Surprised that there is no mention of Genesis as the First Book of Moses, part of the Jewish Torah, and the Hebrew Creation myth - and as for "the woman," I should have thought the commentary might have mentioned Adam's first wife, Lilith, who was written out of the story because she believed in equality and refused " to obey" the man.

Six billion stories and counting...

Now that, Daviy, is both interesting and informative. Thank you.

Is there even the slightest whiff of proof for any of this surreal nonsense?

The point of 'interpretation', as I understand it, is to make clear something that is obscure. Now, there is nothing obscure about Genesis whatsoever. It is perfectly clear; and it is totally incorrect. The only reason to 're-interpret' it -- apart from trying to obtain religious kudos -- is for entertainment purposes. And if this is the kind of material that OO considers valuable, then I have some great interpretations lined up:

Little Red Riding Hood -- a predictive allegory of paedophilia?

Jack and Jill -- primitive financial forecasting and the first documented appearance of trickle-down economics.

Humpty Dumpty -- early recognition of the role of calcium in maintaining structural integrity in the body.

I await the call from the OO moderators with eager anticipation.

Congratulations, that article was almost as useful as the Bible itself, in other words, not at all. Both your piece and the "good" book are full of multi-interpretable, extraneous, irrelevant drivel.

I've got an interpretation of Genesis for you. None of it is *meant* to mean anything. It's just cobbled together bits of tradition by multiple writers from the pre-science era of human myth and superstition, where anybody's ramblings could (if repeated often enough by enough people) become lore/law.

Actually, on second reading, I still can't work out if the article is meant as a criticism, an alternative, or a tongue-in-cheek parody of the subject. So forgive me if I took it the wrong way. :D

Yep, that about sums it up HADZ...............couldn't have said it better myself

Just a very quick comment, of the top. People have rushed to judgement mighty quick and athiest orthodox Christian or whatever, seem to miss the point.
The essay is about myths (or not, depending on your beliefs), explanations and how where and why these might or might not change over time. The writer is not peddling an agenda; not telling you all to get to church or you'll get zapped with a lightning bolt. He's talking about why and how people might think about their origins and purpose and what constitutes value and meaning in what we call life. There is actually a lot of Jung in his approach.
Musing on what the Genesis story and its variations involve concerns a plausible characteristic of humanity; its "consciousness", what tensions exist within whatever mechanism(s) that might comprise the "mind" and how it works and what that might mean, and mind in relation to different possible concepts of "soul", as to value, meaning and possibility.
Well done, "onlione opinion". I always find these occasional excursions into metaphysics as useful for offering an additional component in developing a vantage point for consideration of more mundane issues, such as revealing background structure and issues as to culture wars, then politics, etc.

My goodness! The book of Genesis has been studied and written about for almost 2000years and the writing still goes on. I wonder at the arrogance of someone who bursts into print with a complete disregard for the scholarship that has preceded. For example, the puzzle of the two creations of man is explained in the source hypothesis that divides up the priestly account (the creation in seven days) and the Yawhist account, the story of the garden of Eden. These are two separate stories that have been placed side by side. This has been know since the nineteenth century. The idea that circle of Willis was the place of Eden is very strange. To be frank, articles like this only increase the difficulty of writing theology for the general public.

Peter Sellick

David - you might enjoy "The J Bible", a bit tongue in cheek but makes some good points re the obvious redacting by various groups/entities jockeying for influence.
Bearing in mind the Pentateuch (first five books) were complied during the Babylonian Exile to guard agains the hebrews eliding away to other, more congeial gods, it's hardly surprsing that it's banal & derivative.

I, for one, enjoyed this. It's an interesting exercise in taking an alternative reading of a traditional text. It illustrates clearly that texts, including the Bible, are open to interpretation.

On the other hand, it's a bit disappointed that it is shouted down so quickly. I have a feeling many of the detractors missed the point of the article - of course, I may have missed it as well. We are, as this article clearly indicates, all entitled to our own interpretations.

Paul
I was waiting to see if anyone understood my article enough to realise that I am only using Genesis as a story to explain a hypothesis. I have no idea if there is any physical truth in my explanation of Genesis. Nobody does.
It should have been clear from the first paragraph that this was a commentary, and the way the judgment came straight in was disappointing.
I use Genesis as a story to illustrate a basic hypothesis.
1. To be conscious we need an internal mirror. The proof of two entities in the human head is basically beyond doubt thanks to split brain theory.
2. If the two entities where identical twins it would be a seamless experience. We would have no concept of it.
3. The introduction of judgment breaks the bond and the two entities become the soul and the ego causing internal conflict.
4. A possible way past the internal conflict is to eliminate judgment so that consciousness once again becomes a seamless experience.
I had to leave a lot out of the article because of the word limit imposed by OLO. For anyone may be interested I have placed a longer and more detailed version of the hypothesis on my website.
You will find it about half way down the introductory blurb on the index page. Included is a diagram of the Garden of Eden and the Circle of Willis and they are remarkably similar, which makes it easy for me to use Genesis.
Sells. Same old tactics. You use Christian sources to prove Christianity. This is fallacious and nothing more than self congratulating in-breeding.
Christianity does not have a monopoly on Genesis and your input carries no more weight than any one else. If there is any arrogance Sells it is on your part with your usual pompous assertions delivered with an air of authority that is utterly misplaced.

Dear Paul and Daviy,

"Christianity does not have a monopoly on Genesis and your input carries no more weight than any one else." - Daviy

Agree. Genesis was ancient when Christianity split from Judaism.

Around Jesus' time, it was being written, as is evidenced by the Dead Sea Scrolls.

One might think of Shakespeare's "Hamlet" in the Completed Works as being fully original. Fact is, that in Elizabethian times favourite themes were often revisited by playwrights. For example, Hamlet may had several versions and interpretations before Shakespeare's definitive contribution.

Changes act like Chinese whispers and meanings transmute. Original meanings are lost - edited out. After several revisions, it becomes necessary to have a substantial revision to reinstate integrity, where the errors are obvious. (The same basic principle applies to calendars.)

Likewise, Genesis would have been through centuries of drafts, wherein, the Work needs to re-engineered to fit contemporary purposes. Herein, Daviy's contribution has validity in that his interpretation is one in an ongoing series of drafts.

Oly

It all goes back to, or rather extends, in every present moment, from trees. Doesnt it.

The body-mind of Man, male or female, arising in, pervaded by, and sublimed by the Love-Bliss-Radiance of the Infinitely Radiant Field of Indestructible Conscious Light---aka the "garden of eden".

And what is the tree, or the tree of life?

It is the skeletal structure of the human body-mind, especially the spinal column and its upper terminal the brain--with its two halves, the "male"-left and "female"-right sides. This structure provides (or is) the channel, via the central nervous system, and its sympathetic and para-sympathetic extensions (ida and pingala), by which the entire body is enlivened with Radiant Energy or SHAKTI

In the truly sane, Spiritually Awake person, centred in the Heart, these structures are fully awake in a state of balanced equanimity. Neither the left or the right side being "superior", and thus seeking to dominate the other side.

Patriarchal "culture", beginning with the banishment of Lilith, has always wrongly asserted that the "male" principle is "superior", and has consequently been engaged in a more than 3 millenia struggle to subdue, and even destroy the "female" principle.

Another potent symbol of this fight to the death struggle is St George on his horse, fighting off, and trying to kill the dragon, which is a symbol of the life force or the Goddess, or SHAKTI.

This absurd drama has reached its almost terminal conclusion in our lifetime.

Trees: http://www.fearnomorezoo.org/trees/main.php

The patriarchal fight against SHAKTI or incarnate happiness.

http://www.adidamla.org/newsletters/toc-aprilmay2006.html

http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/jesusandme.html

I think you're all trying to get out of the Christian and Jewish texts much more than is in there.
They are both mush more like historical novels than anything else we cn think of. They reflect a pre-scientific world view that has to be interpreted itself before it can be used to interpret our own world view.
And as many have written, the 'books' themselves were written and, especially, added to over many years, then selected by a series of committees as to which ones would be deemed uthoritative, and which would not. The writing and additions reflected power struggles of the day(s), with the final versions reflecting those positions which gained supremacy. The degree of supremacy they gained can be seen from the degree to which they were able to displace their rivals: in the case of the beginning of the Genesis stories, the supremacy which the Adam-first group gained was not great enough to displace the other, probably earlier story, in which man and woman were created together. The result was that both stories were included in the sacred text, whilst all the other contributions from Enoch were displaced.
Both stories are an attempt by people 2000 to 3000 years ago to understand how they came to be there, especially in relation to all the other people of the region (the Levant). The texts are reflective of history, and to a much lesser exent of science, but they are not either. Looking to them to understand how our brains work is fruitless: looking to them to understand what those writers thought about who they were and why they were here is as much as you will find.

Oliver
What is your opinion of Enoch as a source? To me it reads in a much more coherent manner than the various Christian and Jewish sources.
Ho Hum
Many people are seeking truth (however you wish to define it) in many different ways. I have no quarrel with anyone pursuing their particular path. I cannot say that any of it is right or wrong because I do not know. Your references where interesting.
The three organizations I object to are Christianity, Judaism and Islam because they all seek to impose their truth (and Law) on others. My own position is Agnostic leaning towards Sheilaism (a religion of one).
Camo
Using the books of Enoch and Jubilees, coupled with the known history of Suma it is possible to date the Garden of Eden incident to about 4500BC (with a margin of error of about 500 years) by matching with the great flood in Suma and the story of Noah. Jubilees is an Almanac with year one as the expulsion of Adam for the Garden of Eden. At about the same time what we know as 'civilization' came into being. Basically the human race went from 0 to 100 in .0005 of a second. Something definitely happened about that time.
Ancient literature such as the 'Epic of Gilgamesh' show that although their technologies may have been crude they where no less intelligent that we are. If we can find the key it is entirely possible that someone left writings that will tell us what happened.
My best guess at this stage is that the event was the advent of internal consciousness.
My interest in this is that if we can find out what happened, and what went wrong, we can possibly correct it. I am almost convinced that the error is the way we use judgment.
What makes Genesis so useful is that it can be easily be read to indicate the advent of internal consciousness and the results of judgment, and it is a story that is familiar. It could also be correct.

Daviy
I object to you asserting that biblical scholarship is biased because it has been practiced by Christians. The source critical tools that are applied to biblical texts have nothing to do with Christianity and are recognised by Jewish scholarship. Would you please look at any mainstream commentary on Genesis 1-11 to see the results of this research for yourself.

I also disagree that the bicameral mind has much to do with how we are present to ourselves. People with a section through the corpus callosum do not lose this ability. Much or your argument is based on a very superficial understanding of modern hermeneutics and neurophysiology. They cannot be taken seriously.

Peter Sellick

Sells,

I suspect Daviy was merely recognizing researchers adopt inferential frames and therefore bring predispositions, when interpreting ancient books. I find Daviy very balanced.

Your Church's version Genesis states God cursed Canaan, son of Ham, because Ham uncovered his father’s nakedness:

“And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.” Genesis 9:21-25 (KJV)

The Bible’s account would seem to show the Christian diety to be unreasonable, because Ham was the ill-doer. The account needs to be harmonized by an editor. If fact, Genesis was edited, assuming you believe the Dead Scrolls genuine:

On “revision” of Genesis is evident in the Genesis Florilegium (4Q252) Plate 5.

“The Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his son had done to him and he said, ‘Cursed be Caanan; he shall be his brothers’ meanest slave’. He did not curse Ham, but on the contrary, his son, because God had already blessed Noah’s sons: 'And in the tents of Shem they will dwell'." Columns 2:6-8

That is, God felt he couldn’t take back his blessing. Still seems a bit tough on poor Caanan.

Given the historical veracity of the Qumran text, would it not be reasonable for a Christian to accept this account over the Council of Nicaea’s choice of works?

Sells: “the difficulty of writing theology for the general public.”

For whom does the bell toll? – it tolls for thee.

colinsett,

Sometimes it is refreshing is test what theologians say against broader human knowledge.

What Daviy alludes to with respect to consciousness could also beg the question of how would god exist without an observer? Without some separation of object and thought about the object god, could god contemplate itself?

My citation about the rewriting of Genesis around the time Jesus,
is evidenced in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Scrolls are but example. I mention the scrolls because history can explain relation in a way science cannot.

Exploring the reasons for the sudden growth in hunan awareness circa 6,000 BP is a valid enterprise, which would include studing stories, myths and legends. The Greek gods whom played humans like pieces on a chess board might be seen as an interim step towards the development of the more advanced personal divinity, permitting, of the three major monotheseist religions.

If institutionalised religion produces a drag on humans are ready accept autonomy & self-sufficiency from the supernatural, surely new ideas which explore alternatives should be expressed

Hi Oliver
Thank you for your earlier reply to Sells. It came just in time to save me from being extremely judgmental. But Sells does make it difficult to overcome old habits.
The old problem of the eye seeing itself.
All sorts of possibilities including the one about God being a mass of unfocussed randomness until one day it thought 'Let there be light' and got a big surprise.
Maybe God needs the human race in its own image so it could be conscious of itself. If the Christians are to be believed it is capable of some of the less endearing characteristics of the human race so maybe we are in Gods image.
These things we will never know unless God suddenly appears to tell us.

What was the human race like before and during the change over period. Maybe the Gods of Greek Mythology, or the 'old ones' of Taoism. I am not satisfied by Jayne's 'The advent of Consciousness in the Bicameral Mind' but it does give a 'first guess' to work with.
I don't claim that we will find definitive answers by looking at that period but we could possible learn more about ourselves.

I still like Enoch and God in his spaceship as an answer. That was judgmental because Enoch does not say if God is a man or a woman.
It doesn't explain where God comes from but it would help settle our physical being. That is if the human race could accept that on a galactic level we have the status of Dolly the sheep.
But if God created the earth and the heavens in seven days and then created man we are still Dolly the sheep.

Did God create Adam or Eve first?

Easy answer.

The one with the nipples is the prototype. Nipples are not needed on a man.

In the Lab I believe there is something known as the Eve principle , that is-: that if you tamper with the male Y chromosone the foetus can still go on to be a perfectly fuctioning human being but if you damage the female X chromosone the foetus will be irreparibily damaged or handicaped in some way.

This also brings to mind the old question of; which comes first the chicken or the egg?

I believe the egg or the cell that grew into a human being would have had to come first .

Biologocally speaking the woman is the egg.

Nipples? Every depiction of Adam & Eve I've ever seen has them with bellybuttons. Prototype that.

Adam and Eve were negroes from over a million years ago. To have created man in his own image, therefore God is a negro with ancient negroid features. Tracing the human genome was a strke of genius and adds tremendously to our understanding of these biblical canards.---Ellsworth

Bennie, A bellybutton is needed on a man for the umbiblical cord to feed from in the womb, but a man does not need nipples.

This would indicate that male sexuality is simply added on over the predominately female feotus. As I stated before it has been noticed in the laboratory that you can damage the Male Y chromosone and the feotus can still go on to be a perfectly normal female but if you damage the female X chromosone there is always some handicap or abnormality when the child is born. No matter how male scribes have chosen to write religious texts, scientifically it is obviously the female who came first.

A fact that should make big headlines and news stories around the world but strangely is hardly ever pointed out by a male dominated media.

ELLSWORTH- I have never been convinced that the whole of mankind originated from Africa. We've seen science make claims before that they have later had to rethink when something else has come to light and I believe that will be the case here. It all fits in too nicely with the political correctness we've had coming from left wing academia land in recent times.
God could just as easily be a floating vapour for that matter.

Just my (probably irrelevant) two cents worth ...

Of all the Biblical stories, the Garden of Eden is the one that seems to have pre-occupied the Western psyche by far the most. I think this is partly because of the loss of the West's own Garden of Eden - i.e. Old Europe. The Bible did not naturally evolve out of Western history and pre-history. The Bible was actually an import from the East.

Pre-Roman Old Europe – which lasted for tens of thousands of years – was a culture that was essentially non-hierarchical, gender balanced, democratic (chieftains were elected), non-urban, semi-migratory and pantheistic. This Old European culture continued on well into the Common Era and only broke down as a result of either Roman conquest or political or military-backed Christian conversion.

By contrast, the Middle Eastern/Roman/Greek perspective contained in the Bible arose out of a culture that had been strongly urbanised for up to 6 millennia. Along with this urbanisation came a social structure that was hierarchical, non-democratic, misogynist, slave-based, military and imperialistic – and it was out of this social structure that the Old and New Testament mythologies evolved.

Understandably, the gods of their religious pantheons were aggressive, mostly male ‘sky’ gods – which reflected the social structure that had evolved there over the previous millennia. And it was these gods that were grafted onto Old Europe after its conquest by Rome.

I believe that the Western psyche has never really come to terms with the fact that its own Old European egalitarian, nature-based religious pantheon was brutally overthrown by Roman/Christian aggression, along with Old Europe’s egalitarian social structure.

Unlike most non-Western civilizations - like say, China and India - the West’s continuity with the wisdom of its own ancients was brutally severed. I think this is why the West so desperately clings to the Holy Lands to this day.

In the deep recesses of the Western psyche, we have transferred the loss of the ancient wisdom of Old Europe to the imported Biblical myth of the Garden of Eden

Dear SJF,

An intersting post to which I shall give some thought.

Regards theism the Eygptians, the Greeks and the Roman Republic and the early Roman Empire (until cire 200 CE) were accepting of various pantheons. Often times, Gods were syncreted... My gods are is your gods by other names.

With the nomadic peoples there was lean towards agressive war gods such as the Hebrew war god, Yahweh.

City-states are more cosmopolitan than tribes/clans. Herein, the need to be more flexible/understanding with regards others

Oliver

Yes, pre-Christian Rome was incredibly tolerant about religious practice – but I believe this was more because of its polytheism rather than its urbanisation.

It was the rise of monotheism – with the forced conversion to Christianity – that gave way to Rome’s religious intolerance. After all, when you’ve only got one god to share around, people are bound to become spiritually territorial, especially the authoritarian personalities amongst us.

Rome’s earlier persecution of the Christians (not as extensive as we are led to believe) was not because of what Christians worshipped, but because their monotheism could not recognise the Emperor as a god. Thus, the Christians’ were guilty of treason, not heresy.

Re nomads and aggression …this depends a lot on the environment of the nomads. If the nomads are under constant threat, e.g. a harsh climate or terrain making hunter/gathering difficult, or a dense population competing for resources, they would probably develop an aggressive social structure, and thus an aggressive spiritual pantheon.

Hi SJF and Oliver
Interesting speculation on the reasons way Genesis has pre-occupied the Western psyche.
I have used Genesis in this article because it is well known and makes a useful framework for something I have been working on for many years.
My inquiry has been into the reasons the human race continually messes up and is there something in our psyche that causes it?
My complete hypothesis was put in three articles presented in reverse order starting with the easiest, The age of Reason, then the middle article The Hiroshima Principle, and finally this the third article.
The hypothesis begins with the existence of the soul and the ego. Sperry, Gazinega and others in the area of split brain theory have convinced me at that we have two entities in our brain. These are commonly called the soul and the ego.
Much of the work on the workings of the human brain I agree with as being the way it works, but nobody asks if this is the way it is supposed to work. It is like having a car that has run on 7 cylinders so long that we have forgotten it is supposed to run on 8 cylinders.
By 'back engineering' I looked at the possibility that the soul and the ego are supposed to be identical, not at odds with each other. My conclusion was that such a situation would give us an internal mirror to produce peaceful internal consciousness instead of internal conflict.
If this is correct what causes the break down of the 'twin soul' concept? Judgment.
The Hiroshima Principle then explored the properties of judgment that would cause the breakdown. These properties being finding in the negative solely because we cannot prove the positive and finding in the positive solely because we cannot prove the negative.
Finally the results of these forms of judgment are cognitive dissonance and blind adherence to dogma was explores in The age of Reason.
Your speculations may well be the reasons why I find Genesis so useful as a framework for my enquiries.

SJF,

I found your posit very interesting: - Western yearning for a lost utopia as represented by Indo-Germanic culture and manifesting as a fascination with the Eden story

However, this proposition is dependant upon the view that Eastern religions have always been patriarchal etc. Your inference being that urbanization was responsible for a gendered, patriarchal etc. world-view.? I’m not sure that I fully agree.

The various texts comprising the bible were written when urbanization was already established, yeah? These texts in the original were not all written reflecting either the monotheistic or the patriarchal however, were they? The expunging of both polytheistic and matriarchal themes occurred only at a later date: i.e. post-Christian. Thus I can’t see how urbanization per se can be offered as the genesis of a “hierarchical, non-democratic, misogynist, slave-based, military and imperialistic” construct.

Other Eastern religions (one thinks immediately of Indian or S.E. Asian cults and practices which survived into the Common Era) were neither monotheistic, patriarchal nor hierarchical – but India and South Eastern Asia were also urbanized.

So it would appear to me that your placement of urbanization as the catalyst through which social, moral and gendered imbalance was born is not convincing. Surely our fascination with the Garden of Eden story – and the fascination of all primitive cultures with creation stories - is far more simple and is merely a manifestation of all of humankind’s (whether urban or nomadic) search for its origins – completely independent of politics, religion or racial grouping?

Romany

I didn’t mean to give the impression that ‘urbanization [was] the only catalyst through which social, moral and gendered imbalance was born’, or that Eastern societes have always been patriarchal (although, by the time the Bible was written down, they had been for several millennia).

The effects of urbanisation in the ancient world depended on many other factors – the level of complexity, internal and external stresses, harshness of the environment, population density etc. For example, excavations at Catal Huyuk from c. 6000 BCE indicate a sophisticated urban but egalitarian society. Minoan Crete (c. 4000 – 1500 BCE) was urban and highly sophisticated, but appears to have had a gender-balanced social order and religious pantheon – unlike the militaristic Indo- European nomads that destroyed it.

I agree with you that ‘the fascination of all primitive cultures with creation stories …is merely a manifestation of all of humankind’s (whether urban or nomadic) search for its origins’. However, I don’t agree that they are ‘completely independent of politics, religion or racial grouping’.

The Biblical Genesis reflects a society that valued blind obedience over the getting of knowledge. I’m sure that much earlier versions of this same story would have been very different.

Also, many early creation myths portrayed genesis as being from a great Earth Mother – e.g.Gaia, Danu. Over time, however, and as many societies became so complex that they gave way to a more imbalanced social order, the genesis role of the great Earth Mother devolved into a pantheon of problematic female characters – victims, vengeance seekers, femme fatales, adulterers, disobedient wives etc.

And, even though Old Europe was not urban for a long time, this didn’t necessarily mean all its cultures were in a permanent state of balance with nature. Over time, the ancient Norse peoples, for example, became very warlike, possibly because of the harshness of their environment, and this was reflected in their myths, e.g. in the Norse genesis myth, woman came from a man’s armpit (yuk!)

Daviy

I’ve read your post through twice. Although I'd love to comment, unfortunately I found the concepts you describe too complex to offer an opinion. I’ll certainly mull them over though.

Thanks for a very interesting thread

SJF,

Thank you for an interesting post.

While it is not universally so, countries’ principal cities typically need to be cross-culturally tolerate to function. Ancient Rome typically fitted that construction. Jewish mendicants would have had little difficulty teaching their theologies under Augustus. For the Jews, there was a shift in Executive patronage, from the Herodians under Julius to the Annas under Augustus.

Monotheism didn’t only mean that the Jews did not pray for the health of Caesar. Superstitious Romans wanting to hedge their bets would have been unwelcome at the Temple. Some Greeks making offerings in the vicinity of the Temple, fuelled a Jewish mob (zealots?) to attach a Roman garrison, ultimately, leading to the First Jewish-Roman War (66-73 CE). More than a generation after Jesus.

Habiru nomads whom elevated Yahweh *(from the Canaanite Baal) were bondsman and mercenaries without strong familial ties. Of this social class there were two sub-kinds. The shepherds exiled by Ahmose I circa 1,600 and the mercenaries and tradespersons of the Exodus, whom left Egypt three hundred years latter. Moses or whomever morphed the social class into a monotheist religion. Yahweh the god for “kin-shattered” persons and a god of war. A logical choice.

[*See Psalm 82]

Dear Daviy,

I will need a little time to think things through. Midst my own research today.

Oliver.

Oliver

Thanks for your post. Don’t know if these comments are relevant, but I offer them as a springboard from yours…

The existence of polytheism among the early Judeans is an interesting debate – the obvious reference being the First Commandment, ‘Thou shalt not have other gods before me’. If there were no other gods around for Yahweh to compete with, why would there be a need for such a commandment? (I read somewhere once that Yahweh also had a girlfriend at some stage – but I digress.)

Generally speaking, the conversion from polytheism to monotheism seems to run parallel to political unifications within the host culture. On this basis, it’s extraordinary that Rome remained polytheistic and religiously tolerant for as long as it did.

It’s also interesting to note that monotheistic conversion marked the dying stages of Rome’s empire. However, it’s unlikely that monotheism brought about Rome’s end. The causal link would have been that it was on its way out and monotheism was a rock of stability to cling to – especially for nervous emperors.

The tragic irony of all empires is that they become the unifying cultural force for all the cultures they destroy – like abused children clinging to an abusive parent. Once the empire goes, a massive vacuum is left. It was out of this vacuum that early Christianity developed, along with the rise of its city (and later, nation) states.

I believe this has been Christianity’s (and Europe’s) greatest weakness

“My goodness! The book of Genesis has been studied and written about for almost 2000years and the writing still goes on. I wonder at the arrogance of someone who bursts into print with a complete disregard for the scholarship that has preceded.” -Sells
“I also disagree that the bicameral mind has much to do with how we are present to ourselves. People with a section through the corpus callosum do not lose this ability.” - Sells

Dear Peter,

Genesis and other creation stories have been written and re-written far longer than 2,000 years. Here, we must acknowledge that the Bible’s version Genesis is but one of several drafts the work: e.g., the Qumran community held other drafts.

I see nothing improper in David’s interpretation of the myth. Prior to David’s posit, I regarded the Man and Adam , as two stories of the one myth. David’s posit writers may meant a passage of time the creation of Man and the creation of Adam, whom happens to be a special man, seems well argued. Right or wrong, I find David’s insight refreshing.

Not traditional dogma? Well, as Popper once retorted to Jung’s claim of a “one thousand-fold interpretation of an event”, “with this, you do have one thousand-fold plus one interpretation” (or very similar words)? The point is that the Church’s thousand-fold plus one repetition is just as wrong as the first if the first interpretation is incorrect.

After a recovery period, people with lesions to the corpus callosum do recover . Yet, how well they perform depends on how stimuli are presented the visual fields.

…Cont.

..Cont./

Also, the corpus callosum is not merely a traffic cop saying go to right lane or left lane. There is potential for information to flow to both sides of the brain. Inhibitors act to allow “by degree” the amount of stimulation to both hemispheres. Less dominance means more inhibitors. Regarding Learning and Memory situated in the Right Hemisphere, “section of the corpus callosum interferes with short-term memory and lesions of the biogenic amine system interfere with learning and memory”. [ ]

Peter, instead of a cop, think of the corpus callosum as a dam at the mouth of two tributaries, with gates having the ability to direct water to either tributary. The gate-master normally prefers one tributary over the other (i.e., one channel is dominant). Destroy the dam and water will flow to both sides.

Dear David,

Very interesting thoughts.

To the best of my knowledge most studies on the evolution of the brain are limited to vertical, higher (mammalian) Vs lower (reptilian) structures and, the relationship between the two.

If Genesis is allegorical, and something my scientific substituted; I guess we would have “our” homo sapien-sapien line beginning circa 50,000 BP and a DNA mutated Adam around 8,000-10,000 BP. That is, there were pro-humans, then humans, then our path of humanity (50,000 BP), then a significant mutation occurred about 10,000 years ago.

Said mutation would need to have occurred before humans migrated around the world which on second thoughts might take us back 16,000-20,000 BP. An Ice Age would have presented ecological challenges and the opportunity to migrate from Africa and its environments to Europe, Asia and the Americas. Issues of brain sidedness within selective evolutionary processes could very well have arisen when the World changed (Ice Age) and societies changed.

Cheers,

Oly.