REFLECTING ON PASSION AND DEATH
Okay, so we don’t know what “love” is because it means so many different things, from neural cell capacity to a preordained zap from the sky that dedicates us romantically to another person, demanding commitment even to the point of sacrifice. I’m beginning some reflections.
Let’s switch over from “love” to the word “passion”, since we’re entering the Christian season of “The Passion of Christ” which mixes love with religion. “Strong Desire for something: In whatever context, if someone desires for something and that desire has some strong feeling or emotion is defined in terms of passion.” (I get these quickie definitions off Google or Wikipedia.)
So “passion” is flipped off as “pash” as in having a “pash” for chocolate. But I mean the real unadulterated engulfing emotion that approaches obsession or addiction that can’t be kicked. Something far beyond Valentines and loving the neighbors.
Linked below is a pop example of mixing Christian religious passion with human heterosexual love. There are several versions on YouTube. (I chose one from the Philippines which has actors of color.) This aspect of Christianity is not limited to one ecosystem or society, so it is a crux of evangelism, a justification for missionaries.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFrl8kuGNC0
The connection between passion and death comes from our attitude towards the unknown which we can conceive of but never know, in the same way we can imagine a new color but never see it. Our perception apparatus codes for the section of the light waves we name “green”, but not for ultraviolet or infrared, though we can perceive them as consequences in our reality or with instruments.
Sex can be observed, but not “love.” Death can be observed, but not whatever comes after that, only the consequences to the body. An afterlife, like heaven or reincarnation or the Sand Hills, is unknowable so we make guesses. Even what we love most and are most deeply attached to can die, which drives us to make stories about preservation, reward and punishment, the things we care about because we know them.
The supernatural is the “knowable” unknown, a way of escaping this world of reality. An ultimate reframing. But we can’t really grasp or sometimes even accept anything that is not even guessed at. How could a human being guess at what there is to guess at when we only have code for what we already know? We can try to use logic, but when we get into the realm of something like quantum mechanics, not even reasoning is helpful. The evidence is too strange. If there are more than four dimensions, what are they?
Our bodily systems are calibrated for arousal and then the relaxation into recovery. This is a matter of “feeling” and often a guide for what to do, how to think. Two subjects arouse us more than any other. One is death and the other is sex. (Food is also powerful and can become a metaphor system for sex and death.)
Building on the experience of tribes and early nations, some systems proposed an ultimate being somewhere (the sky) who was like a chieftain or king. This was understandable enough to push aside ideas about The Force or the sweet candy-idea of “love”. Time/space that pushes all of being is a rational idea but not very appealing in terms of human emotion.
God died. As modern science has become so vivid, augmented with pictures, we just can’t believe in the Big Old White-Bearded King on a cloud throne even if He were a Queen. (Pun) No particular need to assassinate him, as we would a human king, because he dissolved, an outdated myth. Fathers didn’t like it much and nations had to scramble to find a new ultimate authority which they haven’t yet. I would like them to accept ecology, the fitted-together existence of the whole.
Recently no one has imagined having sex with God except maybe Saint Theresa as interpreted by Bernini, but the language of the Church as a bride and so on persists, esp. in religious orders who wear wedding rings as a sign of commitment. Or the metaphorical idea of the church as a bride, the idea of commitment. But particularly if we use embodiment context, we are still aroused by the Christian Jesus, though no written “proof” of his existence has been found. He’s not on any census list or even a proclamation of guilt. Herod is mentioned.
We don’t think of having sex with Jesus but we are obsessed with his physical and public death. I won’t describe the research into crucifixion, but it is quite different from the pop convention. Most significantly, crucifixion was imposed on the enemies of Rome (particularly crimes of treason). It was public with the victims displayed naked along public roads, and many people were punished this way. It was real, physical and even more gruesome than using a chainsaw because suffering lasted a long time before death.
No one describes actual coitus with Jesus. Fertilization by God once assumed a dove to be the necessary deliverer of genetic code through Mary’s ear (quite an erotic organ for penetration). For a long time believing women covered their ears because — though it would be an honor to be fertilized by God — no one wants a son doomed to die. No one knows whether Jesus was fertile or had congress with women. He appears not to have children, but maybe to have brothers. Sisters are not mentioned. He crosses the generations as an idea rather than DNA.
“Jesus’ real name, Yeshua, evolved over millennia in a case of transliteration.” So how do we know what to look for on documents? The four Gospels, stories of Jesus’ life, name different people as his father, Joseph is accepted in pop culture but which Joseph is not known. “Messiah” is not a sur-name, but a role. Not “Mr. Messiah” but “Jesus the Messiah.”
“In Christian doctrine, Jesus is identified as the Messiah and is called Christ (from the Greek for Messiah). In the New Testament, Jesus is called Messiah several times, for example the Gospel according to Mark begins with the sentence “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” (Mark 1:1). “
“Christ comes from the Greek word χριστός (chrīstós), meaning “anointed one”. The word is derived from the Greek verb χρίω (chrī́ō), meaning “to anoint.” In the Greek Septuagint, christos was used to translate the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (Mašíaḥ, messiah), meaning “[one who is] anointed”.
To be anointed is to be identified, accepted, and dedicated at the time of the application of the “ointment”, usually of a precious oil. One could also make an argument for ashes or holy water.
People were not named in those days in the modern Euro way, but in three other ways: descent through generations as in the Scandinavian and feminist way (Jesus the son of Joseph, tracing back to Abraham), by occupation (Jesus the Carpenter), or by nickname. We don’t really know the latter but it would be interesting if it were “He Who Walks on Water” in a sort of indigenous way. There is no ice in the Holy Land, so this is a miraculous idea.
A family “name could be either Aramaic; Koiné Greek (generally for Hellenistic Jews); or Latin (if they were a Roman citizen and had to deal with Romans often). Spouses would also occasionally cite each other’s Abrahamic lineage as their own, which explains two different such lineages given for Maryam/Mary, in Matthew 1:17 and in Luke 3:23–38). She would have described herself as either “Maryam bat-Ya’akov ben-Matan ben-’Elyazar…” (Mary daughter of Jacob son of Matthan son of Eleazar…) or “Maryam bat-Heli ben-Matat ben-Levi” (Mary daughter of Heli son of Matthat son of Levi…).
Most people are not aware that they aren’t aware of all this, though it is known by experts. The obsession with descent (blood quantum) is a familiar concept to contemporary persisting indigenous people. Those who cling to the idea also grip sex and death, survival by descent.
