Suppose that 'meaning' is a faint word scribbled on a wall in a dark room. The words that we use are often barriers that separate, then, our 'comprehension' from 'meaning.' Let us suppose then that the light of the intention of a speaker is obscured by a 'word.' The angle and setup of that intention then, along with the angle and setup of the comprehension of the listener, can distort or disguise the true meaning of what the speaker is saying. Of course, the angle and setup of these things can vary greatly, just as easily as the shadows that cover 'meaning' can vary. It would seem best, then, with this in mind, to communicate as transparently as possible and to avoid and/or to detect deceit whenever possible. Dishonesty and misdirection, whether deliberate or otherwise, in the speaker or in the listener, always risk shrouding 'meaning.' When communicating earnestly, distraction can be dangerous. Shrewdness is recommended.
I take a lot of Genesis as an allegory for birth and maturation, both individually and collectively. The Garden of Eden could easily be interpreted as the womb, and we are all cast out of it at some point. Genesis 2:24 says "This is why a man leaves his father and mother and bonds with his wife, and they become one flesh." Though people use this passage to refer to the tradition of marriage, I think that it speaks to something much, much deeper than that. Literally, when two people copulate, they create a child that is of one flesh. They do not "become one flesh" because they engage in a ritual institution and are now "to be viewed as comprising a single identity," but they literally become one flesh because their genetic compositions are joined into a new being (Mark 10:8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”). That being said, I read somewhere once that babies born in every part of the world make phonetic sounds from pretty much every language in the world. It is only after a period of time that they start to key in on certain sounds that the people around them are making, and it is only after that that children key in enough to start developing more advanced language skills (typically). However, in this original state, there is a freedom. There are no assumptions. There is an innocence in that state. There is a lack of judgement. There comes a point at which babies/young children begin to mimic and to incorporate what they are experiencing from the creatures around them into themselves. To small creatures with an undeveloped sense of self or reality, the caregivers around them may as well be gods, at least from their perspective. They will learn from these gods around them and will begin to embody their cultural beliefs, their language, their idiosyncrasies, and their perceptions, often on a deeply unconscious level. Adults contribute to that quite thoroughly and somewhat consciously. (Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness..") (Genesis 11:7 7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.) In our own way as individuals, we are each a Tower of Babel, and at some point, for each of us, that Tower fell. Barriers to communication of so many kinds were created for and/or by us. Perhaps we still spend time constructing new barriers and thinking up new ways to distance ourselves from the rest of our kind. I chose to use the phrase "materialism" to express how children engender these attributes of caregivers and others alike. However, this can easily be exchanged for a phrase like "socialism," or "corporate capitalism," or nearly any other thing that you can probably think of. Children are like sponges. They soak up even more than we realize. Most widespread religions in the world have some form of renunciation belief or ritual wherein an individual must 'cast off' the old self and put on the new. This is because, regardless of where or when a child is born in the world, the perspectives of the people around them raising them will likely leave much to be desired. It is necessary for beings to continue to learn, and this often entails a serious consideration of what was instilled into them at an earlier time. It is quintessential that we question and evaluate these things since the state of the world will have changed by the time that we reach maturation. The ideas that people gave us may apply to a world that is already different. The story of the Tower of Babel may refer to a state that earlier humans lived in, perhaps on a shared continent, in which the manners in which they communicated were similar. Then, at some point, perhaps these same peoples went off on their travels and developed new languages. In a funny way, we seem to do that as individuals. At some point, we strike out on our own, even if only a little. Though we may differ on surface level behaviors and in the symbols that we use to describe the human experience, human beings are more or less fundamentally the same. We let our differences create so, so, so many barriers between ourselves and other beings. Just think of all of the harm that things like xenophobia, racism, intolerance, and a lack of an ability to communicate verbally with one another have done to our species. Even beyond that, just think of how easily we dismiss the inner lives and inner experiences of creatures different than ourselves simply because they do not communicate verbally with us in our preferred tongue. Research is overwhelmingly in support of other beings communicating with others of their kind, whether we as individuals acknowledge it or not.. Some of us are just really into denial about it. We could achieve remarkably wonderful things, if only we would learn to recognize the similarities of our experiences. (Matthew 19:6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”)
We take things in and digest them before regurgitating them or expelling them again through our being. This is true of many aspects of our reality, not just of caloric intake. We take things in through the senses, through the person. We digest with our intellect and with our perception. Then we are able to share that back out through the senses, through our behaviours, and through our being. Food builds our body even as our experiences build our character. The real mark of a mature human being is developing deeper levels of discretion and recognizing more intimate forms of subtlety. Not everyone likes grapes, but to condemn grapes as evil is not prosperous to our species. Some like cherries, but not all enjoy their flavour. Grapes and cherries are still nutritious even though some have allergies to them. And not all cherries and grapes are ripe and nutritious at all times in all places. We must carry this knowledge into the development of our judgement. If it is important and worth while to discuss food and material nutrition, then it is much more essential that we evolve a greater sense of discretion for experience and for the holistic palette of our physical, emotional, intellectual, social, and spiritual tongues. We do that through consumption and digestion. But be aware that a human being can not live on grapes and cherries alone. We should also do our best to not condemn the taste buds or stomachs of ourselves or others. Namaste.
Some people do not even begin to comprehend the meaning of the words "irony" or "hypocrisy." Let's try hard to not be those people, okay? Trust me, you have faults, too. Same as everybody. Perspective is largely subjective~ (I drew this with a sharpie. No pencilwork. I don't want to color it.)
I highly recommend the book, Gender and Competition: How Men and Women Approach Work and Play Differently, by Kathleen J. DeBoer. In it, among other things, she elucidates that those with a conceptually masculine perspective (regardless of sex) are drawn to thinking of the world in hierarchies, which I have represented here with a triangle in the mind of the spotter on the left. She elaborates that those with a conceptually feminine perspective (again, regardless of sex) are draw to thinking of the world in webs, which I have represented here with a circle. Those that think more masculine-ly are more likely to expect beginners in a sport or field to prove themselves in the group. They will often not "hold their punches" (i.e. curb their ability) to make newcomers comfortable. All members of the group are expected to "earn their keep," in a sense. When a member of the group exceeds expectations, they move up in the hierarchy. Contrary to that, those that think more feminine-ly likely show acceptance and approval to beginners in order to foster an environment in which they will perform. They will often adjust their skills so that newcomers can more readily "keep up." When a member of the group exceeds expectations, they are expected to raise the status of the group as a whole. The playing field is "flattened" in that sense. I am not advocating for either perspective, but I will share that I have a more conceptually feminine perspective, and that I have previously left groups whose members have a more masculine perspective. Kathleen's book really helped me personally to understand the motivations of people that I genuinely did not understand prior to reading the book. It put a lot into perspective for me, and I hold fewer grudges these days. Cheers, fam~