Animals and God(s?)

First of all, I wanted to start with some reptilian discussion.  I found this quote from Virgil's work rather fascinating.

"And the serpent too shall die, Die shall the treacherous poison-plant, and far and wide Assyrian spices spring." (66)

When I first read this section, I was a little upset for the snakes.  Truth be told, I'm actually rather uncomfortable around them in the wild but it seems that God created every living create and hence should love them equally.  In this paradise that Virgil describes, all the snakes are killed.  Doesn't that seems rather extreme when not all serpents kill man or even have the ability to do so?  And when you think about it, according to the bible the snake only betrayed man.  And in some cases it was the devil dressed as a snake.  So can you blame a whole species for a single pretense that might not have been their fault?  And even then, the actions of the serpent only hurt mankind so why must they be destroyed in a paradise built for everyone to enjoy.  The large predators seem able to live in harmony with the lambs so why not the slithering beasts as well?

Snakes like these are even kept by some as pets.
http://www.popularpets.net/snakes/care-sheets/rough-green-snake.php

The next bit is a little less related to reptiles except that I realized a song connection.

"The mystery is never the answer.  What's really interesting is the mystery.  If you seek the mystery instead of the answer, you'll always be seeking." (83)

When I was reading this wonderful page of quotes, this one caught my attention in particular because of a song by Jimmy Buffet.  He sings "answers are the easy part, questions raise the doubt" on a track entitled "Off to see the lizard."  Basically the whole premise of the piece is about children searching for an answer about the world around them.  When I really think about it, enjoying the uncertainty of life makes it more special.  Why else would people enjoy the feeling of falling in love or the anticipation before a trip.  It makes life feel so much more alive.  And while I always have specific questions I want answered, sometimes I'm happy to just not know.

Now, on to the more general animal section.

"Nearly all hermits and holy men who live apart from the big cities have the reputation of being able to work miracles with the wild things, but all the miracle lies in keeping still, in never making a hasty movement, and, for a long time, at least, in never looking directly at a visitor." (89)

I was actually thinking this exact same thought the other day.  I guess it's probably because I grew up in a small town.  I only have 5 acres but that's plenty of space to escape from the sounds of traffic and the bustle of life.  In my backyard, I built a small tree house and used to go out there in the mornings to observe the sunrise.  It was a perfect perch which it seems the local birds knew about before I did.  At first, my mornings were rather silent but slowly I started getting ariel visitors on the branches.  I sadly couldn't keep up the routine for long because of changing schedules but I wonder if I would have gotten even more avian friends.  If I were to hazard a guess, I'd have to say most definitely.

"In a zoo, if an animal is not in its normal place in its regular posture at the usual hour, it means something." (98)

Initially, I had trouble believing that animals can be particularly happy in a zoo.  I guess I've heard too many protests on tv or the like.  But as I thought about it, I realized that animals are as much "creatures of habit" as we are.  Once they develop a routine, it's very hard to break.  I know my dogs get antsy if not let outside at certain times at night or if they aren't fed with 10 minutes of the usual time.  So much emphasis these days is put on spontaneity and breaking from the boring routine, but it is that routine which keeps us balanced.  I'm not saying we should stick strictly to our everyday schedules.  I simply mean that we need the regularity to have something to provide contrast with when we do break from it.

Lastly, a word on God.

This ring nebula is often called the Eye of God.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/4805889/Eye-of-God-pictured-in-space.html

"We are all born like Catholics, aren't we- in limbo, without religion, until some figure introduces us to God?" (101)

I both want to agree and disagree with this statement which could make for some confusing writing.  I guess my mixed mind stems from the difference between God and religion.  I can definitely agree that religion is not some innate quality we are born with.  It takes a couple weeks of sunday school and a few traditional holidays for most little kids to catch on to the idea of religion.  But at the sane time, I think we all naturally share an idea of something great and beyond ourselves.  For christians, it's God.  For polytheistic cultures, it's gods.  And even for atheists, there's some higher law, though not necessarily an omnipotent being.  So while definitions vary, I think that what makes life so wonderful in a sense of mystery always above ad beyond our comprehension.

Universal Creation

Wow.  Just wow.  To be honest, I haven't felt this engaged with reading in quite some time.  When I was younger, I was rather obsessed with myths from all cultures.  I would endlessly check out books on Norse, Egyptian, Greek, and even African stories.  Creation myths in particular sparked my interest.  All of them are unique to their culture yet there seem to be some universal themes that connect all of mankind.  I recalled many of the connections just with the assigned reading and I'd like to bring them up before doing an analysis on the core myths at stake here.

First of all, every creation I've ever read starts with a world covered in water.  From the Egyptian waters where a pyramid of land first arose to the African myth of one of the gods hanging off a golden chain to dump sand into the sea and create land.(http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/miranda.htm#AFRICAN)  I honestly can't think of a myth where the earth started in a solid, condensed state.

The original land mass in Egyptian myth was a pyramid, hence its religious significance.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sun_Over_Pyramid.jpg

Tangential to that, I noticed that both Genesis and Milton's Paradise Lost mention whales as one of the very first creatures created.  And I could see a connection to The Jungle Book's first creator- the elephant.  I mean, both are large, grey mammals.  I wonder why our ancestors thought of whales as some of the first to be created.  It does hold with evolution because they are one of the oldest mammals still alive today.  I just wonder how the ancient peoples realized this.

Another bit of interest is the creation of man.  ""And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (14)  Another major archetype in world cultures is the creation of man from dirt.  In the Greek tradition, the Gods tried to use gold and copper before settling on dirt being the best material to create mankind out of.  I understand that we are, for the most part, land bound creatures but I'm still intrigued why the common story has us arising from the dirt and not some other terrestrial material.

Lastly, I saw a minor connection specifically between the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil's guardian and Atlas' daughters- the Hesperides.  For in Greek myth, there exists in the far west a tree which gives immortality from its golden apples.  The Hesperides are the guardians of this plant along with the never-sleeping dragon Ladon.  And as with in the Bible where the tree is guarded by a fiery light, the Hesperides names mean the different forms of sunlight from morning to evening.

The Hesperides guarded the Tree of Immortality, similar to the cherubim in Christian tradition. http://www.fineartzdirect.co.uk/the-garden-of-the-hesperides-p-1805.html

Now, on to the major questions posed by the reading in Milton, Kipling, and Genesis.

For example, what did mankind gain from taking the forbidden fruit?  I used to believe that the tree represented the ability to reason.  That before our fall, we were as ignorant as the beasts.  But in Milton's rendition, it seems reason already exists.  "But of this tree we may not taste nor touch; God so commanded, and left that Command Sole Daughter of his voice; the rest, we live Law unto ourselves, our Reason is our Law." (41) We, in fact, had all our reasoning faculties already with us.  Before I read this piece, I always thought that Genesis was a bit backward.  That like Prometheus, we had to steal knowledge from the Gods and were now being punished for it.  I recall reading an Egyptian myth where Thoth actually sat down and taught mankind numbers and mathematics and writing.  In that case, the gods wanted us to intellectually prosper.  I thought this was in direct opposition with the portrayal in Genesis but it seems I mis read the situation.  The tree was not representative of intellectual reasoning.  Maybe it is more akin to existing as a rule simply to test the obedience of humans.  For some reason, I feel I can't quite put my finger on the meaning of the fruit.  It's no longer what I believed it was but nor is it defined in my mind.

Also in Miltons Paradise Lost, I was thinking on the logical interpretation of the dispute between Cain and Abel.  "Choicest and best; then sacrificing, laid the Inwards and thir Fat, with Incense strew'd, On the cleft Wood, and all due Rites perform'd.  His Offring soon propitious Fire from Heav'n Consum'd with nimble glance, and grateful steame; The others not, for his was not sincere." (45)  In this description, it seems offerings to God were burned (in keeping with the Greek tradition where the Gods were sustained off the perfume of burning food).  In the most obvious sense, Cain was rejected not because of God but because of science.  Simply put, meat burns with much stronger and with more aroma than green plants.  A fresh harvest would be hard to light and not necessarily be as appealing as burning fat.  Is it possible that this sin was committed all because Cain's produce didn't catch light as easily?  I think it's altogether possible.

In the last reading section, we get a new flavor of the creation myth.  It starts in much the same vein as Genesis. "In the beginning of the Jungle, and none know when that was, we of the Jungle walked together, having no fear of one another.  In those days there was no drought, and leaves and flowers and fruit grew on the same tree, and we ate nothing at all except leaves and flowers and grass and fruit and bark." (55)  But instead of humans being the central role, all of creation is doomed when the Tiger betrays them and brings fear into life in the jungle.  Man is not the one ruined so much as Man is the ruin of the animals in being fear personified.  But what I found truly curious about this story is the effect of Tiger's murder.  "Then some of us said this and some o us said that, but he saw the dead buck among the flowers, and asked who killed him, and we of the Jungle would not tell because the smell of blood made us foolish." (56)  Was the spilling of blood the loss of innocence?  Was it something that could never be undone?  Is it the specific cause that led to some of the animals becoming carnivores.  I think it answers yes to all of those questions.  And it very well holds with Cain and Abel allowing murder into this world.  I know the Jungle Book was written by human hands but it seems all of creation has made room for murder in some way.

As for some suggested myths, here's a site I found extremely helpful:
http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html
Also, note the names o the first humans in this myth and how similar they sound to Adam and Eve:
http://www.meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Ancient_religions/Europe/norse_creation_myth.htm

A Hope for a Better Future

To be honest, through the first two sections of the book I found myself certainly intrigued but also very depressed.  I seemed Ishmael was only interested in telling how Taker culture is destroying everything and I could see no salvation in sight.  And I have heavily subscribed to the train of thought depicted to the typical Taker culture.

"You die because you're at the mercy of the gods.  You die because you think the gods are going to look after you." (225)

I've always seen self-suffiency as important to a fault.  I try to rely on no one but myself and that includes divine intervention.  And through this book, I've learned it's quite the contrary way to live.  I don't always have to be fighting to find my own path.  I don't have to fear that interdependence will lead to some kind of failure.  It sort of ties back with the 7 Habits of Highly Effective People in it's explanation of interdependence but taken in the context of the whole world as a system and community.  We have to trust that if we don't mess up the world, it will provide for us.  It's difficult to let go of the reins of power but changing our story is the only way that we can end the war against nature.

Our war against nature is leaving a path of death behind us.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/05/washington-post-stephens-oil-spill.php

Now, I'd like to tackle a second subject which I personally found very intriguing because of my personal interests.  That is, the use of history in Taker culture.  Because in some weird sense we Takers are obsessed with the past.  We dig up and study artifacts for all eras and make believe what it would be like to live in that time period.  We even go as far as to reminisce on the 'good ol' days' and how life was better and simpler and people were better behaved.

"In short, ancient customs are nice for institutions, ceremonies, and holidays, but Takers don't want to adopt them for everyday living." (202)

But no matter how fascinating  or important we deem the past, we never actually try to move back in that direction.  It's all about show and pretension.  I find that particularly depressing because I personally love learning about history.  I love reading on ancient battles or long-ago voyages.  But as I examine deeper, I notice almost all of the subject matter which interests me is just the older form of the Taker culture.  I know next to nothing about the early hominids but can recite all six wives of King Henry the 8th.  I suppose it's just another area of study that I need to work on expanding upon.


Lastly, I'd like to cover our role in the ecological system as a whole.  For the first two thirds of the book, Ishmael routinely denied that mankind was meant to be the lords of the earth.  The trouble was, he never did say what we were meant to be until those last few pages.

"We were never meant to be the only players on this stage.  Apparently the gods intend this planet to be a garden filled with creatures that are self-aware and intelligent." (242)

I loved his description of being the trailblazers or pathfinders.  Of us serving as an example to all the developing intelligent life and help lead them towards a better future.  It's not that we are the rulers or the masters- we are also still growing and changing.  But the trick is to be a guide in search of living more in harmony with our planet.  I know that sounds truly "hippy" of me and maybe a little naive but why can't it be the truth?

See, even wild and domesticated animals don't have to be at odds with one another.

http://www.hvrsd.org/timberlane/students/RachelC/

"You can't say, 'We're going to change the way people behave toward the world, but we're not going to change they way they think about the world or the way they think about divine intentions in the world or the way they think about the destiny of man." (249)

On this last quote, we must remember that there is no easy answer.  There's no 12 step plan you can follow that will immediately right everything messed up in the world.  And we can't just keep making laws and hoping it will curb behaviors.  To truly change another's actions, you must change their minds. It's a longer path to take but the end result is worth the effort.

Genesis through Ishmael's Eyes

"With this name [Eve], the author of the story have made it clear that Adam's temptation wasn't sex or lust or uxoriousness.  Adam was tempted by life." (179)

Although we studied Genesis my freshman year of high school, I always found the stories frustrating in their depiction of women.  Something was always the female gender's fault.  There was never a good reason for it, except the excuse that Eve caused all of man's troubles to begin with.  But after reading Ishmael's interpretation, I'm starting to see it in a different light.  Though Eve does lead to trouble, it's not because her gender is weak, it is because she controls the ability to reproduce.  Because women are the ones who bear children, they ultimately control the population of our species.  But true to Taker culture, we are unable to accept this.  Instead explanations are made about how we are the weaker sex or some such nonsense.

Our own modern day Adam and Eve with a new sort of knowledge temptation.

http://browse.deviantart.com/?qh=&section=&q=adam+and+eve#/d1xj

But back on the topic of population control, I recall reading an article a few years ago about the Chinese "one child per household" rule and how it was effecting the culture.  Because in their traditions, the son was the one to care for his parents in their old age and carry on the family name, people only wanted to have boys.  Baby girls were put up for adoption, abandoned, or sometimes even killed.  While at first there seemed to be no major ramifications for such actions, the repercussions slowly began to manifest themselves.  There were fewer and fewer women for men to court or even marry so selective pressures gave women a huge advantage.  Yet at the same time, the illegal sales of women into the countryside for brides increased to drastic numbers.  It became a serious threat to surrounding nations.  At the same time, unmarried men, often called "empty branches," fell into less desirable pursuits such as gangs and criminal activities.  I think the article mentioned a rise in crime that most likely had its correlation with the lack of females.  It's amazing how out of balance and distorted the world can become due to only the slightest gender shift.

"Consider it.  The Takers have a knowledge that enables them to rule the world, and the Leavers lack it." (155)

The belief that agriculture will take care of us, no matter what, is a flawed belief.
But we Takers seem to follow it all the same.

http://img834.imageshack.us/i/screenshot20100726at922.png/

I've seen this attitude expressed through so many modes of interaction and multiple cultures throughout the world.  It's the hidden little secret behind our racism and sense of general superiority.  That's why the American government could order a resettlement of the Native Americans to Oklahoma.  That's why the majority of europe hated the germanic tribes.  And that's why even today we think as indigenous tribes as quaint or small-minded.  It's unfortunate and painful to see yet I feel we all partake in some bit of this prejudiced view.  One of my goals for the new year to keep a more open mind about all topics but I fear this is one area I'll have to work especially hard.

Takers and Leavers- Ishmael

First of all, I just wanted to say it feels good to be back on the ol' blog.  While I've been busy over the winter break, it's nice to sit down and give my brain a chance to think on more global issues.  I hope everyone else is feeling the same way.

Now on to business.

"Aside from these, there is no tradition whatever of prophets rising up among the Leavers to straighten out their lives and give them new sets of laws or principles to live by." (85)

I found this statement a bit unnerving in it's accuracy.  For some reason, people of "Taker" (or more commonly called Western) culture believe they need someone to tell them what to do and how to do it.  Just go into any book store and take a look at the self-help section.  It's filled with advice and programs and plans to "put your life on track."  But on track for what?  And what makes these people writing the books such experts?  Is it just because they can get their ideas down in a persuasive way?  I can understand searching for advice such as which car would be best for a family of five or something like that.  And in truth, the "Leaver" culture has a person who functions much the same way.  All human societies have had some form of a Chief or Head Honcho who was the primary source of advice.  There is no such thing as a perfectly anarchistic system.  So maybe the problem today isn't that we have leaders or experts.  I think the real problem is that we have too many people telling us what to do.  And that range of too much  knowledge is so vast that it makes you feel paralyzed and unable to make any kind of decision at all.

I'm not sure if this is a self help for writing self help books, or just self-help for life in general.

http://absentmindedoracle.blogspot.com/

"Only one thing can save us.  We have to increase our mastery of the world.  All this damage has come about through our conquest of the world, but we have to go on conquering it until our rule is absolute." (80)

When I first read this dialogue of Ishmael,  his mocking reference to how Takers think the world needs to be.  And while I can see his point, I think his statement is actually rather true- at least for a portion of human history.  Just think back to the industrial revolution.  Although we didn't quite understand what air pollution or water pollution was, we were highly engaged in producing both.  Factories just dumped waste products into the rivers, believing the planet was inexhaustible and would simply take care of our poisonous wastes.  When we did finally start seeing the effects of our careless expansion, governments finally started getting involved with regulations, restrictions, and policies to protect our natural resources. At that time, new technology was needed to clean up the mess that we so callously caused.  So Ishmael's attempt to demonize technology depends on the era.

This was a common sight during the booming industrial revolution

http://www.liv.ac.uk/researchintelligence/issue38/hitchhiking.htm

On a last note, I found Ishmael's reference to Hitler's story of the Aryan race to be quite intriguing.  Because, as we discussed last semester, Hitler did have a story of how the Germans came to be oppressed and how they could rise to glory once again.  And most of his power came from his ability to tell this story extremely convincingly.  I always knew Hitler was a master of speech but a recent movie release, The King's Speech, enhanced my understanding of his power.  As King George the Sixth said in the movie, "I don't know what he's saying but he seems to be saying it very well."