The Relativity of Time and the necessity of Destruktion

Time is relative to human existence and without that human existence time will cease to be, or at least will no longer temporalize itself. Time is a construct of human understanding of it. Since much understanding of it is erroneous and flawed we must undertake the Destruktion.

Martin Heidegger is a difficult read. I find myself only swimming in the shallow section of the Heidegger pool and then only with the assistance of multiple swimmies. I am too afraid to cross the rope into the deep end. I am afraid of what I might discover on multiple levels. I am afraid that I might discover that I am indeed in the deep end of such a scary pool and that this scary pool full of what I once thought was just ordinary water has new depths of meaning and hidden things! EGAD! That is just too much disclosure for me to take. I just hope that I'm not thrown into the deep end without knowing...

Heidegger has a bit of a theory on everything but his main point seems to be that much of Western Philosophy, the most valuable tool that the Western World has in connecting with reality and being. The problem is that Western Philosophy has pretty much misunderstood the term "being" since the days of Plato. That's a lot of incorrect being. Prior to Plato, the Pre-Socratics searched for the meaning of "Being". Since Plato, we as Western thinkers have taken the notion of "Being" to be so understood that we needn't study what it is to be. So, to be or not to be is not the question but what is to be is.

Some of the commentaries, in fact most that I have glanced over that talk about Heidegger's and his consistent penchant for coining or rather re-coining words and phrases have something to the effect of "this German word is rather difficult to translate into English" or "there isn't really any translation for this word". Very helpful guys! Thanks. I guess to understand Heidegger we might have to gain a mastery of German. We'll just put that on our little (although growing) to do list. But, there are a couple of words/concepts that I find intriguing and worthy of note in spite of their difficulty in translating.

First, the word Geworfenheit (thrownness). Heidegger likes to highlight the arbitrary nature of our existence. For him we are not placed in a specific time or place or generation for any specific reason, rather we are thrown into existence at a certain time. Now time is not some linear thing with a past, present and a future. Time is divided into different categories: the past, the present and the notion of the eternal are modes of temporality. Temporality is how we see time. Time itself is but a construct that exists only because it needs to exist for human beings to understand their existence. Maybe I chose this one because I like the German word, but it also shows Heidegger's view on fate and determinism as well. We are thrown into existence with a whole bunch of possibilities afforded to us. The one great and absolute possiblity we have as human beings is death. Very encouraging no? But hopefully know you understand my pool joke at the end of paragraph II... You forgot it didn't you? Go reread, have a little chuckle.

Second, die Kehre (the Turn). The Turn is a point in Heidegger's life where he begins to change his focus in philosophical studies. For our purposes die Kehre might have something to do in the story where the main character has a sudden, albeit arbitrary change in focus.

Third, disclosure. Disclosure is the business of human beings. It is at once the disclosure of the facts of our existence and surroundings that we have been thrown into and the disclosure of new and hidden meanings in this already symbolic world that we have been thrown into.

Fourth, Lichtung (clearing) & Destruktion (Destruction). Lichtung is literally a clearing, like a clearing in a woods, but it also has some connotation with light. It is in such clearings that we come to understand being and as being stands in this clearing we come to understand things around being. The reason we need these clearings is that being has become, and thus all truth, has become muddled in our understanding because we have not really sought the meaning of being in seeking the meaning of everything else. Destruktion then is the destruction of traditional thinking that are associated with some of the most important questions of philosophy. By destruction we can get to the root of being and thus, all other things. By destruction we can get past Plato's assumptions and return to the Pre-Socratic and primordial discussions of the pressing questions of philosophy.

So where is the story in all of this? Not sure yet, but the idea of time as having an dependent existence on human beings fascinates me. What if time is truly relative to human beings? What then happens when time is relative to each individual human being? (Not really Heidegger's philosophy, but something for a story). The turn has to come into play. The main characters have to be at work in doing some kind of disclosure. Maybe a whodunnit detective story?? Something is coming together, maybe I'll simply look for a clearing and see if it comes to light.

Parmenides the early Eaternalist (a self-defeating title nonetheless)

Continuing in our deliberations on time & how we as humans explain and understand it, we go back to the dawn of Philosophy to Parmenides & Zeno. Parmenides was born about 515 BC; Zeno about 490 BC. Zeno was a student of Parmenides so their ideas have similarities and we shall lump them together for this one post.

Parmenides had two basic things to say about reality, the "what is":

There is the way of truth, which shows reality is one, there is no change and existence is timeless.

Then there is the way of opinion, this is the senses that perceive change and trick the mind into thinking that the reality of oneness is somehow changing.

In this way Parmenides is an early foreshadowing of an eternalistic view of time. Eternalism states that the all points in time are equally real. Time is merely a dimension so past events are still there just as much as the present is here and that the future is out there only our current spatial dimension hasn't crossed paths with the future dimensions and that our current spatial dimension has already crossed paths with time dimensions we see as past.

Interestingly, if not without a bit of the stretch of the imagination, Peter Kingsley, a bit of a rogue scholar and a self-described mystic has reinterpreted Parmenides as a Iatromantist (Greek Shaman or Medicine Man). In this light, he reinterprets Parmenides as a apocalyptic religious philosopher. Maybe Kingsley is right. Some Greek philosophers have probably been overly stripped of the religious nature by the fragmentary nature of their extant works or by the overly zealous nature of many scholarly people over the last three centuries to make the Greeks as above religion to match the tenor of their scholarly circles.

So where is the story?

Not sure yet. But Time as an illusion seems to fit. I like the Iatromantis angle too.

The Novikov Self-Consistency Principle

So we continue in our intellectual deluge today on the source material for A Cornish Mess & Other Stories Loosely Revolving Around The Notion of Time. We now come to some of the paradoxical situations that might arise in time travel. One of which is something known as the Novikov Self-Consistency Principle. First though, we should look at who came up with the principle as he will be a member of the story yet to be titled.

Igor Dmitriyevich Novikov is a Russian theoretical Astrophysicist and cosmologist. He was born in Moscow in 1935. Now the nature of Novikov's studies is fascinating but dizzyingly above the head of your author so I'll only be taking notice of the few bits that I can understand. He's written some good books that I've dusted up my Russian on... just kidding. But, one of his books is called the River of Time. In this book he tackles how physics and our understanding of it has impacted our conception of time. Physics is one of those studies, like the aforementioned mathematics that I find to be wanting in when I am weighed and measured. But, some of it's technicality is broken down well by Novikov and brought to just inside my reach of intellectual capabilities. Not, the whole of it mind you, but pieces that are intriguing enough for me to weave some sort of tale out of it.

First, in his work he talks about how time stops in black holes. Second, it talks about how it bends over white holes. Who knew there was such a thing as a white hole? Essentially a White Hole is the opposite of a black hole. Things can enter into a black hole but cannot escape. Things can escape a white hole but not enter in. Fascinating. Dizzying. But then he gets into some more technical areas like how time can be converted into space and space into time in certain cases and begins to lose me. But, I understand the Novikov Self-Consistency Principle well enough, I think, to make a little light story out of it.

The Novikov Self-Consistency Principle solves for us the Grandfather Paradox of Time Travel and paints a movie favorite of mine in a little bit of a negative light. The Grandfather Paradox basically goes what happens when a time traveler goes back in time and inadvertently or intentionally kills his grandfather. (Why would you kill your grandfather intentionally escapes me). If the time traveler did this he would bring his own existence into jeopardy, because without a grandfather there is no father or mother and thus, no grandson or granddaughter and thus the time traveler would not exist to go back in time to jeopardize his own existence. Marty McFly does this when he pushes his father out of the way of his grandfather's car thus negating the Florence Nightingale effect that causes his mother to fall in love with his father. "He hit me with the car..." Marty relates to Doc. "This is heavy". So, what the Novikov Self-Consistency Principle states is that it is impossible for someone to go back in time and alter history in such a way that would jeopardize future events. If it is happening then it was supposed to happen and the present time traveler actually had a imperative role to play in the past that they traveled back to. Kind of like Meg Ryan going back in time to be with Hugh Jackman so that Hugh Jackman could invent the elevator in Kate and Leopold. Big fan of both of you by the way! So, Back to the Future fails the Novikov Self-Consistency Principle test, but Kate & Leopold holds it up.

So where is the story?

What if the Novikov Self-Consistency Principle is wrong. What if instead of it being the Novikov Self-Consistency Principle, Novikov's publisher accidentally mistypes his hypothesis when translating it into English and it comes out the Self Novikov-Consistency Principle. The paper gets published that way and when Time Travel is invented in 1990 by one of his Copenhagen students they go back in time and encounter a grandfather paradox situation and suddenly the time traveler is changed into a Novikov double. The next day in class Novikov notices that one of his student's strangely resembles his younger self. Repeat this three times and suddenly Novikov begins to figure out what is happening. He tries to go back in time to stop the transformation of the first student thinking that he could reverse the situation this way, but is prevented because any action he takes to change the new Novikovs back into their former selves is prevented by the Novikov Self-Consistency Principle because Novikov thinks in Russian, not English. There ends up being no solution and Novikov is forced to contend with various aged versions of himself existing contemporaneously. The story should end with Novikov imploring his students to proofread their papers thoroughly before submitting them for grading.

Honi ha-M'agel

In continuing my research for topical information for A Cornish Mess & Other Stories Loosely Revolving Around The Notion of Time I stumbled upon the story of Honi ha-M'agel or Honi the circle drawer. Honi was a man from the 1st century BC who was famous in Judaism for his ability to pray to God for rain.

Honi one time drew a circle around himself and prayed to God and told him that he would not move until it rained. This was during a drought so it was a necessary prayer for the society. When slight rain occurred Honi informed God that this was not enough. When a torrential downpour started Honi informed God that this was too much and that he wanted a calm rain. A calm rain happened and Honi left his circle.

Because of this Honi was nearly excommunicated because he had tested God. Thankfully, Honi received a pardon from this fate by Shimon ben Shetach, the brother of Queen Shlomtzion.

There are two accounts of the death of Honi. One account states that Honi fell into a deep sleep for 70 years and when he awoke he could not convince the people that he was in fact Honi the circle drawer and prayed for God to take him away. The second account is that Honi, a known miracle worker in Jewish circles was caught up in the Pharisees vs. Sadducees fight over Jerusalem around 63 BC. Hyrcanus II grabbed Honi and demanded that he pray for the demise of the Sadducee backed Aristobulus II and his followers. Honi instead prayed to God "Lord of the universe, as the besieged and the besiegers both belong to Your people, I beseech You not to answer the evil prayers of either". Hyrcanus and his followers, none too pleased by the holy man's prayer stoned him to death. The second account comes from the words of Josephus.

Now, this story smacks of some Biblical parallels. First, the circle drawing and the rain reminds me of Gideon and his prayer about the dew and the wool fleece in Judges 6. So, the Jews of the 1st century BC would have been very familiar with Gideon testing God with the act of rain/dew falling in certain places. Second, and this is very different in context, but when Balak, the king of Moab calls upon another holy man, Balaam to curse the Israelites as they cross through the desert. Balaam three times blesses Israel rather than cursing them much to the chagrin of Balak in Numbers 23-24. Now I know these are two different contexts, but it's a ruler demanding a prayer from a holy man and getting the opposite of what they expect.

Story Material:

The 70 years that Honi ha-M'agel is interesting enough to rewrite and weave into a short story. But what of the other main characters? Who is Shimon ben Shetach? Who is Queen Shlomtzion? Who is Hyrcanus II? Who is Aristobulus II? What of the Pharisees and the Sadducees?

Shimon ben Shetach - A confident Pharisee who undid much of the Sadducee interpretation of the law when he came to power as a religious leader. He led a witch hunt that had 80 women killed for sorcery. His son died as a result of the revenge from this incident. He was seen as fair to gentiles, returning a jewel he found when he purchased a donkey even though by law that jewel should have been his. He said that even though the law said that the jewel was rightfully his it was obvious that the man who sold the donkey did not intend to sell the jewel as well.

Queen Shlomtzion - A peaceful transitional regent between Sadducee rule and Pharisee rule of the religious courts of Judea (pre-Roman occupation). She seemed to be politically astute enough not to let the two warring factions muck everything up in her life time.

Hyrcanus II - A weak ruler and High Priest who leaned toward the Pharisee way of interpreting Scripture. He was at times controlled by Antipater the Idumaean and the Romans. He was eventually maimed and exiled to Babylon and then killed for plotting an uprising later in life.

Aristobulus II - Brother of Hyrcanus, but sided with the Sadducees. He overthrew Hyrcanus but was eventually deposed himself with the Roman help and killed by Pompey Magnus.

Antipater the Idumaean - A wheeler dealer who controlled Hyrcanus II and then took the kingship for his own family in setting up the Herodian dynasty. He was a major political player in bringing in massive changes in Judea in how the Jews were Hellenized and Romanized. He wasn't considered fully Jewish by the Jewish nationalists.

I'm sure upon further reflection a story can emerge from this...

Henri Bergson: my intuition, your duration. Your intuition, my duration. Let's just say our intuition of the entire duration.

So, we're starting to branch a little more into our studies to focus in on some philosophical views of time. This is because we have some story ideas dealing with the subject matter and hope to weave a bit of philosophy into our fiction. Some of these philosophers, like Henri Bergson can be called proponents of process philosophy. I like to think that I am a bit of a process author. The books are always in process, never quite reaching their end. Unfortunately most process philosophers believe that is because philosophy is itself the process with no end other than the process being the end itself. My books however have no end because I can't quite seem to finish. But, nonetheless A Cornish Mess & Other Stories Loosely Revolving Around The Notion of Time is in process.

Now, for all things that I am and hope to be, a mathematician is not one of them. My study of time is more concerned with how time is perceived and experienced rather than the equations that follow up those beliefs or are foundations to those beliefs. I take very seriously the axiom Know Thyself and know that I am insufficient in math with little hope of becoming sufficient. For that reason I cower in fear at any type of math that throws in more than a single Greek Letter. When the equations subsist mostly of such symbols I find myself wandering deep into some void in the time space continuum. It shall invariably be this way. But, defeatism aside I don't have such a great appetite for mathematics as I do philosophy or theology, so it works out. Forgive me if the math behind some of my philosophical meanderings leaves my equations unbalanced. And so we now digress to the subject matter at hand, the philosophy of Henri Bergson and specifically the notions of Duration and Intuition.

Bergson seems to have developed his theories on time because of a number of factors. First, he seems to have lost his religion in response to the growing scientific studies surrounding evolution, specifically Darwin's theories and the inadequacy of Herbert Spencer's philosophies. As an aside, I simply cannot comprehend the ongoing battle of Evolution and Religion. It seems so farcical that these be such necessary enemies. Evolution neither proves nor disproves Scripture and Scripture neither proves nor disproves Evolution. One is a science, an attempt to understand the physical nature of things. The paradigms of these will shift as science increasingly outdoes itself building upon and subtracting from earlier models. Scripture (religion) is the attempt to understand the other nature of things, the spiritual nature of things. While the spiritual nature and the physical nature of things are not mutually exclusive a revelation in one does not negate an aspect of the other. They may illuminate one another, but cannot eliminate one another. And this isn't a bad thing either. But, that is an entirely different discussion!

Bergson developed his theories based on a few experiences he had in his life. The first of which is the loss of his Jewish faith on account of the Darwinian theory of evolution. His adherence to the Darwinian notions of evolution and other's theories of evolution led him to reject some of Spencer's philosophical framework built upon Darwinian evolution. He also seems to have been completely unsatisfied with the Kantian notion of knowledge. Whereas Immanuel Kant felt that we can only know the object as it appeared to us, Bergson believed that we can know the object in and of itself. Whereas Kant felt that free will could only exist outside of the framework of time and space, Bergson defended the notion of free will by correcting some of Kant's reasoning. Another major vein of thought that comes out of Bergson is the continuity of life, the continuity of thought, the continuity of everything. In this he is building on the evolutionary theories and extending them to a number of other fields. This is why he is sometimes lumped in with process philosophers. Everything to him was a continuation of whatever was before it. But, he was very against the mechanistic and deterministic philosophies of his age and preceding ones. He wasn't strict on causality and he didn't feel that all of this process was working towards some end (teleology or finalism). Bergson's work proceeds then from a rejection of the Judaism of his youth, the rejection of Kantian rationalism, and from the rejection of mechanistic philosophies (his defense of free will) and the rejection of teleological necessity.

There's a lot of fascinating stuff in Bergson and a lot of stuff that probably goes above my intellectual comprehension, but what I'm focusing on is two primary things of his thought, intuition and duration.

Intuition is the experiencing of an object to grasp what is unique and ineffable about that object. In his intuition Bergson states we can know the object absolutely and thus rejecting Kant's knowledge of the thing as it appears to us. For Bergson, intuition was necessary to understanding the metaphysical nature of things, that is to understand the object itself in an absolute way, the way it is, not the way it appears to us. For Bergson, metaphysics has to dispense with symbols in order to grasp an absolute. Since words are in and of themselves symbols explaining things in their absolute sense is only partially possible. Because of this Bergson liked to use word pictures rather than concepts in his writings and would admit that even these are inadequate. For Bergson intuition then is only achievable through experience.

Intuition is crucial to duration. Duration is difficult to explain because it occurs through intuition. You and I experience duration because we are using intuition even if we don't realize it. But, explaining it is a bit dodgy because our experience of the same object is never the same. Even if I were to explain my experience to my younger self who had also experienced the same object through intuition our word pictures would inadequately describe them because both of us (I and myself) experienced the intuition from different vantage points. My older self had different memories going into the experience than my younger self going into the exact same experience. Now, what on earth does this have to do with the subject at hand, specifically time?

Time was for Bergson something that was impossible for mathematics and science to explain. This is because time, at its very essence is something that you must experience. We all experience time and we have the intuition of it because we are aging at every moment. We can look back at those moments and dissect them, but when we do we experience those moments differently because we have now gained other memories and experiences. Bergson rejected time as being something that is divisible and so got around Zeno's paradoxes. Time was not something that could be divided because it was a progression. Ok, so this is where Bergson comes to his climax.

Time is impossible for mathematics to explain because time is a progression and in order to explain time it must be divided into measurable parts. By taking the progression and making it a thing (in order to measure it in mathematical or scientific ways) we as philosopher's become confused. Hence we have Zeno's paradoxes, Kant's rejection of free will inside of time and the notion of determinism. But, the reality of the situation is that time is a progression that must be experienced whole - it is indivisible. As such there can be no determinism because causation cannot occur unless things must happen first to cause the second. Because determinism does not exist free will exists because if nothing is determined than everything is free will. The problems of Zeno's paradoxes and that of free will are only created when philosophers take something that is indivisible and the divide it up.

So, where is the story material? Not sure yet, but I like the idea of the younger self and the older self experiencing the same item simultaneously and then not being able to translate their experiences to one another because of the problems of symbols. Bergson's notion of the spools and the images of the colors should be incorporated in as well.

Genesis 11 part 1: The Tower of Babel

In part one of Genesis 11 the people of the world all speak one language and a number gather in the plain of Shinar to build a city. They decide to build a tower that reaches to the heaven in order to make a name for themselves. When God sees what they are doing He puts an end to it and confuses their speech so they can't speak to one another. The settlement is then abandoned and the people spread out all over the world.

First, some observations, then we'll get to some pressing questions.

1) God once again uses plural language to describe himself. "Come, let us go down and confuse their language". This is either a nod to the Trinitarian notion of God as three in one in Christian theology, or a polytheistic presentation of God, or it could be simply a literary device like the "royal we". This keeps cropping up in our investigation into Genesis.

2) This could be a literal story of how multiple languages were formed on earth. This could also be a myth to explain why there are so many languages. Some linguistic studies could be done to decipher when men began to have different languages. This is interesting, but not pressing so I may not get to linguistic studies for quite some time.

The question that pops up first in my mind is why? Why is God so concerned with the capabilities of man? Obviously there is something about man that God is not fond of. Genesis 6 shows that God had seen that man had become wicked and that He regretted making man. God then wiped them out with a flood because of it. But, it seems to that God is almost afraid of man. That might be sacrilegious in writing that, but why is God going to such great lengths to foil man and his efforts. What difference does it make to God that man can plan and do whatever he wants? It reminds me of Genesis 3:22 when God had to act so that Adam wouldn't eat of the tree of life and become immortal. Why does God worry that man become too capable of things?

It makes me think of the Image of God and what man has been created in that image. What is the Image of God? There is something powerful in that because otherwise God wouldn't go to such great lengths to do things to prevent man from accomplishing a tower to the heavens or becoming immortal by eating of the tree of life. The image of God cannot be the knowledge of good and evil because that was acquired. It can't be a sense of morality because without knowing good and evil there can't be a morality. It isn't immortality because obviously man doesn't have it. Or does he? Is the soul immortal? Is this the image of God, the immortality of the soul? Whatever the image of God is in man, it is powerful. And now that man is corrupt and become increasingly focused on being wicked, God does not want man to become powerful enough to unleash that wickedness in some type of way. That's why he banished Adam & Eve from the garden so they couldn't live forever. That's why he wiped out the world in a flood. That's why he dispersed them at Babel.

Genesis 10 - An Origin Story

Genesis 10 is another origin story from Genesis to explain the world of the author's time. Because all the earth was destroyed by the Flood, the world had to be repopulated by the sons of Noah: Japheth, Ham & Shem.

The sons of Japheth turned out to be the maritime tribes, each with their own language.

The sons of Shem turned out to be the Semitic tribes.

The sons of Ham turned out to be a pretty illustrious bunch in the Ancient Orient. Ham's sons were Cush, Egypt, Put and Canaan. Cush's son was named Nimrod and Nimrod was a very busy boy. Nimrod established Babylon, Uruk, Akkad, Kalneh, Nineveh, Rehoboth Ir, Calah and Resen.

Another interesting point about the sons of Ham are that the Philistines are a direct descendant of Ham. Ham gave birth to Egypt, Egypt produced the Kasluhites and from the Kasluhites came the Philistines.

Obviously Genesis 10 isn't an exhaustive record of where some pretty powerful Empires and city-states came from. However, it does give some insight into the way that the Hebrews of the time saw their world. First, it is very Hebraic-Centric. All of the mighty nations around them came from a Jewish patriarch, Noah. That doesn't necessarily make it wrong, but it might be a bit incomplete. Obviously, my religious slant comes into a bit of play here, but an open-minded investigation has to at least consider the possibility that while this is by no means a "here it is" factual representation of the whole history of the Ancient Near East, there might be some validity to the description. If there was a catastrophic flood that wiped out many peoples or all people then these nations and city-states had to come from somewhere. I tend to think that there was some great flood because so many ancient civilizations reference it. So, coming from a Hebraic text it makes sense that there is a Hebraic origin to all of the surrounding peoples.

The story of Nimrod is an interesting one. Is the text suggesting that Nimrod founded all these cities, or that the descendants of Nimrod founded all of these cities? It would be interesting to research the origin stories from all of these cities to see what they all said for themselves. What would be the similarities between the origin stories? Maybe this is impossible, but maybe not.

Story material: The Life of Nimrod.

Voltaire on the Soul

What does Voltaire have to say about the soul? A lot, and in fact very little. The question of the soul is a question of identity, spirituality and central really to the philosophical pondering of virtually every philosopher and thinker in most ages. What is the soul? Is it something physical? Is it something else? Does it really matter?

Voltaire, in his normal visceral way attacks and mocks just about everything out there in a wordy way to say something pretty bland, we don't know much about the soul because we can't know very much about the soul. He points out that Moses didn't mention much about the subject because all of his laws had to deal with the here and now and temporal aspects of life. Since, he seems to be a pretty important figure in the history of things it would be odd that he doesn't say anything about the subject if it's important. Voltaire points out that the Jewish notions of the soul aren't formulated until much later than Moses and that by the time three ideas of the soul in Jewish theology come about another mildly important figure goes out of his way to denounce the three sects: the Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes.

The Sadducees believed that the soul would perish with the body. The Pharisees believed in a transmigration of the soul to some extent and the Essenes believed that the soul was immortal. Of course, the New Testament does show that Jesus was harsh on the Sadducees and Pharisees (the Essenes weren't specifically mentioned by name) but this harshness was derived from their hypocritical acts and not so much their theological positions but Voltaire happens to enjoy the straw man game so I'll indulge him.

Voltaire does make some hard points about the nature of the soul though. We have so many (as did Voltaire) contemporaries of our age who have vast amounts of knowledge of the entity that we call the soul. Nevermind that countless thinkers have wrapped their life's work around this subject only to come up with vague and partial understandings, young men and women of our age are experts on this material (or immaterial depending on their intellectual bent). Can we that are physical really have a knowledge of something that is not physical with absolute certainty? He points to a no. I think I agree with him. Though, in his mocking way he points to "revelation" as a possible means of knowledge of the soul. In this I think that he is being a bit sarcastic but I don't find the notion of divine revelation into the matter so worthy of scorn. I think that it is possible that revelation plays a crucial role in the understanding of things beyond the mere physical in human beings and why should the notion of the soul be any different?

Genesis 9:18-28 - The Sons of Noah

Genesis 9:18-28 is a strange bit of the text. For one, it involves the origins of the peoples of the earth. Because the earth was destroyed by the Flood there needs to be a new origin story. From the three sons of Noah, Shem, Ham and Japheth come the people who "were scattered over the whole earth". But, this isn't the strange bit of text at all. That seems a pretty logical step from the flood story.

What is strange is the story of how Noah got drunk and passed out naked in his tent. When Ham discovers his father's naked body he tells his brothers. Now his brothers go out of their way to cover their father's body without viewing his nakedness. The Biblical text has already associated nakedness and shame in some ways. In Genesis 2 it states that Adam and his wife were naked but not ashamed. Then, when they ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they became aware they were naked and covered up. So, at least in this context the nakedness is associated with some level of shame. So what Ham did was shameful to his father whereas Shem and Japheth were doing what they could to cover their father's shame.

When Noah woke up he cursed Ham for his wicked deed and blessed Shem and Japheth for their righteous act. The wording of the curse and blessing are notable. The cursing of Ham is to make Ham's offspring the slaves of his brothers. Harsh curse, but pretty straightforward. The blessing of Shem and Japheth though hints again at Noah's faithfulness to God. In blessing Shem he states, "Praise be to the LORD, the God of Shem!" In blessing his other sons, Noah is praising God.

What is interesting here though is contrary to God's cursing of Adam where God cursed the ground and the Serpent more harshly than Adam himself, Noah directly curses the offspring of Ham. I don't know if there is any major difference, it struck me though.

Noah dies in this passage at the age of 950 years old. Again we are struck with an incredible old age of a biblical character and I'm still not sure what to make of it.

Genesis 6 - 9 - Noah & The Flood

Genesis 6 - 9 relates the story of Noah and the flood, a pretty familiar story to most. Genesis 6, as recounted earlier tells of how God chose Noah because he was righteous and relates some of the instructions. Genesis 7 gives an account again of how Noah is to bring the animals into the ark and tells of how God brought the flood upon earth, destroying every living creature who was not on board. Genesis 8 relates how God remembered Noah and his family aboard the ark and tells of how Noah, his family and the animals rescued by Noah emerge from the ark in the post-flood world. Genesis 9, up until verse 17 tells of God's covenant with Noah. In this little bit of the Bible we see a number of interesting things and stuff that raises some questions.

First, Noah is found righteous. What had Noah done to be found righteous in the first place. What set Noah apart from the other men of his age? Is it that Noah did all that God commanded of him or was there some preexisting righteousness in Noah not mentioned in the Genesis account?

Second, what are we to do with Noah's age? The Biblical account has him at 600 years old at the time of the flood? Are we to take that as a literal? Some of these questions about the ages have been raised before in our journey and we still need to research into them to find answers, if that is at all possible.

Third, in the text we have God commanding Noah to take two of every unclean animal but seven of every clean one. When did God give this demarcation? When did God call some animals clean and others unclean?

In Genesis 8 Noah builds an altar and sacrifices some of the clean animals to God as an offering. What prompts this offering and sacrifice?

In Genesis 9 God blesses Noah and his sons. Why is the "fear of dread" that the God places in the animals of Noah and his offspring a blessing? Also in this little passage God gives Noah and his offspring the animals as He had given the green plants of the earth to Adam. Is this an explicit allowing of men to eat the flesh of animals?

In Genesis 9:6 we see reference again to the Imago Dei. "Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind." This is a pretty strong ethical statement and ties into the image of God research we hope to continue on this blog. I don't know what yet to make of it, but since it seems to be a topic we've chosen to focus on here early in this journey it's worth mentioning to come back to at a later time.

There's a lot in the text here, but these questions will suffice for now. Hopefully, I'll be a bit more faithful in my studying in the near future and develop a bit more of a routine to continue my research.

Abraham - Voltaire

In his Philosophical Dictionary, Voltaire continues to use his piercing logic in a sarcastic manner to provoke thought. In the article entitled Abraham about the patriarch of the Hebrews he questions why we as modern human beings believe the Jews and their "history and ancient fables" are historical records.

First, he questions the age of Abraham. This ties into one of 21 burning questions for August-September. What are we to make of the ages of human beings being recorded in the Biblical text. Abraham was 135 when he left Mesopotamia for Shechem (Israel). Then he was 140 when he traveled from Israel to Egypt. He was 160 when he was promised that Isaac would be born within a year. He lived until he was 205. Surely this alone would be enough to invite skepticism.

Second, he questions why Abraham would make some of these journeys. Why would a man leave Mesopotamia, a culturally rich area for the relative backwater Shechem? Why would he think to travel from Shechem to Egypt when there was a famine in his new promised land? Besides the incredible distances that he would have to travel there is what Voltaire astutely points out, the obvious language barrier.

Third, he touches on one of the odder parts of the Abrahamic story - when he travels to Egypt to escape the famine and then again to a desert kingdom he beseeches his wife Sarah to claim that she is Abraham's sister, not his wife. In doing so Abraham becomes vastly wealthy.

Where Voltaire then goes is a bit of a stretch, but an intriguing look at the commonality of religions or at least the perceived similarities of religions and how they relate to identifying features of existence. He finds it silly that the Jews, descendants of Abraham who came from an ancient and sophisticated society (Mesopotamia - Chaldea) visited an ancient and sophisticated society (Egypt) and would have passed through an ancient and sophisticated society (Assyria) could have taught the world anything new. Instead he reasons that the Jews took more from the surrounding societies and appropriated the myths for their own bent. He reasons that the name Israel is Chaldaean, the Hebrew names for God: Eloi, Adonai, Jehovah and Hiao are of Phoenician origin, the name of Abraham himself being derived from an ancient religion along the Euphrates called Kish-Ibrahim, Milat-Ibrahim. He notes, "It is hard to penetrate the shadows of antiquity; but it is evident that all the kingodms of Asia had been flourishing mightily, long before the vagabond horde of Arabs, called Jews, had a small spot of earth that was their own, before they had a town, laws, or a settled religion" (pp 61-62).

Now, I'm not entirely sure what to make of it. Voltaire seems awfully intent in every passage to bash Hebraic sensibilities, but he does raise excellent skeptical points. While we are not yet to the Abraham section of Genesis in our glacial pace through the Old Testament it foreshadows difficulties for the faithful that we will be encountering in our journey. If one is going to be a believer then how does one reconcile such things? I feel as though we are seeing an existential moment in the distance where we must look into the abyss. Shall we turn back? No. Will we calmly stare down the void and embrace the emptiness in some sort of homage to Camus? Or will we leap in Kierkegaardian fashion into the safety trembling in fear all the way? Or will we discover that there is no real existential pitfall and simple faith can put to rest such skepticism. After all Voltaire, great and powerful as he may be in his own (and my mind) he is but one voice of skepticism. There may be many more but there are an equal number of those who embrace these "fables" as gospel.

My continuing fascination with things like this though is the religious comparisons. We do not know very much of the Kish-Ibrahim, Milat-Ibrahim religion of the Euphrates or of other Ancient Near Eastern compared to latter ones like Judaism, Christianity and Islam. But, Islam's borrowing of Christianity and Judaism and Christianity's borrowing of Judaism and possibly Zoroastrianism and Judaism's borrowing of other, more ancient Near Ancient religions that were not quite settled yet does not demand that the religion doing the borrowing is incorrect. It could just as well easily say that the religion doing the borrowing has collected the right portions of the true religion (if there is such a thing). It could have removed the wheat from the chaff and begun to bake a delicious bread. Voltaire's observations are piercing in the sense that he recognizes the inter-connectivity of the religions of the Ancient Near East at the time of Abraham and immediately following. However, his jump that the Jews have merely borrowed from more ancient religions to form some sort of crafty hodgepodge that is void of truth and merely fable reflects a personal rejection of faith more than a statement of fact.

21 Burning Questions for August-September

Well, things have been a bit hectic around here lately, so much so that I haven't been keeping up with this little nascent endeavor of the mind of mine. But here we are to offer a synopsis of our first few posts and ask the 21 Burning Questions that arose in our research in August & September.

1. Why are there differences between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?

2. Is Genesis 1/Genesis 2 supposed to be viewed as literal, allegorical or something along the continuum in betwixt the two?

3. When God creates man he does so in "our image" and "our likeness" in Genesis 1 & 2. Does this "our" signify multiple gods or is there something in the Old Testament that is foreshadowing the Trinitarian language of later Christianity? Genesis 3 then has God referring to himself as 'us'. Once again is this some sort of multiplicity of gods, a royal we, a literary device or a reference to the Trinitarianism of Christianity?

4. In Genesis 1/Genesis 2 God creates man in the image of God and in the likeness of God. Is there a difference between the two?

5. What is the difference in defining God in Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 of Genesis? In Genesis 1 God is simply referred to as God. In Genesis 2 God is referred to as the LORD God. Is there a difference? What significance is there here?

6. Why are religions so similar on certain topics like origin stories?

7. Why did Cain & Abel bring sacrifices in Genesis 4 without prompting?

8. Did Cain's sin come from his order of concerns when he is approached by God about what he has done to Abel?

9. Where are the people coming from that Cain is afraid of when he learns of his banishment?

10. Is there something religious in nature about the mark Cain received in banishment? Is there some notion of God/gods being tied to specific geographical regions and this mark an assurance from God that He is with Cain regardless of where Cain is on this earth?

11. What does the story of Lamech have to do with anything in Genesis 4?

12. Where did Cain's wife come from?

13. Worship began in the time of Enosh according to the geneology in Genesis 4.  If this is true then what were the sacrifices offered by Cain & Abel?

14. What is the significance of "human capital contracts"? What are my thoughts on the ethical nature of these endeavors?

15. Adam's son is made in his own image and his own likeness in Genesis 5. Is there something significant about this language being echoed?

16. What are we to make of the ages of the people mentioned in Genesis 5's genealogical record?

17. What is the significance of Enoch and his walking with God?

18. "Sons of God, daughters of man" were marrying in Genesis 5. What does that mean?

19. What/who are the Nephilim?

20. Why had mankind's inclinations become so evil that God wished to destroy them?

21. What did Noah do in order to find favor with God?

These are the burning questions of August-September. Let us hope that October brings about some burning answers.

Genesis 6 - The Story of Noah

Synopsis:

Noah was a righteous man with three sons, Shem, Ham & Japheth. The Lord commanded Noah to build an ark and gave him the directions to do so. He decided to destroy the world because it was full of violence and the people of the earth had become corrupted. The Lord instructed Noah to bring on board with him his family and two of every living creature as well as every type of food. The Lord decided to make a covenant with Noah to spare him of this destruction.

Thoughts/Questions:

How was Noah to bring all of the creatures of the earth into such a small ship?

The covenant that God made with Noah seems to be important, more research should be made into this.

The last verse also seems significant for the story. "Noah did everything just as God commanded him" (Genesis 6:22). This shows the faith that Noah had in God and gives credence to Genesis 6:9 that described Noah as a righteous man, walking faithfully with God.

While, I want to continue my research from as blank of a slate as I possibly can, the story of Noah is one that I have been familiar with for much of my life. It was taught to me early on in Sunday Schools in various forms with various lessons. But, what are we to make of Noah? Is he to be taken as a literal-historical figure? Is the Biblical Flood something to be taken as a real event? Or is he to be taken as an allegory to be understood of the virtues of faith and the consequences of evil and sin? The topic of Noah is a broad one in which much research has been done. In the coming weeks and months I will post more research on Noah before coming to any conclusion, if any conclusion is ever to be reached. In some ways the intellectual pursuit that I am undertaking is an end unto itself.

Imago Dei

Imago Dei is the Latin phrase meaning image of God. Since in Genesis it talks as humankind being created in the image of God I believe it is a central theme to understanding human existence, something I'd like to understand for a number of reasons. It is a central theological theme in Christianity, Judaism and Sufi Islam albeit understood within each religion differently. Because of this it seems an important topic to consider and attempt to tackle.

Basically, the Image of God can be understood in three ways: substantive, relational or functional. In the substantive understanding of the Image of God human beings have some characteristics that are found in God. The relational understanding of Image of God maintains that while human beings may have some of the traits of God the image only becomes clear when one is in relationship with God. The functional understanding of the Image of God states that we as human beings were charged with a task by God, ruling over the earth and by doing this we mirror God's rule over the universe.

Of course this is on the tip of the iceberg when it comes to discussing the Imago Dei and each of these three ways of understanding has various nuances that will be explored further. But, for now, the Imago Dei seems to be a vital point of interest in understanding who man is in his existence and since that is a pertinent topic in any intellectual path we shall continue to visit it in the future.

Genesis 6 - Wickedness of Man & The Nephilim

Synopsis:

The world was full of people now. The sons of God saw that the daughters of women were beautiful and married them. But the Lord decides that His spirit will not contend with them forever because man is mortal and/or corrupt. He put their number at 120 years.

The Nephilim were on the earth at this time, and after. They were the heroes of old.

The Lord saw how wicked mankind had become. Mankind's thoughts were ever on evil and the Lord regretted that He had made mankind. He decided to wipe them out, along with all of the animals. But, Noah had found favor with God.

Questions:

What is the sons of God marrying the daughters of women mean? Is this implying that the sons of God are angels or God had fathered mortal men and they mated with daughters of women? Or does this imply that Adam who was created in the image of God and the likeness of God was in fact a "son of God". Adam's children then who were created in the image and likeness of Adam (Genesis 5:3) were essentially the sons of God? If this were the case then it would give some credence to the theory that man had existed and Adam was chosen from among all mankind by God to be special in the way that God chose Noah and Abraham later on. These then would be God's sons who commingled with the daughters of women, men and women that were not specially chosen or appointed by God for His divine purpose.

But, then what are the Nephilim?

Why had mankind's thoughts become so wicked over time? What is it about man's nature that God was full of regret in creating him?

What did Noah do to find favor with the Lord?

Genesis 5 - The Geneaology of Adam to Noah

Synopsis:

When God created mankind He did so in the likeness of God.
Adam had Seth. Adam lived for 930 years and had numerous children.
Seth had Enosh. Seth lived 912 years and had numerous children.
Enosh had Kenan. Enosh lived 905 years and had numerous children.
Kenan had Mahalalel. Kenan lived 910 years and had numerous children.
Mahalalel had Jared. Mahalalel lived 895 years and had numerous children.
Jared had Enoch. Jared lived 962 years and had numerous children.
Enoch had Methuselah. Enoch lived 365 years, had numerous children, but Enoch walked with God. Because of this God took Enoch away.
Methuselah had Lamech. Methuselah lived 969 years and had numerous children.
Lamech had Noah. Lamech lived 777 years and had numerous children.

Noah was named Noah because "He will comfort us in labor and painful toil caused by the ground the LORD has cursed".

Noah became the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth.

Questions/Observations

1. Adam had a son in "his own likeness" and "his own image". What is the significance of Adam having a son in the same terminology that God had Adam?

2. Why did Enoch get taken away? What did he do differently that warranted that approach?

3. What am I to make of the incredible ages these early men lived to?

Abbé - Voltaire

Once again we go to Voltaire in our intellectual journey. In his Philosophical Dictionary we just started at the first little blurb, Abbé. In it he is critical of the Monsieur l'Abbé because the name Abbé (father) should not be held by such a wicked class of folks. Voltaire takes issue with these heads of monks because they have taken the vow of poverty and since doing so acquired massive amounts of wealth and power. In his sarcastic way he argues for the Abbés' claims to wealth - the bishops used to be poor, so why can't we the abbés break off our poverty shackles and acquire wealth and power as well. Voltaire says go for it, "overrun the land; it belongs to the strong man, or the clever who seize it." He states that the Abbés have profited from the ignorance, superstition and insanity prevalent in the masses but warns them: "tremble, lest the day of reason arrive".

One of the things I like about Voltaire's critique is that it initially attacks the excesses of the religious leaders and their hypocrisy but not the religion itself. He criticizes the religious leaders who are growing wealthy while the poor starve at their doorsteps. This is a proper critique of religion. There is something wrong with religious leaders who become wealthy and indignant to the poor. The callous nature of this is truly something for "religion to be indignant at. However, what I don't like about Voltaire's or most criticism of religion is that it blames the religious' rise to prominence on the ignorance, superstition and insanity in the masses. The notion that religion is based on superstition is an old argument put forth by skeptics of every age. But, this assumes that the skeptics of every age (usually a tiny portion of the population at large) are the only enlightened ones. This form of intellectual elitism is as unpalatable as the hypocritical religious leaders.

I wonder though if we are in the age when the religious leaders are trembling because the day of reason has arisen. This reason has led us to the laissez-faire approach to ethics and morality that we see today. I think that much of this reason bravado is masked behind an intellectual cowardice that is post-modern philosophy. If the post-modern thinking of relativism is truly the way to go then let us apply it with conviction. Do not piecemeal adapt it to suit your own moral convictions but celebrate it and live it. Grant that 2+2=4 only for some and that 2+2=5 for others. Show the intellectual courage and fortitude to adopt your live and let live guiding principle in mathematics. Let the superstitious wallow in their pitiful notion that there is something that is correct and something that is not. Let us wallow in our own insanity. That way you can be clever, for the world belongs to those clever enough to take it right? But beware, lest the day come once again when the insane like me find ourselves once again called upon to instill some good ole insanity back into power.

The New Business of Indentured Servitude

An article in The Economist June 15th, 2013 Edition struck me this week. I know, I'm a bit behind on my reading. The article is about crowdsourcing future earnings. Basically, there are a number of new websites like Upstart, Pave, CareerConcept and Lumni that are giving people a chance to write a dossier about themselves and what they would do with the money that people can invest in them. In return the "investors would receive a percentage of the person's pre-tax income over a number of years" (The Economist, pp75).

The scary thing about this is that it sounds like a new version of the indentured servitude model that was so in vogue during the early colonial period of immigration to the United States. Investors pay for the way to the new world and in doing so the party who was invested in would serve as a "servant" for an agreed upon number of years. The potential for abuse in this hundreds year old scenario were borne out of desperation. Desperate to find some better economic conditions the indentured would stay on longer than the original contract. The free labor that the landowners got made the wealthier even wealthy. As today's economic prospects for young, educated but highly indebted college graduates continues to stay stagnant the desperation seems to be rising throughout the country. While each of these sites seems to put a cap on the amount that the invested in party has to pay out (10% for pave, 7% for Upstart and Upstart caps the total amount the invested in party has to pay at 5x the initial investment), there still seems to be a scary precedent being set here.

The one that seems to strike me as most dangerous is Lumni. Lumni focuses on low-income students in countries like Mexico, Chile and America. The other bit that makes me feel a bit queasy is the terminology associated with this type of investing. This whole concept is called "human-capital contracts". Oren Bass, a co-founder of Pave prefers to call them "social financial agreements". I like to call my gambling losses "economic lessons", but the lessons or losses seem to have the same effect on me.

Genesis 4 - the other stuff

Synopsis:

After Cain went away in banishment he had sons named Enoch. Enoch's great-great grandson was Lamech. Lamech seems to have been boastful in claiming that even though God had said Cain's murder would be avenged 7 times the one who would harm Lamech would be avenged 77 times. 

At about then Eve had another son named Seth. Seth's son was named Enosh. In the time of Enosh people began to worship God.

Questions:

What does the story of Lamech have to do with anything? It seems very unclear.

Where did Cain find a wife? If Adam and Eve were the only people then where did Cain's wife come from? Does this give credence to what I mentioned in the last post that God possibly chose Adam out of a bunch of already existing people to be special And to fulfill his will? 

The story of Cain and Abel had to deal with sacrifices and yet it was only in the time of Enosh that people began to worship. What then is the difference between sacrifice and worship?

Genesis 4 - Cain & Abel

Synopsis:

Eve gives recognition to God with the statement: with God's help I have brought forth a man.

Abel gave a sacrifice with the best portions, Cain did not. God looked on Abel with favor but on Cain he did not. This made Cain angry. Cain then killed Abel.

As punishment God placed Cain under a curse and drove him from the land. In doing so God drove Cain from his livelihood (a farmer) and made him be a wanderer.

Cain's response is telling. He states that it is too much for him to bear. He is concerned for three reasons. First, he is concerned because he is being driven from the land. Second, he is being driven away from the presence of God. Third, he is concerned that someone will kill him because he has been made to be a wanderer. To assuage this fear God placed a mark on Cain and a curse on anyone who killed him.

Questions:

Why did Cain and Abel bring sacrifices? There is no mention of God commanding it? Did God command it and the writer(s) of Genesis simply neglect that part? It seems that it would be a big thing to neglect if they did. Was sacrifice such an ingrained part of this culture that the notion of not performing one would be as strange to them as performing one would be to the modern mind? Or is it possible that the act of performing a sacrifice to God is actually part of the human experience that early man was compelled to do so.

Is Cain showing where his sin comes from in his three concerns. His top concern is that his livelihood is being taken from him. The second concern is that he is being driven from God. Is it possible that this is Cain's sin that he has displaced God with his own work?

When Cain is made to be a wanderer he is going to be killed by people when they find him. What people? If Adam & Eve are the first people and Cain and Abel their only children, Cain has eliminated one of the three possible people that will kill Cain. Who is he worried about? Where are the other people coming from? This makes the notion that Adam & Eve are the only people on earth hard to believe. Is it possible that like with Abraham or the Hebrews later in the Old Testament, that God chose a specific set of people to show personal favor to in the beginning to bring about His will? Is it that God placed Adam in the garden by choosing him special from an already existent population of people and made him special this way? Or is Cain simply anticipating that their are other people out there that he is unaware of that will kill him when in fact there are only three people on the face of the planet?

Cain's fear of being separated from God by banishment is an interesting one to consider given the early conception of gods being tied to the land. By being banished Cain is afraid that he will have to wander where God is not. There is no conception of omnipresence in Cain's understanding of God. Is God's marking of Cain an assurance to Cain that where ever Cain will go so there will be God as well? Is this an early understanding in the Hebrews that God is not tied to a specific plot of land, but omnipresent and in God's correction of Cain He is also instilling hope in Cain that he cannot be taken completely out of God's presence?

I don't know the answers to these questions, nor do I know if I can truly find them. But I will venture on in pursuit and see what else comes up in the process.

-Spicer Proud

Voltaire's take on Adam

I must admit, Voltaire's take on Adam does not feel sincere. I don't know why but I can sense a hint of sarcasm coming through the pen of this old philosopher. Maybe I'm just reading it wrong. But, he does have a bit to say on the topic of Adam & Eve, specifically Adam and since we are pursuing some intellectual avenues concerning such things it seems fair to include it in my research. Unfortunately, I feel as though more questions and alleyways will be pursued because of this - so much the better though.

Voltaire opens with some remarks about pious madame de Bourignon who was convinced Adam was a hermaphrodite. Voltaire neither agrees nor disagrees with her because he has not had the same revelation from God on this matter. This might be meant as sarcasm...

Cutting away from this little jab at some historical figure that I'm not quite intrigued enough to wikipedia search, Voltaire brings up an interesting point in his next haymaker. This time his object of scorn are the Jewish scholars who have read much on the subject of Adam. In his snide little remarks though he makes an interesting cross-religious comparison. In the ancient Vedas the first man was called Adimo, meaning the begetter. From there he does some rather hasty philological hop skips and jumps while tossing barbs at Judaism in general to bring up the point that maybe the ancient Hebrew Scriptures somehow borrowed from the more ancient Veda Scriptures of the Brahmins of India. Aside from his jokes, it does pose an interesting question about the similarities between religions. Why are the religions so similar on certain topics? Why are origin stories similar in nature? Is it because by the very fact that they are origin stories that they will inherently be similar? Or is it that word of mouth stories passed from east to west and west to east over generations to create slightly different variations of one old myth? Or is it that over generations one old story has been corrupted and twisted into different contexts that are yet similar enough to have the same feel? I don't know, but it is something striking to consider.

Of course, Voltaire's sardonic writings tend to blend the ridiculous and preposterous with a cutting point of truth and his mocking doesn't always lend itself to straightforward knowledge. However, he is a great philosopher and a personal favorite of mine so he will be referenced as much as possible on the subjects that I research throughout the run of this blog.

Genesis 3

We left the man and the woman in the Garden of Eden yesterday, naked but unashamed. They were happy and blissful yet in chapter 3 we see a new individual brought into the picture - the serpent. The Serpent opens by questioning what God says and goes on to contradict God, stating that God wants the woman and the man to eat of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil stating that they wouldn't die as God had said, but would instead become like God. This in fact turns out to be true, because in verse 22 God states, "the man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil". Unfortunately though, The Serpent was not wholly truthful because death entered the world as a result of the man and the woman's eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. God doles out consequences for all three parties involved. God curses the Serpent by stating that it and its offspring will live in enmity between the woman and her offspring. God then says to the woman that her punishment will be to have painful childbearing in the future. The man's punishment is that he will now have to toil and work very hard for the food he must get out of the ground. It is interesting to note that only the Serpent is cursed, not the man or the woman. There is still some fondness between God and the man & woman enough so that the ground is cursed, but not the man or woman. In the end the man and the woman are banished from Eden so they cannot eat of the Tree of Life and thus live forever.

There are a couple of interesting points in this chapter to consider.

1. First, once again God refers to himself as "us". Does this again suggest a polytheistic existence in multiple gods or is it again a foreshadowing of the Trinitarian doctrine of Christianity? Or is it something like the royal we? 
2. God carries out his warning even though it seems as if God is merciful. He cursed the Serpent, but did not curse the man or the woman. This is the merciful side of God. Yet, God did say to the man He would die if he were to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil. In verse 19 God confirms that it is true when he states, "...until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return." This is the just side of God. This is the holy side of God. 

Genesis 1 - 2

Because the notion of a tabula rasa for a sentient being of roughly 30 years is nigh impossible, no matter how many times that sentient being has partitioned himself into other bits, pseudonyms, nom de plume, sobriquets and nom de guerre or two this partitioning and compartmentalizing cannot in fact create a completely blank slate. Ok, maybe that was a bit dramatic and I don't really have one, let alone two of those nom de guerre thingamajigs, but the point of that fractious and a bit haughty long-winded sentence is that no matter how hard I try, I can't completely erase the memories that have molded me into the person I am so well that the person I create in the blogosphere is innocent of my experience. There is no tabula rasa for Spicer Proud - but I shall try to imagine that he is as such. So, for the pseudo-intellectual mind of Spicer Proud the only possible place to start an adventure of the mind is at the origins. So here are my, as in Spicer Proud's first thoughts on Genesis 1-2.

The order of Creation in Chapter 1 seems to go: day 1 - light, day 2 - Sky, day 3 - Land & Sea + vegetation, day 4 - Sun & Moon (and stars), day 5 - the fish and the birds, day 6 - the land animals and mankind. On Day 7 he rested. For some odd reason the people who split the Bible into chapters put the end of chapter 1 as the beginning of chapter 2, but these seems unimportant to me, just an oddity. On the seventh day God rested, blessed it and made it holy. The order of Creation in Chapter 2 appears to be different though. There was an earth in the beginning of Chapter 2 but there was no vegetation or land because there wasn't rain yet or man to work the earth. So God then made man out of the ground and breathed life into him. From there God put the man in the garden in the east, Eden which seems to be an overall lovely place. In the garden were two trees that the text mentions by name, the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. God put the man in the garden to work the garden. Then God brought the animals made out of the ground to be named but the man. This was going well enough but no suitable helper was found for the man so God made the man's companion out of the man's own rib.

The first thing that needs further exploring is why are these two chapters out of order in comparison with one another? Are there two stories being told here? Is chapter two a summary of chapter one made to be a little more focused on man's role? Is there a newer story and an older story placed side by side in an anthology that eventually became the book we now know as Genesis? I don't know, but this is something worth looking into.

Another thing to be explored is whether these stories are to be taken as literal, allegorical, mythological or a combination thereof. Given the scientific theory of evolution it would seem hard to see this as completely as historical-literal, but there are millions of intelligent people that believe that Genesis (and the entire Scriptures) serves as history textbook.

However, less confusing are a couple of things in this origin story meant to be emphasized by the author or authors.

1. First, God sees his creation as good at the end of each day, except for when he created the sky. When all of creation was complete God saw that it was very good. 
2. Second, the first day in Genesis chapter 1 emphasizes the act of separating light from darkness. In either an allegorical or even a literal reading of the text the separation of light and darkness has religious significance. The separation of light from darkness is mentioned both in verse 4 & verse 18. 
3. Third, in continuing with this religious significance is a little blurb about the Sun and the Moon. In addition to being that which governs the day and night and marks the seasons and the years, the Sun & Moon are to "serve as signs to mark sacred times". This shows that the sun and moon while not being the object of worship themselves, are to be pointers as to when to mark sacred times of the year. In the act of creation God is making religion important.
4. There are a number of blessings that God gives, first to the birds and the fish - multiply & fill the earth, then to man - multiply, fill the earth & subdue it. In each of these blessings God also gives a task. The third and final blessing God gives is to the seventh day in which he makes it holy.
5. When God does create man in the first chapter He does so by creating man in "our image" and "our likeness". Man is thus created to be like God.

But, there are still things that need consideration in the reading.

1. When God creates the man in the first chapter he does so in "our image" and "our likeness". Does this 'our' mean a multitude of gods or is it as Christianity presents the Trinitarian view of the Godhead?
2. Second, when God creates man in 'our image' and 'our likeness' is the author stating that 'our image' is different than 'our likeness' or is he merely using a literary tool?
3. The word to call God who he is different in Chapter 1 and Chapter 2. In Chapter 1 God is simply referred to as God. But, in Chapter 2 God is referred to as the LORD God. Why this difference? Is it significant?

There are probably many more questions that can be considered and intellectual avenues to saunter and meander down in these chapters, but I feel as though we've established enough questions to move forward on for now. Thank you for your time.

Spicer

Welcome

Well hello there. I see you've stumbled upon The Mind of Spicer Proud. Let me inform you what you have happened upon. My name is Spicer Proud, the literary, philosophical, intellectual and spiritual portion of some otherwise anonymous living entity. In other words, I am a pseudonym. In this blog you will simply find the musings of an otherwise pseudo-separate being. While this sounds oh so clever and important it isn't much more than a tool for me to keep a journal that is itemized so that I can easily pull up my thoughts in a collected matter if I were ever to decide to form an opinion or publish something in the future. This way I can have my notes easily accessible to me. The topics will be disparate and varied throughout the existence of this online journal because frankly, my thoughts are disparate and varied. Plus, this is an opportunity for me to continue to stretch my mind in a challenging way.

What I am going to try and accomplish is to separate and distinct Spicer from the other me and start sort of tabula rasa entity that isn't untainted and uninformed by previous existences. Since this is not actually possible the other precursors to Spicer Proud will inevitably come out in his character and essence. However, this is an intriguing intellectual challenge for me and I hope that you can garner something from it. If I cannot create a kind of atmosphere where you gain something from a knowledge, educational or otherwise productive standpoint then maybe I will be able to create something that stimulates on an entertaining level.

Thank you for your time.

Spicer