Tuesday, July 12, 2016

Werewolves in the Bible...first pass

I have decided to annotate the Bible. This is the third time I am doing this. The first time was to incorporate the Bible, Pseudepigrapha, and any and all legends I could find into my general mythology notes. (For Christians, Jews and Muslims it may be important to note there is a great deal of overlap with Biblical material and mythic material- for example the Biblical interdiction against seething a kid in its mother’s milk, is known to be a mechanism to make one a God in Orphism.) The second time I annotated it was to point out instances where art traditions are evident, and especially art traditions around caves, or subterranean areas (the biblical God is several times depicted as rising from beneath the ground), or art with outsiders or outcasts (like the Rechabites or Kenites.) This time around, I must admit my annotations are a bit adversarial, as I am looking at debunking some aspects of fundamentalism, and some silly ideas regarding acceptance of the Bible as history.  Or history as we generally think of history.

As I have been going through the Bible, I stumbled across some of my old notes. I found that there is a great deal concerning , almost an obsession with, werewolves in the Bible.

This may sound very strange, and certainly not very Biblical, but it is true just the same. Let me clarify my terms here a bit. “Werewolf” may not clearly get the idea across. To spare everyone my usual long winded, pedantic lectures I’ll summarize. People considered “outside”, “strangers” or “aliens” were thought of as estranged, and wild. There were specific rituals that made one “estranged” or a stranger, and some of these were very clear in what exactly “strangeness” entailed. It had to do with murder, cannibalism, and man turning into animals. We can’t think of animals in the terms that we think of them today. Animals had specific magical histories and traits that set them apart. For example leopards and fawns were seen as divine because their spots were thought to be the likeness of the stars. In Egypt the Ba priests wore leopard skins to be heavenly, and among the Greeks the fawn skin was used in Dionysos cults for the same reasons.
So when I say werewolf I am referring to something more than a guy turning into a wolf, though that is included also. To be a werewolf several things had to happen. 1. A murder had to be committed. 2. In most cases this murder is followed by an act of cannibalism. 3. The head hands and feet of the victim are mentioned for special notice, and shown. 4. The appearance of dogs, or wolves, either as a relative to the victim or perpetrator, or signaling that the perpetrator is a fellow wolf. 5. The murderer is known as “the stranger”, “foreigner”, the “outcast”, the “wild man”, and cannot be harmed. 6. Hairiness (that is specifically growing hair to look like an animal, especial if one has red hair. 7. Leprosy (or a white skin disease). 8. Eating honey from bee hives found in dead bodies (see Samson or Saxo Grammaticus’ Amleth). 9. Rams, especially the shoulder blade of a ram appears as a puzzling but important element but also shoulder blades are a strangely persistent mythic element.

Okay this sounds unorthodox enough. It is, however, all connected. Let’s take number 7, leprosy,  from the list above as a jumping off point. Several places in the Bible mention lepers. There is mention of people becoming lepers, and what to do when one becomes a leper (that is how to treat leprosy.) To be clear about the terms, the Biblical Hebrew does not note leprosy from other skin diseases, notably those that cause white flaky skin. Flaky white skin, whiteness of skin, was seen as a signal, a malady of sorts, but a magical malady. Pausanius mentions a battle close to Delphi, in Greece, where the soldiers covered themselves in white flour, or powder and attacked at night. The enemy forces believed they were besieged by ghosts or demons. This way of thinking of whiteness was very wide spread over a very long period of time (still ghosts and “supernatural” descriptions are white or pale.). But if we take this to Greece and Rome we’ll get a better idea of what is meant by “leprosy” or white skin diseases. In Greek the word is “Lepo” the word indicating whiteness and white skin disease. In Latin we are given a clearer understanding of the word. “Lupus” means white skin disease and is still used today to describe a disease whose symptoms include flaking skin and white patches. As may be noticed, “lupus” also means wolf. This relationship of white and wolf is very wide spread. In Germanic, and other Indo-European languages (including Latin and Greek) the term “alb” means white, as in reference to the snow covered “alps” or the white cliffs of Dover giving Britain the Latin name Albion. The word appears in Germanic and Scandinavian languages as “alb”, “alf” and “ulf”, meaning white, elf and wolf. In Scandinavian traditions elves are not small spritely things but stranger Gods of the light and subterranean darkness.

The whiteness was not a stand alone issue, and it had nothing to do with the germ theory of disease. Leprosy, that is werewolfism, was the result of some act. Plato notes “it is told of the sanctuary of Lykaian Zues (wolfish Zeus) in Arcadia, namely, that he who tastes one bit of human entrails minced up with those of other victims is inevitably transformed into a wolf.” From other sources it is known the “he who tastes” was ritually a shepherd, and the victim a shepherd boy. This story goes back far earlier than Plato. In the Epic of Gilgamesh, not only is there a wild man, Enkidu, but the Goddess Inanna is accused of turning her lover, a shepherd, into a wolf that is torn apart by dogs. To kill a man, and eat him made one a wolf. Now let’s look at an example of this in the Bible. The account in Exodus of the Jews escaping Egypt is an account of werewolfism. It must be recalled one of the Pharaoh’s emblems was the shepherds crook. Without getting into the events of the Passover (though extremely import to this issue) we’ll recall the Pharaoh’s first born son dies as the “angel of death” passes over. At which point the Jews are told to leave Egypt. As they leave, God has it as a sign that the dogs were silent. That is no dogs barked at the Jews. This may seem like a strange but unclear thing. First let me say that the dog used as pets in Palestine at this time was very wolf like, not very dog like. Second, it was a folk tradition that dogs do not bark at their own. In other words the dogs didn’t bark because the Jews were “fellow citizens of wolves”. And what is more they were being estranged, that is cast out of the city. This is important, inside the confines of a city vs outside was the signal of man’s domain or “the wild” or the “desolate places”. It may seem like I am reaching a bit here to connect werewolfism to a Biblical story. So let me mention another version of this story known among the Romans and mentioned by Pliny the Elder. According to Pliny there were two leaders among the Jews Moses and a character named Hierosalemneus (Jerusalem), and they and a few followers were kicked out of Egypt because they had Leprosy. At the time this Roman account written, what it meant was unclear to the Romans and they thought it was meant as a derisive statement about the Jews. But they did not invent the story, nor change any details though they were garbled. The two accounts have a common source, and refer to the same thing. The Roman account is explicit and emphatic, where the Biblical account needs some context, and is idiomatic. It should be noticed that among all the werewolf accounts, estrangement is present. The afflicted become estranged, outcast, or separated. Often they are termed “strangers”, or “outsiders” (literally meaning outside the walls of a city). In some instances, like among the Rechabites, they literally lived outside the city walls to maintain their holiness.

Let’s look at another aspect of this werewolfism. Among the legal and ritual directions given in the Pentateuch can be found the ritual procedures to create priests and High Priests. The priest must participate in the sacrifice of a bull. Then (and keep this in mind) blood from the sacrifice is placed on his ear, thumb, and big toe. To “purify” the leper the leper must shave his head (that is remove hairiness) then, without performing the sacrifice, blood from the sacrifice is placed on his ear, thumbnail and big toe. In other words the priest has to commit a sin before he can be purified. The priest has to participate in a killing. The leper is already under the “curse” of murder. There is a difference that should be noted. The priest sacrifices a bull, which is meant to stand in for another, human, victim, while the leper uses a lamb. (Oh check Leviticus 8 and 14 for this stuff.) these different animals signify something important and unsaid in the text. Animal sacrifices are stand ins. They are not random choices or favorite food items. To choose a specific animal for sacrifice means a specific victim is implied. Likewise they are not only killed specifically but cooked specifically, notably boiled, but in accounts from other places and times both boiled and broiled- in a tripod kettle. What is more is the victim is slain in an act to “purify” a state called “unclean.” Unclean does not mean dirty. Unclean means holy to the point of poisonous. The implements of rituals considered in close contact with God were “unclean”. In other words, lepers were not seen as dirty and diseased, this is a modern idea. They were seen as frighteningly, dangerously, cursed with holiness. The purification was to restore them to the company of living men. I say living because they were is some sense considered dead or even resurrected, but not quite among the living or reborn.  (Adoption and reinstating the mistakenly dead type of  rituals are important here but may be a bit of a tangent.)

As I mentioned it is important to keep in mind the blood on the ear, thumb and toe of the “purified”, or priest. These blood spots are references. Like circumcision is a reduced form of completely removing the male genitalia, this is a reduced form of something more gruesome. It will be recalled in 1 Samuel 5.2–7 the story of the statue of the god Dagon. The statue is found fallen before the Ark, its head and hands severed across the threshold of the temple. Or the story of Jezebel, who is eaten by dogs, whose only remains are her head, hands and feet (Ahab whose blood is licked by dogs is also of note here.) This emblem of murder and cannibalism, the remains of head, hands and feet are very wide spread over a long period of time. In Greece, the story of Thyestes and Atrius recounts how Thyestes’ children, torn from the alter of Zeus, are slaughtered, boiled and broiled in a kettle, and without Thyestes knowledge served to him as a meal. He was later shown the head hands and feet of his children to reveal his crime. A similar story occurs with Arcadian King Lycaon (the wolf king whose sons are all changed into wolves) who slaughters a young boy (sometimes his grandson) and attempts to serve them to the Gods at a feast. The boy is boiled and broiled in a tripod kettle. Likewise in Arcadia a ritual was practiced wherein shepherds would gather and eat an umble stew. One piece of meat supposedly from a shepherd boy (archeological remains have only come up with sheep and goat bones at the areas of ritual sacrifice so it was likely only said to be a boy) was in the stew. The unlucky recipient of this piece of meat had to leave, swim across wolf lake and live like a wolf for 8 years before he could return to the settlements of men. At the original Olympics the tripod kettle was important. At the Olympics sacrifices were made to Zeus and Pelops. Pelops had been slain boiled and broiled in a tripod kettle, and served to the Gods. He was restored to life, except his shoulder blade which Demeter had accidentally eaten. A rams shoulder blade was used to replace it. It is important to note Thyestes and Atreus were sons of Pelops. But we don’t need to stick with the Greeks, we can look to the Norse myths, where Volund Smith, who lived at the wolf dales, murders the sons of the king who holds him captive and makes drinking vessels of their skulls which are given to the kings as trophies. Or in the story of Sigurd the Volsung, where Atli dreams he has eaten his sons and they become dogs. Later “ Then the king asked where his sons were, and Gudrun answered, ‘I will tell thee, and gladden thine heart by the telling; lo now, thou didst make a great woe spring up for me in the slaying of my brethren; now hearken and hear my rede and my deed; thou hast lost thy sons, and their heads are become beakers on the board here, and thou thyself hast drunken the blood of them blended with wine; and their hearts I took and roasted them on a spit, and thou hast eaten thereof. ‘ King Atli answered, "Grim art thou in that thou hast murdered thy sons, and given me their flesh to eat, and little space passes betwixt ill deed of thine and ill deed.’ " The story occurred around Cyrus the Great. When Astyages orders Harpagos to kill Cyrus and Harpagos does not obey, Astyages has Harpagos son slaughtered, boiled and broiled and served to his father . Following the meal the boy’s head, hands and feet are given to his father in a basket. It is important to note that Cyrus was said to have been raised by a she wolf, or prostitute (note the name Caleb in Hebrew means dog or prostitute). The story of Jason and Medea is to be included in this group (his sons are slain at the alter), as is Achilles son Neoptolemus (later called wolfish, and connected with Delphic wolf cults) slaying Priam at the alter.

But let’s back track a moment and note, that most of the grisly accounts above mention the presence of a lamb, or a ram. Thyestes and Atrues were fighting over a golden ram fleece. Jason of course has the Golden fleece. Everyone else eating with Harpago is eating lamb. The sacrifice to Pelops, was a ram and his shoulder blade was in some instances ritually shown to be a ram’s shoulder blade. With this we can return to the Bible.

The use of a lamb to sacrifice in relation to a leper (a wolf) seems widely dispersed, but doesn’t indicate anything about obsession with werewolves in the Bible. I’d like to follow the idea a bit further along. On the island of Mykonos, a ritual was performed for Poseidon wherein a ram was sacrificed, and then it’s shoulder blade was sprinkled with wine. This ritual was very much like the ritual for Pelops. But this ritual of a shoulder blade and wine are not confine to the Greek sphere. This will point us back in the direction of Biblical reference.

“And the priest shall take the boiled shoulder of the ram, and one unleavened cake out of the basket, and one unleavened wafer, and shall put them upon the hands of the Nazarite, after the hair of his separation is shaven: / And the priest shall wave them for a wave offering before the LORD: this is holy for the priest, with the wave breast and heave shoulder: and after that the Nazarite may drink wine.”

The relationship to a rams shoulder blade and wine are important here. There is a bit of a reversal as wine is sprinkled on the shoulder in one instance and the shoulder is waved about in the other. But the elements are in place. Even the whiteness from Lamnetations: “Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk.” What is more is like the Leper, the Nazarite (separated or held aside) has his head shaved on the threshold of the sanctuary. This is because the Nazarites vow not to shave their heads or eat grapes or drink wine. It is noted however they can eat honey and have honey mead. This is very important. Wine was the “blood of the grape”. Grapes had to be “killed” and bleed to cause fermentation. Recall it is forbidden for Jews to eat something that has died naturally. things must be prematurely killed for magic to occur. Or better put, you can't make wine from raisins.

The “death” of the grape or vine is often blamed on a goat, or ram, or shepherd. And it is sometimes asserted that the rams blood colors the wine. A Nazarite in his vow, cannot, like the Arcadian wolf men, partake of cannibalism during their werewolfism. In other words, the wine was held to be the blood of the sacrificed ram, which in turn stood for a man (or god). A Nazarite under his vow could not partake of the flesh or blood of a person and hope to return to the status of a man. This should also be mentioned, it was not only the grape but the vine itself that was connected to the ram.

The Nazarite grew his hair to be an animal, a wolf, and his hair is where his power resided. The story of Jacob and Esau ( Esau is also called Edom-red, and Seir- hairy) has still another account (closely related to Odysseus and Polyphemus and the story of Humbaba in Gilgamesh) of wild men, and sacrifice regarding the stolen blessing. But these examples can go on and on. Other that could be brought in are Samson, Caleb, the 300 dog soldiers of Caleb, the treatment of strangers, the title “stranger” taken by several of the Patriarchs, Naboth slain for his vineyard through the devices of Ahab and Jezebel- stoned outside the city "In the place where dogs licked the blood of Naboth, dogs shall lick your blood, even yours," also dogs and prostitutes (Caleb) bathe in the blood of Jezebel. The Old Testament examples are daunting to list because there are so many of them. The word “Hebrew’’ has the sense of “stranger” or “one from the other side (of a boundary)”. And Jew or YD and it’s Minoan derived relative “Id” as in the Idean cave, mean  “wild or desolate”. Were wolves were also termed wild men, and Plutarch notes the Jews made a distinction between drinking wine and drinking beer or mead which the Greeks shared. Men drink wine, bearded animal men drink mead or beer (barbarians- “bar bar”- bearded, or a jibberish noise). Mount Sinai, also known as Mount Horeb, the mountain sacred to god, is Horeb) “desolate place”- the mountain of the wilderness. The position of wild man/ werewolf to a “civilized man” is noted everywhere. The homeless, wandering Wildman, was not just understood it is mandated. The Jews may not own a land. All land is turned over to God, the Jews are perpetual, “unclean” and holy, wild men. Nazarites, in a sense, that is separated, as a whole people. I would like to mention this position was the origin of “chosen” people. Chosen by God in the sense they were chosen by lot to perform the hard task. The idea of chosen as in “Elect” was a later development and groups such as the Essenes reacted against the idea. Modern versions of these “chosen” people, or those elected the hard task still exist.  To be chosen wasn’t the position of advantage.  It was, however, deemed holy or sacred.

In Gilgamesh the example of Enkidu and his transition from animal man to human is explicit. It is not accident that Jesus is connected with Bethlehem or Bet Lahmu, though very old by the 1st century C.E. Though transformed through time, traditions still surrounded the “house of lahmu”. Lahmu were heroes known for their redness (termed muddy) and hairness. Enkidu was a Lahmu hero.

When we come to the New Testament era, we run into the Dead Sea Community, who again, outcast themselves to return to proper holiness. That is they assumed the former ritual werewolfism, and were careful about accepting the goods from gentiles relating to “threshing floors” (meaning the area in front of the threshold where grain was threshed- like where Dagon was fallen and Nazarites cut their hair). This indicates they were aware of some memory of the werewolf tradition, if greatly changed after Babylonian, Greek and Roman influence. What is most telling and most complete, is the account of the Last Supper where nearly all elements are met. The sacrificial paschal lamb is connected to the victim, who is eaten (“This is my body, this is my blood” in reference to lamb and wine). Likewise Jesus declares  that wherever he hands the sop, or who eats the portion given him will betray him. This is the same event that took place among the Arcadian Shepherds. They were given a vegetable dish and whoever ate the lamb was outcast and a werewolf. It must be recalled that “Judas” that is “Judah” or Yd- means wild, or Wildman (man of the Jews or strangers), and is not an accidental designation. This isn’t anti-Semitism at the table of Jesus. The tensions in the definitions of righteous Jews was often violent and with several diverse interpretations.  These were both religious and political issues.  Among some groups righteous separation was still a very strong impulse.  Chosen and righteous still had a strong dose of the magical outcast.
The tradition of the werewolf carried through with surprising consistency well into the 17th century A.D. In the 12th century A.D. the Grail Romance the Perlsevaux mentions a character “Gargaran the Albanian” who cannibalizes children. Albanian of course from the root alb meaning both white and wolf, but also “gar” which means stranger, and is the old Testament term for “stranger”. It carried still further forward in time. The Brothers Grimm recount a story called the “Juniper Tree” which still carried vestiges of  the werewolf lore from the same traditional sources as the Bible. As did little Red Riding Hood. In the original story Grandma is turned into bread and wine that Red Riding Hood is made to consume. Then Red Riding Hood is bound with, strangely, woolen rope, that is, with rams fleece.

Seen through the lens of lycanthropy, the Bible may need some review.
So we have considered the idea that werewolves are in the Bible, and maybe at this point it doesn’t seem so strange.  It isn’t exactly the werewolves that are handed to us from somewhat modern European stories but it isn’t a comfortable distance either.  Removed from horror movies, and scary stories the idea of werewolves takes on a somewhat different sentiment.  And it is sentimental, not a reasoned difference.  When the Eucharist is performed it is not thought of as a horrific monster movie act, though it is eating the body and drinking the blood of a man.  The transubstantiation is deemed a miracle of actually turning a wafer of bread and sip of wine into the flesh and blood of Jesus.  A great deal of medieval ink was expended describing just how it was a miracle that bread and water should magically change.  It was never discussed as cannibalism, or lycanthropic, at least in orthodox circles.  In the Grail Romances it was explicitly mentioned.  The Great mystery of the Grail, the question that is supposed to be asked by Percival when seeing the Grail “who is served with it” is never answered, but the answer is “the werewolf or the cannibal man”:  Who is served with a cup of blood and the flesh of a man?  (This is because the grail is variously described as many things but sometimes a platter that held human flesh, or a cup of human blood.)  Likewise in the Grail myths the hero Percival (or a similar name) is described as a “welsc” which is sometimes taken to mean Welshman, but simply means “stranger” or “foreigner” or “alien” (as was mentioned in the previous werewolf post, another term for werewolf is stranger).  Welsc, is an Anglo–Saxon word meaning “strangers”, and was the term used to described the Brythonic Gaelic speakers already occupying southern England.    The invaders referred to the established occupants as strangers, or aliens.  Back to Percival, he wears animal skins (that is he is clothed like a wolf, or an animal), and he meets cannibals, such as King Gargaran of the Albanians.
The tradition and history of this werewolf lore is very old and exists today in Catholic ritual and beliefs, and in some derivative Judaic concepts, though the older ideas have largely been retermed and offered as metaphor.  Some Wiccan and New Age ideas have taken up the idea, but they are not at all related and have much more to do with fictional ideas and accounts from novels in the late 20th century.
Presently, I would like to consider some ideas, and consider some questions, as well as point out some relationships and strange trajectories connected with the werewolves.  These may unveil some surprising ideas, I think especially around Jesus.
First, let’s consider some things.  If what I am saying is correct, then Judaism and Christianity have a central set of ideas regarding the laws, stories, and lineage of werewolves.   That mentioned, the Greeks, Romans, Scandinavians, Egyptians, Celts, and many other peoples did have werewolf/stranger, as a central premise.   Though sometimes wolves, or dogs were replaced by other animals, but this will be explained shortly.
I would like to consider Judaism and Christianity here, and the common points of importance between them.  I have mentioned previously that Hebrew, or “Abiru” or “Apiru” means “strangers” or people from the other side- that is the foreigners.  In Egypt they seem to have been assimilated to some extent and considered the lowest class.  The term “apiru” had the meaning of “low class” or a low caste.  The idea of the strangers and outcasts was connected to these tribes from a very earlier period.   They are first described as invaders arriving with the Hurrians (Indo-European invaders), and causing the usual havoc and disorder of invaders arriving from the Caucasus.  This history has little to do with Bible accounts, but I note it to point out in some sense of the idea of the Hebrews as foreigners, and strangers of a special sort is already in place.
The idea of the stranger was present, as was the idea of Wildman, in Sumer, and the idea of the Wild man as enemy was in place in Egypt when the Hebrews arrived.  His position and importance changes and varies, but he is easily recognizable.  As Set in Egypt he is known as hairy, and the foe of Osiris or Horus and identified with the constellation Hyades which are the horns of Taurus.  As Taurus he perennially fights Osiris, or Horus as the constellation Orion.  In Sumero-Babylonian stories and throughout the ancient near east he was a hairy hero, sometimes called “Lahmu heroes” which means both muddy and hairy, or red and hairy.  The name Bethlehem- House of Lahem- is derived from this word.  Likewise the story of David and Goliath contains this “lahm” character.  In II Samuel and First Chronicles David (also called Elhannon), notably from Bethlehem, kills Goliath, or Goliath by another name, Lahmi.  (The name Goliath is interesting but maybe for another discussion.) The figure appears in earlier stories like Jacob and Esau, where Esau called “Seir” hairy, and “edom” red, is easily discernable as a lahmu hero.  The most famous Lahmu hero is probably connected with the story of Gilgamesh, the Hero, Enkidu.  In this story it is important to consider that Enkidu is enemy of the Bull of Heaven (The constellation Taurus, therefore he is Orion).
Enkidu is interesting for other reasons.  He is made of clay, he is a hairy animal man, and he seems to be intimately connected with the heavens.  He is referred to as an axe and a meteor from heaven.  In Egypt stones from heaven made of meteorite iron were thought to be the bones or semen of the gods or sometimes called “benben” and were thought to be the eggs or bodies of the Pheonix.   This will be important in a moment.
To consider the origins of man according to Judaism and Christianity, we have to consider Adam, who seems, at first glance, werewolf free.  There are some clues though that point to werewolves and murder.  We must first consider some things, and these things would be other Adams. In Egypt Adam was Atem, or Temu.  Tem comes from the same root as the word “adam” and both mean mankind (adam also has the sense of earth, as does Latin homo and humo which may show the idea of man and earth are closely linked in several places- the English word man also a god, Mannus, who emerged from the earth).  Atemu is a god created from clay on a potter’s wheel, in some accounts, and is often associated with a serpent.  Atem is said to reside atop the Benben stone, and rises to heaven on the Benben stone.  As may be imagined Atem is connected with the creation of mankind, but he does so in the capacity of a god, as well as engendering men, he also creates the other gods.
In the Sumero-Babylonian accounts the term “tem” appears as Temu and Etemmu.  It is much closer to our subject of werewolves, so may be more familiar in form.  It is decided that man must be created to ease the burdens of the Gods.  So the Gods set about a magic charm to create the first men.  To do this they must kill.  They decide to kill a god named “Geshtu-E”.  The assembly of Gods kill Geshtu-E and his blood is mixed with clay, from which man is them made.  The redness of the clay is often mentioned in connection with Adam.  In Islam, Adam is not made of clay but a clot of blood.  The connection between blood and the redness of the clay was also mentioned as a pun with Adam’s name and the word “edom”-red. This is not a very strong connection, but it gets a little help when it is considered Geshtu-E was also called Etemmu, or even more close, it is said “an etemmu came into existence from the God’s flesh.”  Etemmu is a variant of the words Atem and Adam. Along with the Etemmu, or ghost, a drum beat is mentioned which, though extremely important, can’t be covered here.  Along with Etemmu, to emphasize the word, a pun is used referring to Geshtu- E as Temu.  For those who read the post on “the muse” may recall mention of Moses and Meshkenti, as womb goddesses or Goddesses of birth, likewise the account of Geshtu-E also includes womb Goddesses and importantly a “room of fate”.  This room of fate, to make a long story short, is usually connected with Ursa Major, and is the place of origin for the “breath of life” from India to Egypt and among the Greeks, Romans, and Scandinavians as well as the Hebrews (the idea of the northern stars or Ursa Major as the origin of the “breath of life” and a thunderous drumming have been traced around the world.) *Note: Geshtu-E is also read Ilawela.
So with these accounts we can consider Adam, and consider whether he is connected to werewolves and if he is, how so.  The commonality of the names Adam, Atem, Tem, Temu, Etemmu, should be held a side for just a moment.  They are interesting and suggestive, but direct connections seem a bit tough to make even with the elements I mention above with Lahmu heroes, and the various “tems” relationship with creation. The Biblical Adam, at first glance, seems a different matter.  For our werewolves we have had some specific needs, like werewolves, cannibals, and estrangement-not to mention animal qualities, hairiness or the like.    The Biblical Adam seems to be alone, so unable to murder, and when he does have company, he doesn’t kill her.  Likewise Eve is not described as bestial, and she performs no killings, as there is only Adam, and one other character of note: the serpent.
As I mentioned above Atem was connected with a serpent, his temple was called the “serpent house”.  If we accept Atem and Adam, as even distantly, related stories how did it come to pass that in the Egyptian Adam is the serpent and in Hebrew he is the enemy of the serpent.  The serpent is a tricky problem.  Where does it come from?  Why is it there? Then by extension we have to ask-what is the original sin?
Where does it come from is actually fairly easy to answer.  As I mentioned above our werewolves are connected with stars.  Certain constellations were known as the werewolf, and identified in the stories as the earthly werewolves.  Often the werewolf was assigned the role of enemy of the Gods, as he was in Egypt as Set, in the constellation Hyades (Taurus), or with Apep -again the Hyades.  As Apep the constellation Hyades was a serpent or dragon of sorts.  This isn’t unusual.  Among the Norse the constellation Hyades was “Hati’ the wolf, or Fenris the wolf.  It was also the midgard serpent, Jordmungund.    Still further it was a bull, or a bullshead.  Several Norse myths are devoted to describing the scene the constellation represents.  This may seem a bit far removed from Egypt and Biblical stories.  It isn’t.  Though following by a few thousand years the Norse maintained icons and images  with direct relationships to the icons and images of the Egyptians and Mesopotamians.  In one example, a recurring theme (also found among the Greeks) is a nude, but belted, figure fighting a monster.  This image is always Orion.  In the rune poems the Rune “Tyr” is known as a constellation shaped as an arrow, which is Orion’s belt.  In the stories Tyr, or Orion, loses his hand to Fenris wolf.   There are pictures of the nude belted Orion fighting a werewolf, who conspicuously holds a spear descending from his wolf’s head into the foot of Orion.  In Egypt, on one of the versions of the Benben stone was carved a depiction of Orion, nude but belted, offering up his hand to the Hyades (that is to Fenris).  These depictions of Orion of are fairly consistent, and were the basis of the formulaic pose depicting Gods or the Pharaoh known as “Osiris smiting his enemies”.  It may be interesting to note that our sense of composition is the heir, in large part, to constellational composition.  That noted the enemy of Orion, isn’t quite so stable.   He appears in seals, wall paintings, amulets, and other designs as a serpent with several heads, a dragon, a boat with a dragon head that attacks Orion, a serpent shaped boat, a serpent shaped as a staff, an ass, a minotaur, a wolf, a man, a hairy man, , etc.  the only sure and consistent thing to identify the image as the enemy of Orion, that is the Hyades, is Orion itself, and the direction of the enemy- always facing left to fight Orion.  A few general traits are such things as heads at weird angles, or awkward poses.  This is to maintain likeness to the constellation which isn’t precisely placed with Orion to make a perfect scene.   The Norse shield dye from Ollund made in the 6th century a.d which depict the two constellation are based closely on the angles of the constellation,  as are some seals from Neo-Assyrian sites dating to the 8th century bc., but the Greeks were known to take some liberties with the compositions.  They did not completely disregard the stellar compositions but did create more “naturalistic” poses.  Still within these poses, sometimes intentionally made with dark stone or wood, they would place white stones at the appropriate points in the composition to match the stars upon with the constellation was based. (One such mentioned by Pausanius is Athene of the Bridle.)
So we might consider that perhaps the serpent appears as the role of the enemy in a stellar play that was well known and very wide spread.  And this serpent was sometimes not a serpent but instead a wolf, or werewolf, and was ritually portrayed by a person or persons.  In this scenario, we might assume the werewolf is ritually given the history and traits of the enemy as seen in the narrative of the stars.  But again we would be guessing at a thing.  It doesn’t say anywhere that Adam is a constellation or represented by a constellation,  and it doesn’t suggest that the serpent is either.  It is true the god Atem, and Geshtu_E can be connected to stars, and the connections are fairly clear.  Likewise it can be connected in several places that werewolves are related to constellations, and calendars with certain constellations as their emphasis.  But the story of Adam doesn’t seem to mention any such things.  Does it?  It does.
In Genesis 1:27 it says: “So God created Adam (or man) in his image (shelem), in the image of God he created them; male and female he created (shelem) them.”
This word “Shelem” is an interesting word.  In Hebrew it is usually translated as “likeness”, “carved image” or “image”.  But this isn’t exactly correct.  The name “Solomon” is also “shelem”.  The seal of Solomon, the five pointed star, is emblematic of Solomon because it refers to the morning star.  Before Solomon was a supposedly historical king he was a mythical divine figure with a brother named “Shakar”.  Shakar and Shalim (Solomon) were the morning and evening star- that is the five pointed star (Venus the morning and evening star, creates the form of the five pointed star every eight years.)  The word “shelem” or “shalim” are forms of the Akkadian word “shalmu”- meaning likeness, statue, constellation.  They did not mean these things apart.  A likeness was a constellation.  A Shelem was not a simple likeness but a specific type of likeness, like a statue made to look like a constellation.  The name Solomon, is not actually a name it is a title, and was attached to names, or positions.  Like a “regnal” title.  A name acquired at the ascension to kingship.  The Bible notes Solomon is given his name Jedidiah, by the prophet Nathan.
Solomon is surrounded by stars, his mother is BathSheba (daughter of the star), and he has an adventure with the Queen of Sheba (Sheba, shb, means star or constellation)  which was the subject of a many legends, not to mention the “shulemite woman” in the Song of Songs (Shulemite means “one of the people of the stars”) and his brother Absalom (likeness of the father, or in likeness of the constellation of the father).  The legends of Solomon are filled with astrological and stellar references.  Each demon who Solomon controls through the use of his seal gives descriptions of their constellations and powers.
I mention this to show that Adam is a sculpture created in the likeness of God’s constellation, not simply created in God’s likeness.  The understanding of “shelem” and its wide meaning were still in use when Kabalistic books such as the book Bahir (first published in the 12th century AD) which continues to juggle the word shelem and incorporate the popular meaning of “peaceful” with the wider definition.  When Adam’s creation is mentioned it refers to stars, to translate shelem as “image” or “likeness” is to distort the meaning to fit some traditional misconceptions.  The tradition goes beyond Adam. One tradition describes Cain as colored as the stars, another reports that when Adam’s son Cain was born, “Who shall tell my lord Adam? I implore you, ye luminaries of heaven, what time ye return to the east, bear a message to my lord Adam.’- that is the sign of Cain is a constellation.  Reading these ideas of the “likeness”, it also becomes clear “shelem” is not only how a thing appears.  It refers to behavior.  A Shelem must enact the thing it is like.  For example, one legend states Adam creates Seth in his image, unlike Cain, who behaved badly.  Seth behaves in accordance with the behavior of Adam.  A likeness also includes a sequence.  Meaning the shelem is based on a moving thing.  It is not static.  For Solomon to be like the morning star he has to enact certain things as the “star” is actually a calendar.
Armed with the information that Adam is a constellation (shelem in summary), we can now safely ask- which constellation is Adam?  The answer is given fairly clearly by the Bible.  Gen 3:15 “...he will strike your head, and you will strike his heel.”  The constellational battle between Orion and the Hyades has one repeated event: a wounded heel and a struck head.  Robert Graves describes at length the various heel Gods in the ancient world in his book the White Goddess, but a couple of the important ones he missed would be Ra in a story regarding a betrayal by Isis, wherein Ra is bitten on the foot by a “serpent shaped as a dart”,  and again the Ollund shield dye with Orion wounded in the foot by a spear from a werewolf whose head is awkwardly tilted in the shape of the Hyades.  Mesopotamian versions have a many headed dragon (one head per star in Eridanus) whose lowest head attacks the foot of the Orion.  The heel wounding may seem odd, but it isn’t if you look at the stars.  A line of stars project from the “lower jaw” of the Hyades to the foot of Orion.   This line with open jaws atop is the origin of the “serpent staff” in its various guises-this includes Moses Serpent staff, as well as the Nehushtan.  The “staff” portion is known as the constellation “Eridanus”, the celestial river.  When the Bible reports that Moses cannot ever cross the Jordan, it is speaking very clearly, especially if it is understood Moses is Orion, which sits beside Eridanus (Jordan in Hebrew).  The Orion constellation will not cross the Jordan constellation.   The list and examples of the icons and stories regarding wounds to the head and heel involved with the constellations is very long and spans several thousand years, among very different cultures.  In the Bible there are several examples, the birth of Jacob and Esau, Jacob wrestling the angel (as well as the ladder-Eridanus was called the “ladder” in Egypt), Baalam and his ass, and this proceeds into the New Testament in ways that will be addressed shortly.
This is all interesting, but the werewolf connection is a bit unclear.  What I seem to have mentioned is a pictoral battle between constellations and the understanding of this battle by various peoples in the past.  Thus far I have noted some ideas present in early Judaic thought that give biblical characters some strange coloring, and imply some unusual beliefs.  But I haven’t clarified how Adam is related to werewolves.  I did mention, previously that werewolves were very prominent in the Bible, and to be  Jew, a Yd, was to a be a werewolf, likewise here I will put forward, to be a Christian, regardless of whatever rationale one follows, is also to be a werewolf (The Eucharist is one of several examples,, which I will bring up shortly).  But it would seem reasonable that  to assert this I must connect the first man with this tradition, if I am to make my case at all.  I say this because, Adam is the cause of both Judaism and Christianity.  In the first case because Adam sets the precedent and situation in which law can exist (Jewish law, or the laws that emerge out of werewolf ideas), and in the second case because Jesus was fully in line with werewolfism and deemed the second Adam.  There is much discussion about Seth, Adam’s son, as one of Jesus’ ancestors, and through Seth having Adam’s Likeness.  With Jesus, according to Christians, the werewolfism comes full circle (though I doubt this would be offered in these terms.)  Adam is said to be crucified at the place of Adam’s burial.  He refers to himself as the “Son of Man”, which in Hebrew would be rendered, the son of Adam (this connection was not lost on the Sethian Ophites, who venerated Seth as a precursor to Jesus and refer to Jesus as the Great Seth).
But we are left with a bit of a conundrum.  The werewolf has to do with sacrifice, ritual killing, scapegoats, and fairly dark happenings.  There seem to be some hints in stories like that of Geshtu-E that something was killed in order to create Adam, but the story of Egyptian Atem doesn’t seem to support this.  His creations involve masturbation and ideas of sex, not murder.  A read through Genesis doesn’t give over any descriptions of Adam killing anything to earn his rejection from paradise.  But here we seem to stumble upon a strange marker.  Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden.  One of the characteristics of the werewolf is to be an outcast, a stranger, and this situation is visited on Adam and Eve.  What is more is the werewolf becomes a werewolf through eating.  In Greece, and Rome, and many other places (as mentioned previously in the first werewolf post), what is eaten is a shepherd boy.  An act of murder and cannibalism takes place leaving the head hands and feet as evidence or left overs.  As I noted previously the heads, hands and feet are conspicuous elements, and recur not only in myth, but the bible mentions these “left overs” several times including the destruction of the statue of Dagon, and the death of Jezebel.  Likewise I previously mentioned the High Priest of the Jews had to ritually place a drop of blood from a sacrificial animal on his head (ear), hands (thumb) and feet (toe).  These left overs were not simply unedible parts, they are the points in a constellation- Orion. Owing to the description Adam and Eve are cast out for eating something forbidden it might be wise to look for a death- a murder, and the traces of that murder.  We have some reason to suspect that Adam is a werewolf.
We must first look at what is eaten.  One of the “mysteries of the Bible” regards the Tree of the Fruit of Knowledge.  Traditionally in Western Europe it is considered to be the apple.  This is an add on, mystical, application.  This fruit was chosen because when sliced in half the apple reveals a five pointed star which was mystically connected with Mary and the secret “rose of heaven”- the patterns of Venus.  Much of this is influenced from the Greeks, and the fruit is not mentioned in early legend.  It may have some relationship to some Latin word games (Latin apple- malum, and evil-malus) or relationships to Mary, derived from Venus.  Apple trees are almost never mentioned biblically, and they are not mentioned as the tree of Knowledge, nor do they seem to have any magical or ritual properties.  Other fruits appear more frequently in connection to the forbidden fruit, and can be supported by internal Biblical evidence.
Without hashing through the suspects, I will bring out the two important fruits: the grape, and the fig.  Both are given credit as the fruit of the forbidden tree, but only one holds up in relation to the situation in question, though the other plays a supporting role.  First we have to toy with a few ideas.  1. The “fruit of the tree” is not a fruit, as such 2. More went on in the story of the Fall of Man than is mentioned in the Bible 3. That there is a reason the Nazarites, deliberately werewolves, cannot touch grapes once their vow is undertaken.
We have to depart from the Bible, and cover some related mythic figures to flesh this out.  YHWH, is not an uncommon name for a God, though it is held to be the name of the True and Jealous God of the Hebrews.  Among the Canaanites the name was Yah, and this version was also used centuries later among some Gnostics. Yah was another name of the God Baal. In Rome the God Jupiter (Diu Pater- father God, or if you want to trace it further “resplendent”- the meaning of the word Deus, or theos or Deva) was also called Jove which is pronounced Yohweh in Latin.  It was also recognized that the vowels taken and placed together created variations of the word YHWH, iouea, Euoia, etc. In Egypt the Gods made prayers to the Gods by singing their names as seven vowels in succession (according to Demetrius of Alexandria.)  Some have suggested this is why Hebrew has no vowels, as using the vowels one may accidentally spell the holy unspeakable name of God.  I mention this because we are going to discuss another YHWH, Euoia- Dionysios.
Plutarch, in Questionnes Conviviales, discusses the many similarities between the rites of the Jews and the worship of Dionysos.  Some of these are misconceptions, others are fairly reasonable observations of similarity.  One of the points he mentions and is worth noting, is the Jews, like the Greeks had some ideas regarding an adversarial stance between wine and beer or mead.
Wine is an interesting subject because it is very closely tied to sacrifice, werewolves, magic and the defining characteristic of a God.  In regard to Dionysos some ideas have to be understood.  As maybe expected with the subject of werewolves, life death and murder play a part, as does cannibalism.  First let’s consider wine- the blood of the grape.  Definitions and categories as we think of them today were not quite so precise 2000 years ago, not to mention further back in time.  For example the word for “crow” in Greek could be applied to several types of black birds.   At a very early point in history it appears any and all animals with horns or tusks were simply called “horn” and lumped together (whether bulls, goats, boars or elephants) by the single term.  This didn’t mean they were considered to be one and the same, it meant they all shared a quality, and this is how things were placed into categories.  Grape juice, a reddish fluid that comes from the living grape as it is “killed” was considered to have a relationship to blood and the blood of animals.  This is clearly mentioned, and not a poetic metaphor.  Grape juice and wine are the “blood of the grape”, and this term was current among several ancient cultures.  In Greece the story was attached to the wine hero “Ikarios” who is invents wine, and is murdered by shepherds who, upon being drunk for the first time, assume they have been poisoned exact drunken revenge on Ikarios.  Ikarios blood is said to color the wine forever after.  It is important to mention, as I will show shortly, that Dionysos was called at times around the precincts of the Delphic oracle.
It must be remember that in the Bible there is an interdiction against eating blood because “the blood is the life”.  But blood was not the only thing that defined something as living.  Breath, or the “breath of life” was the other component.  The word spirit and animus (as in animate) both mean breath.  The reason alcoholic beverages are called “spirits” is a related to some Greek, and Judaic ideas regarding the magical process of making wine.  Grape juice was put in containers called “kerykos”.  These were sacks made from the skins of animals- bulls or rams.  When the dead skin was filled with the blood of the “murdered” grape, it was left out to stand under the rising summer stars “Sirius”- the Dog star and the constellation Orion (both Hesiod and Pliny mention this recipe).  During this time of year, when the heat is intense, the skins filled with air, they breathed.  The wine was transformed from juice into a drink that made you crazy.  We know this as fermentation, but the ideas was a bit more elaborately understood by our ancestors.  This “breath of life”, coming from the dead was very important.  In Mesopotamia the head God was Enlil, God of the Breath of Life and the “ether”.  It was thought (from India to Scandinavia and beyond) that the “breath of life” was a special type of wind that originated by a spinning motion around the pole star called “the mill” (Hamlet’s or Frodi’s mill in Scandinavia, the Shambha mill in India, and many mills or spinning posts in between).  This mill was also called the potter’s wheel.  In Sanskrit is is the source of “Khert” or “Kharma” to do or make in the sense of making pottery.  This is often misunderstood.  Kharma in its earliest form (among the Jains) is a type of colored dust or earth, it is not the “wheel of fortune” and the idea of Kharma coming back around is also the wheel of fortune or ideas of Justice.  The Wheel of Kharma refers to a specific area in the heavens “the wheel”,  “the mill”, “the mill wheel”, “The potter’s wheel”.  It was thought the act of creation was a result of the spinning of this wheel.  In Norse and English, a related word ‘Weird” or “Urd” (from a root krt) means to make or spin out.  Even in modern colloquialisms we stills say “it  turns out…” referring to the idea “it came to pass” or “It came to be”.  In the Bible the references to this turning or the mill go under such terms as ‘Golgotha”, “gilead”,  and “Goliath”, which refers to a mill stone or a circular ring of stone, or a round stone.
Among the Greeks the idea of Kharma and the potter’s wheel is fairly directly related to the word “keramos”, ceramic.  But it is also present with Dionysos and wine lore.  In Greece the Gods of the breath of life are the Kouretes (from the root krt or kur), but there is also a clearer connection to Dionysos and “the Kharma” spinning.  In Attica there was a place named “Kerameikos” named after the son of Dionysos and Ariadne- Keramos.  Dionysos and Ariadne derive their names from the old Minoan religion on Crete.  Inscriptions found in Crete describe offerings to “Du on wo so” (Dionysos) and “ar ah ad ne” (Ariadne) .   The Minoan civilizations were not Greeks but were related culturally and linguistically to the Western Semitic peoples like the Canaanite Phoenicians, and Hebrews.  They spoke a Semitic language.  In the Semitic languages the word “Keram” seems to have a relationship to both the Indo-European words “Kharma” and  “Keramos”.  Keram, or Kerem means vineyard in, for example, Hebrew.
This description of the word “keram” or kharma, or kerem, or Keramos, is mentioned here to point out several things. The idea of breath, and the magical recipe for making wine involve murder.  A biblical another interdiction tells the Jews they cannot eat anything that has died naturally.  They can’t eat things that are not killed prematurely.  This may seem fairly sensible as eating already dead things can be bad for your health, but as the Jews and everyone else was unaware of the germ theory of disease, and recipes for making honey involved using corpses as homes for bee hives, it doesn’t seem that the reason for avoiding dead food was a health issue as we would think of it.  It was instead because of the idea of wine.  If you kill something prematurely it can still be brought back to life.  They kill the grape, they kill a bull, put the two things together as a wineskin and it breathes again and creates a magical- living- thing.  It is in a body (the skin) it has blood, and it “possesses” whoever drinks it. This formula was believed to have some connection to anything the Jews ate.  The Jews were forbidden to eat the permanently dead.
Also Kharma (as colored dust), or ceramics bears an interesting treatment in creation myths, and the making of wine, also has an interesting connection the creation myths.  Stomping or treading on wine is not a good way to make wine.  It doesn’t seem the productive way either.  They had wine presses or sacks in which grapes were pressed and strained.  Trodding on grapes is a ritual act.  It has some extension.  In the Dionysion festival of Choes (wine pitchers) at one point in the event boys would try to jump on inflated goat skins. That is they would attempt to stomp, not on the grape, but the breathing skin that holds the grape juice.  The important part is trodding or stamping on something connected with the recipe of wine making.  In the Creation myths from Mesopotamia the God is murdered and his blood is mixed with clay (as with Ikarios who’s blood is mixed with grape juice).  Then the clay is trod upon (the explanation given here is often they were making man like making bricks).  But the Mesopotamians made bricks using a wooden frame from clay found along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.  Even when mixing the clay with straw this stomping wouldn’t apply.  The Mesopotamians didn’t make figures (as is described in the myth) using the method for making bricks.  They didn’t mix the clay with straw for terra cotta figures.  The process described has nothing to do with bricks anymore than it does with making wine.  These are descriptions of a ritual action- and this action is standing atop or treading on something.  It has to be understood rituals involved with religion are something like re-enactments. When the boys jump on wine skins, or grapes are trodden, or clay is trodden it refers to a previous story.  And as the story is told with Geshtu_E, or Ikarios, someone is murdered first.
More soon….maybe

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Why I HATE "fake it till you make it"

I recently watched Amy Cuddy’s Ted talk on body language.  I thought it was very interesting.  Interesting in the topic, which as an artist is very familiar to me, and interested in what I thought were some real problems.  I specifically considered the idea of “fake it till you make it” and how that is a terrible idea.  Amy Cuddy is not alone in mentioning this rhyme, and it has other variants.  One that comes to mind is the Richard Branson quote: “If somebody offers you an amazing opportunity but you are not sure you can do it, say yes – then learn how to do it later!”  

I can’t stress how much I hate this set of ideas.  And I mean hate.   Let me explain why.  I tend to have problems with things that are corrosive, destructive and that do violence to reason.  If we rephrase “fake it till you make it” as “deceive till you achieve”, I think we have a bit more, but less savory, clarity.  You can’t fake a thing until it is made.  Faking, by definition, does not produce the results of authenticity. You can’t fake baking a cake and from this fakery produce a cake.  That is called magic.   Fakery involves some strategies and tactics, it is not without effort, but those efforts are devoted to deception, either of oneself or others.  I am a bit suspicious about self-deception, if not confabulation, but that is another story.

In whatever situation one would like to examine faking is unproductive and escalates into destruction.  I have frequently seen this in business and with “amazing opportunities”.  It doesn’t turn out well.

Faking involves evaluation.  There is a wanted thing, and someone providing that thing needs to be tricked into giving it over with the least stress, effort and resistance.   Flattery, ingratiation and up beat charm tend to be effective tools to this end, as does an overt, patient, subservience.  As with “the customer is always right”, this appeasement has terrible consequences.  Both parties are diminished in the exchange.  Let’s take business fakery with employment.  It is not uncommon for charming fakers to be hired into jobs far beyond their skills and ability. The consequences are easy to recognize.  Aside from the added labors and complications as other employees compensate for the incompetence of the faker, an escalation in fakery on the part of the faker has to occur in order to maintain the farce.  Managers and leaders, charmed by and ensnared in the fakery, social or professional, are increasingly obliged to protect their own reputations and credibility, and safe guard what has come to be a parasite.  Ill will due to increased work in the form of clean up, and repair due to inexpert damage, creates real hostilities, real pressures on all parties.  Politics, delusion, paranoia, deception, and debilitating distraction blossom.  Eventually, the pressures rise until….the faker is promoted to a higher position.  This isn’t the Peter Principle, by the way.  Just to be clear the Peter Principle has to do with aptitude eventually failing at a certain level of promotion.   The faking scenario is something else.  It is more like hiding disgraces by promoting and paying out of harm’s way, or visibility.

Now this may sound kind of awesome to the opportunist, but it is costly all the way around.   There are businesses and industries with a majority of fakery.  They produce fakery and superstition as their main product.  Standards fail and effigies are propped in their place.  Value drops, knowledge is lost and sharing of information decreases. 

Fake it vs Practice

I don’t want it to seem like I am dismissing or tearing down Amy Cuddy’s Ted talk.  It was interesting and enjoyable in many ways, though there are many problems with it, in my opinion.  I also don’t think she was thinking of “fake it till you make it” in the nefarious terms I am.  There was one portion of her talk (I’ll link below) that seemed much more like encouraging a student with low self-esteem.  She told this student to fake bravery (I’m paraphrasing) and succeed.  “Fake it till you become it”.  This seems like the fake it theme got carried away.  “Be brave” is the simple idea.  Minus the theme, that is fine advice.  But the bravery was not to cover a scam.  The student had practiced and studied, but was lacking confidence.  She wasn’t faking anything, she was adjusting her demeanor to be appropriate to the situation.  This is a real thing.  People often surprise themselves with their capabilities even when those capabilities are long studied, and honed.  This is different than awareness you have to use trickery to deceive others into thinking something untrue about your capabilities.  You can’t fix it and learn after the fact.  That is a favorite movie theme, the magical, undeveloped capabilities appear like a super power to the chosen one and they had to expend no efforts to achieve it.  Doesn’t work as well in real life (fortunately because that theme is stupid).

The other term that “fake it” seems to have replaced in popularity, and along the same subject is “Practice makes perfect.”  What happened?  Let’s look at the opposing directions these ideas address. 
Fake it involves tricking away the energies, goods or attentions of others.  It is camouflage and has both parasitic and predatory aspects.  But these aspects are dependent on the prey, or host.  It needs a gullible audience.  Faking derives from the situation and is a false front.  It is directed at a preset, established, set of standards and opportunities, and works to leech away this established limit.  Fakery promotes contamination and contagion.  You may be familiar with the phrase “You are making everybody else look bad.”  This is fakery made common agreement.

Practice makes perfect involves establishing and construction of both mental and physical mechanisms to achieve an end.  Practice involves honing, ordering, shaping, effective decision making, muscle building, efficient energy use, expertise, precise pattern recognition etc.  In other words, it does not appeal to a predatory or parasitic set of constraints, but instead aims at criteria and observable effects to high achievement.  That is, it actually produces demonstrable results, with high standards.

So why has “practice makes perfect” been displaced by “fake it till you make it?”  Smiles.  Positivity.  These are a problem.  What?  Did I write that?  Yes I did.  A positive person makes you feel better!  Putting a smile on can change your mood!  Well, that has some real boundaries.  First, what are we considering?  Positivity has become a cult, even a gang.  Positively faking someone into a bad situation may make them feel better about the whole thing but the same bad outcomes are imminent.  Feeling and outcomes, should be disentangled.  An annoyed, angry, person can be highly effective and good at what they do.  They may be hard to work around. A positive person may be great fun, and terrible at their jobs.  Of the two the positive person with terrible outcomes is preferred.  The proposed business endeavor is not the goal.  Fakery becomes systemic.  There was a social media meme going around about this involving difficult, high performing, geniuses ruining business cultures.  This supposes a majority of jolly happy less competent workers are better than surly high performers.  What it actually indicates is a reversal of the Peter Principle.  A business has become incompetent as some workers excel.  It wouldn’t be surprising if those workers became surly.  A low standard majority bias is preferred, even if the majority is fatal to the business. They are more positive working together, though.

A focus on positivity (even if masking passive aggressiveness, bigotry, or highly destructive actions) has become a point of peer pressure.  It is very popular, and becomes increasingly magical and superstitious.  The drive to magically induce a “better self” free of “negative emotions”, or making others feel bad, or evade offering offence at all costs, has led to a great deal of emotional and intellectual maiming.  The idea a smile or a postural change can alter your world is highly superstitious.  It applies to very specific communities with shared methods of communication and cultural fictions.  It is not universal.  The tactic of faking has greater and less success depending on audience, their receptivity to deceptive postures and how aggressive the next faker may be.  Let’s not forget fakery has competition too.  In fact, it is rife.

We have a suite of emotions and interactions that do not deserve to atrophy or suffer neglect as they are deemed negative.  This includes failure, vulnerability, sadness and anger.  They are not less important than feeling good.  In the same sense I think over inflation and exaggeration of emotions (happiness included) shouldn’t be a goal.  The encouragement to become Stepford like is damaging and a disguise for some unpleasant vices.   

Let’s consider smiles as a mode of changing your body language or mood and how far it allows fakery.  A smile is not an endless flow of goodness and graciousness.  There are good and bad smiles.  Smiles involved with wickedness and smiles with victimization.

So let’s be specific: activity of the pars lateralis portion of the orbicularis oculi in conjunction with the “mouth smile” is the enjoyment smile (the Duchenne marker).  The other smiles, well, all kinds of things are going on, good and ill.  Does your Duchenne marker smile, or even a super fakey smile, reduce stress and make you feel better?  Maybe.  Is that the question?  Can faking an emotion (triggering your body to simulate other component parts of the disguise) make you feel that emotion?  Some research suggests so.  But what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?  You feeling good is not the same subject as whether or not you are being effective, knowledgeable and honest.  Much of learning, practice, and accomplishment does not feel good.  Failures, in fact, hurt.  Stresses are uncomfortable.  I hear heroine feels good, though.  Stresses prompt action, change, and survival.  You might not want to suppress these but instead pay close attention.

Faking emotional output (smiles are not for you remember but for the reading of those looking at you) and receiving interactive replies says nothing about the good or bad outcomes of a situation.  It isn’t saying your situation has improved. It says you have found a clever way of dosing yourself, and like many drugs, have addled your decision making.  It also says you don’t mind dosing others.
Let’s look at another aspect of the “faking until things are made” gambit: everybody knows.  It is a saying, meaning the fakery has become or always was pretty popular.  Everyone is doing it.  As tactics to enhance laziness, entitlement, evasion and trickery have been around for a long time, it can be guessed that there are already many practitioners of faking until destruction.  Faking needs rubes.  If you are faking it til making who are your rubes?  Your victims?  Would it seem unlikely that others are also faking toward you, with smiles, gestures and postures? So if everybody is faking it, and everybody is rubes where are the sincere, honest, and knowledgeable people?  They are out there-frustrated with incredible endurance and compensating for the corrosion brought by inauthenticity. 

Even when the faking is framed with a heavy emotional plea (blackmail) it does not look to be a very good thing.  It attempts a costly short cut at the deliberate expense of others.  Notice the saying isn’t “Be sincere, earnest, diligent, smart, honest, and imaginative, until you make it.”  I think that may point out the virtues lacking in the faking idea.

Back to Amy Cuddy’s talk.  Changing our body chemistry as connected to our bodily position, postures and expressions are not as impressive or magic as it sounds.  And it won’t bring success.  Our body chemistry changes under all kinds of pressures.  We can’t all win, we can’t all succeed, and these faking, posture battles happen all the time.  I’ve read accounts of these success driven gestures and expressions as they were enacted on pirate ships.  People have been posturing, bullying and bluffing each other forever.  We aren’t the only species that does this.  It is really common. 
There are more things going on than how we experience our feelings.  People are far more complex and varied under any given condition than a magical smiling, arm raising gesture, can cure.  Especially as no cure is needed.  Uniformity of expressions and gestures of faked success is not a boon.  The drive to succeed for an audience, to be the best by false means, is childish and attention seeking.  It might be good to consider what the best idea for a given circumstance is, or what might make one’s life as reasonably enjoyable as possible.  Winning all the time is not anything at all as the contest being won is largely imaginary.  Competition and wrangling for success are not eternal states.  There are other things going on as well, like philanthropy, and teaching.  There are times to step aside, collaborate, encourage others, defer, and admit being over matched, none of which are shameful or lesser.

Don’t fake it til you make it, please.  Practice until you are perfect, be honest, sincere and reliable, and for my part, I’ll do the same and help you in these endeavors as I can.


https://www.ted.com/speakers/amy_cuddy






Monday, May 26, 2014

My Artist Bio

Paul Mellender was an artist from Reno, Nevada. His biography was not written by him in third person, but rather by someone else. So it can probably trusted and nothing in it is contrived. That noted, he was a profound individual of unrivaled skill and handsomeness. His inventions helped end human suffering (for about an hour or so in one small area about the size of a living room) and fed the hungry (in that he once took a hungry friend to lunch...well, didn't exactly take them, they split the bill.)

Regarding his art, Paul Mellender (again not me, notice I'm formally using my full name- signed, Someone Else) can be credited with, not only, the creation of his own fine works, but he also found ways to annoy and irritate other artists. Fondly, but with some clear bitterness, known as "Epistemological Crisis Mellender", he was rarely invited to parties.

Wait, I think I got off track, let me get back to regarding the art. Yes. Yes. Very nice. Good stuff. Now that that is done let's get on with some interesting things instead.

Paul Mellender had parents. One was tall and one was short, but it is unclear which was which. One was also a witch (probably his father). His mother once wrestled a 7 foot man to the ground when he tried to rob her. That is fact but sounds like fiction.

This one time...wait, that doesn't sound like professional biographical writing. Hold on. These two times, Paul did stuff in public that earned him accolades and great praise, also some awards, and some thoughtful attention by very important people. Notice I just said "Paul" instead of "Paul Mellender". I figure you guys are friends now and I can drop the formalities. In fact, since friendship is established I feel like I can relax a bit, mind if I undo the top button of my pants? (Big lunch with a friend earlier...we split the check and I don't want to do the same to my pants.)

Paul Mellender was killed while saving several children from a crazed, supernaturally large, bear named Ethan. He was able to save the Princess before Ethan, the Bear, rent him limb from limb. Following his death, Paul Mellender, or the "Paulinator" as he preferred to be called, wandered the lonely roads of America, humming the song, The Lonely Man, from the 80's Incredible Hulk TV show. Someone Else is listening to this song while he types Paul Mellender's biographer and he is nearly in tears.

Today. Paul Mellender continues to be an artist of international renown. Called THE "Citizen of the World", he continues to create art and other magical doodads to the delight of millions. And why wouldn't he? Though dead (see the part about Ethan above, and since you are rereading please enjoy the funny part about my pants again) Paul "Paully Pockets" Mellender is planning to have an ice cream sandwich in about an hour. Make that 45 minutes, I type slow.

Mr. Mellender's next adventures promise to be a boon and wonderment to all. Okay, I think I filled up the required space. PEACE!

Sunday, May 25, 2014

What is Art?

What is art?
At the tip of Southern Africa is an archaeological site called Blombos Cave.  The artifacts in Blombos cave have been dated to as far back as 100,000 years ago.  Inscribed stones, paint production and other “manufacturing” have been uncovered at this site.  I bring this up first as a chronological placement. 
We tend to regard art as an extension of our own preferences, interests, messages, and the embodiment of our beautiful or bitter souls.  This tendency needs review.  It bears a striking, vain, resemblance to the geocentric cosmos, or arguments against evolution.  Art seems one of the last places of refuge for the dream of our own superiority and special status.  It has become the understood framework where our personal tyrannies and importance can hold reign.  But does this idea show any relationship to fact?  When it is insisted that art is the thing through which we can express ourselves, are we stating anything with real meaning?  If art proceeds from us, how do we explain the vast majority of the history of art that has come before we were here?  Can we expect it to be convincing or taken seriously, if we suggest that art has come this long way just to be a vehicle through which, I, the artist, can reveal himself, and you the audience can relate?  That has an ominous and megalomaniacal edge.  Speaking for myself alone, I’m not that interesting.
If we consider the 100,000 years since the pigment manufacturing in Blombos cave, we have the entire span of our species of human.  Through Ice ages, deserts, devastating volcanic eruptions, near extinction, war, death, and the rise of civilizations art has been present.  It shows no signs of having been a frivolity, or amusement.  Blombos isn’t the only site of that era showing pigment use.  There are other sites of comparable age, from homo sapien sapiens, but they don’t seem to be tribes or groups related to each other. This is to say, the pigment culture was already old.  It would seem very likely, art has been with us since the start of our animal.  Art has been around, at least, 10 times longer than Loch Ness.  Some pigment evidence may be traceable back to 400,000 years.  This is well before our type of animal emerged.  10,000, 100, 000 or 400,000 years the state of human affairs have changed so many times and in so many ways, that if art has been a human legacy, it doesn’t likely concern the messages and meanings I would care to project today. Tactical success for that long a period would suggest art has long been an effective method of survival for our kind of animal. Then and now, art is one of the reasons we are alive. But that doesn’t really say what art is.  This is only noting that art is not our transitory, and even unimportant, set of concerns.  By placing art in an evolutionary framework we take it largely out of our personal aggrandizement and have to consider it in the larger framework of man the animal who competes with his peers and other animals, jockeys for the ability to mate, and must adapt or die.   Art, to maintain as us for so long needs to address these concerns.  Aside from our personal sense of it, we must note, even if we find art pleasurable, it isn’t here at our pleasure.  Samuel Butler said “A hen is an egg’s way to make another egg.”  We may want to reposition our sense of priority in like terms.  Art isn’t about you, it is about this animal’s survival.  Art has been alive longer than you.  But again, this doesn’t say what art is.
If we consider the evolutionary aspects, our subjective experience and some objective facts, we may be able to trace an outline of art that can help us begin to understand what art is.  If we look back as far as possible, to the first written descriptions, through the history of words, to the rituals and artifacts that have survived, and how all these things correspond with one another we can start to assemble a picture of how art was conceived by our ancestors, and how it their notions have been given to us.  Art and ritual, were and in many ways still are, the same thing.  A common root origin between the words, art and rite is not a trivial connection.  Art and ritual, explain activities in another world, apart from this one.  The idea that emerges can be summarized in a term, used at the Mysteries of Eleusis:  The Extraordinary Experience.  This may need some explanation.  Ideas of art referred to thresholds, doorways, entrances, passages, to another world and time.  The other world was art.  It was somewhere else.  And not only was it somewhere else, but the participants were someone else.  Art also refers to states where people were “moved”.  This doesn’t mean emotionally excited.  Moved in this sense means moved, as in their identity was pushed aside.  Possession would be more akin to the idea.  Schizophrenic’s accounts of their experiences bear resemblances to accounts of art. One account has a ritual participant stating, “when I left I felt a stranger to myself.”  This is very different than our statements on art “I don’t know if it is art, but I like it.”  Like and preference had little to do with it.  Art was as well known for terror as beauty.  Though we do not generally find the idea compatible, early accounts give art as a world, or set of worlds, with their own rules and methods, concurrent with our own.  Though we don’t use this same rationale, it shouldn’t be considered we have escaped this.  We act within the confines of traditions built of art, and are largely unaware of how entrenched and thoroughly we have incorporated these other worlds.  We are very familiar with the extraordinary experience, and it isn’t our socio-political, economic, or personal messages.  It is far older stuff.
Our subjective experience, however, shouldn’t be confused with the point and purpose of art.  These extraordinary experiences aren’t available to send us on our way in contemplation and fulfillment.  Our fulfillment is unimportant in terms of art.  That may be surprising when we take the usual descriptions of art as a personal, individual, stance.  Many of our modern ideas of art derive from the Protestant Reformation, the 16th century schism in Christianity. Ideas such as personal relationship with art, idea versus form, where authority resides (artist, audience or critic…basically who art the priests, in the Reformation, this was monks, laity, or the pope), knowledge vs faith (in art this is craft vs emotion) etc.  Art practices and ideas during the Reformation had other concerns.  When the Reformation ideas were adopted into discussion and ideas of art the Reformation was already 300 years past.  It was a late, anachronistic addition.  What is more, whatever views one holds on religion and religious philosophy, art is not religion.  It is not as freely open ended and omnipotent as might be assumed of a God, or beliefs with the divine.  Art has real, human, cognitive, historical, material restrictions and boundaries.
Let’s update and consider in light of shiny new discoveries what may be happening with art.  We are primates, but strange primates.  We are the inside out primates.  What it means to be a primate for us is large parts of our brains are devoted to social interaction and identification.  Likewise our brains devote a good deal of work to build habitats.  The two things are not separate.  Our home and our people are the basis of how are brains construct reality.  We are not solitary animals, our animal seeps out to our peers and place.  There are some things to consider.  When our ancestors started cooking they opened a door to a chain of events that led to a change in our sense of body and group, allowing us to seep out and transform.   With cooking we started digesting on the outside.  A great deal of our physical energy was devoted to digesting food.  Digestion is in many ways our body cooking food.  Performing this action outside our bodies freed that energy to be used elsewhere.  It was taken up by our brains.  As our brains were allowed greater resources of energy, they got bigger, which caused problems with the act of birth.  Our head size, holding our big brains, were becoming dangerous to our mothers.  This was solved by premature birth.  Humans are born premature in development compared to our cousin primates.  Chimps help deliver themselves when born.  Humans, like the way we deal with food, have to be cooked more outside.  The community takes over the energies needed for both mother and child.  But this allows still greater changes.  Aside from new interactions between community members, the brains themselves were able to extend and change development outside the womb.  Most of our primate cousins nearly complete brain development while in the womb, for chimps this is 9 month gestation period, like us.  But comparable brain development among humans doesn’t achieve a similar state of completion until we are 3 years old. Our brains develop far more complexity in that time.  Add to that that our brains go through a process of rewiring in our teens and don’t settle until our 20s, and it can be understood, that outside development, relying on the world and our group to compensate and become part of our bodies allows for some interesting extension.  It does, however extend our dependency on our group, and demand a change in group relationships and behavior.  This doesn’t concluded how our inside became out.  We have also extended our bodies tools.  We have transformed and altered what it means for our brains to have a body and limbs.  The boundaries of our bodies are not set or stable.  We developed tools.  But not just tools, weapons.  Without effective claws and teeth we made claws and teeth.  Our big brains, responding to the stresses of environmental need but also to the availability of dispersed labor and position, developed methods for honing our new weapons.  We hardened spears in fire, and perfected shapes and methods of production.  At first these were stabbing instruments, but then the theme of distance became attached.  Weapons as a form of long distance communication-projectiles.  This description of long distance communication and our extended bodies is important, but may lead off our topic here.  It should suffice to note that proximity is a base of our cognition.  Spatialization, and dealing with, or overcoming it, has a surprisingly large part of our sensory input and mental processing.
With these outside compensations we have also been able to “hone” and transform not only our habitats but ourselves.  It isn’t just a sense of honing a tool.  The stresses needed to pressure a change in tool is not differentiated from honing and needs for the rest of the body.  We might be better off thinking of tools as interchangeable and extensible limbs.  You may want to think of how you inhabit the space of your car or look of youtube videos of extended personal space (see Richard Wiseman’s dummy hand experiment, Ramachandran’s Phantom limb treatments, and myriad other “phantom” experiments.)  As certainly as our weapons could be honed for use, so could the rest of our bodies.  Our transformative and extensible bodies were not toolish.  We could change ourselves, our form, in relation to each other with tools. Whereas, it is a common practice among animals to inflate, stand taller, splay out, to indicate position and strength, man developed ways of adding to our person.  Social weapons. 
We could alter our environmental body.  We could not only make our dwelling toolish and meet needs we could make it other places.  We developed methods of turning our dwellings into other places, changing and enhancing them as well. When I say dwellings, I don't mean hut, or houses, I mean temporary stations.  We seem to have been nomadic and restless in our development.  But we carried a "home" with us.  Some evidence suggests this may have been the stars and constellations.  Some cave paintings with illustrations primarily on ceilings as opposed to eye level walls, as well as suggestions of stars, and constellations give over clues to this extension of habitat to the stars.  Regardless, of how early this starry identification of the original or actual home happened, it became the standard for man in the civilized era.  It is still predominant today.
In sum, both physically and mentally we have adapted the environments, persons and condition where we live as part of our bodies.  Our identities and realties are also built and supported by the outside world.  We use the external as mental support and order. 
We have a very interesting set of tools to understand reality.  We have a surprising number of methods to discern visual depth.  Depth and distance, proximity and spatialization, and we have developed emotional cues to note what is near as important and what is far as less so. Our emotions should be considered as a support not a focus.
We have several systems in our brain that discern patterns, such as faces, and the variations within the frame of that pattern.  We innately know faces, and facial expressions. We communicate over distances and these faces build other mental events.  We also communicate by sound, and prosity, the rhythm, stress, and tone in our voices.  We sing to each other, and these songs can build imagery. Possibly more so than words themselves.  The relationship between prosity and facial expression is important.  We have facial expressions that correlate with sounds and vice versa.  When we communicate with faces and speech we are doing so as a unified function.  They are one piece, and they indicate we communicate events by description and “replay”.  We don’t just live in the moment.  We have systems in place to describe other times and places.  This may seem unique, but I should point out, bees have similar abilities through dances.
We have time, and narrative- the ability to understand sequences of events in other places and times by description, not just acquaintance. 
We have the theory of mind, we have an understanding that things that look like us, have a like entity looking back. We project identities into things-even inanimate things. 
We have reality testing.  Modules of our brains confirm, based on the propagation of experiences, what is real.  And by real I don’t mean factual, or material reality, I mean a workable order or habitat.   A way of noting statistical consistency or regular patterns.
We also have error, inconsistency, misreads, hallucination-an array of mental vulnerabilities.  Our brains are susceptible to a great deal of misunderstanding.  Though very useful our ability to extend to our neighbors and environments also includes some surprises.  If enough criteria are met, our brain will concoct patterns out of nothing.  Our reality isn’t a cold hard truth, our brains build composite realities, covering blind spots, stitching incompatible information together, mixing and matching to suit its own order.  Our brains only worry about matching the factual world in so far as it can keep us alive.  Our brain will produce the hyper real, as a useful order.  Let me give an example.  Paint and light are not the same.  This is surprising to some.  You can mix paint, which is made of particles of pigment suspended in a medium.  You can mix blue and yellow and get a green color.  But when you try to mix light this doesn’t happen. Light doesn’t mix like pigments.  Light is frequencies of vibration.  That said, when we paint we can make the paint seem like light.  We can, in paint, make light do impossible things. We can deliver a hyper-real experience.  In other words we can slip past enough of your brains reality detection, to deliver an experience of what is unreal.  Our reality includes the impossible.  At this point in history, be assured most of what you think or believe is not factual, but is built of the hyper real.  Stripped of this and placed in a setting outside our special habitat, you likely wouldn’t survive.  And I don’t just mean, your life would end.  I mean long before your life ended your identity would cease.  It isn’t just paint, by which the hyper real is delivered, there are myriad methods, and ways to slip past the guards of reality and provide the hyper real.  The artist’s tool kit is for the most part, methods of tricking and distorting reality detection.  Realism and art have gone hand in hand because if your brain reads a thing as real it gets a pass.  It goes unquestioned.  Sometimes the resultant pass causes stresses as what is real is adjusted and we emote.  But much of art slips past undetected. This is interesting. It means that we can have knowledge by description of what isn’t.  But this is still subjective in emphasis.  This describes how our brains function in such a way as to accommodate the extraordinary experience.  Let’s step back a few paces.  How is this useful?  We can understand our brains do a thing that assembles into our experience but I’m trying to make certain it is remembered that art is an evolved aspect of the human animal.  We may love our fingers and toes, but they didn’t come about so we could love them.
We can see how art has been used and is used.  It is a mixed bag of good and ill, instance by instance.  We have used art to transform ourselves, with masks and paint, to attract and to terrify.  We have used art to kill and comfort.  Art has been used to enlighten and disguise.  And it has been used to reveal and hide.  That’s how we’ve used it.  How has it used us?  If we look at what has been made from the hyper-real, not art pieces or artifacts exactly, we can see organization.   As I mentioned we are primates whose brains spend a lot of energy on identification of tribe and habitat.  Looking outside how much we may enjoy it, art seems to be several things.  It bonds groups under unified, special, realities.  These realities can be taken away as emblems, rhythms, noises, even specified motions and actions, like procession or dances, meaning even when away from the group, when proximity is broken, unified identity can be maintained.  Familial and familiar emotional ties are entangled in these “realities”.   Given enough comfort and stability, we can manipulate environments to better accommodate the idiomatic realities of our tribes or groups.  We can build effigies of the hyper real, and live in our common habitat.  That habitat can extend generations.  The hyper-real can be cultivated.  Our veneration and habits around veneration build larger complexes, more honed hyper reality.  We develop structures by which we can more efficiently build more comfortable hyper reality.  We can incorporate more of the hyper real into our mundane in between time.  We can immerse in the unreal. We can extend our group size, and ideas can be propagated outside usual group limits.  Our primate brains, though largely devoted to our group, has number limits.  After a certain number we don’t identify populations as our group.  But with this mobile, mental, extended, group connection, reproduction can occur in larger numbers.  When I say reproduction, I don’t mean people breeding across usual limits, I mean methods of hyper reality-Art- breeds.   This effective, even organic, practice breeds.  We build cities.  When we trace their roots, they emerge from the very small magical center of a hut in a settlement, to small village temple around which the village builds, to larger temples that transform villages into cities, and cathedrals into still larger cities.  When Cathedrals are succeeded by emerging civilized areas of veneration, centers of business let’s say, or palaces,  and with these the city extends still further.   When considered as organization, cities bear a striking resemblance to both organic systems and computers.  Information transfer, storage and work modules all interact to operate a complex system.   Though we can be sacrificed individually, our large groups and practices, our cultures, our methods of order and hyper reality maintain.  Ars longa, vida brevis.  We may have to consider that our unreal methods of living are contributing to a larger animal built from us.  It may be we, individually, are a contribution to a bigger concern, a different animal.  Likenesses to hives or organs made of cells might be obvious, but I’d like to state it clearly.  Looking at cells and how they communicate and build larger organism and looking at how we transmit, cooperate, unify and transform seems to share many parallels in method.  It may just describe how large numbers of things coexist in an environment and unify, but that also describes how living things organize and become more complex and even different, bodily, things.  Civilization, culture, and other methods around which we orbit in interest, themes that unify, seem to describe something very similar to chemical signaling in cells, attracting and provoking the actions of other cells.  That we have a private opinion in these things seems subordinate.
Remove our practices of art from civilization and culture and nothing remains of those things.  You can take many other elements out of a civilization, or a culture, and they can proceed, but you can’t remove art.  But then this begs the question, could we remove art at all, even if it was desirable?  Art doesn’t seem a voluntary part of the human animal.  It has been costly and dangerous when individually we haven’t had the energy to spare.   Jorge Luis Borges offered an anecdote that several authors have mentioned with time and honing they seem to converge into a single author.    That is their styles and ideas seemed to converge into a great single author.  I’m not suggesting that.  But I am suggesting that point of notice indicates a uniformity of method.  The authors were noting a commonality of how efficient they were under a framework, how alike, but it wasn’t by choice. Encouraged through the reward of our experiences we are performing unnoticed actions to a noticeable but unclear result.  Sugar is not in itself sweet.  Sweetness is the signal our brain sends to say “Eat that!  I run on that!  Eat it.” A hen is a way for an egg to make another egg.
This conjectured definition suggests some ideas, few of them new, strange though they may seem, but rarely applied to art.  I am imparting this definition fully aware it is both incomplete and in parts, likely wrong.  I do so in the fervent hope of refutation, and correction.  As an artist it is very disturbing to me to have only a dim awareness of what it is I am doing.  Looking back in history, and deliberate, focused, progress, art has been a questionable contributor.  A real aspect of art is harmful. Equally a real aspect is beneficial. In either case it bares the stamp of its lowly origin.  As audiences you should be equally concerned.  Together what are we doing?  In simplest terms a definition of art allows us the comfort of knowing what we are doing, and if possible allow us to aim for excellence regarding its finest parts.  Ignorance of art, fumbling in the dark, seems a much more dangerous proposition than might be guessed at first.  A definition may allow us the opportunity to avoid areas wherein we would not like the consequences of trespass.
This isn’t just a question for artists, cultural gurus, or sophisticates.  Science is desperately needed to help assemble knowledge of art, and has been superstitiously unwelcome for too long.  A multidisciplinary approach would be ideal in addressing the definition as it would seem probable the answers to the question of art can shed light on what it is to be human.