0018 What do I know so far from the Genesis 11 story?

0019 In terms of technical cohesion_3b, kiln-fired bricks_2b are expensive and methodologically demanding_1b. They must be uniformly burnt “thoroughly”_1b.  So, there can be no diversity in the meeting of specifications.  When the architectorders bricks for a monumental tower and asks that the bricks be burnt “thoroughly”, the manufacturer must deliver the appropriate product.  So, the situation-level nested form addresses the organization or incorporation of the project.

In particular, the potential of “overcoming diversity” means that all the bricks are burnt thoroughly.

0020 Farrell further informs me that the Sumerian word, “Bab-ilim”, “gate of the gods”, is readily confounded with the Hebrew word, “Babel”, “confusion”.  

May I wonder whether the technical term for “thorough” has a counterpoint in punnery?

0021 Farrell continues.  Old Testament pseudepigraphical referrals to the Tower of Babel story are found in several books of the Sybilline Oracles (date estimated to be 150-200 A.D.).

In Book 3, a brief allusion tells of Nimrod-philic administrators wanting to go up to the starry heavens.  This precisely contradicts the administrator’s propaganda that visualizes the tower as a passage from the firmament to earth.  Celestial beings are invited to come down for refreshment.  Mortal beings (except, of course, the administrators themselves) are not invited to go up and do something impetuous, like carve their initials into the metallic surface of the firmament.

In Book 11, the text mentions a universal ruler who furnishes another race of restless men.  Does that terminology sound like “immigrant laborers”?  I suppose the line between immigrant and “restless” is fuzzy, at best.  These are the ones_1bwho make the bricks to construct a tower of awful height, in opposition to heaven.

0022 Farrell suggests that these brief snippets add to the picture in Genesis 11 in intriguing ways.

First, the idea of going to the starry heavens intimates a desire for cosmic power (that is, the power of celestial beings).  Can that desire be reduced to a quest for immortality (for example, as portrayed in the epic of Gilgamesh)?  Is mortality tied to the confounding of the languages that accompany the deconstruction of the Tower?

Second, one aspect of the confusion of languages is phonetic drift.

Third, maybe, the immigrant-slave laborers are not regarded as human.

0023 Farrell next considers Slavonic and Greek translations of 3 Baruch.

In the former, the Slavonic writer sees features of the story in a vision.  At the start, angels carry the visionary through an immense portal (time and space?) to a plain populated by chimeric men, with faces of cattle, horns of deer, feet of goats and loins of rams.  When questioned, the angels say that these are the ones who built the tower of war against God.  The Lord threw them out.

Later, the angels say that these chimerians force men and women to make bricks.  One woman gives birth while engaged in such tasks and is not allowed to stop.

In a more technical vein, the visionary finds out that the chimerians devise an augur.  What is the plan?  When they get high enough to contact the firmament, they will use the augur to drill a hole in its surface, in order to ascertain its composition.

0024 Farrell asks the reader to consider genetic technologies to account for the chimeric humans.  Plus, dows not the thickness of the gates of heaven indicate distances of transit from Earth to Sun or from Earth to Saturn?  Such questions raise the specter of interplanetary powers.  Is the goal of the Tower to manipulate celestial mechanics?

Too bad the chimerians are not around to ask.

0025 Farrell next turns to the Book of Jubilees, where the Lord our God says that, if the tower is completed, nothing will escape the Nimrod-affiliated administrative state (or, I should note, God says ‘something like that’).  This explains why the Tower is called “an act of war against God”.

Most likely, the administrators claim (for the public to hear) that the Tower will serve the convenience of the celestial being.  Come on down and have refreshment!   But, the administrators (in private) have far more nefarious plans.

Thank God, no one knows about them.

0026 The citizens of the Shinar plain agree that whatever the administrators say must be correct.  The great tower should ease the descent of a celestial being.  Even the immigrant-slave laborer, who still knows what “thorough” means, is on board.  Even that woman giving birth knows that her “people” can do anything that they set out to do.  After all, they have a common language.

It’s like mind over matter.

In this regard, Farrell mentions the research of a material-science professor, at the University of California (back in the day), who demonstrates that humans, through agreement and projected intention, can generate “psychometric objects”.

Are these things that are altered by conditions?  Or things that alter conditions?  Or maybe both?

“Psychometric” is an evocative (yet ambiguous) adjective… and occasionally… noun.

0027 To me, “psychometric” describes the difference between an actuality alone and an actuality₂ with a normal context₃and potential₁.  An actuality by itself is a mind-independent being composed of matter and form.  An actuality₂ that is bounded by a normal context₃ and potential₁ permits understanding or whatever one wants to call the entire nested form as a mind-dependent being.

Farrell notes that psychometric objects naturally belong to rituals.  In Christian tradition, bread and wine (matter and form) transubstantiates to the Body and Blood of Christ (being and form, as actuality₂ in a nested form).  The appearance or essence of the substantiated form remains the same.  The presence or esse_ce of the substantiating being changes from matter to being.  Matter is material.  Being is relational.  Being entangles matter in its relationality.

The Eucharist is an exemplar for psychometric objects.

Being (relationality) entangles matter (physicality).

A category-base nested form entangles an actuality itself.

0028 Speaking of psychometric objects, Farrell next turns to Pseudo-Philo’s version of the Tower of Babel story, where “thorough” takes on an alchemical flavor.  Each person says to his neighbor, “Let us write our names on the bricks and then thoroughly burn them in fire.”

To me, the immigrant-slave laborers are only imitating their Nimrod-loving administrative masters.  The word, “thoroughly”, passes from a technical quantification to an alchemic qualification.  To burn a brick is to heat it long enough to fix the written name, rather than to drive all the water out, leaving spaces for molten bitumen to seep into before solidifying and stabilizing the brick.

The thoroughly burnt brick absorbs molten bitumen.  When the bitumen solidifies, it fortifies the brick.

The alchemically psychometric burned brick appears to absorb molten bitumen, but maybe not as much.  Plus, it costs a lot less.

Does that sound like a recipe for disaster?

0029 Pseudo-Philo re-iterates the idea that, if these Nimrod-serving bureaucrats and their immigrant-slaves act as one people, due to the conviction that they speak “one language”, then they will be daring in all that they propose to do, including building a tower that will rival the Egyptian pyramids.

But, Pseudo-Philo does not seem to notice that the method of brick manufacture has already changed, from construction material to alchemical psychometric thing, making it more and more difficult to ascertain which bricks are suitable for monumental construction and which are not.

How can the translator stone permit the discrimination of technically thoroughly burnt bricks from alchemical psychometric bricks when the translator stone is the mechanism supporting the ideology that the people of the old regime and the people in the new regime now speak one language and that makes them one people?

0030 The two-level interscope changes slightly, but tellingly.