Inherent Characteristics: Rolaids are Round. That's Inherent.
Do you see that Costco sized bottle of Rolaids? Yep, I have that because reading a few pages of Milligan’s Ultimate Guide upsets my stomach. Let’s talk about inherent characteristics for a second.
Milligan lists four ways symbols get their meaning - inherent character, personal experience, culture, and the bible [pp. 46-48]. He notes the most common way symbol meaning develops is through what he calls inherent character. By way of example, he speaks briefly about the use of lambs and wolves by God in the text - namely “innocent” lambs to describe God’s children, and “merciless” wolves to describe their enemies [46]. In complete Milligan fashion, he writes [bold emphasis mine] “The descriptive nature, or character, of these two animals clearly illustrates what they’re depicting [46].[1] Yes clearly. [I am rolling my eyes.]
Titled: Outcast to Sheep. 2025 a_joy
The word “inherent” actually has a meaning. It’s basically something that is innate or built-in. There is no separating it - it’s there and it isn’t going anywhere. If we look at a lamb, what is inherent about it is it’s a member of species of beings human’s call sheep. It’s a sheep. It has hair, hooves, and baaaaaaaaahs. When melded to “character” inherent character literally means some trait that’s innate to whatever we are viewing. My list of sheepy-ness is inherent character. Likewise, a wolf, a canine, has fur, barks, yips, howls and likes to eat lambs. That’s innate to its being in the species we call wolf.
Personal experience and culture largely influence our perceptions about animals both explicitly and implicitly. We can take for granted that folklore and the stories we are told accurately depict nature. What is deemed “inherent character” through the lens of culture and personal experience is often not inherent at all. It’s often our characteristics as humans being projected along with the literary and experiential use of an animal to illustrate a point. The bible has different types of genre. Using Milligan’s above example, the added descriptor of “innocent” to lambs and “merciless” to wolves tells us something about how Milligan not only interprets the bible, but also the authors themselves who used this metaphor. Milligan believes “God” uses these terms due to his theological position about the text itself. Putting aside whether God actually uses these terms [or if it’s the authors that do so because of their communal history and experience], does God really understand lamb’s as “innocent” and wolves as “merciless” as part of each animals inherent character? This is a literary device. The descriptors fit an ideal metaphor, but are not inherent to either animal as a part of its “character.” If anything, it’s a HUMAN CULTURAL projection. Mercy, for instance, is a virtue that involves agency. Wolves have to eat. Humans have to eat. Are we merciless when we kill to eat? For humans, humanely killing an animal for food and other reasons is a moral question. Wolves do not ask these types of questions. They are wolves - a different species. The fact they eat meat doesn’t make them merciless one iota any more than it makes human’s merciless for hunting to survive.
I’d like to point out the “inherent” character mentioned here has loaded language. Let’s keep in mind for a second that Israel was an ancient nomadic people whose wealth was found in livestock - particularly goats and sheep [remember Abraham and Lot?] who turn to occupying land for farming purposes. Wolves, in this context, are going to appear quite merciless afflicting their flocks. In fact, any traditional people who do cattle herding will probably have similar metaphors for the predators that prey on their cattle. It isn’t because lamb’s are “innocent.” How on earth is a lamb “innocent” except for in our own minds? Perhaps innocent in youth?; they are lamb’s after all. What lamb’s are is vulnerable. Lamb’s are babies - not adult sheep. The implication here as well, is defenseless, at least at some level. THAT’S inherent at this point. They lack experience in the world, making them “innocent” to humans. Sheep are also herbivores. They munch on plants. Wolves, on the other hand, munch on sheep. A hungry wolf is without mercy munching on a sheep as a hungry lamb is merciless and unthinking about stripping plant life from the earth. Did you know there is science out there that plants scream when being eaten [logicloretv Here].[1] How is a lamb all sweet as it chows down on another living being? That’s part of being a carnivore and an herbivore. The difference between these two is not so much that one is innocent and the other merciless, but that one is a baby and vulnerable to predation and the other is more than likely an adult wolf on the prowl who eats vulnerable lambs for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. The concepts of “innocence” and “merciless” anthropomorphize the animal with human morals - in other words, both descriptors are human bias via metaphor. And get a load of the lamb [e.g. baby] vs. wolf [wolf - not wolf pup] comparison. Talk about a victim mindset. Outside of psychopaths and sadists, what human isn’t at least a little bothered when an adult animal preys on a baby? The metaphors are emotionally charged and resemble a whole lot of us vs. them kind of propaganda. I mean, who doesn’t think their enemy isn’t some kind of animal they don’t like - you dog you. You’re so catty Snickerpuss. Meow. Yep.
My point is basic. Milligan doesn’t even know what’s an inherent character trait. That blob of a sentence indicating the animals convey the message through their inherent character is folklore, storytelling, human based projection. In this case, the wolf is basically the monster.
And here is the fun part. The image I conjure about wolves fits an arctic or grey wolf. But often, my animal picture doesn’t always match the animal picture somewhere else. Yes, in the big bad scheme of things, wolves are dogs, have four legs, fur, big teeth, etc. But not all wolves look alike. Let’s get the PICTURE correct since the bible is going to use fauna associated with its own geographic terrain. I mean, you want to be aware at least, right? To the right is a series of pictures. One of them is a subspecies of wolf called Canis lupus arabs. It’s found in the Negev. The picture is of one photographed in Jordan. Merciless wolf right there. For the record, wild dogs are known for being quite aggressive and dangerous. This is what one could look like though.
Let me just say, there is no such thing as an innocent ancient Israelite or modern Christian. Both have adult knowledge. Innocence before God because of one’s theology maybe, but this kind of metaphor gets rather close to both scapegoating and a victim mentality/persecution complex. It’s a human character trait to characterize other in negative terms and to consider one’s precious little self without blemish - a little lamb. Oh boo whoo me. I’m a little lamb and that mean thing over there is a merciless wolf. Maybe people ought to read the ethnic cleansing a little closer in the Old Testament and take a quickie course on Christian history before agreeing with the supposition they’re “innocent lambs.”
The other thing to consider about symbol characteristics, which Milligan does list, is culture. What Milligan doesn’t distinguish is between an animal’s actual characteristics, from the cultural bias and literary use of those animals that are created to apply to humans. Once again, humans are innocent or merciless because those are inherently human concepts. What one can glean from the texts called the bible is that God and human authors spoke to people through their lived experiences. This example fits well into the world of a formerly nomadic herding community turned farmer with herds who find the attack on their cattle merciless by hungry wolves who are destroying their property. We’ve got this in the 21st century in the U.S. with cattle and wolves with the wolves as an endangered species [at least they were years ago]. Wolves actually are quite misunderstood and to their detriment. Such comparisons run the gamut of killing the so called wolf. Eating cattle is part of being a wolf and surviving. It’s inherent to want to live.
To illustrate the experiential bias once more, Milligan turns to motorcyclists. He writes that, among other notions, motorcyclists can represent both “pride” and “rebellion” [46]. Once again, this is cultural + personal experience, and not necessarily an inherent character issue. Thinking back to the clean shaven ideal of the 50s up against the long haired hippies who protested the Vietnam war, those hippies were seen as rebels who didn’t honor authority. That is cultural and it’s an interpretation of a group of people who yes, challenged authority - but because they felt that authority was acting unjustly. Why do I wonder openly that these are the “outspoken” types of people somehow. Challenges to authority only make one a rebel if you’re in authority and want people to obey. It’s all in the angle you’re looking from and the cultural, familial, and personal experience you inherit and never question. What’s the picture in your head when you think of a motorcyclist? This is neither negative or positive, but it isn’t an inherent character matter. Human behavior can be both prideful and rebellious but it isn’t inherent in motorcyclists; people who like to ride a particular vehicle. Couldn’t one say that of a rich man in a Ferrari? It’s inherent in the human. That means a soccer mom driving a volvo can be a rebellious prideful twit. The method of transport has nothing to do with the motorcycle itself or a human who chooses the vehicle unless you are stereotyping. This is one of the single biggest challenges in Milligan’s animal sections. From my reading and perspective, the most common symbol development for Milligan is both culture and personal experience splashed with being “biblical” [AKA proof texting].
Inherent character runs deeper than culture and while it certainly involves experience, it also involves language and personal bias. Does the creature really possess that trait, or does it simply suit the projections of humans for literary purposes? What are we taking for granted here?
Now, it’s not that Milligan doesn’t get this idea. He more or less writes about it but under personal experience as a way that symbols get their meaning. He notes God speaks our language [47]. Yes. I can agree with this premise. He also writes, “Often the way we perceive something carriers over into our dreams, even when our perception is less than perfect” [47}. And let me tell you, it’s always this way - not “often” but always. It’s the way our brains actually work. We have implicit associations even in the face of explicit beliefs and values that may run differently. And it’s known we love confirmation bias - finding, seeking, and using information that reinforces presently held beliefs, even if those symbols and beliefs are dehumanizing or demonizing. That’s why science can be helpful, as well as better trained observation and some self-awareness. These three tools can give us better inherent character traits for symbol meaning, especially for animals, plants, and yes, even humans.
This, of course, is pretty twisted serpent. But there is more. Part II is right around the corner. And so is the local Walgreens. I need more Rolaids. Be back in a minute.
Notations
[1] The brief short deals with water deprivation. Below are two articles that cover the same information but include plants being cut or harmed. Think about it, they let out signals we cannot see as part of their bubble world. We do too but we understand it as our species would. To suggest plant life doesn’t is problematic for me on a lot of levels, especially since we still don’t know much and we are a prejudiced species.
[2] Milligan writes in Chapter 2 using similar concepts indicating how God uses language to represent things. This is actually a very common human language trait. This is not unique to Israel, their deity, or anything else that makes it “special” or unique to Israel. It just is human thought and language. Lambs and wolves show up here as an example though - see pg 44.
Bibliography
“Inherent.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inherent. Accessed 20 Dec. 2024.
logicloreTv. “Plants Can Scream?” YouTube, YouTube, 17 Jan. 2024, www.youtube.com/shorts/SBTy3iD_eIs.
Khan, Sieeka. “A Group of Scientists Suggest That Plants Feel Pain.” Science Times, Science Times, 18 Dec. 2019, www.sciencetimes.com/articles/24473/20191218/a-group-of-scientists-suggest-that-plants-feel-pain.htm.
Magazine, Smithsonian. “Plants May Let out Ultrasonic Squeals When Stressed.” Smithsonian.Com, Smithsonian Institution, 9 Dec. 2019, www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/scientists-record-stressed-out-plants-emitting-ultrasonic-squeals-180973716/.
Marc Markstein Sheep Butts Photograph. Unsplash. https://unsplash.com/@g_r_a_f_i_s_c_h
Milligan, Ira L. The Ultimate Guide to Understanding The Dreams You Dream: Biblical Keys for Hearing God’s
Voice in The Night. Destiny Image, 2012.
Qarmish, Ahmad. Arabian Wolf in Jordan. Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org
/wiki/File:Arabian_wolf_in_Jordan.jpg. Accessed 17 Jan. 2024.
Rolf Schmidbauer Sheep Herd Photograph. Unsplash. https://unsplash.com/@rolf_schmidbauer