Haha... back again (notice the same night... my car broke down and I can't leave for Thanksgiving. Fate decided against it... )

I can't recall if we discussed this in class, but I'm a big fan of Karl Jung and believe that the vast majority of his theories bury Freud's. (*Although that's not really all that braggable) Frye's discussion of types and anti-types is pretty close, but I still get rubbed the wrong way when he carries on as if biblical characters are the 'original'. It's difficult to pin down, and I realize that of course his book is about the bible, but if you think about I think the idea of the archetype goes further back than he gives credit for. Obviously he discusses original myths that may have influenced biblical stories (tiamat... etc... ) but does anyone feel the 'bible first' mentality? As if the archetypes we see and even act out today originate there?

Personally... I think the bible is just an excellent portrayal and example of those truly timeless personalities and voices that we carry. (*The word I've heard to describe them is "surpapersonal" ... but if I do that I'll just sound like I'm going over my head, eh?) Basically, of course it's one of the most dominant books in the world, but I still feel like it gets a lot of credit for things that it probably took from other places. It just taps that human root that goes back beyond any narrative and into the memory only our DNA can remember.

Also... one more thing: On a different topic, I remember Sexson's quote that there are no boring books, just boring readers/people. I agree, but it reminded me of a way I'd heard it phrased before:

"I would suggest that it's not the medium, but the quality of perception and expression, that determines the significance of art..."

Some of you might guess that this quote is from a philosopher or critic, but it's actually from Bill Watterson, whom some of you may know, and others only know as the cartoonist behind Calvin and Hobbes, haha... he also finishes the quote like this:

"... but what would a cartoonist know?"

So this is almost more anecdotal than analytical, but I thought a few might find it interesting.

So one of the more interesting biographies I've ever read was on Grigori Efimovich Rasputin, aka "The Mad Monk", whom some of you may only know as the antagonist in Disney's "Anastasia". The interesting thing I found when reading his biography was the he was in fact a very pious man, extremely dedicated to his faith. It was his views on certain aspects of religion that made him out to be such a madman, however, and he has been incorrectly portrayed as such ever since.

The foremost reason is his view of Sin. Today, we would recognize it as what we call our 'credit score'. His view was that an individual could lead a perfectly straight-laced life dedicated to his or her religion and basically accomplish nothing in the eyes of god. His view (*and I LOVE this... haha) is that we have to first get 'into debt' and then work our way out in order to truly achieve repentance. If we never sin, how can we understand what we resent and repent from?

Original sin? I'm not sure what he thought, but I think it's a great example of a highly unique, yet brilliantly simple way of looking at the idea of Sin in general. So... next time you do something really wrong, just consider it under the more 'economic' lens of Grigori Rasputin.

(*Oh yeah... I shouldn't say this but... this thought comes after a few glasses of my favorite drink. If any of you want to know how to make the "St. Michael" (which is my own invention/destruction...).............. Do ask.)

I was thinking about the frequency of collisions religion often has with science (who knows, perhaps the only way around it is to give science a 300 yard restraining order against all religion...) and I think it's kind of interesting that science has almost the same kind of 'creation' stories, yet still seems to hold itself higher than religion because of the evidence.

Take, for instance, the story about Isaac (he laughed?... haha) Newton discovering Gravity. Of course it's probably a complete fabrication - and last I read, it was - but the story of him sitting under and apple tree and being struck on the head with an apple is about as biblical as one can get, don't you think?

It's leading me to believe that both science and religion fall under the same kind of category: Mythology. As its been emphasized in class and in the texts, not mythology in the sense of a fabricated tale or story, but at least some kind of blend of explanation and narrative to make sense of the world around us. I wonder if the Big Bang theory that so many subscribe to could be seen as a kind of mythology in itself.

I know I've written about the metaphor of character in the Bible, but something is still nagging at me. It would be interesting to have one of authors or at least someone at least from around the time period of the formation of the Bible to analyze how WE read it now. I sometimes think that even the 'character' of Yaweh is a metaphor, or at least the entire idea of "God" is a metaphor for something else. For what? I really have no idea. I suppose that could be seen as another "eastern" religious slant on things but it would be interesting if the idea of god is really just a subconcious construction that helps us understand and react to the world. "God" might mean simply the intricate, unpredictable, and often completely unfair nature of being alive.

I'm not sure what makes me think this, but I've been helping a close friend with the loss of one of her friends in a car wreck, and she now is in the 'anger' phase of coping. One of the things I noticed is that even though she is athiest, (Unitarian Universalist and Atheist. Interesting combo...) it's almost as if she 'needs' some kind of construction like god to at least make sense of the grief. I wouldn't use the word 'blame', but I think there's something subconcious in all of us that needs this kind of a construction. It's perhaps a little insulting to say, but what I've noticed is that even those who don't believe still want to blame, I guess. (Whether its fate, karma, or a god.)

Speaking of which... I had to explain karma to a girl I work with. She's pretty gung-ho christian so the only way I could explain it was this: "It's kinda like the golden rule... only it works." (at least in the sense of your actions returning to you) But... since we were on the topic of suffering in class recently, I suppose I'm a little curious on whether or not the Bible has this kind of quality, really. The book of Job? Do things really come full circle or is the point just that you suffer, and you find a way to still be a good christian no matter what? Almost sounds a little Buddhist, haha....

Back again...

I think the most interesting topic we've been dealing with is metaphor in the Bible. Of course, that's an insanely broad (and blatently obvious) statement but it's something that I constantly run into, yet never really think too much about. I suppose being in the English department can create somewhat of a passive feeling towards the deeper levels of a text.

To be more specific, I suppose something along the lines of character metaphor in the Bible. More often than not it seems that characters are taken in an extremely literal sense whenever the bible is discussed. E.g. _____ said ______, and therefore we should be doing that. But what I hadn't really thought about before is that the characters function in a rather inconsequential way. That seems odd, but my belief is that what's really important about the characters isn't necessarily the actual 'person' we are being told about, but the situation, actions, and to some extent the etymology of their names are really what is given a more immediate importance.

This actually stems from the 'lacunae' which we've been mentioning in class. What color are ______'s eyes? What kind of childhood did ______ have? Hobbies? Unless specific traits emphasize a certain principle, lesson, or metaphor they are simply omitted because they really aren't that important. However, what IS important (especially to "J", it seems) is the ironic situations and actions of these characters. The characters simply function as a 'placeholder' for a larger idea which the author intends to transmit to the readers.

With that said, part of my belief is that incredibly focused and acute literal interpretations actually rob the bible of deeper meaning and susequent enjoyment. To rob a book of its metaphor and mythological elements is almost criminal.

Sadly... I wish I could come up with more specific examples, but it seems that they all work well with what I'm saying. Even Jesus could be seen as a metaphor for the Word and not necessarily for a 'personal' struggle in the world.

Well... I managed to write without any one liners to speak of. Maybe I'll back myself up with a "Priest and a Rabbi walk into a bar" joke later on ...

Before I begin - I am going to tone myself down a little bit so I don't step on anyone's toes, but I am a truly satirical person and I love to take stabs at anything with a monopoly. Hence, religion is one of my favorite targets (in a loving way) but all I mean to say is to PLEASE take everything I say about the Bible with a Pillar of salt...

Alright, I am slightly behind but not irreparably, I suppose. But then again, maybe the Ark left and I wasn't on it...

Before I get into anything with substance (which I may or may not end up doing just yet) I just wanted to introduce myself as someone who really has no background in the bible. I know my way around Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism to some extent, thanks in part to Dr. Sexon's wife, but those are more 'world-views' than anything else. My point is the honestly I'm fairly ignorant of the Bible other than the stories that are now deeply embedded and woven into practically every aspect of 'western' culture. Whether or not one reads the Bible, it's really inescapable. And for that reason, I really wasn't looking forward to reading it. But I was pleasantly surprised. At the risk of treading into that 'faith language' territory where I might offend someone: The bible is amazing if it's not taken so damn seriously. Regardless of who wrote it or why, it's a collection of amazing narratives that stand well on their own without being constricted by dogma. I was truly impressed and saddened that I hadn't tried reading it before.

But other than that - as a warning (perhaps to Dr. Sexson) I have a strange memory and probably have never taken notes in my life. They've never really helped me in any classes in either high school or college.... But I do promise to at least give a decent run down of the topics covered in class.

With that said... I've been thinking about how the bible links to a few other cultures (such as Norse Saga literature) and I'll be back with that soon...

And on the 7th day........... Mike finally created his blog.

Now I just have to think of what to say later.