God and Tribal Deities

 It's interesting to think about how the Old Testament regards the various deities of tribes around the Israelites. 

The Canaanites worshipped El, and the Scriptures make no distinction at all between the Lord (YHWH) and El. It's unclear how much to make of this, since 'El' eventually became the generic word for any high God in the area, but we can say straightforwardly that there is no sign that the Israelites ever had any problem with the worship of El, considered on its own.

The Edomites worshipped Qos (or Qaus or Koze), and there is also no sign of any animosity toward Qos in Scripture, despite the fact that the Israelites were regularly interacting with Edomites; the name only even comes up twice for sure (and then only in the name Barqos: Ezra 2:53, Nehemiah 7:55), and possibly it might underlie the very difficult-to-interpret Hebrew of Proverbs 30:31 (which we usually translate as 'king with his host', but might originally have read 'Qos with the king'). There are a few old inscriptions (from Kuntillet Ajred) that possibly refer to Qos as "YHWH of Teman", so some people have suggested that they were just seen as the same. Others have suggested that Qos might not have been a name but a title. There's a lot we don't know here, but again it's interesting that worship of Qos wasn't seen as an issue by any of the Jewish prophets. (The first sign of any trouble over between Jews and Edomite worshippers of Qos is in the Hasmonean period, when the Hasmoneans cracked down on Edomite worship, but that seems to have been a cultic crack-down arising for political reasons.)

Three local tribal deities are firmly and repeatedly rejected in Scripture: Ashtoreth (Attartu/Astarte), Chemosh (Kamosh), and Milcom (Milkam). They are explicitly stated to be foreign and their worship is said to be offensive to the Lord. Milkam was worshipped by the Ammonites, and we know almost nothing about him; he is referred to in Scripture as 'desolation' and 'abomination'. We have a few seals that associate Milkam with bulls and maybe the stars. He might be the same as Moloch, although we don't know for sure.

We know a bit more about Kamosh. He was worshipped by the Moabites; the Moabites were Canaanites, but there seems reason to think that they had a very distinctive worship. In Moabite inscriptions, Kamosh is associated with the planet Venus, the morning star, and the Semitic deity Attar. Although it is limited, there is definitely evidence that his worship involved human sacrifice, at least under specific conditions (like war), and that the Moabite worship may have actively involved appealing to him for curses. In later days, the Greeks associated him with Ares, and he may well have had similar brutal characteristics, since he does seem to have been a war-god. Scripture also refers to him as 'abomination'.

Ashtoreth, of course, is the foreign 'abomination' we know most about. She was a goddess, and she is always the consort of another god. So this is obviously one major strike against her: she is the guarantor of polytheism. If you worship her, you definitely worship multiple gods. She may be very, very old, since the Phoenicians almost certainly inherited her from the Akkadians and perhaps also the Eblaites, who formed one of the first organized kingdoms in the area. The Greeks associated her with Aphrodite, and it used to be thought that she was a fertility goddess, but actually this seems not to have originally been the case, and evidence of association with the explicitly erotic (e.g., temple prostitution) seems scattered and occasional, and perhaps mostly linked to Byblos and to Carthage. She's definitely associated with ships, lions, horses, and hunting. She may have been a war goddess, and in fact this might be one link between the three rejected deities -- they may be war gods whose worship involved abominable activities of various kinds in the name of war. Ashtoreth is often associated in Scripture with war, directly or indirectly, as when the Phoenicians put their war trophies in the temple of Ashtoreth. She is also regularly associated with Baalim.

Baal is not a single deity. The word is Canaanite for 'Lord', and different cities seem to have had each a Baal of that city. The earliest parts of Scripture don't seem all that hostile to Baal; it seems to be treated as just a divine title, and the Israelites may themselves have sometimes used it of their own God, if theophoric names and divine epithets are to be taken as evidence (e.g., Psalm 68:4 calls God 'cloud-rider', which was also an epithet of Hadad, the most influential local Baal). As time goes on, however, 'Baal' as a divine title becomes treated with greater and greater hostility in the Scriptural narrative. Since there are many Baalim and Scripture does not distinguish them, we don't always know which is meant, but there is strong evidence that the rejection of Baal is associated with two Baalim in particular: Hadad and Melqart, who are sometimes identified with each other. In any case, the Baal that was introduced into Israel by King Ahab and Queen Jezebel, and with whose worshippers the prophet Elijah kept struggling was almost certainly Hadad or Melqart. Melqart is associated with the Phoenician cities of Tyre and Carthage (although the chief Baal of Carthage was Hammon rather than Melqart). The Greeks associated him with Heracles. Beyond this, we don't know much about Melqart. Hadad, also called Rammanu/Rimmon ('the Thunderer'), was a storm god, and a very ancient one worshipped by the Akkadians and Eblaites; he is also the Baal who causes problem for El in the Ugaritic Baal Cycle.

Thus we get a full spectrum, from the accepted or at least neutral (El, Qos), to the heavily mixed (Baal), to the vehemently repudiated (Ashtoreth, Chemosh, Milcom). The two key sources of variation seem to be (1) relation to polytheism and (2) kind of worship. El, Qos, and some versions of Baal are, or seem to be, supreme deities, so it's easier to adapt their titles and names to monotheism; Ashtoreth and some versions of Baal are inherently polytheistic, and this is probably also true of Milcom and perhaps also Chemosh. Ashtoreth, Chemosh, and Milcom are associated with 'abomination' in worship, however that is understood, and the same may well be true of Hadad, at least in the version introduced into Israel. Thus worship of them made you directly complicit with evils.

Of course, all of this is really quite patchy. We can infer a fair amount about Baal Hadad and Ashtoreth, and to a lesser extent about El, because their worship was ancient and widespread, with lots of fragments of information about them across a long spread of time, but the evidence we get about even them is often limited and confused, and at times outright confusing. About the rest, we know considerably less, and even our best guesses are often not much more than guesses. Much of what we think we know for any of them could very well be upended with one good archeological find.

Expressive Truth and Falsehood

 Today I learned that there is a musical version of Pride and Pejudice; in fact, there are several. The one that came to my notice is called Pride & Prejudice: A New Musical, called "A New Musical" to distinguish it from a previous P&P musical. It's rather peculiar; some aspects of the story come through, and there are genuinely funny parts, but some of the songs are absurd to the point of being grating. Part of the problem is that musicals externalize expression of emotion into music in non-subtle ways; this can be done be done well, but it causes problems when the expression is not 'true' to the characters or the story, and the problems are intensified if the original is often quite subtle, as is the case here. For instance, Elizabeth Bennett early on in P&P:ANM sings a song, "Headstrong," in which sings that she is too headstrong for a man to bear. Now, I am very certain that this is not true to Jane Austen's character. Maybe Elizabeth would suggest something as a joke, but it seems very clear that she would be quite offended if someone seriously thought that she was too headstrong for a man to endure. She sees herself as reasonable woman, and this plays an important role in her story-arc; being unmarriageable (which is what it amounts to in context) is not at all part of her self-conception. Indeed, any man who thought she was too headstrong would almost certainly be dismissed by Elizabeth as arrogant at best, and very possibly as stupid. As for Mr Darcy -- I'm not sure I can fully imagine what a musical expression of Mr Darcy should be, but it is certainly not this, and it's a very big problem if your adaptation of Pride and Prejudice cannot make sense of Mr Darcy.

Of course, part of it could be acting or musical direction rather than the material itself; these are also ways in which the music could be true or false as expressive to character. And to be wholly honest, I think even poor adaptations of P&P are worth having, if they ever increase the probability that we will have good ones.

In any case, it's a good example of the fact that emotional expression itself admits of true and false.

Habitude XXXVI

 To the second one proceeds thus. It seems that in one human being there are many original sins. For it is said in Psalm I, For behold I was conceived in iniquity, and in sins my mother conceived me. But sin in which a human being is conceived is original. Therefore there are many original sins in one human being.

Further, one and the same habitude does not incline to contraries, for habitude inclines by way of nature, which tends to one. But original sin, even in one human being, inclines to diverse and contrary sins. Therefore original sin is not one habitude, but several.

Further, original sin infects all the parts of the soul. But the diverse parts of the soul are diverse subjects of sin, as is obvious from the foregoing. Since therefore one sin is not able to be diverse subjects, it seems that original sin is not one but many.

But contrariwise is what is said in Ioan. I, Behold the lamb of God, behold he who takes away the sin of the world [peccatum mundi]. Which is said singularly because the sin of the world, which is original sin, is one; as the Gloss explains there.

I reply that it must be said that in one human being is one original sin. The reason for this is able to be taken in two ways. In one way, on the part of the cause of original sin. For it was said above that only the first sin of the first parent is handed down to posterity. Whence original sin in one human being is one in number; and in all human beings it is proportioned to one, to wit, in reference to the first source [primum principium]. In another way the reason for this is able to be taken from the essence itself of original sin. For in every disordered [inordinata] disposition, specific unity is considered on the part of the cause, but numerical unity on the part of the subject, as is obvious in corporeal illness, for there are diverse specific illnesses which proceed from diverse causes, such as superabundance of heat or cold, or from lesion of lung or liver, but one illness according to species in one human being is only one numerically. But the cause of this corrupt disposition that is called original sin is just one, namely, privation of original justice, through which subjection of the human mind to God is suppressed. And in one human being it cannot but be one, but in diverse human being it is specifically and proporationately one, but numerically diverse.

To the first, therefore, it must be said that sins are said plurally according to that custom of divine Scripture in which the plural is frequently put for the singular, as in Matth. II, They died who sought the soul of the child. Or else because in original sin all actual sins pre-exist, as in a kind of source, when it is multiple in force. Or else because in the sin of the first parent, which is handed down by origin, there were several deformities, to wit, pride, disobedience, gluttony, and suchlike other things. Or else because many parts of the soul are infected by original sin.

To the second it must be said that one habitude is not able through itself [per se] and directly, that is, through its own form, to contraries. But indirectly and incidentally [per accidens], to wit, through removing the impeding [per remotione prohibentis] nothing impedes, just as, the harmony of mixed body being dissolved, elements tend to contrary places. And likewise, the harmony of original justice being dissolved, diverse powers of soul are impelled diversely.

To the third it must be said that original sin infects diverse parts of the soul, according as they are parts of one whole, just as original justice is contained in all parts of the soul in one. And thus there is but one original sin, just as there is one fever in one human being although diverse parts of the body are affected.

[St. Thomas Aquinas, ST 2-1.82.2, my translation. The Latin is here, the Dominican Fathers translation is here.]

Corpus Christi

  Corpus Christi 

Bread is broken on the table;
into the cup is poured the wine;
by this word the Word our Savior
becomes the substance of the sign. 

Adam's flesh from fleshly Adam
is freed from sinful flesh once more,
for we, by blood and by slain body,
are flesh and blood with Christ our Lord. 

Speak, my tongue, of His scourged body,
now blessed and broken for our race,
of pricelessness of blood now flowing
to pay our price and grant us grace. 

Sing, my voice, the song of angels
as here they wonder at his tomb,
which, with side-sprung water flowing,
encompassed us to be our womb. 

Love, my heart, the changeless ancient
who descends from God above
to be a babe and passion's patient;
He is God, for God is Love. 

Trust, my soul, in Truth most holy:
for Truth is true and does not lie.
All free from lie, from lies He freed us;
here see the sign Truth truly died! 

Hope, my spirit in your Savior,
for He is life, in dying lives,
for us is given by the Father
to be this Bread of Life we give. 

Shout, my sisters; shout, my brothers!
From on the housetops make it known
and tell the tale on every mountain
to own this well: you are His own!

Tireless at Eve as in the Golden Noon

A June Sonnet
by Clara B. Heath

A poet were no poet if the June went by,
Year after year, and brought no tender thrill
Through all his being till his pulse ran high.
When thistle down before the wind lies still,
His gross and selfish thoughts perchance will fill
The rare June days, with summer roses nigh.
A poet may be songless! his mute lips
May answer not when Nature speaks in tune,
But rythmic numbers thro' each day-dream slips;
His fancies throng him 'neath the pure pale moon;
He soars on wings the care fiend never clips,
Tireless at eve as in the golden noon;
Prosaic reason 'neath his vision dips;--
His purple mantle wraps him close in June.

Dashed Off XV

This begins the notebook begun in March 2025.

 Before you can know the just, you must know the true.

Genuine mercy has a power of achieving good that goes beyond all our planning.

In a democracy, all politics is by group status competition.

The intelligible has two formats: natural (in itself) and intentional (in another).

What happens must be either the only possible thing, or a possibility reached without regard for what it is, or a possibility selected because of what it is.

Everything that exists is either absolutely necessary or is necessarily related to another.

causation vs causativity

Every state of affairs excludes some other state of affairs.

All salvation is both individual and communal.

There are two kinds of explanation: in terms of nature and in terms of cause, or as we might put it, in terms of the nature of the explanandum and in terms of the nature of something else.

In a letter to Bernoulli, Leibniz defines being actual as being the best of possibles (with everything having been compared). Thus, for instance, a vacuum is possible but there is none, because the existence of a vacum is not best-possible with respect to the whole.

the distinction of possible and actual as presupposing a teleology

What is possible is what is implied by the teleology of the actual.

Thought experiments can only work as thought experiments on the basis of either formal necessities or teleologies.

"In short, the object created by the poet, the poem, the painting, the symphony, is like the glory of the poet, and it is in this glory, by means of which he makes himself manifest in the world, that he makes himself manifest also to himself and becomes definitely aware, but in an inevitably imperfect and unsatisfactory manner, of his original experience." Maritain
"True civilization knows the price of human life but makes the imperishable life of man its transcendent supreme value."

immortality of soul as a postulate of civil theology (cp. Maritain)

credentialed nonachievement

Preserve the good and progress will often take care of itself, because good is diffusive of good.

We respect with our bodies and not just with our minds.

Not every kind of play is make-believe.

The argument of Parmenides 135b-c (Parmenides speaking):
If we do not admit that each has a determinate form (idea),
we deny that the idea of each is always the same,
and thus annihilate the power of reasoning (dialegesthai),
so that nothing comes of philosophy.

good by another (useful), good in itself with respect to single power or desire (pleasant), good simply to whole being (honestum)

Value implies principles of attribution.

In one sense, details are important to knowing, but in another sense, there is too much to know to always be picking at details.

Fictional characters are not merely imaginary beings, although one can form imaginary beings into fictional characters.

Trade-offs are only possible against prior standards.

the experience of there being more to experience

Every human body is structured by needs for others.

A human person is the cosmos re-represented in a particular way from a particular perspective.

In drawing, nothing is a mistake until it makes progress in the drawing impossible.

"He is near to all, yet far from all, O Nanak! He Himself remains distinct, while yet pervading all." Sri Guru Granth Sahib 276
"Each and every heart is illuminated by the Perfect Lord God." SGGS 277

We preserve a tradition by being the tradition.

Demonization is generally a sign of envy.

the notion of karma and the sense that we already have 'weight' when we come into the world

People have an aversion to the idea that there are terrible things with no one to blame.

People respect power but are rarely interested in it as such, and we see this in the fact that men and women keep giving away power to get other things.

Part of our glory is always reflection from the glory of others.

the per se prior, the per alio prior, the posterior (which is also per alio)

How we learn and how we live morally are intimately linked.

Due process requires that there be soemthing due; what is appropriate to it unfolds out of its prior obligations.

Imaginary space (and likewise imaginary time) derives from Aristotle Phys 2.4.203b; and from the mathematical character of the thing (one can posit a possible greater container for any container and a possible further element for any series). It is thus a matter of the inherent projectability of place and time (every part is inherently related to the possibility of other parts).

"It is not sufficient that a man give alms; he must also take the trouble to give them in the right way." Antonino

We must cook our experience to get knowledge, and there are many different ways to cook it.

"Institutions are empty forms when no one will sacrifice for them." Benjamin Constant
"Everything serves the intellect in its eternal search. Systems are instruments by which man discovers the truth about details while being mistaken about the whole. When the systems are superseded, truths remain."

"...the intention of the devil is to attach himself to whatever is sublime." Aquinas

Wealth inequality is part of how empires organize themselves.

Smith argues (in LJ) that polygamy harms liberty by weakening the hereditary nobility.

It is first in the hereditary nobility that people begin to understand the elements of civil right and freedom. This then gets expanded outward.

When one looks at how different physical theories handle energy, it becoems clear that in all the physical theories we have, energy is only indirectly and approximately defined.

Wis 2:12-20 as messianic prophecy

ways to handle the notion of 'nothing'
(1) bare exclusion
(2) relative exclusion
(3) contrastive representation of excluded
(4) construct on the model of being, contrasted with being itself
(5) construct on the model of being, as purely rational being

'Can you please pass the salt?' is an example of imperative-softening, in which an imperative is weakened to avoid being rude; turning imperative-form requests into interrogative-form requests is common in rather different languages (e.g., both English and Vietnamese do it), and they tend to work similarly -- the interrogative-form request recognizes that it is in the requestee's power.

Liberal societies are always tempted to treat human rights as grounded in the agreements of liberal socieites; and whenever they do, they become enemies of human rights.

If there are no natural rights, nothing is owed to human beings as such.

Sinott-Armstrong's principle of moral substitutability confuses obligatory, decisive moral reasons and moral reasons generally.

People who cannot treat their own heritage well cannot be trusted with anyone else's.

All the graces in all the Church are refractions of the fullness of grace in Christ.

"The Born Rule does not occur in ordinary classical probability theory because that theory does not include superposition events and the accompanying amplitudes (that come from representing the density matrix of a superposition event as an outer product). When superposition events are introduced into the purely mathematical theory (over the reals), then the probability of outcomes can be computed as the *squares* of the coefficients in teh normalized amplitude vector...associated with the superposition event...." David Ellerman

Asking, 'Why should I be moral?' is like asking 'Why should I be human rather than a duck?' It is nto the actual question being entertained. What is meant is, 'Why cannot I make up what is moral or moral enough, in this or that way?' or 'Why must this be the actual moral thing?' or 'What motivations is there to do this particular moral thing?'

sovereignty as a trust

Smith (Lectures on Jurisprudence) gives the principle of authority and the principle of utility (common/general interest) as the components of allegiance, but there seem others, e.g., the principle of team spirit.

Smith attributes three things to 'police power': cleanliness, security, and plenty.

injury
(1) as a man
--- --- (1a) in body
--- --- --- --- (1a1) harm to bodily integrity
--- --- --- --- (1a2) harm to physical liberty
--- --- (1b) in reputation
--- --- (1c) in estate
--- --- --- --- (1c1) real right
--- --- --- --- (1c2) personal right
(2) as a member of a family
(3) as a member of civil society
(4) as a ember of ecclesial society

Piety to the dead quite clearly extends beyond freshness of memory.

Extensive division of labor requires an already established prosperity beyond subsistence.

Probity and punctuality are essential elements in commerce.

The medievals deliberately and explicitly beat words in order to make obvious connections obvious, but were later attacked for this, because the connections were then so often verbally obvious, as deriving the connections from the words. This is one of the dangers of adapting language to a system of thought or an approach to inquiry.

"The human world is characterized by the opposition of home and alien, by a temporal dimenion and mood coloring." Patocka
"Thought and language are an explanation of human freedom, an expression of the fact taht the world is at our disposal, that we are not purely passively determined by our environment and the tendencies emerging in it, but rather actively appropriate reality and dispose of it."

"All art orders and subjugates matter to human desire, but human desire is either for goods beyond us or goods limited to ourselves, and to 'ourselves' as limited in time, power, resources, etc." James Chastek

Even while engaged in explicit thinking, we all form opinions on things in the world that we do not distinguish from givens unless we find a need to do so.

The greatest achievements of even very skilled soldiers and generals have an element of luck in them; the same is true of artists and artisans. One sign of greatness of skill or training is that the lucky is used well, and crowns the competently good with splendor.

Some things that can be doubted nonetheless cannot be avoided.

The perceiving and the perceived are one, but not one and the same.

Challenge arguments establish a threshold and so depend heavily on teh cogency of the threshold, which sets what counts as success in the challenge. The threshold has to be justifiable by the teleology of inquiry.

'Ceteris paribus' is a causal phrase.

We assess alternate possibilities with respect to a cause -- epistemic possibilities with respect to cognitive power, physical possibilities with respect to physical causes, etc.

The notion that emotion is a better expression of spirituality than ritual is a grave error.

Ódáinsakr

 In the Skálholtsbók, one of the (now fragmentary) sources we have for Icelandic sagas,  which is from the early fifteenth century, there survives a short saga called Eireks saga víðförla, the saga of the traveller Eirekr. Eirekr was the son of Thrand, the king of Thrandheim, a region in northern Norway, and he made a vow that he would travel the whole world if necessary to find Ódáinsakr, the Deathless Land. He set out for Denmark in a magnificent ship with twelve men. There he was welcomed by the king of Denmark, also named Eirekr, and they became good friends, so that when Eirekr son of Thrand continued on his way, Eirekr the Dane-King went with him, bringing twelve more men. Then they journeyed to Miklagard, or, as we call it, Constantinople. There the king of Miklagard, i.e., the Emperor, heard about their quest and asked to see them, and bestowed great honors on them.

What follows next in the saga is a sort of catechism, because Eirekr the son of Thrand happens to ask the Emperor about what created the world. The Emperor tells him that there is one who made the world, God almighty, one God in three greiningar, which I think here might mean something like 'distinctions'. Just as the sun has fire, brightness, and heat, but is one sun, so also God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but one almighty. God is above all things, knows all things, and lives with angels (englar), whom God made to be servants. God made a bright hall, Heaven, and also a deep dungeon, which is our world, within which is a pit called Hell. The wicked are punished in this pit and ruled over by Satan, but God bound Satan there when He suffered, died, and rose from the dead, and when God ascended back into Heaven, he prepares it for us so that we may fill up the gaps created by the angels who became corrupted. The Eirekr asks who is in Hell, and the Emperor says that heathens and traitors are; Eirekr asks why the heathens are there, because they worship gods. When the Emperor says that these gods are not God, Eirekr is surprised, because he has heard nothing of this before.

They then discuss various things about the nature of the world, and, of course, inevitably, Eirekr asks the Emperor where Ódáinsakr is, and the Emperor says that it is east of India and protected by a wall of fire. The Emperor agrees to help Eirekr try to get there, if Eirekr and his men will be baptized, which they eventually are.

Thus they set out again, walking, and riding, and walking, all the way to India, where they saw many, many wonders. They eventually reach the river Phison, which the Emperor had told them flows out of Paradise, the Deathless Land, and come to a bridge across it. But on the bridge is lying a fierce dragon.  Eirekr the Dane urges Eirekr of Thrandheim to go no further, but Eirekr of Thrandheim, with one of his companions, tries to cross the bridge and is apparently swallowed by the dragon. Saddened by this, Eirikr the Dane-King goes home.

The story is not over for the other Eirekr, however. From his perspective, and that of the companion with him, they jumped into a lot of smoke, which they pushed through, and when they came out they were in a beautiful country. They soon came to a tower hanging from the sky, with a ladder up against it. They climb the ladder, and find an amazing feast. They praise God for having found Ódáinsakr and go to sleep.

Eirekr has a dream, in which a good-looking man greets them, and introduces himself as the angel who guards the gates of Paradise. He had from the beginning aided Eirekr in his quest, serving as his guardian. However, the place they have found is not Paradise, but something that in comparison to the actual Paradise is just a wasteland. It is called the Land of the Living; no one gets to Paradise alive. Then the angel offers Eirekr a choice: he can stay in the Land of the Living, or he can go back home. Eirekr chooses to go back home, because otherwise people will think he died horribly. 

Thus Eirekr and his companion go back the way they came and come out of the dragon's mouth. After four years of travel, they come again to Constantinople, and after staying three years there, they return to Norway. Because of his travels, Eirekr is a changed man. He prays every day, and in the eleventh year, the angel from the tower takes him to Paradise, and no one on earth can find him.

There is a complete translation of the saga here, by Peter Tunstall.