see the first chapter of _the saveage mind_, entitled, "the science of the concrete."
j
> From: Kenneth MacKendrick <kenneth.mackendrick at utoronto.ca>
> Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 17:37:41 -0700
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Re: Tee Vee
>
> At 09:50 AM 10/10/01 -0700, you wrote:
>
>> I know nothing about it. But, I did recognize pieces of an extremely
>> poor version of the Eygptian myth of creation in it. The eygptian
>> elements are something like the aristotlian division earth, water,
>> air, fire, except the Eygptians started with a watery formless and
>> dark chaos, a flow, in which something formed, and from which emerged
>> a primodial mound. After the division of wet and dry, comes the
>> division of light and dark. So the Eygptians have to be source for the
>> water story. The garden story would then default to the Babylonians,
>> some form of oasis, Eden.
>
> Errr... I'm pretty sure the Eden story isn't Babylonian... perhaps the
> Babylonians swiped it from the Egyptians... as I recall, much of the story
> runs the same almost line by line... The Eden story is attributed to the
> source 'J' - which seems to have been a nomadic community and rather
> difficult to document. There was a best seller many years ago called "J" (I
> think)... the author argued that the author of J was a woman. From a
> scholastic perspective this is sheer nonsense...
>
>> Just a couple of things that stuck me. Noah is a strange character,
>> very strange. And there is a lot of wondering around, between the
>> begettings. There is no definite place---which is an odd contrast
>> to say some of the southwest native american creation myths that
>> usually define a place, a hole in the earth, a canyon, etc. The other
>> thing that struck me, was when God comes to visit and addresses
>> people, Adam, or Noah for example they respond, Here I am---odd as if
>> God wouldn't know them unless they pointed themselves out. Funny. So
>> that response seems like a formality in another language or another
>> tradition. And then a last thing that seems odd. The first characters
>> and first parts are short, a few sentences and then we're done, and
>> move on. Toward the end of Genesis, starting about with Abraham, it
>> gets longer and more developed, Jacob takes up several pages, and
>> Joseph a whole complete story. Notice the Egyptians are already
>> there. Where did they come from? Or some of the others, all those
>> cities of the plain, when and how did they get started?
>
> Jericho is considered the oldest city of the region, about 8,000 BCE (I
> could be a eight thousand years off on that, maybe it was 800 BCE). Sigh.
> Egypt was already around prior to the articulation of the Moses
> narratives... I wish I could remember the dates. As for the 'here I am' -
> the 'religiosity' of the time was sacrificial, basically you wanted to keep
> the supernatural at a distance... and would use sacrifices to sway the
> heavens from getting too close. Proximity to the divine, in whatever shape,
> usually meant trouble for someone. But it signifies something special. The
> idea of omnipotence is probably hundreds and hundreds of years off.... it
> is actually a relatively new idea. Deities were just really powerful
> creatures who could fight well, to be feared and respected by the mortals.
> So, it would make sense to formally introduce yourself to someone really
> powerful, especially if you were worried about being smitten by accident.
>
> The stories get longer and more detailed primarily because they've been
> redacted and added onto. At first there were likely snippets. But since
> 'text' is holy or sacred, you don't erase it, you add to it... that would
> explain the 'additions' along the way and why things get more details.
>
>> But, yes, it certainly has a chunky, amalgamated quality to it, sort
>> of patched together piecemeal. Anyway, off to work.
>>
>> Chuck Grimes
>
> Yep. The translations usually work to smooth this over.
>
> ken
>
>