Not yet Genesis 2:4 (or perhaps 2:4- 25 pt.1, or 2:18 and more)

It is not good that man should be alone;

So, six days of marvelous effort exhaust the creative energy. Focus on creation of anything, a business decision, writing, the answer to a pending question, is enervating. But this act of production is simultaneously a state of preparation. Concepts turn into actions leaving fallow space for new concepts. In this not-empty space vacated by the output of thought/conception/initiation, incubation of new concepts begins. Nature abhors a vacuum. This is a systemic rule and applies to the human mind as well. Our minds(?), as reflections of the divine mind(?), will not allow a vacuum of ideas. There the chemical/electrical activity moves along; it does not stop. In the emptiness left behind from the putting forth of concepts are the beginning of other concepts, many, many, many from which to choose (as in what choices the Creator faced in choosing the universe to be created). Enter the seventh day. The incubation process is greatly accelerated by the down-time of rest, the phase of absence of focus, the open field whose crop is already sown but whose dominant growth (this is where we leave farming behind) has not yet chosen itself. In the sleep state, our minds (there is that odd phrase even again) roil with possibilities existing outside the rules of what we call reality or even logic. In dreams lie the mad concepts that cannot be done. But only that which has not been done cannot be done and the creative act stands as if enemy of the impossible, ready to do what has not and therefore cannot be done. The resting/sleeping/absence/dream realm is the locus of insight illumination (where day seven is swallowed by day one and light is let be). New values, new ideas, new systems, new objects are birthed in the ether/nothingness/purposelessness. Follows the tedium of action/building and verification/judgment.

On day six humanity appears grouped alongside the mammals and given dominion over all. But grouped. Here is early man, partly aware, somewhat erect, opposable thumbs at ready but upper-level thinking not so much. Primates become monkeys and apes become hominine wherein the appearance of the larynx permits the development of future languages. Bipedal homo erectus further differentiates the human lineage from other mammals. Perhaps these are man of day six. Somewhere the brain of our human ancestors grew, the skull along with it. Awareness along with it as well. In evolutionary terms, this is modern humans, homo sapiens. In Genesis, this is Adam and Eve, perhaps post-day seven man, crudely but divinely the missing link eluded, bound, leapt past. God creates all, including the system to evolve humanity, rests/restores/focuses and then creates man and woman, we say “modern man”, with a specificity to fit the narrative text, the audience and transcribers of the universal code.

What is the difference between man in our image and Adam the individual unique person? A name does not make him unique. He is a name as the whale is a name. Power does not make him unique. Power is of God and of the systems of God. Adam cannot be defined as a unique human until Eve is created (and named as other) because Adam does not define himself, he is defined by what he is not. Certainly not bird nor fish, not light nor water (though the primals must always play a part) but not a deer, lion nor lamb. Alone, Adam is not all the things that exist. He is exclusive and singular. He is Godlike pre-Genesis in that all other primals are different from God. God creates Adam in our image perhaps in order to define God. In this way it has been said by others already that God could not exist without man. Perhaps an essence that was the Author existed, but the divinity requires something over which to be divine by comparison. Eve is thus a replication of the process by which God defines existence. Adam defines God by God being not Adam (though similar) or anything else created. Eve defines Adam by being not Adam (though similar) or anything else created. The closer the comparison the more focus there is to identity. That I am not the wall beside me is not of much value in my identification. Even that I do not resemble any wall anywhere is of little more use in defining who I am. That I am not my brother seems much more useful given all the character traits we share (that is, we share in being not like other people) but are not similar in other ways. However, if I decide that I will from this point on act like a wall (or if I act like a wall metaphorically such as in blocking the ideas of others), then I begin to become a wall. If I act in every way exactly as my brother (a rare possibility indeed) then I become my brother, replace my brother, duplicate my brother in function within the system even though I do not necessarily look like him (as we might use a silver coin in place of a lost white piece to play a game of Backgammon; the coin functions within the system as a white piece and so all recognize its identity though it appears different on surface). Not until Even exists can Adam hope to self-identify through his human function. Bio-feedback aside (a system of self-identification we share with probably all living things to a lesser or greater degree) animals may not recognize themselves within the  systems in which they exist. That may be an arguable point but a premise I will work with. This identification is impossible without self-awareness, knowledge, the original sin, a mirror by which we can judge ourselves as separate from the other, as doing things the other cannot or will not do. This self-knowledge is critical to humanity taking the dominance it has been ceded. Herein, it seems as though the tree of knowledge may have been a code patch/experiment. As though God realizes that in creating only one human the replication of God is incomplete. As Adam is given the reflective mirror of Eve, the ability to define himself is set in place. God is aware that Adam is different (he serves a different function). Adam is not aware that Eve is different (without sexual behavior their system code may have been simply shared/indistinguishable survival behavior). Eve, then, needs to provide that awareness through the knowledge of the tree. Her role will be herbivore/nurturer/receiver. Then and only then can Adam become carnivore/destroyer/intruder (sexually and metaphorically among other systems).

Eve imagines a different reality through the serpent’s suggestions. She replicates the Creator’s divine imagination which was required to envision the universe of the six days’ work. For this she is punished, feels shame and guilt. After all, she cannot function as God (can we?). But her punishment/banishment can not be exclusive or her creation for the purposes of Adam’s identity fails as a system. She must, which is in her system code, include Adam in her guilt and nurture this acceptance of divine knowledge. Their functions established, the two prototypes have identity established (but not biologically as one would assume, that would be simply identifying a thing by characteristics or origin, which is a failed system). Their functions define them and these functions will define masculine and feminine in generations to come regardless of biological gender and shifting within the requirements/opportunities of engagement with the other.