IN DEFENSE OF INCEST: THE FLOOD MYTH ACCOUNT Several versions of the flood myth have been told. The most popular is the biblical version which tells of God’s decision to destroy the old creation and make a new creation; and there have been several cultural versions of this same story. The various telling of this story in several cultures of the world are literal and symbolic; they have also attained mythic heights. Several symbolic interpretations of the biblical flood story, for instance, have regarded the flood either as a lunar myth, a solar myth or a vegetation fertility ritual. But the most popular is its regard as a celestial cleansing agent used to punish man-kind for a blood-spilling transgression which desecrated the anti-diluvia earth. Now, let’s get a little intellectual. Freudians and Jungians see a dreamlike origin to flood stories. Roheim expanded Rank’s notion that the origin of flood myth might be sought in vesical dreams in which the urge to urinate during the night is expressed in dream format. According to Roheim, “Flood myths frequently represent the flood as urine, thereby revealing their dream origin.” So for Rank and Roheim, flood myths are derivatives of dreams, expressing a need to urinate. We can link this to Freud postulations that dreams have symbolic significance and generally were specific to the dreamers. Symbolically, I maintain that males have envied female parturition. Funny right? Just hold a minute. The principle of male pregnancy is well documented in the Old Testament. The creation of Eve from Adam’s rib is an obvious reversal of biological reality, in so far as man creates woman from his body. Moreover, it is quite likely that the crucial male bone in question is not the rib at all, but the phallus, which lacks the osbaculum found in some other animals. As a woman gives birth to males from her genital area, it is psychologically reasonable for a man to fantasize giving birth to females from his genital area. Symbolically, flood myths involve the male god destroying the world but saving a male survivor to repopulate the earth. It is in sum, a male creation myth with little, if any mention of females. For example, the names of Noah’s and lot’s wives are unknown. But how does a male create and recreates the world by means of flood? Dundes argues that it is because flood constitutes a cosmogonic projection of the standard by which every childbearing female creates. It is the bursting of the amnioc sac which can be regarded as a kind of flood that announces the birth of each new-born baby. This is the primordial flood which is repeated anew with every generation. But in male produced myth, the male must use whatever means he has to create flood. As the female flood seemingly emerges from her genital area, so here, there is a rationale for urinal flood. It is far more likely that both dreams and myths are reflections of unconscious wishes. There is no need to assume that dreams are necessarily antecedents to myths. For that matter, one could just as well argue that the content of individual dreams in a given culture reflects the myth that the dreamer has heard. In any case, the proposition is that flood myths are an example of males seeking to imitate female creativity. - See more at: thevoices.ng/2014/12/09/humanities/in-defense-of-incest-the-flood-myth-account/#sthash.AMXHzgm4.dpuf
Posted on: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 03:33:19 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015