postmodernlogo_pmd1

Genesis 1: 24-31- “And God… God… God… God… God… God… God… God… God… the sixth day.”

The process is of God and intended to reflect God (we) so God is also living/within the process. God creates a system within which the Creator becomes an object replaceable—intended to be replaceable—with other objects, primarily humanity but as the system warps so do the objects. By the sixth day all life forms are set in place not so much as objects but as systems to be permitted to develop new objects as necessary. This smacks of evolutionary theory and so anathema to creationist beliefs. However, my aim is not to address any binaries but to apply something of a theory of instability in the act of creation as well as in the reporting of it (given at the very least the impossibility of anything like literal translations from language to language how could I deny a literalist’s views as potentially one in a multitude of uncountable possible valid transliterated understandings of an original text produced from human/male minds inspired by holy spirit whose language itself must have been reduced in concept to impart meaning from an occult/pre-Genesis being to the limited consciousnesses which were to transcribe the origin story?). Those who wish to proselytize or impose a single view are not only welcome to their efforts but are also historically impossible to resist. In the same way, the scientific community has shown both immutable perseverance and a quasi-religious willingness to suffer for their faith. Between the binaries there is much in common from a systems perspective. Additionally, the binaries spoken of here do not represent borderlines but only milestones beyond which lay other beliefs and new discoveries leading in infinite directions including back to the rock of faith in creationism and/or the scientific method.

Is God a literalist? Given the variety of approaches to the narratives of the bible it may be easy to say there can be no literal translation intended. In day six humanity is created along with all land animals, or at least the template for such is set down. There is little specificity here as if early humanity was a template for tribal systems just as other animals are created with an explicit command to multiply. The specific beings Adam and Eve appear in Chapter 2 as a re-approach to the day six narrative perhaps, but even they are hardly literal given they are already the second version of the same narrative. Even the Christ taught through parable, allowing the story of one person’s redemption to stand for opportunity for all listening. The Ten Commandments seem as literal as we can achieve with specific do’s and don’t’s. But what is the limit on not killing? What is honor in its purest form? Ah, language, Ah, Bartleby! Ah, humanity! Perhaps this represents the inability of the human scrivener’s mind to properly conceive and describe the Creator’s intent. Literalists certainly assume a holier-than-average appreciation of divine intent in their promotion of a single concept denying any possibility of God’s infinitude of potential meanings and intents. But where would humanity be without those among us who drive themselves steadfastly forward on a single, crystalline vision? While many wars would perhaps have been avoided, many inventions and many philosophical perceptions would also have never been thrashed out to the degree necessary for identification of a thing completed. So let us allow that God is a literalist because humanity tends toward the literal and God is a reflection of those created.

At the same time, is God a scientist? Defining science is somewhat controversial and who would have the quest for knowledge any other way? Yet if in a broad approach to a definition of science as a method of experimentation, notation, adjustment and reapplication we can see the six days of Genesis, then of course God is a scientist. We do not know a purpose to the original creative act; we do not presume to know. But we can see in the blind inquiry of a scientist a similar/reflective motion from unknown to known, from darkness to light, from inert to interactive, from void to growth. A system of inquiry is merely a replication of God’s system of development. Do this, judge the results, add on one more variable, judge the results, repeat until exhausted.

Is God an artist? Again, definition is required. My working definition of art is the struggle to sidle up to the mysteries of existence and somehow expose an illuminative crack in the darkness which others might appreciate. Media and genre are open. I do not know what accounts for a mystery to the Creator but there does exist some impetus to the original act, the light-letting that would speak to a divine need to explore existence through process. And the text allows for a window for us to appreciate the art. Does a badger raise its eyes to the setting sun and appreciate the beauty of the temporal painting as it were? Perhaps. Does a child stand in awe of this same sunset? Often, yes. So there is art in them thar skies and hills and microbes and dreams. Yup.

We can go on and on. Is God a dog? As representation of all things synecdochically, yes, the whole and the parts are the same. Is God a woman? Yes. A rock? Of course. A figment of a wild imagination? At the very least and as a construct of or utter lack of complete lucidity, obviously.

Am I heretical, provocative? Yes, these objects apply in certain systems. Am I playful and provocative? Yes, in other systems. All in one and one throughout all. Are words insufficient? Yes, in almost all systems. Shall the impossibility of understanding the darkness and void quell our spirits? Nah. The blessed nah.

Advertisements