Friday, 13 March 2020

NINEVEH










Prologue 
Northern Iraq… 

THE BLAZE OF sun wrung pops of sweat from the old man’s brow, yet he cupped his hands around the glass of hot sweet tea as if to warm them. He could not shake the premonition. It clung to his back like chill wet leaves. 

The dig was over. The tell had been sifted, stratum by stratum, its entrails examined, tagged and shipped: the beads and pendants; glyptics; phalli; ground-stone mortars stained with ocher; burnished pots. Nothing exceptional. An Assyrian ivory toilet box. And man. The bones of man. The brittle remnants of cosmic torment that once made him wonder if matter was Lucifer upward-groping back to his God. And yet now he knew better. The fragrance of licorice plant and tamarisk tugged his gaze to poppied hills; to reeded plains; to the ragged, rock-strewn bolt of road that flung itself headlong into dread. Northwest was Mosul; east, Erbil; south was Baghdad and Kirkuk and the fiery furnace of Nebuchadnezzar. He shifted his legs underneath the table in front of the lonely roadside chaykhana and stared at the grass stains on his boots and khaki pants. He sipped at his tea. The dig was over. What was beginning? He dusted the thought like a clay-fresh find but he could not tag it. 

Someone wheezed from within the chaykhana: the withered proprietor shuffling toward him, kicking up dust in Russian-made shoes that he wore like slippers, groaning backs pressed under his heels. The dark of his shadow slipped over the table. 

"Kaman chay, chawaga?” 

The man in khaki shook his head, staring down at the laceless, crusted shoes caked thick with debris of the pain of living. The stuff of the cosmos, he softly reflected: matter; yet somehow finally spirit. Spirit and the shoes were to him but aspects of a stuff more fundamental, a stuff that was primal and totally other. 

The Shadow shifted. The Kurd stood waiting like an ancient debt. The old man in khaki looked up into eyes that were damply bleached as if the membrane of an eggshell had been pasted over the irises. Glaucoma. Once he could not have loved this man. He slipped out his wallet and probed for a coin among its tattered, crumpled tenants: a few dinars; an Iraqi driver’s license; a faded plastic Catholic calendar card that was twelve years out of date. It bore an inscription on the reverse: WHAT WE GIVE TO THE POOR IS WHAT WE TAKE WITH US WHEN WE DIE. He paid for his tea and left a tip of fifty fils on a splintered table the color of sadness. 

He walked to his jeep. The rippling click of key sliding into ignition was crisp in the silence. For a moment he paused and stared off broodingly. In the distance, shimmering in heat haze that made it look afloat like an island in the sky, loomed the flat-topped, towering mound city of Erbil, its fractured rooftops poised in the clouds like a rubbled, mud-stained benediction. 

The leaves clutched tighter at the flesh of his back. 

Something was waiting. 

“Allah ma’ak, chawaga.” 

Rotted teeth. The Kurd was grinning, waving farewell. The man in khaki groped for a warmth in the pit of his being and came up with a wave and a mustered smile. It dimmed as he looked away. He started the engine, turned in a narrow, eccentric U and headed toward Mosul. The Kurd stood watching, puzzled by a heart-dropping sense of loss as the jeep gathered speed. What was it that was gone? What was it he had felt in the stranger’s presence? Something like safety, he remembered; a sense of protection and deep well-being. Now it dwindled in the distance with the fast-moving jeep. He felt strangely alone. 

By ten after six the painstaking inventory was finished. The Mosul curator of antiquities, an Arab with sagging cheeks, was carefully penning a final entry into the ledger on his desk. For a moment he paused, looking up at his friend as he dipped his penpoint into an inkpot. The man in khaki seemed lost in thought. He was standing by a table, hands in his pockets, staring down at some dry, tagged whisper of the past. Curious, unmoving, for moments the curator watched him, then returned to the entry, writing in a firm, very small neat script until at last he sighed, setting down the pen as he noted the time. The train to Baghdad left at eight. He blotted the page and offered tea. 

His eyes still fixed upon something on the table, the man in khaki shook his head. The Arab watched him, vaguely troubled. What was in the air? There was something in the air. He stood up and moved closer; then felt a vague prickling at the back of his neck as his friend at last moved, reaching down for an amulet and cradling it pensively in his hand. It was a green stone head of the demon Pazuzu, personification of the southwest wind. Its dominion was sickness and disease. The head was pierced. The amulet’s owner had worn it as a shield. 

“Evil against evil,” breathed the curator, languidly fanning himself with a French scientific periodical, an olive-oil thumb-print smudged on its cover. His friend did not move; he did not comment. The curator tilted his head to the side. “Is something wrong?” he asked. 

No answer. 

"Father Merrin?” 

The man in khaki still appeared not to hear, absorbed in the amulet, the last of his finds. After a moment he set it down, then lifted a questioning look to the Arab. Had he said something?

"No, Father. Nothing.” 

They murmured farewells. 

At the door, the curator took the old man’s hand with an extra firmness. 

“My heart has a wish: that you would not go.” His friend answered softly in terms of tea; of time; of something to be done. 

“No, no, no! I meant home!” 

The man in khaki fixed his gaze on a speck of boiled chickpea nestled in a corner of the Arab’s mouth; yet his eyes were distant. “Home,” he repeated. 

The word had the sound of an ending. 

“The States,” the Arab curator added, instantly wondering why he had. 

The man in khaki looked into the dark of the other’s concern. He had never found it difficult to love this man. “Good-bye,” he said quietly; then quickly turned and stepped out into the gathering gloom of the streets and a journey home whose length seemed somehow undetermined. 

“I will see you in a year!” the curator called after him from the doorway. But the man in khaki never looked back. The Arab watched his dwindling form as he crossed a narrow street at an angle, almost colliding with a swiftly moving droshky. Its cab bore a corpulent old Arab woman, her face a shadow behind the black lace veil draped loosely over her like a shroud. He guessed she was rushing to some appointment. He soon lost sight of his hurrying friend. 

The man in khaki walked, compelled. Shrugging loose of the city, he breached the outskirts, crossing the Tigris with hurrying steps, but nearing the ruins, he slowed his pace, for with every step the inchoate presentiment took firmer, more terrible form. 

Yet he had to know. He would have to prepare. 

A wooden plank that bridged the Khosr, a muddy stream, creaked under his weight. And then he was there, standing on the mound where once gleamed fifteen-gated Nineveh, feared nest of Assyrian hordes. Now the city lay sprawled in the bloody dust of its predestination. And yet he was here, the air was still thick with him, that Other who ravaged his dreams. 

The man in khaki prowled the ruins. The Temple of Nabu. The Temple of Ishtar. He sifted vibrations. At the palace of Ashurbanipal he stopped and looked up at a limestone statue hulking in situ. Ragged wings and taloned feet. A bulbous, jutting, stubby penis and a mouth stretched taut in feral grin. The demon Pazuzu. 

Abruptly the man in khaki sagged. 
He bowed his head. 
He knew. 
It was coming. 

He stared at the dust and the quickening shadows. The orb of the sun was beginning to slip beneath the rim of the world and he could hear the dim yappings of savage dog packs prowling the fringes of the city. He rolled his shirtsleeves down and buttoned them as a shivering breeze sprang up. Its source was southwest. 

He hastened toward Mosul and his train, his heart encased in the icy conviction that soon he would be hunted by an ancient enemy whose face he had never seen. 

But he knew his name.





Biblical Nineveh

In the Hebrew Bible, Nineveh is first mentioned in Genesis 10:11: “Ashur left that land, and built Nineveh”

Some modern English translations interpret “Ashur” in the Hebrew of this verse as the country “Assyria” rather than a person, thus making Nimrod, rather than Ashur, the founder of Nineveh. 

Sir Walter Raleigh’s notion that Nimrod built Nineveh, and the cities in Genesis 10:11–12, has also been refuted by scholars.

The discovery of the fifteen Jubilees texts found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls, has since shown that, according to the Jewish sects of Qumran, Genesis 10:11 affirms the apportionment of Nineveh to Ashur. 

The attribution of Nineveh to Ashur is also supported by the Greek Septuagint, King James Bible, Geneva Bible, and by Historian Flavius Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews (Antiquities, i, vi, 4). 

Nineveh was the flourishing capital of the Assyrian Empire and was the home of King Sennacherib, King of Assyria, during the Biblical reign of King Hezekiah (יְחִזְקִיָּהוּ) and the lifetime of Judean prophet Isaiah (ישעיה). 

As recorded in Hebrew scripture, Nineveh was also the place where Sennacherib died at the hands of his two sons, who then fled to the vassal land of ’rrt Urartu. 

The book of the prophet Nahum is almost exclusively taken up with prophetic denunciations against Nineveh. Its ruin and utter desolation are foretold. Its end was strange, sudden, and tragic. 

According to the Bible, it was God’s doing, His judgment on Assyria’s pride (Isaiah 10:5–19). In fulfillment of prophecy, God made “an utter end of the place”. It became a “desolation”. 

The prophet Zephaniah also predicts its destruction along with the fall of the empire of which it was the capital. Nineveh is also the setting of the Book of Tobit.

The Book of Jonah, set in the days of the Assyrian empire, describes it as an “exceedingly great city of three days’ journey in breadth”, whose population at that time is given as “more than 120,000”. 

Genesis 10:11-12 lists four cities “Nineveh, Rehoboth, Calah, and Resen”, ambiguously stating that either Resen or Calah is “the great city.” 

The ruins of Kuyunjiq, Nimrud, Karamles and Khorsabad form the four corners of an irregular quadrangle. 

The ruins of the “great city” Nineveh, with the whole area included within the parallelogram they form by lines drawn from the one to the other, are generally regarded as consisting of these four sites. 

The description of Nineveh in Jonah likely was a reference to greater Nineveh, including the surrounding cities of Rehoboth, Calah and Resen. 

The Book of Jonah depicts Nineveh as a wicked city worthy of destruction. God sent Jonah to preach to the Ninevites of their coming destruction, and they fasted and repented because of this. 

As a result, God spared the city; when Jonah protests against this, God states He is showing mercy for the population who are ignorant of the difference between right and wrong (“who cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand”) and mercy for the animals in the city.

Nineveh’s repentance and salvation from evil can be found in the Hebrew Tanakh (aka the Old Testament and used by Christians Bible and Muslims Quran. To this day, Syriac and Oriental Orthodox churches commemorate the three days Jonah spent inside the fish during the Fast of Nineveh. 

The Christians observing this holiday fast by refraining from food and drink. Churches encourage followers to refrain from meat, fish and dairy products.

Tuesday, 10 March 2020

NOSTALGIA






Now, when coincidences occur, I know I ASKED for them so I look to see if there is anything I can learn.








nostalgia (n.)

1770, "morbid longing to return to one's home or native country, severe homesickness considered as a disease," Modern Latin, coined 1688 in a dissertation on the topic at the University of Basel by scholar Johannes Hofer (1669-1752) as a rendering of German heimweh "homesickness" (for which see home + woe). From Greek algos "pain, grief, distress" (see -algia) + nostos "homecoming," from neomai "to reach some place, escape, return, get home," from PIE *nes- "to return safely home" (cognate with Old Norse nest "food for a journey," Sanskrit nasate "approaches, joins," German genesen "to recover," Gothic ganisan "to heal," Old English genesen "to recover"). 

French nostalgie is in French army medical manuals by 1754. 

Originally in reference to the Swiss and said to be peculiar to them and often fatal, whether by its own action or in combination with wounds or disease. 

By 1830s the word was used of any intense homesickness: that of sailors, convicts, African slaves. 




"The bagpipes produced the same effects sometimes in the Scotch regiments while serving abroad" 

Penny Magazine," Nov. 14, 1840


It is listed among the "endemic diseases" in the "Cyclopaedia of Practical Medicine" [London, 1833, edited by three M.D.s], which defines it as 

"The concourse of depressing symptoms which sometimes arise in persons who are absent from their native country, when they are seized with a longing desire of returning to their home and friends and the scenes their youth ...." 

It was a military medical diagnosis principally, and was considered a serious medical problem by the North in the American Civil War:

In the first two years of the war, there were reported 2588 cases of nostalgia, and 13 deaths from this cause. These numbers scarcely express the real extent to which nostalgia influenced the sickness and mortality of the army. To the depressing influence of home-sickness must be attributed the fatal result in many cases which might otherwise have terminated favorably. 

“Sanitary Memoirs of the War," 
U.S. Sanitary Commission, N.Y.: 1867

Transferred sense (the main modern one) of "wistful yearning for the past" is recorded by 1920, perhaps from such use of nostalgie in French literature. The longing for a distant place also necessarily involves a separation in time.

Monday, 9 March 2020

SPRITE





THE SPIRIT OF THE CAVE


“There’s this Simpsons episode, 
and Homer downs a quart of 
Mayonnaise and Vodka. 
 
And Marge says, 'You know, 
you shouldn't really do that.’ 

And Homer says, 
That’s a problem for Future-Homer -- 
I’m sure glad I’m not that guy!’ 
  
The You That’s Out There in The Future is sort of like Another Person, and so figuring out How to Conduct Yourself Properly in relationship to Your Future Self isn’t much different than figuring out How to Conduct Yourself in relationship to Other People. 
 
Then we can expand the constraints. Not only does the interpretation that you extract have to protect you from suffering and give you an aim, but it has to do it in a way that’s iterable, so it works across time, and then it has to work in The Presence of Other People, so that You can cooperate with them and compete with them in a way that doesn't make you suffer more. 
 
People are Not That Tolerant. They have Choices
 
They don’t have to hang around with you; They can hang around with any one of these other primates. 
 
So if you don’t act properly, at least within certain boundaries, you’re just cast aside. 

People are broadcasting information at you, all the time, about How You Need to Interpret The World, so They can tolerate being around you. 
 
And you need that because, socially isolated, You’re Insane, and then You're Dead. No one can tolerate being alone for any length of time. 
 
We can’t retain Our Own Sanity without continual feedback from Other People. 
 
It’s too damned complicated.  
 
You’re constrained by Your Own Existence, and then you're constrained by The Existence of Other People, and then you're also constrained by The World.  
 
If I read Hamlet and what I extracted out of that is the idea that I should jump off a bridge, it puts my interpretation to an end rather quickly. It doesn’t seem to be optimally functional

An Interpretation is constrained by The Reality of The World. 
 
It’s constrained by The Reality of Other People, and it’s constrained by Your Reality Across Time.  
 
There’s only a small number of interpretations that are going to work in that tightly defined space. 
 
That’s part of The Reason That Postmodernists are Wrong. It’s also part of the reason, by the way, that AI people who are trying to make intelligent machines have had to put them in A Body.  
 
It turns out that you just can’t make Something Intelligent without it being embodied, and it’s partly for the reasons that I've just described. 
 
You need constraints on The System, so that The System doesn’t drown in An Infinite Sea of Interpretation. It’s something like that.



THE SON :
Are you her?

THE FATHER :
Thats Our Lady of The Immaculate Heart. 

The Ones Who Made Us 
are always looking for 
The Ones That Made Them

They go in, look around their feet, sing songs, 
and when They come out, it's usually me they find. 

I've picked up a lot of business in this spot.

THE SON :
But Joe, where's Blue Fairy?

THE FATHER :
That's what we're gonna find out when we ask Dr. Know. 

It's Where Everyone Goes Who Needs to Know.

Meet The Good Doctor!



DOCTOR KNOW'S SHOP

THE SPIRIT OF THE CAVE :
Starving Minds, Welcome to Dr. Know! 

Where fast-food for thought is served up 24 hours a day, in 40,000 locations nationwide. 

Ask Dr. Know, There's Nothing I Don't!
 
THE SON :
Tell me where I can find The Blue Fairy.

THE SPIRIT OF THE CAVE :
Question Me, You Pay The Fee, 
Two for Five, You Get One Free!

THE FATHER :
He means two questions cost five Newbucks with a third
question on The House. 

In This Day and Age, David, 
Nothing Costs More Than Information.
 
THE SON :
That's Everything!

THE FATHER :
Ten Newbucks and a ten copper comes to 7 questions for Dr. Know.
 
THE SON :
That should be enough!

THE FATHER :
He's a Smooth Operator. 
He'll Test Our Limits, 
but Try, We Must!

DR.THE SPIRIT OF THE CAVE :
Greetings Colleagues. 

On author, factual text or fictionalised text, 1st or 3rd person, usual literacy range from primal level to the post doctural, usual span of styles from fairy tale to religious, who's who, or wheres where - or, Flat Fact.
 
THE SON :
Flat-fact?

•!DING!•

THE SPIRIT OF THE CAVE :
Thank you for Question Number One!
 
'Flat-fact' is a term demanding an equal answer with interpretive speculation... merely not the... and what you are saying is basically that is what you-

THE SON :
That shouldn't count! 
That wasn't My Question!

THE FATHER :
You must take care not to raise Your Voice up at The End of
a Sentence.
'Flat-fact'.

Dr.KNOW :
You have 6 more questions!
 
THE SON :
Where is Blue Fair-REE?

•!DING!•

THE SPIRIT OF THE CAVE  :
In The Garden. 
 
Vascostylis blue fairy. 
Blooms twice annually with bright blue flowers on a branched inflorescence.
 
A hybrid between Ascola Meda Arnold

You have 5 more questions.

THE SON :
“Who is Blue Fair-REE?”

THE SPIRIT OF THE CAVE  :
Are you sad, lonely, looking for a friend? 
'Blue Fairy Escort Service' 
will find a mate for you! 

You have 4 more questions.

THE SON :
Joe. Try Fairy Tale.

THE FATHER :
New category. 
A Fairy's Tail”.

THE SON :
No! Fairy Tale!

THE FATHER :
No - “Fairy Tale”
 
THE SON :
“What is Blue Fairy?”

THE SPIRIT OF THE CAVE  :
Pinocchio, 
by Carlo Collodi.

“At the signal, there was a
rustling as flapping of wings, and a large falcon flew to
the windowsill. 
What are your orders, beautiful fairy, he asked...


THE SON :
Thats Her!

THE SPIRIT OF THE CAVE  :
...For you must know that the child with blue hair was no
other than the good hearted fairy who had lived in that wood
for more than a thousand years...

THE FATHER :
David! David!


THE SON :
Thats Her!

THE FATHER :
It was an example of Her. 
But I think we're getting closer.

THE SON :
But if a Fairy Tale is real
wouldn't it be 
A Fact? 
 
A Flat Fact?

THE SPIRIT OF THE CAVE :
...then the dream ended, and Pinocchio awoke, full of
amazement...

THE FATHER :
Say No More. 

New category, please. 

Combine “Fact” 
with 
Fairy Tale 

Now. Ask Him Again.

THE SON :
“How can The Blue Fairy make A Robot into A Real, Live Boy?”

- !TUNK! -

- SYSTEM REBOOT -


THE SPIRIT OF THE CAVE :
Come away,O human child!
To the waters and the wild
With a fairy, hand in hand,
For the world's more full of weeping
Than you can understand.

Your Quest will be perilous
Yet The Reward is Beyond Price.

In His Book,
'How Can A Robot Become Human',
Professor Allen Hobby writes of 
The Power Which Will Transform Mecha into Orga.

[ THERE IS A GOD, YOUNG KING DAVID -- 
AND HE HAS A NEW BOOK OUT.]

THE SON :
Will you tell me How to Find Her?
 
[ HE IS MEANT TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION : 
'Yes' or 'No.'
 
HE DOESN'T -- BECAUSE, AS WE LATER LEARN, 'GOD' (The Demiurge -- Professor Allen Hobby) HAS INTERCEEDED TO FORCE THE SPIRIT OF THE CAVE TO TELL HIM AT THIS POINT. ]
 


THE SPIRIT OF THE CAVE :
Discovery is quite possible.
Our blue fairy does exist
in one place, and one place only,
At The End of The World
Where The Lions Weep.
 
Here is The Place Dreams are Born.
 
THE FATHER :
Many a mecha has gone to The End of The World... 
Never to come back! 

That is Why They Call The End of The World :
'MAN-hattan'.

THE SON :
And that is Why We Must Go There!



HALLWAY OUTSIDE DR. KNOW'S SHOP

THE FATHER :
Wait! What if --
The Blue Fairy isn't Real at all, David? 

What if --
She's MagicK? 

The Supernatural is The Hidden Web that unites The Universe.

 Only orga believe What Cannot Be Seenor Measured. 

It is that oddness that separates Our Species.

Or what if --
The Blue Fairy is an Electronic Parasite that has
arisen to haunt The Minds of Artificial Intelligence? 

They hate us, you know? 
The humans...

They'll stop at nothing.
 
THE SON :
My Mommy doesn't hate me! 
Because I'm Special, and...Unique!

Because there has never been anyone like me before! Ever!

Mommy Loves Martin because He is Real 
and 
When I am Real,
Mommy's going to Read to Me, 
and 
Tuck Me in My Bed, 
and 
Sing to Me, 
and 
Listen to What I Say, 
and 
She Will Cuddle with Me, 
and 
Tell Me every day a hundred times a day 
that 
She Loves Me!

THE FATHER :
She loves 
What You Do for Her,
 as my customers love 
What it is I Do for Them. 

But She Does Not Love You David, 
She cannot love you. 

You are neither flesh, nor blood

You are not a dog, a cat or a canary

You were designed and built
specific, like The Rest of Us. 

And You are Alone now only because 
They tired of you, 
or 
Replaced you with a Younger Model, 
or 
Were displeased with Something You Said, or broke.

They made us Too Smart, Too Quick, and Too Many. 

We are suffering for 
The Mistakes They Made, 
Because when The End comes,  
all that will be left is us

That's Why They Hate Us,
 and  
That is Why You Must Stay here — with me!

[He grins, offering his open hand]

THE SON :
Goodbye, Joe.



ROUGE CITY PLAZA

POLICE OFFICER :
You're in Big Trouble.
 
THE BEAR :
Be careful David, This is Not a Toy.

AMPHIBICOPTER :
Destination please?

THE FATHER :

MAN-hattan.



MANHATTAN

AMPHIBICOPTER :
Mecha Restricted Area.
Manhattan. 
Destination Achieved.

THE FATHER :

Man-hattan, The Lost City in The Sea at The End of The World.

THE SON :
Where The Lions Weep.

THE BEAR :
Grrrrrr

St. BERNARD










But, howsoever thou pursuest this act,
Taint not thy mind, nor let thy soul contrive
Against thy mother aught: leave her to heaven
And to those thorns that in her bosom lodge,
To prick and sting her. Fare thee well at once!
The glow-worm shows the matin to be near,
And 'gins to pale his uneffectual fire:
Adieu, adieu! Hamlet, re-member me.

Exit
King Hamlet,
Father of  Hamlet, (Deceased).
Act  II, Scene I.








When you are ready to listen, Beatrice will appear. 

A man I knew who was at this point on his journey asked me where his guide was. 

He needed her so badly. I suggested he look for her in his active imagination. 

When he did, she appeared instantly and she told him, “I’ve been waiting for you for twenty years. You only had to ask.” 



Beatrice will be there the moment you ask and are truly ready to listen.



Beatrice shows Dante the vision of the unitive world. 

She takes him through the rest of Purgatory and into Heaven. 

Then, at the last moment, she gives way to another guide, St. Bernard, which is puzzling. 



But Beatrice is the psychopomp — a wonderful medieval word for soul guide — who leads Dante through the deep levels of Purgatory into the vision of Heaven, a journey of wholeness and healing. 

Dante owes his success initially to Virgil, but primarily to Beatrice, who leads, inspires, and awakens him spiritually.




“Bernard is Dante Alighieri’s last guide, in Divine Comedy, as he travels through the Empyrean.

Dante’s choice appears to be based on Bernard’s contemplative mysticism, his devotion to Mary, and his reputation for eloquence.”


St. Bernard (1090-1153) is an interesting character, and not only because he has a breed of dog named after him.  In 1113, he and 30 other Burgundian youths sought entrance into the Abbey of Citeaux (founded 1098), birthplace of the Cistercians.  Three years later he was sent off to found the third Cistercian Abbey in the Vallée d’Absinthe, Valley of Bitterness; he named this place, instead, Claire Vallée–Clairvaux, on June 25, 1115.

In 1118, 1119, and 1121, Clairvaux founded 3 new abbeys to make room for those taking holy orders within its walls.  The abbey was becoming a force within mediaeval Christendom.  Indeed, during Bernard’s lifetime, some 290 Cistercian monasteries were to be founded.

As Abbot of Clairvaux, St. Bernard was to be a man of influence both in ecclesiastical affairs — helping spur Peter the Venerable on in the reforms at Cluny, for example — and in temporal affairs, defending ecclesiastical rights against those of kings and princes.  He sought to encourage not only monks but bishops, priests, and the laity to live lives of simplicity and holiness rather than the excess often displayed by clergy and the upper classes in the Middle Ages.

He also wrote various works and homilies, including “On the Love of God,” a work which later was to influence the devotional life of a young Augustinian friar named Martin Luther.  Amidst his writings, he also complained about the influx of contemporary music in church.  Apparently, in a lot of churches at this time, people were playing secular instruments in the secular style in sacred space.  Bernard longed for nothing but Gregorian Chant in church.  No doubt in Clairvaux and the other 290 Cistercian monasteries founded in his lifetime, this is what he got.

Despite all of these virtues, one cannot leave behind St. Bernard without mentioning the less pleasant aspects of his life.  St. Bernard lived during the age of the Crusades.  Now, one could argue that as a political war to reclaim land on behalf of the Eastern Roman Empire and make safe the pilgrimage route to Jerusalem, the First Crusade in the 1090s was as justified as any other mediaeval war.  Unfortunately, during that war, and especially in the years that followed it, the concept of the Crusade as a “holy war”, as something ordained by God, developed.  Muslims were not merely enemies of the West in political terms but were, in fact, the enemies of God and worth killing.

St. Bernard of Clairvaux was a man of his day, not just in terms of monastic reform and ascetic zeal.  He helped provide the theological framework for the Crusades and preached the ill-fated Second Crusade (1145-47).  Before St. Bernard, the term miles Christi had referred either to the Christian or, more frequently and specifically, to the monk.  Monks were the soldiers of Christ, fighting demons, praying continually, training through asceticism.  Now, however, Bernard turned the term from the spiritual to the physical; the miles Christi was the Crusader, fighting for Christ against the Muslims (or, as the [somewhat outdated] Catholic Encyclopedia puts it: “Mohammedan tyranny”).

I do not wish to dwell on this aspect of St. Bernard.  However, while we should not seek out only the faults of the saints, we should behold them with both eyes open.  Otherwise, we will write notably naive things like this:

There were thousands of men, generally young, who left society and often a military career to take up the cloistered life.  If to this number one adds the members of some 290 other Cistercian monasteries founded during Bernard’s lifetime, one has some idea of the tremendous peace corps, with tens of thousands of members, taht Bernard helped to establish.  What architect of peace has played such a role in his century or in any other? (Jean Leclercq, quoted by Jonathan Wilson-Hartgove, New Monasticism)

Nevertheless, St. Bernard is worth noting and admiring.  Admirable is his zeal for reforming and founding monasteries as well as the lifestyle of the average Christian.  Admirable as well is his defence of orthodoxy.  Admirable, to be sure, are his many influential works, the orthodoxy of which withstand the centuries even if his Crusade ideology does not.  These many works and sermons have gained him the title “Doctor of the Church.”

His learning and zeal for holy living are to be emulated.  May we live as he does.

Here’s The Rules That We’re Already Acting Out






I think this is partly what happens in Exodus, 
when Moses comes up with The Law. 

He’s wandering around with the Israelites in The Desert.

 They’re going left and going right, 
worshipping idols, having a hell of a time, 
and getting rebellious. 

Moses goes up in The Mountain, 
and he has this tremendous revelation 
in the sight of God. 

It illuminates him, 
and he comes down with The Law. 

Moses acted as a Judge —
I know this is a mythological story 
—in The Desert. 

He was continually mediating between people who were having problems, and he was constantly trying to keep peace. 

What are you doing when you’re trying to keep peace? 

You’re trying to understand what peace is. You have to apply the principles. 

 What are the principles? 
Well, you don’t know. 

The principles are whatever satisfied the people enough to make peace.

Maybe you act as judge 10,000 times, and then you get some sense of the principles that bring peace. 


One day it blasts into your consciousness, like a revelation: ‘Here’s the rules that we’re already acting out.’ 

That’s the Ten Commandments. 
They were there to begin with. 

Moses comes forward, and says, 
‘Look, this is basically what we’re already doing, but now it’s codified.’  

That’s all historical process condensed into a single story, but, obviously, that happened, because we have written law. 

In good legal systems, that emerges from the bottom up.
 
English Common Law is exactly like that: it’s single decisions, that are predicated on principles, that are then articulated and made into the Body of Law.

The Body of Law is something that you act out. 


That’s why it’s a Body of Law. 
That’s why, if you’re a good Citizen, you act out The Body of Law. 

 The Body of Law has principles. 
Ok, so the question is, what are the principles that guide our behaviour? 

Well, that’s something like what the archaic Israelites meant by ‘God.’ 







Later on, Moses is carving out the Ten Commandments onto a slab of stone. He talks to Malak again, who tells him that if he truly believes in what he's writing, that he ought to continue. 

The Hebrews make their way through Mount Sinai. 

A significantly older Moses rides with the Ten Commandments close to him.

He looks out and sees Malak amongst the crowd before he seems to disappear. 

The Hebrews then continue making 
their way to the promised land.


"Where does the information that’s in the dream come from? It has to come from somewhere. You could think of it as a revelation, because it’s like it springs out of the void, and it’s new knowledge. You didn’t produce it; it just appears. I’m scientifically minded, and I’m quite a rational person. I like to have an explanation of things that’s rational and empirical, before I look for any other kind of explanation. I don’t want to say that everything that's associated with divinity can be reduced, in some manner, to biology, an evolutionary history, or anything like that. But, insofar as it’s possible to do that reduction, I’m going to do that. I’m going to leave the other phenomena floating in the air, because they can’t be pinned down. In that category, I would put the category of mystical or religious experience, which we don’t understand, at all.

Artists observe one another, and they observe people. Then they represent what they see, and transmit the message of what they see, to us. That teaches us to see. We don’t necessarily know what it is that we’re learning from them, but we’re learning something—or, at least, we’re acting like we’re learning something. We go to movies; we watch stories; we immerse ourselves in fiction, constantly. That’s an artistic production, and, for many people, the world of the arts is a living world. That’s particularly true if you’re a creative person.

It’s the creative, artistic people that move the knowledge of humanity forward. They do that with their artistic productions, first. They’re on the edge. The dancers, poets, visual artists, and musicians do that, and we’re not sure what they're doing. We’re not sure what musicians are doing. What the hell are they doing? Why do you like music? It gives you deep intimations of the significance of things, and no one questions it. You go to a concert; you’re thrilled. It’s a quasi-religious experience, particularly if the people really get themselves together, and get the crowd moving. There’s something incredibly intense about it, but it makes no sense whatsoever.

It’s not an easy thing to understand.where does the information in dreams come from? I think where it comes from is that we watch the patterns that everyone acts out. We watch that forever, and we’ve got some representations of those patterns that’s part of our cultural history. That’s what’s embedded in fictional accounts of stories between good and evil, the bad guy and the good guy, and the romance. These are canonical patterns of Being, for people, and they deeply affect us, because they represent what it is that we will act out in the world. We flesh that out with the individual information we have about ourselves and other people. There’s waves of behavioural patterns that manifest themselves in the crowd, across time. Great dramas are played on the crowd, across time. The artists watch that, and they get intimations of what that is. They write it down, tell us, and we’re a little clearer about what we’re up to.

A great dramatist, like Shakespeare — we know that what he wrote is fiction. Then we say, ‘fiction isn’t true.’ But then you think, ‘well, wait a minute. Maybe it’s true like numbers are true.’ Numbers are an abstraction from the underlying reality, but no one in their right mind would really think that numbers aren’t true. You could even make a case that the numbers are more real than the things that they represent, because the abstraction is so insanely powerful.

Once you have mathematics, you’re just deadly. You can move the world with mathematics. It’s not obvious that the abstraction is less real than the more concrete reality. You take a work of fiction, like Hamlet, and you think, ‘well, it’s not true, because it’s fiction.’ But then you think, ‘wait a minute—what kind of explanation is that?’ Maybe it’s more true than nonfiction. It takes the story that needs to be told about you, and the story that needs to be told about you, and you, and you, and you, and you, and it abstracts that out, and says, ‘here’s something that’s a key part of the human experience as such.’ It’s an abstraction from this underlying, noisy substrate. People are affected by it because they see that the thing that’s represented is part of the pattern of their being. That’s the right way to think about it.

With these old stories—these ancient stories—it seems, to me, like that process has been occurring for thousands of years. It’s like we watched ourselves, and we extracted out some stories. We imitated each other, and we represented that in drama, and then we distilled the drama, and we got a representation of the distillation. And then we did it again, and at the end of that process—it took God only knows how long. They’ve traced some fairy tales back 10,000 years, in relatively unchanged form.

It certainly seems, to me, that the archaeological evidence, for example, suggests that the really old stories that the Bible begins with are at least that old, and are likely embedded in prehistory, which is far older than that. You might say, ‘well, how can you be so sure?’ The answer to that, in part, is that the ancient cultures didn't change fast. They stayed the same; that’s the answer. They keep their information moving from generation to generation. That’s how they stay the same, and that’s how we know. There are archaeological records of rituals that have remained relatively unbroken for up to 20,000 years: it was discovered in caves, in Japan, that were set up for a particular kind of bear worship that was also characteristic of Western Europe. So these things can last for very long periods of time.

We’re watching each other act in the world, and then the question is, how long have we been watching each other? The answer to that, in some sense, is as long as there have been creatures with nervous systems, and that’s a long time. That’s some hundreds of millions of years, perhaps longer than that. We’ve been watching each other, trying to figure out what we’re up to, across that entire span of time. Some of that knowledge is built right into your bodies—which is why we can dance with each other, for example. Understanding isn’t just something that you have as an abstraction. It’s something that you act out. That’s what children are doing, when they’re learning to rough-and-tumble play. They’re learning to integrate their body with the body of someone else in a harmonious way—learning to cooperate and compete. That’s all instantiated right into their body. It’s not abstract knowledge, and they don’t know that they’re doing that. They’re just doing it. We can even use our body as a representational platform.

We’ve been studying each other for a long time, abstracting out what is it that we’re up to, and what should we be up to. That’s an even more fundamental question: if you’re going to live in the world, and you’re going to do it properly, what does properly mean? How is it that you might go about that? It’s the right question; it’s what everyone wants to know. How do you live in the world? It’s not what the world is made of; it’s not the same question. How do you live in the world? It’s the eternal question of human beings.

I guess we’re the only species that has ever really asked that question. All the other animals just go and do whatever it is they do. Not us. It’s a question, for us. We have to become aware of it. We have to speak it—God only knows why. But that seems to be the situation. So we act, that acting is shaped by the world and society into something that we don’t understand, but that we can model. We model it in our stories and with our bodies, and that’s where the dream gets its information. The dream is part of the process that’s watching everything, and then trying to formulate it. It’s trying to get the signal out from the noise and portray it in dramatic form, because the dream is a little drama. And then you get the chance to talk about what that dream is. You have something like articulated knowledge, at that point.

I would say the Bible exists in that space that is half into the dream and half into articulated knowledge. Going into it, to find out what the stories are about, can aid our self-understanding. The other issue is that, if Nietzsche was correct, and if Jung was correct, and Dostoevsky, as well…Without the cornerstone provided by that understanding, we’re lost. That’s not good, because then we’re susceptible to psychological pathology. People that are adamant anti-religious thinkers seem to believe that, if we abandoned our immersement in the underlying dream, we’d all, instantly, become rationalists, like Descartes or Bacon—intelligent, clear thinking, rational, scientific people. I don’t believe that for a moment. I don’t think there’s any evidence for it. I think we would become so irrational, so rapidly, that the weirdest mysteries of Catholicism would seem positively rational by contrast—and I think that’s already happening.
You have the unknown world. That’s just what you don’t know, at all. That’s outside the ocean that surrounds the island that you inhabit. Something like that. It’s chaos itself. You act in that world, and you act in ways that you don’t understand. There’s more to your actions than you can understand. One of the things that Jung said—I loved this, when I first understood it. He says that everybody acts out a myth, but very few people know what their myth is. You should know what your myth is, because it might be a tragedy, and maybe you don’t want it to be. That’s really worth thinking about, because you have a pattern of behaviour that characterizes you. God only knows where you got it. It’s partly biological, and it’s partly from your parents; it’s your unconscious assumptions; it’s the way the philosophy of your society has shaped you; and it’s aiming you somewhere. Is it aiming you somewhere you want to go? That’s a good question. That’s part of self-realization.

We know we don’t understand our actions. Almost every argument you have with someone is about that. It’s like, ‘why did you do that?’ You come up with some half-baked reasons why you did it; you’re flailing around in the darkness; you try to give an account for yourself, but you can only do it partially. It’s very, very difficult, because you’re a complicated animal, with the beginnings of an articulated mind, and you’re just way more than you can handle. So you act things out, and that’s a kind of competence. Then you imagine what you act out, and you imagine what everyone else acts out. There’s a tremendous amount of information in your action, and that information is translated up into the dream, and then into art, mythology and literature. There’s a tremendous amount of information in that, and some of that is translated into articulated thought.

I’ll give you a quick example of something like that. I think this is partly what happens in Exodus, when Moses comes up with the law. He’s wandering around with the Israelites in the desert. They’re going left and going right, worshipping idols, having a hell of a time, and getting rebellious. Moses goes up in the mountain, and he has this tremendous revelation in the sight of God. It illuminates him, and he comes down with the law. Moses acted as a judge—I know this is a mythological story—in the desert. He was continually mediating between people who were having problems, and he was constantly trying to keep peace. What are you doing when you’re trying to keep peace? You’re trying to understand what peace is. You have to apply the principles. What are the principles? Well, you don’t know. The principles are whatever satisfied the people enough to make peace.

Maybe you act as judge 10,000 times, and then you get some sense of the principles that bring peace. One day it blasts into your consciousness, like a revelation: ‘here’s the rules that we’re already acting out.’ That’s the Ten Commandments. They were there to begin with. Moses comes forward, and says, ‘look, this is basically what we’re already doing, but now it’s codified.’ That’s all historical process condensed into a single story, but, obviously, that happened, because we have written law. In good legal systems, that emerges from the bottom up. English common law is exactly like that: it’s single decisions, that are predicated on principles, that are then articulated and made into the body of law.

The body of law is something that you act out. That’s why it’s a body of law. That’s why, if you’re a good citizen, you act out the body of law. The body of law has principles. Ok, so the question is, what are the principles that guide our behaviour? Well, that’s something like what the archaic Israelites meant by ‘God.’ It’s not a good enough explanation, but imagine that you are a chimpanzee, and you have a powerful dominant figure at the pinnacle of your society. That represents ‘power’—more than that, because it’s not sheer physical prowess that keeps a chimp at the top of the hierarchy. It’s much more complicated than that.

You could say there’s a principle that the dominant person manifests, and then you might say that principle shines forth even more brightly, if you know 10 people who are dominant and powerful. Then you could extract out what ‘dominance’ means from that. You can extract what ‘power’ means from that, and then you can divorce the concept from the people. We had to do that, at some point, because we can say ‘power,’ in the human context, and we can imagine what that means. But it’s divorced from any specific manifestation of power. How the hell did we do that? That’s so complicated. If you’re a chimp, the power is in another chimp. It’s not some damn abstraction.

Think about it. We’re in these hierarchies, many of them across centuries. We’re trying to figure out what the guiding principle is. We’re trying to extract out the core of the guiding principles, and we turn that into a representation of a pattern of being. That’s God. It’s an abstracted ideal, and it manifests itself in personified form. That’s ok, because what we’re trying to get at is, in some sense, the essence of what it means to be a properly functioning, properly social, and properly competent individual. We’re trying to figure out what that means. You need an embodiment. You need an ideal that’s abstracted, that you could act out, that would enable you to understand what that means. That’s what we’ve been driving at. That’s the first hypothesis. I’m going to go over some of the attributes of this abstracted ideal that we’ve formalized as God, but that’s the first hypothesis: a philosophical or moral ideal manifests itself, first, as a concrete pattern of behavior that’s characteristic of a single individual—and then it’s a set of individuals, and then it’s an abstraction from that set, and then you have the abstraction, and it’s so important.

Here’s a political implication: One of the debates, we might say, between early Christianity and the late Roman Empire was whether or not an emperor could be God—literally to be deified and put into a temple. You can see why that might happen, because that’s someone at the pinnacle of a very steep hierarchy, who has a tremendous amount of power and influence. The Christian response to that was, ‘never confuse the specific sovereign with the principle of sovereignty itself.’ It’s brilliant. You can see how difficult it is to come up with an idea like that, so that even the person who has the power is actually subordinate to a divine principle, for lack of a better word. Even the king himself is subordinate to the principle. We still believe that, because we believe our Prime Minister is subordinate to the damn law.

Whatever the body of law, there's a principle inside that even the leader is subordinate to. Without that, you could argue that you can’t even have a civilized society, because your leader immediately turns into something that’s transcendent and all-powerful. That's certainly what happened in the Soviet Union, and what happened in Maoist China, and what happened in Nazi Germany. There was nothing for the powerful to subordinate themselves to. You’re supposed to be subordinate to God. What does that mean? We’re going to tear that idea apart, but partly what that means is that you’re subordinate—even if you’re sovereign—to the principles of sovereignty itself. And then the question is, ‘what the hell is the principles of sovereignty?’ I would say we have been working that out for a very long period of time. That’s one of the things that we’ll talk about.