I find myself in a strange transitional stage, like many today. I have a certain melancholy about the shape of the world, especially as it relates to me directly.
The economy is in a shambles (and is still pinwheeling out of control). My own job is in question. I have a daughter and a wife to support. The whole situation is depressing, and crushing to be honest. My wife wants to return to her hometown (or at least close by) but financially it is virtually impossible to do since the cost of living is insane there.
This is the territory that my brain resides in at the moment, and is the jumping off point for the rest of my thoughts as they follow.
To whit:
We have a new president who is selling us hope; is this a good thing? I think so. Is change good? well that is debatable. Many insist that change (or 'Change' as ol Barry would have it) is not necessarily good in and of itself. I would argue quite the opposite in fact; change itself may be uncomfortable, dangerous, scary and even destructive. But absolutely nothing ever improves unless change happens, even if the initial change is destructive, we learn from it and improve. Change is by it's very nature catalytic. If we never changed we would never learn as a child to not put our hand on the stove. If these catalytic changes did not occur we would still be in the stone age. We would not have language, tools, buildings.
In religious history fire was brought to us by a god or other messenger. For example, in Apache mythos Fox stole fire from the fireflies and brought it to the world (and amusingly incidentally created the first drum as well). In Cherokee belief Water Spider solved the puzzle of the burning sycamore and carried a burning coal across the water in a basket she had weaved once most of the others had failed to transport it (indicating superior intelligence and craft as opposed to strength or prowess). In Norse mythology it is Loki (the rough equivalent of Lucifer in christian faith) that brings fire to humanity; mostly to piss off the gods. Loki is an interesting figure in and of himself as he represents a more human take on the 'devil's advocate' role. He advocates change, many times at the cost of safety (even his own on a regular basis as Thor tends to beat the crap out of him for his tricks). Interestingly if you look at their history, the Norse gods would never have done anything but sit around and party (like veritable Lotus Eaters) had Loki not kept screwing with them. Which brings us to the most interesting comparison; the ol' devil himself, Lucifer, Satan, Satanaiel (sometimes even Samaiel). In various references fire (the ultimate symbol of change) is brought altneratively by either Satan (to anger/thwart God) or as a gift by Gabriel(? one of the other host... not sure off the cuff). Depending on reference it makes the cases for change quite different. I have to wonder if the differences in the presentation were not interpretation intended to make the Church (Catholicsim most notably) more attractive to other cultures (the Norse for instance) much like some of the holidays were shifted to certain periods of time (Christmas being the most notable example, falling strikingly close to pagan holidays celebrated throughout Northern and Western Europe during the dark ages).
At any rate if it is a Gift from God via angel (or Archangel if you prefer), then it makes the case that change is not only gifted from god, but is encouraged. That questioning the world around you is not only acceptable but is expected. However it also makes things changes 'God approved' and means that you should tacitly seek god's acceptance when you make changes.
The alternative is however that God is petulant and that Satan/Sataniel/Samael/Lucifer had to steal fire for humanity as a slight paints a very different picture. It paints the relationship between God and Satan as far more petty than I would hope it would be, as humanity would simply be the poor children in a shitty custody battle being used to slight one another.
I happened upon some interesting and less popular references to the fall of Satan as well, coming from Persian interpretations. In their concept of the fall, it is that God created man and advised his angels (Sataniel was born of fire, humans of clay for reference) to bow to them as his greatest achievment. Here is the twist; it is not that he was jealous of humanity so much as that he had such a great love for God that he could not follow his directive as he could see nothing to be superior to his god. So his fall is that of a spurned lover, devout, and devoted to the absolute end. It is an interesting twist that colors the battle between heaven and earth with a different twist, at once more personal and more intimate. Surprising to me is that this is something espoused by Sufi tradition (or at least it is based on this Persian belief). [For reference, most of what was Persia is now Iran, and most 'Iranians' will tell you they are Persian not Iranian; they have pride in their heritage, not so much their country. Not so different from America I guess].
Another side note on 'Satan' There is a lot of confusion about this identity, particularly his fall. Interestingly it is only really in the King James (and other similar-era versions of the english translation of the bible) that the proper name 'Lucifer' is used. The fall is refrenced twice, once in Isaiah and once in Ezekial with strikingly similar language. Also of note is that one is in reference to Lucifer (proper) and the other is in reference to the unnamed King of Babylon...
Anyway I have digressed almost entirely from the point of the post which is that I believe wholeheartedly in change. I do not approve of Bush and never have. I have groused quietly, but would not suggest disobeying, or deriding him for anything other than reasonable legal issues. He has done things that violate the law, the consitution and has caused innumerable amounts of damage to our image on a worldwide stage. Can Obama undo it? I have no idea. I think he will try. I think we need to step the hell out of his way and let him make mistakes just as we let W do. It is our civic duty to support our president while he is in office, regardless of what we think of him. Should we watchdog Obama? hell yes. He is still a politician after all and anyone who WANTS to be president should be watched closely. I do NOT however believe that we should be obstuctionist just because we may not agree with him on certain wedge issues.
Wow. In the same post I managed to talk about half a dozen devils and two Presidents. I am going straight to hell.
