When did man get 'modern'

Tao_Equus

Interfaith Forums
Messages
5,826
Reaction score
4
Points
0
Location
Edinburgh, scotland
I ask this question of you all not because I want to hear the anthropological facts as deduced by science but because I am interested in how you all as individuals arrive at your own personal answer. Of course many of you will have your beliefs formed to some extent by science, certainly the case for me, but others are more influenced by scripture or the doctrine of thier given faith.
I would appreciate if you could give a reasonably precise circa date. My motivation for this is to get a genral overview of the range of dates and the thinking that supports them.
My thanks to you all in advance for sharing your thoughts on this.


David
 
When did 'Modern' man come into existence?

Hmmm....with the making of tools?
...language?
...writing?
...controlling fire?
...creation of larger social structure?
...the advent of government?
...creation of religions?
...controlling the seas?
...creation of WMDs the methodology to eliminate man?

I can't say any of those times rings a bell...I couldn't even put the above in order w/o research.

I think modern moves...as man raises in consciousness or control of his environment...modern moves with him...maybe it is that man will become modern when we learn to amicably coexist. You know differing denominations, religions, races, genders, nationalities can talk on any subject without sarcasm or blood pressure changes...
 
Mankind consisted, approximately 18.5 million years ago (sic), of a cyclopean `Giant,' described variously in the Judaeo-Christian scriptures as either nephilim, gibborim, or grigori. These can be researched on Wikipedia for more detail ... but I keep generally to the idea that these records are not mere superstition, or pure guesswork, or even simply some kind or oral, or allegorical tradition. I believe that these accounts are providing us with literal enough indications.

Prior to 18 1/2 million years ago, our stature would have been greater, presumably much greater ... although here, I do question just how literal the indications really are. If I was told that our stature was as much as 100 feet high, I would not put this beyond possibility. We were not physical prior to this time, and for insight into our physical stature or appearance during this time I turn to other Sacred Scriptures ... eg, The Secret Doctrine, by H.P. Blavatsky.

Blavatsky based her testimony, and the accounts she provided, upon a collation of various works that were available in the period of the 1880s from a number of fields, including anthropology, religious testimony, various philosophical teachings, and even the fledgling theory of Darwinian Evolution & other geological evidence. She was not given to wild speculations ... or to the fabrication of evidence. Some will disagree, because they have heard or read this somewhere, yet this only displays an ignorance of her scholarship, and of her intimate acquaintance with the facts she was presenting.

Blavatsky was a firsthand witness to many of the subjects she was discussing, when it comes to the teachings regarding early Humanity. While many skeptics still will not even admit of the mere existence of such proven abilities as genuine clairvoyance and psychometry ... this has not stopped numerous individuals gifted with these abilities from carrying out their research in recent decades and centuries. In some cases, careful records were even made, though not all of these are strictly along lines relevant to this topic. Some, however, are. And I have read a selection of this type of account, by various authors of differing philosophical mindset and religious background, and also of varying acquaintance with scientific research & terminology.

I have had to disregard some of what I've read, or else relegate it to the "back shelf" until some future time as it either becomes of interest again, or begins to fit with the greater portion of my understanding. Some several accounts, on the other hand, have rung true ... and I decided this not simply because each investigator's findings or methods fully corroborated another's (as in many cases, this is not quite so) - but rather, because of the larger picture, and framework, into which all these accounts came to fit. In short, it is like a mosaic, many of whose pieces are missing, yet the vast majority of which does present itself - to each and every one of us who will give honest, unbiased inquiry.

I can safely say all of this, not simply because I have some deep, comfortably held, inner conviction ... but because, simply put, I have "checked the facts" of my own accord, to the best of my current ability, and despite some rather notable pieces of the mosaic that are conspicuous by their absence (!) ... there is not even so much missing as the mysterious "LINK" - which scientists will NEVER find, owing to the fact that it does not exist.

To make short shrift of notions that will only be superstition to some, I believe it is safe to say that, even 18.5 million years ago, mankind was (from one point of view) already a race millions of years old, having begun her trek upon the present Earth globe in superphyscial states of matter altogether! We have the Divine Progenitors to thank for this, the various Pitris (Sanskrit, `Fathers') of Hindu Scriptures. These include the agnishvattas and barhishads, these being directly relevant to the early times I am mentioning.

At about 18.5 million years ago, something momentous occurred. The cause, and details, is a somewhat lengthy account, and can be found both in Blavatksy's Secret Doctrine, yet also in the various writings of Alice Bailey, notably A Treatise on Cosmic Fire. Many, many other authors have elucidated on the accounts provided therein, but the only souce that occurs to me of a slightly less esoteric nature ... is the Popol Vuh. Blavatsky makes ample reference to the Popol Vuh, of course, so certainly it does not stand alone. The contributions of many of the Native traditions of South America also back up Blavatksy's claims, and teachings.

There is a precise date given (see below) by one of the Eastern Teachers, in the writings of Alice Bailey, for the "Occult Appearance" of Humanity upon this planet, the 4th Kingdom in nature. It is to be understood that prior to this time, we were still technically a part of the animal kingdom - and this is understandable if you consider the definition of the word `Individualization' as it appears below. In short, this means that a given animal has become so evolved through the long cycles of birth and rebirth which govern all lives in manifest existence (so said the Buddha) ... that this animal ceases to belong to a "group soul" - and is esoterically imparted with a Soul of its own. It is not that the evolving animal was devoid of an ensouling principle up until that point. Rather, Idividualization has to do with the activity of consciousness upon the higher portions of the mental plane ... and it marks a definite shift of focus for the evolving entity. The date given refers to an event of greater planetary significance than any that has since occurred - save for the present time, and the transformation now affecting large portions of Humanity ... on a much higher turn of the evolutionary spiral.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]"I earlier gave a hint upon which definite astrological computation could be based when I gave the time of the "Great Approach" of the Hierarchy to our planetary manifestation when individualization took place and the fourth kingdom in nature appeared. I placed that stupendous event as happening 21,688,345 years ago. [as of ~1945] At that time the Sun was in Leo. The process then initiated upon the physical plane and producing outer physical events took approximately 5,000 years to mature and the Sun was in Gemini when the final crisis of individualization took place and the door was then closed upon the animal kingdom." (Esoteric Astrology, p.64)[/FONT]
I would also commend the following article in its entirety as most useful on this subject, as it is a relatively short compilation which draws from many of the sources I mention, and others. I have not read it from start to finish, but every paragraph is like a pearl of wisdom to me ... and will surely raise at least a few eyebrows, even among the most skeptical! It goes into much more depth than I can - even were I try and make this one of my mammoth posts! (err, which I was not, or so I thought :rolleyes:)

At any rate, the date of 18.5 million years is usually given (which seems a full 3 million years off from the above!) as being the concretization of early humanity into the Lemurian 'giants' of the Bible. These were easily 12 or 15 feet tall, although I think I have seen references to 18 feet. The reason I think we may have been 100 feet tall or more prior to this (in etheric, or astral substance) ... is twofold. One, there are the statues on Easter Island. I cannot prove that these were meant as literal indications of our relative stature ... but nor can you disprove it. ;)

And second, the statues at Bamiyan/Bamian (Afghanistan) were built as indications of our gradual diminishing over time, across the Five Main Races that have comprised our Humanity. Two of these were non-physical altogether, and these were indicated by the largest two statues, not destroyed by the Taliban. I believe a 3rd statue was actually discovered, also being of large stature, though not nearly as much as the largest two. This would indicate Lemurian man, as in the excerpt quoted above, and at the time period of ~21.6 million (or 18.5 million?) years ago, when Individualization occurred, and when we took truly physical form. I might suggest that the latter date (18.5 mya) corresponds to full concretization, while the older date (21.6 mya) refers to Individualization. Just a guess. The final two statues, representing Atlantean and Aryan Humanity, would not be large at all! No small wonder they may be difficult to locate ...

Atlantis existed some several million years ago, though it was already on the decline a million years ago. They flew vimanas ... and this hardly sounds like stupid, Cro-magnon or Neanderthal cavemen. :p As Graham Hancock says, "We are a race suffering from amnesia." The problem is, some are unwilling to apply the smelling salts ... :(

Another quote from the writings of Alice Bailey along these lines is useful (again, from the article linked above, and here):
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]History, as studied today, goes back but a little way and although the enlightened historian and scientist may extend the story of humanity to millions of years, there is naught known about the races of men who lived those millions of years ago; naught is known of the civilization which flourished in early Atlantean times twelve million years ago; naught is known at all of the still more ancient Lemurian civilization which goes back more than fifteen million years; still less is known of that twilight period which existed twenty-one million years ago when men were scarcely human and when they were so closely related to the animal kingdom that we call them by the cumbersome name of "animal-man." (Esoteric Healing, p.226)
[/FONT]​
No no, I'm afraid that all these many references, from these many sources, and the various leads I have tried to provide ... these do not represent some scatterbrained notion, wild & unfounded speculation, or superstitious reverie - on the part of historians and researchers either old or new. They are plain, lucid testimony - sometimes involving considerable detail and literally volumes of exposition ... and the reward for devoting onself to their study is more priceless than every piece of scientific instrumentation in this world put together, more valuable than a pile of religious treatises eight miles high. The real value, for me, is that doors have been opened which otherwise might have remained forever sealed - and mysteries sparked in my imagination and innermost curiosity ... which propel me onward, and elicit the keenest & sincerest interest.

I am no real scholar, just a fool with his ideas, and his books. How was it put, by Erasmus I believe ...
"When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes." :)
If I could recommend one book only which would settle this question once & for all (granted, it may take a lifetime of study, and it will leave ten thousand questions unanswered, where perhaps it settles ten) ... it wouldbe The Secret Doctrine, by H.P. Blavatsky (quite affordable, and an abridgement exists). Even just the 2nd Volume of said work (Anthropogenesis) would suffice. Even just a chapter or two, will recast this question, I am confident ... as most certainly it has, for me.

tajasi ... verbose mode, it would seem :rolleyes:
 
wil said:
When did 'Modern' man come into existence?

Hmmm....with the making of tools?
...language?
...writing?
...controlling fire?
...creation of larger social structure?
...the advent of government?
...creation of religions?
...controlling the seas?
...creation of WMDs the methodology to eliminate man?

I can't say any of those times rings a bell...I couldn't even put the above in order w/o research.

I think modern moves...as man raises in consciousness or control of his environment...modern moves with him...maybe it is that man will become modern when we learn to amicably coexist. You know differing denominations, religions, races, genders, nationalities can talk on any subject without sarcasm or blood pressure changes...


Thanks Wil for your response. I now only hope that the questions you raise leads you to some thought on it and that you come back and share them.

regards

David
 
Thank you Andrew,

I sort of expected you to post on this, given that the subject is intermingled with several other threads that takes no clairvoyance tho. Certainly you present a thought provoking set of ideas that, primarily because of my respect for your written thoughts throughout this forum, I will endeavour to look at in more detail. I must pass the library in the morning and in the first instance will attempt to order the volume you reccomend from there.

To be candid my own intuitive senses reel back from much of what you say. On time periods if you were to insert 'thousands' where you use millions it would be close to my own recconings. And things like Easter Island and the carvings of giants you reference are to my mind much more recent works. I do believe it possible that there was a fairly sophisticated civilisation prior to the mesopotamian orthodoxy, one that had global reach even. But to be honest my research into that area has only just begun. Hence this thread.

Thanks again for a your thoughts

regards

David
 
My choice would be language first, and then the creation of methods of animal domestication and the planting and harvesting of grains and edible roots.

Current research indicates that after language was first used in the south of Africa, somewhat in excess of 60,000 years ago, it sparked the migrations of modern humans across the Palestinian land bridge into the other reaches of the world. There are also indications that coast-hopping vessels were utilized to move into the asian subcontinent and Austrailia

Agricultural and animal husbandry practices seemed to arise in the fertile crescent of the near east 10,000-12,000 years ago, and shortly thereafter in parts of S. America and Southeast Asia.

Without person to person communication through language, organized migration into the unknown would not have been feasable if not impossible. Without community-based methods of food production and storage, there was no impetus to create home places and eventually communities of like individuals.

One could argue that groups of cave dwellers would fit these parameters, but they were still basically hunters and gatherers, and therefore nomadic in character and practice. Permanent presence in a location did not happen before agriculture's dawning as far as can be determined.

flow....:)
 
Kindest Regards, all!

IMHO, man started on his way to becoming modern when he made the realization that he could affect change in his environment.

In my humble opinion, I think humanity began when humans crossed the threshold into consciousness; foresight and forethought and reasoning, in combination with self-awareness. Or, as Genesis puts it, "the knowledge of good and evil." This is the threshold beyond which other creatures seem not to cross, or not very far. All of the rest; fire and tool making, language, modern moral concepts, agriculture, animal husbandry, etc. are extensions from this threshold; without consciousness these things cannot come into existence.
 
Thank you Flowperson, Seattlegal and Juantoo for your input.

All thats been said in your posts is of course a part of the common consensus I would expect to be reached. Language and tool making are not exclusively human characteristics, dolphins and parrots for example are increasingly shown to have a highly complex language, crows and chimps both make and use tools. So I would guess that such skills appeared in our pre-modern ancestors. The advent of concepts of self-awareness are also present in the art of Neanderthals and Cro-magnun man and so even this faculty I would suggest pre-dates modern man, certainly as viewed from a paleo-anthropological stance. I would go further in that instance and say that a people capable of art were also capable of spiritual thought.


Regards

David
 
Kindest Regards, Tao!

I think it is reasonable to conclude that other creatures have a "language," it is somewhat presumtuous on our part to conclude they do not, primarily because we seldom understand that language. There is a difference, in my opinion, in that human language tends to convey abstract thoughts to other humans. "Animal" language seems to me much more "simple," like: "warning, danger, predator on the prowl!" or "this is food, see?" or "I love you," or "I'm the biggest and baddest and you are not, so get out of my way!" Much of this communication is physical, not necessarily verbal.

There are some rudimentary exceptions, the porpoises and parrots you mentioned. In the example of the porpoises, I think there is some degree of merit to what you say. Parrots, on the other hand, are mimics. The parrot you pointed to awhile back is a good example. This is a "kept" bird, free from the concerns of living in the wild. In the wild, this bird is just as likely to mimic sounds not only of other parrots, but of some other creatures as well, for various reasons, not least protection, as well as "community." A "kept" bird is "trained," that is, going against "animal" nature. Many animals can be trained, circuses are full of them, from dogs to elephants. Would these animals do these "tricks" of their own volition in the wild? Trainability is a mark of potential, but in the wild this potential is not applied in a manner humans typically view as leading towards consciousness and thought.

The advent of concepts of self-awareness are also present in the art of Neanderthals and Cro-magnun man and so even this faculty I would suggest pre-dates modern man, certainly as viewed from a paleo-anthropological stance.

I know we have discussed this before. If I recall correctly, Neandertal is not directly credited with the likes of the cave paintings. Neandertal "art" is more geometric, and limited in scope. We are Cro-Magnon, that is, Cro-Magnon is modern humanity, there is no distinction. Further, if Cro-Magnon and Neandertal can interbreed, as I have already shown a number of times with the Child of Lapedo, I see no distinction. Neandertal was simply another "form" or "race" of humans, although arguably not "modern," and apparently not evolutionarily successful. Neandertal would not be the first, or last, "race" of humans to disappear.
 
juantoo3 said:
Kindest Regards, Tao!

I think it is reasonable to conclude that other creatures have a "language," it is somewhat presumtuous on our part to conclude they do not, primarily because we seldom understand that language. There is a difference, in my opinion, in that human language tends to convey abstract thoughts to other humans. "Animal" language seems to me much more "simple," like: "warning, danger, predator on the prowl!" or "this is food, see?" or "I love you," or "I'm the biggest and baddest and you are not, so get out of my way!" Much of this communication is physical, not necessarily verbal.

There are some rudimentary exceptions, the porpoises and parrots you mentioned. In the example of the porpoises, I think there is some degree of merit to what you say. Parrots, on the other hand, are mimics. The parrot you pointed to awhile back is a good example. This is a "kept" bird, free from the concerns of living in the wild. In the wild, this bird is just as likely to mimic sounds not only of other parrots, but of some other creatures as well, for various reasons, not least protection, as well as "community." A "kept" bird is "trained," that is, going against "animal" nature. Many animals can be trained, circuses are full of them, from dogs to elephants. Would these animals do these "tricks" of their own volition in the wild? Trainability is a mark of potential, but in the wild this potential is not applied in a manner humans typically view as leading towards consciousness and thought.



I know we have discussed this before. If I recall correctly, Neandertal is not directly credited with the likes of the cave paintings. Neandertal "art" is more geometric, and limited in scope. We are Cro-Magnon, that is, Cro-Magnon is modern humanity, there is no distinction. Further, if Cro-Magnon and Neandertal can interbreed, as I have already shown a number of times with the Child of Lapedo, I see no distinction. Neandertal was simply another "form" or "race" of humans, although arguably not "modern," and apparently not evolutionarily successful. Neandertal would not be the first, or last, "race" of humans to disappear.


With respect you open your post with the word presumptious. I would beg of you that you review your entire post in such a light. Honestly I am loathe to argue mute points with you, but I checked, and you had already conceded to the argument regarding michocondrial DNA. I did not start this thread because I wanted a great debate between us or anybody else. And so I dont look for argument of any kind on this thread and would ask you to merely define that article of humanity in history you consider his/our first step into modernity. At least for the time being...perhaps if you wish we can in future return to the delicaies or finaries of our given overviews.

With utmost respect to my friend, Juantoo

david
 
Back
Top