Ancient texts, which the Book of Genesis as part of the Old Testament certainly qualifies as, should always be viewed with a critical eye on the look out for metaphor and mysticism within the context of historical fact. By literally interpreting the words of our ancestors we can be nothing but fully responsible for our own misinterpretation of the text, which no doubt will occur if one is not careful to remove the fiction from the writing. It is the literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis that I intend to address.
The following are premises that I hold to be true (mostly) of humans in prehistory:
- The human mind was just as intelligent and dynamic as it is today
- Oral tradition was the medium for passing cultural knowledge down through the generations
- They lived and died at the whim of the Earth’s bounty – if there was a drought and the supply of grain or grazing animals diminished, the human population followed suit for lack of food
- God/Earth were not considered separate entities
- There were, and are today, two human cultures: (A) agricultural expansionists (B) homeostatic tribes
- Agricultural expansionists – human cultures that adopted the practice of producing surplus food in order to sustain population growth
- Homeostatic tribes – human cultures that practiced subsistence farming, animal husbandry, and hunter/gatherer techniques of food acquisition not to exceed a sustainable population
I recommend reading Daniel Quinn’s Ishmael for a more in-depth exploration of the two human cultures, which he calls “Takers” (agricultural expansionists) and “Leavers” (homeostatic tribes).
It is now time for the critical eye to be put on the Book of Genesis by viewing it in the context of these premises.
Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil myth:
The only tree in the Garden of Eden that bore fruit from which Adam and Eve were not to eat. This tree allegedly contained the knowledge that only God was privy to in regards to what is right and wrong; humans were not intended to obtain this knowledge.
The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil interpreted:
The Tree is actually a metaphor for the knowledge of what should live and what should die (Quinn 160). The arrogance of man to assume that by eating the fruit he would obtain this knowledge is faulty, as only the Gods could possess this knowledge, regardless of whether man ate the fruit or not. This explains why they were thrown out of the Garden. By assuming that humans now had the means to rule the Earth themselves, they followed suit and have been “conquering” the world ever since. A plethora of examples exist in popular culture everyday: man is “conquering” space; man is trying to “conquer” earthquakes, etc. You hear phrases similar to these almost daily and think nothing of them. Perhaps now you will think differently the next time you hear a phrase that contains “man”, “conquer”, and a natural phenomena. That behavior is exactly what got humans thrown out of the Garden in the first place…
God myth:
The sole creator and master of reality – a singular omnipotent, omniscient being.
God interpreted:
This is where the Semitic tribes confused themselves. Originally in the oral tradition God represented Mother Earth as the sole provider of life and livelihood for prehistoric tribes. Later in written tradition, the descendants of the Semites called the Hebrews, brought in the concept of an omnipotent entity that existed outside of all creation and over-wrote the old traditions with this new found belief.
Adam and Eve myth:
Are said to be the first two humans, created by God and placed in the Garden.
Adam and Eve interpreted:
Represent the birth of human history and culture. Their struggles to learn how to live in their new bodies and in the new world (outside of the Garden) are the struggles of prehistoric tribes coping with the environment in which they lived. This is also closely related to the Akkadian Atra-Hasis story of creation, in which the junior gods who were assigned the responsibilities of farming the land revolted against the God of the Earth, Enlil. It was at this time that the gods created humans to fulfill the duties of manual farm labor, further solidifying the interpretation that the Creation story in the Book of Genesis is a corollary myth from a competing culture (homeostatic tribes) to the story of the agricultural expansionists espoused in Atra-Hasis.
Cain and Abel myth:
The first two children of Adam and Eve – Cain was a farmer, Abel a shepherd. Cain killed Abel out of envy and greed.
Cain and Abel interpreted:
Cain represents agricultural expansionist cultures and Abel the homeostatic tribes of the Semites. The “killing” of Abel is really the infringement and war of the agricultural expansionists on the Semites’ territories. The agricultural expansionists were the first peoples to effectively wage war for the sole purpose of conquering lands and people to support their future growth.
The Great Flood myth:
Noah, a direct descendant of Seth (son of Adam to replace Abel), was instructed by God to build an Ark to survive the coming flood. On this Ark, he was to take mating pairs of animals so that life would go on after the flood waters purged Cain’s sinful descendants from the land.
The Great Flood interpreted:
Many scholars have shown how the story of Noah and his Ark is very closely related to, if not the same story, as the Akkadian Atra-Hasis, which was later adapted into the Epic of Gilgamesh, eleventh tablet. The Flood as described in this story probably relates to a flood that is depicted in historical texts from various peoples in Mesopotamia and confirmed factually by the graph below. The level of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers increased dramatically around 3400 BCE indicating flooding of the lands. Another possible flood incident occurred much later, making it less probable than the one noted above; however, circa 1400 BCE the rivers flooded again with a subsequently substantial drop in population (also noted on the graph below). This fits nicely with the myth that indicates the intent of the Flood was to eliminate Cain’s offspring, which it did if you consider the interpretation of Cain provided above – the flood killed off agricultural expansionists (Cain).
In summary, the Book of Genesis is a conglomerate of ancient myths passed down from two human cultures. Ultimately, the Book of Genesis was written by the agricultural expansionist descendants (the Hebrews) of the homeostatic tribal ancestors (Semites). In this way the two different cultural stories become hybridized and fictionalized even further, for there is little doubt the source stories from which the Book of Genesis was written were also mythological in nature to some extent. The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil represents the knowledge of what should live and what should die, which was how the Semites explained the actions of their aggressive neighbors, the agricultural expansionists; Adam and Eve represent the birth of modern human cultures; Cain and Abel represent the struggle between the agricultural expansionists and the homeostatic tribes; and the Great Flood represents the natural disaster of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers flooding and killing the agricultural expansionist peoples in Mesopotamia.
This is solely my interpretation of these stories based upon the premises stated and the various sources referenced. I must give credit to Daniel Quinn for illuminating me to the intricacies of this collection of stories and how to go about deconstructing them with historical contextual clues and fact.
References:
Quinn, Daniel. Ishmael. New York: Bantam, 1995.
Graph image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MesopotamiaTrends.jpg
Tree of Knowledge picture: http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/2854803/2/istockphoto_2854803_tree_of_knowledge_good_and_evil.jpg
75 Comments
Awesome post my good man. Ishmael is by far the most illuminating book that I have ever read and Quinn’s interpretation of the worlds social evolution has given some realism to the myths that are in ancient texts.
In its mythology, I wonder what would have happened if Eve never ate from the Tree of Knowledge. Do you suppose that we mortals, would be immortal? Would the takers, like Cain and ruling empires, never have been born? I.E. – the world would be a better place
One thing is for sure, humans would have remained ‘blissfully ignorant’ if not for the serpent snake egging Eve on to eat that fruit.
I would say that the only way for Eve not to have eaten the fruit would be for the story not to exist at all. It is a story to describe the Takers’ fall from grace, as it were, that was the basis for the story. Therefore, had Taker culture not been born, then Eve would not have eaten from the fruit because her story would never have needed telling.
So the Taker culture existed innately in Eve before she ate the fruit? Or rather some cultures might say that the Taker culture existed in the serpent (the devil) and that is what ultimately convinced Eve to eat and learn.
Devils Advocate: So following biblical texts, did the serpent inspire learning and thus Takers fall from grace? The quest to understand knowledge and ultimately be omniscient has given humans power. Maybe too much power for our own good.
What I am saying is that Eve exists solely as a result of the Leaver culture attempting to explain why the Takers were acting as if they had the right to determine who should be allowed to live and who should be killed.
And, if you review the Adam/Eve interpreted portion, you will see that it was the feeling of the Leavers that they did not believe that the Takers actually obtained the knowledge of the gods, only that they THOUGHT they did, which gave them the arrogance and sense of purpose to ruthlessly expand through violence against their neighbors.
You are forgetting one thing, though. In Hebrew, Adam = Man and Eve = Life. Eve was not a woman at all. The whole story is about the Takers and their obsession with their own lives and that everything else that didn’t serve their lives should die. That is why the Leavers thought that these people were cursed and that they acted as though they had eaten from the tree of knowledge, because they didn’t respect the world anymore, they simply kept having more and more children.
Its really interesting to go to these areas today, as they are now basically deserts, for the most part and scientists and anthropologists are finding that, in many areas, people cut down the forests to plant olive groves and wheat fields. The problem is that, when you cut down the forests, the tree roots that dig deep into the soil and allow water to enter the aquifers are no longer there and the soil compacts causing excess runoff and erosion, making the area pretty much uninhabitable, which is why almost nothing lives in many of those areas now when they used to be beautiful forests full of gigantic trees. Sad.
I want to research the Agricultural Revolution. Without question, there will be enormous gaps, filled with inference, but I am curious to know what anthropologists say about it.
This was an excellent post, and anyone looking for a great read should check out Ishmael.
Its been a while since I picked up Ishmael, but I’m down with this theory in regards to the Leavers and Takers. Its also more plausible than interpreting the account of Genesis in strict chronological terms.
My only criticism of it would be that it doesn’t seem to make sense in the context of the Torah being the primary religious text of Judaism as a whole – it seems the first book of Judaism should be fundamentally religious in nature, not necessarily historical. Plus everywhere else in the Old Testament historical events are discussed in specific detail, not through vague symbolism.
Too true, Andrew. However, what you must realize is that the Genesis events occurred somewhere on the order of 1,000 to 2,000 years before the “historical” events discussed in specific detail that you are referring to. That would be like us writing the first accounts of Jesus now, with only oral tradition to go on as the basis for our text.
I’m too lazy to pick up the book again…
Is Quinn basically saying that the Leavers are superior because they live in harmony with their environment, only taking what they need, always leaving what they don’t need? Would certain Native American tribes be good examples of Leaver culture? And would Manifest Destiny be a good example of Takers on Patrol?
Also, is Quinn advocating a return to the values of Leaver culture as a solution to the chaos we have inherited from the Takers imperialistic drive?
He isn’t saying leavers are “superior”, he is saying that their culture is sustainable, whereas the taker culture is not sustainable.
Native American tribes were indeed leaver cultures, and Manifest Destiny is a prime example of the taker imperialistic expansion.
He is advocating a leaver culture, or at the very least the formation of a sustainable way of life, which the takers’ is not.
I intend to check out the movie 10,000 BC scheduled for box office release on 3/7/2008. Not sure of it’s quality, but the subject matter is pertinent to this discussion as it should be highlighting the world as it was right before the agricultural expansionists hit the scene.
I was skeptical of 300 until I saw it, hopefully this movie will replicate that experience.
Unfortunately, it is far more likely Hollywood will just churn out another awful flick.
I never did watch that 10,000 BC movie. I heard it was abysmal, though.
I too never ended up watching it, and I have no desire to do so. The three people I know that ended up giving it a go said it was the worst piece of garbage this side of Crank.
Most likely. But it would be interesting to see if our taker culture is in the infancy of a paradigm shift. Perhaps we are beginning to realize the err of our ways and this is society expressing it in the best way it knows how: through movies.
There’s definitely a subculture of intellectuals who are pushing for a return to Leaver culture, though each with their own unique view of how we should go about getting there – after all it won’t happen overnight.
One of my personal favorites of these theorists is Terence McKenna. He’s got a great book called Food Of The Gods which discusses the evolution of civilization from pre-history, but with particular emphasis on how the popular/unpopular intoxicating substances of a culture reflect the “personality” of that culture.
He argues that there is ample evidence to prove that naturally occuring psychedelics were the drug of choice in pre-Mesopotamian cultures, and that Ancient Greece was the last vestige of a culture that was able to integrate psychedelics into their society (The Eleusinian Mysteries as the prime example). He then attempts to show how Psychedelic Culture was overtaken by Narcotic Culture due to the realization that narcotics are more addictive and therefor a much more valuable commodity than psychedelics, which have no addictive potential.
Based on these facts, he calls for an Archaic Revival and a return to the values of the pre-”civilized” cultures. Obviously since his book focuses on drugs, he advocates the use of psychedelics by small groups of individuals as the only way for our culture to return to its roots.
I don’t neccessarily agree that his proposed solution will do much to transform society as a whole, but his theory is an interesting approach to understanding the Taker/Leaver dilemma.
and he must be a hippie.
Ha, he might as well have invented hippie
Putting that aside, still sounds interesting.
Sometimes I have to let go of my bias against hippies because their ideas can still be very interesting.
I will probably check that book out. Sounds like a good read.
Dignity – Could be defined as “The Right of Every living thing to exist” And, cannot be given or taken away. Let’s Philosophize. What’s your definition? and what is our context? right and wrong, good and evil, how about Right vs. Good.
I’m not sure I understand where you are going with this, but I’m interested so I will respond as best as I can.
Dignity has nothing to do with any thing’s right to exist or not. It has to do with acting in a respectable manner, and defined usually in the context of being worthy of esteem or respect. The context of that would need to be the society the subject in question is a part of, because the morality and ethical concerns of each society and culture vary.
Same goes for right and wrong, good and evil, and the hypothetical right versus good. Something that is “right” in a culture typically would indicate that it is just, adhering their cultural values and norms. The inverse is true for “wrong.” In this instance, there is no difference between right and good, and wrong and evil. In essence, asking right versus good would be like asking good versus good. On an individual basis, something can be right for the culture and wrong or bad for the individual.
Thank You, For Honoring me with your response.
O.K. here goes, Dignity is not my main point or the subject. I tend to digress a lot,in order to give a example or observation and most times an Opinion. The Book by Mr. Quinn to Me! lets say, could be ‘Information’. To others, it could be speculation and conjectures. To assume what, Mr. Quinn wrote is, lets say- safe and sane. Is to assume that we all share the same Intellect. Here’s the subject! Intelligence vs. Character. Which do you prefer in your fellow humans? and Why? John Erskine wrote: The Moral Obligation it Be Intelligent.
Intelligence without character terrifies me. Character without intelligence is far more favorable, provided the entire world isn’t full of well intended dumb asses (see Congress).
I did not mean for you to feel patronized by my last comment. I was just letting you know up front that I wasn’t really sure I understood what you were saying and would respond to the best of my ability.
At first I thought that I would choose intelligence over character, but that is only because I do not suffer fools well. Jack’s comment swayed me in the other direction. Intelligent people with no character or morality can wind up being a Hitler or serial killer, many other terrible outcomes as well.
First, I’d like to thank Jack for joining In. Second, No Jason, I did not take it as Patronizing. A little Pedant Maybe. But, you don’t know me, and since you do not- “Suffer Fools Well” you can justly assume (based on the vagueness of the question) that, I too, am a fool. and you are responding based on the information given. The definition you give for dignity is pretty much what the dictionary defines. Is everybody wondering why, I am going on with this dignity THING! With your guys help, hopefully we’ll find out. But question is still Character and Intelligence. For the last three weeks or so, I have been asking the same question. so far I have gotten 80% character 19% intellect, and 1% both, so far I am the 1%. To assume people with Character have intelligence, is to assume Airline Pilots don’t drink and fly. It is just too unbalanced for me.
“Man’s character is his fate”
Heraclitus
The moral obligation is most certainly to be intelligent.
Morality depends on intelligence. It always has, it always will.
Morality is logical. And logic has its roots in intelligence. Therefore, it follows that as we grow more intelligent we will also observe a corresponding growth/evolution in our moral logic.
In regards to dignity: Dignity is the subjective experience of trying to behave according to one’s current standard of morality. But since morality/intelligence inevitably evolves, so then is dignity naturally relative.
My standard for dignity is not yours. And don’t ever tell me that I should follow your law of morality/dignity, cause that’d be foolish and not very intelligent.
Do you think we as a species are becoming more intelligent? The time scale over which we have recorded history is too short for actual evolution. I think it is safe to say that we have the same natural, raw intellect that an individual of our species had 20,000 years ago. To think otherwise would be to succumb to the seemingly inherent arrogance of our species to believe we operate outside of the natural order that all other life is governed by.
As a collective species, no. As individuals, yes.
Andrew, Thank You for joining Us. Are you a fan of Einstein. Everything can be considered relative. Relative to a cow, I feel I am smarter. But the Farmer might not agree. So I say to you, Morality is not based on logic or Intelligence. Morality is based on the group dynamic. based on a “Belief”. For example. The avidity for God as well as for Gold, drove the Spaniards to conquer and destroy the peoples of the New World. Morally Justified because of their Belief. And, come on who was going to stop them! Thank God for logic and ethics. Now we have the 1st amendment. Which the Catholics still don’t understand. I say this with love in my heart, for I was raised Catholic. but, I took the road less traveled and found the The Tree of Knowledge. Which I dine at, every chance I get. You know they have a coffee shop there now. just kidding. anyway now I can love and respect unconditionally, well most of the time, I am Human. and sometimes my “Will” exceeds my Knowledge. Happy Holidays to All
Morality is certainly caused by belief. But belief depends on intelligence and logic for its existence.
As children we are taught a set of logical explanations for how the world operates, and we call these explanations beliefs. In regards to morality, we do this because we are taught it is Good, and we don’t do that because we are taught it is Bad. This is the fundamental logic of the evolving human. What you consider to be Good or Bad, 100% influences every decision you make in your life. But what we believe to be Good/Bad evolves as we gain life experience. Over time, as our brains mature, our intelligence also matures, and we become able to debate the validity of our inherited beliefs.
Therefor it follows that Action depends on Belief….Belief depends on Logic…Logic depends on Intelligence…Intelligence depends on Life Experience.
Andrew, your trying to confuse me, It won’t work. First tell me, are these definitions out of your dictionary or do you just make them up to suit your logic. (yes Jason I know, that was Patronizing. and I apologize to you Andrew. I feel we are Men of Honor, and should be treated as such. I blame my impertinence). Anyway, Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedic College Dictionary, copyright 1968, defines Belief as “Acceptance of the truth or Actuality of anything without certain Proof”. We might be spitting hairs here, but here goes. Intelligence – “The faculty of perceiving and comprehending meaning; mental quickness; active intellect; understanding.
Logic – “The science concerned with the principles of valid reasoning and correct inference, either deductive or inductive”.
Here’s my definition – Belief is based on Faith and Faith is the absents of Reason. Andrew, I feel your statements are subjective, yet you say it with such conviction, you almost got me believing you. but I could not disagree with you more. I am curious now, about your “Life Experience” as you put it. where are you from, how old are you, your influence i.e. schools, books, jobs, etc. Myself being 52 years old, I don’t concern myself with what is right or wrong, good or bad these things are now just relative to me. what concerns me now is ‘WHY’ whats the ‘REASON’. for example whats the reason the world seems to hate the United States? One reason according to the book by Chalmers Johnson – The Sorrows of Empire – is that we have over 725 military bases and garrisons all over the world. one hundred in Japan alone. so whats wrong with that? were protecting them right. well the bases are on the best parts of the Islands, that’s one reason. another reason, and this is the bad one. because you have 18-24 year old men sitting idle with nothing but time, and money to spend. troops comment crimes against local civilians, bars and brothels crowd around the main gates of bases, endless accidents, noise, sexual violence, drunk-driving crashes, drug use, and environmental pollution. Anyway there it is REASON, cause and effect. So Andrew, whats your reason for your beliefs. let’s make this easy, list the top five books you feel have influenced you. if you would please.
Your first problem is that you rely way too much on books and philosophy. Reality is what it is, and it’s gonna stay what it is regardless of what you think it might be. So give up the Capital Lettered Concepts, and then we can have a legitimate discussion.
Books have done more to convince me not believe to in things. They are all filled with abstractions that have more to do with the power of your mind to raise certain aspects of Reality on a pedestal than others.
You don’t understand my point from before:
Even blind faith has its implied logic. That’s why you are not a Catholic anymore. At some point in your life you began to analyze and break down the implied logic behind your taught belief system and it stopped satisfying you.
That’s how you discovered your “Tree of Knowledge”, correct? By analyzing, using your intellect and life experiences to compare and contrast different logical points of view (this wasn’t possible at age 7 because yo didn’t have enough life experience). You deduced that your current path is Better than whatever you were on before. Maybe when you are 90 you’ll discover a different point of view. And maybe death will correct all wrong points of view.
The point is that we never stop learning. And life is a better teacher than books.
If you’re trying to make a clever point about giving up ‘Captial Letter Concepts’ by using them in your own argument, then my simple mind is missing the boat—which wouldn’t be the first time.
lol, yeah well i’m retarded so that should explain everything.
Its almost impossible to discuss philosophy without resorting to Capital Letter Concepts and generalized principals and whatnot. So when I’m debating philosophy I’ll use the traditional language of philosophy. But in the end, I think philosophy leads to a dead end, because of its reliance on language and ideas.
I still think you should answer the man’s question about your most influential books. It’s a good question and despite your rebuttal of life being a better teacher than books, I know for a fact that there are a few books that influence your thought process. Reading books is a part of someone’s life experience.
Got me thinking about my own (these are in no particular order):
1. Ishmael – Quinn
2. 1984 – Orwell
3. Republic – Plato
4. Lord of the Flies – Golding
In no particular order, these are some of the major books that inspired new ways of thinking as I gained life experience:
1. Uncle Tom’s Cabin – Harriet Beecher Stowe
2. Brave New World – Aldous Huxley
3. Siddhartha – Herman Hesse
4. Leaves of Grass – Walt Whitman
5. The Spirit of Capitalism – Max Weber
6. A Theory of Human Motivation – Abraham Maslow
7. Food of the Gods – Terence McKenna
8. A Brief History of Everything – Ken Wilber
9. The Life Divine – Aurobindo Ghose
10. Stages of Meditation – The Dalai Lama
11. The New Testament – Jesus
12. The Bhagavad Gita – Krishna
13. The Yoga Sutras – Patanjali
14. The Dhammapada – Buddha
Well well Andrew, it seems your hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Now are these books you have read. Or books you have burned.
Are you a young Catholic? Why New Testament. Old Testament not good enough.
Burned. Bonfire status.
I am sorry if I offended you Michael, that certainly wasn’t my intention. The Old Testament and all holy books are all good enough.
Andrew please no, say it isn’t so, the battle of wit! Over! and I was just getting started. I am way too impertinent to be offended. so no apology required.
I was born with the soul of a court jester, so its hard for me to take anything seriously. But Michael, I’ve understood your view on Dignity from the get go and I agree with it. I get what you are saying that as we come to understand and live from the perspective that all individuals are equal in their inherent right to life (I’d add liberty and the pursuit of happiness), then dignity grows within us, and we are able to stand up to injustice like a Rosa Parks, an MLK, a Ghandi, a Jesus, etc. History’s greatest individuals were all inspired to action when they realized that conditions weren’t allowing their brothers and sisters to live a full and free life, which is their inherent right from birth.
I’d lay money down that we actually agree on many many things. Our disagreements have not so much been about the content of our comments, so much as the strict definitions we’ve been applying to our words.
For example, you claimed that I used the word Logic incorrectly when I stated that Logic is the basis for Morality. However the definition for Logic that I am using for my argument is:
“b (1) : A particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)”
The theory that Logic is the basis for Morality, which you condescendingly shrugged off as being made up by myself, is actually not my own theory. No Michael, I’m not a hypocrite: When I said that Reality is the way it is regardless of what we think it is, what I meant is that I support the Scientific Method as more effective way to learn about the world than philosophical inquiry.
Jean Piaget, the eminent Swiss Psychologist, whose theories have had a major influence on the international education system, is the guy who came up with this theory. It is elaborated in his book Equilibration of Cognitive Structures: The Central Problem of Intellectual Development. The following is a summary of the theory:
I simplified the theory by saying that new Life Experience provides new data which we can then use to compare the effectiveness of our past belief systems. As our beliefs change so does our morality and thus our behavior.
This theory has been applied to cognitive therapy with extreme success. The reason being that if you can change someone’s internal logic and understanding of the world, then you likewise will see a corresponding change in their behavior. Its been proven, and I have a slew of books in my office I could recommend to you if you want to read up on this more.
I provide psychological counseling for a living. If I sound like I’m talking with conviction and from personal experience, its because I am: I’ve changing peoples lives using these time tested theories. So I know these theories are valid and congruent with reality.
Andrew, In my pursuit of Honor and Virtue. bound by Honor, I bow, to your Learned Intellect. And to the Author of this forum our Host Jason, I Salute You. Also, I vow to subject everyone to more of my Uncertified Intellect. Seriously Andrew, thank you for pointing out that my EGO not that I feel discontented, but that my self-righteousness knows no bounds. for that I am sorry. Here’s my list of some of the books and essays I found value in.
The Wisdom of Insecurity – Alan Watts
Paul’s letter to the Corinthians – New Testament
The Moral Obligation to be Intelligent – John Erskine
The Ethics of Belief – William Kingdon Clifford
Leviticus – Old Testament
Illusions – Richard Bach
The Republic of Plato
12 Angry Men – Sidney Lumet
A Night at the Opera – The Marx Brothers
The Three Stooges – w / Curly
I’m super curious as to how Leviticus influenced your thoughts? I’ve read the Bible front to back and that book never really struck me as inspirational. Isn’t it just a bunch of rules and regulations?
@Andrew, perhaps it has to do with God’s Covenant with Israel as the over-arching theme of the 3rd Book of the Hebrew Bible.
Andrew, I must be careful. In phrasing my comments, cause I like (need) the free on-line counseling. Leviticus, not Three Stooges? Leviticus is about sacrifice. And sacrifice IS! oh wait, that sounds subjective. rephrase, Please consider my Opinion. where was I, oh yeah, Too me sacrifice means ( in the context of Leviticus) “attention to detail” in that, to rush through the day without considering what it is one is practicing daily (lets call practice – the ritual) so the practice is to make sure the food one eats is sanitary and not a “abomination” to the Temple. Temple being the body. and not just food it could be anything one practices that is detrimental to the body and mind.
Mike, the Three Stooges are the highest path to enlightenment, everyone knows that! As for Leviticus, I think I might just have to revisit that book and read it from this new perspective. Good stuff.
Andrew, how you doing. I was going over your list of books. Uncle Tom’s Cabin, besides the anti-slavery subject of the book. how did it influence your thoughts. also, looking up Aldous Huxley’s – Brave new World, I remembered where Jim Morrison got the name, The Doors.
Jason, Lord of the Flies – elaborate please.
I think it would be Cool, To hear what other books, people on Babeled feel are inspirational and/or important. oh, and Jonathan no Stephen King, Please. (kidding).
@Michael, aside from Siddhartha and Ishmael, which would be number 1 and 2 for me here are some others I can think of in no particular order:
The Divine Comedy
Paradise Lost
Histories
History of the Peloponnesian War
Iliad and The Odyssey
1984
The Foundation Trilogy
1776
Greg, thank you for sharing your valued books with us. How did the, History of the Peloponnesian War, influence your thoughts. Also, I too have read, David McCullough’s ’1776′ what are your feelings on his book?
Hey Jason, I don’t think the spell check, knows how to spell Peloponnesian.
@ Micheal, the big influence of the History of the Peloponnesian War was just a simple yet powerful understanding of how human nature is unchanging. The motives of humanity have always been fundamentally the same. Here we have an event of power and competition between two rivals who let their own excessive pride lead to their inevitable and obvious decline.
When Athens and Sparta went at it for 37 years they understandably drained themselves and all of Greece of its resources (human and land capital). It was the ultimate pissing contest that took down Classical Greece as way romanticize it. Some may say, ‘so what’? Well there are numerous lessons to be learned from our western predecessors. It is as painfully obvious then as it is now that there is only room for one Alpha at the top. It is a rare thing indeed that different entities can coexist as 1 and 1a. The power’s that be always insist on being the power that is.
Also, I was always fascinated with Pericles himself. A terrific leader and a brilliant politician he was the first citizen (tyrant) of Athens and an amazing man. Unfortunately he was so good that there was no one suitable to take his place. When he finally succumb to the plague Athens was like a lost child. We have seen this repeatedly throughout history: when a world changing leader dies there is often quite a power vacuum and a relative period of worthlessness and strife. Rome saw it after Caesar Augustus, Byzantium saw it after Justinian, and we saw it after Lincoln. There are countless other examples as well.
The symmetry and repetitiveness of history has always been an unrivaled passion of mine, this book played a big part in fueling that passion. Also, as an interesting note, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address was very much influenced by Pericles’ Funeral Oration Speech as told by Thucydides. That was a neat realization of the book.
As far as McCullough is concerned, I loved 1776 and I was especially impressed with John Adams. That was a tremendous biography that left me convinced he is easily the most underrated founding father. Without question I would place Mr. Adams third in American importance. Behind Washington and Jefferson, but certainly ahead of Franklin.
Lord of the Flies is an interesting look at the formation of human civilizations. By using children, the reader naturally begins the story with less bias and preconceived notions about the characters than if they were adults.
You also get to see the different types of personalities and their impacts to the formation of a basic culture. Jack’s Hunters are very different in personality and ambition than Ralph and his followers. Ralph represents a benevolent leader, intent on a democratic-style of formation with an altruistic approach to those who depend on him. Jack is driven by the desire for power and to be respected and feared by his followers. He believes wholeheartedly that it’s his way or the highway (think Piggy), and from Star Wars we know that only a Sith speaks in absolutes.
Jason, when you listed, Lord of the Flies. It stuck me as odd, I didn’t know why, something about children. your analysis of Jack’s desire for power. It got me thinking about contemporary adults. why many seem to act like children. Is the quest for power and dominance a juvenile trait. the question I think of, and I’ve been thinking about this for awhile now. Is the, “Rite of Passage”. Is there a Rite of Passage to Adulthood for modern man? I always felt that adults were ruled by reason and responsibility. but in today’s political climate, adults act as if their entitled. In that, the schools should rise their children, doctors keep them well, Government helping their causes and the hell with those “other people”. I must stop, getting too subjective. but let me say, even with the Opinions and Beliefs expressed in this forum I still feel that I am among adults. So, is there a Rite of Passage or am I just being childish.
@Michael, I had to think about this one extensively. It was very thought provoking even though my initial reaction was to say, no, I don’t think there is a rite of passage for modern men. Then I realized that the image evoked by the term rite of passage in my mind was of tribal tests of one’s manhood, and other such activities in very small communities and cultures. So while there may not be a universal rite of passage for men in modern taker cultures, I believe there are many rites of passage at the micro level.
What I mean is that boys in the inner cities, and even within neighborhoods in cities, will have a rite of passage unique to their microcosm just as a rural boy may have a rite of passage in his microcosm, despite the two activities being entirely different. The uniqueness of the environment in which the individual is living dictates the rite of passage as each environment plus subculture require and value different traits in their men.
O.K. lets talk about environment or as you suggest, cultural. I’d like to pose this question to the forum, What is our culture here in the United States? also, this question, When did you feel, you made the “Rite of Passage”.
@Mike, Alcohol seems to play a major role in most American rites of passage. I wrote a very very brief bit on that in my post: Rites of Passage.
During my brief stint as an English major I was required to take a class called American Literature: Revolution to 1865. During that class I had the opportunity of reading “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” and “Leaves of Grass”, two 19th Century masterpieces that both floored me at the time.
“Uncle Tom’s Cabin” is an amazing conversation about what it meant to be an American, and more importantly what Americans thought it meant to be a human being, during slave times. Yes, the book on the surface is about the ills of slavery — but it’s more importantly a book about (drum roll please)….1) Dignity…and the role dignity plays in the various struggles we face throughout life and …2) Forgiveness…and the raw power forgiveness has to transform individuals and societies.
“Leaves of Grass” is the 19th Century poetic avalanche that fell from Walt Whitman’s pen. His writing style transported me to that century and imbued me with a sense of patriotism and love for country that is impossible to find in our modern times. His patriotism was all tied up with the high ideals of self-discovery, freedom, and individualism. This in combination with a love of the land and nature and how the highest vision of American is sooooooo much more than “the bottom line” of Capitalism.
Right-On Jason! The voice of Reason.
Did anyone else think of The Princess Bride with Michael’s first sentence? I clearly saw Wesley sitting across from the Sicilian engaged in their battle of wits.
I didn’t know both was an option. I mean, that’s like having your cake and eating it too (umm….). I think the clear answer here would be it is preferable to have a person who is both intelligent and with good character. Jack’s point is well made about having a bunch of stupid people with great intentions gets you no where.
Should judgment and logic come into play here? I know intelligent people with no capacity for judgment or decision making, and they end up swirling around in the toilet bowl of their own minds while yielding no act of value. I bring in logic, as well, because I have known some people with moderate intelligence but with a knack for logical deduction that have far exceeded my expectations. People compensate for their weak areas one way or another, and the compensation may or may not a good thing.
No Andrew, my first problem is my Prostate. but that’s a personal problem. I think the problem here Is, You! don’t like the fact, that I, do not “Believe” you. and so there is a “Problem”. You will find over time. That it’s the EGO that’s the center of your discontent. I read that somewhere, Sorry. I regret the fact that I was already 41 yrs. old, before I started reading, I mean real reading, not for entertainment, but for knowledge. before that, like you and most people, I was just subjective. The point is, to have a discussion, it helps if both of us are being Objective. That’s why we have Dictionary’s, so that we both have a point of reference, a starting point. If you are just going to make up your own definitions for words, well then, you win. O.K. about reality, just because one might feel they are stuck in their reality does not mean reality does not change. For example: In the Southern States the “Reality” was, that Black People were second class citizens. The Blacks never thought of themselves as second class, but they knew the Reality of the South. Don’t talk back to Whitey! or you could get shot or hanged, most times Both. Then one day, I think her name was Rosa Parks. She stood up and said! My Dignity is just as Noble as any white man! Do I have too spell it out for you, Andrew? Reality is relative to what you are willing to put up with. Rosa Parks changed her reality and made history. As far as being a Catholic, I never said I wasn’t. I’m just not a confirmed Catholic. and because I read books (sorry, I just love Reading) one of my books is the Bible, and because it is written in metaphors and euphuisms and who knows what else. It is open to interpretation. So! In my humble Opinion, the Bible is not so much a religious book, but a novelistic recording of history, an allegory if you will. So what is the moral of my story… I am now able too put up with people like You! who feel that Ignorance is Bliss.
Hey Andrew, do you like Apples! Well, how do you like them, Apples!
I find it humorous that you are trying to lecture me on the need to be Objective, and yet your entire comment is coming from a Defensive attitude……aka, why are you being so Subjective?
I get it dude, you had a Midlife Crisis, you searched for some Truth that would put your short life into a Greater Context, you found it, and now you feel you can grow old satisfied with your Knowledge.
But…that also means that anyone who slightly disagrees with your newly solidified beliefs is a THREAT, and therefor you must defend your newly won Knowledge. That’s called EGO..and like you said in the comment above, “it’s the EGO that’s the center of your discontent.”
So what is the moral of my story…”I am now able to put up with You! who feel that Knowledge is Bliss.” (In the voice of Michael Danze)
I’d add “Hey Michael, do you like Apples! Well, how do you like them, Apples!”(in the voice of Michael Danze)…but I’m not an insecure middle-aged man who feels intellectually threatened by someone half his age.
Actually, Andrew, the best part about his comment is that he demonstrates the same level of understanding of you as your friends. I’m still laughing after reading both of your comments, which took awhile because I’m a slow reader. It was awesome.
The authorities on my self have spoken.
Oh stop whining and take a joke. you honestly can’t admit that you have a big ego? Mine is pretty huge.
Anyway, I still want to go back to the original comment dealing with dignity equaling right of something to exist or not. Because I am still hung up on the fact that if something does exist, it has a right to exist, or else it wouldn’t. What? Where the hell am I?
Of course I have a big ego
….. who doesn’t?
Sorry Andrew but I have to also agree with J on this one, for a second there I thought Mike knew you haha. In reality, I have been following this entire discussion and while I find it extremely interesting, I have only a couple thoughts to throw up.
Does ego equate to control or visa versa? I mean the ego would cause someone to control, right? And the more we control the less of the bigger picture we get. Or I could totally be off. How can humans honestly expect to understand life when their egos create controlling thoughts or get in the way? While our minds are/can be nourished with information, this information leads one to think he is more right or entitled than any other animal. This perception of our reality is based off of the subjective thoughts that our own individual cultures have instilled in us. Our definitions of virtue, dignity, morality are congruent to society’s ideals. Our levels of intelligence, life experiences, and character are something that society sets a benchmark for us through media, such as books, movies, archetypes, religious allegorical stories, education, etc. I think the biggest flaw we have made as humans is that we try to control too much and instead have always missed the bigger picture. We can probably trace back this thinking back to when hunter/gatherers buried their dead with tools to better prepare them for the afterlife. Or perhaps it was the fact that due to the preparation they thought they needed more in the present life and therefor became controlling of earthly tangible possessions?
On somethings right to exist…I think that if something exists in your mind or is perceived by you (in your mind) then it has a right to exist for you have just created that ‘right’. Our minds have the ability to create like no other earthly creature. Not to sound too crazy, but our minds have granted us with god-like powers. I know it sounds controversial, but to other animals we are probably perceived as such.
If you don’t believe the Biblical history of the Garden of Eden, then your own knowledge is exactly what you’re trusting in. The forbidden fruit leaves us trying to interpret all knowledge that we encounter. We become the judges of good and evil, and life becomes a babel of ideas. We even judge God. If, at a critical point in time, the creator were to become a man, he would be crucified. This is exactly what has happened, but it’s the only way he could overcome our mistrust. Mankind fell by doubting God. The only way back is to trust him, in and through Jesus. Thanks
I want Biblical explanations for all things that are proven to be older than 6,000 years, Larry. Your comment is the ultimate cop-out because you are trying to say that the only things possible to know are those from God. Well, let you tell you something, the Bible was written by Man, not God. So all you think you know about God was written by men who had their own agendas, thoughts, beliefs in their own knowledge and a hundred years after Jesus died. The ignorance of your ilk knows no bounds, and your unwavering fervor blinds you to the flaw inherent to your own beliefs.
Alright Now!, this is why I joined. Conflict! that’s what life is about, Its what gives life meaning. its not about sitting around bragging about nuclear power and how wonderful it is to warehouse millions of people and keep them refrigerated.
Larry, so you what to tell everyone about Belief, tell me, do you believe you are conscious? do you see God in the same room with you? the holy ghost guiding your every move? If you do WOW!, for I cannot. St. Matthew 22:14, are you one of these people who sacrifice an hour every Sunday to have the Bible read to you?; here is something I thought of: When you let others read to you, it becomes, A Bedtime Story. I’ve dabbled in reading the Bible throughout my life, but only read it out of defiance, too know ones enemy. but you know, the more I read it, I find, I don’t have enemies, there just people stuck in their own belief systems. and that is fine, God loves them; then so shall I. who cares if they are affected with “Innocents of the Heart” it just means more people for Jack and the other nuclear knuckleheads to take care of.
How about some chapter and verse for we saints and sinners, here’s one for Larry; St. Matthew 24:5. and some for the War Mongers of the country; St. Matthew 24:6,7,8,9,10,11,12, & 13. and last for all that believe in politics ; St. Matthew 27:38. fun stuff ah! oh, all that, Is from the King James Bible. I would have used the Douay-Rheims official Roman Catholic Bible, but they don’t want Independent thinkers using their property. and don’t call it the Huey Dewey version either, they don’t think its funny! just ask my Dad. O. K . where was I? Oh yeah Beliefs. Beliefs are fine, but when imposed on others, you might as well ware a sign on your back that says Kick Me. I myself find it dull and asinine to fight over beliefs. beliefs only work (if I can call it that) if your around people of like beliefs. Let us all strive to just get along. and if not, you can go F**k yourselves! I’m sorry did I say that? Just Kidding.
Hey Jason, I know, I don’t know you, but it seems odd to me, for you to patronize the guy. your writing is so elegant, that patronizing seems unbecoming and beneath you. I say this without malice, for you are an excellent host and deserving of all due respect. so what is it? does he owe you money?
All views and statements are property of the; I don’t give a sh*t what you believe foundation. have a nice day. jack.
I guess I am just tired of people whose minds are completely made up and therefore have limited their experience and learning. Anyone who is so ignorant as to make a statement like Larry did is an example of the stifling force in our culture that prohibits us from growing as individuals as evolving as a society. I should feel empathy, but I am not enlightened and have a long way to go, so I get angry at times when I should feel sad for people. Intellectually I can know a better way to react, but emotionally I am held back. I’m working on it – but obviously without much success to date.
Michael,
Jason talks to everybody that way, even his closest friends. That’s just how he is. He doesn’t f*ck around for lack of better words. In the old testament, it is stated that ‘man is made in the image of god’. I take this to mean that we were created to have the same exact faculties as the creator and to date I think I am correct in my assumption. Like god, we have the ability to create, manipulate, and destroy life that is separate from ourselves. Man, unlike other mammals, has the ability (with science) to plant and harvest vast amounts of agriculture, extend lives with medicine, etc. Just as we create life, we also destroy life. God didn’t give us this power because he wanted us to be mindless slaves. If he did, he would never have given us the power to choose between ‘the tree of knowledge’ and ‘the tree of life’. If you argue that we aren’t perfect that’s fine, but that must also mean that god isn’t perfect. Or our imperfections make us perfect.
As far as reading the bible and attending church go in order to achieve salvation, I think it’s a bunch of malarkey. The ‘kingdom of god’ is inside you as Jesus preached. In St. Thomas, it is written “Split a piece of wood, I am there. Lift up the stone and you will find me there.” This means that god and everything associated with the creator have always surrounded us. It is not a requirement of Jesus or god to go take a knee on Sundays, that is a requirement of the Catholic Church. My point is that for us to connect with the creator, it seems childish and moot to simply make ourselves pray one day a week in a place where Jesus, himself, never even attended just so the masses could reach salvation. Ah salvation, now that’s a story for another time….
Child, that was a rotten thing to say, and it was not true. He only brings out that tone in the face of willful ignorance which is probably why you hear it so often.
Claire, I was wondering how to respond. its never easy dealing with children.
By the way, funny stuff.
I don’t think I’m deserving of your comment Claire. That was a rotten thing to say to me. I was simply making light of the question that Curly had asked Jay. Is my statement that he doesn’t f*ck around false? I apologize if my statement was misinterpreted but it was not my intention to be rotten towards Jay. Michael, sorry man but you’re an ass. You came back with nothing intelligent to say whatsoever except that Claire’s harsh comment was funny.
Now now, don’t get your panties in a bunch, kid. I thought it was funny how Claire referred to you as a child, when that’s what I was thinking after reading your statement on Jason, and your rants on religion that we all have heard a thousand times. I thought about how I felt about religion when I was 14. I think all young people think the same way. so blah, blah, blah, about your Opinion on religion; your just wasting everybody’s time writing about it.
Let me see if I can explain this whole thing too you. starting with Jason and Larry, now keep in mind this is only my opinion. Jason posted excerpts and references from the book by Danial Quinn; To promote spirited discussion. now here comes Larry, with the same old subjective attitude most followers of Orthodox religion are saddled with. so instead of discussion, Larry in a subtle Patronizing way, insults our host, and our host out of frustration, (kind of like my frustration with your statements) Patronizes him back. Now, my statement to Jason was to remind him, there’s no need to lower himself to Larry’s level of Ignorance. but you know what, after reading Claire’s description; now I think, you, must be the center of Jason’s frustration.
Gregory, one day you’ll be an adult, and then you will find that, deserves, have nothing to do with anything. just go back to playing your video games.
hey, why don’t you go to AnswerBag.com, there you will find kids your own age.
have a nice day! jack