Well, two things:

1. There is a distinct difference between material (or substance) monism, and Abrahamic monotheism (as you touched on a bit). Monism supports a theory of reality that is, ultimately, singular universe, lacking a transcendental. Abrahamic monotheism, on the other hand, necessitates a god which exists as "other than..." It is a god which, by necessity, must exist separate from the universe, so as to look at the universe, and exist before the universe. Furthermore, the Abrahamic mythological heaven calls for, at the very least, one transcendental realm.

2. While Thales and the Abrahamic thinkers existed in a similar, larger society (Greece, Egypt, ext), I think that they were, necessarily, in separate milieus. To explain the relationship between the two, I find that Nietzsche probably was pretty spot on with his analysis in "The Genealogy of Morality." Essentially, the milieu that was not in "power," the Abrahamic thinkers, reacted through resentment to achieve superior power (and I think that the fact that Monism is rarely followed outside of the Asia is rather strong evidence of this). As for the time period of the Abrahamic thinkers vs. the Presocratics, the original Abrahamic thinkers and the Presocratics are, generally, around the same time (I recently read an article on Yahoo about finding a manuscript of part of the old testament from 900 BCE [ http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20100115/sc_l... ]). So to think that one may have been responding to the other in the manor of opposition is not necessarily an incorrect way of thinking about a possible relationship.

Furthermore, one thing we have to keep in mind is that, for the Greeks, the gods lived among them. They shared a world, though the gods simply lived in a different part of it. While this thinking took a somewhat drastic turn with Plato/Socrates, at the time of Thales, the notion that the gods walked among you was not so out there.

P.S. How can you talk about Substance Monism without mentioning Spinoza?! Shock and dismay!
More on this later. I have to actually work now.

I wasn't going for a particularly linked conception of the three ideas. I was more trying to get conversation about the idea of Origin and the three different conceptions going, than to present a theory about how the three ideas are linked. I wasn't trying to present a specific stand-point or argument, but was simply trying to start a conversation about the ideas. I hoped that some of the more interesting notions, such as you mentioned with their links to sexuality, would be fleshed out in conversation in the comments.

As to how they are linked, though, they are, at the very least, linked through the placement in the metaphysical construction of the mythology. They are all found at the Origin Peg of creation, and represent what comes first in the minds of those who try to conceive of the beginning of the universe. And with each step (lets assume that they develop, chronologically as I have presented them above) it seems as though they are moving behind what is already assumed: they are finding the presupposition of the current origin, and discovering what must, necessarily, come before it. Thus, for water to flow, it must have time to flow, and for time to pass, there must be space for things to happen (to, presumably, perceive the movement of time).

What's interesting to me, though, is less how they may link to one another, and how they may reflect notions of sexuality, but more what they represent in the metaphysical thinking associated with the ideas.

Take Chronos, Time, for instance. Placing Chronos at the Origin Peg of reality has an interesting affect on the cyclical conception of time. Continuing with our representation of the wheel, the theory presents us with a conception of time as one solid wheel, as opposed to one that is dependent on the existence of something else. But at the same time, for the wheel to move, it necessitates something for it to move on (the Origin Peg), placing the Time/Chronos both as time and, at the same time, outside of time. It becomes an unmoving entity which exists outside of time, by that must, necessarily, contain all events which take place within it.

Now, to fully understand this conception of time, we must attempt to think of time, and the events which flow within it, from the standpoint of Chronos, the Origin Peg. It presents us with a theory of time which is most interesting. From the perception of Chronos, then, all things happen at once, he can perceive all events which happen within him. What makes it especially interesting is to think of this idea concurrently with the rest of Greek mythological history, such as the castration of Chronos and his actions leading up to it. It presents us with a "Dr. Manhattan" version of Chronos, in which he is well aware of all things that will happen, but he is unable to alter them. You find a similar conception of time in the Norse mythology with Odin. It's simply fascinating.

Okay, that didn't work. Here are the responses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9ySxrzpP-g

During class, I recommended that a good direction that the video outreach would be to either construct the videos in the same manner of or even with work a video youtube poster known as MadV. Here is an example of his work:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7a9xCIAdDU

and is a compilation of the responses:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9ySxrzpP-g

If you've only read "Bergsonism" and "Spinoza: Practical Philosophy", you haven't read Deleuze on Deleuze's terms. These two books are designed as reader guides to Spinoza and Bergson, not as works of independent philosophy coming from Deleuze. If you want a good understanding of Deleuze, read "Anti-Oedipus" or "Difference and Repetition".

It's not a matter of showing respect towards my argument, it's a matter of showing respect for basic human beings. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding and caring for any individual to argue as such. It also makes it seem as though your argument is weak, in that you can't mount a proper attack against the argument, so you have to go against the individual instead. Sir/Madam, you are not Marx, you are not Nietzsche, you are not Spinoza. You're posting on a blog for a 200-level philosophy class.

Again, I wasn't speak for Barthes. I wasn't speaking of Locke. I was presenting an interesting problem with language communication for the purpose of provoking the questioning of one's assumptions about language and communication.

As for the meaning-giver, it's actually a rather Spinozist concept. For Spinoza, language is a product of imagination, and the value we give to words comes from the idea of giving value (good/bad) to events. If you want to juxtapose this idea with other philosophers, it would disagree with Wittgenstein (to a certain degree) and Heidegger, explicitly.

lol. Maybe not in this post, but most definitely another time. On a side note, Cody, you should make sure to stay on this blog after class ends. I've really enjoyed some of our conversations. I would actually say many of the people on this blog should try and stay on. Aside from our recent problem with VD, I think that it has been a rather provocative and thoughtful semester on this blog.

It's not a matter of my feelings being hurt, I really don't care, but it's a matter of demonstrating respect during debate. As Tony has said, you seem to be a decently intelligent individual, but if you hope to be taken seriously in academia, or by anyone for that matter, you can't begin a debate by an act of terrorism. It makes it seem as though you have no confidence in your own theory and ideas, and shows an utter lack of respect for others.

Now, as to defend my own position, much of what I've posted on this blog are posts whose main purpose is to bounce ideas around. Occasionally, when I think it either appropriate or imperative, I interject my own theories into responses and posts, but much of the time they are merely for the purpose of provoking thought. This particular post was for the purpose of questioning our basic assumptions of language, not to present some coherent theory.

As for combining theories, much of recent philosophy is a combination of theories and ideas from past philosophers. Take Deleuze, a philosopher whom I happen to find much kinship with. He combines, and this is a short list, Spinoza, Nietzsche, Bergson, Kant, Hegel, Freud, and Hume. There are many others he borrows from, but the point is already made and I don't have to go much further into it. The point being that borrowing and combining theories from other philosophers is how the field progresses.

Now, you are right, we can't just combine theories haphazardly. But I'm not publishing a paper here, I'm posting provocative ideas on a blog to further thinking.

That being said, I don't feel I 'thoughtlessly' combined two notions. The idea of meaning-giving isn't simply Locke's, and as for 'death of the author' I wasn't drawing on that notion directly, I was altering it slightly (again with borrowing ideas) to fit the argument I was making. If you want, I could use another phrase to express what I was trying to explain, which is simply that language is an individual construct for each individual involved in communication, and by the definition of communication given by the OED, we don't really communicate because of the lack of real connection between two communicators. At this point, if I were to continue with the building of a coherent theory of language, I would end up at Foucault, but that's not what I'm doing here.

I, actually, personally agree with a great deal of this. I feel as though what language is built upon, as well as literature and music, is the attempt to get to that which comes before language (this is, of course, where I disagree with Heidegger), the prior meaning behind the words or symbols. That is why I view the author as the qualifier to words, text, or other symbols.

But the point I'm trying to make with this post is that the starting position from which we begin, from which be try to get to the prior meaning, is that of our own construction. We construct the meaning to words and other symbols, but what we attempt through language is the construction of meaning that corresponds to the prior construction. Words, like all things, have a duration that begins int he original meaning, the original prior construction that becomes the utterance.

So, that being said, I would agree with a great deal of what you said, I simply wanted to demonstrate the starting position, that of meaning construction.

It's not a matter of what you have to say (look at some of the things I've said! I equated believing in God with believing in the tooth fairy and elves!) it's the manner in which you deliver what you have to say. If you can back up your critiques and objections with an argument, that's fine. But, quite frankly, there is no reason for personal attacks. That's what everyone is pushing for with the avoidance of ad hominem. If you don't agree with the views of Cody, Dr. Long, myself, or anyone else for that matter, that's fine. You don't have to. No one is saying that you have to. But attacking others individually, for no other reason than to attack them, will get you no response from here on out (at least not from me).

I propose to everyone that we ignore terrorist attacks on our relatively strong internet blog community. For those who want to hide behind pseudonyms, while taking pot shots against others for no real reason, than we shouldn't give them the benefit of any real, emotionally charged reaction. If we are confronted in such a manner that we must respond, we don't have to sink down to the same level as someone like VD. We, as a community, are better than that. I look throughout this blog and see people's pictures, real names, and respectful and provocative posts. I see what any good internet community should be. Internet anonymity is a great thing, but we, on this blog, are not a community of anonymity, we are not 4chan, we are not /b/.

I posted this on my post, also, but I figured, as the subject of VD has moved here, I would post it here, also.

Geez, I have to stop taking days off this thing to work on papers.

Okay, first and foremost, I thought I was on a message board about philosophy and the Socratic Dialogues, not 4chan's /b/. vox_dei, whom I will refer to as VD to avoid the annoying underscore and the assigning a gender-role to this individual, appears to be quite the viral member. What's more, as I read over the post I appear to be the brunt of many of VD's ad hominem attacks. Of course, this is a fallacy for a reason, and makes me wonder whether or not VD has any real argument to make outside of the vicious attacks to, apparently, my inability to interpret a text the same way VD does. Whoa ad hominem.

Moving on, as Dr. Long said, this post was meant, first and foremost, to be provocative. I am, first and foremost, myself. After that I'm a neo-Spinozist, which puts my interpretation of language to be along the same lines of Foucault and Deleuze, that of the original author (meaning-given) being a qualifier for the interpretation of language/literature. As for my use of "death of the author", it was simply a tool to get behind language, so to speak, throughout this post. The point was to get people to think about our underlying assumptions about language, communication, and society. But, apparently, that was lost on VD, who appears to be quite the little terrorist in their attempt to derail our conversation.

That being said, should we, as a group of respectful individuals, allow those who hide behind a pseudonym derail the conversation? I think not. My original response to VD's post and attacks was, actually, laughter. And, that being said, I think that should be all of our responses. I feel that the best answer to this problem is to simply ignore VD's attempts to derail our conversations, and VD's post, until they learn to be more respectful of others, and laugh at their attempt to destroy this strong community we have built together.

P.S. Thanks to everyone who came to my defense in my absence. I really do appreciate it, especially from Cody, Tony, and Dr. Long.