to make them look male or female). That would not stop the architects of the Avenue and the Henge from bestowing 'non-pillar' or 'non-diamond' stones with male or female attributes if they so wished. At Avebury they may have done that by decorating the more ‘neutral’ stones in a certain way, or they may have seen gender-related characteristics on the surface of the stone. Some of the stones may even have represented children, and might not have been seen as warranting stones that were perceived as having more clearly defined gender characteristics. And just to add to that; perhaps we should start referring to the so-called 'male' and 'female' stones at Avebury, and elsewhere, as the Lingam and the Yoni stones. Those words do, after all, bestow something rather more on the objects than the rather simplistic attributes of male and female. Indeed, the lost Obelisk at Avebury may have represented a lingam; as it might also have done at Rudson, and almost certainly did at Plonéour-Lanvern in Brittany (third photo down). Lol . I think ,if pushed , I'll stick with bod and faighean . Interestingly the irish for ling (the fish ) is bod mor . Fwiw ,watch out for an “actually it's Rudston “ from those who have a problem with mis-spilling/typos . hahaha! Just been reading this https://sheelanagigcomedienne.wordpress.com/the-naming-of-sexual-parts-in-irish-as-ghaeilge/ as had no idea what 'bod' and 'faighean' meant. Sorry (glass of red wine and Friday evening kicking in) started thinking of a gay couple I worked with in London some time ago. They lived in Walthamstow and had two cats called Willy and Fanny - it gave them great pleasure to call the cats in at night. Cheerio for now, back to Friday evening.
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Mar 10, 2017, 20:12
|
||
|
hahaha! Just been reading this https://sheelanagigcomedienne.wordpress.com/the-naming-of-sexual-parts-in-irish-as-ghaeilge/ .[/quote] I found that Brill .
|
|||
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Edited Mar 10, 2017, 22:04
Mar 10, 2017, 21:47
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: Fwiw ,watch out for an “actually it's Rudston “ from those who have a problem with mis-spilling/typos . Thank you Mr t - duly corrected. Perhaps you'd also like to do the same by making a little more effort scrutinising your own comments for punctuation, spelling and grammatical inaccuracies before posting them. Is a 'mis-spilling' something that happens between the milking parlour and the kitchen for example? :-)
|
|||
|
tiompan 5758 posts |
Mar 10, 2017, 23:25
|
||
|
Littlestone wrote: tiompan wrote: Fwiw ,watch out for an “actually it's Rudston “ from those who have a problem with mis-spilling/typos . Thank you Mr t - duly corrected. Perhaps you'd also like to do the same by making a little more effort scrutinising your own comments for punctuation, spelling and grammatical inaccuracies before posting them. Is a 'mis-spilling' something that happens between the milking parlour and the kitchen for example? :-) I couldn't care less about your mis-spulling or typos , it was perfectly obvious what was intended . Although not everyone takes that attitude .
|
| Pages: 4 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
