Skip to main content

In "By the waters of Babylon," what does John's discovery about the gods make him realize?

Obviously, John's discovery makes him revise his religious beliefs. The ancients were neither "gods nor demons" but men. Religious edicts can no longer be justified on the basis of their divinity, and John clearly intends to violate some of the old laws. In the last paragraph of the story, he notes the city's name, and indicates his intention to take others into the city. In the first paragraph of the story, we're told that such actions have been "most strictly forbidden."


But John's realizations extend beyond the immediate theological implications. When he thought the ancients were gods, he regarded their achievements as beyond the reach of human beings. For instance, consider what he says about his dream—the dream where he witnesses a busy New York street at night:



"As I looked upon them and their magic, I felt like a child—but little more, it seemed to me, and they would pull down the moon from the sky.  I saw them with wisdom beyond wisdom and knowledge beyond knowledge. And yet not all they did was well done—even I could see that—their wisdom could not but grow until all was peace."



He perceived imperfection in the gods, but nevertheless believed they possessed "wisdom beyond wisdom." Their intellectual and technological feats appeared to be unattainable by mortals.


After his discovery, John indicates his intention to study the writings of the ancients and use this knowledge to advance society. ("We must build again.") He now believes it is possible to achieve some of the feats of the ancients. In fact, he even thinks it is possible to improve on their record—to follow in their footsteps without making the same mistakes. This is supported by John's analysis of what the ancients might have done wrong:



"[I]t is better that truth come little by little. I have learned that, being a priest. Perhaps, in the old days, they ate knowledge too fast."


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.