Creative Chaos

by André Rabe

  Again the example of young children is useful. Prior to the development of an independent self, the child is immersed in their reality in such a way that no separation exists between themselves and their world. Consequently, there are no value judgments. Things just are the way they are. To make judgments about good and bad, an independent will, a judge, is necessary. Although such independence might be desirable, the development of self-consciousness will also introduce the consciousness of death. If there is no self to preserve, there is no death to fear.

  We have often interpreted the pronouncement “for in the day that you eat of it you shall die ” as a warning of punishment, but it could equally be read as a prophetic statement of the inevitable: Self-consciousness will open the door to death-consciousness. It is partaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, this development in consciousness, that inevitably results in an awareness of death.

  From an anthropological point of view, somewhere in the development of human consciousness, the awareness of death entered in a more obsessive way. Together with the consciousness of self, comes consciousness of time. And as we saw in Chapter 2, awareness of time gives us access to the logic of cause and effect and forms the basis of story-telling. It enables us to learn from the past, to accumulate knowledge and to anticipate the future. It opens up our understanding to the possibilities of the future… and one possibility in particular, death. Animals become aware of danger and will flee the scene or fight the danger, but there is no lingering fear of death that overshadows their existence.

  Now why would God prohibit us from gaining such knowledge - the ability to make value judgments? Especially seeing that God himself partakes of this knowledge (3:22). Could it be that this prohibition is similar to the kind of prohibition we give to our young children? We don’t allow our toddlers to play with knives because they don’t have the capacity to do so safely. However, once they mature, we teach them how to handle dangerous objects and situations in the proper way. So this prohibition, to not partake of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, might only have been relevant for a specific period.

  Alone? Let’s Make Some Animals!

  Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him (2:18-20 RSV).

  Something about the mythic stories of experimental human creations still resonates in this text. After creating the earthling, Yahweh discovers something about this situation that’s not good. And in the light of this, beasts are created - “but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him. ”

  While writing this portion of the book, I’m taking some time out from my usual schedule to give my exclusive focus to this subject. I’ve come to stay on a friend’s remote farm on the border of South Africa and Lesotho, an area rich in the ancient rock art of the San nomadic tribes that crossed this terrain thousands of years ago. The expansive mountains and valleys together with the endless blue sky give one a sense of space rarely felt within populated communities. The nearest small town is more than an hour away and only accessible by an off-road vehicle. The nights are dead quiet - not even a breeze.

  My mind wanders to the small San tribes that traversed this area. They could travel for extensive periods of time without encountering another tribe. My few days here are giving me a small taste of the kind of loneliness they must have experienced. I am staying in a farmhouse apart from my friends and this morning they had to leave for a couple of days to collect necessary equipment. If I am not writing or reading, animals are my only companions. At least these are mainly friendly animals and good conversationists I might add, or more accurately, good listeners.

  Imagine what the awakening of human consciousness was like in this vast landscape: the slow realization that despite the deep connection we enjoy with animals, something very different is happening in us. The tearing away of the conscious self from the world of unconscious unity brought our uniqueness and loneliness into stark focus. Traumatic is surely not too strong a word to describe such a disturbing realization. Language and symbols are ways in which we give expression to this excess of meaning - ways of letting go of the trauma. Our animal companions do not communicate on that level. The realization of separateness from our animal friends intensified the loneliness.

  Is this the archetypal memory that is captured in the image of the earthling naming the animals? The very act of naming is an act of separation. If the earthling said: “You are called Lion,” it is precisely because the lion is separate and different from the other named animals. And this act of separation, of naming, intensifies the loneliness. The first experiences children have of being alone, can dramatically shape the way they connect with others for the rest of their lives. This state of being alone is described as “not good .” God determines to make “a helper comparable to Adam .” The phrase “helper comparable to” is a very interesting construct in Hebrew. It speaks of a helper contrary or against - a mirror reflection, equal but opposite.

  A Companion That Opposes

  It is in this context of finding reflective relationship that God invites the earthling to name the animals. This is an invitation to co-create; for in the process of naming, ha-adam discovers the power of his consciousness to give meaning to his world. Something else becomes obvious as well. Every animal has an equal but opposite partner. It is both likeness and otherness that make intimacy possible. Maybe this quest that God calls ha-adam to, of naming the animals, is also meant to stir the question: What kind am I? What species am I to reflect? Ultimately this might lead to the depth of discovery of whose image and likeness humanity is meant to reflect. Is this another subtle seduction?

  Such a contrary or reflective helper is first sought amongst the animals, but none is found. Remember, ha-adam is in the process of becoming human and we are following the drama of that development.

  So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man (2:21-22 RSV).

  In reading this story we often assume that Adam is male. But, as noted before, ha-adam simply means the earthling or the-one-from-the-earth. Many commentators agree that at this point in the story the earthling is both male and female. In the context of the birth of consciousness, sexual differentiation is irrelevant when there is only one. There are in fact two words that denote gender, Ish and Isha, but they will only be introduced after the earthling is separated in two. Consequently, some translations, and specifically the Zohar commentary moves away from the idea of a rib, and supports the idea of a side. The image being painted is of the earthling, being both male and female in one body, separated by God into two equal but opposing sides. Ha-adam now becomes Ish and Isha, a mirror reflection, a relationship in which a person can come to know himself or herself in another.

  Does a deeper connection require a greater separation? Instead of an undifferentiated oneness, a new kind of intimacy requires union with distinction. Ish and Isha, this new distinction, opens a way for you to see yourself reflected in an image that is both opposite from you, yet like you. This is not sameness, but likeness. There is a depth and complexity of relationship that opens up in this helper that opposes me, and it is the very opposition, the contrary reflection, that helps to develop the self-knowledge that makes us human. Zornberg comments:

  God seduces him, God lures him to acknowledge his longing for a helpmate, God overwhelms him with sleep to collaborate with desire. According to one powerful midrash, Adam dreams the woman and wakes, pulsing with agitation, to the fulfillment of his dream.
His mate emerges from an unconscious state, from a slippage of mastery. 5

  Just as God brought the animals to Adam, he now brings the woman. But in contrast to his effortless naming of the animals, he now seems to be unable to name her. Instead of the sober control with which he previously spoke, he finds himself in a dreamlike state in the presence of this other who confounds his language. It is no longer the power of his intellect or his control over language that is on display, but an experience that draws him beyond himself and causes his language to become poetic. If we relate this to the development of language in children, we see a remarkable similarity. The first words are those with which to identify or name others: “mama, dada, dog, ball.” But it is when the child first attempts to describe a relationship and the emotions present in relationship that we find the most comical sayings. The complexity of relationship confounds language… but also draws it into a higher plane.

  “This one, this one time, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. ”

  And as if he is unable to name her now, he speaks about a future event in which she shall be named. She would in fact only be named later, after partaking of the knowledge of good and evil. Maybe this delay in giving a personal name is also indicative that the process of forming a fully individual person has not been completed yet. These are the first recorded words of Adam. They reveal something truly unique about human consciousness - the ability to recognize ourselves in another. Being human cannot happen in isolation, rather it is the unique experience of being-in-love that constitutes the being of mankind.

  Remember, it all began with an invitation to co-create. Ha-adam began creating meaning through the naming of the animals. But that is not where the co-creative process stopped. It is in relationship that the creative process is amplified. The reflective movement will continue to shape both Ish and Isha. It is significant that at this stage no announcement is made by God that the project has been completed, that the aloneness of man has been overcome and the goal of having an earthling in his image and likeness has been achieved. For that to happen we have to wait a bit longer.

  and they shall become one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed (2:24-25 RSV).

  Consciousness becomes more complex as desire intensifies and diversifies. Yet the statement that they were both naked and were not ashamed also implies a childlike unself-consciousness. At this point in the story human consciousness has not yet developed to the place where we recognize it as our own, for it is not yet fully self-conscious. They are indifferent to their differences and consequently nothing interesting happens.

  I suggest that the aloneness of humanity has not yet been overcome, precisely because they are so unconsciously one that there are no relational movements. There are no borders between Ish and Isha, for there are no fully formed individual selves. This situation is reminiscent of the toddlers playing on the beach. An unashamed oneness means they are still alone. The full scope of desire, including the intensity of both love and hate, has not been experienced yet. This naive innocence also has no trace of the complexities of both a developed conscious and unconscious. But these are the themes that will be developed in our next chapter.

  Endnotes

  1 Walton, John, The Lost World of Adam and Eve , See Proposition 8.

  2 Ricoeur, Paul & Williams, James. (2011). “Religion and Symbolic Violence .” Contagion: Journal of Violence, Mimesis, and Culture. 6. 10.1353/ctn.1999.0003.

  3 Zornberg, Avivah Gottlieb (2009-03-30). The Murmuring Deep: Reflections on the Biblical Unconscious (p. 6). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

  4 Friedman, Richard Elliott. Commentary on the Torah (Kindle Locations 6631-6634). HarperOne. Kindle Edition.

  5 Zornberg, Avivah Gottlieb. The Murmuring Deep: Reflections on the Biblical Unconscious (p. 10). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

  Chapter Five

  Becoming Human

  Serpent Symbolism

  Genesis 3 begins by introducing us to the serpent: “Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made .”

  Modern Christianity almost exclusively sees serpent symbolism as evil. Consequently the serpent of Genesis 3 is identified as Satan without much further thought. However, the authors of this text had no concept remotely similar to our later developed concept of Satan. Many positive meanings were associated with the serpent at this time. 1 Jesus himself admonished that we should be wise as serpents. It is so easy to take later concepts and impose them on earlier texts and in so doing completely miss the intended meaning. It is of much greater benefit to first understand, as far as possible, the most ancient and authentic meaning and then allow that to inform our understanding of how these concepts developed.

  I am not suggesting that the serpent symbolism is good instead of evil, but rather that it is varied, capable of symbolizing both good and evil, and as such it is a well-suited companion to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The Genesis text introduces this character as a beast made by God and wiser than all other creatures. If it was to be understood as the symbol of evil only, this would not be the way to introduce this creature. Both God and the serpent will present questions to the earthlings that will draw the conversation forward and eventually produce a man and a woman whom we recognize as being like ourselves.

  Serpent symbolism was widely used during this time and in the area where the Hebrew stories were birthed. In typical Jewish style, the text uses a symbol that is well known but simultaneously subverts much of its meaning. I want to specifically highlight the meaning of the serpent symbol as it relates to consciousness. We observed earlier that prior to the emergence of the conscious, the independent self, the child is one with its reality. This original wholeness was often symbolized with the circle which has no beginning and no end, no above or below, only undifferentiated oneness. A widely used variation of the circle symbol is the circular serpent. The circular serpent symbol is also a further development in consciousness in that it includes distinctions not present in the circle alone.

  Although absolute rest is something static and eternal, unchanging and therefore without history, it is at the same time the place of origin and the germ cell of creativity. Living the cycle of its own life, it is the circular snake, the primal dragon of the beginning that bites its own tail, the self-begetting ’Oυϱóβοϱος .’ 2

  The Egyptian Ouroboros is a serpent swallowing its tail. The cycle of time, as evidenced by the rising and setting sun, the repetitive seasons and the flooding of the Nile, enveloped all of reality. The serpent consumes itself but also impregnates itself and gives birth to itself, containing within itself the mysteries of the cycles of time and all the processes of life and death. The Ouroboros preserves the memory of origin wholeness and timeless union. As such it is an image of the undivided consciousness before the self is formed. It is relevant to both the emergence of consciousness in individual children and the emergence of consciousness in human evolution.

  The earliest known occurrence of the symbol is on a golden shrine in the tomb of Tutankhamen, dated to the 13th Century BC. The name Ouroboros is actually Greek and means tail-devourer. The symbol made its way from Egypt into Greek mythology. A third-century Greek document has the Ouroboros encircling the words: “All is One.” This image has been found all across the world - in Africa, Mexico, India and the Americas to name but a few. Not only do these symbols appear in ancient myths, but they persisted throughout time and similar intuitions still manifest in the dreams of modern humanity. Why?

  The Awakening of Desire

  The circular serpent preserves the pre-conscious memory of eternal union that includes all in one. At this stage consciousness is undivided. The self is still asleep in the perfect circle of unconscious development. What awakens it out of its slumber? What causes the eternal circular serpent, in which the whole is enveloped in unconscious bliss, to lose its grip on its tail and break the circle? What event
provokes it to speak?

  Maybe it is the prohibition, the confrontation with limitation: “you shall not eat. ” We know that prohibition somehow intensifies desire. And it is the full awakening of desire that brings about a duality in consciousness, a split, a conflicting voice. In this case it is not the voice of the unconscious but rather the awakening of the conscious that, for the first time, begins to separate itself from the amoral unconscious.

  Part of the emergence of the conscious self is a dissatisfaction with simply accepting everything the way it is - a resistance against being part of everything. Dissatisfaction and desire energize each other. In separating itself from the unconscious and insisting on its own independent existence, it also insists on separating itself from the reality around it and making judgments about the relative value of what it objectively observes, whether it is good or bad. Remember it was Jacob who constructed his own dwelling and who became occupied with questions of identity and inheritance. The conscious self desires to know good and bad, instead of the bland sameness of undifferentiated unity. Or simply, it desires good and bad - to experience good and bad.

  During this process of separation, a kind of confusion is inevitable. What is still part of me and what is not? What is still within and what is outside? “the world of the dawn man is very largely an interior world experienced outside himself, a condition in which inside and outside are not discriminated from one another. ” 3

  This gives birth to a special kind of projection where internal experiences are projected onto outer reality. This might be why early man experiences the world as magical. An internal conversation can be projected in such a way that trees and animals become endowed with magical qualities. We have all observed children projecting their internal conversations onto external objects to make the drama more understandable.