Jacob: Never Surrender, Never Learn

August 7th, 2011   by   Andrew

Horus, Jacob, Jesus — Three Sons, Three Stories

Chapter 10 of the series Myths and Dragons

Part 1 – Horus: A New Hope, A Wise Past
Part 2 – Jacob – Never Surrender, Never Learn

Part 3 – A Change Worth Dying For, A Culture Always Challenged

Setup:
If we are to take stories as maps of behavior then we need to identify with the characters. Horus, Jacob and Jesus provide three similar but subtle and unique maps about the relationships between a father, a mother and a son. They also provide three of the steps in the mythological consciousness that frames our cultural heritage. We can read these three stories and examine what they say about how the individual relates to the social order that surrounds them and to the unknown world outside that protective social order.

The posts are made up of an introduction, a story, and one  explanation (or midrash).

Questions for readers: Can you identify with the hero’s situation?
Is this story a good map for how we should behave?

Introduction

The Jewish story of Jacob describes how a younger son joins the line of patriarchs that establish the tribes of Israel.  Here is my shortened retelling. (The net provides other resources and versions of this story, like here or here. Two explanations that made me edit my version of the story can be found here and here.)

The Story

Jacob was his mother Rebekah’s favorite. Before he was born, she told him, God had said Jacob would inherit the promise of his grandfather Abraham and his father Isaac.

Esau, Jacob’s older twin-brother, thought nothing of it. Esau was a hairy brute, too busy and too strong to care. Jacob had been born holding the heel of Esau, but Esau was still first. Esau married young and Rebekah wasn’t all that impressed with Esau’s choices.

Jacob thought this inheritance was important enough to care about. In fact, he figured he’d better do something about it. An opportunity came up when Jacob was cooking. Esau appeared at the door, completely famished.

“Sell me your birthright first, and I’ll give you some food,” said Jacob.

Esau wasn’t concerned with the future. He was starving right then and there.

“Swear to me,” insisted Jacob.

Esau swore to him. Jacob served him the food, all the while grinning at his own cleverness.

When their father Isaac was close to death and his eyes were failing, he called for Esau. “Go hunting and prepare a meal. I want my last meals to be good ones. When I have eaten, I will give you my blessing.”

Rebekah heard this and told Jacob. “I have a plan,” she said. “While Esau’s away, I’ll prepare a meal for Isaac and you will serve it to him. Then you will get your father’s blessing.”

Jacob had some doubts, but his mother dressed him in his brother’s clothes, covered his arms in goatskin, and sent him into Isaac with the meal.

Isaac was surprised at how short a time it had taken his son. And when he heard his son’s voice, he had doubts.

“Are you sure you’re Esau?” Isaac asked.

Isaac felt the arms of his son, but found them as hairy as a goat. He ate the meal and was happy. He drew his son close. Isaac blessed his son and wished all the best for him. Jacob, hearing Esau return, gathered his things and quickly left the room.

Esau prepared a meal for his father and brought it to where Isaac was resting. When Esau greeted him with the meal, Isaac was confused.

“But if you’re Esau, then who did I just bless?”

“That’s twice now!” cried Esau. “Father, is there nothing left for me?”

Isaac then told his eldest son, “It sounds like your life is going to be more difficult. I worry you might be ruled by your emotions and you will end up having to fight for what you want. You’ll have to keep a close eye on your brother. But I fear the time will come when you will grow tired of him and his wits.”

“I could kill him,” Esau muttered.

Rebekah, listening to all this, told Jacob to go live with her brother Laban until Esau calmed down. She hoped Jacob could find a nice girl there to marry.

Isaac bid  farewell to Jacob with some advice. “Pick a good wife from Laban’s daughters and settle down a bit, all right son?”

After Jacob left, Esau got to thinking. Maybe he could have been a little choosier about his wives. And about other things too. And maybe he should have never underestimated his brother.

During the trip to his uncle’s place, Jacob dreamed that God was at the top of a ladder leading into the sky. God reassured him that things were taken care of and he would bring Jacob back to his father’s land. Jacob was pretty impressed. He vowed to believe it and even change his ways.

Jacob arrived at Laban’s place only to fall in love, rather quickly, with Laban’s daughter Rachel. Laban, seeing an opportunity, made a deal with Jacob—seven years of work and then marriage to Rachel. Jacob agreed. He must have been in love. It makes you do things sometimes without thinking them through.

After the seven years, Jacob could hardly wait for the wedding party and the wedding night. He was so excited he didn’t notice that he’d actually slept with Rachel’s older sister, Leah. Jacob, for all his wits, didn’t see that coming. But to fix all this, Laban and Jacob made another deal – seven more years, and then marriage to Rachel. Jacob agreed.

Jacob finally married Rachel and he was happy. Sort of.  Jacob had many sons and daughters between his wives and their servants. He also had about enough of Laban.

Jacob decided it was maybe time to be on his way. So he struck a last deal with Laban, in which he would take only a portion of the goats and sheep of the herds. What Jacob didn’t tell Laban was that he would breed the animals secretly and increase his own numbers.

After Jacob had left with his family and the new-found wealth of the increased herd, Laban followed after him. Rachel had taken some idols precious to Laban’s household. Jacob and Laban argued for a long time and then decided to make a pact. They agreed their dealings were done, and they wouldn’t tread on each other’s business any more. But if they were to meet again, then God would be the judge between them.

Jacob then figured he had to go to Esau. He wasn’t thrilled about the reunion though; Esau was apparently waiting for him with an army of men.

Jacob organized all his herds and estate before him as gifts to appease Esau and sent them ahead. That night, he dreamed again and wrestled with a man all night. By daybreak the man saw that Jacob would not relent, so he wounded Jacob. Jacob refused to let go until he got a blessing from his opponent. The man told Jacob that really Jacob had his blessing all along. The opponent then asked his name. When Jacob gave it to him without reservation, his opponent renamed him Israel. That night had quite an effect on Jacob.

The next day, when Esau was in sight, Jacob moved ahead of all his family and herds and estate. He bowed and offered himself in service to Esau along with all he had. Esau was overcome with emotion and invited Jacob back home. All seemed forgiven, and Jacob saw a change in Esau that was worthy of his respect, somewhat. He even compared his brother’s face to the face of God. Things seemed fine between them, but something still troubled Jacob. Esau was his brother again, but still a dangerous brute.

Jacob told his brother to go ahead and he would catch up. Jacob then moved north, away from his brother’s place. He bought some land near a city and then tried to settle down a little bit.


(One) Explanation

This son, although the chosen one that will carry the godly promise of  social order, never seems to want to learn any wisdom from his Father figures. He never trusts that wisdom. If Jacob is to be taken as the divine child in this story, then it appears he is always at odds with the mythological Father. Whether it is Esau, Isaac, Laban, or God, Jacob the son is tricking, being tricked by, or wrestling with his opponent. He is trying to best the cultural order surrounding him for his own benefit. And it literally tears families apart, an understandable consequence of selfish behavior and biased blessings.

He does learn from and then conspire with Rebekah, the Mother figure. Through Rebekah, he is helped by nature and his own innate nature to fulfill the promise of inheritance. But how this is done undermines the expected and cultural order of things.

Jacob submits only when a woman is at stake (such as Rachel or Leah or their servants) or when he finds a ‘man’ that can easily destroy him but never ultimately would (such as when the wrestler touches him and gives him a limp).

After he is seriously injured enough to limp for the rest of his life, wrestling with some aspect of God, he is still proud; his first thoughts are not to serve or submit but instead to be blessed. However, when he does come to realize social order can be made of both power and mercy, he freely gives up his own name to it.

When he sees the face of God in his brother Esau and promises to be his brother’s servant, he then moves north to settle away from his brother. He does not think  strength will prevail any challenge, as Esau seems to think. But Jacob does realize he must be responsible for his own living, ultimately. He does not trust Esau as a brother or as a capable leader worth following -  one that reigns wisely with both power and compassion.

Jacob shows quite clearly that he is the rightful heir, but not because he follows his father’s tradition or because he submits to the social order of the world around him. If anything, he turns this around completely. He does not end up settling on his father’s land, even though he is accepted and welcomed by Esau. Instead, Jacob establishes a new place for his family and estate, a new way of life.

Jacob contends with the present, flawed order, as the divine child in story must, almost by definition. Otherwise, the individual does not change and the culture becomes stagnant. But he is both hero and villain, good example and bad example at once. Jacob wrestles with both God and man, and demonstrates he could bring down all social order, even if it means destroying himself in the process. However, he could submit to it as well and be blessed by it if it has both power and compassion. If he is accepted and blessed for who he is, as each child in a family must be, then a new legacy and a new promise can grow.

Each child in a family has the potential to struggle with their place, to bring change or to uphold the family line. Each child has the ability to re-establish order or undo it if not given a proper blessing and a meaningful place within the family.

What do you think?
Can you identify with the hero’s situation?
Is this story a good map for how we should behave?
Or is this a story about how we tend to behave?



Metaphor: An Inconvenient Tool, A Renewable Truth

April 14th, 2011   by   Andrew

The following is from a paper called “Complexity Management Theory”. Thanks goes out to David Chapman for the link to the paper. In some respects, the paper is a 30-page reduction of Jordan Peterson’s ideas. I encourage everyone to read it. Below are four quotes that summarize what I’m trying to say about metaphor, and they say it better than I could hope to (emphasis in the text is from me).

Our ancestors understood metaphorically at least five thousand years ago that the process of creative courageous encounter with the unknown comprised the central process underlying successful human adaptation, and that this process stood as the veritable precondition for the existence and maintenance of all good things. Such understanding, however, was implicit and low-resolution – at best, procedural, embodied, encoded in ritual and drama – and not something elaborated to the point we would consider explicit or semantic understanding today. We are constantly tempted to regard such understanding as superstitious, because of its continuing lack of explicitness, and to presume that our current modes of apprehension have rendered traditional beliefs superfluous. This attitude is predicated (1) on failure to recognize that empirical enquiry cannot provide a complete world description, because of the intractable problems of action, value and consciousness and (2) on an ignorance with regard to the content and meaning of pre-empirical or pre-experimental belief that is so complete, profound and unfathomable that its scope can barely be communicated.

And,

The “kinship of the creative hero with deity” constitutes a phenomenon of tremendous import, as of yet radically uncomprehended: consciousness plays a world-constructing role, in a manner that is neither epiphenomenal nor trivial. It is for this fundamentally non-metaphysical reason that the individual cannot be sacrificed to the exigencies of social and political convenience, as those who live in western democracies have painfully come to realize: the “world-constructing capacity” of the individual must be respected and honored as something sovereign, lest the forces of chaos or complexity re-attain the upper hand, or the state rigidify and doom itself. The truly healthy individual comes to identify, over time, with the adaptive social structure generated by past heroes, by incorporating the hierarchical organization of that social structure into the self – but does not sacrifice his or her capacity for individual creativity, which is an “eternal and immortal” extra-social force, while so doing. This means not so much that the individual is protected against death-anxiety by the fact of culture as that the individual is provided with a dual means of coping with vulnerable mortality in a meaningful and functional manner – first, as a consequence of his identity with social order and, second, as a consequence of his ability to voluntarily face chaos, complexity and anomaly, recast the protective strictures of tradition, and prevail.

So what does this mean for each of us?

The individual must be willing to voluntarily face the consequences of the errors of the past, to mine the information embedded in the territory whose existence is revealed by those errors, and to reconstruct society and self, in consequence.

And what does this mean for our implicitly accepted views of the world?

Religious stories, occupying the necessarily metaphorical space at the base of our cultures of belief, provide the foundation for the dogmatic concepts and action patterns that structure our social interactions, and stabilize the territories that we all share. But this is not all protection against death anxiety. Much of it establishes the necessary “arbitrary” groundwork for shared social being, in the absence of real certainty, and instead of constant interpersonal conflict. More importantly, however, functional religious systems ensure that our shared beliefs are predicated on a concept of the individual that makes respect for the capacity of courageous, creative individual action in the face of complexity the most fundamental and ineradicable of values. This predication makes faith in belief as a state something necessarily subordinate to faith in courageous action as a process. This faith in process is a position that the totalitarian, who desires above all to be finally right, cannot tolerate, and attempts constantly to undermine and destroy. This faith in process is also a final answer, not to the problem of death, which cannot be solved, but to the more fundamental problem of complexity, and attendant vulnerability. Creative exploratory action in the face of anomaly and chaos generates, sustains and renews the world.

I’m not sure where to go next. I think I might do a series on mythology.

What do you think of all this?



And the show must go on

August 5th, 2010   by   Shannon

Richard Lucas, a bus driver with the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority (NFTA) was on his usual route – the 16 in South Buffalo, New York at approximately 6:30am on a Monday morning.  

He noticed smoke coming from the back of a two-family home.  He stopped the bus which was loaded with the usual morning passengers and jumped off – he began banging on doors, waking the families inside.  When all were alerted and the families (including six children) were evacuating the burning building, Richard got back on his bus and continued on his route. 

Read the full story here.

Thank you Richard!

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Transformation Movement

May 19th, 2010   by   Andrew

While doing some good ol’ fashioned surfing, I recently came across the World Transformation Movement. Have you heard of this group?

The founding members seem to be from Australia. And I have not watched all the videos or made a real considered effort of analysis or anything like that. But at the same time, their brief description of the Human Condition did intrigue me. (The second video on site. Their videos are a bit lengthy and drawn, so you can scan through the introductory video and not miss much.)

When it comes to worldviews, I like to use four words as kind of helpers. Generally speaking, worldviews come with these four things: symbol, story, ritual and community. Each part is important in the sense that the individual can use each to relate to the larger society or group or even the world, but also the world uses each of these four things to relate to the individual. Relationships go two ways. Sometimes. With any luck…

Anyway, the Transformation Movement has developed a new worldview. All I’ve seen so far is what I think could be put under the story category. They are trying to remove the idea from our psyche that we are eternally bad. Instead, we are made up of a kind of duality that can be understood with the light of science and the guru of nature.

For the complete description, please go to the website and make up your own mind. But in it’s simplest form, here is their story and message:

Genes can orientate but are ignorant of nerves’ need to understand.

Yep. That’s it. Nothing to do really with good or evil, or soul management.

Jeremy Griffith, the main writer for the movement, does have an extended analogy to explain further this story, or our Human Condition. He uses the migration patterns of storks to illustrate the genetic orientation we have as living things (which was neat for me because Shannon did a Happy News story about a couple of storks in love a little while ago). But, a conscious brain is essentially unsatisfied with the genetic routines in place and seeks new paths, new curiosities, and better understandings.

Like I said, I haven’t examined all of their material or measured their evidence in the balances yet. I will say this, however; Jeremy Griffith, as their spokesperson, does not come across as a natural-born public speaker. This isn’t a slick, greasy-smooth delivery or pitch at all. This guy hasn’t been to the Seminary of Sales, if you read me.

It’s funny, but for some reason I tend to take people more seriously when they are uncomfortable or when they stumble on words. That’s just me though. I’ve been hoodwinked by all sorts of shams all the same…

In first impressions, my mind went immediately to ideas of hero mythology and Joseph Campbell during the explanations on how our conscious nervous system seeks out new understandings and new paths. So in many many ways, this is not the creation of a new story at all. It is framing some of the old ideas within a few biological terms and a modern understanding.

The Movement does not seem too concerned with the spiritual side of humanity, but it does seem to want to address the emotional side of humanity. And so I do reserve the right to change my impressions after I see the rest of their story, of course. I really don’t like the use of the word “orientate“. I admit it –  I’m prejudice against that word. What kind of a word is “orientate” anyway?

Please, by all means explore for yourself and then tell me what you think.

Do we need a new story?

And does this satisfy our needs?

Is it just too dangerous to see things under new lights?