As I grapple with my inclination to self isolate in the wake of an unusually harsh depressive episode, I cling to somewhat bombastic thought experiments that might seem a bit...abrupt? I apologize for that.
Please suspend your disdain for my self-indulgent dramatics, and grapple Atlas with me.
Anyone can claim to be the antichrist. This, however, doesn’t innately connect their self-perception to a theological system. “Antichrist” is an idea that exists as a product of opposition to a pre-established faith system. Said faith system lodges itself in a narrative format–it embodies the figural projection of narrative trajectories referred to in the text itself–in this case, biblical scriptures. This, by default, makes the notion of antichrist innately antagonistic to the religious trajectory, the spiritual goal. It’s an attempt to undo a story that is, in and of itself, an expression.
Since western media masticated religious literature and spat it out, half digested pieces of pop-culture mixed with recognizable iconography landed in the dirt and sprouted sects of imbeciles who bastardize something fascinating and allegorically complex. Movies like The Omen (1976), The Exorcist (1973), or even those glorifying Christian sanctity like Gabriel (2007) or Legion (2010) simplify rich literary structures into binary oppositions of good v.s bad.
The truth, of course, is much more interesting. Angels and devils are only part of a communicative network built of agents who operate closely with God: the prophets.
proph·et ˈprä-fət. : one who utters divinely inspired revelations, the writer of one of the prophetic books of the Bible, one regarded by a group of followers as the final authoritative revealer of God's will.
The persona of “prophet” changes throughout the old testament and biblical literature in general, but I think it’s useful to recognize the Israel “holy man” as a fundamentally transient character. This person, by nature of their own history, moves through space but seldom anchors themselves to one location or really one particular demographic.
For the sake of discussing Atlas, I think it’s important to attach his self-characterization to that of Elijah in the book of Kings. To contextualize Elijah’s character, in Kings 1, David describes the ideal royal relationship that the regency should have with God:
he
And keep the charge of the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses, that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest, and whithersoever thou turnest thyself:
That the LORD may continue his word which he spake concerning me, saying, If thy children take heed to their way, to walk before me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, there shall not fail thee (said he) a man on the throne of Israel. (1 Kings, 2:3-4)
David connects his offspring to the polytheistic establishers of the Hebrew faith as a source of structure and dependability. Enforce old laws to ensure future stability—the days of the burning bush are past us, and we don’t ask for miracles….but God still pays out a miracle or two to the progeny of David:
I have given thee a wise and an understanding heart; so that there was none like thee before thee, neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee. (1 Kings 3:12)
Wisdom becomes, rather than a byproduct of a difficult life and spiritual growth, a royal gift bestowed by adherence to the customs and beliefs that unite the kingdom of David.
Reading this as a literary piece, however, suggests that biblical authorship instead equates the two things—Solomon’s gift of wisdom, bestowed by God, proves receivable after Solomon’s adherence to the customs and beliefs of the old kingdom. This suggests that Solomon’s wisdom derives from time spent “walking with God,” or practicing Hebrew customs, which is indiscernible from divine bestowal.
So now that we have established God’s gifts as a direct result of mythological, textual and spiritual comprehension, what can we say about the actual prophets? Are their gifts a spiritual lens through which one can see truth, or a divine third-eye cataract surgery?
The text introduces Elijah as such:
And Elijah the Tishbite, who was of the inhabitants of Gilead, said unto Ahab, As the LORD God of Israel liveth, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to my word. (1 Kings 17:1)
Elijah enters the literary scene slinging prophetic wisdom at any cognisant mammal in his immediate vicinity. His transient nature, however, proves his saving grace:
Get thee hence, and turn thee eastward, and hide thyself by the brook Cherith, that is before Jordan. And it shall be, that thou shalt drink of the brook; and I have commanded the ravens to feed thee there. So he went and did according unto the word of the LORD: for he went and dwelt by the brook Cherith, that is before Jordan. (1 Kings 17:3-5)
God says, Elijah does. This relationship directly reflects the relationship of God and Abraham in Genesis. The holy man hears God’s word as fundamentally key to survival—and those who choose to entertain Elijah’s prophecy often become the subjects of miracles themselves:
Arise, get thee to Zarephath, which belongeth to Zidon, and dwell there: behold, I have commanded a widow woman there to sustain thee. (1 Kings 17:9)
Elijah is on the move–from Cherith to Zarephath, he moves from place to place. Previously the charge of ravens, Elijah’s prophetic audience grows to encompass a widow and her son.
So he arose and went to Zarephath. And when he came to the gate of the city, behold, the widow woman was there gathering of sticks: and he called to her, and said, Fetch me, I pray thee, a little water in a vessel, that I may drink. (1 Kings 17:10)
It’s interesting to note here that Elijah lacks any sort of sexual contact with this woman–embedded in the narrative and the context of meeting, Elijah isn’t a pragmatic care taker, but one of spiritual vitality.
For reference, most if not all, biblical patriarchs meet their wives in a recognizable trope known as “the woman at the well.” Rather than dipping for water, this nameless widow gathers sticks with the assumption that her and her son will die after eating the small amount of food they have left. I’m sure Elijah wondered why he left the ravens, who brought him flesh and bread every night without complaint but in this case the “peopling” of Elijah’s prophetic audience was mutually beneficial.
When the widow protests giving Elijah food, he says:
Fear not; go and do as thou hast said: but make me thereof a little cake first, and bring it unto me, and after make for thee and for thy son. For thus saith the LORD God of Israel, The barrel of meal shall not waste, neither shall the cruse of oil fail, until the day that the LORD sendeth rain upon the earth. (1 Kings 17:13-14)
Elijah shows two specialized knowledge bases in this section:
How to make a small amount of food last for an extended period of time.
When it will rain.
Assuming these events depict a characterizing social transaction (i.e, not necessarily a literal event but a description of behavior that isn’t necessarily using divine intervention as an allegorical device), these two key pieces of information suggest a developed skill set that most people did not possess.
Now let’s project Elijah’s characterization onto a conversation I had with Atlas–because that’s what we’re here for, right?
Atlas believes that autistic people have historically operated as spiritual leaders and lone travelers (druids, prophets, traveling holy men / women).
Vessels of knowledge.
Wise hermits.
Wondering wizards.
With an infectious burst of laughter, Atlas once told me “Do you think neuro-typical people thought of Stonehenge?! Autistic people thought of Stonehenge, they just told everyone else what to do!”
Can’t disagree with them there…
In order to explain recondite knowledge acquired through isolated and specified special interests, they might skip the self-justification explanations and say “my knowledge is a gift from god, so just do what I’m telling you to do.” Inevitably the hyper specific knowledge held by the neuro-divergent individual surpasses the socially motivated habitat dweller, and the individual can’t explain the knowledge outside of their socio-religious context.
So now we have two kinds of wisdom that need to be unpacked:
Solomon’s wisdom: the knowledge of rulers that use religion to keep a people united.
The wisdom of Elijah who "communes with God" to perform food conservation and medical "miracles" (1 Kings 17:18-22), and later predictions of specific events.
One form of knowledge is general, authoritarian, and the other is specified and tailored to a specific moment.
In many ways, this reminds me of Atlas’s many inventions and fixations. Obsessed with hardware, Atlas ceaselessly works on perfecting innovations designed to ease a unique burden.
For Atlas, the similarities between them, and the transient biblical prophets leads to an inevitable link undeniable through neuro-divergent recognition. Spanning centuries, Atlas came to understand his own role in the human ethos as one recognizable in ancient literary structures.
They saw Elijah, and thought, “I see you, I know you.”
So Atlas saw it, and they lived it.
They left their home, their people, and their post-apocalyptic mundane open-mic comforts. They shed the interface, the screen, the mask that allowed them to populate modern society as an undetected relic. Instead they started enacting themselves, their role, their potential. And they changed lives doing it.
But no interface carried direct contact with the outside world as an inevitable consequence. No mask, no protection, no screen to block the onslaught of social and sensory input.
More on that soon.
For quotes, I used the King James Bible—it’s not ideal, and I have an academic bible with me as well. I felt that the most accessible version of biblical text is, for better or worse, the King James translation.
Sorry this post was a bit delayed, life is hard. XO
C
Comments