Genesis On the Resource Wars…

From the Parsha of Toldot (Genesis 25: 19 -28:9)

“Isaac has now moved into the valley of Gerar (meaning: Lodging Place) and settled his family. Here alone I believe we can stop and look at what he has gone through. Surely we can say this was a man of faith. He had to believe that the L-rd truly intended to bless him as He had his father Abraham. Isaac demonstrated patience by never giving up on G-d, for the birth of his heirs. He trusted in the midst of a famine that the land he was led to would be blessed. He even had to trust, that now, as he was being “forced” from the land where he became so wealthy, that G-d still was faithful to keep His promises. We know that Abraham was a man of faith but likewise so was Isaac. Yet, it’s still not here where our lesson stems. It is in the land where Isaac has now settled, in the valley.

Isaac is in this valley, the very same place his father had been years before Isaac’s birth. Isaac now decides to re-dig the wells his father had once dug. He even intended to give each the same name his father had given to each. These wells had to be restored, because after the death of Abraham, the Philistines had sealed off all of the wells that Abraham had dug. As the servants of Isaac dug and discovered water, the herdsmen of the valley began to quarrel with Isaac’s men. These men demanded that the water of this new well belonged to them. This quarrel led Isaac to name the well Esek, which means “contention”. However, instead of stewing over or forcing his way into ownership of this well he moves on to dig another. Again, there is another argument of this the second well. Once more the long-suffering character of Isaac, which was formed through his twenty years of waiting on the L-rd for children, through his stay with the Philistines and here in the “lodging place”, becomes evident. Instead of arguing over this second well he leaves it as well and calls it Sitnah which means “enmity”. Many of us may be tempted to quit at this point and submit ourselves to the task of just trying to make as little stir as possible and not run the risk of having our work stolen from us again. Not Isaac.

Just when it seems as though every well Isaac seeks to dig will be stolen by the people of the valley, his servants dig another well. Isaac doesn’t stop and think what if I dig this well and they come and take it from me again. Instead, he decides he will dig once more. If the L-rd has blessed him then no man can stop that blessing. Isaac’s faith further deepened his resolve to go out and dig one more time. It is this well where, finally, no conflict arises……”

My Comment

And likewise with inventing or writing or starting a business….

The libertarian way is to move on, realizing that the answer to a fight over resources or markets (or attribution), is to move to a new place. It’s also the thesis of a popular business book, The Blue Ocean Strategy

Unlike Malthusians or Marxists, the true free marketer (unlike the opportunistic free marketer) recognizes that neither resources nor markets nor credit are really limited (they might sometimes seem to be) and that only the uncreative needs to poach.

Christopher Dawson on Hostility to Religion (Comment added)

“Behind this vague tendency to treat religion as a side issue in modern life, there exists a strong body of opinion that is actively hostile to Christianity and that regards the destruction of positive religion as absolutely necessary to the advance of modern culture.”

—  Christopher Dawson

My Comment:

As I’ve written, I am an agnostic and a skeptic….not so much about God, as about language. Which means, I read Dawson or Voegelin, with as much attention (or inattention) as I read Marx. The latter does not seem any more “scientific” than the former to me. Indeed, the only thing that makes something a religion is the hostility to opposition that adheres to it. [correction: this is an overstatement. It should read “one of the things that make something a religion.”] From that point of view, most of those who believe themselves to be actively hostile to “god” and “religion” are actually devout believers – their temperament is exactly like the rabid fundamentalists they denounce.

I, on the other hand, believe myself to be a Christian agnostic and a Christian skeptic.

How can I subscribe to such a contradiction in terms? [For those unfamiliar with theology, there are many leading theologians who are quite skeptical or even unbelieving in “god”].

For me, it is not a question of lacking faith in God. That is quite a simple-minded kind of contrarianism.

My heresy is a little deeper. I lack faith in language.  I have no faith in words as a fixed repository of meaning.

As for “god” – the conventions and symbols one grows up with can never really be uprooted and it seems wiser and truer to accept them as equally the outgrowth of the mind as logic or empiricism.  If I must confess disbelief in “god,” then I must confess it equally in “man,” “truth,” “justice” or “logic,” “you” or “me.”

What naive empiricists never realize is that what endows facts with their “factuality” is the “mind.” There is no escaping that.

Not do we have to go from naive empiricism to naive idealism, i.e., we don’t have to leap from “just the facts, ma’am” to “Just my opinion.”

Instead, we continually adjust our thoughts and subjective experience to the hard edges of facts so-called, to the limitations of objective experience. We do that through the refinement of our language. We continually reflect the tension of existence in a conditional, fractured, and fluctuating reality through language that expresses the contradiction and paradoxes inherent in our existence as mind-body.

In that spirit, I have no problem with affirming:

Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, factorem caeli et terrae, visibilium omnium et invisibilium…..