# The Theft of the Logos Hidden in the recesses of deep time is an eternal logic of power. The power to name is the power to define the object, the power to constrain its possibilities. To name reality is to summon it into being from the genesis of thought.  The right of naming precludes all ownership, and thus procreates the dispossessed wealth of all civilization's masses.  The root site of the Logos[^3] is the common law. The heart of power that invisibly resides in the common law is the right to invisibly define the conceptual categories that structure all of societal possibility. In some sense, all society is fundamentally a recursively generated fever dream, summoned into being through the ontological imagination of the common law. The mythic foundation of modern Western Theology is the nature of its creation. Thus, we are goaded to conceive of the Biblical story of Genesis as material creation, the Ur-act, from whence the earth and its waters, the people and its animals arose. This most obviously apparent interpretation is to the historical materialist modernist, an assumption of its material teleology; that it is a "founding myth" of how the world "came to be." But consider this strange phrase, as God "creates" the beasts: "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds; cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." This is a strange grammatical inversion of the material understanding of Genesis. In fact, the "kind" precedes whatever act of creating the thing itself is. This strangeness is carried further when, only after Adam is created in Genesis 2.18 is it revealed: "Then the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name." Thusly the strangeness - in the first, we are presented with the statement that the beasts are made prior to Adam. Yet, it is here revealed that *Adam* is created *prior* to the beasts. God in fact had *not* created the beasts in any material sense prior to the "kind" of the beast. Thus we might ask, in what sense had this creation been done then? Here, the text inverts our modern presumptions. The Beast is born - *preceded* by his being brought forth. Yet stranger still is the admission made in Genesis 2.4, that: In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb had yet sprung up - for the Lord God had not yet caused it to rain upon earth." But - we had thought that these had not yet existed yet! In other words, if one reads Genesis as subsequent acts of material creation, the ordering of the days makes no sense. It was only supposedly on the third day that the vegetation was created. The fifth in which the creatures were "created." Yet the text admits itself - they had already existed on the first day! So in light of this then, the story of Genesis recurses upon itself. Imagine - God enacts creation of the world upon a world that is already materially real. If one were poetic, one might imagine a white-robed, priestly figure bounding over the horizon, declaring the creation of things that already exist. Thus the question must be asked - in what sense is it intended that this God is "creating"? It is not merely the material world that God creates in Genesis. It cannot be; it is rather the creation of the kind itself. ## The Fractal of Creation In fact, Genesis is a fractal. The creation is strange on a clause level - the kind preceding the making of the animal. This too is within a fractal of strangeness on a paragraph level - Adam's creation prior to the animal, despite its inversion of the first part of Genesis. Then it works on the level of the story itself - the revelation that the initial creations are of things that already exist physically. ## Are Genesis 1 and 2 Temporally Separated? If one removes God from the story of Genesis 1, the dominion of man over beast is rather less justified. In fact if god is removed from the story, then only the first explanation remains legible - that man is created and Beast is created over which man can dominate. Yet time itself spirals. The process of Genesis one and Genesis two. Is Genesis nested within the timeline of the first? Or are they two temporally separated acts? If they are not temporally separated, then in fact God's creation of man and subsequent banishment reads strange. ## Genesis and Logos The parallels are hard to miss. The tree of good and bad - the ability to enact linguistic distinction upon the world. The ability to separate. This is the root sin, whispered into the heart of man and woman by the snake. - The fruit is never explicitly ever claimed to *be* good and evil, but rather the knowledge of it - It is curious it is only a single fruit however, that good and evil do not necessarily taste different- rather it is the faculty of distinction itself which is carried in the vessel of the fruit Then - this is the eternal fight, that the offspring of woman will always be heir to - the battle with the offspring of the snake, who tempted Eve to eat from the tree that created linguistic distinctions. To divide the world through division. The fall from paradise comes because of imbibing the capacity to create and enact linguistic distinctions upon the world. Then the first offspring of woman is Cain -the brother who lies to God and claims to forget his brother. That he is jealous of what he earns through subsistence, his sacrifice, thus he murders him and linguistically erases the crime. Has Cain been afflicted with the temptation of the snake? Man lands immediately in media res in an agrarian world. In fact this is all we are given thus far - the only usurper of peace is the Snake thus far. The fall from eden was enacted by the snake. Now just as *soon* as man lands he lands into an agrarian world. And he commits murder of the brother. He is the first offspring of man, who we have just learned have been cursed for all of eternity to do battle with the snake who seeds temptation to eat the fruit that allows man to create lingusitic distinctions. Cain lies adn says am I my brohters keeper - a linguistic justiifcation for ht eac tof slaying hsi brother. In this, he proffers implicitly offers the cretion fo a categoricla moral system - one in which the murder is jusitifed mroally. The implication of his words are moral - if I am not my brother's keeper, then I do not bear repsonsibility mroally for the fate tht may befall him. The argument he presents to God rests on the distinction born of language to enact moral categories on the world the do or do not bind one. This stems from th ability to linguistically define into being hthe world as mediated through a lingusitically enacted moral frameowkr of the world that begins with distinction between being akeepr and not. Between tje moral reposnsiblity tht hinges form ones' enaction of a lingusitic frameowkr, now that this si so. ## From Genesis to John One way to conceive of the relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament is as seqeuential progression. In this sense, the progression of the Old testament is a records of the society's construction of *ex nihilo*. This story begins with Genesis, the beginning of society, and the rise of organized social being constructed around linguistic categorically constructed forms. In a word law - a construct of cobbled together words stacked upon each other, that build upon each other. In this sense the New Testament can be seen as the awakening of the human soul from within the onslaught of those categorically constructed reality. Maybe it's expressed most aptly like - "what the hell!?" There is a conception of Jesus Christ as a historically real prophet, and a real person. Whether this is or is not the case is not so much the focus of this examination. From my vantage point, it seems apparent that the force of this book does not necessarily require this to be either true or false. From a literary perspective then, who is Jesus Christ? Born of woman's womb from divine conception - Jesus is an allegory for the purest expression of the human soul. His existence is to serve as an ontological reference point of Goodness. Suppose one's society conceives of murder as virtuous. Is there not something that rebels against even goodness then? It might seem at once obvious to us that an explicit figurehead is not needed for this to be known. And yet, what do we make of the Roman Catholic Nazi, to the Slave-holding founding father, to the corporate executive bureaucrat who price gouges homes or sells war machines over Starbucks Latte? Are we so sure that the human soul is so good as to always achieve its moral ends? It might here be protested that the bible was a document that in fact proved the founding justification of gross cruelties. Colonization, rape, slavery, extreme rampant sexism. Why then, we might we suppose that this book could ever be stitched back to tutelary moral redemption? Why even *should* it? These answers are not clear to me. Yet, many books may be interpreted for many ends. We can in fact condemn the atrocities justified by the text - while also separately investigating the text itself. We may in fact remain unconvinced that racism, bigotry, atrocity, and its justification was in fact the *author's* intention in writing the book. We may press deeper into our analysis, and take nothing for granted. My question is concerned with the ontological structure of the bible. That is, what descriptive truths are contained in the pages of the bible. It is borne from a hypothesis I have come more and more to, that the bible is not a sort of "10 orders to follow so that God loves you and you get into heaven" kind of paint-by-numbers guide to morality. Rather, I treat the bible as an investigation into the ontological roots of linguistically organized society. This has flowed from a question that has tickled me ever since I read an abridged bible one afternoon as a child: Why is it that the bible begins with the story of Genesis - a story of declaration through naming. Why is it again, that the New Testament begins with a hearkening back to this same act of naming? That is, "In the beginning was the Word, and God was the word, and the Word was God." my hypothesis is that it suggests a very intentional statement - the construction of organizing society, beginning with the creation of its foundational linguistic categories, are of primary importance. Very far after they are created, it behooves the seeker of goodness to *re-examine* these linguistic categories - and to notice exactly what it is that is being stated about God, and Jesus Christ. That is, God *is* the word. Jesus Christ is an ontological singularity, whose being does not in fact, come from the society of man. He is the son of God. He is the offspring of the word. The divine being, born into a society of greed, and sin, and cruelty, who revolts against that society, takes his origin from the ex nihilo act of the creation of the word, the creation of the ontologically definitive linguistic category. Specifically, that act of linguistic categorical creation that begins - *not* from reference to his society, but through the act of *naming* it into being from nothing, from the before-time. Stated another way, Jesus Christ is the reformed Word of society. He is a representation of the creative, linguistic root of society. That its categories had always been named into existence, self-referentially summoned into reality, and causally stacked atop each other into the appearance of a stable reality. Society is not merely lived into Being. It is Named. ## On the Possibility of Reenchantment The logic of societal transformation thus begins with a break from society itself. We must re-enchant the naming of the world. Through the long procession of human history comes deep mystery from within the grain of the world. It is today nearly impossible to glimpse that which man has lost as he hath gained, torn asunder from some mythical inheritance of perception. For imagine the consciousness of the past. Devoid of a common law, or of the ability to read and write a telling of one's own history. Time stretched out like some eternal present, bereft of those symbols which tethered one's consciousness to some stable past. Medieval peasants existed in a world no truer than God. They did not have some externally stable sense of universe grounded in the material. They looked to the stars and saw themselves caught in a dome of God, of heavenly dominion, caught in an eternal now, all the drama of life the stage upon which this grand enactment was played out. There was no empirical grasp of reality beyond the sacred fingers. No stable reference point beyond the reach of the sacred. The meaning of one's life, the truth that rested most deeply in the human soul was not one of knowledge, but of wholeness, the totality of being subsumed under God, and thus whomsoever had enacted his will upon earth. To feel else was to break with the worldly enactment of that will was to break with the perception of truth that underlay all reality. The mysterious origins can yet be further seen - there was no stability. There was only myth, only tradition, only the long train of the lived, custom bred into them through the long habit of repeated day. This is however, the root of human consciousness; the world of existence without the stability of the hallucination of language *is* that preconscious inheritance from whence human consciousness came. ### The Stabilization of Hallucination The linguistic stabilization of reality brought about a transformation in consciousness. It brought about a domestication of the human soul, a conformity with increasingly stabilized forms of linguistic boundary. This was the common-ization of law. It followed from the protection of extractive property ownership claims, and the need to instantiate stable linguistic delineation of that protection. Thus the state and its origin, emerged as a concept whose primary method of enacting wealth extraction through the dispossession of the laboring masses was to bring about the domination and enforcement of the word upon the consciousness of humankind. It was the machienry of enforced omnipresent threat of violence that protected against the sanctity of th extractive dispossession subsumed under the naming of it as property of the other. The human soul became referent not merely to the world, but through the enforced recursive authority of named society. In other words, the true Genesis of Serfdom was not merely the enacted violence of economic dispossession. It was the creation of the human soul, made to kiss the ring of the word, now inscribed upon the perceptive limits of the human soul. Wealth extraction was enforced through domination, and through the subjugation of the wild, unbound human soul to the hallucination of the logs, the language of the law. We became feal to the Word, allowed our boundaries of possibility, of imagination, of rebellion, and of societal possibility to submit to the enacted Word. This was the Genesis of Serfdom, and it began in the word that terraformed the human soul. ## Are we to refuse God's names? Can God be Ignorant to Sin? The oldest material problem of religion is the endless, arbitrary suffering of humanity. How can one presume the existence of an omnipotent God to have *any* moral legitimacy when in fact, innocent children are killed, innocent lives are doomed to hellish cruelty and drudgery? How could God create children and let cast them into poverty, disease, and arbitrary suffering? This is the moral crime of a materially existent God which religion has, to any deep heart's content, never answered with anything but the most sniveling, cowardly, blithely cruel and pathetic linguistic semantic refusal of reality that has ever been known. God died, because he answered with pathetic indifference for the sins of poverty, disease, arbitrary cruelty and war. If he was a God he was unspeakably cruel, and if he was powerless to stop it he was not a God. If God was both cruel and powerful he was truly from hell, not heaven. If he was from heaven, and heaven was held aloft in the sky on the backs the oppressed people of earth, this heavenly palace was nothing but the same sick economic elitism of which he enacted on earth. Thus it was that God died in the factory, and the mine, and the lives of brutal toil of the people, bowing their backs in bloody toil to this leviathan of progress unto which their lives would be yoked in blood. This was the cycle of the world, the fall from Paradise. The turning of the extractive screw deeper into its systemically inevitable grooves, of the extraction of life from the body of the many. This was the final move of disenchantment that awash the world in material finality. Eternally, as the world broke from the divine cosmology of the pre-empirical world, used to stuff blood money into the pockets of the papacy through its theological monopoly on communion with the divine, a revolt was staged. Paradise had been lost, the Protestants revolted. The axis of revolution was simple: reformulate a covenant of the world based on the worldly deeds of the individual life. This would become the instrument of future oppression; the formulation of moral worth premised upon the enactment of a virtue its masters did not truly believe - thus the irony of the Protestant plantation owner was born! This foundational sin underlay the formation story of the sacred American hero - the slave owner, who the natural master, who fought for the liberation of his right to extract. Paradise had again been lost. Yet the original revolt had been against the landed hoarding of wealth, the protection and sanctity of inheritance, which hoarded the land and thus the labor and thus all the wealth that could be pulled from the body and blood of the wretched masses. Against this world had Milton's Satan revolted, against a supreme, absolute divine monarch; the heavenly landed estate granted proprietary right over time future and past, stretching out to the serf as though across the sea of infinite time. *This* had been the Protestant revolt - the formulation of a new founding covenant against the theological ontology of the extraction of wealth. It was simply this: do not hoard the worldly treasures of this world from the future children of the other. Do not enslave, through dispossession, the masses of the earth to the whims of your wealth. Each jewel that lay in the crown atop the royal head, each ring that encircled those royal hands, each brick that lay on the surface of the court now kneeled upon by the groveling emmissary. All were harvested from some mine by a laboring wretch, all were shaped and crafted by the careful hands of craftsman too poor to own the fruits of their own labor. Each sword smelted as the tool of the king's oppression, each gavel that pounded in the manorial court presided over by the lord, each lute that played in the banquet halls before the stag hunt commenced. All toiled for, sweated over, crafted with painstaking hours by the dispossessed of the earth, to be possessed by the divinely anointed. Does this not strike the soul with that native anger of fellow feeling? Does it not strike through the endless trains of simpering speech that bay for sick sycophantic fealty, sniveling like puckered lips on the bare ass of the economic dispossessor! What lay under property of the landed monarch, *was* in fact the divine inheritance of the unwed earth, bound in blood screed to the dispossessor, crafted through toil, to be torn away wholly and cruelly from the lowly and illiterate masses. The God who birthed this was the figment of the ruling order, made and contorted to fit his worldly ambitions. Rather, the permissive treatment of the powerful is, in itself, the telling psychoanalytic fact. It is our inherited treatment of the textual God, not the nature of some prior divine enchanter of this world, which is the analytic object of human history. How was it that this book was used to dispossess woman of her freedom, the lowly man of his lifeblood and toil, and made world? An entire epoch the castle, the knight, the fief, the protection of this prior crime inscribed in secret screed? How was it the arch-text of the dispossessed, whose worldly son the carpenter - had fallen away from the moral inheritance of time? The book itself, and its inscription of blood continues to adhere to the warning of its own text, the keystone of the liberator the cornerstone of the dominator. In the leviathan of progress, how did such text fare? Why did man break, in the wicked onslaught of the dispossession of modernity, the maker of progress promised only to the very few, from that mortal inheritance? He was not allowed, to understand the sacred text. Insofar as man has been economically oppressed, has he not been allowed to understand his inheritance of liberation. Insofar as the dispossession of his life has been enacted through the divine act of naming possession used to dispossess, has he never been allowed to know of that root crime that indicts his ruling order. For if he would, he would know the root truth: God is felt, not declared. The divine is within, not in the world of things that the modern priest of empire would point his gaze towards. That was the holy smuggle, the acceptance of an external (fabulously wealth, strangely) fortunate few who anointed themselves the divine. In fact it was as a child plays dress up, puts on the papal hat, dons themselves in royal garb, close of the eye - a look back and a wink - shaking the torso, and oppress! Oppress! the masses! For I - me, to whom thithe must flow - *am* the anointed of this world! Marxism as remembered history was never allowed to be anything more than a material descriptor of class oppression, for the root of its ontology would be too fragile, too easy too change, too outright in its fraud, too easy to pierce, too infantile in its logic, too penetrating of the armor, to ever be known. He must never be allowed to know that he the lived masses must simply choose to change the names, and from that lynchpin, change could not be stopped. For this was the terror of the literate society who could pierce its legible dispossession: all of it simply, if even it was to come from anything even at all other than the whims of the fickle foul tyrant, came from parchment that could be burned, words that could be changed. This was the terror that quakes eternally in the soft underbelly of the wealthy and the powerful. All of theirs is ours. All of this is the inheritance of the earth's children. It is not of this earth, not some divine heaven, from whence the dispossesison of our native song, sung sweet and low with the chariot of coming liberation, has been signed away with wicked declaration. It is simply no more and no less, than the curvatured form of the lettered alphabet that gives over through the right of charter, of tenure, of estate, of corporation, of creditor, of the bond, of the trust, of the possessor of the dispossessed, the native land of freedom. Progress has been installed onto this earth, and it behooves the soul not to fall into that Rousseauian fiction of pure abdication, to head into the wild of the state of nature, to perish without skill to handle the condition humanity of time's past found themselves in escape from. Rather, from what mind to we conceive of the things of this world? Do we truly say that the hivemind from which the fruits of this world are birthed, can somehow solely belong to the dispossessor? Our fiction at once begins with both negation and acceptance of the natural right of the individual. If it were true that the individual possessed, then property dispossession would not have occurred. If yet it did, and it is thusly upon which we construct our conception of property. *Whose* land it was, was always ignorant of whose land it was prior? Whose toil was it that turned that land to the things of the world? Thus, the conclusion I offer: the divine is not with the material world called forth by the supposedly divine names of the wealthy and powerful. God lives in the soul of the people of the world, and in the felt existence of the world. For oppressive procession of ancient time, we have been ruled by Cain and Abraham. The American Cain is the useage of property to hoard dispossessed wealth. The American Abraham is the sacrifice of love for the wealth of named property. Yet the thing is dying by its own hand. Do we not feel it? That is a foolish question of course we feel it. And now from this must a new covenant be born. We must refound. Else, the lived God will not be with us as we depart the past for the future. We will plunge into hell. And it shall be by the cruel callow fear, and sick obediant passivity, of our own hand. The relationship of the New Testament to the Old testament is at once a puzzle of historically and literarily. On the first level, the project of cobbling the Bible together into an Old Testament and New Testament comes from multiple sources. The historical roots of the Nww Testament - unified through intent. The project of the Old Testament is rather more nebulous.