Sunday, 1 July 2018

TL:DR: The Genesis Question part ten

Hi, Everybody.

It's Sunday!

That means:

Don't forget to give your hickies to the Living Tarim!

And then, 
1 April 18

Hi Matt!

You must be running out of my Biblical commentaries along about now. So…

30 March 14

Hi Troy and Mia:

When Mr. Ross writes towards the end of Appendix A

The Hebrew word for faith, emuna, means a strongly held conviction that something or someone is certainly existing, firmly established, constant and dependable.  The Greek word for faith, pistis, means a strong and welcome conviction of the truth of anything or anyone to the degree that one places complete trust and confidence in that thing or person.

I think that's certainly a couple of very true descriptions, but very much at variance with what could be described, scientifically, as invariable scientifically supported evidence.  I think it's more than a bit disingenuous to house these observations in an Appendix with the compelled inference that they are irrefutable support for what is stated in Chapter Three rather than just a different way of paraphrasing the earlier opinions -- basically using opinions to support opinions and calling that science.

I think all we are capable of doing here in our inherently limited and limiting physically incarnated construct -- planet earth -- is to say:  here are things that appear to be generally true HERE.  Which strikes me as a very limited form of understanding:  "understanding". 

"Generally true" qualified by "HERE" because virtually no scientific proof is 100% and practically everything that we deem to be true breaks down outside of our specific context -- our "here on earth" context -- once you move outside of the unique circumstance within which and to which we are subject. 

We are, I think, most accurately described as being in the eye of the cosmological storm, the existence of water in gaseous, liquid and solid form, simultaneously, serving as a pretty good proof of the assertion:  there are, so far as we know, not many contexts in the universe where that is even remotely possible, certainly none elsewhere in our solar system which has a pretty wide variety of contexts to pick from. 

So, this seems to me a very poor place from which to be saying "Here is what General Reality is like" and extrapolating that Reality from within our unique circumstance. 

That seems to me the point of Genesis 1:  Here, God is saying, is how what you, my creations, are aware of -- General Reality -- was created. And here is how that General Reality was enacted in order to create your specific reality -- the-earth-as-enactment of General Reality made up of the earth, the seas, the earth's atmosphere, plants, living creatures and yourselves.  You are inside this experiment/enactment.  All that you are required to do is to "be fruitful and multiply" and you will have fulfilled your purpose. 

What you were created to be will enact itself over the course of your lifetime, but your lifetime won't be remotely long enough to fully stage and enact the experiment in order that conclusions will be able to be drawn. 

And that's true, I think, of all the "players" in the enactment.  This is as much about the earth and the seas "being fruitful and multiplying" as it is about us as human beings.  Genesis 1 is addressed to all of us.  Wheels within wheels within wheels.  Genesis 2 and 3 seem to me to be the earth dissenting from the process and suppositions, the earth holding the view, Genesis 1 isn't how things were created. I, the earth, the Alpha and the Omega, was there when everything was created and here is how it happened.

But the earth is basically just an observer -- and, as we now know for a fact, a tiny cosmological latecomer -- misconstruing his/her/its self to be Instigator and Perpetrator, which is why Genesis 1 makes a great deal of scientific sense and Genesis 2 and 3 make only tangential scientific sense. 

But, that's getting ahead of the story. 

I think that "be fruitful and multiply" has much in common with "an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters will eventually type the complete works of Shakespeare".  Which I don't think is true:  more like, "trillions of monkeys with trillions of typewriters will eventually type a lucid sentence or two strictly by accident". 

As distinct from our own situation: "an exponentially expanding and expressive population in a limited construct, sheltered from serious harm will, over the course of billions of years, arrive at a relatively accurate perception of Reality" and that, further, we are billions of years away from that taking place.

I see us right now as being in a cosmological Sargasso Sea where half of the population is determined to prove that the earth IS the sea and the sea IS the earth -- i.e. men are women and women are men, completely interchangeable -- no matter how self-evidently lunatic that view is. 

It is, I think, built in. You make a certain amount of progress towards Reality and then you go around and around pointless lunatic circles for extended periods of time.

I don't picture any forward progress in my lifetime back towards Reality: just this (seemingly) endless and pointless digression into a prime circuitous argument: everything is the same.  The light is darkness. Darkness is light. Day is night. Night is day.  Trees are grass and grass is trees.  Men are women. Women are men.

(which I suspect is what actually powered the Big Bang and the outward expanding universe:  again, God's Overview allowing him to see lemonade where there was only His first creation's lemons, "This going around and around and around in the same stupid circles over and over.  If you could harness that, and accelerate it, you could create quite a light show, quite a big tapestry…and somewhere in there -- once you were up into quintillions of orders of magnitude going around and around the same stupid circles, someone might actually come up with a lucid thought or two.")

It would be nice to think that I'm that person.  I can't say that I'm convinced of my own opinions.  I do tend to think that they fit the known facts better than the other constructs of which I'm aware -- but that isn't the same as saying that they are True or even "true".  Many people have been wrongfully convicted of crimes they didn't commit because an artful lawyer was able to manufacture a false scenario out of the known facts in a case and persuade a jury that his version was True whereas all it might have been is more artful.

 In fact, to me, that participates of the lunatic circuitous argument presented by Genesis 2 and 3:  here is what I saw, here is what I experienced, here is what I have decided is the relevant information to the discussion, therefor "Here is Truth".

I've already written twice as many pages about THE GENESIS QUESTION as Mr. Ross has written in THE GENESIS QUESTION.  The same thing happened with my writing on Pastor John's book.  Somewhere up ahead, when I'm finished critiquing THE GENESIS QUESTION, I'll go on-line and attempt to find the latest contact information for Mr. Ross and send him my commentaries on disk.  As I did on a weekly basis with Pastor John.  And I'm pretty sure I'll never hear from him just as I was pretty sure I would never hear from Pastor John (and never did). 

"This is what works for me" pretty much sums it up.  Pastor John's THE SOUL REVOLUTION works for him.  Hugh Ross' THE GENESIS QUESTION works for him.  LATTER DAYS and THE LAST DAY work for me.  Why you, Troy, were interested in my religious opinions, I don't know or why you were willing to pay me $10,000 for them I don't know. 

I have always had this compulsion to a) understand and b) after understanding, explain what I understand.  That certainly applies to my religious faith.  The difference being that my religious faith is the only context in which my understanding and my explanations seem secondary in importance to my behaviour. 

Get rid of vice and sin -- err on the side of caution if, as with professional sports, I'm not sure if it's a vice or a sin and get rid of it anyway (coming up on the first anniversary).  Fast, pray, work, read Scripture aloud, observe a Sabbath.

Read Scripture aloud because, if it is God's Word, in whole or in part, it's really the closest that a human being can come to being co-existent with Truth.  "I have no idea what any of this means, but reading it aloud is the best possible use of my time: internalizing and externalizing Reality simultaneously."

"Convince people my opinions are right" doesn't really enter into it. First of all, it isn't going to happen.  For a good two decades I've been talking to myself. The last decade of CEREBUS and the decade after CEREBUS ended.

I can -- and do -- talk to myself with other people within my "hearing" (as I'm doing here) but that doesn't alter the fact that there is no difference between talking to myself and talking to someone else.  No one can hear me if I just write this stuff on my own and no one can hear me if I write it to them.  People, it seems to me, only hear themselves in the context of "be fruitful and multiply" which seems to me the driving force behind "be fruitful and multiply".  Incarnate and Do.  And how you end up will establish the validity of your DO choices.

This is universally true in my life at this point.  No one hears a word I say and no one responds to any question I pose.  No one "gets back to me".  Again, I think that's built in.  That is who and what we are as God's creations.  Although we certainly don't perceive ourselves that way.  We are created "good" and then we spiral off into whatever we are going to spiral off into through our own construction/misconstruction hybridizations.  We end up where we end up.  And virtually all of us think of ourselves as being Good People or, at least, "good" people. 

I wonder why that is.

I don't see myself as a good person.  I see myself as a -- how would I put this? -- a less existent person.  The best evidence available to me suggests that I don't actually exist.  I did exist at one time roughly 25 or 30 years ago and then began to exist less and now I'm existing less and less as each day goes by. 

I don't have any point of identification with any of the things that people generally hold as evidence of their own existence.  Family, friends, hobbies, interests, preferred entertainments. Of course, I've also come to the conclusion that those are illusory constructs having more to do with people feeling a need to establish their own existence for themselves -- as I did 25 or 30 years ago -- than with actually establishing their existence.  

I try to do what I think is right but the more things that I do that I think are right the less I seem to exist.  Looking on the bright side, this could be what Enoch was all about:  "he was not and God took him".  Looking on the less bright side, "I'm doing it wrong".

Possibly it's like the concept of "signal-to-noise".  God is Signal.  Everything else, to one degree or another, is noise.  If you get yourself and your life over in the direction of signal -- which I've been attempting to do for 17 years -- your noise quotient drops and you can no longer be heard because people are far more attuned to noise than they are to signal or Signal.  People seek out noise of various kinds -- music, movies, sports, conversation -- and attune themselves to it with the idea that if they unite their own noise to this other noise, meaning will result.  Noise+noise=signal. 

When you choose Signal exclusively -- as exclusively as is possible and God alone knows how possible it is -- it seems to me that even if you don't become signal or become attuned completely to signal you, at the very least, become "less noisy" or "less noise-like" or "less noise compatible" or all three to the extent that you are "off the dial" and no longer "register" in the context of noise.  Which becomes somewhat problematic when your own nature is to a) understand and b) explain.  The more I understand -- or I think I understand -- the less audible my explanations become. 

Sorry for the digression.  I'll get back to Chapter Three next week.

Best,

Dave

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Self-Pity: 11 Tell-tale Signs That You’re A Self-Inflicted Victim":

https://lonerwolf.com/self-pity/

I think Dave hits all 11 of these.

David Birdsong said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tony Dunlop said...

Nah, couldn't be; assholes aren't allowed to post in internet comment threads, are they?

Tony again said...

I was just skimming and came across this:

"Why you, Troy, were interested in my religious opinions, I don't know or why you were willing to pay me $10,000 for them I don't know. "

Apart from saying I'm speechless, well...I'm speechless.

Damian T. Lloyd, Esq. said...

Dave's really been working overtime to make sure that those (such as myself) who said he's not crazy and not stupid don't have a leg to stand on.

In paragraph 3 Dave decries "just a different way of paraphrasing the earlier opinions", then does exactly that when he brings up the infinite-monkeys bit later. In paragraph 5 Dave misses one of the foundations of scientific method -- and one that evidence has supported so far -- to get it exactly backwards. In paragraph 6 Dave gets the observed facts wrong in his assertions about water. In paragraph 14 Dave drags out his usual and often-debunked straw-man to support his usual misogyny -- and for no reason that furthers his argument. In paragraph 21 Dave derives a grim and butthurt satisfaction that he never hears back from strangers to whom he ships crateloads of lunatic, babbling factual falsehoods and logical mistakes. And the last 20 percent is Dave whining about how nobody pays attention to him when he's so obviously right, and how that must be because he's so obviously right and not because he's spiralled up his own anus.

It's very, very important to Dave that he be unique. If he can't be the greatest intellectual in comics (if not the world, first person bible unified field theory big bang women bad), he'll be the universally reviled Pariah King who's simultaneously completely ignored, even though both of those claims are factually false.

As I said last week, "Aw, poor Dave." Poor little fella.

-- Damian

Jeff said...

Just tooling around on the ol' Interwebby thingy, I found this excerpt from the autobiography of Damian T. Lloyd, Esq. (I'm pretty sure he's not an attorney), from his website:

"His critical evaluations of others' works have been described as 'both diplomatic and helpful'". [no citation]

Sorry, Matt, if I seem snarky (if so, it IS in kind), but I never perceived Mr. Damian T. Lloyd, Esq. (no law degree listed in his autobiography), as being particularly "diplomatic", nor, for that matter, "helpful"; neither to me or to Dave Sim.

Just sayin'.

Damian T. Lloyd, Esq. said...

Jeff S.: Got an email notification that you had replied to this thread. As usual, you've made irrelevant ad hominem attacks on someone you feel insulted your daddy. But as you're so interested in me, allow me to set your mind at ease ...

You (twice) say that you don't think I'm an a lawyer. Of course, I mention none of my academic qualifications (which, unlike yours, were actually awarded by the institutions I attended and not by myself). As you are apparently curious, though: No, I am not a lawyer, but I am a gentleman (again unlike yourself; your comments about your "crazy Canadian lady" demonstrate that).

You also demonstrate your usual reading comprehension (eg. your outrage that my calling Charles Krauthammer an "armchair warrior" was a deliberate insult to him being in a wheelchair) in your middle paragraph. Clearly I am referring to my activities in independent movies. Context is important, Jeff.

None of what you say (of course) even attempts to address my comment, which points out errors of fact and logic in Dave's "thinking".

It is not possible to help Dave, whose mind is at this point hermetically sealed and admits no new evidence, and who doesn't know how to think anyway. Nor is it possible to help you, whose mind is Dave's and not an original creation. Fortunately, there are other people in the world whom it might be possible to help -- immature or untutored minds who make the mistake of thinking that Dave has anything profound to say. And if Dave is correct (he's not), there is value in this "reading into the record".

Dave used to be a very skilled cartoonist; I described him on this very blog as the English-language cartoonist most in command of his medium. He is also very knowledgeable about American comic-books from the 1960s to the 1990s. When he steps outside these areas, he demonstrates a steep fall-off in his ability to interpret or even present accurately facts and evidence.

I am very much looking forward to The Strange Death of Alex Raymond, and delighted to learn that he is able to devote his energies to that work. Dave's enthusiasm for realistic cartoon art is quite delightful (even if he himself has displayed little ability in that style; Glamourpuss couldn't have been designed better to minimize his strengths and emphasize his weaknesses), and something I share. I am dismayed to see his ludicrous "comics metaphysics" infect the work, but remain hopeful that the book will be both entertaining and informative.

-- Damian

Tony one more time said...

Boys, boys, knock it off before I have Matt knock yer noggins together, Larry-and-Curly style.

Mouse Skull Entertainment said...

See Margaret,

It's a self correcting system.

I don't have to moderate. I let Tony "the knife" handle it for me.

Matt
(Just don't ask him about Jimmy Hoffa...)

Margaret said...

Well, you have more patience than I do Matt.

Why, is Jimmy Hoffa related to Weisshaupt, perhaps his uncle? Is that why I shouldn't ask Tony about him?

Damian T. Lloyd, Esq. said...

Tony: I certainly don't want that! It's not just the coconut-like sound, but the way it echoes around in there.

-- Damian

Matt's hired muscle said...

Well, I could tell you about Jimmy Hoffa, but then I'd have to introduce you to the end zone at Giants Stadium...and you wouldn't like that...