The Power of Sexuality

Taylor, among others, brought up something interesting in her presentation. Essentially, the power that women have, both in and out of the Bible, as she talked about with Guinevere. But I have a bit of a problem with where women supposedly get this power form. It's no new idea that a woman’s power comes from her sex/sexuality. Now, I'm not saying that a woman's power can't come from sex and sexuality, but my problem is that women, to some extent, are ok with or even proud of this. Any power that stems from your sexuality or use of sex as a tool is, in my eyes, the shallowest form of power possible. Granted, it is quite powerful, but in no way honorable. If a woman gets power through more respectable means, i.e. intelligence, boldness, outspokenness, and individuality then she has a far better power then a woman who's power is based solely on her sexuality.

To me, using your sexuality to obtain power is simply taking your objectification, and working it to your advantage. Some may see good in that, but the fact of the matter is, you not only allow yourself to be objectified, you require it. To me, breaking down your objectification, and bringing yourself to an equal level as men, and then showing them up, is much more powerful then simply allowing yourself to be objectified and then using that to your advantage. In short, instead of using your objectification, end it. Then you'll have a true power that isn't reliant on your own degradation.

Take It as It Is

Over the centuries, the Bible has been questioned, defended, scrutinized, interpreted, and even fought over countless times. Almost all of these issues arise from people asking the question: “What does the Bible literally mean?” As with all works, the Bible’s interpretation is left predominately to the reader, and with the millions upon millions of readers the Bible has had over the years the shear number of different interpretations has caused numerous conflicts. Yet, most of these conflicts arise due to the method in which people read the Bible. Instead of taking the Bible strictly on its own terms, it is bombarded with outside texts and documents attempting to exact its meaning. In contrast to these fruitless attempts at interpreting the Bible, the process of reading the Bible literally and on its own terms is what yields the true meaning of the Bible.

In chapter twenty four of Northrop Frye’s book Biblical and Classical Myths Frye makes the suggestion that the Bible should be read in the same way that poems are read. Poetry is read ‘literally’ and Frye believes that the Bible should also be read in this fashion. Frye’s definition of taking the Bible literally, however, is not the typical definition thought of when the term literally is used. According to Frye, reading something literally not only means that you trust that what is being said is actually happening, but that it is actually happening within the context of the piece. In this way, the words and metaphors within a text relate back to the text itself and only make sense within the world of the piece. In other words, the metaphor or idea is literally true within the confines of the setting, rules, and laws established by the text itself. Frye gives an example of such internal dynamics in the Bible by comparing the Old and New Testaments. Frye argues that the Old Testament is validated and proven only by the fact that its prophecies are fulfilled within the New Testament. Conversely, the New Testament is only validated and proven by the fact that it fulfills the prophecies set by the Old Testament. Such relationships make little to no sense when they are taken out of the context of the work itself. When one attempts to make these connections to things outside of the text and in the real world the literal interpretation of the text breaks down and becomes a, usually false, factual interpretation. In this way, when stories that happen literally within the Bible are linked to real world texts, documents, historical accounts, geological records, and digital replications and analysis the Bible is being taken out of its literal context and one thus receives information that is fruitless and counterproductive to unraveling the true meaning behind the Bible.

In order to succeed at reading the Bible literally, one needs to follow a few rules. The actions and accounts within the Bible cannot be questioned. As Frye put it, by questioning the Bible you are implying that the Bible may not be telling the truth within its own context, and thus it can no longer be taken literally. When reading the Bible literally one must understand that the Bible acts independently and has sovereignty over itself and therefore does not conform or adhere to the real world. Like Yeats said: “You can refute Hegel but not the Song of Sixpence.” Thus, when in the Bibles context, one must accept what they are being told. For example, when the Bible says that it rained for forty days and forty nights, then, in the Bible, it literally rained for forty days and forty nights; no more and no less.

So, what happens when the Bible is not read literally? The most obvious and dangerous ramification is that the Bible can be argued outside of the rules, laws, and context that it defined itself in. This causes one to ask the question: “Did it really happen like that?” which can lead down one of two paths. First, one can then attempt to justify or prove the Bible by making historical connections and relations. The other option is to attempt to discredit and disprove the Bible using historical contradictions and even the lack of evidence to support the Bible against it. Both of these paths stimulate the introduction of outside, non-biblical materials and data to the Bible. And, as stated earlier, this destroys the literal context of the Bible by forcing outside material onto it. The introduction of this irrelevant data also fuels the back and forth arguments attempting to prove or discredit the Bible. Then, these arguments take precedence and begin to belittle the literal interpretation of the Bible.

The idea of what the Bible literally means has been raised here, by Frye, and by countless others throughout history. According to Frye, however, the Bible, quite simply, means exactly what it says. To take this further: the Bible means exactly what it says when you read it within its own context, stop questioning it, stop relating it to things in the real world, and when you start accepting what the Bible it telling you on its terms. The answer to the question “What does the Bible literally mean?” is far too long and complex to write down, partially because the Bible does not mean one thing. It is said that a little bit of everything can be found in the Bible, and so, when taken literally, the Bible has infinitely many meanings. Therefore, there is only one way to disclose what the Bible literally means. And discovering what it means is actually a relatively simple process. All one must do is read the Bible; read the Bible on its own terms and within its own context, and take it as it is.

Are You A Hero?

In class we briefly talked about how everybody is a hero (partially in reference to the question on the test regarding a classmates origins of birth). But anywho, this got me thinking back to the 22 points of a hero of tradition. And I was wondering, how many points would I really get if I put my life to the "hero test." So, here are the 22 points, and then my answers to them.

1 - Mother is royal, or a virgin
2 - Father is a king
3 - Father is near relative to Mother
4 - Unusual conception
5 - Possible "son of a God"
6 - Attempt made to kill at birth
7 - Spirited Away
8 - Raised by Foster Parents in a (usually in a foreign country)
9 - Told nothing about childhood
10 - In adulthood goes to/returns to future kingdom
11 - Victory over king/giant/dragon/foe of some kind
12 - Marries a Prince/Princess
13 - Becomes King/Queen
14 - Reign is uneventful for a time
15 - Establishes laws
16 - Loses favor with Gods/Subjects
17 - Loses the throne/kingdom
18 - Mysterious death
19 - Dies on top of a hill
20 - Children (if any) do not succeed
21 - Not buried
22 - One or more holy sepulchers (tombs)

So, here's how I did on the hero scale:

1 - Nope
2 - Nope
3 - Very glad to say 'No' here
4 - Don't think so, and don't care to find out
5 - Nope
6 - Nothing beyond typical childhood illnesses
7 - Nope
8 - Nope
9 - Hard to judge yourself here, but none of you do, so I'll give myself this one
10 - I don't plan on staying in, let alone ruling Bozeman, so Nope
11 - I guess you could consider college a foe
12 - Not yet, but I highly doubt it
13 - Don't plan on it
14 - 17 - No due to 13
18 - 22 - I expect my death to be fairly typical, so I'll say no to these

So, lets count those up shall we? Grand Total : '2'

And that's with being lenient on 2 of the criteria. So, I would have to say that my life does not really fit into the "hero of tradition." But like we said in class, "Everyone is 'The Hero.'"

Trusting the Author

Recently in class we talked a little about trusting the author of a work. Essentually, should you take the author's words as fact, as what really happened/is happening. Now, before I continue, I am also refering to a fictional author telling a purposfully fictional story, in this case however, trusting that what you are being told is what actually happened in the fictional plane of existance. Anywho, back to my main point: The question "Should you trust the author?" Really struck me in a strange way. I've always trusted the author of every work I've read. I didn't even know you didn't have to trust the author. If in the middle of a love story all the sudden space monkeys attack then you take that as what actually happened, space monkeys just started attacking, no questions asked. A bit strange, yes, but hey, it's not my story to change.

So, what happens when you start not trusting what the author is telling you? Well, from what I can see, you can go anywhere and take the story anywhere. When you stop taking the text seriously your interperation runs rampant. Suddenly, when the author says "The cat ran up the tree." It no longer means that a small feline made it's way up into a tree, it can mean anything from "the cat dug a hole and sat in it" to "communism is corrupting our youth." It all becomes a matter of what you want the text to say, not what it actually says.

Revelation

Before I begin, here are a few people's blogs that I have found very intriguing:
Andrew's Blog
Erica's Blog
Kerry's Blog
These are only a few, but if you're looking for something good there is a start.

So, the book of Revelation, it's big, scary, confusing, and no matter what you say about it everybody says you're wrong about something. I've read Revelation a few times in my life, and a great deal of what you get out of it depends on both what you are looking for and what actually sticks out in your mind.

As we've said in class, the book is just too jumpy and imagery oriented to get much unity out of it. And anytime you get something like this what you get out of it is going to be vastly different from everybody else. Firstly, as I mentioned earlier, a great deal of what you get out of it depends on what you're looking for (both consciously and subconsciously). If you go into Revelation intending to find clues of when the second coming and the end of the world are going to come then sure enough you'll find quite a few. But, I would contend that if you tried hard enough you could pull out an argument for just about anything you wanted thanks to the extremely elaborate imagery. Secondly, what sticks out to you will also alter what you get from reading Revelation. For instance, if "The 144,000" sticks out in your mind you'll pay a lot more attention to that, where as somebody else may be intrigued by the 7 seals; or even more specifically, if somebody is intrigued by the relation of numbers. That person may find some sort of divine link between the number of horns and the number of heads on the beast. Where as a person who doesn't really care about the exact numbers and their meanings may treat that same information with an "Oh, that's nice" mentality.

I guess, my real point here is that Revelation really has no specific meaning. Sure, it deals with the end of the world and various things associated with that, but the specifics are all blurred for us. And whenever you leave meanings blurry and up to the reader you get an infinite number of interoperations. So, a very simple yet true answer to the question "What does the book of Revelation mean?" would be this: Depends on who you ask.

Job and The Prodigal Son

For more Information on Eleusinian Mysteries Click Here.

In contrast to the "Sunday School" version of Job, which I talked about in previous entries, the real "meat" of Job, found in the middle, demonstrates a very different school of thought in regards to God. Sunday School Job says that you should remain vigilant and trust God because he works "in mysterious ways." Where as the meat of Job portrays a God that is much less "separate" and much more personal. A God who it is ok to question, to ask "Why?" Even going as far as to say that doubt is essential to faith.

As we start talking about the gospels we can't help but talk about parables. In general, parables are designed to show or teach something. Furthermore, we defined them in class as being "an attack on the structure of moral expectation." Essentially, what you think will/should happen does not end up happening in the parables. The real power behind these parables lies in the questions and discussion they invoke. Take the story of the Prodigal Son from Luke for example (I'll assume we're all familiar with the story, and more into specifics). When the Son who left his father and wasted his inheritance comes back the Father is overjoyed to see him and throughs him an elaborate party to celebrate his return. The son who stayed home and obeyed his father has the same reaction to this that most of us have when we read this. He didn't do anything wrong, and he never got that kind of special treatment. So, what are we supposed to get out of this? Granted, it attacks our moral expectations, but surely there must be something behind it. I don't have an answer to what this parable means, and most of the answers I've heard have some sort of hole in their logic, or just do not seem rational to me. Yet, as I've said before, it is not in the question, but in the attempting to answer the question, that real knowledge can be found.

Conventional Vs Speculative

Dr. Sexton struck a chord with me the other day in class when he made a comment somewhere along the lines of "conventional" wisdom being not very deep and even obvious, where "speculative" wisdom on the other hand is much more interrogative, and important, and worth your time. Now before I continue, I would like to say that Dr. Sexton did later reconfigure his stance slightly, that conventional wisdom is not entirely trivial. And on this, I would like to elaborate:

What we have defined as "conventional" wisdom in class, I tend to value much more then the "speculative" wisdom that has been praised in our class discussions. The interrogative, question asking, type wisdom, in my eyes, stems from a very childish curiosity and has no real value. It takes no wisdom at all to ask a question, only a misunderstanding. Like when you are attempting to explain something to a child and after every answer you provide the child responds with "why?" and they cycle never ends. The child wants you to explain every detail and is never satisfied. By the logic we've established, this child must be some sort of "Wisdom God" simply because of the questions they never stop asking. Now, before you get ahead of me, I'm not saying that "conventional" wisdom has the answers to everything, but it does have an answer, or view, or opinion. To continue with the theme of my previous two posts, lets look at Theodicy for example. Which has more wisdom: Asking the question "why do bad things happen to good people?" or the discussion and attempt at explaining the question? In my opinion, it's the ladder. But apparently I'm vastly outnumbered by my classmates.

Theodicy in Job

For more information on the Talmud Click Here.

For more information on Epicureanism Click Here.

For more information on Theodicy Click Here.

In our discussion of Job thus far we've talked about the difference between the "Sunday school version" of Job, essentially consisting of the very beginning and very end of the book, where Job has things taken away from him, still praises God, then has even more things returned to him. And this version of Job tends to be a cop-out answer to the question of Theodicy, see more above. So, essentially the message you get with this answer is either that God is showing how loyal you are to him, or, in a more pessimistic interpretation, that God is simply screwing with you. Neither of these I feel are valid answers to the question. Rather then repeat myself on my personal opinion on this question I'll simply refer you to my previous post "The Slave."

The Slave

First off, I must admit that I am very bad at finding the 'deep' meaning behind stories/novels. I just don't make connections between characters and events to historical people/events/other texts. And likewise, I didn't really get a lot of the "This person represents this person" until I read up on some analysis of The Slave. To me, what I find most interesting in books is the questions they raise, or the thoughts they spark, as apposed to the actual text itself. This probably seems like blasphemy to all you English majors (I'm a Math major just FYI), but it's how I prefer to interpret texts. And thusly, I continue:

As others have mentioned, the title of the book raises an interesting topic. Jacob sees himself as a slave, both in the literal sense and the metaphorical sense. The question raised the first of these is rather uneventful, and I will discuss it in the brief statement: "Yes, Jacob was literally a slave." Now, on to more eventful topics. Was Jacob a slave to God? to predestination? What does it even mean to be a slave in this sense? To me, this discussion naturally leads to a discussion of free will. Free will naturally seems to contradict the idea of predestination, yet somehow we try to hold onto both at the same time. It's nice to think of ourselves as 'in control' of our lives and to know that every decision we make is completely ours; it gives us a sense of power and responsibility for our own lives. But, when push comes to shove and things don't go our way it's a lot easier to say "It's just God's plan" or "That's how it was meant to be" as apposed to "I made a poor choice."

In the Christian way of thinking, or the one I'm more familiar with since there is no one "Christian way" of thinking, free will is an absolute. God does not force anybody to ever do anything. Instead God uses the power of suggestion and controlling circumstance to shape the world. I realize I'm getting borderline "faith language" here, so I'll try to bring it all back together. Jacob's feelings of not being in control are natural feelings that anybody would have when things don't go their way. This seems like kind of a cop-out answer but, to me at least, it makes the most sense. God didn't "do" this to you; the bad things happen because of the choices you and the people around you make.

This thought chain lead me to a topic we've beaten to death in class: The topic of bad things happening to "good" people. And seeing as the metaphorical horse is already dead, I'll take a swing or two at it myself. I'll avoid the easy answer we all know and have discussed many times in class for the sake of making this argument more interesting. Why do bad things happen to you even if you've been "good?" Because what happens to you isn't solely based on your actions and behavior. No matter how isolated we are or become what happens to us is still effected by other people. Now, I'll briefly touch on the flip side of this before returning to how this relates to The Slave. Why do good things happen to bad people? Going off my earlier discussion of the people around you effecting what happens to you, being a 'bad person' will naturally give you an advantage. Being a "bad" person usually somehow manifests itself in the taking advantage of or using "good" people for a personal gain. And therefore if a "bad" person is surrounded by "good" people, the "bad" can leech off the "good" in order to improve their lives and therefore worsen the lives of the "good." I hope all that made sense.

So, how does all that relate to The Slave? Well, like I said earlier, it's what the story makes you think about, not the story itself that is really interesting. But, to appease the English Analysis Gods, I shall attempt to relate this back to the novel. Jacob doesn't feel he is being treated justly. Is this God's fault? Jacob's fault? The people around him's fault? or perhaps more likely, A bizarre integration of all three.