The Bible tells of a Garden of Paradise, a place where a tree grew, and an apple grew on the tree, and eating the magical apple gave humans eternal life. A snake dangled from the branches, whispering the secret of eternal life into the ear of all who partook of the apple.
A nice set of imagery so far, eh? Still no sign of good or evil, ecological imbalance or temptation and blame. As long as the snake whispered in the woman's ear all was perfect in the world. This of course was a world of matriarchy, before male ego invented good and evil (God and Devil) and turned the snake into the devil. The ultimate fear, the fear of death, was unknown, since eternal life was granted to all who trusted the cycle of female rebirth. All of nature was a cycle, the cycles of time were eternal, and birth and death were but parts of a neverending cycle.
But the man's ego didn't want cycles, the man's ego wanted linear time. After all, when you die does not the ego stop thinking about one's self? Therefore time must be linear, with a definite beginning and end to all things. This linearity belief has poisioned all of humanity for as long as we remember. With linear time, the cycles of female rebirth were irrelevant. Matriarchy, which offered eternal life, was replaced by patriarchy, which offered an imaginary supreme being, judgement and salvation or punishment. Fear of death became the religion of humans, and the whisperings of the snake were called evil.
In this way, the female spirituality of instinct, sensuality and trust were overthrown. What replaced it was fear, authority and externalization. It's a psychosis really, a collective psychosis whose only power is the very belief that it is real.
I was amused a few days ago to read that "The Oxford Dictionary Says That The Word 'Time' Is The Most Popular Noun". Knowing this fact, and how much people cling to the belief that time is linear, I do not have any hope we will overcome our fear of death any time soon
-- The only time we see the middle of the road is as we run from side to side. R.O.Clark
Posts: 3959 | Location: Santa Fe | Registered: 11 June 2003
What could be the reason we have the need to externalize authority? For what reason do we NOT trust our own 'gut'?
And how does abuse figure into all of this?
Hierarchy is a powerful mind game, we play it on ourselves constantly through reiffication patterns and institutions of culture. As Gnarly says (using an important reiffication document, the Bible):
quote:
It's a psychosis really, a collective psychosis whose only power is the very belief that it is real.
If respect for dominant external authority figures overshadows respect for self (the gut trust), then abuse is a natural and logical consequence, both internal and external. Like the Golden Rule syndrome, except it's expressed in a never ending cycle of abuse that begins at an early age.
would would one ever purposely set out to find an externalized authority?
I think so Miles, yes. The long history of the human race shows that we are becoming a more juvenile race as we evolve. See the description of Neoteny for the reason for this trend. As a race, every evolutionary advance means we are ever more juvenile, and that means we look for the supreme being that our parents were for us as a child.
This I believe is the cause of our looking for an external authority structure.
-- The only time we see the middle of the road is as we run from side to side. R.O.Clark
Posts: 3959 | Location: Santa Fe | Registered: 11 June 2003
would would one ever purposely set out to find an externalized authority?
I think so Miles, yes. The long history of the human race shows that we are becoming a more juvenile race as we evolve. See the description of Neoteny for the reason for this trend. As a race, every evolutionary advance means we are ever more juvenile, and that means we look for the supreme being that our parents were for us as a child.
This I believe is the cause of our looking for an external authority structure.
I would disagree with that conclusion Gnarly. You are using the word "juvenile" in relation to physical characteristics and generalizing it to mental characteristics. I don't see a necessary logical connection. Paedomorphism is a genetic characteristic where you see in adults the childlike and refined physical characteristics of children, and by nature, perhaps, humans are naturally drawn to the childlike, which translates into physical attraction. In evolutionary theory, it has been hypothesized that the more paedomorphic individuals have had a long historical advantage in finding mates and as a result the more paedomorphic characteristics get a greater chance of expression in the population. The result would also have reflected the changes in cranial structure that became the skulls of modern humans.
(For example, if you look at a baby chimpanzee, you will notice a much higher and pronounced frontal lobe and a flattened face, which changes with maturity. Thus they are deemed by humans "cute" or something like that.)
In general, women tend to be more paedomorphic than men. Because they are physically more paedomorphic, would you say women are more juvenile than men Gnarly?
"It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand" ~ Mark Twain
Watch out Miles, once you let the unpopular interpretation of the Genesis Myth tickle your mind it will grow into an uncontrollable belief. It's the temptation of the snake.
I sometimes forget just how fundamentalist Christians would react to such blatant heresy. Certainly in less tolerant times a person would be burned at the stake for speaking such things.
The Bible is nothing but a propaganda piece written by authoritarian patriarchs.
So there!
-- The only time we see the middle of the road is as we run from side to side. R.O.Clark
Posts: 3959 | Location: Santa Fe | Registered: 11 June 2003
Originally posted by _Ren: You are using the word "juvenile" in relation to physical characteristics and generalizing it to mental characteristics. I don't see a necessary logical connection
Well, I do. No doubt the character of neoteny is harder to quantify than the physiology of neoteny, but I believe it is just as real of a phenomenon. Looking at the behavior of the human race collectively I would say we are at about age 8 on the paedomorphic level.
I agree with your second statement, although reservedly. Females seem to exhibit more physical neoteny, while males seem to exhibit more psychological neoteny. This idea could interface nicely with another discussion about sexual predators. One does wonder to what extent sexual attraction to infantile features has driven our own evolution.
Posts: 3959 | Location: Santa Fe | Registered: 11 June 2003
Originally posted by _Ren: You are using the word "juvenile" in relation to physical characteristics and generalizing it to mental characteristics. I don't see a necessary logical connection
Well, I do. No doubt the character of neoteny is harder to quantify than the physiology of neoteny, but I believe it is just as real of a phenomenon. Looking at the behavior of the human race collectively I would say we are at about age 8 on the paedomorphic level.
What is "the character" of neoteny?
What is "age 8 on the paedomorphic level"? I'm not familiar with the "paedomorphic level". Is there a guage somewhere? What is measured? How is it measured?
If you could tell me that, maybe it would help me understand how you see a logical connection between physical characteristics and mental potential expressed in behavior.
quote:
I agree with your second statement, although reservedly. Females seem to exhibit more physical neoteny, while males seem to exhibit more psychological neoteny.
My second statement? I believe I reflected something in your own Wiki reference to neotony regarding women. But essentially I asked a question which I don't find you answered. I was vague about what I meant by "juvenile", whether physical or behavioral, and your answer is vague as well.
In your answer you offer two comparisons, and I'm unfamiliar with how one goes about measuring psychological neoteny in human males and females. So I don't know what you mean.
Behavior is just as important as physiology, however, as you have said, physical evolution is easier to measure. Women, on the other hand, are more inclined to see evolution in the behavioral context, while hardware is secondary. Behavior is much harder to measure. As a man, you'll just have to go on feelings here...
quote:
What is "age 8 on the paedomorphic level"? I'm not familiar with the "paedomorphic level". Is there a guage somewhere? What is measured? How is it measured?
If you could tell me that, maybe it would help me understand how you see a logical connection between physical characteristics and mental potential expressed in behavior
You're getting stuck on quantification here, which is fine for technical science. I would say that the physical and behavioral are equally important as a unit, and therefore inseparable.
I say "age 8 on the paedomorphic level" because our behavior collectively reminds me of the developmental level of an 8 year old. This is probably anecdotal, but many people I have discussed it with think of our race as definitely at the level of "younger than the 12 year developmental level but older than the 6 year old level". Our discussion of the Supreme Being obsession supports this idea, since adolescents typically reject parental authority. In fact, looking at recorded history we see a steady trend towards authority oriented religion. Therefore I would say that in the last 5000 years we have evolved backwards about 7 years paedomorphically. Hope that makes sense.
This is not canonical science. Most of the discussion on this page is the avant garde of anthropology and would be scoffed at by scientific conservatives.
As for your own limited powers of observation, you are curious yet apply typically masculine reasoning to what I say while asking why you do not understand it. There is no way I can assist you in overcoming that limitation and to think more liberally about science.
Of course, science is still science, you don't need to throw facts and theory all in one basket and call it science. Still, progress is a steady stream of accepting what was testerday's theory as today's truth.
Posts: 3959 | Location: Santa Fe | Registered: 11 June 2003
As for your own limited powers of observation, you are curious yet apply typically masculine reasoning to what I say while asking why you do not understand it. There is no way I can assist you in overcoming that limitation and to think more liberally about science.
Well, I guess I must have threatened you with my questions. That tends to bring out authoritarian dogma defense behavior, especially since its so deeply imbedded in the culture.
Now that you've determined for me what I think and how limited my mind is to its "masculine" reasoning", whatever that is, I have a pretty fair idea of where this is headed.
So I'll just skip to the end if you don't mind. Sorry Gnarly, I'm not interested in dealing with personal attacks in response to my curiousity. Bye.
I can assure you of this, though, if you take your dogma into a graduate seminar in physical anthropology, the professor will be sitting back with a bemused look on her face while the students rip your half hatched anectdotal hypotheses to shreds. And you can count on the females being just as vociferous as the males.
OK then, let's get back to heated debate. Earlier in this discussion you said:
quote:
You are using the word "juvenile" in relation to physical characteristics and generalizing it to mental characteristics. I don't see a necessary logical connection. Paedomorphism is a genetic characteristic where you see in adults the childlike and refined physical characteristics of children, and by nature, perhaps, humans are naturally drawn to the childlike, which translates into physical attraction.
It is a well known biological fact that males are sexually stimulated by visual appeal and physical characteristics, while females are stimulated by communication and relationships.
In making your above argument, aren't you using an exclusively male value system of physicality? Is it even possible there is an equal and opposite female value system of behavior and communication? Could not all these characteristics be applied to the principle of neoteny, not just the male-stimulating ones?
Posts: 3959 | Location: Santa Fe | Registered: 11 June 2003
Gnarly "I" am not using anything. I am repeating for you a well known evolutionary hypothesis that has not even made it to the level of theory. There was nothing in what I repeated -- which is by the way in your link to neoteny -- meant to exclude hundreds of other possibilities.
---> What could be the reason we have the need to externalize authority?
Depends on what is meant by authority.
As humans we do not know everything society and nature offer us nor do we have the time or resources to know all, so we rely on experts for understanding.
Life is uncertain so we rely on those with a coherent plan, the myth-makers, for success to simplify, explain and guide us.
Large social groups are composed of members with many conflicting private agendas so hierarchy and leadership are necessary to structure and supervise public agendas. The larger and more diverse the group, the more structure is necessary.
---> For what reason do we NOT trust our own 'gut'?
The gut makes mistakes, lots of them. Intuition is a cognitive process and as such it needs to be trained in order to make good judgments. In areas where we lack experience and the time or wherewithal to attain experience we need to consult one who does for their improved gut response.
---> And how does abuse figure into all of this?
Private interest in power trumping public interest or public interest trumping private interest beyond what was agreed publicly, etc... for starters. As well as conflicting internal self interests that allow the abuser to continue abusing the abused, a trade-off.
Accepting authority beyond its mandate or area of expertise or in any absolute sense, a category mistake in thinking one hopefully overcomes with life experience. Failure to do so reflects an immaturity (perhaps similar to Gnarly's thesis?), a failure to learn personal responsibility, or at least a degree of cynicism.
For reading in that matter i highly recommend Wilhelm Reich's book "Listen Little Man" for a glorious anti-fascist rant.
_____________________________
Baloney: A uniformly textured, mildly flavored immitation meat product for consumption comprised mainly of fat, meat by-products, salt and flavor enhancers which is high in calories and low in nutrition.
Posts: 861 | Location: Over Here | Registered: 06 July 2002
I sometimes forget just how fundamentalist Christians would react to such blatant heresy. Certainly in less tolerant times a person would be burned at the stake for speaking such things.
After having read that Pope Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Ratzinger) has said that animal testing is just peachy under the Dominian Covenant I really don't care anymore about what fundamentalist Christians think about me and my beliefs.
In 1993 Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) wrote a revision of the Catholic Catechism at the request of JPII.
Animals are created for food, clothing, leisure
One should not give affection to animals and it is also unworthy to spend money on them, it should rather be donated to the poor.
Well darn it! I am unworthy of salvation because I bought a $3.75 can of shredded fish for my kitty <sigh> I suppose I should have donated it to a drunken bum in front of the liquor store.
Posts: 3959 | Location: Santa Fe | Registered: 11 June 2003
Individuals are legally responsible for their views. Messages or parts of messages may be quoted or read on the radio, or reprinted in Thom's books and other materials.
