Love your work. I also like delving into creation myths and using them in my fiction so I look forward to your novel. I have often wondered how society moved from revering the womb to figuring out how a man could give birth. Lately I've been re-reading the Epic of Gilgamesh and re-thinking the role of Shamat. Shamat is often categorized as a prostitute, which carries lots of connotations in itself. She is told to civilise Enkidu, a wild man (or read that as a man unpolluted by the material world of Ur), so that he can challenge Gilgamesh, become his friend and confidant. The goal is for Enkidu to teach Gilgamesh how to be a better ruler. When Enkidu is dying, he curses Shamat for leading him out of his natural state but thenbShamash (the sun diety) reminds him that if it weren't for Shamat, he would still be an animal. There is so much to unpack in this story. Enkidu dies of a long and painful death as punishment for killing Humbaba the Bull of Heaven. Man against nature. Sex as both the civilising of men and the source of their arrogance. And in the end, the desire for men to blame women for their mortality. Or maybe there's something else, or something in addition. The Bull attacks civilisation because Gilgamesh rejects Innana's overtures but is this only the story of a woman spurned? Or is something else at play. Is Inanna, the mother Earth who Gilgamesh refuses to respect so she figgts back with droughts and floods, etc. Instead of accepting responsibility, Gikgamesh enlists Enkidu's support in killing the messenger --the bull. Someone is going to suffer but it won't be the rich and powerful Gilgamesh. It's the common man, the one who was supposed to teach Gilgamesh to be more understanding and empathetic. It is the common man who suffers for the destruction of nature and so Enkidu turns his anger not on Gulgamesh but on Shamat. If that isn't a tale fit for modern society, I don't know what is.
Such a smart, thoughtful piece, Susan. Many years ago, I heard a religious studies lecturer offer a feminist interpretation of the Book of Genesis (in which she also acknowledged the two conflicting origin stories, because, as you pointed out, no Track Changes back then) that I loved. Her reading of the "fall" was that instead of erring, Eve made a conscious, intentional decision to bite the apple as a way to escape from an infantile, static, timeless, ignorant state into history and knowledge. There are so many stories, and so many interpretations, and the reduction of human experience to a single, reductive, orthodox narrative is always, always a tragedy.
I love what you've written here, Susan. Thanks. I learned a lot from reading.
I was raised as a Christian, replaced it with a different belief system: science, for a number of years and fell back into Christianity after a few numinous experiences. I look with a skeptical eye on much of what is in the bible because of the many translations over time (you know, that childhood game of telephone tells me that stuff got lost in the translations across languages and across time, as the meanings of words are not static as we all SHOULD know).
I've read the Gospel of Thomas and many religious/spiritual books over the past few decades. I too reject the creation story in Genesis, but not for the same reasons that you do. I view the Divine - whatever you might want to call God, or the "ground of being" - as energy. How can energy have a gender? When energy chooses to manifest as the carbon beings that humans are, it does. How that manifestation happened the first time around when humans showed up on this huge rock we call earth, I know not. And it doesn't matter to me that "I know not." Some things just are.
FYI: Some years ago, I read the Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design by Richard Dawkins and was left with the question, how did inert matter, after it was created, manifest as living carbon beings? Where did the spark of life come from? That question really wasn't answered...in this brilliantly written book, otherwise.
Last year I read Aldous Huxley's The Perennial Philosophy because I kept on seeing other authors reference it, and I needed to understand it better. Hence, my reference to "the ground of being" in the previous paragraphs. Been searching for something like this my entire life (I'm a 74-year-old). As the old saying goes, 'when the student is ready, the teacher appears.' For me, the teacher is often a book as books 'call to me.'
Jesus was a prophet. If you cut away all of the dogma surrounding him in the bible, and follow the basic principles he outlined, the world would be a much better place. Really just two commandments - love god (the earth - the ground of being) and love your neighbor as yourself. Difficult to follow commandments for sure. Our HIStory books are filled with failures to follow these simple rules for living. What we need is more HERstory books...and adherence to these two difficult-to-follow commandments.
I agree with all of this. It’s so beautiful. I think the part about the divine being energy is pointed to in many creation myths, and probably why Batbelo, in Gnosticism is both gender, or more clearly, all genders. Myths are metaphors. Obviously, I’m not a promoter of any mythological system, but it seems that there is something that responds to us. I have no problem with Jesus, only what he had been used for. Thank you for such a thoughtful response.
The eminent psychoanalyst and once considered by Freud to be his heir, Carl Jung, was the son of a Lutheran Pastor. Supposedly on Jung's office door and tombstone in Latin was this phrase: "Bidden or not, the gods are present." He said he didn't believe in god, but "knew." Like others before and after him who have studied comparative religions, Jung embraced mythology and incorporated it into his theorizing about the psyche (the notion of the 'collective unconscious' being derived from all of his studies of ancient myths and texts).
If you haven't read the posthumously published book of his The Red Book, I highly recommend it. He knew it would not be well received during his lifetime, as people would think he was crazy...hence the directive to publish it after his death.
I love the part of the Athena story where she give Zeus a real headache, bursting forth in FULL ARMOR from his head. Patriarchy loves the Greeks because their big bad was a serial rapist.
Love your work. I also like delving into creation myths and using them in my fiction so I look forward to your novel. I have often wondered how society moved from revering the womb to figuring out how a man could give birth. Lately I've been re-reading the Epic of Gilgamesh and re-thinking the role of Shamat. Shamat is often categorized as a prostitute, which carries lots of connotations in itself. She is told to civilise Enkidu, a wild man (or read that as a man unpolluted by the material world of Ur), so that he can challenge Gilgamesh, become his friend and confidant. The goal is for Enkidu to teach Gilgamesh how to be a better ruler. When Enkidu is dying, he curses Shamat for leading him out of his natural state but thenbShamash (the sun diety) reminds him that if it weren't for Shamat, he would still be an animal. There is so much to unpack in this story. Enkidu dies of a long and painful death as punishment for killing Humbaba the Bull of Heaven. Man against nature. Sex as both the civilising of men and the source of their arrogance. And in the end, the desire for men to blame women for their mortality. Or maybe there's something else, or something in addition. The Bull attacks civilisation because Gilgamesh rejects Innana's overtures but is this only the story of a woman spurned? Or is something else at play. Is Inanna, the mother Earth who Gilgamesh refuses to respect so she figgts back with droughts and floods, etc. Instead of accepting responsibility, Gikgamesh enlists Enkidu's support in killing the messenger --the bull. Someone is going to suffer but it won't be the rich and powerful Gilgamesh. It's the common man, the one who was supposed to teach Gilgamesh to be more understanding and empathetic. It is the common man who suffers for the destruction of nature and so Enkidu turns his anger not on Gulgamesh but on Shamat. If that isn't a tale fit for modern society, I don't know what is.
Such a smart, thoughtful piece, Susan. Many years ago, I heard a religious studies lecturer offer a feminist interpretation of the Book of Genesis (in which she also acknowledged the two conflicting origin stories, because, as you pointed out, no Track Changes back then) that I loved. Her reading of the "fall" was that instead of erring, Eve made a conscious, intentional decision to bite the apple as a way to escape from an infantile, static, timeless, ignorant state into history and knowledge. There are so many stories, and so many interpretations, and the reduction of human experience to a single, reductive, orthodox narrative is always, always a tragedy.
I love what you've written here, Susan. Thanks. I learned a lot from reading.
I was raised as a Christian, replaced it with a different belief system: science, for a number of years and fell back into Christianity after a few numinous experiences. I look with a skeptical eye on much of what is in the bible because of the many translations over time (you know, that childhood game of telephone tells me that stuff got lost in the translations across languages and across time, as the meanings of words are not static as we all SHOULD know).
I've read the Gospel of Thomas and many religious/spiritual books over the past few decades. I too reject the creation story in Genesis, but not for the same reasons that you do. I view the Divine - whatever you might want to call God, or the "ground of being" - as energy. How can energy have a gender? When energy chooses to manifest as the carbon beings that humans are, it does. How that manifestation happened the first time around when humans showed up on this huge rock we call earth, I know not. And it doesn't matter to me that "I know not." Some things just are.
FYI: Some years ago, I read the Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design by Richard Dawkins and was left with the question, how did inert matter, after it was created, manifest as living carbon beings? Where did the spark of life come from? That question really wasn't answered...in this brilliantly written book, otherwise.
Last year I read Aldous Huxley's The Perennial Philosophy because I kept on seeing other authors reference it, and I needed to understand it better. Hence, my reference to "the ground of being" in the previous paragraphs. Been searching for something like this my entire life (I'm a 74-year-old). As the old saying goes, 'when the student is ready, the teacher appears.' For me, the teacher is often a book as books 'call to me.'
Jesus was a prophet. If you cut away all of the dogma surrounding him in the bible, and follow the basic principles he outlined, the world would be a much better place. Really just two commandments - love god (the earth - the ground of being) and love your neighbor as yourself. Difficult to follow commandments for sure. Our HIStory books are filled with failures to follow these simple rules for living. What we need is more HERstory books...and adherence to these two difficult-to-follow commandments.
I agree with all of this. It’s so beautiful. I think the part about the divine being energy is pointed to in many creation myths, and probably why Batbelo, in Gnosticism is both gender, or more clearly, all genders. Myths are metaphors. Obviously, I’m not a promoter of any mythological system, but it seems that there is something that responds to us. I have no problem with Jesus, only what he had been used for. Thank you for such a thoughtful response.
Thanks for reading and commenting, Susan.
The eminent psychoanalyst and once considered by Freud to be his heir, Carl Jung, was the son of a Lutheran Pastor. Supposedly on Jung's office door and tombstone in Latin was this phrase: "Bidden or not, the gods are present." He said he didn't believe in god, but "knew." Like others before and after him who have studied comparative religions, Jung embraced mythology and incorporated it into his theorizing about the psyche (the notion of the 'collective unconscious' being derived from all of his studies of ancient myths and texts).
If you haven't read the posthumously published book of his The Red Book, I highly recommend it. He knew it would not be well received during his lifetime, as people would think he was crazy...hence the directive to publish it after his death.
Love this Susan. It's brilliant.
Thank you, Louise. Your opinion means so much to me.
As always thought provoking and incendiary, well done. As always, Tom Kacvinsky
Thank you, Tom. You mean the world to me.
I love the part of the Athena story where she give Zeus a real headache, bursting forth in FULL ARMOR from his head. Patriarchy loves the Greeks because their big bad was a serial rapist.
The apple really doesn’t…