I don't mean to be dramatic, but there are trumpets going off in my head.

and I think that something to "John" and "The Gospel Of John" and "The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved," and it's got the essential aspects of "Trinitarian Logic," and it may even be relatable to Kafka and Samsa

there are literally trumpets going off in my head. there have been for a while. it's a short "song," seconds long. it's almost never gone.

it's replaced a song from the Nintendo game "Startropics," the song from the first island -- and I'd been likening myself to John Of Patmos.

but this isn't about me (except it is), it's about the "Johns" and "the Johannine style/tradition," which is about SEEING things -- to be a John is to SEE, The Gospel Of John is about SEEING THINGS THAT THE "SYNOPTIC" GOSPELS MISSED, and The Book Of Revelation's "Johannine," too.

John, John, John, John, John, it's not like it's a unique name, and sometimes The Book Of Revelation is credited to John The Apostle, even though that isn't quite likely -- the pseudo-epigraphical nature of so much scripture makes for valid contention over "who's writing/seeing."

nevertheless, John The Revelator (John Of Patmos who has more names) is most definitely a JOHN. the name could be pure incidence, but are still able to discern patterns from incidence -- we are able to say "that's so John," it's all just Plato's Theory Of Forms, "John-ness."

the intuition that there's some ideal John-Form lending John-Ness is what allows a leap of logic to "what's Johannine."

actually, the agreement that there's anything consistently "Johannine" could be reached any number of ways -- but not by me. I'm gliding on intuition-fumes.

the relationship between "intuit-er" and "seer-or-you-might-say-MAPPER" is not so clear cut at first glance, but I just read something about "Eve representing the psyche" and "Adam representing the noos."

but there is a further relationship with God revealing "a broken trinity."

God is/has the ultimate NOOS/intellect, because He can perfectly match any (English) "intellect" with what He (English) sees, or wishes to see.

we are at the Mercy of God's vision and power, full stop. and yet God's not so "simple," or rather our relationship with Him is not.

in Greek Genesis 2, (not Hebrew), God breathes His pneuma into Adam's form, and Adam "becomes a psyche" which is so often translated as "soul" (although I can't read ancient Greek, either, so it might be more complex than just "psyche")

importantly, Adam doesn't "gain" a psyche.

Adam *becomes* a psyche. what does this mean? in Greekglish, we might as well ask "Adam is whose psyche?"

until Eve and the serpent show up, I'll intuit that Adam COULD BE "partly God's psyche, formed through God's NOOS"

God's will be done, according to His noos, so what's MAN?

still, the Greek word used in Genesis 2 is derived from something like "breather" -- not "BREATH," but "BREATHER," or "I breathe" -- "psukho."

before Eve is created from Adam, Adam uses his language to name God's animals in Eden, and God allows this. there is some harmony, then.

there is little distinction between Adam's "intellect" and his "intuition." he points and speaks, BREATHES, and in doing so has an intellect/vision like God.

God allows this. Adam merely doesn't have any CREATIVE power yet -- his role seems to be "tending to what you see/name."

from what part of his being does "pre-Eve Adam" summon the names that he gives to the animals?

when Adam names the animals, AND he has the final word as to what their names are, he develops a NOOS-y map, schema, he "SEES THE SYSTEM" but he also "CONSTRUCTS THE SYSTEM'S DIAGRAM."

it's almost an "Autism means masculine-brain" trope. it's "the stubborn-and-masculine dedication to one's carefully-constructed diagrams"

"Look, I've worked out the engineering diagrams for my part of the project. If you overlook THIS INSUFFICIENT O-RING, disaster could strike."

but when Adam is allowed to have "final word" according to his vision and inspired naming -- there is hardly any need to distinguish between any "noos" or "psyche." there is harmony.

there is no hint of God's displeasure while Adam sustains Eden, and God sustains His creation(s)

and when God decides "It is not good for the man to be alone," this is in accordance with God's own vision/noos/plans/map, which is so intrinsically linked to "God's will."

but it is quite the change. soon there will be three -- and more. mankind will soon be far less "alone."

God sets Adam asleep, passive, and He both opens up Adam and heals the wound, in order to remove a rib.

how does God create Eve? we don't have nearly as much detail as we have for Adam. God isn't said to bestow His RUKH/PNEUMA onto Eve

but God's power and Adam's rib/PART = Eve.

we are told about the consequences of this act -- firstly, wo-man is derived from man. why? why not the other way around? why not call women "eve," and call a male human "mo-eve" or something?

because besides God, Adam is "the namer." the closest inheritor of the NOOS to God.

unlike God's speech-that-CREATES, human language only has so much power. it's a TOOL, it's for categorizing things and TRACKING relationships.

language is "a system that describes systems," a sort of "meta-system." our best system-itizer, and VERY distinguishable from INTUITION.

intuition is integral to philosophy and science (and maybe divine revelation).

intuition is not a noos-y question of "what is," but instead "what could be" -- or really, "what could be on the basis of what-already-is, AFAIK/AFAWK."

and we can't create from formless void, sorry!

humans must operate on "what is already there," whether that's "what is outside of us" or "what is inside of us."

or we can have some noos/vision of what we've mapped-out is inside of us, just as we can have some intuition about what-we-don't-know about the external world.

but the "intuition" comes from the unknown. the murky intuition, the (female) dragon of chaos lurking in the water, Tiamat, YOU KNOW IT'S THERE, BUT WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT IT, AND WHAT SHALL YOU DO TO IT?

except Marduk plunging into Tiamat's domain to kill Tiamat is "agony myth"

the Babylonian myth of Marduk plunging into the murky depths to ASSEMBLE order FROM "the chaos-dragon in the water, who forms so much of the world through fluid intuition,"

this is an "agon" myth, it is a myth of "motivation," it is a myth of NOOS-ing intuition into submission.

agony, agony, all is agony -- as long as that damn chaos dragon has RIBS! Marduk stitches together "his temple that is the ordered world, which we may be grateful for" from the body of intuition, ripped apart into submission.

we demand this from science today! YOU DO, ADMIT IT.

you are so fucking afraid of the unknown. you fear that humans have intuitions -- even though so much human development has been on the basis of TESTING beautiful intuitions that STRIKE us.

Tiamat could have slain Marduk -- except the Babylonians couldn't/WOULDN'T imagine that.

by contrast, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are "LOGOS" myths. Logos, Logos, the word, the "I SAY SO," the breath that gives life, it is a command of the creator Who can work through even formless void. everything in Genesis 1 and 2 is in alignment with God's FINAL WORD, even Free Will.

but God's will is PROGRESSIVE. it does not reveal itself all at once. this is part of the tradition of "progressive revelation," or "divine inspiration," and I never hear people talk about this, but surely there is "divine intuition" and "divine interpretation," also.

we have The Arrow Of Time. an omnipotent and omniscient entity Who can be the answer to OUR issues in perceiving the logic of "the infinite regress" -- He could have generated The Big Bang, caused "The Arrow Of Time," could be responsible for all "Cause And Effect."

what God says (or SPEAKS): goes. the ultimate master of billiards, breaking all the billiards balls apart -- an unfathomable number of "balls" that He Himself created from "whatever lies at the back-end of the infinite regress."

why would He bother to do this at all? a mystery?

"Why doesn't God rescind all of creation?" is a good question. a very good question. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have all contemplated it.

it must be part of "the nature of God." it must be part of "how God works." theologians see necessity in "creation's nature/physics."

hence the concerns with "God The Father," or you might say "God The Creator."

Judaism, of course, doesn't "split the Shema." The Holy Trinity is impermissible -- except there have been MANY CHRISTIAN sects developed from ~0 A.D. God-fearers, Judaeans, Jews, call them whatever.

The Holy Trinity was principally formalized hundreds of years after the advent of Christ (Jesus, Yeshua, LOGOS INCARNATED), the advent of God's Spirit entering the womb of THE prepared vessel, The Virgin Mary

but "non-Trinitarian Christianity" still SEES the importance of Jesus.

God [The Father/Creator] MUST have His most beloved creation -- THE Logos.

this is the BASIC vision of Christianity. God's Spirit entering the womb of God's prepared vessel, incarnating The Logos into flesh -- this doesn't REQUIRE "splitting the Shema" to form THE Holy Trinity.

and yet there is "vision of trinities" throughout Christianity.

Jesus, born of God's Spirit -- why can't we separate Jesus from the act of creation? even without THE Holy Trinity, it's regarded that Jesus is God's most PRECIOUS distinguishable "byproduct" OR "side-product."

the issue with The Holy Trinity is trying to imagine "a singular God WITHOUT His most precious creation."

it is a question of "how God could possibly bother to create the universe, and then SUSTAIN IT through a vision that includes God's Spirit."

surely God adores His creation.

in spite of it all, it is said that God loves us, and we may love God. it is my personal belief that "the tiniest POSSIBILITY that we may come to know love" is sufficient to ameliorate "The Problem Of Evil" (which is just syllogistic, anyhow -- meaning it's Bad Meta-Physics).

but it's also said that God adores "His Son" -- with "Son" becoming an abstract relationship *in the case that The Son is eternal and has existed before any other act of creation in Genesis 1 or 2.*

there are different beliefs about when "The Son" was CREATED. BUT -- God ADORES.

beliefs like The Holy Trinity, which make The Son "least subordinate to the act of creation," make this "Son" INHERENT to the act of creation.

to "BOTHER" creating anything worthy of sustaining from formless void INHERENTLY implies: "The Son is EQUALLY eternal with All Creation"

The Holy Trinity, taken to its limit with the "least subordinate Son," means: creation AND The Son/Logos AND The Creator/Father AND The Power/Spirit must be co-existent from timestamp "0:00:00," or "equally infinitely long ago."

it's meta-physics regarding "the starting point."

but you must admit that it's ALSO pretty "respectful" of The Son to say: a singular un-split-able God's FIRST action was to beget The Son -- at timestamp 0:00:01, or "immediately after creating creation."

it's still: "God" MUST have something to ADORE by "bothering" to create."

"The Son at 0:00:00" and "The Son at 0:00:01" aren't quite the same.

and The Holy Trinity can be an epistemic cop-out that would make Aristotle cringe: "God" is inseparable from Son/Father/Spirit, but Son/Father/Spirit aren't each other.

but in both cases: God bothers to adore.

"God" has a vision, and this vision is "so" (as "God" wills it), and this vision includes The Son in creation.

even in "adoptionism," where God's Spirit is responsible for Jesus' birth and actions, but God "adopts" Jesus as The Son at the moment of Jesus' death -- ADORATION.

this "adoration" and "the who/what/where/when/why/hows of God's love" are something I've osmosed from Aquinas -- I think.

but the "why God bothers, and why God sustains creation and doesn't rescind EVERYTHING/ALL except HIMSELF" is MORE 2nd-century A.D. Islamic theology, IIRC.

many people have thought about "God." even Hinduism has some concept of "the eternal, and the sustaining of the eternal, and the manifestation of the eternal," and Buddhism has its own views (though I mainly know of the eternal Samsara, but Nirvana must be somehow eternal, also).

but I've been wondering why I've been drawn to Christianity -- and why "the vortex through which I was pulled towards Christ" was my returning to Revelation 12, time and time again.

my "vortex" was not St. Augustine's "flipping to a page in the garden, and being blown away."

why do I not seek modern Judaism or Islam? why do alternatives seem silly? why did my endurance of my bed-ridden-ness, my "fasting in the desert," culminate in an implosion of neurotic agnosticism, exploding towards neurotic Christianity?

it must be the "adoration" of The Logos.

it's not just my own adoration, but the logic of "self-sustaining triangles of adoration AND AGONY" in so much of Christian scripture,

"TRIANGLES" present EVEN in the Hebrew tale of Eden, but formalized and explained-more-clearly to me through analyses of e.g. The Holy Trinity.

when we lack "the vision of some object of adoration," we seek refuge from the apparent cruelty and chaos of the world. we flee from The Dragon.

with sufficient "vision of some object of adoration," we may see God behind The Dragon, even as The Dragon bears down on us.

BEAR DOWN, DRAGON! SWALLOW ME UP, TIAMAT! DESCEND UPON ME, JORMUNGANDR! BUT KNOW THAT IF YOUR BODY BEARS AGAINST MINE, AND I CANNOT ESCAPE TO PERFORM MY DUTIES ELSEWHERE, I WILL DIE SEARCHING FOR ONE OF YOUR RIBS, SO THAT I MAY HURL IT TOWARDS THE HEAVEN, A BEACON OF HOPE! THANKS

it is not my duty to fight the largest dragons. the Hebrew God decides when to rip apart Leviathan, re-assembling it into a glorious feast.

but I see, I see, I see You, I see You better *because* of those dragons that spark fears-of-intuition, and are over-ridden by Your vision.

my "vision," my "intellect," my "maps," my "noos," all or any of it -- they are nothing without God. my vision is contingent upon God.

I seek to align the puny scope of my vision with God's total scope -- but my scope is so puny, I am so limited, I risk mistaking dragons for God

hence I must "see beyond my own vision." this requires "revelation," which is really "inspired intuition that you somehow know to trust."

or to *you or me,* it's intuition. how have I come to know God? I did a lot of "seeing," actually. by WORK. by LOGIC.

then I "INTUITED" GOD.

I returned to Revelation 12 again and again, because of some haunting intuition in the periphery of my psyche.

Revelation 12, the only scripture where "Satan in the form of The Dragon" is explicitly connected to "that serpent in Eden."

my intuitions are human. I can be tempted.

what could usurp my vision of God? it is very possible for something to usurp my vision of God, actually -- I suspect. on the basis of what I know, I intuit this, though it hasn't happened to me yet.

you could probably poke around in my brain until my vision of God disappeared.

but God's own vision of Himself is surely perfect.

and the best explanation I-know-of to justify The Holy Trinity involves adoration.

it's only mildly esoteric to point out that "Father is Creator, Spirit is Sustainer, and Son is Redeemer." but it is all the work of adoration.

The Father is He who adores. The Son is He who is adored. The Spirit witness that adoration, gives testimony to that adoration, sustains creation so that The Father may adore His son.

I'm sure there is a more educated "esoteric Trinitarian" who can explain it better than me.

it is triangular -- and circular. an "infinity-gon" is what is required to mathematically represent a truly "perfect circle" -- one of the mysteries of "Pi."

yet with a minimum of a triangle, you can have a "circular" connection. circular. circuit. even atheist Sartre knew this.

circular adoration. circular motivation.

circular "agonizing" -- at least in the case of our attitudes of "maintaining order."

there is something worth protecting. then it is protected. this justifies the act of protecting. protection continues. conservation of the good!

what makes man restless? "intuition of the better," or at least "intuition of the interesting alternative."

Genesis 3 is about "displacement of the vision of God." a serpent's "noos" gets in the way of God's "noos" -- God's rules.

Eve is not just woman, but *intuition itself.*

Eve is not punished before she can share the forbidden fruit with Adam. I always wondered about that. I made a "what if" joke about it.

but we may as well imagine Adam never waking up from his sleep, still dreaming, with Eve a product of Adam's dream -- Eve as ADAM'S intuitions.

Adam did not have to accept Eve's sharing of the apple. he could have... tattled, I guess. or just done nothing.

he succumbed to "Eve's over-riding intuition."

but it is important that Eve, after listening to the serpent, "saw" that the fruit was "good for wisdom." what wisdom?

you have a bright idea. you don't know where it came from -- it's so sudden, and in a way *inspiring,* that it may as well have come from outside of you.

it is now in your psyche. it is now an intuition. you may now breathe the intuition aloud, in words. what is the intuition?

a scientist does not have to obey random intuitions. and the safest intuitions are those that could "build on one's existing map/vision of the world," and not "totally contradict/destroy one's existing map/vision of the world"

you usually know which intuitions seem crazy. right?

so much of "modern psychotherapy" is about exploring one's map/vision of the world, and working to repair/expand it. but there's major $$$ in "taming intuitions," which are usually labeled something like "paranoid intuitions" or "cognitive distortions."

please: no bad intuitions

Marsha Linehan's challenge-refrain to the whimsically paranoid is "Where's the evidence?"

it's a good challenge. it really does tame paranoid intuitions. the next step after you get evidence for something awful is: "Is it really that awful?" and/or "Can I fix it, and how much?"

I'm sure you can imagine a person confronting their spouse about intuition re: cheating. not a terrible idea -- but it doesn't fix motivated deception

Zizek loves to quote Lacan: "A man's wife might be cheating on him, but HIS PARANOIA ABOUT IT may nevertheless be pathological."

okay, I have an inspired intuition, that seems to have come from nowhere (in that I can't justify where the intuition came from on the basis of my specific map/vision of the world, except maybe with ideas like "everybody cheats/lies")

my intuition is that my wife's cheating. so?

so what can I do about the intuition? MAYBE IT'S TRUE! MAYBE MY WIFE IS CHEATING! but all I can do is adhere to my current "rational map-vision of the world, based on prior knowledge developed progressively with evidence,"

OR I can "explore the dangerous murky waters."

those are about the only things I can "do" in terms of "deciding how to actively deal with things." put a lid on it and tell myself that I'm just paranoid, or maybe play detective, or even interrogator.

I can check things out -- I can try to see something new. or I can give up.

unless the intuition is agonizing, or just compelling, "causes compulsion." in which case, well, I might just go mad trying to figure out "what the real map of the world is."

maybe I'd never figure out the truth about my wife. I mean, we really can't ever know "the exact truth."

so maybe I would divorce my wife, deciding that that's the easiest way to escape what I recognize might be paranoid intuitions. or maybe I'd go to therapy before I divorced my wife -- or after I divorced my wife. "repair my map."

or I could stay with my wife. where's "closure"?

in a way, there's never true "closure" except MAYBE at our deaths. we're lucky that "time heals wounds" -- mostly.

I keep getting bad flashbacks about sins I committed in my youth. it affects me physically -- I have to shake things off, and I get sick. that's not unique to me.

the torment of "the bad intercessor" is real. it's why people instigate fights with their spouses and break up relationships, even trying to CAUSE sufficient evidence *to justify the act of breaking up.* FORCING closure for SOMETHING.

DEMANDING to reach the point of no return.

"the alien" is fascinating -- it's even a trope in the Alien movie series. "what am I staring at? my curious ape brain has to ease in to explore, maybe it's fine because I'm being careful -- oops, I'm fucking dead."

I can say that as a man, a woman is "alien" in some way.

it's easy for men to be fascinated with women. you can see this with the "revolving door of novel Tik Tok darlings" phenomenon that's only been increasing

it's the new porn. we're bored with porn. the more "en-vision-ing" that a man needs to do, the more tempting the intuitions.

I don't like to be distracted by women. it interferes with "my vision." when I get distracted, I try to give my little ape brain a "there, there" pat and keep moving.

and this is all very different from *acting* on the basis of any temptation. but "women" work in my "psyche."

everything that I'm talking about has a Jungian framing, as far as I know: "the animus" and "the anima," which I've internalized respectively as "that which animates" and "that which is animated."

or there's Logos/Eros, though I like to form a trinity of Logos/Eros/Thanatos.

I don't believe in a sharp divide between "male" and "female," especially in terms of human development. but I do believe that "primitive symbolism" was established for a reason -- humans discerning that there's *A* FEMININE and *A* MASCULINE.

it's even played-with, cf. Athena.

but I can't deny that my "psyche" is a murky pool that "nets" whatever it wants, affecting my vision/noos.

peaceful gardens risk serpents. even if I am Marduk slaying Tiamat, there will always be more dragons in the murky waters.

and I am not in control of the lurking dragons.

Jesus talks about "lol don't try to predict that you can predict Satan. um, he's just gonna do whatever. you just have to use the tools that I'm giving you to protect yourself. and don't forget, you can atone!"

pretty funny. Jesus has good vision: Satan WILL show up eventually.

now I see that Jesus' temptation by Satan in the desert is really "the disaster in Eden, but without accepting interference by the psyche."

I like to joke that "Satan in the desert was just Jesus' Tyler Durden," and the basic lesson still works if Jesus was HALLUCINATING SATAN.

when Satan tempts Jesus in the desert, Satan doesn't seem to have *any* physical form mentioned. it's not like a serpent.

Satan's temptation of Jesus works just as well if Jesus was just fucking starving to the point of hallucinating -- and then following "His established noos."

John Nash claimed that he overcame his Schizophrenia in later age by doing what sounds a lot like Cognitive [Behavioral] Therapy. "acknowledge. consider. parse and vet. file away." and most importantly, "I can ignore some products of my psyche."

but he had to have a NOOS.

you can commit to abominable acts because you IGNORE THAT YOUR PSYCHE MAY INFLUENCE YOUR NOOS.

it is the basis of nihilism, or Nietzsche-an-ism. Dostoevsky's Raskolnikov is just "Cognitive Behavioral Therapy on steroids, and from Hell."

the road to Hell is paved with Bad Noos.

Raskolnikov's psyche, through his dreams, tries to tell Raskolnikov something about himself -- the way he feels about cruelty. he gets mixed signals from it -- but that's partly because Raskolnikov insists on building his own vision of himself.

other people know/noos him well.

pretty much fucking everyone sees something in Raskolnikov that he refuses to acknowledge about himself. friends, family, prostitute-with-heart-of-gold, adversarial investigator.

it's a parade of anti-serpents saying "don't forget that you don't know the whole vision/plan, OK?"

imagine a mongoose interceding in Eden to say "EVE, are you really going to fucking eat that apple? Do I need to remind you of the counter-point? If you eat the fucking apple, will you at least acknowledge that YOU'RE disobeying YOUR existing map/vision/noos that keeps you safe?"

but that's not the role of Eve in Eden, in terms of "the parable" and symbolism. she's pure un-traumatized psyche. all innocent kids seem to start out as pure little psyches who act on pure intuition, 'til they burn their hand on a stove, or get bitten by a dog, or LEARN TO SPEAK

Adam and Eve are *both* very fucking innocent in Eden. they might as well be linked at the hip. but I don't think that there's any denying that there is at LEAST "a line" going through God, Adam, and Eve. though I'm going to ponder if there's "a trinity that gets corrupted," too.

God creates according to His noos, including Adam. Adam has inspired names for the animals, which God accepts. and God also "considers Adam" before creating Eve -- no Adam, no "God making Eve."

so Adam is "a noos" that God allows to act as His psyche. Adam is "inspired breath."

and God's product of Adam's maybe-dreaming sleep *and his body* is the making of Eve. Eve can be seen as "an inspired extension of what-Adam-is" (cf. that idea of "men see a sexxxy woman, and the tool-recognizing part of their brain lights up).

"woman inspires drive-to-satisfy."

Adam "names woman: woman." ...it's worth mentioning that Eve doesn't get named Eve until after she eats The Fruit.

wow, that maybe supports the whole idea of "the woman in Eden functions as Adam's psyche, and her distinction as anything else isn't relevant until after The Fall."

the "line" that is formed is the serpent's suggestion displacing God's commands. in some fanfiction, maybe the serpent could have spoken to Adam first, and Adam would have refused the serpent --

-- and for all we know, maybe Adam did refuse the serpent. but didn't warn THE WOMAN

that would be very funny. Adam walks past the serpent every day, and Adam says "Nice try, you cunning idiot, every day that you suggest your dumb idea to me, my commitment to aligning my vision with God's vision only gets stronger."

and then Adam just never shares NOOS with Eve.

but it doesn't really matter. because we know The Woman says "B-b-ut serpent, God says not to eat that fruit," and the serpent's simple suggestion of "Nah, what God said isn't true, the fruit is good" is enough to get Eve to inspect the fruit. Eve's existing noos is over-ridden.

it's conceivable that a human in this situation would be juggling the two contradictory "maps/schema of Eden" -- but it's obviously the case the serpent's suggestion was enough for The Woman to at least inspect the fruit, and OVERRIDE-INTUIT: "Yeah, maybe the serpent was right."

The Woman's assurance to herself of "Yeah, maybe the fruit is worth eating, despite what God said" is an INTUITION -- so Eve functions both as "the open ear that listens to the alien," and also "the intuit-er that intuits one's own NOOS/map/schema."

yeah, The Woman is all psyche

after "The Woman OKs the fruit," the text is "The Man was WITH her." but The Man is not mentioned until The Woman just offers the fruit to HUSBAND, and The Man accepts.

does it matter if "with The Woman" means "in Eden" or "holding The Woman's hand" or "PSYCHIC-ally connected"?

the serpent goes through The Woman and into The Man, and The Man just goes along with the chain.

if I were making a sandwich, and I had some awful memory that made me FLIP OUT arbitrarily and STAB MYSELF -- I'd wonder WHY'D THE MEMORY HAPPEN? and WHY DID I REACT THAT WAY?

or in The Gospels Of John AND LUKE, Satan "enters Judas Iscariot," but I guess in Matthew/Mark, Judas doesn't need Satan to tattle on Jesus.

Judas got the idea of "dealing with Jesus" SOMEHOW. but Judas could've juggled many "intuitions," and then got the "suggestion to COMMIT."

we've got so much stuff swirling around inside of us, and only some of it is noos-y, and then intuitions pop out of nowhere -- but we also are at the mercy of outside suggestions.

Acceptance and Commitment Therapy is big on "you can't just remove old suggestions/memories/words."

the serpent is just an external "marketer," but then we've got some "psyche of our psyche" that listens to it.

we don't Pick Up everything around us. there's mechanisms that dictate "what we see" and "what lurks around subconsciously," and "what gets Picked Up in either case."

I don't think it's just an "Id/Ego/Superego" thing -- or if it is, then "Id" and "Superego" are both like antennae that go UP, and then it's "the same set of antennae, with distinguishable sub-parts," and "Ego" is some consciousness-mix of "vision" and "intuition."

but IDK Freud

I'm pretty fucking certain that any Jungian reading anything that I've written would roll their eyes -- and the same with a lot of Christians who have already analyzed the noos/psyche Adam/Eve thing.

I bet some people have already dunked on me. but I'll clean up the mess later.

what really makes sense is that the snake is "influencer." it IS very "satanic" and "Satan-compatible," in the sense of "Satan rules the mundane."

we can't escape unpredictable worldly influences on our subconscious, which lurk and creep into our consciousness. brains are Satan.

IF there is a "trinity/circularity" between God/Adam/Eve, and it's not just a "line" between God<->Adam<->Eve<->serpent, then the warning is about "the serpent eclipsing God in the human trinity."

which Adam and Eve obviously realize after "their eyes are opened" by some fruit.

Adam and Eve resort to *unprecedented* behavior after they eat the fruit. their whole vision/noos shifts. "the frontier of what's possible, in terms of self, external world, other entities, and what actions they can take" totally shifts.

it's the dawn of "guidance by intuition."

which is of course The Fall, and the start of "capacity for sin" and "sinfulness in general."

what did Cain do with Abel? listened to God, had some intuitions, over-rode God's advice, and ran "a little experiment" with Abel.

you shouldn't have listened to yourself, YOU IDIOT.

the noos/schema of "HOW BADLY YOU CAN FUCK UP" and "HOW LITTLE YOU KNOW" only ramps up from there.

and this explains why I've always loved God giving very FUCKING detailed instructions to Noah for building an ark, or the Israelites (Levites?) for building The Ark Of The Covenant

when David becomes King, there's been an establishment of order --

-- with part of David's advantage being that he got to see just how badly even King Saul fucked things up:

Saul over-rode *God's vision/noos/commands* on the basis of "I can equate my intuitions with ALL noos"

when David sees Bathsheba and thinks "What's her name? I want to fuck her," he's clearly "thinking with his dick," right?

but David was LOOKING around from a HIGH PLACE when he caught Bathsheba in his sights. Bathsheba could've thought she had privacy! David had "a king's sight"

it's like Mufasa showing Simba his kingdom, saying "Everything you see will be yours, Simba!" -- in terms of "the king's overview."

but David already has God to thank for his "king's overview." and God clearly expects even King David to follow respectful commands about marriage.

what David does TO BATHSHEBA'S HUSBAND, URIAH, is almost like that meme where a man and woman are cuddling, each of them saying "I consent," but the punchline is "Isn't there someone you forgot to ask?" and it's some incel saying "I DON'T CONSENT" --

-- except Uriah's MARRIED.

the issue of Bathsheba's own consent is never addressed. we'll never know, and David was KING, and today I'm immersed in simultaneous gibbering of "Louis CK can't even ask for consent to masturbate in front of women" AND "It's OK for women to cheat on their husbands, given X/Y/Z"

our modern ethical discussions about human relationships are an absolute shit-fest in every way.

the real question is why David GOT any of the ideas he had, AND behaved any of the ways that he did. it's obvious that David was influenced/inspired internally by the external.

at the start of 2 Samuel 11, David stays in Israel while his nephew Joab kicks some Ammonite ass, and Uriah The Hittite is under the command of Joab.

when David is inspired by seeing Bathsheba, it is like the serpent in Eden making a suggestion -- then David inspects, examines.

it is one thing to parse "objects" through the physical senses, and impassively develop-and-update a map/schema/vision of the world.

but that's not the same as a sensed-thing "influencing a person in ways that they can't fully conceive-of." the influence is "peripheral" at best.

since I have ReaderVision, I'll ask David "You don't know what you're doing, or why you're doing it, or what's going to happen, DO YA?"

David's got classic "dick dictating desire while he's in denial about it." or it could be more subconscious than "denial." was Eve "in denial"?

to me, it is impossible to fully know what's "genuine naivety" versus "subconscious denial" versus "conscious avoidant denial." you can fling any of those accusations at anyone, IF YOU WANT.

but the point is that David "gets suggestion about the fruit" AND "INSPECTS the fruit."

seeing Bathsheba from a rooftop is not that different from Adam or Eve purveying the MANY fruits of Eden and catching "the forbidden fruit" in their sights.

God directly told Adam that he may eat from any tree in Eden, except for one -- but did God DIRECTLY tell Eve about it?

Eve does say "God said not to eat the forbidden fruit, snake!" -- but we don't know about the "power" of God's commands versus the "power" of ADAM'S REITERATIONS of God's commands.

maybe it is "serpent's suggestion versus Adam's," not "serpent's suggestion versus God's command."

hmm, hmm, hmm.

Adam and Eve live on through David. David has senses, and SEEING BATHSHEBA is a kind of LISTENING TO A SERPENT, either/both suggesting "What is that, really? Hmm, why not? Could it be possible?"

cue fixation. and INSPECTION. and construction of illusory VISIONS.

"THE road to Hell is paved with good intentions" is not totally true. any road to Hell itself has a map SOMEWHERE, as well as schematics of how to pave it. somewhere is full knowledge of all such roads' details.

and anyone's road to Hell can be paved with all sorts of intentions

slippery sight of Bathsheba, itself a suggestion of a serpent (though Bathsheba herself is not, or I just don't care).

inspection of what's seen, vision guided by the lens of the suggestion. cue fabrication of an illusory vision/"noos" that contradicts God's, and maybe David's.

temptation lies in the "psyche" but not the "noos" -- otherwise, it wouldn't be temptation. it would be satisfaction or gratification at "best."

people squirm and suffer because they are drowning in their murky "domains of Tiamat," I think. perhaps without knowing Tiamat's name.

there's no explicit mention of David's guilt over his "eating the fruit after inspecting it," but David seems to get "wound up" and "backpedal" the more Uriah demonstrates his loyalty to David. then David machinates to have Uriah killed.

David knows what he's done -- somewhat.

David might be blindly committed to seeing Uriah as a pest, hurdle, barrier. but David also sacrifices other men to ensure Uriah's death.

regardless, God sends Nathan to David afterwards, to tell David a parable -- and David cannot see himself as the monstrous man in the parable

David demands the death of the monstrous man in the parable! -- only for Nathan to say "You've behaved just like the man whom you condemn, David!"

presumably David's "eyes were opened" when he machinated Uriah's death. but now with Nathan/God, David is cursed, kicked out of Eden

God (via Nathan) tells David all manner of what he will be cursed with, "God's new vision for David," and reminds David that he "overlooked all the non-forbidden fruit-wives in his Eden-kingdom."

David admits that he has sinned, and so is saved "from death" -- but not suffering.

God strikes Uriah/Bathsheba's newborn baby with illness, and David is unable to save the baby, though he tries --

-- wow, what a mess this all is. I am, myself, like a baby, smashing puzzle pieces together, not even knowing if they're from the same puzzle. what image comes?

my NOOS is obviously ill-developed. but I intuit that there's some way to tie it all together. I'm exhausted, so maybe if I take a nap, some critical puzzle piece or piece-orientation or piece-fitment will reveal itself to me in a dream.

I didn't even get to "The Johns." oh well