Feeding the gods

[Vkothii]

Sacrifice is a common religious theme. The idea is to offer an animal to a "higher" cause (you know who), then share it out - feasting and so on are tied to this which would possibly go all the way back past early civilisation to our hunter-gatherer days.

Even the Christian mythology surrounds the figure of a sacrificial "lamb", and a mythological Christ is "shared" - his body is eaten and his blood consumed. Again, this probably goes all the way back.

We get the whole idea from a requirement for abstracting the "gathering together" and sort of co-ordinated group that humans can become.

Our adaptation of things we could make sound with, and the sorts of early chanting, dancing, and so on and the need to compensate, as a group and in a sense of preserving individuality, [means that] external "beings" or "spirits" emerge from the group dynamic.
Thanks are given as a group, for a successful hunt; special places where certain important resources might be, for example, would have been assigned a significance that an external agency was an easier explanation for.

All the time we were just feeding ourselves. It's really just about getting food from somewhere (but thanking the "group" for it).

Chomp on that.

 

[Balerion]

Even the Christian mythology surrounds the figure of a sacrificial "lamb", and a mythological Christ is "shared" - his body is eaten and his blood consumed. Again, this probably goes all the way back.

Yes, you're right. The idea of taking communion that is the body and blood of the savior did not begin with Christianity. Christianity is only the most recent version of this ritual.

Our adaptation of things we could make sound with, and the sorts of early chanting, dancing, and so on and the need to compensate, as a group and in a sense of preserving individuality, external "beings" or "spirits" emerge from the group dynamic.

Well, I don't really think the establishment of spiritual beings was a part of preserving individuality, because actually, it does the opposite. It makes people conform to patterns. Maybe, in some sense, it helped keep the idea of community, but it did not preserve individuality. In fact, religion rails against it, and has ordered the killing of those who don't conform.

I think you have an interesting take on the issue, but I believe spiritual beings were born from the lack of understanding of the world around us. You'll notice that in every religious text ever written, the deities are credited with earthquakes, thunderstorms, fires, famines, and anything else that those societies couldn't explain. They then endowed these gods with the moral values of their societies, or at least the ones they thought would be most idealistic.

The practice of sacrifice, at least in those early cultures, was also born out of a misunderstanding of the true nature of the world. Once you attribute the good things to a god or gods (harvests, births, ect.) you also have to attribute to them the bad. So when people saw lightning strike a tree and cause a massive fire that killed people and burned down villages, or floods that wiped out crops and homes, or some other disaster, they sacrificed in order to attempt to appease their god or gods. There was also the idea of giving thanks, but I believe that was a tool developed after religion became used as a tool to oppress, rather than to celebrate.

 

[Vkothii]

No you're missing my point.
Individuality is defined, then redefined, constantly. If there's a dynamic that means it's more efficient to maintain order and stability, then if an external agency is in there (like our sense of living in a world that "behaves"), individual agency is defined and redefined against that, too.

The sacrificial or spiritual side of gatherings was to a group dynamic. But it was still the group, you see. We were our own gods, and we still are despite having the external agency side of the thing grow into a complex ritualism, and symbolism - which was always there too. Look at aboriginal Australians for example, who retain a symbolism which is probably a lot closer to everyone's original version.

 

[Balerion]

No you're missing my point.
Individuality is defined, then redefined, constantly. If there's a dynamic that means it's more efficient to maintain order and stability, then if an external agency is in there (like our sense of living in a world that "behaves"), individual agency is defined and redefined against that, too.

I disagree. Individuality is being yourself, whereas the group mentality is the opposite of that. It is established that people in large groups behave differently than they do on their own, hence "group mentality". So it's an oxymoron to claim that group behavior defines the individual. It does not.

The sacrificial or spiritual side of gatherings was to a group dynamic. But it was still the group, you see. We were our own gods, and we still are despite having the external agency side of the thing grow into a complex ritualism, and symbolism - which was always there too. Look at aboriginal Australians for example, who retain a symbolism which is probably a lot closer to everyone's original version.

Actually, Christianity greatly resembles pagan spiritualism and symbolism, even using the cross with a circle in the middle, which was the shorthand for the zodiac. As far as being our own gods...I guess that's true in the sense that our cultures dictated the morals and ethics of those gods, and created them and their mythologies. But if anything, worship is to demean ourselves, to give credit for our own good deeds and achievements to an invisible higher power.

 

[Vkothii]

So it's an oxymoron to claim that group behavior defines the individual. It does not.

So, an individual can grow up as an individual, say on some island, and doesn't need a group, they'll develop their own behaviour just fine?

 

[Balerion]

So, an individual can grow up as an individual, say on some island, and doesn't need a group, they'll develop their own behaviour just fine?

Yes, of course. Would you expect them to just sit there the whole time? They would probably even come up with their own rituals and spirituality. You wouldn't find any social graces, but they'd still be human.

 

[Vkothii]

they'd still be human.

Uh huh.
So if some other humans turn up, this "individual" who has no idea who or what (s)he is, never seen another human, just says: "Hi, how are ya?".
Or: "dont you just love what I've done with the place?", type of thing...?

 

[Balerion]

Uh huh.
So if some other humans turn up, this "individual" who has no idea who or what (s)he is, never seen another human, just says: "Hi, how are ya?".
Or: "dont you just love what I've done with the place?", type of thing...?

I'm not sure what you're driving at. Care to elaborate?

 

[Vkothii]

Care to elaborate?

So, I can conclude you can't see any connection between the notion a human being has of their own individuality, and their notion of a group of individuals?

A single sentient being is fully equipped to "develop" their own culture, language, technology, and so on, on some island - where we'll presume there are no great impediments to survival - water, food, shelter and basic comforts aren't a problem, no bears to evict from a cave so you've got shelter say, or trees to chop down, it's all fairly "tame".

I don't think so. Possibly, if such a human existed, they would never meet another human, never form a theory of their own intelligence, never learn to use their voice beyond basic noises, and possibly go mad and end their life, either deliberately (not as likely) or accidentally (a lot more likely).

You don't develop any real stable concept of individuality as a human if you aren't in a group of humans. With just other animals to "commune" with, it won't happen.
So, you can't really be a "whole" individual, unless you're in a "whole" group of them, when it comes to being human, or a bear, or any kind of animal except protozoans - but who knows? Maybe they go stir-crazy too.

 

[Balerion]

So, I can conclude you can't see any connection between the notion a human being has of their own individuality, and their notion of a group of individuals?

Do I see a connection? Well, obviously group and individual mentalities are both cornerstones of humanity. Societal connects are required to survive. But I don't believe, as you asserted, that the group mentality dictates the individual mentality. I believe that they are separate. You will find an individual more willing to examine and to question than they are when they are in a group, where they are more likely to follow the crowd.

A single sentient being is fully equipped to "develop" their own culture, language, technology, and so on, on some island - where we'll presume there are no great impediments to survival - water, food, shelter and basic comforts aren't a problem, no bears to evict from a cave so you've got shelter say, or trees to chop down, it's all fairly "tame".

I never said they would develop their own language or culture. Language is a communication tool, and wouldn't be required if we're just talking about one isolated individual. But I think left on their own, one person might come up with their own reasoning for certain events, such as thunderstorms, lightning, earthquakes, and so forth. We are a curious creature, we need to know answers to things, so when the answer isn't available, we make one up.

I don't think so. Possibly, if such a human existed, they would never meet another human, never form a theory of their own intelligence, never learn to use their voice beyond basic noises, and possibly go mad and end their life, either deliberately (not as likely) or accidentally (a lot more likely).

Societies may be required for survival, but they are not required for a person to think for themselves. Like I said before, quite the opposite happens in a group. That's why the people deemed as "great thinkers" are ones who bucked the popular theories and discovered things on their own. How do you explain that?

 

[Vkothii]

Societies may be required for survival, but they are not required for a person to think for themselves. Like I said before, quite the opposite happens in a group. That's why the people deemed as "great thinkers" are ones who bucked the popular theories and discovered things on their own. How do you explain that?

You keep stepping straight over the big hurdle with the idea that some "great thinker" is somehow able to function, or even develop their own intellect, all by themselves. This simply does not happen.

After learning all they can from a group, is when great thinkers become "free thinkers", or whatever, but there is no such thing.

 

[Balerion]

You keep stepping straight over the big hurdle with the idea that some "great thinker" is somehow able to function, or even develop their own intellect, all by themselves. This simply does not happen.

Well, you obviously have to learn things before you are capable of focusing your intellect, but everything they learn is discovered by the individual. If you want to claim the group as the means of transport for these ideas from generation to generation, fine, but the individual is who discovers the things we are taught. Einstein wasn't simply taught at the best schools, or paid more more attention than everyone else, he was just naturally smarter than everyone else, and came up with brilliant theories.

After learning all they can from a group, is when great thinkers become "free thinkers", or whatever, but there is no such thing.

Again, they learn from the group what was discovered by the individual.

 

[OilIsMastery]

Atheists sacrifice people to the State so I don't see what the big deal is.

Christians have always been fed to the lions.

 

[Vkothii]

Einstein wasn't simply taught at the best schools, or paid more more attention than everyone else, he was just naturally smarter than everyone else

Sure, and he didn't learn a single thing "all by himself" did he? He learned about tensor calculus at a German University, for example.

So there is a group dynamic involved in the development of individuality, which you seemed to disagree with back there.

 

[Balerion]

Sure, and he didn't learn a single thing "all by himself" did he? He learned about tensor calculus at a German University, for example.

By doing the maths, he was learning plenty "all by himself".

So there is a group dynamic involved in the development of individuality, which you seemed to disagree with back there.

Wait, are we talking about the development of the individual, or what individuality itself is? At the beginning, you said that groups dictate individuality, which I disagreed with.

 

[Vkothii]

By doing the maths, he was learning plenty "all by himself".

But where did he get the skills to do the math? Who taught him how to read, or write, or speak?
Once more with feeling: You keep stepping straight over the big hurdle with the idea that some "great thinker" is somehow able to function, or even develop their own intellect, all by themselves. This simply does not happen.

At the beginning, you said that groups dictate individuality, which I disagreed with.

And if you can't see that disagreeing with: "individuality requires a group, and the dynamics it has", then that must be time for me to give up.
So, I'm happy for you that you think an infant or a child can be abandoned (after having had minimal contact, let's be strict about this, no speech skills or social skills at all) on an island and learn how to survive, do all they need to, and learn about their place in the world, maybe even figure out a theory of everything while they're at it. But I don't.
I don't think they would live to see adulthood.

 

[Balerion]

But where did he get the skills to do the math? Who taught him how to read, or write, or speak?
Once more with feeling: You keep stepping straight over the big hurdle with the idea that some "great thinker" is somehow able to function, or even develop their own intellect, all by themselves. This simply does not happen.

I already said that they need to be taught how to read and write, but once people are given the fundamentals, they do the rest on their own. You said that nobody learns anything on their own, and that simply is not true. If that were true, then someone else must have taught Albert Einstein the theory of relativity.

And if you can't see that disagreeing with: "individuality requires a group, and the dynamics it has", then that must be time for me to give up.
So, I'm happy for you that you think an infant or a child can be abandoned (after having had minimal contact, let's be strict about this, no speech skills or social skills at all) on an island and learn how to survive, do all they need to, and learn about their place in the world, maybe even figure out a theory of everything while they're at it. But I don't.
I don't think they would live to see adulthood.

If you are saying that societal groups are required for the species to survive, I have already said that this is obviously true. That's why mothers raise their young, and why we have developed education systems. Of course the society is required for us to live. But I'm saying that the group does not define the individual. But the individual can accomplish much on its own, which is proven any time you do decide to listen to a certain type of music, or decide to write something creatively (or critically), or play music, or break down a scientific theory and come up with a new one. That is the crux of individuality, and while society is what ensures survival, you give the individual no credit in the process, and that's wrong. I'm sorry you're not smart enough to see that. Perhaps if you stopped muddying your argument with vague and often loaded terminology you might actually realize you don't make much sense.

Speaking of music, what do you say about those people that play instruments who are self-taught? Explain that one.

 

[Vkothii]

once people are given the fundamentals, they do the rest on their own. You said that nobody learns anything on their own, and that simply is not true. If that were true, then someone else must have taught Albert Einstein the theory of relativity.

You're just not seeing it are you? Einstein "invented" his theories thanks to Maxwell, Coulomb, Ampere, lots of other people. A group of people.
He did not, as you seem to be saying, learn the fundamentals, and then "do the rest on his own" at all.

But I'm saying that the group does not define the individual. But the individual can accomplish much on its own

There really is no such thing as an individual, if you think about it.

But there is individuality, like a raised bump on a flat surface, something sticking up from the background noise. But never a disconnected, discrete thing. We simply cannot be individuals, all we do is maintain a sort of ever shifting shape on an abstract surface, that requires "interactions" with other "individualities", but it's all a big moving shifting scene.
No-one really does anything at all in isolation. Even Isaac Newton, who never indulged, supposedly, in any of the distractions of mere mortals - things like females, drinking, gambling, hunting, the usual rubbish.

But he was never isolated from the group who defined the paradigm of his life and times. That would be every person he ever met or communicated with.
That sounds like a group of people to me.