So yeah, I think you're right that trying to foist some of God onto Science instead of the CEO tripped me up. Because M&A is so relational, and when you think about it, Schoenberg's idea of representing God is incredibly daring and bold and risky and so central to establishing who Moses is in the first scenes. And science isn't something that you can relate to in the same way because it's avolitional. Though maybe that's worth exploring- how do you have faith in something that can't make a decision to honor your faith? How does faith in a mechanistic 'God' work? (Consider our conversations about my Jewish definition of emunah and its two-sided obligations when I'm talking about faith).
I dug up this paper I wrote on M&A in college last night and skimmed it. I'll send it to you later if you want, but one thing I'd written that I'd since forgotten about is a claim that because M&A is so relational in its structure, neither Aaron nor Moses can function without the other- in addition to Moses having an Ich-Du relationship with God and Aaron having an Ich-Du relationship with the People, Moses and Aaron have an Ich-Du relationship that attempts to bridge the gap. And interestingly, I claim that Schoenberg deliberately minimizes Moses's role and expands Aaron's, compared to the original Biblical story. I did a close reading of Exodus in the paper and pointed out all the places where Aaron's role is minimal or nonexistent and Schoenberg expanded it. And one of my hypotheses of why the parting of the sea is removed is that in Exodus, Aaron's barely involved in that story. So it's interesting to me that in analyzing your story I claimed that Aaron's role has once again been increased relative to its inspiration. I think that says something about Exodus and its perspective on the relationship.
In any case, yes, it was clear to me in reading that Moses was right in the sense that the science was right, but it's also not clear to me that following Moses's position would have saved their jobs. Isn't the point of this story that they were faced with an impossible choice between obeying the science and pleasing the customer? I'm also, as a fellow science/engineering person, a little more skeptical than you that in engineering there IS a correct answer rather than a particular balance of the cost-benefit analysis. In my experience the engineer who's unwilling to unbend a little bit from his idealized design in order to fit the customer's needs is often the one in the wrong.
But one thing I think is great about the CEO in a relational sense is in the golden calf fiasco when Aaron yells at Moses for being unavailable for forty days, that you also have Aaron say "I even tried to contact the CEO, but she's gone mountain-climbing or something." That's such a brilliant point, that we don't in either the Biblical account or the Schoenberg account see Aaron try to make direct contact with God. Though there are some Midrashim that try to address the question. A lot of Midrash is devoted to trying to justify Aaron's actions, and several include details that suggest Aaron acted passively and miracles happened that created the Golden Calf, suggesting that God perhaps did encourage the creation, or at least allowed the people to get what they wanted. For example there's a midrash that says that Aaron just threw the gold in the fire and a calf came out.
As regards Merivah, now that is something I have opinions and theories about. Have you seen my story Two Princes? Two Princes. Which is more about the politics of Numbers 20 than it is about the philosophy of Numbers 20, because there's a great political drama in that story alongside the theology.
Generally speaking I read Numbers 20 as being about the simple fact that even saints screw up (I'm not sure if Christians actually believe that, but Jews sure do). The Rabbis teach that God holds saints to a higher standard of behavior, so that sins that would just get added to the tally for ordinary people become magnified in their punishment for the righteous, because God only demands of us what we're capable of. Thus the claim is that Moses's sin is inscrutable because if any of us had done what Moses did God wouldn't have punished us.
Moses's likeability is an interesting point. In my giant M&A primer post I wrote "Meet Moses. He's a giant asshole. No, I dare you to show me a bigger asshole than Moses." I think one of the really interesting character choices Schoenberg makes is in suggesting that Moses actively doesn't like the fact that he is being called to save the people. Like, he has a Jonah complex. I think this interpretation is defensible from the text in a reaching sort of way. You can point to things like Moses calling them a stiff-necked people, to the way the Israelite he saved from the taskmaster yelled at him, to his reluctance to accept the call at the Burning Bush. But you can counter that stuff with the other side of the coin, in the Bible- Moses's connection to his family, his clear identification with the Israelite nation, his defense of the Israelites when God wants to destroy them- Schoenberg strips most of that away.
So I can understand struggling to like Moses, and yeah, I agree with you that the main effort Schoenberg makes in that direction is the "das mir fehlt" line, which savaged me the first time I heard it and still hurts like hell every time I hear it. As I also wrote in my big M&A post, "All he has is his God, and he feels abandoned by God, because God was supposed to bring redemption and deliverance and instead has only brought estrangement. Poor Moses. But don't feel bad, Moses is still a huge asshole."
But I don't know... ultimately I get over it, because I identify so deeply with Moses's struggle?
no subject
So yeah, I think you're right that trying to foist some of God onto Science instead of the CEO tripped me up. Because M&A is so relational, and when you think about it, Schoenberg's idea of representing God is incredibly daring and bold and risky and so central to establishing who Moses is in the first scenes. And science isn't something that you can relate to in the same way because it's avolitional. Though maybe that's worth exploring- how do you have faith in something that can't make a decision to honor your faith? How does faith in a mechanistic 'God' work? (Consider our conversations about my Jewish definition of emunah and its two-sided obligations when I'm talking about faith).
I dug up this paper I wrote on M&A in college last night and skimmed it. I'll send it to you later if you want, but one thing I'd written that I'd since forgotten about is a claim that because M&A is so relational in its structure, neither Aaron nor Moses can function without the other- in addition to Moses having an Ich-Du relationship with God and Aaron having an Ich-Du relationship with the People, Moses and Aaron have an Ich-Du relationship that attempts to bridge the gap. And interestingly, I claim that Schoenberg deliberately minimizes Moses's role and expands Aaron's, compared to the original Biblical story. I did a close reading of Exodus in the paper and pointed out all the places where Aaron's role is minimal or nonexistent and Schoenberg expanded it. And one of my hypotheses of why the parting of the sea is removed is that in Exodus, Aaron's barely involved in that story. So it's interesting to me that in analyzing your story I claimed that Aaron's role has once again been increased relative to its inspiration. I think that says something about Exodus and its perspective on the relationship.
In any case, yes, it was clear to me in reading that Moses was right in the sense that the science was right, but it's also not clear to me that following Moses's position would have saved their jobs. Isn't the point of this story that they were faced with an impossible choice between obeying the science and pleasing the customer? I'm also, as a fellow science/engineering person, a little more skeptical than you that in engineering there IS a correct answer rather than a particular balance of the cost-benefit analysis. In my experience the engineer who's unwilling to unbend a little bit from his idealized design in order to fit the customer's needs is often the one in the wrong.
But one thing I think is great about the CEO in a relational sense is in the golden calf fiasco when Aaron yells at Moses for being unavailable for forty days, that you also have Aaron say "I even tried to contact the CEO, but she's gone mountain-climbing or something." That's such a brilliant point, that we don't in either the Biblical account or the Schoenberg account see Aaron try to make direct contact with God. Though there are some Midrashim that try to address the question. A lot of Midrash is devoted to trying to justify Aaron's actions, and several include details that suggest Aaron acted passively and miracles happened that created the Golden Calf, suggesting that God perhaps did encourage the creation, or at least allowed the people to get what they wanted. For example there's a midrash that says that Aaron just threw the gold in the fire and a calf came out.
As regards Merivah, now that is something I have opinions and theories about. Have you seen my story Two Princes? Two Princes. Which is more about the politics of Numbers 20 than it is about the philosophy of Numbers 20, because there's a great political drama in that story alongside the theology.
Generally speaking I read Numbers 20 as being about the simple fact that even saints screw up (I'm not sure if Christians actually believe that, but Jews sure do). The Rabbis teach that God holds saints to a higher standard of behavior, so that sins that would just get added to the tally for ordinary people become magnified in their punishment for the righteous, because God only demands of us what we're capable of. Thus the claim is that Moses's sin is inscrutable because if any of us had done what Moses did God wouldn't have punished us.
Moses's likeability is an interesting point. In my giant M&A primer post I wrote "Meet Moses. He's a giant asshole. No, I dare you to show me a bigger asshole than Moses." I think one of the really interesting character choices Schoenberg makes is in suggesting that Moses actively doesn't like the fact that he is being called to save the people. Like, he has a Jonah complex. I think this interpretation is defensible from the text in a reaching sort of way. You can point to things like Moses calling them a stiff-necked people, to the way the Israelite he saved from the taskmaster yelled at him, to his reluctance to accept the call at the Burning Bush. But you can counter that stuff with the other side of the coin, in the Bible- Moses's connection to his family, his clear identification with the Israelite nation, his defense of the Israelites when God wants to destroy them- Schoenberg strips most of that away.
So I can understand struggling to like Moses, and yeah, I agree with you that the main effort Schoenberg makes in that direction is the "das mir fehlt" line, which savaged me the first time I heard it and still hurts like hell every time I hear it. As I also wrote in my big M&A post, "All he has is his God, and he feels abandoned by God, because God was supposed to bring redemption and deliverance and instead has only brought estrangement. Poor Moses. But don't feel bad, Moses is still a huge asshole."
But I don't know... ultimately I get over it, because I identify so deeply with Moses's struggle?