|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Fields Recordings From The Sea |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Apr 21, 2004, 10:04
|
||
|
You misjudge me, grievously ;) I'd fully registered that Tombo wasn't of the Eden persuasion. But I was actually wanting to confront the fact that such a concept "seems to bounce round discussions of pre-monumental history all the time" not lay it on him and knock him down. It seemed to me it's such an often mentioned thing and deserved attention. Mental and physical evolution going hand in hand - I'd have thought that's right, as evolution is powered only by survival, or more precisely, non-survival, so if a change of attitude isn't life threatening it isn't an evolutionary change, merely a societal one and liable to change back at any time.
|
|||
BlueGloves 858 posts |
Apr 21, 2004, 10:33
|
||
|
and if a Golden Age exists, then it's now, for us here in the rich countries. However Bronze Age culture seems to have been very stable and we'll be lucky to equal that longevity. TomBo's quote is from Dylan's 'It's alright ma - I'm only bleeding'. When this man plugged in we thought the world had changed significantly. It had !
|
|||
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Apr 21, 2004, 11:59
|
||
It wasn't a direct attack, although it was obviously 'inspired' by your comments. It was more a rambling observation in the context of parts of this amazing thread :-)
|
|||
|
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Apr 21, 2004, 12:03
|
||
|
"but the fittest minds are dominating the planet " That very much depends upon your definition of a fit mind doesn't it. I would say that a fit mind is not one that is power hungry. I would say that it's a mind that won't or can't kill. I would say that it's a mind that shows compassion. There are some very unfit minds dominating this planet ... To dominate this planet you need money. That money could well have been amassed originally by a fit mind, but if the offspring ain't all that fit do they deserve to dominate because they have moeny. Perhaps today it is survival of the fittest bank account. The next president of the USA could be there because of beans, tomatoes and tin-cans - which he had nothing to do with until he married the money. Says it all ...
|
|||
Hob 4033 posts |
Apr 21, 2004, 12:17
|
||
|
>We still carry our pre-human heritage around with us in our heads> Phylogeny recaptitulates ontology? That's a phrase (or something like it) that was supposed to illustrate how humans display the history of evolution during gestation. Apparently it has been discredited due to Victorians drawing stuff they way they wanted it rather than the way it actually is. Yet people still talk about Mammalian brain and lizard brain. There is allocortex (evolutionarily older)and neocortex (evolutionarily younger).
|
|||
morfe 2992 posts |
Apr 21, 2004, 12:37
|
||
|
"But I get puzzled about the "oneness with nature" mullarkey. What evidence can there be that there was once such an attitude?" It's a good question, and I'm going to answer: We accept that our ancestors are different from us in ways that are measurable. One way to measure this difference is by comparing our 'developed' lifestyle and psychological/spiritual processes with people that even today continue to live a neolithic life. In my mind, the most apparent and immediate difference is the observable relationship between the people and the land in which they live. In considering Australian aboriginal life (traditional), we can see that landforms are believed to be the marks of their ancestors. 'Dreamtime' and the landscape are woven together, indivisible, and existing together on differing levels of consciousness. Non more or less real than the other. This is a giant leap for the modern mind to make. Another example is the shamanic ability to become the animal that is hunted, in a very real and spiritual sense. This is a profound aspect of the linked psychology/spirituality between the ancient homo-sap and the land in which s/he LIVED with a capital LIVED. Anyone who spends a freat amount of time outdoors, relatively unshielded (in a psychological way moreso than physical) from the processes of growth, death and change apparent on every level of being and every second of life, can ONLY come to a point where the sense of 'belonging' occurs. In no way do I mean crystal-gazing and knitting muesli; I mean a fundamental baseline cognition of the struggle and changing balance of the processes of birth growth and death, and the interconnectedness of all. This has been approximated by modern humans more out of wishful thinking and an inherent belief in a 'golden age', or a golden state, like a cross between Dr Doolittle and Mrs Woo-Woo/Hiawatha, which in so so many ways has just assisted the dehumanising effect on tribes and peoples that still share a more than commensal relationship with the land on which they and their ancestors have nurtured, hunted, fished and picked. 'being at one' is, I think, crap. But not because I can't imagine or haven't felt part of the whole thing, a microcosm within a macrocosm, which I do. It's not until I felt the great nothingness, the umbra nihili thang, the complete sense of passive smiling agape (insert word for which there is no word) in the flow of time and decay, that I ever felt 'one', and it was spelled with a zer0 not an open mouthed 'O'. As for evidence that there is such 'malarkey' as living at one with nature, we all eat food that's grown in the earth, we all walk on the earth, swim in and drink the water, posses within us the Elements, etc etc. I'd argue that nothing has changed other than our perceptions and the varying degrees of 'shielding' from necessary responsibility towards our environment. The experential gap is so wide between the factory worker and the ancestor that we have to look towards Amazonia, Irian Jaya, etc etc. http://www.learn.co.uk/default.asp?WCI=Unit&WCU=26816 Perhaps check the link and argue the evidence AGAINST (i.e) the Sioux ever having experienced 'one-ness' with nature? Bearing in mind that 'one-ness with nature' meant living and dying by it, just as we do now, albeit once being immeasurably more aware of the process, and actually bearing the responsibility for poisoning the river etc.
|
|||
|
Hob 4033 posts |
Apr 21, 2004, 12:53
|
||
|
<The fact that so many groups of people can have so many different ways of thinking implies to me that even if there is a common root-psyche in us we have some degree of control over it.> I'm struggling to coherently express my thoughts here. One of the reasons why humans are different from most other animals (and we are, no value judgement intended), is that we adapt. The ability to adapt is genetically inherited. But the results of the adaptations are not. They are determined by the changes in environmental conditions that require adaptation in the first place. So when the environment alters (i.e. Ice ages ending etc.) humans can adapt their thinking about their behaviour in order to survive the altered environment. It doesn't happen quickly, and just as the illusion of gradual changes in the genome is losing suppport in favour of the idea that there are sudden quantum leaps every now and then, the idea that human behaviour patterns have evolved smoothly from animalistic lack of awareness, to a modern "Oooh aren't we the cleverest monkeys in the jungle"is, to my mind, tosh. Instead, what we see the traces of when we consider human conciousness pre-history, is evidence of the same kind of unsmooth evolution. The thing that lets us screw up our planet on such a grand scale is our ability to adapt our neuronal pathways to fit whichever environment we were brought up in. At a push we can change in our own lifetimes, but we won't always be too happy about it. The next generation however, whilst having more or less the same genetics as their parents, will consider ithe new conditions normal, becuase the genes that produce the human brain are such that they contain the capacity for plasticity. But the brain is not the mind, the map is not the territory etc... So we can't look just to objective evidence if we ever are to have a chance of understanding our place in the multiverse. I guess what I'm trying to stumble towards here, is that what makes us a particularly strange species of primate, is that we can learn and adapt. Also, that we have learned that we can learn, and that we can alter our behaviour and adapt the environment as a result. So, I'd say, there is a 'root psyche'. It's the hardwired parts of the brain that allow us to be flexible in response to our surroundings. And if there has been any major change since the last ice age, it's been that our environment has allowed us the leisure to realise that we do have some control over the way in which we behave. Hence the appearance of social norms, rituals, religions and taboos etc... I have an irresistible urge to make light of this, but I won't do so too much, 'cos it's a bloody important subject. But I am aware that the above probably reads like irrelevant drivel. You're all a bunch of freakin' headcases, and I love it! My eternal respect to your synaptic firing patterns.
|
|||
|
morfe 2992 posts |
Apr 21, 2004, 13:01
|
||
|
"The thing that lets us screw up our planet on such a grand scale is our ability to adapt our neuronal pathways to fit whichever environment we were brought up in." To which I'd add the "I'm all right Jack/Jill" which cam make a shit environment and keep everyone adapting like crazy. Reason and forethought being the expense paid in exchange for being like Jack. What selfish shellfish...hard on the outside, soft as shit inside, and trying to make a footprint in a diminishing world :-(
|
|||
|
BrigantesNation 1733 posts |
Apr 21, 2004, 13:11
|
||
And don't forget the twu Mesolithic pit alignments at Thornborough.
|
|||
|
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Apr 21, 2004, 13:40
|
||
|
"It doesn't happen quickly," "At a push we can change in our own lifetimes" "The next generation however, whilst having more or less the same genetics as their parents, will consider ithe new conditions normal" A bit of self-contradiction there, but I hear what you're saying. I'm never sure about "The map is not the territory" being used in this context. If you redraw a map the land doesn't change. Can the same be said about the mind? Man doesn't need to evolve physically anymore because we can adapt mentally just as you have said. Is this a stage of transcendence? Have we now reached a stage where the physical attribute of our body are not as important as they are for animals. I would say so and perhaps it is this that separates us (likewise not shouting anything about being top monkey etc...) Small questions with big answers. If we are fundamentally viscious and prone to conflict at an animal level, but are able to decide whether we fight or not and yet decide to fight knowing we are going to get a bloody nose, why do we do it? Is the animal really stronger than the new-improved-mental? Or is it now a mental state (greed or whatever) that drives us to fight rather than a more animal survival instinct? Or is this mental state of greed just 'survival instinct gone mad'?
|
| Pages: 17 – [ Previous | 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 13 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
