Loved this! You articulated something I've been thinking about for some time. My meditations, however, have to do with the association between the masculine with the mind-above and the feminine with the heart-center. Which makes me want to ask you if you think my intuition is correct:
It does not seem to me that being "above" is any better or more important than being "at the center". Is God more "high/above" than He is "central"?
I've been trying to find the precise words/analogies to resolve the modern (?) problem where the feminine is devalued in favor of the masculine, but I think this is the analogy to do it.
It wouldn't be irrelevant to also point out that those who insist on the superiority of the masculine tend to tyrannize their own heart.
Both heaven and earth, high and low, masculine and feminine are equally nothing compared to Divinity. So yes, a simple principle of symbolic hierarchies is that anyone who asserts any kind of moral value to any high–low, yin–yang structure is staggeringly ignorant of God. God emerges from earth as much as He emanates from heaven and since He brings both into being out of nothing, they are equally distant from Him in nature and in goodness. Thanks for the comment, Kevin; your intuition seems fine to me. The marriage of mind and heart in true prayer is indeed modeled after the marriage of the Bridegroom with His bride (the Church, the soul). Hope that’s helpful!
I have a general questions related to chiasmic patterns. I understand the basic "pattern" of the chiasm to be something like:
A
-B
A'
Where a climax/pinnacle/mountain top have an impact on what comes after in a reflective manner.
It can be something like:
A
-B
--C
-B'
A'
Or:
A
-B
--C
A'
-B'
Etc.
Does the shape of the pattern have a qualitative impact on it, or is it (and I say this without negative connotion) more of an ornamentation? If I have one or the other, does it "mean" something else? Is it used in different manner/context? etc.
I don't know if it makes any sense. I can try to reformulate it otherwise.
I understand that you're asking if there is a meaningful difference between chiastic and what I call ksiastic structures. No and maybe, is my answer. No, in that they're two different ways of tracing the same cruciform shape. If you're describing the panels on a Celtic high cross, you could do it in any order, chiastic or ksiastic, as long as the middle is in the middle. The answer however is maybe in that, in context, I often feel there is meaning when, say, the content is laid out in a directly parallel structure, instead of inversely parallel. Like, chiasmus is curved, and ksiasmus is linear. In this, there can feel sometimes like there's a genderedness between the two forms. Like, sometimes in a larger structure, there can be a ksiasmus on one side that's parallel to a chiasmus on the other, and that feels artistically purposeful. But it's not like one form is always coded one gender and the other form the other gender. For example, you would think chiasmus being curved would be feminine and ksiasmus being straight would be masculine. But in Leviticus 15, which is in two gendered parts quite literally, verses 2-18 on men's issue of seed forms an octave with a chiastic base, while verses 19-33 on women's menstrual issues forms an octave with a ksiastic base (https://www.cormacjones.com/bible-fractals/leviticus#h.6fqtlwiacm3m). With sex being fractal like a yin-yang symbol, you can't paint these structures with solid colors.
Loved this! You articulated something I've been thinking about for some time. My meditations, however, have to do with the association between the masculine with the mind-above and the feminine with the heart-center. Which makes me want to ask you if you think my intuition is correct:
It does not seem to me that being "above" is any better or more important than being "at the center". Is God more "high/above" than He is "central"?
I've been trying to find the precise words/analogies to resolve the modern (?) problem where the feminine is devalued in favor of the masculine, but I think this is the analogy to do it.
It wouldn't be irrelevant to also point out that those who insist on the superiority of the masculine tend to tyrannize their own heart.
Both heaven and earth, high and low, masculine and feminine are equally nothing compared to Divinity. So yes, a simple principle of symbolic hierarchies is that anyone who asserts any kind of moral value to any high–low, yin–yang structure is staggeringly ignorant of God. God emerges from earth as much as He emanates from heaven and since He brings both into being out of nothing, they are equally distant from Him in nature and in goodness. Thanks for the comment, Kevin; your intuition seems fine to me. The marriage of mind and heart in true prayer is indeed modeled after the marriage of the Bridegroom with His bride (the Church, the soul). Hope that’s helpful!
I have a general questions related to chiasmic patterns. I understand the basic "pattern" of the chiasm to be something like:
A
-B
A'
Where a climax/pinnacle/mountain top have an impact on what comes after in a reflective manner.
It can be something like:
A
-B
--C
-B'
A'
Or:
A
-B
--C
A'
-B'
Etc.
Does the shape of the pattern have a qualitative impact on it, or is it (and I say this without negative connotion) more of an ornamentation? If I have one or the other, does it "mean" something else? Is it used in different manner/context? etc.
I don't know if it makes any sense. I can try to reformulate it otherwise.
I understand that you're asking if there is a meaningful difference between chiastic and what I call ksiastic structures. No and maybe, is my answer. No, in that they're two different ways of tracing the same cruciform shape. If you're describing the panels on a Celtic high cross, you could do it in any order, chiastic or ksiastic, as long as the middle is in the middle. The answer however is maybe in that, in context, I often feel there is meaning when, say, the content is laid out in a directly parallel structure, instead of inversely parallel. Like, chiasmus is curved, and ksiasmus is linear. In this, there can feel sometimes like there's a genderedness between the two forms. Like, sometimes in a larger structure, there can be a ksiasmus on one side that's parallel to a chiasmus on the other, and that feels artistically purposeful. But it's not like one form is always coded one gender and the other form the other gender. For example, you would think chiasmus being curved would be feminine and ksiasmus being straight would be masculine. But in Leviticus 15, which is in two gendered parts quite literally, verses 2-18 on men's issue of seed forms an octave with a chiastic base, while verses 19-33 on women's menstrual issues forms an octave with a ksiastic base (https://www.cormacjones.com/bible-fractals/leviticus#h.6fqtlwiacm3m). With sex being fractal like a yin-yang symbol, you can't paint these structures with solid colors.
This makes sense to me. Thanks for answering.