"Every Individual" ~ Daniel Apatiga

Common sense was once a good term and an entire book was written about the subject and the author was Thomas Paine. And he believed that the human individual does not understand what falsities he has ascribed to when the individual talks about the goodness of the many. But now it is overused by people who have a false idea of what common sense really means. Here's why I think the phrase, "common sense," does not always accurately depict the situation or solve it effectively in day-to-day social multimedia. "Common Sense", by Thomas Paine, was written during the revolution and during that time, slavery was normal, government was seen as the epitome of human failure, and that the good times were the times when there were no leaders. Centuries later, we now think government, if run by ethical and altruistic people, can get large for government should be like the most ethical government ever. It is not a corporate-government nor a dictatorship, for government is best when democracy is exercised to the fullest. If the government is used properly, the betterment of society can be accomplished by implementing creative ideas by creative people that make society better for everyone.

Common sense is not about understanding human motives; it does not represent the goodness of every individual. The original concept of common sense was that the goodness of the individual is often marginalized by the goodness of the pack. However, the goodness of the pack was defined as not including our neighbors. This is because a pack-like mentality has been found to erode individuals' behavior with falsehoods, misrepresentations of the "other," and the spreading of truths that are really untrue. Common sense is not about looking at the best solutions for solving problems like world-overpopulation, immigration, and illegal immigration, since the solutions offered to you ignore the desires and wishes of the increasingly close "other." This other is not someone who exists to the mind of the Nativist who fully subscribe to "Common Sense" as detailed by T.P., and therefore, common sense makes perfect sense to the user who says "that's common sense!" when in fact a better solution exists. Common sense places the goodness of the many over the goodness of the individual, but any attempt at redefining the pack as inclusive lowers the goodness of the pack because the individual divides the pack. Common sense proprietors see individuals as those who do not see the full picture, often, and therefore, any inclination that a better solution exists are unfathomable or dangerous to them. The usage of "common sense" hopes that the reader listens to your fear and anger that is a hope that you will convince the pack to agree: we are all afraid and fearful of the "other." Common sense does not take into account the emotions of individuals who see the best solution, whatever that might be, which is a win-win for everyone. The solution would not be from a close-minded group, e.g. the K.K.K. and the Nazi-USA movement that sees only a win-lose solution that really is a lose-lose for everyone. Indeed, anyone who is creative can come up with a better solution than that, but Artful people are those who are in charge of their minds, emotions, and are confident. I don't know how else to say this, but white-racist, Constitutionalist America is a dying breed, because they defined "common sense" inaccurately. They see the individual as non-creative and as making up the pack and therefore, the pack as missing the point often when a single person speaks for them. My argument is that a single person cannot understand the needs of the many without first being in-tune with himself. My argument suggests those who do not believe in "common sense" do in fact believe in humanity, and that those who say the phrase do not believe in the other's humanity. If you are listening to a person in-tune with themselves, they try to convey meaning and show you how it is rather than make you infer, deduce, and extrapolate what the individual says "makes common sense" since the phrase is inherently exclusive.

"I would tell you if I were not afraid" ~ a poem.

I wrote a poem
because I thought I'd forget about tomorrow.
What they tell you in the tabloids about love
it's wrong.
I am not shy but I am afraid.
I am not in touching distance
but I am here.
I am uncaring
for you are not beside me.
I did not fight
the future conflicts.
I did not command you
to be with me.
I did not give you
my inner thoughts.
I did not compromise
my desire in light of you.
I did not respect you
that fateful time.
I did not convince my Dad
and his wife
that you're the one.
The news is run for them.
.

Gregory of Nyssa and What We May Infer about his Interpretive Community

Daniel Alexander Apatiga

Prof. Lori Branch

Engl: 3140, Sect. 1

Oct. 23rd, 2016

Gregory of Nyssa and What We May Infer about his Interpretive Community

            Gregory of Nyssa (or G.O.N.) offers many interpretations of the divine from the life of Moses.  This suggests that the Christian interpretive community he belonged to was interested in unpacking the deeply hidden symbology from within the Scriptures of Exodus, whose story of Moses parallels in many ways the gospels that narrate the life of Jesus.  At that time, Christians were less likely to have been born Jews than they had been at the founding of Christianity, and so they would not necessarily have been raised to be knowledgeable about Moses’s life.  This was because a limited number of manuscripts existed and the printing press had not been invented by Gutenberg yet (which was in 1440 C.E.).  Also, legally, only monks and literate members of church could have access to the manuscripts transcribed from the Septugint L.X.X. of the stories of Moses.  Finally, the genealogy of Christianity could finally trace itself back thousands of years to the time of Moses when he contributed to its authority.   For these reasons, G.O.N. may have spread the idea that Moses was a monumental figure, though not the son of God, for those who might be converted to Christian ideology from paganism.

            A problem existed in the early Christian community: was the divine something magical, or was it explainable?  G.O.N. believed that the divine could not be mistaken as being finite or limited in nature—it was infinitely “good.”  That is because he believed evil was limited by virtue, which is good, and the divine is good (G.O.N., page 5).  He defends his reasoning by examining the symbology of Moses’ miracles: the finding of Moses by the daughter of the Pharoah at the river bank; the symbol of the staff becoming a snake and then eating the other staffs that became snakes; how the plagues were proverbial in symbology; why the tall mountain was high where Moses communicated with God; how he defined a foreigner and how he thought Christians should deal with them; how we might learn about fleeing from battle and the bigger picture; what paradoxes were encountered when seeking the divine; and what are the problems with pleasure seeking?  In a macroscopic parallel sort of way, Jesus was a lot like Moses in that his father was absent from his life.  G.O.N. rightly notices that “…[Moses] did not choose the things considered glorious by the pagans, nor did he any longer recognize as his mother that wise woman by whom he had been adopted, but he returned to his natural mother and attached himself to his own kinsmen” (G.O.N., page 9).  Next, the symbol of the staff had been missed, according to G.O.N..  His interpretation suggests that the staff itself was solid and lifeless, and when it became a snake it was like the serpent in the story of Adam and Eve.  So why would the divine provide something like this to Moses?  G.O.N. believed that conquering evil requires evil, and Moses showed this by having Moses’ staff that became a snake eat the other snakes that the pagan sorcerers conjured.  Jesus, though in many ways was an impressive prophet in stature who did not deal with battles and wars the same way that Moses did, because even though he lost the battle of his life, he won the war without lifting a finger.  In that way, Moses was at first gentle to his oppressers.  Satirically, G.O.N. possibly recognized that the Kings and despots in power wanted a bloodier and a literal alternative than what Jesus taught.  But without Moses, Jesus would not have been possible.  Next, the plague of the frogs is symbolic in itself because “being a man by nature and becoming a beast by passion, this kind of person exhibits an amphibious form of life ambiguous in nature.  In addition, one will also find the evidences of such an illness not only on the bed, but also on the table and in the storeroom and throughout the house” (G.O.N., page 50).  Jesus never used a plague against his enemies except in his parable against the priests of the synagogue, perhaps, and the use of magic in curing the sick and diseased (since we do not know how he accomplished those tasks other than from the divine), which were by comparison, harmless but hurtful to himself.  G.O.N. further states, “let us not draw the conclusion that these distresses upon those who deserved them came directly from God, but rather let us observe that each man makes his own plagues when through his own free will he inclines toward these painful experiences” (G.O.N., page 55).  The moral of the death of the newborn, a plague, is according to G.O.N., “when through virtue one comes to grips with any evil, he must completely destroy the first beginnings of evil (G.O.N., page 57).  On the same page, he says of the Pharoah’s murderous intent, “neither of these things would develop of itself, but anger produces murder and lust produces adultery” that were later inscribed by the divine as commandments, notably.  Regarding the lamb’s blood that was painted on top of each doorway of the Israelites, G.O.N. argues that “no opposition from the blood resists his entrance: that is to say, faith in Christ does not ally itself with those of such a disposition” (G.O.N., page 59).  On the same page and rather darkly, G.O.N. states of the divine that “…the firstfruits of the Egyptian children [must be destroyed] so that evil, in being destroyed at its beginning, might come to an end.” However, Jesus would not have made such a logical leap.  I have issues with the lesson that G.O.N. extrapolates here, since the Holocaust of the Jews made by Nazi Germany was precisely because of this logic.  Lastly, the eleventh plague—the collapsing of the Red sea on the chariots is in itself symbolic for a different reason: “if… we by ourselves are too weak to give the victory to what is righteous, since the bad is stronger in its attacks and rejects the rule of truth, we must flee as quickly as possible (in accordance with the historical example) from the conflict to the greater and higher teaching of the mysteries” and he later states, “…let us reprove the teachers of evil for their wicked use of instruction”  (G.O.N., page 36).  Jesus, though, did not seek the consequence of this despite being a Jew, and was condemned to his death by crucifixion, resurrection, and later ascension into heaven.  Next, G.O.N. believed that the concept of a foreigner or an alien should be limited to those who do not believe in the word of Christ (aka. Christians), because the concept of the other is a person who is a non-believer. This is directly from the ten commandments that defined worshipers of the divine as having only one God.  Next, a paradox exists when seeking the divine: G.O.N. states that “…every concept which comes from some comprehensible image by an approximate understanding and by guessing at the divine nature constitutes an idol of God and does not proclaim God” (G.O.N., page 81).  Finally, pleasure seeking, according to G.O.N., should be abhorred, because “…the person who lacks moderation is a libertine, and he who goes beyond moderation has his conscience branded…” (G.O.N., page 121).

Like Jesus, Moses sought truth for it is “…always the same, neither increasing nor diminishing, immutable to all change whether to better or to worse (for it is far removed from the inferior and it has no superior), standing in need of nothing else, alone desirable, participated in by all but not lessened by their participation---this is truly real being” (G.O.N., page 38).  Yet, in terms of the search for perfection, which is good, and thus, a part of the divine, Moses differs from Jesus.  If we believe G.O.N.’s interpretation of the life of Moses, because the apostle Mathew states Jesus as saying, ‘Therefore be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect’” (G.O.N., page 6).  On that same page, G.O.N. states “…the perfection of human nature consists perhaps in its very growth in goodness.”  G.O.N. believed that the life of Jesus perhaps could not be interpreted without first interpreting the life of Moses. 

   Gregory of Nyssa.  The Life of Moses.  HarperCollins, 2006. Print.

Logic, Magic, and Structure in the Dreams of the Early Prophets

Daniel Alexander Apatiga

Prof. Lori Branch

Engl: 3140, Sect. 1

Sept. 28^th, 2016

Logic, Magic, and Structure in the Dreams of the Early Prophets

   Logic falls apart in typical dreams, yet the motif of dreams experienced by the early prophets and VIPs were narrated as logically infallible, realistic visions in Genesis and Exodus that occurred magically by an entity known as God; these dreams held hidden symbols within the imagery that would dictate the life of later individual. Nowadays, dream interpreters are rare, and many people do not even think about their dreams, or where they come from-generally, we accept dreams as having a mystical quality. Ironically, society can also preclude people who allegedly hallucinate, like cultural communities who are labeled schizophrenics, or hallucinogenic drug junkies. Moreover, uncanny parallels exist between the future or the past in connection with the narrative of a dream that has lasting effects on a human being. In terms of theme, the surreal dreams experienced by the prophets catalyzed change, progress, and sometimes tragedy. This led the children of Abraham towards the Promised Land where they became as numerous as the stars.

          A "prophetic dream" is like a naked foreshadow in contemporary art-it conveniently suggests to the eye of the beholder what will unfold. This evocation, notably, is evidence of a magical presence to these prophets. And, by magic, we presume it means, anthropomorphically, that an outside, invisible or otherworldly force, causes imagery in the dream, mystically. In my essay, I will scrutinize closely the visions of Abram, who became Abraham, and his sons and how their visions of a faceless God who would appear in the shape and guise of an unimagined dream. These dreams were what pushed forward the movement of the narratives. My main focus of this essay will be the dream Laban has in which God tells him, supposedly, that he should not speak with Jacob because this would be poisonous to God's plans. In retelling the dreams that would subsequently come true, I do not take on faith that the omniscient narrator of Genesis was immortal: he was immortalized of the spiritual and mystical answers provided by the Scriptures. (This omniscient narrator was also most likely confined by poetic and oral tradition, so the many stories were in all likelihood appended on top of each other.) This prophetic dream of Laban's occurs only once, whereas the sons of Abraham have dreams in two, noticeably, suggesting that non-Israelites are not as loved as the aliens:

²² On the third day Laban was told that Jacob had fled.  ²³ So he took his kinsfolk with him and pursued him for seven days until he caught up with him in the hill country of Gilead.  ²⁴ But God came to Laban the Aramean in a dream by night, and said to him, “Take heed that you say not a word to Jacob, either good or bad.” (Bible 54).

          Structurally, since most of Genesis and Exodus use symmetrical parallelism in its strophes, this, like fractals, (where if we were to zoom out, the image of what was before appears approximately the same), we see that parallels exist in a fractal space that also occurs in the overall form of the Bible. What is most spellbinding concerning these macroscopic parallel fractals is that uncanny apparitions of the past era are relived, which makes me think, to some effect, we must be reliving the past in a parallel, macroscopic way, whether we are moderately limited or unnoteworthy to this fatalism, aka., the past history repeats itself. For instance, microscopically, a sentence is followed by a parallel sentence that conveys the same meaning except slightly differently, like in Hebrew Poetry that employs Chiasmus structures. And, macroscopically, we see that Jacob had twelve sons, and like Jacob, Jesus had twelve apostles. Furthermore, like Jacob's sons who favor a murdering of Joseph, the apostle Judah betrays Jesus. (The apostle Judah sells him for 30 silver linings to the authorities, and similarly, Jacob's son, Judah, sells Joseph to the Ishmaelites for "20 pieces of silver.") Of course, a lot of time had passed, events developed, and new characters come and forgotten before this fractal parallel occurs. So, these parallels naturally led me to a question: if this omniscient narrator, (because he or she had recounted the Prophets' lives through many life-spans and who had maintained a similar tone and diction throughout) had garnered the truth about the dreams, particularly, through whatever means, are the most lifelike dreams prophetic? Of course, I'm not holy, or a Prophet, but maybe a missed moral message was left behind by the ancients-that vivid dreams are extremely important to the future of humankind. Take the Pharaoh's dream that would be interpreted by Joseph, a son of Abraham:

After two whole years, Pharaoh dreamed that he was standing by the Nile, ² and there came up out of the Nile seven sleek and fat cows, and they grazed in the reed grass. ³ Then seven other cows, ugly and thin, came up out of the Nile after them, and stood by the other cows on the bank of the Nile. ⁴ The ugly and thin cows ate up the seven sleek and fat cows. And Pharaoh awoke. ⁵ Then he fell asleep and dreamed a second time; seven ears of grain, plump and good, were growing on one stalk. ⁶ Then seven ears, thin and blighted by the east wind, sprouted after them. ⁷ The thin ears swallowed up the seven plump and full ears. Pharaoh awoke, and it was a dream. (Coogan 67).

         In this dream, Joseph interprets it and it is later fulfilled. The dream, like a normal dream, does not make sense; events do not unfold naturally because time is sped up. In the structure of this dream, the sentences are not recounted in typical parallelism, but embellished contrasts make the sentences progress in an alarming way. For instance, verse four to five have complete opposite images-that of waking up and that of falling asleep. This occurs symmetrically from the point of the period with antonyms in retrograde. Joseph suddenly knows that "...the doubling of Pharaoh's dream means that the thing is fixed by God, and God will shortly bring it about" (Coogan 68). This is not contradicted as far as I know in the Pentateuch. But how did Joseph come to that conclusion, logically or magically? He had successfully interpreted the dreams from two separate people-the cup-bearer and the chief-chef-the dreams of which had similar characteristics. The dream from the cup-bearer and the dream from the chief baker were completely opposite yet they uncannily resembled each other:

⁹ So the chief cupbearer told his dream to Joseph, and said to him, “In my dream there was a vine before me, ¹⁰ and on the vine there were three branches. As soon as it budded, its blossoms came out and the clusters ripened into grapes. ¹¹ Pharaoh’s cup was in my hand; and I took the grapes and pressed them into Pharaoh’s cup, and placed the cup in Pharaoh’s hand.” ¹² Then Joseph said to him, “This is its interpretation: the three branches are three days; ¹³ within three days Pharaoh will lift up your head and restore you to your office; and you shall place Pharaoh’s cup in his hand, just as you used to do when you were his cupbearer.  (Coogan 66).

¹⁶ When the chief baker saw that the interpretation was favorable, he said to Joseph, “I also had a dream: there were three cake baskets on my head, ¹⁷ and in the uppermost basket there were all sorts of baked food for Pharaoh, but the birds were eating it out of the basket on my head.” ¹⁸ And Joseph answered, “This is its interpretation: the three baskets are three days; ¹⁹ within three days Pharaoh will lift up your head—from you!— and hang you on a pole; and the birds will eat the flesh from you.” (Coogan 67).

         Also, it is interesting to note that these two unimportant persons, the cupbearer and the chief-chef, are later macroscopically paralleled in the last supper of Jesus where he holds a cup like the cup-bearer-the holy grail-but his lowly status as the chief-chef providing to the poor ceases to exist as soon as Jesus is crucified shortly after the meal. But, Jesus as the cup-bearer is spared death when he is resurrected, (though he is shortly returned to heaven and God). Jesus dies at three pm and is for three days dead and then he was resurrected.

         The numbers three and two seem important to one another in terms of structure, and how God magically communicates in prophetic dreams. Mathematically, two is the first prime number and is how Joseph knew that they were prophetic dreams: two is the minimum for the existence of parallelism. Two divides into half the numbers from zero to infinity. Like the things that are evil and those that are good, each might be divided into two groups of equal size, since for each good act there is an opposite, correspondingly evil act. In Pharaoh’s dream, he dreams twice; one of these dreams is disturbing: a dream that suggests to Joseph seven years of famine. Interestingly, Pharaoh’s second dream does not occur because Joseph saves many Egyptian lives by realizing it is a message from God. The number three plays an important role as aforementioned in prior paragraphs: three branches, three days before events come to pass for the cupbearer and chief-chef. How did Joseph logically interpret three branches on a vine as meaning three days? It is not possible--it is irrational, transcendental, and unlikely unless God "helped" him. Interestingly, the Bible does not say God told him specifically that a vine's branch symbolizes a day, rather, he had extrapolated this from somewhere.

         The author of these texts must have had knowledge about the prophets' dreams first hand unless the stories were passed down from generation to generation. So what differentiates a commonplace dream from a prophetic one? In all likelihood, though this is not talked about, Abraham and his descendants had many dreams that were not recounted because why? Because they were not prophetic. So what should those dreams mean to the spiritual individual? And, how does one have knowledge that God is the one who speaks when a voice in a dream could easily be mistaken for a person? The mystical is easily demystified in those dreams by the prophets, but of course, they are prophets. But, the dream's prophecy, consequent interpretation, and then realization suggests that it has a magical, logical infallibility to it.

Works Cited

The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Edition with Apocrypha. Gen. Ed.

Michael D. Coogan. Oxford UP, 2010.