Taken as a simple story, we can outline
the elements and schema of Genesis I-III in broad strokes:
In the first garden, our species — represented here by
a man and a woman — have an adventure resulting in unexpected
circumstances — and the outcomes look dire compared to
circumstances prior to the event.
The basic schema is oriented toward an accident, a theft, a
deception, a misunderstanding, and real or implied ‘disobedience’
to some authority. How we most generally look upon, value and
judge these elements has the most profound effect on what we
make of the story as a whole.
For the moment I suggest we suspend all
of these judgments entirely. Literally, set them aside. Let
us presume for the moment that the real shape of what is happening
is about a thousand times more interesting than any of the toys
of it we have seen — both in terms of being ingeniously
crafted — and in being playfully revealing. From this
perspective we may take a closer look at the schema of plot
we are commonly offered in a bit more detail:
There is a first garden where a man and
woman are assembled, and live with(in) something akin to the
penultimate sentient hyperstructure — or God. They cannot
‘be in contact’ with this God because they are already
one ‘of it’. They are ‘of its kind and likeness’,
in the same way ‘a cell in your heart’ is of your
kind and likeness. Or in the way a cow is an instance of the
kind and likeness of a quadruped, with(in) the bubble of a living
planet-animal.
Apart from be fruitful, enjoy dominion
and multiply — the only advice from the hyperstructure
they are in common unity with is this: don’t touch
or eat the fruit of a certain Tree. To do so is to die
within ‘a day’.
It appears that the first admonition
may pertain to something akin to the human concept of a poison
or drug, which results in the separation of death. This is an
admonition against some form of permanent travel
(we must leave and cannot return to the Garden). I am also suggesting
that it is an admonition to avoid something essentially mimetic;
something which poses as the only or best transport to an already-at-hand
‘reward’. In effect, it mimics a benefit that we
already possess, but our possession exists in a dimension unique
from that which will be delivered by direct contact with this
momentum.
Later, the woman ‘who was made
from the rib of the man’ is talking to a ‘low agent’
at the Tree in question. This subtle agent ‘tells her’
that eating the fruit will not result in death, but
in ‘transformation’.
The agent implies that consuming the forbidden fruit will result
in ‘pleasant seeing’ or ‘a sort of visual
wisdom’ and ‘greater likeness with the Maker’.
The woman eats of the tree, and finds
it as foretold by the serpent. She offers the fruit to her companion,
and He eats of it also. Somehow during this process ‘their
eyes are opened’ and they acquire a new sense-compass:
a division of sorts — and one that multiplies.
The implication is that the woman, eating the fruit, knew fear
— and offered it to the man without properly warning him
of the negative results of this ‘new seeing’.
This acquisition is referred to as knowledge
of good and evil. When we boil this down, this emerges
the psychological and emotional reality of the experience of
polarity, which is proceeded in schema by separation.
It was this, that the council of the Serpent, who was the most
subtle of creatures, implied was the power of the Maker —
God. Not ‘as gods’ but ‘as Elohim IS’.
In other words, the offer (or temptation)
is to accrue greater likeness with ‘makers’ or ‘those
who assemble universes’ by their nature and activity.
A ‘more complete’ likeness — which will be
accomplished with the addition of ‘something which must
be missing’.
The problem is simple, in
essence: any participant in a sentient hyperstructure already
possesses the power of the entire hyperstructure. The trade
suggested to Eve in Genesis is an elementally predatory (and mimetic)
one. Trade everything there is, for
the tiniest sliver of the tiniest sliver of a single frozen reflection
of it.
The result wasn’t knowledge at
all. It was a single frozen position in an endless living garden
of available positions and movements. The snake taught Eve and
Adam how to play an incredibly addictive (and terrifying) game
of something like ‘freeze tag’ with(in) the domains
of reflective ‘self-reference’.
o:O:o
This caused vast repercussions.
Adam and Eve experienced a randomly changeable separation which
could never be escaped — like a piece of something really
sticky, stuck to the wagging tail of one’s mind —
which enforces its own agenda upon the character of the movements
of the tail in a way that gains precedence geometrically with
time. And it grew, fast. Knowledge was alive, and it
was dividing — and it was dividing them from themselves,
their sources, and each other in the process. It effectively
‘replaced connective terrain with copies of likenesses
of itself’ in a way akin to cellular reproduction.
The knowledge-portion they received by
exposure to ‘the fruit of the strange tree’ was
merely involuntary and permanent access to a possible
experiential or perceptive position where it could be ‘very
bad’ to be, for example — ‘naked’. But
once we were exposed to the explosive growth, sovereignty, and
progress of this new attachment to our minds the momentum was
unstoppable. These first children had swallowed a seed too much
like themselves — in the wrong domain; and this seed magnified
by dividing itself — into scalarly amplifying waves of
unique embodiment.
Adam and Eve were not merely made able
to, but permanently obliged to simulate: to put what
is ‘only idea’ before and above (in meaning-sovereignty
over) what is ‘actual ’ and accessible.
Once this happened, the chances
of reversing it — while not impossible — were extremely
slim. The perspective needed to address this new problem disappeared
into what was traded away when we got the reflection-making
machine that we were left with in the wake of the accident.
Thus the ‘knowledge’ was
like ‘a bad magnet’. Once located, the harder you
ran from it — the faster it chased you, and it duplicated
itself with every move. It could not be ‘set aside’,
and it kept growing into pictures of children of itself...
This was separation, and death.
And the knowing of this separated them from all they had been
in profoundly co-generative unity with, before.
o:O:o
The story is told symbolically
— and yet the ‘best form-meaning’ for these
vehicles is what we must ferret out if we are to gain any benefit
from exposure to it. In essence, their general shapes
(not our specific ideas or idea-shapes) are correct and are
clues to the correct ‘meaning-value-shapes’
we should endeavor to paint them with in our experience, understanding
and expression of them.
We are challenged to ‘plug them
into’ the meanings that will reveal what is actually
being spoken about — most accurately
(with ever-attenuating accuracy), as well as what is most
generally being meant. We have ‘no codice’
that will allow us to exchange what is written on the surface
for ‘that which it represents’ — this is a
part of why our species is so fascinated with ‘moving
pictures’. A large part of the obstacle that faces us
in this is simple: specificity.
If we were to realize that the story
is supra-general (meaning it is general in such a way as to
become auto-inclusive of new dimensions of reference merely
by the species of generality it primarily expresses) —
we will find that it ‘means something’ that is ‘more
about ways and emergence’ than it is about ‘good
and bad deeds’. Genesis is in fact a revelation related
to discernment about ‘what is good and what is evil’
— but not in the dimensions or ways we commonly or even
religiously apply. It is ‘actually a manual’ about
human cognition. And what it contains is so profound that I
hesitate to attempt to encode it. It contains a transentient
doorway that leads directly into experiential contact with its
source.
It is ‘the ultimate’ sort
of writing: it erases itself, and forms a ‘little
path of lights’ that lead directly to the source of its
crafting, and ‘nature’ (the schema from and for
which it emerges). In other words — in a way we would
intellectually believe to be impossible, it was actually engineered
(so to speak) to ‘lead us cognitively to a direct experience
of the why of itself.
It is with
these and similar perspectives that we can establish the liberal
terrain required to understand things about this story that
have never been openly understood: perhaps not even
by ‘those who crafted it’ thousands of years ago
— and all throughout its translations, and ‘echoes’.
There are good reasons (especially in
the modern moment) why we do not commonly get a glimpse of what
was actually handed down to us in Genesis (and similar documents
or traditions of other or related faiths), and understanding
them can grant us a profitable starting position. Primary amongst
them is that we insist on ‘reading’ this text in
modern English (already a bad idea) and then only in
English (a worse idea). To add to our injury, we further insist
that ‘we already know the natures and purposes of the
characters in the story’ — and that we know them
with metaphors born and crafted for English encoding and
transmission. It’s not surprising that these things
are true, after all, ‘we have no other language’
to use. Yet our ideas about this are not entirely true, because
as living beings we can imbue our actual language with things
there are no words for.
The story is in code, but it is a code
written by and for children. There were no ‘experts’
then, and wisdom and knowledge were considered vastly distinct
in purpose and character — unlike our modern experience,
where knowledge trumps wisdom entirely, and thus inclusively
supercedes it. English simply does not possess metaphors
that match what we must explore, and thus ‘in substituting
the best match’, over time most of what was important
about Genesis (a seemingly simple tale) was utterly obscured.
Our common and constantly expanding confusion
in our active understanding of Genesis is the result of little
more than ‘the failure to maintain highlights’ or
emphasis that were lost to many aspects of change in culture
forward on the timeline from this story’s original inscriptions.
Yet interestingly, it is unlikely that there was ever a clear
and common understanding of what the elements in the story actually
told of — except perhaps to a learned or almost madly
religious elite — and what good was that? The super-learned
could be of benefit, but their understanding was hardly easily
communicable. And the feverishly religious were often considered
and experienced as little more than madpeople.
These lost highlightings would be far
more apparent and available to our remark were we able to understand
that they are a poem, and that the poem is written in code —
and that the makers of the code were enlightened children —
not tyrants of admonition. Such a perspective might be more
available were we to have to opportunity to see it in a language
more alike with the treasures it is carrying — say, for
example a language like Hebrew. But we can also translate
more adeptly, by including what would be revealed from such
a perspective in our own stories about these events.
We must bear in mind that the perspectives
I am presenting are toys — they are meant to be very general
and somewhat playful — and their power is when our contact
with them is preserved in this light. This allows us to not
create dogma — but instead to engage in a game of accuracy
attenuations — what we might call scalar optimization
in the dimension of general accuracy. A child would call this
‘play’ and be far more accurate.
So we shall proceed to craft a toy, of
a formative dimension of potential (somewhat more feminine than
masculine) we’ll call The Other Bubble, and another dimension,
Our Bubble, which is a (co-emanitve) manifestation
of this other place. The Other Bubble is ‘located’
once outside, with(in), behind, underneath, and above that which
we call ‘the physical universe’ or Our Bubble —
(time, space, matter, organism, energy, forms, &c).
The Other bubble has ‘no dimension’ as we understand
dimension — it doesn’t ‘have’ any qualities
at all — at least, none which are static.
In our toy, every form, context, transport
and even every idea (and the precursors and assembly-modes of
concept itself) — that arises in the realm of our human
experience — is actually emerging into our bubble,
as an expression of activity in The Other Bubble.
Participants,
activity, contexts and transports — and even stories and
character and meaning from The Other Bubble — emerge in
our universe as reflective manifestation. In other
words, ‘over here’ essential polarities
are often reversed in ways we might expect with light —
but some of these reflective reversals are in domains of value,
size, gender, speed, meaning, or form or metaphoric ‘possession’
(as in a possessive noun or statement) as we see as we progress.
|
