Civilization and Consciousness

[Ashvin Pandurangi]

Lou, thanks for your engaging response. I believe this topic deserves its own thread not simply titled "Questions for RHC". In general, it seems you are prioritizing rational concerns to the near total exclusion of non-rational ones in the development of human civilization. More specified responses below:

"Ashvin,  I'm glad for this clarification of yours about "THE motivating concern" and want to add some clarifications of my own. 

1) I do not embrace the romantic myth of a peaceful noble savage. Indeed, I generally agree with Keeley that there was lots of pre-civilization violence. Indeed, I believe that violence was a motivating concern leading to creating "civilizations." Along with Scott I see the emergence of early city-states and civilizations as a complex co-arising involving the settling of nomadic populations in especially verdant biomes where population increased, deforestation ensued, climate change occurred, per capita abundance became less, broadcast cereal grain agriculture was adopted, hierarchical militaristic forms emerged, marauding armies appeared at the gates and, not surprisingly, an Axial Age of civilization creation appeared in multiple locations. In brief, civilization was born of violence. " 

Consciousness is inherently 'violent', in the sense that it violently and ceaselessly breaks free of egoless 'group consciousness' and pushes forward in a process of 'individuation'. So in that sense, yes, human civilization was born of violence. Gebser discusses this in the first chapter of The Ever-Present Origin:

"The following excerpt forms the beginning of the thirteenth chapter of the chronicle which describes the conquest of Mexico City [written 8 years after the conquest]: 

'The thirteenth chapter, wherein is recounted 

how the Mexican king Montezuma 

sends other sorcerers 

who were to cast a spell on the Spanish 

and what happened to them on the way. 

And the second group of messengers— 

the soothsayers, the magicians, and the high priests— 

likewise went to receive the Spanish. 

But it was to no avail; they could not bewitch the people, 

they could not reach their intent with the Spanish; 

they simply failed to arrive.' 

There is hardly another text extant that describes so succinctly and so memorably the collapse of an entire world and a hitherto valid and effectual human attitude. The magic-mythical world of the Mexicans could not prevail against the Spaniards; it collapsed the moment it encountered the rational-technological mentality. The materialistic orientation of present-day Europeans will tend to attribute this collapse to the Spaniards’ technological superiority, but in actual fact it was the vigor of the Spanish consciousness vis-à-vis the weakness of the Mexican that was decisive. It is the basic distinction between the ego-less man, bound to the group and a collective mentality, and the individual securely conscious of his individuality."

"2) I reject both the view of nature as inherently more competitive than mutualistic and the view that the human ego is inherently more violent than peaceful. Rather, I see nature as a vast well of possibilities in which humans, for example, may become like ancestral primates as aggressive chimps or peaceful bonobos. A report of a recent primate study says," 

In the sense of "violence" described above, yes the ego is inherently more violent (dynamic) than peaceful (static).  Competition and cooperation are not mutually exclusive. It is interesting to note that chimp 'dominance hierarchies' are not based on "the strongest dominates the tribe". If the strongest chimp becomes too 'totalitarian' in his 'governance', then two or three weaker chimps will tear him to shreds. Therefore, the chimps already show incipient forms of 'ethics' in their coalition building, i.e. dominance games abstracted into meta-games. 

"3) I see the evolution of dominant or dominating civilization not surprisingly bending toward the more aggressive and weaponized. Given the existence of chimp/bonobo diversity, I see the thrust of dominant civilization, itself born of violence, as a society selecting for leadership personalities more like chimps than bonobos. Not surprisingly, the dominant ones write the his-story as THE story of civilization, discounting or dismissing other lines of development. There exist other ways some hunter-gatherer traditional people chose to adapt and evolve other than to become imperialists and dominators. I have often mention the Kogi who chose to retreat to higher altitudes rather than to fight and developed and intention to try to hold the earth in balance. Additionally, and perhaps more relevant for the development of Western democratic institutions, are the Haudenosaunee who, after endless warfare received a sacred law that gave them 1000 years of peace. So impressed was Benjamin Franklin with what he learn from them that he brought their ideas to the American colonists say, "If the savages can do they why can't we?" Here's an outstanding video of Bill Moyers interviewing Chief Oren Lyons about the ideas that spread around the world in developing democratic institutions and a vision of our future."   

I see the evolution (of consciousness) as bending towards those who 'master' the meta-games and meta-meta-games, i.e. the set of all possible games, which is mythologically represented in religious traditions as early as those in ancient Sumerian and Egyptian civilization. This integral process will necessarily "embrace both man's distant past and his approaching future as a living present" (Gebser). Perhaps the Kogi will be instrumental in that process to the extent that have patiently observed and developed consciousness in the high altitudes apart from civilizations which could easily wipe themselves out with nuclear or other 'weapons'... or not. Specifics like that are difficult, if not impossible, to predict, but I am certainly not ruling that possibility out. I am also not ruling that possibility is a certainty, either. 

[Lou Gold]

Ashvin, 

Great move to give this topic a thread of its own. Hopefully, it will engage others to join in. I also love to argue and once considered going to law school. Perhaps, I can do passably well in contest with your practiced and skilled lawyerly ways.

1) You say, 

The materialistic orientation of present-day Europeans will tend to attribute this collapse to the Spaniards’ technological superiority, but in actual fact it was the vigor of the Spanish consciousness vis-à-vis the weakness of the Mexican that was decisive. It is the basic distinction between the ego-less man, bound to the group and a collective mentality, and the individual securely conscious of his individuality."

Wrong on two counts. First, the Spanish/Aztec clash was a clash between two extremely violence-prone civilizations, which affirms my main theme that dominating civilization tends to be born of and sustained by violence.  Second, and more relevant to your argument, NO!, the Aztecs were not defeated either by superior technology or superior consciousness. They were defeated by disease. You say, "The magic-mythical world of the Mexicans could not prevail against the Spaniards; it collapsed the moment it encountered the rational-technological mentality." Actually, the Europeans foolishly believed in the magic of perfumes. As Santeri noted in his response, the Europeans had passed through a lengthy period of plagues, which had after huge death counts given them herd (collective) immunity. Ironically, the New World inhabitants with superior awareness of the need for personal hygiene (they said the invaders smelled bad) were so healthy that they had no immunity to the new diseases, which quickly decimated the indigenous population of the Americas. What you call a progress of consciousness was actually a dominance via a diseased mind and body.

2) You say, 

It is interesting to note that chimp 'dominance hierarchies' are not based on "the strongest dominates the tribe". If the strongest chimp becomes too 'totalitarian' in his 'governance', then two or three weaker chimps will tear him to shreds. Therefore, the chimps already show incipient forms of 'ethics' in their coalition building, i.e. dominance games abstracted into meta-games.

Yes, competition and cooperation dance together and "ethics building" is clearly a move from unfettered individual freedom toward the constraints of collectively responsibility, which again proves my point. "There's a season for everything under heaven." The system (collective) issue is one of balance and not competitive individual dominance.

3) You say,

Perhaps the Kogi will be instrumental in that process to the extent that have patiently observed and developed consciousness in the high altitudes apart from civilizations which could easily wipe themselves out with nuclear or other 'weapons'... or not. Specifics like that are difficult, if not impossible, to predict, but I am certainly not ruling that possibility out. I am also not ruling that possibility is a certainty, either. 

Here we are tending toward agreement. I also do not see how it will work out. I see only a collective (species level) initiation or baptism via passing through trying events in which we may hold to the great vision:

A condition of complete simplicity
(Costing not less than everything)
And all shall be well and
All manner of thing shall be well
When the tongues of flames are in-folded
Into the crowned knot of fire
And the fire and the rose are one.

[Santeri Satama]

The materialistic orientation of present-day Europeans will tend to attribute this collapse to the Spaniards’ technological superiority, but in actual fact it was the vigor of the Spanish consciousness vis-à-vis the weakness of the Mexican that was decisive. It is the basic distinction between the ego-less man, bound to the group and a collective mentality, and the individual securely conscious of his individuality."

The attribution of technocracy is correct, since ego/individual is a machine, a mechanically repeating algorithm. Technology of mind control. Of course the ego-machine is a product of creative intelligence and imagination, which have the capacity to mechanize and automate functions. Like Agent Smith, each ego/individual is an identical copy of a self-replicating machine. 

Being unique, expressing spiritual freedom, is sovereign. Ego is not sovereign, it is subject.

[ashvi...@gmail.com]

"Wrong on two counts. First, the Spanish/Aztec clash was a clash between two extremely violence-prone civilizations, which affirms my main theme that dominating civilization tends to be born of and sustained by violence.  Second, and more relevant to your argument, NO!, the Aztecs were not defeated either by superior technology or superior consciousness. They were defeated by disease. You say, "The magic-mythical world of the Mexicans could not prevail against the Spaniards; it collapsed the moment it encountered the rational-technological mentality." Actually, the Europeans foolishly believed in the magic of perfumes. As Santeri noted in his response, the Europeans had passed through a lengthy period of plagues, which had after huge death counts given them herd (collective) immunity. Ironically, the New World inhabitants with superior awareness of the need for personal hygiene (they said the invaders smelled bad) were so healthy that they had no immunity to the new diseases, which quickly decimated the indigenous population of the Americas. What you call a progress of consciousness was actually a dominance via a diseased mind and body." 

But they are 'violent' in opposite ways - the Aztecs were violent in their tribal consciousness which must fight 'foreign' groups to retain their own group unity because there is no possibility for communication. The Spaniards were violent in their ego consciousness which must break down tribal boundaries and divide up the world to ever-expand their consciousness horizontally into extended space. The 'material causes' you are identifying for the conquest, including technology and disease, are superficial glosses on the 'formal' and 'efficient' causes, which ultimately boil down to evolved modes of consciousness, and that's what Gebser (who wrote that part I quoted) was getting at. 

I am curious, do you consider yourself an idealist (ontologically), or do you find that irrelevant?

"Yes, competition and cooperation dance together and "ethics building" is clearly a move from unfettered individual freedom toward the constraints of collectively responsibility, which again proves my point. "There's a season for everything under heaven." The system (collective) issue is one of balance and not competitive individual dominance." 

The 'ethics building' is actually a move towards "individuation", which is necessary for both freedom and responsibility but anathema to collectivism, i.e. any systems which totally subsume individual freedom to the will of a collective. A person on another forum recently summarized the process in the following way:

"Individuation is the integrative developmental tendency towards the unique, even while the individual person remains a link in society. The development of healthy individuality through individuation is simultaneously the development of society. Every society is dependent for its own life on the growth and differentiation of particular individuals who influence society in return. The suppression of individuation isn't just tragic for the individual, it also weakens any society's ability to withstand the dissociating pressures that are constantly striving to pull it apart into disintegration. And the development of healthy individuality through individuation doesn't just require outer relationships, but also transformative contact with the objective psyche within us.

The deeper you go into your own subjectivity, the less personal you become, and the strength and flexibility that society needs to survive can be found in those transpersonal depths through individual exploratory behavior and the kind of deep soul-work catalyzed by our most penetrating interpersonal relationships. Then the task of individuation becomes the journey to bring that updated adaptive knowledge back to the collective in ways that revitalize it." 

[ashvi...@gmail.com]

"The attribution of technocracy is correct, since ego/individual is a machine, a mechanically repeating algorithm. Technology of mind control. Of course the ego-machine is a product of creative intelligence and imagination, which have the capacity to mechanize and automate functions. Like Agent Smith, each ego/individual is an identical copy of a self-replicating machine. 

Being unique, expressing spiritual freedom, is sovereign. Ego is not sovereign, it is subject." 

In some sense, yes, the egoic individual is obviously a machine, but we have just begun to explore the depths of what that actually means. Like Heidegger exploring the essence of art and technology. The individual has the capacity for sovereignty if it can properly "in-dividuate" beyond the rationalistic division of subject/object, mind/matter, etc.

[jim.c...@gmail.com]

Regarding the defeat of the Aztecs. Disease certainly eroded their empire and may have finished it in the end in but that took time. What caused their initial collapse were the enemies the Aztecs themselves had created.

As the Spaniards approached Tenochtitlán they made an alliance with the Tlaxcalteca, who were enemies of the Aztec Triple Alliance, and they helped instigate revolt in many towns under Aztec dominion. Moctezuma was aware of this and sent gifts to the Spaniards, probably in order to show his superiority to the Spaniards and Tlaxcalteca.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moctezuma_II#First_interactions_with_the_Spanish 

[Santeri Satama]

keskiviikko 13. tammikuuta 2021 klo 19.55.49 UTC+2 ashvi...@gmail.com kirjoitti:

In some sense, yes, the egoic individual is obviously a machine, but we have just begun to explore the depths of what that actually means. Like Heidegger exploring the essence of art and technology. The individual has the capacity for sovereignty if it can properly "in-dividuate" beyond the rationalistic division of subject/object, mind/matter, etc.

Jung's main audience is the European subject, the mechanized ego-individual, so it's natural and wise for him to name "internal alchemy", "mystical transformation" and integration etc. as "individuation". Of course the control of ego-individual is never total and the potential capacity of unique sovereignty is always present and acts as driving force of liberation. That is what Matrix trilogy is about, Agent Smith, the One, the ego-individual mechanism, vs Neo the Unique Sovereign. The ultimate teaching of the trilogy is not hostile towards our Agent Smith aspect, the final fight/love-making scene between Smith-One and Neo produces a new balance and opening oozing with potential of further co-creation.

[Lou Gold]

But they are 'violent' in opposite ways - the Aztecs were violent in their tribal consciousness which must fight 'foreign' groups to retain their own group unity because there is no possibility for communication. The Spaniards were violent in their ego consciousness which must break down tribal boundaries and divide up the world to ever-expand their consciousness horizontally into extended space. 

I dunno. I see two empire-builders expanding horizontally under aggressive type-A leadership. The main difference I see is that the Mexicans were at the stage of competing city-states, whereas the Europeans were at the level of nation-states. I do not believe the Spaniards were at a more evolved egoic state. 

I am curious, do you consider yourself an idealist (ontologically), or do you find that irrelevant?

I see myself as a pragmatic or utilitarian idealist and an agnostic as to which of its many forms is correct. I'm a skeptic that a rational idealism can provide the meaning(s) generally satisfied via myths and religions. In this historical moment I believe idealism of BK-style is the best counter to dogmatic materialist scientism and I value it greatly. However, I see events in process as more immediately determining than ideas and concepts.

The 'ethics building' is actually a move towards "individuation", which is necessary for both freedom and responsibility but anathema to collectivism, i.e. any systems which totally subsume individual freedom to the will of a collective.

An approach of "totally subsume individual freedom to the will of a collective" attributed to me would be a strawman. OTOH, there's a legitimate range of balance-seeking methods and here I believe you and I would have some strong political differences (which cannot be discussed here). However, if you steelman my position as something like the Buddhist view below, I think we would find easy agreement. I like this view...

"Having a good heart goes further than anything in terms of empathising with the nondual state. Intellectual elaborations are not important. Kindness is something you feel – a warmth and expansiveness which flows from our growing openness. Kindness is our contact, our strongest link with the nondual state. So much for law and order. The essence of Buddhism is similar to anarchism. Not anarchy in the distorted popular sense in which the word is understood—in the sense of dog-eat-dog-chaos—but anarchism in terms of ‘no external government’. Anarchism is the naturally manifesting inner government of awareness – unconditioned, present, direct and utterly responsible."

~ Ngakpa Chogyam

[ashvi...@gmail.com]

"Jung's main audience is the European subject, the mechanized ego-individual, so it's natural and wise for him to name "internal alchemy", "mystical transformation" and integration etc. as "individuation". Of course the control of ego-individual is never total and the potential capacity of unique sovereignty is always present and acts as driving force of liberation. That is what Matrix trilogy is about, Agent Smith, the One, the ego-individual mechanism, vs Neo the Unique Sovereign. The ultimate teaching of the trilogy is not hostile towards our Agent Smith aspect, the final fight/love-making scene between Smith-One and Neo produces a new balance and opening oozing with potential of further co-creation." 

Right, the Matrix was clearly inspired by Gnostic philosophy and so was Jung (in a broad sense of Gnosticism). But I think we already went over why he chose the word "in-dividuation", i.e. the meaning of the Latin word in the medieval religious sense, "not divisible").  He wanted to propose a process which would restore a "union of the opposites" within the person's psyche. He was never the type to play to an audience or use words for fundamental concepts to his psychology when there were better words out there to be used. 

[ashvi...@gmail.com]

"I dunno. I see two empire-builders expanding horizontally under aggressive type-A leadership. The main difference I see is that the Mexicans were at the stage of competing city-states, whereas the Europeans were at the level of nation-states. I do not believe the Spaniards were at a more evolved egoic state."  

That's "my" point - the evolution of (non-rational) consciousness is the major factor driving the development of human civilization.  The evidence for this is overwhelming IMO, much of which is outlined in Gebser's The Ever-Present Origin. 

"I see myself as a pragmatic or utilitarian idealist and an agnostic as to which of its many forms is correct. I'm a skeptic that a rational idealism can provide the meaning(s) generally satisfied via myths and religions. In this historical moment I believe idealism of BK-style is the best counter to dogmatic materialist scientism and I value it greatly. However, I see events in process as more immediately determining than ideas and concepts." 

I would suggest that BK's idealism rules out the possibility of changes in "events" being more immediately determinative than root conscious activity (sensation/perception, feeling, thinking). Reality is MAL and alters (at a minimum), and if any evolution is taking place, it must be the evolution of the conscious activity of MAL, alters or both. And I think you would agree that we cannot have social, economic, political, etc. "events" before we have perceiving and thinking humans.

[Lou Gold]

That's "my" point - the evolution of (non-rational) consciousness is the major factor driving the development of human civilization.  The evidence for this is overwhelming IMO, much of which is outlined in Gebser's The Ever-Present Origin. 

On this we agree without me having read Gebser. However, my earlier point was that human beings hold a great diversity of non-rational qualities and that dominating or colonizing civilization generally selected for the aggressive qualities. The result was a certain kind of dominant human consensus reality not represented, for example, by the different civilized development of the Kogi. It was a dominant selection process and not inherent 'human nature' that prevailed.

I would suggest that BK's idealism rules out the possibility of changes in "events" being more immediately determinative than root conscious activity (sensation/perception, feeling, thinking). Reality is MAL and alters (at a minimum), and if any evolution is taking place, it must be the evolution of the conscious activity of MAL, alters or both. And I think you would agree that we cannot have social, economic, political, etc. "events" before we have perceiving and thinking humans.

As above, sure, I agree and go on to say this ontological truth does not compel any particular kind of future to be selected in the process called evolution. Therefore, so what? What's the difference that's gonna make a difference.

[Santeri Satama]

I would suggest that BK's idealism rules out the possibility of changes in "events" being more immediately determinative than root conscious activity (sensation/perception, feeling, thinking). Reality is MAL and alters (at a minimum), and if any evolution is taking place, it must be the evolution of the conscious activity of MAL, alters or both. And I think you would agree that we cannot have social, economic, political, etc. "events" before we have perceiving and thinking humans.

BK's presentation of idealism is so far expressed mostly as substance metaphysics, but the discussion is far from closed between substance and process philosophy metaphysics. Sensation/perception, feeling, thinking are events in a process, and it's not a good idea to limit our potential by wrapping it inside a reflecting blanket of eternity. Though sometimes getting all wrapped inside tinfoil seems like best option available. Like the brother of the main character in Better call Saul  :P

[Santeri Satama]

  What's the difference that's gonna make a difference?

Vive la Différance!

[ashvi...@gmail.com]

"BK's presentation of idealism is so far expressed mostly as substance metaphysics, but the discussion is far from closed between substance and process philosophy metaphysics. Sensation/perception, feeling, thinking are events in a process, and it's not a good idea to limit our potential by wrapping it inside a reflecting blanket of eternity." 

At the level of MAL or the 'collective unconscious', Willing and Thinking are ontically prior to any 'events' in the world of objects (forms).  That is necessitated by objective idealism, regardless of substance or process metaphysical distinctions. We could even go further to say willing, perceiving, feeling and thinking are ontically prior to any social, cultural, commercial or political 'events', which are really the ones you guys are prioritizing over modes of experiencing the world in driving human history. "History" as a concept cannot even exist until there is some level of meta-cognition and language. 

[Lou Gold]

Whenever we touch nature we get clean. People who have got dirty through too much civilization take a walk in the woods, or a bath in the sea. Entering the unconscious, entering yourself through dreams, is touching nature from the inside and this is the same thing, things are put right again.

~ C.G. Jung

[ashvi...@gmail.com]

"On this we agree without me having read Gebser. However, my earlier point was that human beings hold a great diversity of non-rational qualities and that dominating or colonizing civilization generally selected for the aggressive qualities. The result was a certain kind of dominant human consensus reality not represented, for example, by the different civilized development of the Kogi. It was a dominant selection process and not inherent 'human nature' that prevailed."  

This is why you should read Gebser... because we are talking about two completely different things. I am talking about the evolution of phenomenal consciousness (non meta-cognitive) in what we call "pre-history" and the evolution of 'access consciousness' (meta-cognitive) in history. I'm claiming our thoughts and perceptions of the world are radically different today from those of our ancestors 3,000 years ago when meta-cognitive consciousness was evolving 'rapidly'. And I am claiming that was the driving force behind the development of Axial Age civilization.  Finally, I am claiming the type of 'rational consciousness' we are familiar with today fully developed only about 500 years ago. 

"As above, sure, I agree and go on to say this ontological truth does not compel any particular kind of future to be selected in the process called evolution. Therefore, so what? What's the difference that's gonna make a difference." 

Well, it does suggest a pattern of evolution of conscious activity that many have discerned over millennium and has allowed some people in every era to predict general developments in human civilization up to and including now. It suggested meta-patterns of being which will work for people to survive and thrive and those which absolutely will not. The Kogi sound like they discovered the former some time ago, probably not coincidentally close to the time when rational consciousness erupted most forcefully onto the scene.  

[Lou Gold]

On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 5:50:45 PM UTC-10 ashvi...@gmail.com wrote:

"On this we agree without me having read Gebser. However, my earlier point was that human beings hold a great diversity of non-rational qualities and that dominating or colonizing civilization generally selected for the aggressive qualities. The result was a certain kind of dominant human consensus reality not represented, for example, by the different civilized development of the Kogi. It was a dominant selection process and not inherent 'human nature' that prevailed."  

This is why you should read Gebser... because we are talking about two completely different things. I am talking about the evolution of phenomenal consciousness (non meta-cognitive) in what we call "pre-history" and the evolution of 'access consciousness' (meta-cognitive) in history. I'm claiming our thoughts and perceptions of the world are radically different today from those of our ancestors 3,000 years ago when meta-cognitive consciousness was evolving 'rapidly'. And I am claiming that was the driving force behind the development of Axial Age civilization.  Finally, I am claiming the type of 'rational consciousness' we are familiar with today fully developed only about 500 years ago. 

YES! We are talking about different paths of development. I am not denying that the path you describe is in fact the path of the dominant civilization. Surely it is the path of the dominators, who also write the history. What I'm challenging is that it was the only or the best or the 'more evolved'. Yes, it certainly seems like 'progress' from the standard of materialist technology of humans but I'm not so sure from the perspective of the full community of life or from the present global need for humans to be consciously aware as planetary citizens.

"As above, sure, I agree and go on to say this ontological truth does not compel any particular kind of future to be selected in the process called evolution. Therefore, so what? What's the difference that's gonna make a difference." 

Well, it does suggest a pattern of evolution of conscious activity that many have discerned over millennium and has allowed some people in every era to predict general developments in human civilization up to and including now. It suggested meta-patterns of being which will work for people to survive and thrive and those which absolutely will not. The Kogi sound like they discovered the former some time ago, probably not coincidentally close to the time when rational consciousness erupted most forcefully onto the scene.  

Some Kogi history from Wiki:

The Kogi are descendants of the Tairona culture, which flourished before the times of the Spanish conquest. The Tairona were an advanced civilization which built many stone structures and pathways in the jungles. They made many gold objects which they would hang from trees and around their necks. They lived not much differently from modern day Kogi. Before the Spanish conquistadors arrived, the Tairona were forced to move into the highlands when the Caribs invaded around 1000 CE.[citation needed] The decision to flee to the mountains proved beneficial and strategic by the time the Spanish entered modern-day Colombia in the 15th century

The Kogi base their lifestyles on their belief in "Aluna" or "The Great Mother," their creator figure, who they believe is the force behind nature. The Kogi understand the Earth to be a living being, and see humanity as its "children." They say that our actions of exploitation, devastation, and plundering for resources is weakening "The Great Mother" and leading to our destruction.

Like many other indigenous tribes, the Kogi people honor a holy mountain which they call "Gonawindua," otherwise known as Pico Cristóbal Colón. They believe that this mountain is "The Heart of the World" and they are the "Elder Brothers" who care for it.[4] They also say that the outside civilization is the "Younger Brothers" who were sent away from The Heart of the World long ago.

From birth the Kogi attune members of their society called Mamos (which means sun in Kogi), for guidance, healing, and leadership. The Mamos are not to be confused with shamans or curers but to be regarded as tribal priests who hold highly respected roles in Kogi society. Mamos undergo strict training to assume this role. Selected male children are taken from birth and put in a dark cave for the first nine years of their lives to begin this training.[5] In the cave, elder Mamos and the child's mother care for, feed, train, and teach the child to attune to "Aluna" before the boy enters the outside world.

Through deep concentration, symbolic offerings, and divination, the Mamos believe they support the balance of harmony and creativity in the world. It is also in this realm that the essence of agriculture is nurtured: seeds are blessed in Aluna before being planted, to ensure they grow successfully; marriage is blessed to ensure fertility; and ceremonies are offered to the different spirits of the natural world before performing tasks such as harvest and building of new huts.

The Kogi Mamos have remained isolated from the rest of the world since the Spanish Conquistadors. In order to preserve their traditional way of life, they rarely interact with the modern world or with outside civilization. Outsiders are not allowed inside their ancestral lands.[6] The Kogi Mamos say that the balance of the earth's ecology has been suffering due to the modern-day devastation of resources by Younger Brother. The Kogi Mamos in turn believe that their work as Elder Brother is instrumental in helping to prolong and protect life on earth.

OK. Enough said. I rest my case.

[Santeri Satama]

torstai 14. tammikuuta 2021 klo 3.40.28 UTC+2 ashvi...@gmail.com kirjoitti:

We could even go further to say willing, perceiving, feeling and thinking are ontically prior to any social, cultural, commercial or political 'events', which are really the ones you guys are prioritizing over modes of experiencing the world in driving human history. "History" as a concept cannot even exist until there is some level of meta-cognition and language. 

I don't prioritize social, cultural, commercial or political 'events';  I don't prioritize history, meta-cognition and language.

Durations are not only consecutive and one-directional. Mereology of durations is necessary condition for awareness with content, metacognitive awareness of being aware, solidifying sapience and language from sentience etc.

MAL-Subject as meta-cognition of this universe can be thought as a demiourge, Architect of Matrix. Demiourge becomes Yaldabaoth, if it makes-believe that it's absolute eternal omni-this and that, instead of just a duration. It's just continuation of monotheist substance metaphysics in different disguise, historical and cultural projection. There is no love felt and actualized in that cold picture of pure reason.

Bodily awareness, sense of being, is prior to touch, sensing boundaries. Pleroma: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleroma
I had not seen the diagram of pleroma before, fascinating. The wordy interpretation of the diagram is not so important, the fun thing is that the diagram a version of the math and geometry I've been intuiting. 
 

[David Sundaram]

Is there any way of trans-locating threads to the new 'site' - this one for instance? If not, no worry!

[Dana Lomas]

I'm not aware of any way to import content from this forum to the new forum. Best perhaps to just copy and paste the latest post from here, and carry on the discussion in the new forum, with a link to this page for reference purposes. In any case, ability to reply to posts here will be disabled in the coming days, so might as well make the switch sooner rather than later, and restart the conversation over there, otherwise it just gets more and more out of context

[Lou Gold]

Personally, I would be happy to leave this thread RIP here, knowing that it will naturally re-emerge wherever the philosophically inclined participate.