11/11/21

Looking at the Book (2015) Genesis: History, Fiction or Neither? (Part 14 of 38)

0047 How do Hoffmeier’s first two genres, legend and myth, fit into this idea of the confluence of cycles and genres?

Legends associate to distant cycles.

Myths go with recent cycles.

0048 It is like a river.  Legends are like the uniform flow of water.  Myths are like the waterfalls and eddies.  Legends move under the pull of archetypes, just like water uniformly moves according to gravity.  Myths are like whirlpools and turbulence, generated by the landscape beneath the stream.

The metaphor is water.  The flow of genre is the thing itself, moving through time from the first singularity.

0049 Hoffmeier’s third genre is family history.

The Genesis phrase, “these are the generations”, seems to be an organizational marker.  The genealogies are a genre that imply a period of continuity, as expected when a cycle, or a suite of cycles, proceeds.

0050 The start of Ubaid to the end of Ur III spans nine cycles.

On the one hand, the primeval history does not delineate them all.

On the other hand, the genealogies in the primeval history express how cyclesfeel, especially from the point of view of a family holding together within southern Mesopotamia, for thousands of years.

11/10/21

Looking at the Book (2015) Genesis: History, Fiction or Neither? (Part 15 of 38)

0051 Hoffmeier next turns to the stories, starting with Adam and Eve.

Genesis 2:10-14 places Eden in Mesopotamia during the wet Neolithic (around 7800 years ago), when four rivers enter the newly-filled Persian Gulf.

0052 To me, the stories of the Garden of Eden associate to the first singularity.

From a scientific standpoint, the first singularity starts with the appearance of a speech-alone talking culture, the Ubaid of southern Mesopotamia.  The dynamics are discussed in The First Singularity and Its Fairy Tale Trace.  The melding of two cultures, one land-loving Neolithic and the other coast-loving Mesolithic, must have taken generations.  The routinization of pidgin, followed by its transformation into a fully linguistic creole, requires more than one generation.

0053 Yet, as typical of fairy tales, the names of actual people get entangled in memories of what happened.  Clearly, something happened.  It happened to real people.

0054 The artistry of the Stories of Adam and Eve is remarkable, especially when the nature of the first singularity is not disregarded.

For example, a talking serpent, who suddenly appears in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and ends up crawling on the ground like a snake named “Desire”, testifies to the character of the transition.  The serpent has no hands.  It cannot talk in hand-speech talk.  It can only perform speech-alone talk.

11/9/21

Looking at the Book (2015) Genesis: History, Fiction or Neither? (Part 16 of 38)

0055 Hoffmeier dwells on Genesis 6:1-4, concerning the sons of God and the daughters of men.

Literary analysis suggests that the Nephilim episode relates to Noah’s flood in the same way that the Tower of Babelrelates to Abraham’s calling.

0056 In this, both point to periods of increasing contradictions within established paradigms, the final period of a cycle… er… genre.

11/8/21

Looking at the Book (2015) Genesis: History, Fiction or Neither? (Part 17 of 38)

0057 Hoffmeier considers the story of Noah’s flood.  It has a literary structure common to Semitic civilizations.  Typically, the structure goes ABCB’A’, where B’ and A’ mirror B and A.  Noah’s flood story, ABC…P…C’B’A’, contains 16 steps. 

0058 On top of that, during the past three centuries of the Age of Ideas, archaeologists unearth cuneiform-bearing clay tablets from long-buried libraries of ancient cities.  Some of the tablets tell a flood tale almost identical to the story of Noah’s flood.

0059 What does this imply, concerning the genres in Gen 1-11?To me, this implies a deep coherence between an elite Sumerian tradition and Abraham’s ancestors.  The idea is dramatically envisioned in the masterwork, An Archaeology of the Fall.  

Gen 1-11 in an insider’s tale about the rise and the fall of Sumerian civilization.

11/5/21

Looking at the Book (2015) Genesis: History, Fiction or Neither? (Part 18 of 38)

0060 James Hoffmeier concludes, by expressing the conviction that the entire Bible, including Genesis 1-11, intend to portray real events.  Therefore, the genre of Gen 1-11 is history and theology.

0061 These comments rely on the hypothesis of the first singularity, where a change in the way humans talk, from hand-speech to speech-alone talk, constitutes a transition so fundamental that our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

To me, this implies that the stories of Adam and Eve are fairy tales about the initiation and early development of our current Lebenswelt of unconstrained social complexity.

0062 The first singularity initiates cycles of failure, reorientation, paradigm implementation, and response to contradictions inherent in the established paradigm.  Each cycle expresses its own genre.  Each cycle lasts for 16 generations (that is, about 400 years).  Each cycle brings the Ubaid further into the rewards and losses of increasing social differentiation.

A similar spiraling appears in Gen 1-11.  For example, the stories of Cain and Abel are a little less dreamy than the stories of Adam and Eve.  Lamech’s attitude is way more arrogant than Cain’s.

0063 The primeval history serves a witness to the consequences of the first singularity.

In this sense, Hoffmeier is on target.  Gen 1-11 is history and theology.

11/4/21

Looking at the Book (2015) Genesis: History, Fiction or Neither? (Part 19 of 38)

0064 In chapter two, Gordon H. Wenham views Gen 1-11 as protohistory.

He starts with the genealogies.

Even though the narratives are difficult to classify as genre, the genealogies are not.

0065 Wenham proposes a thought experiment.

Clearly, the view from within, the author’s point of view, would not assign the classifier, “genre”, to portions of the text.  The classification comes from the outside, from the reader’s point of view.

So, how does the reader, on the outside, enter the thought-world of the author, on the inside?

0066 This thought experiment associates to a two-level interscope, which is discussed in A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction.

For content, in the normal-context of the author’s world3a, the Biblical text2a emerges from (and situates) the potential of ‘the insider’s witness’1a.

For situation, in the normal-context of the reader’s world3b, an interpretation of the Biblical text2b emerges from (and situates) the potential of ‘insights into the revelation of what happened’1b.

0067 Here is a picture.

11/3/21

Looking at the Book (2015) Genesis: History, Fiction or Neither? (Part 20 of 38)

0068 Where does identification of genre enter into the previous diagram?

Genre introduces perspective.

Genre may serve as an ordering principle1c.

0069 Here is a picture.

0070 If I look at the virtual nested form in the realm of possibility (the column of elements in firstness), I see this:

genre1c( insights for reader1b( Biblical witness1a))

The normal context of genre1c virtually brings insights for the reader1b into relation with the potential of Biblical witness1a.

07/7/21

Looking at Manvir Singh’s Article (2021) “Magic, Explanations, and Evil” (Part 1 of 5)

0001 This blog compliments Comments on Manvir Singh’s Essay (2021) “Magic, Evil and Explanations”, available at smashwords and other websites selling electronic works.

0002 Singh’s article appears in Current Anthropology.

Manvir Singh is a postdoctoral research fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse, France.

To me, his work contrasts with Sasha Newell, who, in 2018, publishes a theoretical piece titled, “The Affectiveness of Symbols”, also in Current Anthropology.

Singh aims for science.  Newell focuses on interpretation.

0003 Will the discipline of Anthropology turn towards an empirio-schematic approach or towards an approach where the word, “science”, is no longer relevant?

Mark Horowitz, William Yaworsky and Kenneth Kickham publish a survey, under the title, “Anthropology’s Science Wars: Insights from an New Survey”, in 2019, in Current Anthropology.

0004 These three papers tell us much about the divided discipline of contemporary Anthropology.

07/6/21

Looking at Manvir Singh’s Article (2021) “Magic, Explanations, and Evil” (Part 2 of 5)

0005 Anthropology stands astride the narrower, more technical, disciplines of Sociology and Psychology.

Manvir Singh constructs a modern paradigm for a topic dear to Anthropology, but not to the narrower disciplines.

What is the nature of magic?

0006 Singh publishes the results of a Mystical Harm Survey, applied to 60 societies on the Probability Sample File of the electronic Human Relations Area Files.  He uses principal component analysis to reduce forty-nine raw variables to two principal dimensions with the greatest variation.

Principal components?  Greatest variation?

0007 Principal components are the dimensions with the greatest variation in a scatterplot.

Typically, principal component analysis shows variables that are relevant to the topic at hand.

For example, when considering mystical harm, one would expect significant variation between a common person and, say, a warlock, along some parameter that might be called, “warlockness”.

0008 Singh finds two parameters distinguishing common folk, sorcerers and witches.  Witches are high in PC1 and low in PC2.  Sorcerers are low in PC1 and high in PC2.

PC1 is witchiness.  Witches fly, meet in secret in the forest on a full moon, suddenly appear and disappear, and so on.  To me, witchiness is the embodiment of malicious magic.  Witches not only perform magic, they live it.

PC2 is the evil eye.  Sorcerers do not embody the magic that they perform.  Instead, the magic resides in their gaze.  The evil eye is a harmful mystical operation that signifies a whole range of magical works.  The evil eye is the worst.

0009 Singh does not dwell on the seemingly philosophical distinction between embodiment and gaze.  Neither do the anthropologists who are pleased with the scatterplot of PC1 and PC2 in Figure 1 (of the article).  Anthropology looks like science.

07/5/21

Looking at Manvir Singh’s Article (2021) “Magic, Explanations, and Evil” (Part 3 of 5)

0010 Singh identifies two principle components to harmful magic, witchiness (PC1) and the evil eye (PC2).

What happens next?

0011 Singh proposes a model to account for the observation.  The model consists of three schemes of cultural selection.

The first selection (F) is for intuitive techniques of harmful magic.

The second selection (G) is for plausible explanations of misfortune.

The third selection (H) is for myths that demonize a subgroup (in this case, sorcerers and witches).

0012 Singh misses the scaffolding beneath the glass that he stands on.  His exposition is on malevolent magic.  He does not seem to realize that malevolent magic recapitulates the open, generative magic of group living, including…

…intuitive techniques for beneficial magic (F’)…

…plausible explanations of fortune (G’)…

…myths that celebrate the group (H’).

0013 Here is a table.