War and Resource Exploitation vs. Sustainable Living

[Pathless]

The following is an excerpt from the Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight by Thom Hartmann. I thought it would be a good article to use as a springboard for a discussion, as it challenges our notions of our so-called (western) civilization. Also, war is a controversial topic, especially now.

The Basis of Our Culture

We live in a culture that includes the principle that if somebody else has something we need, and they won’t give it to us, and we have the means to kill them to get it, it’s not unreasonable to go get it, using whatever force we need to. In some cases it’s even our duty to do so.

“Duty” may seem like a strong word, but it was often invoked by the US Government in exhorting pioneers and soldiers to kill Native Americans during the first centuries of this country’s history. It was invoked by Hitler to motivate his soldiers during WWII, particularly in the taking of other nations’ land for “living space” for the German people. Julius Caesar cited duty as the reason for his soldiers’ slaughter of the Celts, Druids, and Picts, among others. Pol Pot invoked duty as his Khmer Rouge soldiers slaughtered over two million of their fellow citizens. During the administration of George Washington, fully 80% of the US federal budget was devoted to “Indian warfare.” The list goes on and on: for god, country, and family; for Mom and the right to make your apple pie from their apples.

In the United States, the first “Indian war” in New England was the “Pequot War of 1636,” in which colonists surrounded the largest of the Pequot villages, set it afire as the sun first began to rise, and then performed their duty: they shot everybody—men, women, children, and the elderly—who tried to escape. As Pilgrim and colonist William Bradford described the scene: “It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire and the streams of blood quenching the same, and horrible was the stink and scent thereof; but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they [the colonists] gave praise thereof to God, who had wrought so wonderfully…”

The Naragansetts, up to that point “friends” of the colonists, were so shocked by this example of European-style warfare that they refused further alliances with the whites. Captain John Underhill ridiculed the Narragansetts for their unwillingness to engage in genocide, saying Narragansett wars with other tribes were “more for pastime, than to conquer and subdue enemies.”

In that, Underhill was correct: the Narragansett form of war, like that of most indigenous Older Culture peoples, and virtually all Native American tribes, does not have extermination of the opponent as a goal. After all, neighbors are necessary to trade with, to maintain a strong gene-pool through intermarriage, and to insure cultural diversity. Most tribes wouldn’t even want the lands of others, because they would have concerns about violating or entering the sacred or spirit-filled areas of the other tribes. Even the killing of “enemies” is not most often the goal of tribal “wars”: instead it’s most often to fight to some pre-determined measure of “victory” such as seizing a staff, crossing a particular line, or the first wounding or surrender of the opponent.

The European-genocide style of warfare has a relatively brief history, only going back to the days of Gilgamesh. It was practiced by Hitler against non-Aryan citizens of Europe, against the citizens of Cambodia by Pol Pot, against the now-extinct Taino and Arawak people of Hispaniola by Columbus, and against the native peoples of the Americas by well-armed invaders from England, France, Portugal, Belgium, Holland, and Spain. It was practiced against the Tutsi by the Hutus in Rwanda, and against the Hutus by the Tutsis in Zaire when it became The Congo. (In the midst of those battles, both groups killed off virtually all the 3000 or so remaining Pygmies, the last tribal hunter-gatherers in central east Africa who then lived in the rainforests of Zaire and Rwanda.) There are stories of it in the Bible (see Joshua) and in the histories of nearly all civilizations which have roots in, had contact with, or were conquered by the first city-states of the Middle East.

This type of warfare is practiced daily by farmers and ranchers worldwide against wolves, coyotes, insects, animals and trees of the rainforest, and against indigenous tribes living in the jungles and rainforests.

It is our way of life. It comes out of our foundational cultural notions.

--Excerpted from The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight by Thom Hartmann, Mythical Books, 1998

 

[Pathless]

Here's another article that I feel is germane to this disussion (if it ever gets underway ).

From The Chalice and the Blade by Riane Eisler
Excerpt from Chapter 1: Journey Into a Lost World: The Beginnings of Civilization [section heading: Old Europe]

The inhabitants of southeastern Europe seven thousand years ago were hardly primitive villagers. "During two millennia of agricultural stability their material welfare had been persistently improved by the increasingly effecient exploitation of the fertile river valleys," reports Gimbutas. "Wheat, barley, vetch, peas, and other legumes were cultivated, and all the domesticated animals present in the Balkans today, except for the horse, were bred. Pottery technology and bone- and stone-working techniques had advanced, and copper metallurgy was introduced into east central Europe by 5500 B.C.E. Trade and communications, which had expanded through the millennia, must have provided a tremendous cross-fertilizing impetus to cultural growth.... The use of sailing-boats is attested from the sixth millenia onwards by their incised depictions on ceramics."

Between circa 7000 and 3500 B.C.E. these early Europeans developed a complex social organization involving craft specialization. They created complex religious and governmental instituions. They used metals such as copper and gold for ornaments and tools. They even evolved what appears to be a rudimentary script. In Gimbutas's words, "If one defines civilization as the ability of a given people to adjust to its environements and to develop adequate arts, technology, script, and social relationships it is evident that Old Europe achieved a marked degree of success."

The image of the Old European most of us carry within us today is of those frightfully barbaric tribesmen who kept pushing southward and finally outdid even the Romans in butchery by sacking Rome. For this reason one of the most remarkable and thought-provoking features of Old European society revealed by the archeological spade is its essentially peaceful character. "Old Europeans never tried to live in inconvenient places such as high, steep hills, as did the later Indo-Europeans who built hill forts in inaccessible places and frequently surrounded their hill sites with cyclopean stone walls," reports Gimbutas. "Old European locations were chosen for their beautiful setting, good water and soil, and availability of animal pastures. Vinca, Butmir, Petresti, and Cucuteni settlement areas are remarkable for their excellent views of the environs, but not for their defensive value. The characteristic absence of heavy fortifications and of thrusting weapons speaks for the peaceful character of most of these art-loving peoples."

Moreover, here, as in Catal Huyuk and Hacilar--which show no signs of damage through warfare for a time span of over fifteen hundred years--the archeological evidence indicates that male dominance was not the norm. "A division of labor between the sexes is indicated, but not a superiority of either," writes Gimbutas. "In the 53-grave cemetary of Vinca, hardly any difference in wealth of equipment was discernible between male and female graves.... In respect to the role of women in the society, the Vinca evidence suggests an equalitarian and clearly non-patriarchal society. The same can be adduced of the Varna society: I can see there no ranking along a patriarchal masculine-feminine value scale."

In sum, here, as in Catal Huyuk, the evidence indicates a generally unstratified and basically equalitarian society with no marked distinctions based on either class or sex. But the difference is that in Gimbutas's work this is not simply noted in passing.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

I'm interested in starting an open discussion here that would touch on many different entrenched concepts of modern civilization, such as:

• estrangement of humanity from nature
• domination of nature and animals by humans
• practice of genocidal warfare as a solution to conflict
• environmental disregard and degredation--that is, the disposable view of resources
• patterns of masculine dominance brought about through force, intimidation, and other forms of aggression

Comparatively, I'm interested in re-thinking our concept of history, and expanding our notions of culture and humanity to include the entirity of time that humans have been living on this planet--perhaps as long as 50,000 or 100,000 years. I'm particularly interested in creating some dialogue about this longer view of humanity. Some questions:

• Why recorded history? What does it mean that, while humans have been living on Earth for tens of thousands of years, people consider history as only the past two to five thousand years, and generally discard the rest of our species' time here on Earth to the scrap-pile of "pre-history?"
• Are we making progress? With all of the rapid technological advancements that society is making, are humans becoming more advanced, or are we degrading ourselves?
• Are there lessons about living on the planet that we can learn from looking deeply at our past?
• Can we even know for sure what past civilizations, cultures, or tribes were all about? Does it matter? Do we redefine our past as we look at it through the eyes of our culture?
• Can speculation about different ways of living practiced by older cultures be a useful tool for us, if we are interested in searching for alternative ways of living on the planet?

I know those are a lot of questions. It would be great if someone could reply to even just one to get a discussion going. I'll be looking forward to it.

Thanks,
Pathless

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Pathless!

You pose an interesting set of questions. I do hope this thread develops.

Thank you for the material you provided. I haven't seen very much dealing with central and Eastern Europe in antiquity.

I'm interested in starting an open discussion here that would touch on many different entrenched concepts of modern civilization

I know I can be longwinded, and you have asked a great deal. I will attempt to be brief. I would like to add from what little I have come across, and perhaps that will create some discussion points.

* estrangement of humanity from nature
* domination of nature and animals by humans
* practice of genocidal warfare as a solution to conflict
* environmental disregard and degredation--that is, the disposable view of resources
* patterns of masculine dominance brought about through force, intimidation, and other forms of aggression

From what I have been able to piece together, the noted beginning of agriculture was in Mesopotamia. I recall a thread here dealing with a site in Turkey (?) that is thought to predate Mesopotamia by a few hundred years, although "exact" dates escape my memory just now. Gobeki Tepli, I think, or something pretty close. If I read what you provided correctly, it is saying that fields were being cultivated, agriculture, some time even before Mesopotamia and Turkey, if not directly contemporary at the most recent.

A lot of the questions asked: "domination of nature and animals by humans, practice of genocidal warfare as a solution to conflict, environmental disregard and degredation--that is, the disposable view of resources, patterns of masculine dominance brought about through force, intimidation, and other forms of aggression," can be be answered in Mesopotamia.

Whether actual people, or myth, a religion began that focused on Nimrod, known by some as the husband of his mother. Semiramis. Throw in Cush (yes, that Nimrod and that Cush, of Genesis) This religion went on to create or influence multi-god pantheons around the world.

Long story short, Nimrod was the first to develop war as an art. He also developed walled-cities as defense. He is said to have trained animals (big cats) to hunt, and in war. In that period of time Mesopotamia was fast developing the working of metals, as tools and weapons. Copper and Bronze Age as I recall, heading quickly towards iron. The wheel was invented here and almost now, + / -. Math and astronomy were to come very soon. Cattle were kept and Animal Husbandry was underway. I don't think the horse had arrived from the steppes yet. Of course, this is the history of the West. There is a great deal about the East and India I know little to nothing about, especially at this period of time.

As for "estrangement of humanity from nature," I think that is an interesting question. I don't feel estranged from nature, but I do find I don't listen as well as I should. I do believe I understand what you are saying though. Hmmm.

Comparatively, I'm interested in re-thinking our concept of history, and expanding our notions of culture and humanity to include the entirity of time that humans have been living on this planet--perhaps as long as 50,000 or 100,000 years. I'm particularly interested in creating some dialogue about this longer view of humanity.

I can relate.

Why recorded history?

Ooops, forgot. Mesopotamia was also where writing was developed and etched on clay tablets called "cuneiform," which is still readable today. Writing led to record keeping, records, recorded, written history. That is why "recorded history."

What does it mean that, while humans have been living on Earth for tens of thousands of years, people consider history as only the past two to five thousand years, and generally discard the rest of our species' time here on Earth to the scrap-pile of "pre-history?"

Well, it means there are no written records to go by. We have to guess with fragments of cooking utensils and a few toys and games (or not) like whistles and tobacco pipes and rattles and things like that, and maybe a few human bones, a few burial artifacts, the ashes and charcoal and burnt bones in the fireplace tell what these people ate. It is all very tough to date, certainly with no guaranteed accuracy. If I am not mistaken, the merging of math and astronomy and the development of numbers (numerical symbols) that even calendars began in Mesopotamia, at least ones we can read today. (I forget the age of the Mayan calendar, but it is from pretty deep in antiquity as I recall, and a different continent).

Are we making progress? With all of the rapid technological advancements that society is making, are humans becoming more advanced, or are we degrading ourselves?

This is a fair question. I don't know. I do know that the way we go about technology now is not the best for long term sustainability. But if technology can be done in a nature friendly way, or perhaps said, the most nature friendly way possible without cutting your throat towards competition, else why be in business. A business that operates at a loss consistently will not last.

Unless it is a government entity.

I do think we have a duty to ourselves and our posterity, to be "kind" in our pruning and clearing the underbrush. But there are limits. I have been trying to live on the edge of that limit for almost a decade now, and it isn't all it's cracked up to be if you are used to creature comforts. Spiders the size of dollar coins (the old Eisenhower ones). Scorpions, thankfully not so many as before, but aware that can change in an instant. Skeeters, by the drove.

But the payoff is turkey, and hawks, and owls. And deer. And squirrels, and more squirrels. Sigh, and cane rats.

Where do I draw a line?

Is TV correct? Are computers correct? Is even being hooked to the electric company correct?

Can I survive without these things? How?

:embarass: I got a little long winded, sorry.

Are there lessons about living on the planet that we can learn from looking deeply at our past?

I believe yes, but not in looking to the past exclusively. The past is only one more tool to draw from.

Business will not surrender technology, it is how it survives. Ways need to be found to make it financially viable for business to sustain, because we all in the developed world require business in order to survive, ourselves and our families. We earn our bread through business, and we buy our bread through business. Neither will government surrender technology, it assists them to power (since Nimrod).

Can we even know for sure what past civilizations, cultures, or tribes were all about? Does it matter?

Writing makes a huge difference. Imagine a favorite childhood book, for simplicity, "little red riding hood." That book, or some form of it will and can and most likely has passed from generation to generation, sometimes for centuries in the case of sacred texts. Now, imagine that the story of Little Red was never written, but passed down for generations by word of mouth. How would we know that the story we told our child last year is the same "exactly" as we first heard it as a child ourselves? By the way, it matters how much you practice the art of remembering, <no smart aleck intended>.

Trouble is, cultures that rely on verbal mythos (*not sure its the right word here, but it sounds good so I'll go with it) don't leave their stories behind for us to find. Sometimes they decorate pottery, or etch some design on a burial shroud or death mask. We have a lot of hints and allegations.

Do we redefine our past as we look at it through the eyes of our culture?

Of course, always. Why would your view (or mine, for that matter) not be colored by what is (a large portion of) you.

The thought hit me about Jung's "collective conscious." This "cultural" portion of you is hereditary, if Jung is correct. I don't know that means genetic, although I am certain there are analogues. Something on a "deep-seated" memory plane, kinda like "instinct" in animals. How a migrating bird who has not flown the course before "knows" he has been here before.

Can speculation about different ways of living practiced by older cultures be a useful tool for us, if we are interested in searching for alternative ways of living on the planet?

Yes, but again it is only one tool. I think there is a lot to be said for some of the agriculture methods like terrace farming in the East, ancient practices that are still very viable with nature. Prune and clear the underbrush, not wholesale destruction. They also, from one program I watched, (NOVA?) use the cycle of nature to the fields advantage, using ducks to eat any pest insects, flooding the field at just the right moment by the calendar (I would presume including moon phase and season, possibly weather) The Monk would announce, someone rang a bell or something (forgive my seeming rudeness, my focus at that time was on the growing practice, not the religious practice), and the fields were all flooded at once, catching the insects by surprise. Of course, insects are insects and they come back, but the numbers are tolerable. Besides, the ducks are still around, I think until the crop begins to ripen and the ducks take interest.

I know those are a lot of questions. It would be great if someone could reply to even just one to get a discussion going. I'll be looking forward to it.

I don't know if or how much I might have helped. I left it a skeleton to let someone correct if I am somewhere mistaken. But that is pretty much how I see these things at this point in my study.

Great questions, by the way! I hope others will put in their two cents, or more please.

 

[juantoo3]

Oooops.

If I read what you provided correctly, it is saying that fields were being cultivated, agriculture, some time even before Mesopotamia and Turkey, if not directly contemporary at the most recent.

I meant to note the paper you provided noted agriculture in Eastern Europe some time before Mesopotamia, possibly as much as a couple thousand years IIRC.

 

[Pathless]

Hi Juantoo,

Thanks very much for the response. I don't have a whole lot of time right now in which to develop an intelligent post, but I hope to sometime next weekend. Until I can get back to these forums, I hope this discussion continues with other interested people.

Thanks again,
Charles

 

[Devadatta]

The following is an excerpt from the Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight by Thom Hartmann. I thought it would be a good article to use as a springboard for a discussion, as it challenges our notions of our so-called (western) civilization. Also, war is a controversial topic, especially now.[/quote]

- Stepping out of the "western" box, and creating much wider perspectives is great, however...

- This book may get around to more serious analysis, but what you’ve quoted here offers little more than a grab-bag of atrocities and a vague finger pointing at “western” culture.

- So I’ll have the temerity to offer my own simple take on the roots of violence.

-It comes under three sets of causative factors:
1. root propensities
2. concrete conditions
3. enabling ideologies

- Each set offers almost insurmountable difficulties – if they weren’t almost insurmountable we would have been at peace ages ago.

- Root propensities can be summed up by the Buddhist notions of unwholesome roots of greed, hatred & delusion. The slow transformation of these roots, person by person, to the wholesome roots of generosity, love & clarity is hard work – ask anyone who’s tried meditation for even 10 minutes. So that’s the first set of difficulties.

- Concrete conditions like scarcity of land & resources and over-population are over-determined by the inertia of long historical processes and similarly can only be overcome piece by piece, moment by moment, with no magic bullet in sight. So that’s the second set.

- Enabling ideologies are not just the ones that stick out like sore thumbs – i.e., Nazism, the ideology of Al Qaida, etc. – but include the cognate ideologies of we “good guys”. The difficulty here is fearlessly exploring these ideologies rather than drawing an imaginary line between our “good” ideology and the “evil” ideology of others. The influence, for example, of biblical ideology on western culture and its use as a template for some hideous modern versions is almost childishly obvious. Yet to get believers to move off their apologist pedestals and examine not just the “perversions” of tradition but the deep difficulties in the tradition & its texts itself is an uphill battle indeed. The devil is not just on the tangents but also in the details. So that’s the third set of difficulties.

- The most obvious example is the hideously insane Palestinian/Israeli war. Root propensities are on display every day with every suicide bombing & violent response, the scarcity of land & water is obvious, and each side is conditioned by its own master narrative, or enabling ideology ironically rooted in the same historical source.

- These difficulties are deep, too deep for most of us to imagine solutions, so we prefer shallow solutions – you’re with us or against us – and that shallowest solution of them all, the military option.

with metta

 

[Devadatta]

I'm interested in starting an open discussion here that would touch on many different entrenched concepts of modern civilization, such as:

• estrangement of humanity from nature
• domination of nature and animals by humans
• practice of genocidal warfare as a solution to conflict
• environmental disregard and degredation--that is, the disposable view of resources
• patterns of masculine dominance brought about through force, intimidation, and other forms of aggression

Comparatively, I'm interested in re-thinking our concept of history, and expanding our notions of culture and humanity to include the entirity of time that humans have been living on this planet--perhaps as long as 50,000 or 100,000 years. I'm particularly interested in creating some dialogue about this longer view of humanity. Some questions:

• Why recorded history? What does it mean that, while humans have been living on Earth for tens of thousands of years, people consider history as only the past two to five thousand years, and generally discard the rest of our species' time here on Earth to the scrap-pile of "pre-history?"
• Are we making progress? With all of the rapid technological advancements that society is making, are humans becoming more advanced, or are we degrading ourselves?
• Are there lessons about living on the planet that we can learn from looking deeply at our past?
• Can we even know for sure what past civilizations, cultures, or tribes were all about? Does it matter? Do we redefine our past as we look at it through the eyes of our culture?
• Can speculation about different ways of living practiced by older cultures be a useful tool for us, if we are interested in searching for alternative ways of living on the planet?

I know those are a lot of questions. It would be great if someone could reply to even just one to get a discussion going. I'll be looking forward to it.

- Lots of interesting angles/questions. Far more than this sailor has the time to respond to at the moment. I'll only make a coupe points

- I agree that the more we can wrestle ourselves out of our cultural boxes the better. They are probably innumerable ideas/folkways that have been pushed aside that are worth reviving.

- But I guess I would caution against romanticizing the distant past, which is of course an old game we play for evil as well as good motives. I hope I'm not a killjoy but I seriously doubt there ever was a pastoral paradise, matriarchal or not, where all was harmony with nature.

- The native peoples of North America, for example, have much to teach the rest of us, but their famed ecology had as much to do with their level of material culture & technology as with any thought or belief system.

- Again, my sense is that while we explore all the alternatives, and recover what we can from the past, we need to keep in mind the universal determinants of root human propensities, concrete conditions & enabling ideologies if we are really to move forward. I think it's here that we find the best answers to such issues as male dominance, the changing relationships of nature/culture, etc. (Of course this involves a whole range of scientific disciplines from genetics to sociology, each with its own specialized vocabulary. After all, every new conceptual order brings financial spin-offs and maybe even tenure! Genuinely new truth arrives much less often.)

- And I would take a hardheaded view of the recovery of lapsed traditions. Modern medicine, for example, overtook traditional systems like TCM and Ayurvedic for the simple reason that overall it was more effective. If these traditional systems really had all the answers they never would have lapsed in the first place. At the same time, there's no doubt that a technological mindset and economics, especially of the pharmaceutical industry, has distorted the picture, and marginalized a whole range of perfectly effective and low cost traditional remedies. So there's good reason for the upsurge in "natural" health & traditional systems. But again there's snake oil on both sides - the snake oil of the drug companies, and the snake oil of some in the natural health industry who make the most extravagant if not downright fraudulent claims.

- Finally, your point about recorded history is well taken. Joseph Campbell talked about "invisible counter players" in pre-history (though the idea may have originated elsewhere). India, in particular, is a fascinating example of that, with perhaps the bulk of what has gone into that vast culture bubbling up from under the radar.

with metta

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest regards, Devadatta!

It is a pleasure to speak with you again.

They are probably innumerable ideas/folkways that have been pushed aside that are worth reviving.

I agree.

- But I guess I would caution against romanticizing the distant past,

Right.

I seriously doubt there ever was a pastoral paradise, matriarchal or not, where all was harmony with nature.

I would add, that "harmony with nature" is a term that, when realized, is a whole lot more responsible, and ugly, than what the developed world is readily able to deal with and look upon. We are spoiled by our successes.

When the power goes out for a few days (or weeks or months in the aftermath of a major storm), the place around here falls apart. The cities grind to a halt, and if the people are not taken care of by the gov., they don't get taken care of. In part because the people do not relate in that nature wisdom / gardener way in order to be responsible to themselves and their families, and in part because they mentally surrender that control to the gov. gov makes the people dependent on it. Hold you by force or threat of pain (or worse), or buy you out with subsistence checks or other perks and benefits. Ostensibly for the better for all. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

My suspicion is that these are not the only leadership paradigms. But is there anything viable in other paradigms that can compete, or at least substantially contribute, to the existing paradigm?

Politics is an interesting critter to dissect, on a philosophical level. especially the development of. One prof used to quote, I think it was John Locke; "government is the campfire around which the people sit." We are predisposed, I would say long before "we" became "human," to following a leader. Why? Is it a good thing? We've been doing it an awful long time.

Or is individualism a sin?

I guess one can be loyal to their land, their kith and kin, and their religious faith, and still be responsible for self and family. G-d helps those who help themselves. This I see as gardener thinking, pretty close on paper to what I understand to be Amish. We are loyal to the gov in the sense that we are required to. I am first and formost loyal to G-d, and then family.

- The native peoples of North America, for example, have much to teach the rest of us, but their famed ecology had as much to do with their level of material culture & technology as with any thought or belief system.

You hit on a key point, their level of material culture & technology. You are correct in seeing that this culture strives to live sustainably in the environment, which you see as harmony with nature. Am I mistaken?
Life on a res ain't what its cracked up to be.

Even allowing that the technology of the traditional culture could have survived (still does, but truncated), such a culture idealistically would not construct or develop a technology like say computers. Not saying better or worse, but the mindset, the meme, is very foreign to most people in the developed world. Whose paradigm, I might add, was sufficient to subdue said traditional culture. Regrettable, but true just the same.

- Again, my sense is that while we explore all the alternatives, and recover what we can from the past, we need to keep in mind the universal determinants of root human propensities, concrete conditions & enabling ideologies if we are really to move forward.

I like this, I had not heard it before.

After all, every new conceptual order brings financial spin-offs and maybe even tenure! Genuinely new truth arrives much less often.)

Boy, ain't that the truth.

- And I would take a hardheaded view of the recovery of lapsed traditions. Modern medicine, for example, overtook traditional systems like TCM and Ayurvedic for the simple reason that overall it was more effective. If these traditional systems really had all the answers they never would have lapsed in the first place. At the same time, there's no doubt that a technological mindset and economics, especially of the pharmaceutical industry, has distorted the picture, and marginalized a whole range of perfectly effective and low cost traditional remedies. So there's good reason for the upsurge in "natural" health & traditional systems. But again there's snake oil on both sides - the snake oil of the drug companies, and the snake oil of some in the natural health industry who make the most extravagant if not downright fraudulent claims.

Medicine is always a good choice of study, even in history. Paracelcus was the chap that ushered in "take a pill for your ill" medicine. Interesting character.

Its kind of interesting the relationship that medicine has played in the development of education through the centuries in the different cultures. Or lack of education, in some circumstances. An ignorant class of fieldworkers living from day to day in the boonies is easier to maintain control over. Historically speaking.

Joseph Campbell talked about "invisible counter players" in pre-history (though the idea may have originated elsewhere).

I haven't gotten far into Campbell yet, I need to. I missed this, what is meant?

India, in particular, is a fascinating example of that, with perhaps the bulk of what has gone into that vast culture bubbling up from under the radar.

Well...if I've got the story right, I think there is one supposition, but it is not well received at home. It involves Steppes and Aryans and horses and Sanskrit and a few thousand years ago. I don't think its the same blue eyed blond haired Aryans we know from 60 - 70 years ago, but I could be corrected.

 

[Devadatta]

I haven't gotten far into Campbell yet, I need to. I missed this, what is meant?
Well...if I've got the story right, I think there is one supposition, but it is not well received at home. It involves Steppes and Aryans and horses and Sanskrit and a few thousand years ago. I don't think its the same blue eyed blond haired Aryans we know from 60 - 70 years ago, but I could be corrected.

Hi Juan. Since we appear mostly to agree, not much to add! But here I go anyway.

- The idea of “invisible counter players” was just picking up on the point Pathless made about the arbitrary nature of “recorded” history. We think of various peoples suddenly appearing on the historical scene when in fact it’s only the (relatively) sudden appearance of historical records or artefacts. In a way, these early records are no more than punctuation marks or final editing on an immensely long historical narrative whose heroes remain mostly nameless. (And of course recorded history also inevitably reduces multiple perspectives to a few at most, much the way an official language suppresses whole families of dialects.)

- But there’s also what might be called a problem of “branding” in this process – and that’s where the “counter” part comes in.

- In the Indian example, the early Vedas, or ritual chants & incantations, are keyed to sacrificial rites not unlike those found among the Greeks, the Hebrews, and many other cultures. As in other early cultures, the “deities” are still very much tied to natural forces, the sky, wind, fire, etc. Most of what we consider typical Indian religion – the vast metaphysical systems, the great devotional Gods, yoga – just isn’t there. Vishnu is hardly mentioned. As for Shiva, scholars point to the storm god Rudra as the progenitor, but the gap between this nature deity and the later full-blown devotional God is enormous.

- That’s why some scholars point to a long process of mutual interpenetration between a minority Aryan/Sanskrit culture and majority Dravidian culture. Over the centuries India went through a process of Sanskritisation, spreading “Vedic” culture from its first foothold in the north down through the entire sub-continent. Sanskrit “colonized” Dravidian culture but was in turn radically transformed by the “counter” culture of the Dravidians. Again, the principle is that the vast evolution of Indian religion & culture is inexplicable as a simple outgrowth of some Vedic chants, and that characteristic forms & practices like yoga, the mother goddess, and figures like Shiva must have deep, if invisible, non-Vedic roots in the sub-continent. Everything got the Vedic brand, but not everything had a Vedic source.

- But I know that flies in the face of the traditional view and brings up that old devil, the Aryan invasion theory. As in other traditional cultures, the Indian view is what could be called non-evolutionary; that is, all religious truth was there at the beginning, in the original Vedas and was only progressively “unpacked” in commentaries, sermons & epics. I guess I have to stick with the common sense view that while truth may be eternal its expression is not – religious thinking like all thinking evolves over time and is shaped by historical conditions.

- As for AIT, this is pure politics. Some of its proponents used it as a tool of colonialism, imagining blond beasts swooping down in chariots on the hapless natives, and imparting their superior culture. Some Indian nativists, on the other hand, simply reverse the terms, claiming India as the source of all culture, and immensely old beyond the imagination of modern scholars. Some make the astonishing claim that the Vedas encapsulate not only religious truth but also technological innovations like helicopters & electricity – a view we’ve seen even in these forums.

- But to me the idea that there was a widespread ancient culture complex, including a group of related languages, located somewhere roughly in central Asia, and that these peoples migrated east & west, intermingling with the locals, transforming cultures while being themselves transformed, not only is a plausible explanation for the known facts, but an appealing explanation as well. It points to an essential unity of Indo-European peoples and the cultures they helped form.

- But, as you suggest, I guess the problem is that some confuse later Greeks like Alexander or even later Europeans with the mysterious Indo-Europeans, when in fact we on the Greek side of the equation can be no more identified with ancient Indo-Europeans than can those on the Indian side. On either side, we’re merely cousins that share a common ancestor.

- Once divested of its racist & imperialist overtones, the Indo-European hypothesis is no insult to India, especially if it’s true that what is most characteristic about India is indigenous to the sub-continent in any case.

with metta

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Devadetta!

Thank you for your post.

Once divested of its racist & imperialist overtones, the Indo-European hypothesis is no insult to India, especially if it’s true that what is most characteristic about India is indigenous to the sub-continent in any case.

Well, this raises some interesting considerations. Who were these people of the Steppes, and where did they come from? Can we follow their impact into Europe, and can we trace them prior to the Steppes?

How far did the glaciers advance in this region from about 10k to 5k years ago? Is there any relationship between these people and the aboriginal Chinese of this area?

Are the Aryans "out of Africa?" Can we say the "mutant" gene for Caucasoid fair skin comes from their genetics?

It also raises the issue of the indigenous sub-continent peoples in India. Who were they, what were they like, where were they from? Any association with Polynesians, or is that a strictly Oriental connection? What of the ancient man from Australia whose DNA was sampled? (LM3, for Lake Mungo 3) When and where did sea-faring in antiquity truly enter the picture?

Sometime back Q posted a graph noting the comparison of genetics of the various peoples on the planet. Those I noted as being among the oldest included the Bushmen, but pretty nearly equally old were the Lapps and the Ainu. One can draw from this what they will, but it seems, genetically, that there are three prominent / dominant strains of human genomes. It would reason that these are the strains that we are told are no more than one-half of one percent variation between them. Do all of them source to Africa initially? (*Come to think of it, the Lapps and the Ainu have a common mythos in the "wildman/greene knight/santa claus" connection)

What do we know of indigenous Americans in that muddy soup we call pre-history, 5-10k years ago? We know they were here, but where and what were they doing?

Is my assessment valid that we can presume animist religous considerations (morality, etc) across them all? If so, why did two unique religious considerations appear out of nowhere in this sea of animism? What in man's evolution sparked such a quantum change in how people relate to their environment? Why did monotheism, and its historical rival poly-theism, spring up virtually side-by-side in the middle of the desert, surrounded by an ocean of animism? If animism was the norm, why did these new paradigms begin, and have they impacted the evolution of moral thought in humanity?

What association, if any, with agriculture, and animal husbandry in the developments in this period in history? Were the people of the Steppes nomads in the sense of herders, cattlemen? Are perhaps the Mongolian peoples decended of the people of the Steppes? Were the Indians of the sub-continent already agrarian?

To what can we attribute the great earthworks of antiquity? Most notably the Pyramids and Stonehenge, but including many overlooked treasures such as the serpent mounds in modern day Ohio, and earth and stone works in Central and South America, Southeast Asia and I would suggest the possibility of India and Africa.

Looking at such questions has to be from a neutral standpoint, as much as possible. But inevitably it will come around...is there anything of value to take away from what we find and apply to ourselves today? That is one of the latent questions in the OP.

 

[lunamoth]

A luna-tic idea

Well, most of this thread is too intense for my simple brain to take all in at once, but I like the sentiment!

So, here's what I will do when I am promoted to Queen. I call it "Adopt-a-Nation." Nations will be paried off kind of like college basketball teams are during March-madness. The richest nation will be paired with the very poorest nation (or nations, if they are small) and the closer you get to the middle of per capita wealth the more closely matched you will be with a slightly poorer naiton. You then share resources until the poorer nation is matched in wealth with the wealthier nation. These two nations then act in concert in the next round, adopting the poorer pair of nations. Etc. until wealth is redistributed.

'course, along the way, especially at first, some the nations will need significant infrastructure development and perhaps changes in government to make sure the resources get to all the people, and not just to those in charge.

Rogue nations who refuse to play will find themselves subdued by a united world amassing on its borders, armed with straws and spitballs made of recycled paper. (sure it sounds harmless, but who could withstand being pummeled with millions of slimy cellulose wads?).

peace,
lunamoth

 

[juantoo3]

Re: A luna-tic idea

Kindest Regards, Luna!

LOL! OK, I suppose we can take this in that direction, it would allow me to expand on what I was saying earlier about nature not being pretty.

Nations will be paried off kind of like college basketball teams are during March-madness. The richest nation will be paired with the very poorest nation (or nations, if they are small) and the closer you get to the middle of per capita wealth the more closely matched you will be with a slightly poorer naiton. You then share resources until the poorer nation is matched in wealth with the wealthier nation. These two nations then act in concert in the next round, adopting the poorer pair of nations. Etc. until wealth is redistributed.

I presume we are measuring wealth by quantity and quality of natural resources. But that implies an underlying agreement on the part of all cultures as to what wealth actually is. It still implies "nature as exploitable," which some cultures clearly (to me anyway) do not. What is implied is true in some sense, some do not have vast natural resources to draw from. However, some cultures, even with resources to draw from, may choose not to exploit those resources for the very reason I mentioned, it is not in their paradigm. A host of examples come to mind, like Native American cultures being adverse to mining and logging in a wholesale manner, which would preclude development of technology on a level we are now familiar and comfortable with. Another example I hesitate to raise, is the starvation by peoples surrounded by cattle, whom they hold sacred. Different scenario, but a similar basis in cultural paradigm. How does one "raise" the level of "wealth" of a people who intrinsically view wealth in an entirely different manner? I don't think throwing money at such a complex problem is a valid solution.

From the other side, can the paradigms of "developed" cultures comfortably accept a decline in the standard of living? If it meant giving up only electricity, I don't think the developed world could handle it. If the developed world had to slaughter and render their own meat, I think starvation would increase in the short term. We are too disposed to having our animals slaughtered for us, it is more comforting not to think that the Micky D's burger we just ate was never a living breathing creature at some time. Even should one decide not to eat meat, could the people then catch enough fish without depleting the stocks? It is tricky to catch enough to make a meal. Of course, we could grow our own vegetables. But that too is a skill set that is acquired over years, and not everyone has the place (or productive soil) to grow vegetables.

Living "within" nature requires a set of skills that city dwelling eliminates, disqualifies, and even looks down on. "Harmony with nature" is not dancing skyclad under a full moon in a manicured forest. Harmony with nature is watching the life drain from the eyes of the critter you just killed so you can feed your family. I don't think developed nations are prepared for such a backward step, mentally, emotionally, psychically and physically. I think this shows dramatically in the differences between the developed world and the surviving animist cultures.

Harmony with nature also means watching your child wither and die before your eyes of some simple disease process, as that is what nature does, it takes the weak. Medicine is one big technology that holds nature at bay, do we surrender it?

We are effectively speaking here of reverting from putting "men" on the moon and robotic rovers on Mars to cooking our evening meals with dried cow dung.

Rogue nations who refuse to play will find themselves subdued by a united world amassing on its borders, armed with straws and spitballs made of recycled paper. (sure it sounds harmless, but who could withstand being pummeled with millions of slimy cellulose wads?).

Do I need to dust off my spitwad shield?

 

[lunamoth]

Oh Juan, so serious! When I am Queen I am totally going to make it a law that one out of every ten posts must be silly.

But, now that you mention it, I don't see why you think we will all have to give up electricity and cook over cow dung, at least not in the first round. Perhaps by the fifth or tenth round we'll be scrambling to put those alternative energy sources into play so that we won't have to give up our televisions (not that that would be a bad thing) or internet access (which would be a tragedy of course; can you power the internet on cow dung?). But the idea is to bring other nations up by sharing resources, not to go back to nature. No no no, I am not for rending my own meat, but I realize that I'll probably have to give up meat by the sixth round.

Hey, I am not a back to nature girl. Red of tooth and claw and all that (and we're not talking lipstick and nail polish).

You suggest it would be an imposition of values. Fair enough. Not trying to spread the 'western disease' of materialism elsewhere, but if the US were to ask Haiti if there were any resources it needed, any medicines, any technology it would like to have access to, any debt forgiveness that would ease its burden, or any educators, doctors or engineers from our shores that it would find helpful, I don't think they will say "thanks but no thanks."

So, now I am done being serious in this thread. Enjoy!

peace,
luna

 

[lunamoth]

oops

 

[Devadatta]

Kindest Regards, Devadetta!

Thank you for your post.


Well, this raises some interesting considerations. Who were these people of the Steppes, and where did they come from? Can we follow their impact into Europe, and can we trace them prior to the Steppes?

How far did the glaciers advance in this region from about 10k to 5k years ago? Is there any relationship between these people and the aboriginal Chinese of this area?

Are the Aryans "out of Africa?" Can we say the "mutant" gene for Caucasoid fair skin comes from their genetics?

It also raises the issue of the indigenous sub-continent peoples in India. Who were they, what were they like, where were they from? Any association with Polynesians, or is that a strictly Oriental connection? What of the ancient man from Australia whose DNA was sampled? (LM3, for Lake Mungo 3) When and where did sea-faring in antiquity truly enter the picture?

Sometime back Q posted a graph noting the comparison of genetics of the various peoples on the planet. Those I noted as being among the oldest included the Bushmen, but pretty nearly equally old were the Lapps and the Ainu. One can draw from this what they will, but it seems, genetically, that there are three prominent / dominant strains of human genomes. It would reason that these are the strains that we are told are no more than one-half of one percent variation between them. Do all of them source to Africa initially? (*Come to think of it, the Lapps and the Ainu have a common mythos in the "wildman/greene knight/santa claus" connection)

What do we know of indigenous Americans in that muddy soup we call pre-history, 5-10k years ago? We know they were here, but where and what were they doing?

Is my assessment valid that we can presume animist religous considerations (morality, etc) across them all? If so, why did two unique religious considerations appear out of nowhere in this sea of animism? What in man's evolution sparked such a quantum change in how people relate to their environment? Why did monotheism, and its historical rival poly-theism, spring up virtually side-by-side in the middle of the desert, surrounded by an ocean of animism? If animism was the norm, why did these new paradigms begin, and have they impacted the evolution of moral thought in humanity?

What association, if any, with agriculture, and animal husbandry in the developments in this period in history? Were the people of the Steppes nomads in the sense of herders, cattlemen? Are perhaps the Mongolian peoples decended of the people of the Steppes? Were the Indians of the sub-continent already agrarian?

To what can we attribute the great earthworks of antiquity? Most notably the Pyramids and Stonehenge, but including many overlooked treasures such as the serpent mounds in modern day Ohio, and earth and stone works in Central and South America, Southeast Asia and I would suggest the possibility of India and Africa.

Looking at such questions has to be from a neutral standpoint, as much as possible. But inevitably it will come around...is there anything of value to take away from what we find and apply to ourselves today? That is one of the latent questions in the OP.

- You’ve taken my mention of the Indo-European hypothesis as a jumping off point for a whole barrage questions – not all of which I understand. I’m kind of wondering what you’re aiming at here, since such a barrage is kind of hard to respond to without some unifying theme.

- I guess the first point I’d make is that the Indo-European hypothesis I’m citing here with approval is a linguistic/cultural not a racial or genetic theory. As is well known, it began with the discovery of the incontestable family relationship between Sanskrit and Latin & Greek. Some have also detected common social divisions among Indo-European peoples. Fundamentally, all it’s doing is pointing to the obvious existence of a widespread group of related languages, and trying to show their possible origins & distribution over time.

- So I guess I’d caution against the danger of confounding genetics & culture, which you appear to be doing just a little here.

- If the point you’re making is that prehistory is notoriously shadowy & complex and the whole human race is inextricably related to one degree or another, I agree. But that shouldn’t prevent us from thinking about one small subset of these vast relationships, which is all that the Indo-European hypothesis represents.

- As for animism/monotheism/polytheism, etc., I question the usefulness of these old distinctions and don’t at all accept the vastly over-hyped notion of a “quantum leap” from animism to monotheism. These are culture-serving if not plainly Euro-centric notions designed to fortify “difference”.

- There’s no doubt that the Hebrew writers of the Tanakh were forgers (in both senses of the word) of new forms of human consciousness. But the Greeks around the same were also forging their own new forms, as were the Indians, the Chinese, and others. None of these were quantum leaps but gradual birthings.

- As well, these forgings of human consciousness involved more than simply religious or metaphysical notions, strictly speaking. They also involved cognitive changes, new applications for human reason, the accumulation of knowledge, etc. Often what are taken to be fundamentally different religious ideas are in fact the same ideas in different cultural & intellectual settings. Fundamentally, the difference between the most denigrated & tribal “animistic” thinking and the high-toned noodlings of, say, a theologian like Paul Tillich, is much less than you might think – once we adjust for the added instruments of Greek reason.

with metta

 

[Devadatta]

Re: A luna-tic idea

Well, most of this thread is too intense for my simple brain to take all in at once, but I like the sentiment!

So, here's what I will do when I am promoted to Queen. I call it "Adopt-a-Nation." Nations will be paried off kind of like college basketball teams are during March-madness. The richest nation will be paired with the very poorest nation (or nations, if they are small) and the closer you get to the middle of per capita wealth the more closely matched you will be with a slightly poorer naiton. You then share resources until the poorer nation is matched in wealth with the wealthier nation. These two nations then act in concert in the next round, adopting the poorer pair of nations. Etc. until wealth is redistributed.

'course, along the way, especially at first, some the nations will need significant infrastructure development and perhaps changes in government to make sure the resources get to all the people, and not just to those in charge.

Rogue nations who refuse to play will find themselves subdued by a united world amassing on its borders, armed with straws and spitballs made of recycled paper. (sure it sounds harmless, but who could withstand being pummeled with millions of slimy cellulose wads?).

peace,
lunamoth

Hi Luna. Your balloon puncture is much appreciated. And your Luna-cy is devoutly to be wished for.

with metta

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Luna!

Oh Juan, so serious! When I am Queen I am totally going to make it a law that one out of every ten posts must be silly.

I appreciate that. To me this subject is part and parcel of my entire walk of faith, which is probably why I take it so seriously. I am actually very grateful it has come up. (Can you tell the excitement in my posts?)

I don't see why you think we will all have to give up electricity and cook over cow dung, at least not in the first round. Perhaps by the fifth or tenth round we'll be scrambling to put those alternative energy sources into play so that we won't have to give up our televisions (not that that would be a bad thing) or internet access (which would be a tragedy of course; can you power the internet on cow dung?). But the idea is to bring other nations up by sharing resources, not to go back to nature. No no no, I am not for rending my own meat, but I realize that I'll probably have to give up meat by the sixth round.

Perhaps I misunderstood. I was relating to exploiting nature and applying that across the board to everybody (6 billion plus), albeit there was no actual formula, just a visual image to make the point. How long it would take and how far it was actually (and equitably) applied is another matter, presuming a "top down" from the gov approach.

There is a "bottom up" grassroots movement, in the states and elsewhere, of "back-to-the-landers" since the '60's and '70's in response to Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring." Perhaps that would be a better approach if it was better encouraged. Modification into existing environments to accomodate cultural differences would be required. Some of the BTL bunch are qualified nutters, but a lot of them are not. A lot of them have come up with some potentially viable small scale technologies that harness nature while being renewable.

But these things are skill sets, one must be proficient and capable in order to do these things. One can live with only solar power, but one must have what is effectively a mini powerplant / battery bank that must be properly maintenanced, with the skill sets and knowledge to use it, and all that implies. Solar panels are not "set and forget."

There are some passive solar technologies, in architecture and such, that utilize the sun without the need to generate power. You can heat your house, but you can't run a computer.

Hey, I am not a back to nature girl. Red of tooth and claw and all that (and we're not talking lipstick and nail polish).

Which is kinda my point...< he prepares to duck and dodge whatever small, handy, semi-hard object might be flying his way, >, back to nature is not impossible, but the required paradigm is so foreign as to be like learning a new language. And we know how resistant some can be, to foreign things and thoughts. The question is really, is it desireable to do so? Or is there a third, better way? Or should we leave well-enough alone?

To BTL, rendering your own animals is a desired skillset. I relate to the pioneers, building the frontier, had to do it all themselves. If they wanted it, they had to grow / raise / harvest / process / build their own. And the slaughtering of the animal was a somber reminder of life, and death.

I know its hard to look at, but Jesus was our (as Christians) sacrifice. Sacrifice is a somber reminder in monotheism. Taking life is hard, and it should be hard, so that taking a life is not something that is done mindlessly or out of meanness. Except perhaps in war. You don't have the luxury of memories, they come along well enough after the fact. (PTSD)

You suggest it would be an imposition of values. Fair enough. Not trying to spread the 'western disease' of materialism elsewhere,

LOL, I hadn't thought of it that way, but you're pretty close. Of course, whose disease are we inadvertantly spreading? Is it truly a good thing?

but if the US were to ask Haiti if there were any resources it needed, any medicines, any technology it would like to have access to, any debt forgiveness that would ease its burden, or any educators, doctors or engineers from our shores that it would find helpful, I don't think they will say "thanks but no thanks."

I don't think I ever did get a history of Haiti that made sense as to why the US is so against them. But it is reasonable to say that the US does these things for a laundry list of other countries.

And so, if Madame will forgive my forwardness, the jester will retire for now.

 

[lunamoth]

Kindest Regards, Luna!

I appreciate that. To me this subject is part and parcel of my entire walk of faith, which is probably why I take it so seriously. I am actually very grateful it has come up. (Can you tell the excitement in my posts?)

Hi Juan, actually I take it quite seriously too. It weighs on me, in fact. Which is probably why I respond with jokes.

When I hear 'sustainable living,' two things pop into my mind, and they are not either war or back to nature.

I think 1) population control and 2) resource conservation.

To avoid war I think equitible resource distribution.

peace,
lunamoth

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Devadatta!

Thank you for your response.

- You’ve taken my mention of the Indo-European hypothesis as a jumping off point for a whole barrage questions – not all of which I understand. I’m kind of wondering what you’re aiming at here, since such a barrage is kind of hard to respond to without some unifying theme.

I'm sorry, just free thinking. No real unifying theme other than late pre-history into earliest history.

I guess the first point I’d make is that the Indo-European hypothesis I’m citing here with approval is a linguistic/cultural not a racial or genetic theory. As is well known, it began with the discovery of the incontestable family relationship between Sanskrit and Latin & Greek. Some have also detected common social divisions among Indo-European peoples. Fundamentally, all it’s doing is pointing to the obvious existence of a widespread group of related languages, and trying to show their possible origins & distribution over time.

We looked into this a little on another thread about languages, but thank you for the focus. I am not suggesting racial anything.

So I guess I’d caution against the danger of confounding genetics & culture, which you appear to be doing just a little here.

I try to remain aware these are different things. But they do often follow each other. I assure, I have no agenda. I have no need to prove superiority.

If the point you’re making is that prehistory is notoriously shadowy & complex and the whole human race is inextricably related to one degree or another, I agree. But that shouldn’t prevent us from thinking about one small subset of these vast relationships, which is all that the Indo-European hypothesis represents.

Agreed, I was merely carrying that focus in other directions as well. I would think there to be others of significance at this time as well.

As for animism/monotheism/polytheism, etc., I question the usefulness of these old distinctions and don’t at all accept the vastly over-hyped notion of a “quantum leap” from animism to monotheism. These are culture-serving if not plainly Euro-centric notions designed to fortify “difference”.

I am not aware of any over-hyped notions, I was merely associating known finds with terms that are familiar to me.

There’s no doubt that the Hebrew writers of the Tanakh were forgers (in both senses of the word) of new forms of human consciousness. But the Greeks around the same were also forging their own new forms, as were the Indians, the Chinese, and others. None of these were quantum leaps but gradual birthings.

I think the Greeks were actually later, much later than Mesopotamia. I accept there were great things happening in India and China at this time, I am just not familiar with them. Or do you mean the Greeks were contemporary with the people of the Steppes? Was the incursion in India fairly recent?

As well, these forgings of human consciousness involved more than simply religious or metaphysical notions, strictly speaking. They also involved cognitive changes, new applications for human reason, the accumulation of knowledge, etc. Often what are taken to be fundamentally different religious ideas are in fact the same ideas in different cultural & intellectual settings. Fundamentally, the difference between the most denigrated & tribal “animistic” thinking and the high-toned noodlings of, say, a theologian like Paul Tillich, is much less than you might think – once we adjust for the added instruments of Greek reason.

OK...a chance to view myself from the eyes of another. Forgive my ignorance, in the spirit of wanting to understand, what are these added instruments of Greek reason?

If I ask too much, forgive me.

 

[Devadatta]

I think the Greeks were actually later, much later than Mesopotamia. I accept there were great things happening in India and China at this time, I am just not familiar with them. Or do you mean the Greeks were contemporary with the people of the Steppes? Was the incursion in India fairly recent?.

Hi Juan. Here I was taking up your mention of the development of monotheism, which I guess most people associate with the composers/writers/compilers of the old testament/Tanakh. Depending on the chronology you trust that roughly covers the period 1800?-300? B.C.E., which is contemporary with the emergence of the Greek peoples from early beginnings through the classical age to the Hellenistic period. This was similarly a formative period for the ancient civilizations of India and China. But again, this is a very rough correspondance, not meant to be taken as (ahem) gospel.

OK...a chance to view myself from the eyes of another. Forgive my ignorance, in the spirit of wanting to understand, what are these added instruments of Greek reason?.

Here I was just making a distinction between core religous concepts and later philosophical elaborations. But the point I’m aiming at is that to fairly compare religious traditions on the fundamental level we should compare core concepts with core concepts. To compare Taoism and Christianity, for example, I think we should set Chuang-tse beside Jesus, not beside Aquinas.

If I ask too much, forgive me.

No, no, no. No worries. If anyone should apologize it should be me for being a little scratchy in my responses.

with metta, as always