The conversation is between the brothers, not a deity and man.
Abel, the pastoralist, can only see worth in the livestock he cares for.
Oblivious of the lifegiving ground and grass, he can not understand Cain who spends his life nurturing the plant life springing from the very ground of his own being.
No wonder they can not communicate and come to blows (in the mind of the narrator).
I find it also significant that Cain is not to be killed!
His own struggle to expand people's awareness and empathy around him is the "cross" he bears.
I wonder if Yung had anything to say about *this* Biblical story.
(I read somewhere that these stories are not for believing but to be argued—viz, the logical process—about).
Thank you, Stella for reminding me of this conversation from nearly two years ago.
An other interest of this story is the potential conflict between pastoralists and farmers. obviously the latter would not be very tolerant about herds of animals being driven across sowed fields growing growing crops.
"...Is God Himself not clever enough to design a parable that teaches about property rights and acceptance of nature’s inequality in a way that also teaches basic compassion?..."
Thanks for these deep-running musings.
I have to limit my response to your question above.
This allows me to engage on a level I feel home at: economic justice, property rights, *difference* between inequality with nature and with fellow humans; ownership claims over pieces of nature and man-made artefacts; negotiating for survival (work) with nature as opposed to other humans (invitation to exploitation and power-play)...
Abel had to own his flock to survive, Cain had to have access to land sufficient in size and quality in order to live.
But when God-given land is claimed as private property by another man both Abel and Cain become dependent on the pleasure of the “landlord”—that archaic human, fully endorsed by established religions a legal norms.
Here a God, with a minimum sense of operational justice, should thunder: “Thou shalt compensate your brother with a generous Unconditional Basic Income sufficient to cover the basic life-necessities of food, clothing and shelter”...
What a unique interpretation of the story!
The conversation is between the brothers, not a deity and man.
Abel, the pastoralist, can only see worth in the livestock he cares for.
Oblivious of the lifegiving ground and grass, he can not understand Cain who spends his life nurturing the plant life springing from the very ground of his own being.
No wonder they can not communicate and come to blows (in the mind of the narrator).
I find it also significant that Cain is not to be killed!
His own struggle to expand people's awareness and empathy around him is the "cross" he bears.
I wonder if Yung had anything to say about *this* Biblical story.
(I read somewhere that these stories are not for believing but to be argued—viz, the logical process—about).
Thank you, Stella for reminding me of this conversation from nearly two years ago.
An other interest of this story is the potential conflict between pastoralists and farmers. obviously the latter would not be very tolerant about herds of animals being driven across sowed fields growing growing crops.
Abel, thanks for your exegesis, and excuse the Abel-Abel coincidence. You are the last one who would ever behave in that manner.
"...Is God Himself not clever enough to design a parable that teaches about property rights and acceptance of nature’s inequality in a way that also teaches basic compassion?..."
Thanks for these deep-running musings.
I have to limit my response to your question above.
This allows me to engage on a level I feel home at: economic justice, property rights, *difference* between inequality with nature and with fellow humans; ownership claims over pieces of nature and man-made artefacts; negotiating for survival (work) with nature as opposed to other humans (invitation to exploitation and power-play)...
Abel had to own his flock to survive, Cain had to have access to land sufficient in size and quality in order to live.
But when God-given land is claimed as private property by another man both Abel and Cain become dependent on the pleasure of the “landlord”—that archaic human, fully endorsed by established religions a legal norms.
Here a God, with a minimum sense of operational justice, should thunder: “Thou shalt compensate your brother with a generous Unconditional Basic Income sufficient to cover the basic life-necessities of food, clothing and shelter”...