postmodernlogo_pmd1

Genesis Chapter 3-

The code of physics seems to lack the emotional and psychological constituents which have yet to have been birthed within humanity. Still, the serpent is both a psychological and an emotional emissary. That the snake can intercourse with Eve is an exceptional relic of a proto-environment where the Creator bends established rules during the establishment of the human paradigm. The emotional and psychological seem to have been birthed in the realm of the spiritual in the time of the angelic multitudes’ unity along with the seraphim and cherubim. Odd that such unstable processes, so deeply hidden in meaning even from their hosts, as emotion and psychology would originate in a realm ideal. But not having been given directly to Adam, in fact, Adam as of now knowing nothing of guile and shame, these systems clearly pre-date the Garden. Like advanced technology, the snake enters and uses systems upon Eve who is as vulnerable to mental and/or passionate manipulation as Iraqi children were to coalition air strikes. Adam knows nothing of the snake; he is ignorant of the snake as codex. This is an act of creation coming from a new direction. This snake is not God’s will spoke into existence, nor structure, having been set going, evolving within the multiplicities of other structures and their dynamics. This is not a light warming gathered water causing clouds and rain for seeds to grow plump and sprout for animals to ruminate. The snake is a character in a narrative, like God, like Adam and like Eve, even like the invisible fallen men who transcribe the text and pollute/influence its content and context. Yet the snake appears without origin story at this point. This is not narrative heresy; certainly backstory will fill in the necessary information for the whole cloth of narrative to gain its pattern and meaning. But for Eve, this is a character as powerful as the God of creation. She is born to carry Adam in all ways, to take what Adam does and nurture it, repair it, make it better even through invention, all for Adam. What does she know of ruse? What does she know of lies? She knows devotion and proto-trust. The Garden is paradise, after all, and the systems of physics are even somewhat suspended in this place of peace and harmony. What does Eve know of ulterior motive within this Garden?

And so, somewhere in the creation, a structure of emotions and psychology has been established alongside the more grand designs of the universe. Adam does not name the parts of these structures; he is as ignorant of their existence as his mate. But in the proclamation of creations being “Good” we find hints of a pre-existing emotional and psychological context for the universe. There is need of naming, implying language and social strata needs. There is need of judgment, pointing to the system of protection through which humans form alliances with that deemed good to their survival and against that deemed corrosive to the future of the individual/group. These sensations of pride, goodness, perhaps despair and aloneness are kept from Adam. As well, any insights into purpose are precluded from the neo-human system (“neo” because certainly the innocent beings represented by the Adam and Eve construct are barely recognizable in the coming narrative, and within the rules of narrative conflict would comprise poor soil for an epic tale. After all, without conflict, without loss, without the breaking of trust, the theft of trust, we have no dramatic arc to climb and no climax to reach or resolution to establish. In fact, all is resolved for Adam. Story over… if not for the snake and Eve.). It is trust that is at the epicenter of social contract. Trust allows the tentative expression of emotion (When ‘good’ is declared is there not a trust that none will counter the expression or even question it?). Trust allows the cautious expression of a personal purpose, the “am that I am”, the “I think therefore I am”, the “God is dead and I alone create reality” representing a micro-sample of the psychologies of identity. After all, isn’t the origin story, all of them, answers to the question of identity and purpose?

Eve, the supreme creation, that which will systematically endure, adapt, and ultimately control all which Adam as God structure will create, trusts. She trusts almost as the laws of physics trust their dominion (though humanity still seeks to understand that domain and its system of trust, uniformity, consistency, evolution). The biblical narrative has already established trust with its audience, else why would readers accept that which has been declared “good” to actually be good? After all, if at some point the Milky Way galaxy will collide with the Andromeda galaxy then humanity might have reason to question their security and centrality within the universe. Is annihilation through rule of physics “good” for humanity? If not, then for whose good is this “good”? Perhaps the afterlife narrative must needs have been created to address the annihilation. Imagine a narrative which at its climax kills off all characters, including the audience and the playhouse and the planet upon which the playhouse is constructed. How does such an all-consuming climax come to be resolved? In this case, by a new, parallel narrative which absorbs the mortal tale and morphs it into a spiritual tale wherein all can be ended in the era before the first day of the Genesis story. Perhaps the entire mortal narrative would have been resolved, evaporated in a nano-second, had Eve managed to work her way to a bite from the second banned tree. Would the tree of life, eternal life, eternity, not have had to immediately destroy all that is mortal? In this new, instantly-created environment, happening within the space of time it takes for Eve’s perfect teeth to sink into the fruit and her mouth’s pure saliva begin the digestive process which would lead to the anti-death, no mortal thing could exist. If the snake’s purpose had been the destruction of God’s creation, would it not make sense that it sell the tree of life to Eve and not bother with knowledge? Purpose is of course unclear in all cases and especially when developed by language as opposed to less complex act. Nevertheless, this huckster could have as easily persuaded his innocent customer of one fruit as another so there must be portent in that choice. Perhaps there is a hoary tradition far before humanity of cruelty and revenge and the poisoning of the collateral to torture the intended. Of course there is, within this narrative. Adam is not destroyed by Eve’s act; he and she and their generations are propelled into the conflict of true dramatic narrative by the shell game Eve falls victim to. Had she had the wherewithal to say no to the snake (a mental shield which she had not been provided so the choice was not available to her) the book of Genesis ends here, the scribes sheath their quills, bow their heads, and disappear into the ether of a narrative which no longer expresses the existence of scribes or generations.

So trust as a codex exists around the Garden but its occupants know nothing of it (after all, to know of trust is to be able to define it by its other, the breaking of trust, and all others which trust is not). The snake introduces the concept of trust by breaking Eve’s innocence, raping her mind, polluting her nascent emotions (she is only now going to know love/hate/shame going forward) but the snake does not invent the trust system. The snake is using trust/distrust with aplomb. A past master, an emissary with a mission, the snake is. This trust is the stability the universal laws pretend toward but never establish, the equilibrium of dark matter and dark energy which will not obtain until all light and physical matter, all time and space, are absorbed (and all sins of the system absolved).

Here is the instability of language, cruel from the first utterance. Rivers flow from paradise to places designated for the final destruction which cannot happen unless Eve is sacrificed as sinner. The onyx of one river’s destination will be the foundation of the palace of finality. The gold of another’s destination will be the tender of all greed from the sixth century BCE forward. The Euphrates, the only remaining named river of effluence from the Garden will be the site of the final horrors of Revelation. And Ethiopia, the land which the fourth river encompasses, an African land, the land of the black man, is the place of origin of all mankind, being where the earliest remnants of the bones of modern man have been unearthed and especially those of homo sapien. Here is the land of our forefathers. Here is where our genes emerge to define us. Here is Adam and here is Eve. This is the fertile ground, the Garden, of the creation narrative. These dark-skinned ancestors whose trust in mankind has been so abused by those in control of the Western Christian tradition are the fathers and mothers of the Caucasians who would deny them. There is no need for the cock to crow. The whip will sing in stead. Chains will clank. The lynch man’s noose will squeak as it tightens against the weight of the innocent’s body. The pistol will shout “I stand my ground, black man, though I kill my father in so doing!” from the hand of the white so afraid of genetic truth, so afraid of the system of social oppression that had first denied, by Supreme Court edict in 1787, the full humanity of Africans and instead declared a sub-humanity, a 3/5’s humanity to the very forefathers who defined Western humanity within the very sacred text upon which the country declared to have trust in God. From chattel to 3/5’s human to sharecropping to Jim Crow to Separate but Equal to dogmatic, systematized poverty, to defunding of educational opportunity, to blaming the victims for not having pulled themselves up by the bootstraps they had never possessed, we see the betrayal of Eve, the betrayal of Adam. And so herein comes the broken trust full circle, the snake eating its tail, its tale eaten, its unstable, polluted meaning digested, its African heritage (and foreshadowed final resting place) denied, accursed, its motherhood’s humanity suppressed, womanhood denied humanity, both victims/innocents punished for trusting in the word of those men transcribing the words of the text, those power mongers corrupted with emotions and egocentric psychological purposes, the very text that is to be the basis of all mortal law.

If (forgive me, Leonard) they said repent, repent, and we do not know what they meant, then, come, Andromeda, not soon enough.

Advertisements