Schlain reports the Tem Commandments are some of the first words ever written, and they lay the groundwork for a patriarchal, dominating attitude. With respect to ethics, Schlain considers them some of the most ethical laws the world had (or HAS) ever seen. However, their very existence came with a cost. I feel the need to explicate Sclain's insights, as they are very interesting/relevant, and I missed them in my review of the commandments.

Firstly, Schlain finds it notable that the idea of loving thy neighbor is NOT included within the commandments (this is in the book of Leviticus later on in the Torah/Old testament). Honoring thy parents and owning thy wife, yes. But not loving thy neighbor. I know I tried to make commandment 9 capture the idea of the universal human neighbor, but upon second view, it is truly not in there. Also: I watered down commandment 10 to include all material things without noticing that woman were made as much a possession of a man as his donkey.

Second, the commandments come out of a story not about a flawless epic hero � as was the custom for religious stories up until that time - but a flawed (and real) person leading a flawed (and real) people. The Old Testament as a whole too the focus is on prophets, not Epic heroes, who judge and condemn people, not accomplish heroic feats. This shift shows a focus from the greatness of a social group to each individual person. And that person is made to be ethically responsible for following the rules of the one and only God. Good news: everyone acts more ethically because they are personally bound in it. As stated before, the idea of an individual�s specific actions being morally scrutinized by the universe was a revolution with revolutionary consequences. Bad news: all those who do not follow the one god are in violation of the decree. They are worthy of punishment by God. They are, in turn, also deemed worthy of punishment by other people.

I have already written about non-oppression. Well, I missed the idea that Schlain shows about how oppressive the commandments are. In being "thou shall" they are based in that oppression by an external force. They thus fosters a morality that oppresses other people who are found to be in violation of the rules.

Third, the God of the Ten Commandments has no time for competing views. Schlain writes that the shift to the monotheistic God of the Old Testament was a shift towards people believing they stood for the one and only God who decreed the one and only way of doing things. Henceforth, the religious war became a common occurrence (to this day). We started condemning and killing each other for our abstract ideas about the universe.

What folly this is. To be so certain one is right that one condemns and kills is unacceptable. I have already written about being non-oppressive with our morality. I have already written about human frailty being a cornerstone of our principles, and that the expectation of perfection in others is none and in ourselves is slim to none. I would just like to take the inspiration from Schlain and restate that BEING UNCERTAIN about how right we are when we decide to represent a principle in action is a principle in and of itself worth being devoted to.

Is Schlain's thesis correct? Was writing and the Ten Commandments the naissance of monotheism, certainty and thus religious war and ethical violence? Maybe. But it does not matter. I think Schlain's work serves best to simple elucidate and reiterate the importance of the being uncertain in our principles. To both devote energy and time to representing them, but also to remain unsure in our minds and our words about them.

(A side note: I think that Jesus, in many biblical instances, clearly turns the masculine-rational-dominant-violent principles on their head. So Schlain appears to make premature conclusions.)

What does it mean to remain uncertain? I have a few ideas: To keep an open mind. To engage in discussion for the purpose of entertaining other points of view. To always try to see the contexts where a principle is clearly virtuous and also where a principle is not valuable at all. To ask yourself what is incorrect and also what is correct when looking at an opinion, an argument or the expressions of another human being. To be open to other ways of knowing other than critical rational ones. A short list of various knowlegdes (from wikipedia (Sorry)): logic, sensory perception, revelation, faith, memory, consensus, authority, intuition, and self-awareness. To be uncertain is to give all of these paths equal and high regard.

There are books on other (usually feminine) ways of knowing. I will look into these, and write more.