Nice exploration of how language opposes a belief, is absorbed, destabilized, and morphed to reinforce the same belief it once opposed.

Apoplectic Apostrophes

easter background Today is Easter, dear readers, which is a bit of a complex holiday. It encompasses resurrection, ascendance, rebirth, magic bunny rabbits that lay eggs, baby chickens, and chocolate. Given this complexity of beliefs and themes, I got to wondering about where the word Easter comes from. It’s interesting, so I thought I’d share what I learned with all of you.

The word Easter comes from the Old English word Easterdæg, which came from the Northumbrian word Eostre, which in turn came from the Proto-Germanic word Austron. Austron was a goddess of fertility and spring whose feast was celebrated at the spring equinox. Her name came from the root austra-, which can be traced back to the Proto-Indo-European root aus-, both meaning to shine, with particular reference to the sunrise.

This reference to the sunrise can be seen in the etymology of the word east…

View original post 211 more words


“…“…the day shit is worth money, poor people will be born without an asshole.”


And, behold, the word; Miscommunication lead to complication, My emancipation don’t fit your equation; We read magic, Now, we need the spells, to rise up, return, destroy, and create, What will be the sacred words?; Don’t say that I scare you, I can tell cause your shivering; Allow me to retort, You cowards is just now learning the shit that we taught; Can I tell ’em that I never really had a gun?; I be tossin’, enforcin’, my style is awesome, I’m causin’ more Family Feuds than Richard Dawson!; Chasing that paper like it stole something of mine; Some people feel the rain. Others just get wet; Time to take you back to the days of old, 64 Chevys, big fat gold, Out to the west where the gangstas roam, South Central, L.A., my home; I pledge allegiance to my Grandma for that banana pudding, our piece of Americana; Live tonight cuz you can’t take it with ya; We just sittin here tryin to win, tryin not to sin; But I can’t seem to find my way over; I was young, I was surviving the times, waiting for my moment, I was destined to shine; Your world is as big as you make it. I know, for I used to abide in the narrowest nest in a corner, my wings pressing close to my side;You will not be able to lose yourself on skag and skip; Pour out some liquor and I reminisce, cause through the drama I can always depend on my mama; You may write me down in history with your bitter, twisted lies,; What is success if we can’t reach back, And drop a jewel, in today’s schools, they don’t teach that our ancestors were kings and queens, peep that; I am God— Without one friend, alone in my purity. World without end; only where you sing, I poet.


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.

Genesis 3: 1-7

And what choice does she have, this last and greatest object/system Eve? She has of course no choice. Her creation is necessity. Without Adam, the object/system, there can be no known universe. There can be a universe perhaps but one unknown, an unconscious place where the Creator alone, along with the primals to whatever extent they have sentience, observes, takes note, appreciates and declares its goodness. Adam must exist as an audience of appreciation and wonder and worship. So much of the text implies God’s demand for obsequiousness/worship/love. The need is within God’s system. Adam the object/system will fulfill that need, the audience of one not-primal. And to this Adam system is given the power over words, the all-power, power over that which creates conscious reality, without which all wonderful somethings would remain undefined, undifferentiated, unworshipped, unloved. Adam gives names as God gave names. But Adam does not have power to judge and lacks power to create as well. Who will hear Adam’s names? Who can if Adam is alone and communication with the deity is top-down and not bottom up. Only praise should rise. Judgment comes from on high. And those words Adam is giving to things, what of them? What audience has he? And without audience isn’t purpose pointless/empty? So an audience is needed to complete the language system. A receptor for Adam’s emissions, sexually but more importantly, so much more importantly to the God purpose, linguistically. Eve, born asexually, a product of alchemy or physics, rises to be the help meet.

As a “help” she will help/benefit/save/ aid/ascend/assist/bless/comfort/dominate/gratify/ improve/ influence/ master/ protect/ recognize/ profit/ sanction/ support/ start/ admonish/ advise/ aid/ caution/ counsel/ direct/ dissuade/ consult/ encourage/exhort/forewarn/guide/inform/ instruct/judge/ persuade/ teach/ accent/ ornament/ accompany/ extend Adam. As help she will be his help/authority/ boon/ choice/ convenience/edge/eminence/ expediency/ interest/ lead/ asset/leverage/ luck/ power/pre-eminence/ preference/prestige/ resource/ wealth/ charge/ news/ opinion/ prescription/ recommendation/ addition/adjunct/adornment/ appendage/ appendix/appliance/ appurtenance/attachment /component/decoration/extra/frill/ supplement/trimming. She will save him from emptiness of purpose and adorn him with a beauty he will yearn for (remember here that Eve is an object/system so in this her gender is not relevant, only her function, so she can be male or she can be a son or daughter or mother or uncle as long as the function is apt).

As a “meet” she will be not merely a mate but an assembly conjoined or united but not the same as in a mirror image but more linguistically because she will be the object by which Adam can be defined, the not-Adam closest to him, of him, literally bone of his bone but unlike in function/system/purpose. As the Creator imposed will upon a void and darkness, Adam imposes names and so functions vis a vis humanity. An Eve object/system is necessary for Adam’s names/functions to act upon or work within. Just as in the riddle of the tree falling in the forest and whether the making of a sound is possible, Adam is a force imposing himself in a vacuum if there is no Eve to recognize the Adam code. In short, it is not a question of the tree making a noise in absence of a human’s hearing, it is simply that the tree does not exist, cannot exist without recognition. A tree falling becomes one with the void of crickets chirring and wind singing and water babbling; all not existing without audience.

To reference the tree conundrum a last time, if the tree falls and its noise is not understood, then it is still undifferentiated from the crickets and rain. A system of differentiation must exist within the mind of the audience (again the plural consciousness curiosity appears). This system of differentiation is language at its most basic function. A thought is not developed without differentiation, be it image or word object within the mind of the thinker (bio-feedback aside for now as we do not want to wander into the language—probably chemical/electrical/ gravitational—the body uses to communicate with itself; be it satisfactory for now to recognize and differentiate the bio-language as not conscious thought language but just as valid a communication in that any misinterpretation of data communicated might well be lethal to the organism). The audience requires an understanding of a linguistic system, unstable as it is doomed to be in the multi-valence of objectivity within infinite systems. Eve requires understanding/knowledge to perform her function. Knowledge, as Bloom points out, is the basis upon which learning progresses and without which it does not. There is no question of Eve choosing to be beguiled by the snake’s self-serving, thinly-veiled argument. Surely Eve without a system of understanding is incapable of defending herself against even the simplest of syllogistic logic or argument. She can be persuaded of anything. Adam as well, but his need is not understanding since he has been given the function of imposing language. He will always be meaningful to himself just as a mad person functions within his own language—in fact, it is because his language functions only for him that he is deemed insane. In this way, Eve will save Adam from the madness of a language lacking social relationships, again always admitting the fragility and instability of these intercourses.

So Eve does not need the snake to revolt against a prohibition of partaking of the tree. She was created to revolt against this sanction just as the void or the undifferentiated water (we do not fully understand the primals’ specific functions) will absorb created light just as the singularities at the center of all galaxies absorb all light, gases solids. She must understand language, Adam’s words, to function as his “help meet.” So she must revolt, absorb understanding, take in the light, and like the black holes which define galaxies become impregnated with the energies of the linguistic universe, grow to full term, then explode outward, imposing new energies on the universe, releasing the pent-up energy quasar-like to become the Adam function, the Creator system. She cannot be fecund without the absolute power to release life forms, thus in her way overtaking Adam’s given strength over words. The Eve object absorbs Adam’s names and makes something new of them, leaving him behind as it were, a resource she feeds upon but ultimately dominates.

Eve becomes master just as an audience takes power over text and an author diminishes in importance. The text/word put forth, the Creator/namer loses control of interpretation. That power is Eve’s. But hierarchy is irrelevant in a clearly understood system. The brain may seem master over the body, but as the old crude joke posits, when the anus shuts down the shit backs up and the brain is at its mercy. You, therefore, do not have to be a brain to be a boss, only an asshole. The nugget of insight which triggers this joke is that within a system all parts must function equally and none has hierarchy. The CEO should recognize with reverence the maintenance crew or the night shift of haggard, underpaid cleaning crew. The system does not recognize ego/position/salary. While Eve takes control over creation and language, she gives back the energy and the system communicates, grows, functions.

So as Eve is the quasar releasing pent up energy, the garden by the laws of multiplication would fill up and overrun its walls. Eve functions here again as rebel, but only in name, over which she holds sway. She accepts her revolutionary position. She is the catalyst of change and leads the necessary expulsion from the garden. There is no humanity without her indiscretion.

God creates Adam from whom Eve is created who creates the possibility of an ongoing system allowing the God of our consciousness to create Adam from whom… Infinity is the snake eating itself, rather an infinity of the snake’s head eating an infinity of its tails Gordian-knot like. The black hole absorbs the galaxy in the death of the star until, full-term, its quasar releases energy into the universe, big-bang-like, to create a galaxy at the center of which is a black hole absorbing the universe. We struggle to envision the singularity in which we exist, living as we do at the core of a black hole, seeing only the incoming light from our perspective and only predicting through theoretical physics and the language of mathematics an event horizon enclosing us until growth multiplies as it is must to release us from this Eden into the next, micro objects in a system which the system must sustain to maintain itself on a macro level and within the requirements of differentiation by which existence is defined.


Genesis 2:25

The narrative has already established innumerable patterns which will be both repeated and altered. The Author has completed the script though Genesis, the first book of the longer work, is hardly even begun. From this point forward the divine creative act is completed because the creation of systems and the relegation of power (always a chimera in any system because the system will out over singular decree or morph to recover systemic stasis/success) dictate linearly and within the infinite circuitry. The Reader is in the seat of control over the text from the creation/expulsion of Eve and her mate forward. The Reader interprets an occult narrative. Time, language, consciousness, intent, history, personality, purpose culture and a wealth of other variables destabilize any truth (Truth) including those declared as being the divine Truths (because language, translation, intent pollute the purity of the divine message and audience/reader collapses/expands meaning beyond any original clarity/meaning/intent). The Holy Text is unreliable even to the literalist. There exists not one being capable of answering all questions the text generates, only interpretations upon which the fearful, lonely audience hungrily settles. Faith is a tool of the sane to function alone within any one society (or the global) just as law, science, philosophy and the arts are tools for exploration/explanation of the human condition.

The Creator having transferred limited power establishes the transfer of power in law and government. Adam is the God metaphor. Caine is then the Adam metaphor. The power of the biblical text is both immutable and under unending appeal. Eve can be seen as the metaphor for the primal water, essential to continuing life, reactionary, and without enemies. Opposing the mother symbol is suicide/death/non-existence/the inert. As Oshun, the Yoruba goddess of water, the other wife of Shango, the god of all masculinity, has no haters because she rules over the primal water (the only thing existing in Yoruba mythology pre-creation as opposed to the various primals identified in the biblical text) which cannot be opposed without annihilation, Eve and her successors will flow through the violence and judgment of  the ages, assaulted, yes, but protected simultaneously. Desire and its perversions do not represent hate of the female, though they will be as cruel as any hate. Dismissal of the female as voice is generally universal. After all, Adam is given power over naming and words. Yet, she uses other languages, expressions including physical and psychological, positional and emotional, facial and, yes, the claiming of ownership of male language for her own purposes. Eve will repeat the system of revolt and condemnation knowing she is as irreplaceable as water and thus resolutely invincible in an unstable reality.


Genesis 2: 8-14-Planted a garden eastward…and a river went out… and from thence it parted, and became into four heads… The name of the first.. and the name of the second… and the name of the third… And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

There is a shift from an organicist plan of horizontal systems supporting vertical stacks of vaguely named objects designed to permit a certain freedom of development through the clash of systemic rules and the subsequent condensation or sublation resulting in new synthetic processes and more importantly to phylogeny the birth as it were of new objects/phyla/critters, to an atomistic focus. The specificity of the garden, this one garden here, eastward (of no distinct reference) with an unnamed river as irrigant of the garden then to be definitively quartered into major rivers is a movement toward the discrete and controlled away from the luxuriance of interweaving constructs. While this stands in opposition to “normal” river confluence from tributary to larger flow, it may well simply represent a spring source or mountain snowpack source. This is for others to ponder in geologic terms or in the feverish quest to “locate” Eden, the ark, Atlantis, etc. What I find interesting is the specificity, the determinism built into the narrative here. Adam had been given the privilege to name the plants and animals but these four rivers seem to have been pre-named (though no name is given to the source). It is as if only what exists within Eden is Adam’s/humanity’s to name/control. Beyond the realm of people God retains naming rights as well as control. Were I to say to a person within a room that she has all control and right to linguistic choices (mostly the same thing because language is reality as what and how we classify objects and processes is how we perceive/experience our realities– this last phrase itself impossible to truly grasp since how would the whole of humanity agree upon what our reality would be, given the less we know the more sure we tend to be of our opinions while the more we learn the more open-ended and inclusive our opinions tend to be) but she cannot exit the room nor control that which is beyond the walls, would she feel master of her universe and free or confined and oppressed even in paradise? Is that thing we refer to as human nature somewhat thirsting for a ruckus over what we are told we cannot have or do? Is this not proven in the need for the tenth and summarizing commandment against coveting, itself only an extension of the basic premise of all ten that theft will not be tolerated on any level, that theft destroys the possibility of civilization be it theft of the name of the Godhead, theft of honesty, theft of belongings, respect, what have you? Humanity is hostage within Eden through limited control over language by a system of limitation on understanding. Where the mother effluvial source breaks free of Eden and separates into not-tributaries, the human animal breaks free from linguistic control through consciousness of self and other and scatters/migrates/searches as far as the globe will permit terrestrial movement until technological advances begin to open even the heavens to our wanderlust. This is the mirror stage of human development in biblical terms.

What names these four great rivers are given by God are erased in humanity’s transliterated chaos/control. Three rivers have lost their names entirely and we pretend that the river originally named Euphrates is the same one the Creator chose a name for. But this is as absurd as to assume that a Juan from millennia ago is the same Juan we parlay with at the stock exchange. Erosion, death, rebirth and language will have done their magic upon that long gone Juan/Euphrates and we remain the audience gasping at illusion, in this case the illusion of any permanency in names. That the four rivers are given names, given directions of flow and specific resources seems to imply God’s awareness of the soon to come uprising in Eden and the subsequent expulsion/freedom of its human captives. There will be exiles and so there must be a place of exile. For the ex-incarcerated it is better to wander in Nod hurting, shamed, curious, inventive than to exist in paradise ignorant as lambs. This echoes Milton’s fallen Lucifer saying “Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.” As we are God, we also are the contrary. Just as Lucifer was cast out to Pandaemonium so we are cast out to wander Nod. Just as heaven was not enough so Eden was neither. Oddly, though, that hunger for power over self, that unyielding need to recognize no power greater than our own logocentrism does not obliterate the divine gift/sustenance that is charity and concern for the other. At this level in human development, giving up of self in the service of others, we find self-fulfillment, nirvana into obliteration of self toward absorption into the universal process, enlightenment. As we give of ourselves, so we give light. We say, in the rocky, violent landscape “Here. Take this for you and yours. I want you to have more by my having less. I am enriched by this.” We say through charity– the opposite of theft– “Let there be light,” and return to the God of creation.