[Humanist] 24.591 measuring the Fall

Humanist Discussion Group willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk
Wed Dec 15 07:37:37 CET 2010


                 Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 24, No. 591.
         Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
                       www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
                Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org

  [1]   From:    James Rovira <jamesrovira at gmail.com>                      (40)
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 24.583 measuring the... Fall

  [2]   From:    "Holly C. Shulman" <hcs8n at virginia.edu>                   (64)
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 24.582 measuring the Fall

  [3]   From:    Jascha Kessler <urim1 at verizon.net>                        (68)
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 24.583 measuring the... Fall

  [4]   From:    Jascha Kessler <urim1 at verizon.net>                        (60)
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 24.583 measuring the... Fall

-----
[Forgive this editorial intervention, which I trust does not offend, but 
I do think that this radical take-off from a posting that raised the 
subject of academic metrics via Martin Tompa's humorous article, 
"Figures of merit", suggesting that calculations of impact manifest 
a state of mental corruption (in biblical language a.k.a. The Fall), has 
gone on long enough past the outer limits of the digital humanities. 
Is it not a better use of our common purpose here to discuss that 
corruption -- to examine critically what *actually* tends to happen 
in collaborative research publications? We do tend to think in a 
highly romanticised way about collaboration, and so help to build 
yet another wing of the Devil's Workshop, nicht wahr? -- WM]

--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 08:06:21 -0500
        From: James Rovira <jamesrovira at gmail.com>
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 24.583 measuring the... Fall
        In-Reply-To: <20101214083712.69581BD4D6 at woodward.joyent.us>


Part of Adam and Eve's original mandate in the Garden was work -- to tend
the Garden and keep it.  They were originally commanded, before the Fall, to
multiply and fill the earth, and Genesis 2:1 states that Adam and Eve were
"created male and female," as were all the beasts.  So of course the text
expects its readers to believe that work, sex, and reproduction were
original parts of creation.  The curses represent the introduction of
increased hardship to work and childbearing, not the introduction of work
and childbearing.  The curse upon Eve is particularly interesting: "I will
greatly increase your pain in childbearing..."  So there was pain in
childbirth all along, but it is now greatly increased as a result of the
Fall.  All of these details are obvious from even a quick reading of Genesis
1-3, but they tend to be obscured by either over familiarity with the
narrative or an unwillingness to take the time to look at it.

Some medieval theologians may have been approaching the Genesis text from
the point of view of a neoPlatonic distrust of the body and of sexuality,
which was only acceptable as a means of propagating the human race.
Jerome's commentary on Genesis is particularly interesting.  Snake?  Fruit?
Come on, this is all about sexual awakening, about sex.  He was Freudian
almost 1500 years before Freud.

Most scholars working in Biblical studies that I've read tend to view the
Genesis account as the the product of a specific community, however, that
was edited over time and combined with other texts.  So perhaps the best way
to read Genesis is as an attempt to answer very basic questions:  Why is
work so hard on us?  Why do women suffer when giving birth?  These questions
reveal an expectation that things shouldn't be this way.

Jim R

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 3:37 AM, Humanist Discussion Group <
willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk> wrote:

>
> But a more interesting question is: Did Adam have a tallywhacker to begin
> with? God forced Adam to work for a living and Eve to have children only as
> punishment for eating the fruit. So he designed them originally not to have
> to reproduce, and to live forever. There were theologians in the Middle Ages
> who didn't think they had private parts at all.
> </quote>
>
> At least I learned a new word.
>
> Alan D. Corre
>



--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 11:33:03 -0500
        From: "Holly C. Shulman" <hcs8n at virginia.edu>
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 24.582 measuring the Fall
        In-Reply-To: <20101213062817.5FC83BBB35 at woodward.joyent.us>


Of course you are correct.  As you say, every benei mitzvot child knows
that.  And beyond Abraham, as a people we are created through exile in Egypt
and our escape, so as a people our origins go to Moses.

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 1:28 AM, Humanist Discussion Group <
willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk> wrote:

>                 Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 24, No. 582.
>         Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
>                       www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
>                Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org
>
>
>
>        Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 14:27:58 -0800
>        From: Jascha Kessler <urim.urim at gmail.com>
>        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 24.579 measuring the Fall
>        In-Reply-To: <20101212104003.33633BA49B at woodward.joyent.us>
>
>
> Disarmed and charmed too by Prof Corre's analysis of the maths,
> historical and contemporary, determining the measurement of time and
> times that were and to come, since Adam awoke from his first deep
> sleep, I forwarded the essay to friends and scholars.
> However charming, and disarming, on second thought it occurred to me
> that the thing was a spoof, all dependent upon reasoning that is and
> was post hoc, and hence, or ergo propter hoc.
> Adam was no Jew.  The old rebs may wish to appropriate him as my and
> Mao's Big Daddy-O, our Pater Familias from the getgo.  But his line
> vanishes just before Noah drifted off with his entire crew, family,
> flocks, schools and tribes and all.  Either that, and most folks are
> seriously misled to think all of us have Adam's DNA, and the other
> chromosome that somehow Eve took to from that rib.  Apart from the
> biology, just fooling, every Bar Mitzvah boy knows that the first Jew
> of us all, Bar or Bat Mitsvahed or not, was Abram, aka Abraham.
> My father protested when I named our first son Adam.  So the fault is
> not in our genes or stars, but in that post hoc assumption.
> Am I seconded?
> Jascha Kessler
> Emeritus Professor of Modern English and American Literature, UCLA
>
> --
> Jascha Kessler
> Professor of English & Modern Literature, UCLA
> Telephone/Facsimile: 310.393.4648
> www.jfkessler.com
> www.xlibris.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> List posts to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org
> List info and archives at at: http://digitalhumanities.org/humanist
> Listmember interface at:
> http://digitalhumanities.org/humanist/Restricted/listmember_interface.php
> Subscribe at:
> http://www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist/membership_form.php
>

-- 
Holly C. Shulman
Editor, Dolley Madison Digital Edition
Founding Director, Documents Compass
Research Professor, Department of History
University of Virginia
434-243-8881
hcs8n at virginia.edu



--[3]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 12:21:14 -0800
        From: Jascha Kessler <urim1 at verizon.net>
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 24.583 measuring the... Fall
        In-Reply-To: <20101214083712.69581BD4D6 at woodward.joyent.us>


Graciously, Professor Corre, that always does it!  I wonder however on what
basis and which Medieval  theologians designed the Primal Male and Female
without reproductive organs?  After all, The Great One had had them driven
them from out their immortal garden spot Eden into our pre-diluvian world,
where all is or was mortal, and the climate kept on changing from freezing
to boiling.  What could they have been thinking those degendering castrators
...? Rabelais, our Renaissance satirist, may or may not have had those
fellows in mind, when he caused Gargantua to be delivered from out of his
mother Gargamelle's left ear; but that was because she had stuffed herself,
nine months along, with a surfeit of tripes....and the midwife decided a
constipatory potion was needed to stop her defecating, so huge was that
coming baby ....

Could it have been the case that the numerological rabbincal  geniuses doing
their Kabbalah mojo calculations were reacting against those Theologians,
and assigning a Bar Mitzvah year to our First Father?  There, that'll put
those anti-Semites in their place!
Jascha Kessler

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Humanist Discussion Group <
willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk> wrote:

>                 Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 24, No. 583.
>         Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
>                       www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
>                Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org
>
>
>
>        Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 16:55:31 -0600 (CST)
>        From: Alan Corre <corre at uwm.edu>
>        Subject: That fall
>        In-Reply-To: <
> 1384958930.679782.1292280881499.JavaMail.root at mail03.pantherlink.uwm.edu>
>
> I surrender.
>
> It occurs to me that Adam was not circumcised.
>
> I checked on "Yahoo answers" and found this:
> <quote>
> The 'official' answer is no, God didn't require circumcision until his
> covenant with Abraham.
>
> But a more interesting question is: Did Adam have a tallywhacker to begin
> with? God forced Adam to work for a living and Eve to have children only as
> punishment for eating the fruit. So he designed them originally not to have
> to reproduce, and to live forever. There were theologians in the Middle Ages
> who didn't think they had private parts at all.
> </quote>
>
> At least I learned a new word.
>
> Alan D. Corre
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> List posts to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org
> List info and archives at at: http://digitalhumanities.org/humanist
> Listmember interface at:
> http://digitalhumanities.org/humanist/Restricted/listmember_interface.php
> Subscribe at:
> http://www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist/membership_form.php
>

-- 
Jascha Kessler
Professor of English & Modern Literature, UCLA
Telephone/Facsimile: 310.393.4648
www.jfkessler.com
www.xlibris.com



--[4]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 12:31:57 -0800
        From: Jascha Kessler <urim1 at verizon.net>
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 24.583 measuring the... Fall
        In-Reply-To: <20101214083712.69581BD4D6 at woodward.joyent.us>


Further to Professor Corre, et alia, on a thread that might or should be cut
now? an afterthought.  Was Abram circumcised?  If so, at what age?  If not,
was that covenant not made much earlier with Noah?  But I also  recall, its
signature was the Rainbow, something the Greeks attached to Iris, the
messenger goddess.  These confusions may have been engendered in the learned
rabbis by their increasing abstraction, or abstractedness, like that of
Swift's Laputans, who had the great power of mathematikers, and little
concern with the peasants below ....
Jascha Kessler

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Humanist Discussion Group <
willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk> wrote:

>                 Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 24, No. 583.
>         Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
>                       www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
>                Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org
>
>
>
>        Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 16:55:31 -0600 (CST)
>        From: Alan Corre <corre at uwm.edu>
>        Subject: That fall
>        In-Reply-To: <
> 1384958930.679782.1292280881499.JavaMail.root at mail03.pantherlink.uwm.edu>
>
> I surrender.
>
> It occurs to me that Adam was not circumcised.
>
> I checked on "Yahoo answers" and found this:
> <quote>
> The 'official' answer is no, God didn't require circumcision until his
> covenant with Abraham.
>
> But a more interesting question is: Did Adam have a tallywhacker to begin
> with? God forced Adam to work for a living and Eve to have children only as
> punishment for eating the fruit. So he designed them originally not to have
> to reproduce, and to live forever. There were theologians in the Middle Ages
> who didn't think they had private parts at all.
> </quote>
>
> At least I learned a new word.
>
> Alan D. Corre
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> List posts to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org
> List info and archives at at: http://digitalhumanities.org/humanist
> Listmember interface at:
> http://digitalhumanities.org/humanist/Restricted/listmember_interface.php
> Subscribe at:
> http://www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist/membership_form.php
>

-- 
Jascha Kessler
Professor of English & Modern Literature, UCLA
Telephone/Facsimile: 310.393.4648
www.jfkessler.com
www.xlibris.com





More information about the Humanist mailing list