Kaballah and the Zohar?

[gendanken]

"I put that there mainly because of the addition of disgust into the conversation. It's kind of a leap between what we were talking about"

The tidbit on disgust was by far the most interesting part in your post- put me in mind of a theory I've got on why we have taste buds.
I'm piecing my thoughts, monsieur. There's a clutter of garbage on my desk right now- the things you have a girl doing.
Keep your eyes peeled and keep 'em peeled- don't want you dozing off and boring you. I'm always cautious of boring people, unlike Tessie.

Back soon.

 

[gendanken]

Found it:

"Patients who have had trauma (gend: as in seizure or cva's) to the temporal lobes have heightened emotions and see cosmic significance in trivial events.......they tend to be humorless, full of self-importance and to mantain elaborate diaries that record quotidian events in elaborate detail. Some are sticky in converstation, argumentative, pedantic, egocentric and curiously are obsessively preoccupied with philosophical and theological issues."- Ramachandran, p. 180

You see, my neurons sparked on reading your belief on religion having been forged in the mind's illness. My "idea" takes the Maya of the Hindu and replaces it with a scientific barrier much easier to dissect since you can see it. You cannot see Kaballah or Zen.
Accordingly, language was a runaway process which gave birth to twins- gods and magic, and since gods where unattainable noneinties and magic a tangible reality, gods became relgion and magic became science.
More on that later.

Read this:

I find it likely that the early religious experiences were from individuals who had damaged brains (possibly one individual) and were bombarded with this spiritual effect so greatly that they convinced the healthy indiividuals around them of the surety of gods and spirits. Dreams and hallucinagenic plants also likely added their voice to the chorus as well, along with numerous other psychological stimuli. Obviously, the fact that this religious ideal has spread so far and wide speaks that it had some survival benefit over those who did not have the ideals. I would think that art, religion, and imagination are intrinsically linked in some fashion

-you

And then this:

The lower temporal lobe is the brain's visual association area; it connects images to emotions and memories. It's involved in the process by which images facilitate prayer or meditation. For example, when an image of a cross or an icon triggers a feeling of awe, it is because the brain's visual association area learns to link those images to those feelings......
These monks have a language to describe the ecstacy: timelessness, infinity, nothingness, transesendence, joy, beauty, love. They feel absorbed into His being, they are At One with the One.
They link these images with feelings through language and dupe the world into spirituality....

And we’re not the only ones that like to get high, Wessy. Animals are crackwhores too. Ungulates are known to get high off of a kind of grass known as locoweed, felines with catnip and valarian, elk and reindeer with mushrooms, elephants love fermented alchohol and the stimulants in durian fruit. Some in India have even been known to ransack homes where they know achohol is being distilled. Monkeys, apes, and bees…...
The difference between us (humans on crack) and them (animals on crack) is the solidifying of these ecstasies in our language. That’s where we’ve gone wrong. And so the tall tales of Moses and Paul, Joan of arc, and Mr. Poe. "

- me to Wes in this thread: http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=25739

We're saying the same fucking things- now where the devil have you been?

To wit- art, religion, and imagination I feel are all linked by animism, a practice that man took up in both his leisure and fear- the Scandanavians and the Irish peopled their foresets with fairies, elves, trolls, dwarfs. The Jewish before their monotheistic corruption worshipped their trees and their stones, and England had its Druids.
But in any chaos, man seeks control- so magic debuted as a kind of lie to tame it....and to fasciliate the indoctriation of the lower classes into the new order, totemism and taboos were used by the nobles and charlattans to reinforce into the lower caste its need to deify its superior or give its money.

These taboos and symbols were stolen from moral tradition (as Cortes did the Aztecs) and exploited it to such high degrees that so much magical thinking was needed to sanction it (the symbol or taboo) in order to make the concept fearsome or reverent.
In this, the magic used to do it reached a critical mass, so much that this monstrous bulk exploded to what Man has today- Religion.
By appealing to the senses and imagination its easy to see why its widespread- its addictive. It amazes me how Catholicism (a religion) has become the bread and butter of the Middle Americas (like Mexico- that was magical and mystical once).

Ok, I found the article on perception that I was referring to earlier. It was in the Scientific American Mind Special Edition. Here's link to a web site discussing the phenomona: http://neuro.physik.uni-bremen.de/~...ish/vindex.html. It deals with how we seperately process seperate aspects of the same "image." It uses a series of vernier lines to illustrate the effect. First, a vernier is shown with an offset for 30 ms, then a larger number of verniers are shown with no offset for 300 ms. Supposedly, when the number of lines in the second image is small, the offset of the original vernier is inherited by the second image. When a larger number of lines is shown, there is a shine through effect, where the lines appear with no offset, but on in the center has the offset. Supposedly, you're not supposed to be able to see two images, just one. But, in the examples on the site, I can clearly see two images and so the effect is nil. I wonder if there is a problem with having the original image shown at the proper duration or if I am just unusually perceptive... Anyway, there is another example where instead of having a large number of lines in the second image, they have a large number of lines, but the middle is delimited from the rest of the lines by a space. In this instance, the inheritance effect is supposed to kick in again. This is supposed to illustrate how the mind starts at the edges and fills in the rest based upon what information the edges give. But, the examples on the web site don't seem to work for me, so... The site also proposes a neuronal functioning to explain the effect.

I've looked and I don't see it either.
I do know one thing- Randi has a big mouth, and I remember him explaining why it is the magician mesmerizes:
By using this exact principle in the visual cortex- inheritence.
The trick where the top of your thumb seems to come off by hiding it behind your index finger- that's inheritence.

How's this for "filling in", though- Ramachandran speaks of patients that have suffered stroke, and becasue of it blothces show up on their visual field. He asked two of his patients to look directly at a bar that had been cut in the middle and found, to his astonishment, that the patients' brains would jump in and literrally fill the blotches in in real time- the patients reported literally seeing the bar ends actually grow towards each other into a whole.
Put something on your blindspot- the object will disappeear but the backround will fill in the missing piece.
Its as if the brain simply refuses to deal with a vaccum. So it fills in.
Also, another curiousity- Cotard's syndrome, where the brain seems to compensate for blindness with the most amazing hallucinations.

I have also found an interesting article on disgust and humour. It seems that if you look at an image with a smile on your face it seems funny, but if you look at the same image with a grimace of disgust on your face, then the picture looks disgusting. Interesting... Another interesting article on disgust that I found linked disgust to the insula within the brain. The insula is the center of taste. Stimulating the insula during brain surgery causes nausea and a foul taste in the mouth. They give an example of a man who had his insula damaged by a stroke, after this, he would eat soup stirred with a flyswatter. No disgust whatsoever. It goes on to relate disgust to disease prevention. Here's an interesting quote from the article: "Lower castes and kissing in public aroused disgust in India, whereas the British were particularly repulsed by dead sparrows and cruelty to horses; politicians and dog saliva revolted the Dutch, while airport travelers named everything from "wet people" to being eaten alive by insects." Strange creatures we humans are. But, there was a common thread in all these various disgust patterns. "Every region considered feces disgusting, while vomit, sweat, spittle, blood, pus, and sexual fluids inspired nearly universal loathing, closely followed by body parts and animals such as pigs, rats, maggots, lice, and fleas."

Cute.

Funny thing though- most humans I've found to be more repulsed with human excreta than with foreign-species excreta (dog, cat, gerbil), myself included.
I can hold a wad of dogshit in my hand yet even the scent of human shit repulses me.

Concerning disgust with disease prevention, quick theory: notice that the eating experice is largely smell oriented. Next time you have a cold, notice how everything lacks salt. We might as well not have a tounge- the olfactory centers in the brain take up a larger area than the gustatory one so to me, the implement of taste seems like overkill.
We have our tongues, reptiles their vomeronasal nub at the roof of their mouths.
Why taste buds?
Enter posions- many smell particularly sweet (cyanide with its almond smell) so taste is something like a safety measure. To me, pen ink smells particuallry delicious as does play dough- however, if I only had a nose and gulped the shit down, no more gendanken.

All posions share the same thing- alkanility. This makes them bitter to the taste, thus repulsive. So the tounge says 'disgusting' and one is saved from eating it. Taste is then something like the slave tasting Ceaser's wine for poison.

 

[gendanken]

Also- I, unlike the generic asshole, wait untill I've culled my resources without alluding to things not conducive to dialogue in my rush to reply.

Kidding.

Edit:
Recommendation: Read "Phantoms in the Brain" and the "Naked Neuron", and of course, Darwin's "Origin of Species".

 

[invert_nexus]

Kidding.

Are you?

Recommendation: Read "Phantoms in the Brain" and the "Naked Neuron", and of course, Darwin's "Origin of Species".

I'll do that. Funny, I've never actually made it through origin of the species. I've read works based on it, but never read the original. I think it's the sheer vocalness of the older style of language that has turned me away. It's somewhat like reading Poe. It takes much time examining and poring over every sentence to try to conjure up an image of what exactly did he just say...

On your longer post, some interesting stuff there. I'll need a bit to digest it and see if I can dredge up any new thoughts.

We're saying the same fucking things- now where the devil have you been?

My interests are varied and I generally shuffle between this interest and that interest. It wasn't until several discussions in the religious forum kept leading to the concept of free will that my mind once more turned to this area. The functioning of the brain has always been one of my favorite interests; the problem, of course, is that so little is truly known of the functioning of the brain. But science advances, and there are many things that have happened in this area that I am unaware of.

I will say this, I have seen references to this "filling in" somewhere. The link on verniers and inheritance is somewhat connected (too bad it doesn't seem to work. The research must have been done on "slow" people or something.) I just wish I had all the bits and pieces I've picked up down the years cross-referenced in a useful form.

I think that it is important that as a baby's mind develops, it first focuses on the edges of things and the eyes, which are in a way edges themselves. The whole geometric black and white baby mobile phenomonen that is supposed to encourage smarter babies. And camoflauge also lends itself to the subject, the breaking up of the form. Schizophrenia makes it difficult to piece together objects. I'm sure there is a list of mental illnesses that affect the way the mind normally translates reality other than those mentioned already.

And, by the way, speaking of shit and disgust, it's kinda funny how so many mentally ill become enamored of their shit. They draw with it, make little sculptures, throw it at the nurses. A thing which comes unequivocabally from you. A thing to call your own.


By the way, speaking of reading... have you read the Masks of God by Joseph Campbell. It's been awhile since I've read them, but a lot of information in there. I've heard that it's best to take it with a grain of salt, but I do that anyway. I've also heard that he is just rehashing Jung, but I've never read Jung (I wonder why?) and so I can't say.

It's a shame that the christians were so good at wiping out all traces of the religions that existed before them. Fuckers...

 

[gendanken]

It's a shame that the christians were so good at wiping out all traces of the religions that existed before them. Fuckers...

Blame it on Abraham.
Bloody Jews.
Kidding....

By the way, speaking of reading... have you read the Masks of God by Joseph Campbell. It's been awhile since I've read them, but a lot of information in there. I've heard that it's best to take it with a grain of salt, but I do that anyway. I've also heard that he is just rehashing Jung, but I've never read Jung (I wonder why?) and so I can't say.

I've read Jung, taking exception at his masturbating to God, his work is...fascinating.
He had an animus, or a mental voice or second 'person' as I do.
Joseph Campbell- I was referred to him long ago, but never went there. Never liked mythology until recently so- maybe.

Funny, I've never actually made it through origin of the species. I've read works based on it, but never read the original. I think it's the sheer vocalness of the older style of language that has turned me away. It's somewhat like reading Poe. It takes much time examining and poring over every sentence to try to conjure up an image of what exactly did he just say...

Had to force myself with caffeine and strict isolation just to read it. Victorian english is toxic.
Don't try it unless you're insane.
Speaking of which:

And, by the way, speaking of shit and disgust, it's kinda funny how so many mentally ill become enamored of their shit. They draw with it, make little sculptures, throw it at the nurses. A thing which comes unequivocabally from you. A thing to call your own.

I love my caca.

 

[invert_nexus]

Some are sticky in conversation, argumentative, pedantic, egocentric and curiously are obsessively preoccupied with philosophical and theological issues.

Hmmm, makes me wonder if I haven't experienced such a trauma... I don't attach cosmic significance to events, but I do tend to see a lot of connections. And I wouldn't say I'm obsessively preoccupied with philosophy and theology. I do find them interesting however. But, I've never kept a journal in my life. I've considered it a time or two, but it never could keep my interest past a couple of entries. I'd be much better off if I did write a journal. Might give me something to refer to search out those tidbits of semi-forgotten lore.

- me to Wes in this thread:

Some good stuff in that thread. I'm going to have to go over it. I think some of the concepts discussed in my brief glance might do well in here.

To wit- art, religion, and imagination I feel are all linked by animism, a practice that man took up in both his leisure and fear...

A form of the anthropic principle. Placing human personalities on natural objects. Makes sense. For instance, the earliest cave paintings were likely a form of magic to ensure a good hunt. To capture the image of the animal on the wall is to control the animal itself.

With the advent of photography, many primitive cultures around the world were scared by it. Creating such a perfect image of someone was tantamount to stealing their souls. Voodoo makes use of photographs, if I recall correctly.

Another example of early magic would be the Babylonian magics. I was just delving into the Gilgamesh epic the other day and was going through the methods of translation explanation. It's interesting that the Babylonian language only survived (until it did die, that is) by it's uses in magic. And, it was used wrong. It was used with semitic sentence structure rather than the original. They were basically mundane explanations of what those writing the spell wished to happen. But, the magical nature was expressed in the ancient language in which it was written. It wasn't animism per se, but it did call upon animistic gods to carry out your wishes.

Egyptian hieroglyphs can also lend itself to animism. And, of course, Babylonian evolved from a simpler, picture language. So perhaps the spells described above could be even more animistic than first appearances.

Definitely an interesting line of inquiry.

Accordingly, language was a runaway process which gave birth to twins- gods and magic, and since gods where unattainable noneinties and magic a tangible reality, gods became relgion and magic became science.

Hmm, this somehow lends itself to the description of the Death's Gate runes in the other thread. I wonder if that was the writers' intent? Gods and religion are the ends and the magic is the means.

These taboos and symbols were stolen from moral tradition (as Cortes did the Aztecs) and exploited it to such high degrees that so much magical thinking was needed to sanction it (the symbol or taboo) in order to make the concept fearsome or reverent.

But, these symbols are so powerful that one doesn't even need to steal them. Sometimes they are foisted upon you without the least effort on your part. Did Jesus truly claim to be the messiah or was it foisted upon him? Dave Koresh? Charlie Manson? Jim Jones? At least in these latter three, we know that they did claim the title, but would it have been possible without those sycophants surrounding them? The perpetual ass-lickers, as someone I know has been wont to say (paraphrasing).

In this, the magic used to do it reached a critical mass, so much that this monstrous bulk exploded to what Man has today- Religion.

You would be burned at the stake in some parts of the world for uttering such heretical statements... It seems that the use of magic has decreased as religions have grown more sophisticated. The early religions made use of it practically all the time. The Catholic church has many practices which would definitely classify as magic. Protestants seem to have far less. A competition between the duality of religion and magic? The ends vs. the means? It seems the ends is winning...

But, magic is about life. Religion is about death. As a religion ages, more and more of it's practitioners are dead. All the saints are dead. The reward is an eternal reward in death. To live a pleasurable life (the stuff of magic) is anathema to the religions of today.

By appealing to the senses and imagination its easy to see why its widespread- its addictive.

Just as addictive as science. Intellectual stimulation. I personally live in an intellectually devoid environment. My friends and family are a mass of brain-dead popular culture consuming fools. They certainly have their uses, dealing with practical things, but I desire more. At least they're not religious. Although they're all christians and believers, but they don't even understand what it is they believe. They don't even understand that their religion condemns them for not even trying to live it. Anyway, that's why I've become a sciforums junkie. It feels so good to talk to people who tickle my brain for a change.

But, religion seems to deaden the brain more than stimulate it. Witness the endless dialogs in the religion forum. The thinkers vs. the dogmatacists (<--word?). The religious allow the bible to think for them. Those intellectual believers, anyway. The others just allow their nameless prejudices to do the speaking and pretend that that's what the bible says, even though they've never read it. It definitely stimulates the emotions though. Even those who don't understand can still find themselves in a religious rapture from time to time.

It amazes me how Catholicism (a religion) has become the bread and butter of the Middle Americas (like Mexico- that was magical and mystical once).

Why? Catholicism is the closest christians can come to magic. And Mexico is the world's leader in Mary sightings. Look it's right there in the reflection in the window... I think that this is probably a good reason why Mexico has stayed Catholic. The protestant religions are so drab and mundane in comparison.

The trick where the top of your thumb seems to come off by hiding it behind your index finger- that's inheritence.

Hmm, I suppose it is. You inherit that the thumb you see is the thumb you saw earlier. Interesting.

...the patients' brains would jump in and literrally fill the blotches in in real time

I believe I've heard reference to this before. Perhaps this is the source of my original thoughts on "filling in." This Ramachandran sounds like a bonnie fellow. (I take it that this is also Randi who you were referring to?) The name brings up memories of Hal and 2001. Sounds like this is another author I should look up. Damn, girl, I'm gonna need to get new glasses by the time you're done with me...

Put something on your blindspot- the object will disappeear but the backround will fill in the missing piece.

If I remember correctly, the way I first heard of "filling in" was that the objects in the center of your vision are usually analyzed to the fullest and it's the objects in your peripheral vision that suffer the most filling in. Blind spots and the like. But, even those objects upon which you concentrate are subject to interpretation within the brain. Being shuttled here and there. Tacking on labels, removing outdated labels, etc... So, in the end, what we see is irrevocably tinged with the emotional contexts necessary for us to categorize it. Schizophrenics are unable to do this properly and end up with broken images, contexts, etc...

Also, another curiousity- Cotard's syndrome, where the brain seems to compensate for blindness with the most amazing hallucinations.

Is this at all related to those little whorls and patterns of light one sees at night with the eyes closed? I've spent many a night trying to control them. Trying to see if anything worthwhile could be made of them. Another of those things which keeps me awake at night...

I can hold a wad of dogshit in my hand yet even the scent of human shit repulses me.

All except your own, huh?

I love my caca.

most humans I've found to be more repulsed with human excreta than with foreign-species excreta (dog, cat, gerbil)

Hmm, I don't know if I've ever explored this disgust within myself before. I find cat shit to be extremely offensive because of it's odor. Dog's not so bad. Gerbil is just a little pellet that hardly rouses any emotions. Same with rabbits and deer. I think it's more to do with the juiciness of the turd and not necessarily the sphincter it emerged from. Of course, there's not much opportunity to examine human shit. I do remember this chinese circus I went to once. I went to the port-a-johns they had and was disgusted that they were overflowing. Shit piled up higher than the seats. *shiver* And I hate crapping in port-a-johns anyway because of the splash effect. I feel sorry for girls who have to squat all the time. Well, some don't...

notice that the eating experice is largely smell oriented. Next time you have a cold, notice how everything lacks salt.

My sense of smell is abysmal due to years of smoking. I hardly notice a difference with a cold. But, I do think I can back up your observation. Salt? That might be just the missing culprit, now that you mention it.

Enter posions- many smell particularly sweet (cyanide with its almond smell)

I've always thought of almonds as bitter not sweet. Ah, but the smell... I can't recall what it smells like come to think of it. Have to take your word for it. (I hate almonds...)

All posions share the same thing- alkanility. This makes them bitter to the taste, thus repulsive.

Is this true? There are no acidic poisons?

Definitely an interesting theory. But, it would have had to develop before the humans murderous (poisoning) nature arose. I suppose it could be a way of distinguishing natural poisons. And one must also consider the cultural differences in taste. The orientals eat some god-awful shit. And many herbs which animals live on are bitter. Never thought about it, do animals have taste buds? All animals? I know there's a particular parasite among fish that will eat their tongues and then move in to replace it... Anyway, most fish swallow their food whole, so it's moot.


Ok, done with the commentary. If I've missed anything, just give me a nudge. I was going back and forth over your post, so wouldn't be surprised.


So, where exactly are we? I find your concept on language and human self-awareness causing the confusion which resulted in religion and magic to be interesting. It's interesting that Genie (the feral child) showed almost no left-brain activity, yet showed remarkable right-brain activity. (Sad what happened to that poor girl... I know you're somewhat distanced from love and sappy emotions, but that was a travesty. Almost brought a tear to my eye.) As I was saying in the other thread, at first glance this almost seems to trouble the concept of religions tapping into the hidden portions of the mind. But, with the addition of rationality being applied to the effects of the hidden mind being confused as animism, then it seems to confirm it somewhat.

Anything else? Damn, I had a couple of thoughts that popped up earlier, but got lost as I continued. That's a problem with intuitive (chaotic) thinking. As the mind diverges onto a new path, it becomes difficult to trace the steps back to where you were.

Screw it. I'm gonna stop here. Let my brain cool down a bit, then reread it and see if the missing thoughts make a comeback. It's long enough as it is.

 

[invert_nexus]

Well, I've read about 4 pages into the thread on language and I am shocked by the similarities in what we have been discussing in here and what you were discussing back there. By the way, you were such a fucking tease in that thread. "Still with me?" I'm surprised you never made Mephura's head explode... Or maybe you did?

It is interesting the way that the various threads I have been posting in the past few days, "Free Will and Improvisation", "Do We Need the Look of Other Eyes" and this on all seem to be discussing the same point from different angles (at least to my eyes, I think the other participants of those threads might have a different story to tell). The same point which was under discussion in the Language thread. And you didn't even have to lead this thread down the path. I brought it up myself. (Actually, no, I guess you did. But I had been speaking of this already in the other threads, which is why I didn't bring it up sooner. I began to feel like I was repeating myself endlessly. I think that I am going to concentrate my attentions in here rather than the others. The main characters in the other threads refuse to cogitate the hidden forces. Have you read all the way through those threads? I think that there is likely a thread or two in the religious forum where I was elucidating my ideas, but I think I carried all those thoughts into the philosophy threads.)

Anyway, blah blah.

I do wonder what we can accomplish in this thread. Not much progress will be made with just the two of us stroking each other... "Yes, you are so right." "How true. How true." And with that 17 page monster, (which I've barely begun to tap into) I wonder how much new ground can be covered. Perhaps with two like minds we can find some new insight. And, this thread does have a different topic. More in line with the functioning of the brain rather than language which is just a symptom. I did notice that in the language thread it was Religion and Language who were born on the same day. Do you still feel that way or is the magic/science idea a further elaboration with Language shifted to the mother of these forces? Personally, I feel more attuned to the language spawning religion and magic. Seems to jibe a bit better. I should try to keep that in mind as I continue to follow that thread.

I also noticed that Genie came up in that thread later on. These concepts are all circling about each other intrinsically linked. Feral children are the best (and perhaps only) way to delve into humans with no language, other than mentally damaged brains (which, of course the feral children are as well.) And Genie is perhaps the best documented of these. The forbidden experiment.

I think I'm going to have to spend more time thinking about this, now that I have a better idea of exactly what we are discussing. I have several articles on schizophrenia and mental disorders and brain functions that I am going to review and try to add to the conversation. By the way, have you read Sybil? I have a copy of the book but haven't read it in years. I bet it has a point or two to share as well.

Still with me?

 

[invert_nexus]

Just had a thought as I was going back over this thread one last time for the night. Earlier, I mentioned Babylonian and Egyptian hieroglyphs. I realize now that the discussion at hand (at least in the other thread) was spoken language rather than written. I concentrated on written language because I am writing in it right now. I wonder if it's possible that this animism concept might not be responsible for written language. Without it... Who knows?

Funny, I also alluded to written symbols when speaking of quickening thoughts and the Death's Gate runes. Preconceptions are hard to shake...



Oh, earlier you said: "In my theory, there is no "I" and the explanation is far from mystical bullshit. Its scientific."

Now, in my ramblings I have mentioned this several times as having to do with the "hidden" portions of the mind. Is this what you're talking about? Elaborate, if you would be so kind.


Edit: God, it's late. Why am I still up? Oh, I've been reading a thread called On Language - blah blah. Made it up to page 7. I'm constantly amazed by similarities of thought going on here. There are even mentions made in the thread about similarities of thought. Although, it seems to be after the fact... and somewhat onesided. I don't know how Mephura maintained so long with just a "continue please." I'd have been at your throat long before... Anyway, I had a reason to put this in, what was it? Oh yeah, from what I've been reading in there, I'd highly recommend you pick up at least the first couple of books of the Masks of God. Primitive Mythology and Babylonian Mythology (I think that's the second one. I need to read them again myself.) I'm sure it'll add to your thoughts on this subject.

ugh... sleeeeep....

 

[gendanken]

Wow. Haven't read that thread in ages. Noticed some things:

I did notice that in the language thread it was Religion and Language who were born on the same day. Do you still feel that way or is the magic/science idea a further elaboration with Language shifted to the mother of these forces? Personally, I feel more attuned to the language spawning religion and magi

Like a newborn, my little wananbe theory also deveolped.
Its grown to say language got knocked up and gave birth to gods and magic.
But......this only agrees with what you're saying.

So...

I do wonder what we can accomplish in this thread. Not much progress will be made with just the two of us stroking each other... "Yes, you are so right." "How true. How true."

..Indeed.

Hmm.
I happen to put it *very* simplisitcally. I look to every other living being on this planet and notice their lack of religious feelings.
I notice their inabilites to think of themselves in terms of Other- something as simple as you being able to 'become' the Queen or the King in a game of chess I attribute to language and its properties that lie to us.
The murderous torture (not the instinct, I said torture) of the masochist and the serial killer- I attribute this to language.
In short- the SuperEgo, the Self, and Guilt: these three things I say are only figures of speech.
Literally.
That's what's fascinating.
This includes all the OnessNess of Zen its followers meditate on. The mystical eyewash of Kaballah. The Hindu Maya and its numinous Nothingness.
They are all human corruptions fascilitated by ....none other than...language.

Explaining this illusive monster we call Guilt (one that remains, not the immediate guilt of the dog who's just bit you. SuperEgo- I'm talkin' mores here)..explaining it away with something as simple as language and not the complex bullshatta of Freud. That is what fascinates me.

So- you're bound to disagree somewhere in there.

By the way, you were such a fucking tease in that thread. "Still with me?" I'm surprised you never made Mephura's head explode... Or maybe you did?

ha.
Which one?

Still with me?

Twatteasing piece of shit that thou art.

Of course. This space reserved for commentary- hands hurting.

 

[invert_nexus]

Ok, I've been thinking about it. And as always, new thoughts lead inevitably to the loss of the thoughts that have gone before. So, I'm gonna throw some out before they're lost.

You discussion in the other thread was based around language. As is this one in a different way. I understand the concept that early language was carefully constructed for a specific purpose. And then once it had reached a certain point it became self-maintaining. No conscious thought had to be focused upon it to maintain it. So, early humanity advanced and the language advanced with it. At a later date, when man was given a bit of leisure, he began to examine things other than was his wont before. Early humanity used pattern finding in it's ceaseless migrations. It was used to determine where food, water, and shelter might be found. It was also used in the social contract. It was used to determine the patterns within the group, who stood higher than who. Who was nice. Who was mean.

So, all these structures were built up within the brain to perform wholely practical tasks. Yet, as these structures grew, the addiction to patterns grew as well. It was an evolutionary benefit to be a good pattern-finder. It promoted life for the individual and the group. There was emotional feedback in pattern-finding. When someone successfully solved a riddle, found food in a barren landscape, determined which female he was able to mate with (and countless others), he received a jolt of pleasure from his emotional centers.

So, there came a time when this pattern-finding was even turned upon the emotional feedback which sustained it. I think that this is where religion was born. (Not necessarily magic, though. I feel that religion was first then magic came later, probably close on religion's heels. And likely before religion had grown beyond vague self-satisfactory glimmerings.) So, the beast man turned his awareness inwards, into the processes that made him tick. This is neurosis unless I confuse my terminology. (I'm an amateur and yield to your far-greater book knowledge.) Mental illness. Where did this feeling come from? Come to think of it where did this voice inside come from? This looking inwards sparked a chain of thoughts that leads inevitably to religious concepts.

I'll leave that for now.

Magic. Pattern-finding once again. A loved one dies. Someone can't get over the death in a healthy manner. The memory of that person exists still within the mind. The person broods over it. The person dreams endlessly of the lost one. This person is obviously not dead, just in a different place. An intangible place. Eventually, the person either remembers that when the loved one took ill someone was doing something, saying something, perhaps an earlier argument provides motive or sees it in a later death unconnected to the brooding of the depressed. This thing, or posited thing, is connected in a flash of inspiration. This thing caused the death. This thing was magic.

Cave-paintings. I can only imagine the fear and awe invoked in the group the first time a painting of a wildebeast was made. The question is did this come before or after the other magic. Or perhaps it was the event that spurred the connection to begin with.

Written language. I am unsure as to how all languages were made. As I said earlier, Egyptian and Babylonian were both originally picture languages. Magic?

Definitely a workable framework there.


You know what I'm wondering? With all this talk of left-brain, right-brain, emotional centers, yadda yadda. I'm wondering about how animals' brains functions. They have hemispheres too. What do their left-brains do? I think I'm gonna go do a little web-searching...


Edit: Oh, I spoke more of pattern finding that language above. But, language is what gave us the means to examine this pattern-finding. Without it, pattern-finding could only be used for practical purposes. Words give us symbols with which to describe the abstract.

And, the 10 spheres of the Kaballah are named after 10 hebrew letters and deals a great part in numerology and hidden messages within the bible...


Edit: Here's an interesting little bit I've found online.

It is interesting that many esoteric spiritual traditions taught the same idea of three planes of consciousness and even three different brains. Gurdjieff for example referred to Man as a "three-brained being". There was one brain for the spirit, one for the soul, and one for the body. Similar ideas can be found in Kabbalah, in Platonism, and elsewhere, with the association spirit - head (the actual brain), soul - heart, and body in the belly. Here we enter also upon the chakra paradigm - the idea that points along the body or the spine correspond to nodes of consciousness, related in an ascending manner, from gross to subtle.
http://www.ezls.fb12.uni-siegen.de/mkroedel/paul_maclean.html

It's referring to the triune brain. the Archipallium brain (reptilian brain), the Palleomammalian brain (limbic system), and the Neopallium brain (neocortex). According to the hypothesis by Paul MacLean.

 

[gendanken]

Finally.

Is this true? There are no acidic poisons?

Definitely an interesting theory. But, it would have had to develop before the humans murderous (poisoning) nature arose. I suppose it could be a way of distinguishing natural poisons. And one must also consider the cultural differences in taste. The orientals eat some god-awful shit. And many herbs which animals live on are bitter. Never thought about it, do animals have taste buds? All animals? I know there's a particular parasite among fish that will eat their tongues and then move in to replace it... Anyway, most fish swallow their food whole, so it's moot.

True, the Asian tonge is an odd one. Sushi, scorpion, feline, cat...who knows what other nighmares visit that horrendous place we call the Asian Mouth?

We could speak of poisons here..but it'd be way off topic. I'll leave it alone, however tantalizing.
(Just one thing- the funnel spider, native to Australia. Consider this: it has one of the deadliest poisons on this planet, but a dog, a cat, or a parakeet bitten by one is the same as either you or I bitten by a mosquito. Not a damn thing. But let this spider sting either a chimp, an ape or a human and it becomes a nervous breakdown. Why? The ape is genetically predisposed to be vulnerable- and its the only the species in our family that's vulnerable to this posion. God I love practical jokes)

But more on this later. On to the goodies:

You discussion in the other thread was based around language. As is this one in a different way. I understand the concept that early language was carefully constructed for a specific purpose. And then once it had reached a certain point it became self-maintaining. No conscious thought had to be focused upon it to maintain it. So, early humanity advanced and the language advanced with it. At a later date, when man was given a bit of leisure, he began to examine things other than was his wont before. Early humanity used pattern finding in it's ceaseless migrations. It was used to determine where food, water, and shelter might be found. It was also used in the social contract. It was used to determine the patterns within the group, who stood higher than who. Who was nice. Who was mean.

So, all these structures were built up within the brain to perform wholely practical tasks. Yet, as these structures grew, the addiction to patterns grew as well. It was an evolutionary benefit to be a good pattern-finder. It promoted life for the individual and the group. There was emotional feedback in pattern-finding. When someone successfully solved a riddle, found food in a barren landscape, determined which female he was able to mate with (and countless others), he received a jolt of pleasure from his emotional centers.

So, there came a time when this pattern-finding was even turned upon the emotional feedback which sustained it. I think that this is where religion was born

PRESTO.

It grew parallel with him, this new tool (languge), and in his use of it it migrated into his body so that it became something of an emotion- like love- and by doing so inherited the almost mystical untouchablity we feel when aiming to define something like love.
You, however, feel religion came first and then magic, which to me would be wrong but more on that later. I want you to see the pattern:
Symbolism-> language->Animism->magic->religion.

See? I know there is trouble communicating with this fucking medium but I really want you to see this before starting, just so that the fog clears:

Magic would be the transition of awe for object (animism) to awe for the charlattan that makes magic. And the prole gets lost in the tranlation process becuase the concrete is stolen from him and generalized into slippery abstractions. The way a little girl gets duped by the abstract eyewash of Kant- she wants to look smart so she swallows his philosophy without tasting. And this, to me, is the making of religion. A culmination.
See?

That out of the way:

This is neurosis unless I confuse my terminology. (I'm an amateur and yield to your far-greater book knowledge.) Mental illness. Where did this feeling come from? Come to think of it where did this voice inside come from? This looking inwards sparked a chain of thoughts that leads inevitably to religious concepts.

So glad you said neurosis! Godamn you!

The SuperEgo is what binds men internally with a 'second self' that dominates all his doing. One.
This second self is an illusion felt closest as a mental voice. Two.
This is where I made a mistake and why my thoughts on it grew- its not the turning in to find an inner voice there that made religion or sparked it.
Rather, this voice inside, this second self we all feel attached to our psyche is what prolongs something like religions and ensures its vitality with a thing we all feel as "Guilt".
Remember always those three properties of language that have, in my theory, made Gullt and Fear so prosperous:
Displacement
Recursion
Vicariousness.


All have their benefits, but as in any Shakesperean drama or Greek myth, they each have their catch and its downfall.
Still with me?
Diplacement allows us to talk about things that do not exist or no longer do, yet allows us this wonderful ease we have in conceptualizing objects and its permitted us the tapping into Earth's secrets to tame her. Its permitted Science- we've never "seen" electrons but look at the wonders we've done with them. This is the good in it.
But the bad in it is that this very property has also allowed us to misplace our sense of control by filling the world with spirits and abstracts and thus exaggerated our fears in the doing. A man can now speak of the deceased and the dreaming about them solidifies this fear. Animal fear that was once immediate corrupts into a vast expansion so loud with horror that it fills a man's brain with abstracts which he feels talismans keep at bay.
And here, good sir, is the birth of superstition.
Think religion en utero.

Recursion allows us to go *in* to examine the wonder we are and its codified a moral system around which we all gravitate peacufully (theoretically). That's the good in it. But its also allowed the brain to run at the mouth (headnoise) and I won't be the first to point out that the most troubled men on earth secretly drowning in a swamp of their own introspections and thoughts have been philosphers of some sort that either fought or gave in to their mania.
Empedocles, Neitszche, Weininger, Holinger...give or take.
And so debuts psychological torture- who will show me which other animal revels in prolonged sadism? You'll show me a cat with his mouse, but the cat is not fueled by the knowing his prey suffers its torments. To that cat, this game is much like you playing a video game shooting down digital men in cold blood: a practice in skill with the mind of your prey never entering yours.
I, however, would relish every last second knowing my enemies suffer. This too I believe a consequence of language.

Vicariousness allows one to empathize, furthering the cause for morality. That's the good in it.
The bad in it is its allowence for Other minds to haunt us, in the same way the simple knowing that his beloved exists haunts the lover in his dreams and his waking hours despite his beloved not there anywhere near his body and so, technically speaking, his beloved does not exist. Think God.
The lover suffers this vicariousness the way our Buddhists and Kabballists suffers the hauting of their minds by their mentors.
The way a Christian has been allowed to walk in Jesus' shoes (vicariousness) and put to sleep at night with Jehovah haunting his dreams.
See?
The good and bad in language- and with language allowed to run away and grow by feeding on historical accidents with our neglecting to document its birth and developement, the bad in it has unleashed on us its demons.
This is what fascinates- to think its that simple.

I think you understand where I'm going with this. Maybe. I've taken myself aside so many times and ground my psyche down to its parts in order to compare it to every living thing on this planet.
The dualists like Descartes would like me to believe I'm both matter and spirit, and the Kabbalist would also.
But am I?
So what sets me apart from the roach and the gerbil became a problem.
So what does?
It was not love that set us apart from 'them'- the canine would starve with its master in this thing we call loyalty.
It was not awareness of death- the elephant stops in its tracks to hold a peer's bones in its trunk and the wolf is heard baying at night when his alphas die.
Its not murder either, as a savage chimp choking on the thrill of the hunt and the capuchin meat its just slaughtered would show.
And its not humor or play or joy, as the theiving magpie and the raven delighting in flight or the puppy would aslo show.
So it is as Anatole France would have it: Lies and literature. Far too simplitstic the way he put it, I know. But I looked around, thought and thougth and picked apart every last fucking piece of human behaviour and kept coming back to laguage and our neglect of her on her birthday.
"Spirit" and "Soul" then became the brain's autobiography of Self it wrote with the language in its memory. A figure of speech playing with gods.

I have a journal entry concerning it, but I feel this will be long and my hands will hurt.
Care to see it?

Hmmm, makes me wonder if I haven't experienced such a trauma... I don't attach cosmic significance to events, but I do tend to see a lot of connections. And I wouldn't say I'm obsessively preoccupied with philosophy and theology. I do find them interesting however. But, I've never kept a journal in my life. I've considered it a time or two, but it never could keep my interest past a couple of entries. I'd be much better off if I did write a journal. Might give me something to refer to search out those tidbits of semi-forgotten lore.

Much better off if you kept one- serves to tame those things flying inside uncontrollably. I have four.
Funny thing how the mention of this particular trauma made you wonder about yourself- I myself sat there looking down at the page and swear on your grandmother it looked like this:

"Patients who have had trauma to the temporal lobes have heiGhtENed emotions and see cosmic significance in trivial events.......they tend to be humorless, full of self-importance and to mantain elaborate diaries that record quotiDiAN events in elaborate detail. Some are sticKy in converstation, argumENtative, pedantic, egocentric and curiously are obsessively preoccupied with philosophical and theological issues"

A form of the anthropic principle. Placing human personalities on natural objects. Makes sense. For instance, the earliest cave paintings were likely a form of magic to ensure a good hunt. To capture the image of the animal on the wall is to control the animal itself.

With the advent of photography, many primitive cultures around the world were scared by it. Creating such a perfect image of someone was tantamount to stealing their souls. Voodoo makes use of photographs, if I recall correctly.

Another example of early magic would be the Babylonian magics. I was just delving into the Gilgamesh epic the other day and was going through the methods of translation explanation. It's interesting that the Babylonian language only survived (until it did die, that is) by it's uses in magic. And, it was used wrong. It was used with semitic sentence structure rather than the original. They were basically mundane explanations of what those writing the spell wished to happen. But, the magical nature was expressed in the ancient language in which it was written. It wasn't animism per se, but it did call upon animistic gods to carry out your wishes.

Egyptian hieroglyphs can also lend itself to animism. And, of course, Babylonian evolved from a simpler, picture language. So perhaps the spells described above could be even more animistic than first appearances.

Definitely an interesting line of inquiry.

Any language lends itself to animism , right? What is it? Dead articles we call symbols that aim to caputre life in its linings.
Symbolism, I'm sure you know, isn't limited to our species- let any biologist or horticulturist show you the gestures of a chimp or the waggle dance of a bee or the pretty pinks and yellows of Earth's flowers and symbolism speaks out as the planet's oldest form of communication.
But in the human mind, with its gigantic prefrontal cortex, this odd practice becomes flexible- it took a life of its own and its seems we've mystified it because the language we created from it, like our emotional drives, is so intimately a part of our psyche it is difficult to examine it objectively.
You've said something concering this- more later.

But, these symbols are so powerful that one doesn't even need to steal them. Sometimes they are foisted upon you without the least effort on your part. Did Jesus truly claim to be the messiah or was it foisted upon him? Dave Koresh? Charlie Manson? Jim Jones? At least in these latter three, we know that they did claim the title, but would it have been possible without those sycophants surrounding them? The perpetual ass-lickers, as someone I know has been wont to say (paraphrasing).

The stealing I spoke about was done with our ancestors- the first time that a Cro-Magnum took his tribes nascent culture and distorted it into a system based on fear so that the elders became deified in their burials- that was stealing.
The first time a star gazer looked down no his people desperately dancing for rain and then at that same moment made the connection between moon and tide, his tweaking theirtraditions into a new form of ritual with him mediating it .........was also stealing.
The reductipn of concrete particulars (dancing) into generalized abstractions tangled up with with the awe that these ingorant savages, so to speak, have for this magical man that can predict the tides is what first constituted, to me, a true religion.
One centralized and run by a charlatan.
The first astronomers, then, were con men.

This is what I meant.

You would be burned at the stake in some parts of the world for uttering such heretical statements...

I'll say it in Latin then:
In this, the magic used to do it reached a critical mass, so much that this monstrous bulk exploded to what Man has today- Religion.
Tranlation: Mole ruit sua.
It collapses from its own bigness.

Why? Catholicism is the closest christians can come to magic.

Not really- the American Southeast is sprinkled with thousands of nondescript churches filled with black and white idiots handling snakes, healing, and speaking in tongues.
All of them some other diseased form of Christian- Baptist, Apostolic, blah and blah.

I believe I've heard reference to this before. Perhaps this is the source of my original thoughts on "filling in." This Ramachandran sounds like a bonnie fellow. (I take it that this is also Randi who you were referring to?

No- Ramachandran is a brilliant neurologist. I'll tell you about his miracle of miracles: amputating an amputated limb, if you'd like.
Randi refers to James Randi- a cynical magician.

 

[gendanken]

Eventually, the person either remembers that when the loved one took ill someone was doing something, saying something, perhaps an earlier argument provides motive or sees it in a later death unconnected to the brooding of the depressed. This thing, or posited thing, is connected in a flash of inspiration. This thing caused the death. This thing was magic.

No, man.

Its far more complicated- how can you possibly think this when our ancients deified the unknowable? Man was knowable- and so magic had to come from the skies and spoken by a charlattan that knew how to lie about it.
Not mankind.

 

[invert_nexus]

We could speak of poisons here..but it'd be way off topic.

Agreed. But, you do differentiate between poison and venom, don't you?

It grew parallel with him, this new tool (languge), and in his use of it it migrated into his body so that it became something of an emotion- like love- and by doing so inherited the almost mystical untouchablity we feel when aiming to define something like love.

I have found some interesting stuff in my web-searching yesterday. I think that I will introduce them in a new post rather than a commentary. But, I will briefly mention this... It is thought that lateralization occured not by new abilities being added to a hemisphere, but rather abilities being removed. I didn't find much on animal lateralization, probably because it doesn't happen often, but there are new <a href="http://www.nimh.nih.gov/press/prmonkeytalk.cfm">findings</a> about lateralization in monkeys. It seems that during a petscan an area near the left temple responded more strongly than the corresponding right side when monkey calls were heard. A precursor to human lateralization? It seems that if the monkey's brains are split, the lateralization disappears. So it seems that the left hemisphere dampens the right's activities in this regard. Over time, this could become permanent and inheritable.

And, I'll also take this opportunity to apologize for using the wrong terminology. I've been referring to the reptilian brain as the limbic system. But, the limbic system is the paleomammalian brain. The brain of our early mammal ancestors. The reptilian brain refers to the brain stem and the like and controls coordination and base motor functions (among other things.) As I'm sure you're already aware.

I also found some things on the interpretive mechanism which is what I've been going on about without realizing. But, as you say, more on that later.

You feel religion came first and then magic, which to me would be wrong but more on that later. I want you to see the pattern:
Symbolism-> language->Animism->magic->religion.

Magic would be the transition of awe for object (animism) to awe for the charlattan that makes magic.

I think you misspoke here. Did you mean to say Religion would be the transition...?

And the prole gets lost in the translation process becuase, again, concrete particulars have been distorted into the vagueries of generalized abstractions.

Ahh, I think I see what you're getting at. You're saying that religion is a further level of abstraction after the original transferance of awe has taken place. An abstraction of an abstraction. I get your point, but I beg to differ.

I see religion (in the context which we have been speaking) is the nameless and general emotional context. I see animism as the first religion. Perhaps, our differences can be settled in that animism is religion that is incomplete? It is the first steps towards religion, but requires a further level of abstraction to culminate in mature religion. It requires an in-between step. Magic. Magic which manipulates animism, therefore providing the means to transfer the animistic awe to priestly awe.

A culmination.

Precisely. But, to culminate there must be precursors which will culminate. I imagine this is all semantics...

The SuperEgo is what binds men internally with an 'second self' that dominates all his doing.
This second self is an illusion felt closest as a mental voice.
This is where I made a mistake and why my thoughts on it grew- its not the turning in to find an inner voice there that made religion or sparked it.
Rather, this voice inside, this second self we all feel attached to our psyche is what prolongs something like religons and ensures its existence and vitality with a thing we all feel as "Guilt'.
Remember always those three properties of language that have, in my theory, made Gullt and Fear so prosperous:
Displacement
Recursion
Vicariousness.

Hmmm, I'm having a bit of trouble with this. Let's see if I can spell out my difficulties...

You have the three principles of which you speak (I have found a site on language which spoke on a similar vein, but I never got to reading it and accidentally closed it before I bookmarked it. I'll try to find it later.) Displacement, Recursion, and Vicariousness.

Displacement is our ability to envision things that are not, or possibly are, etc... Throught this facility we displace human traits into non-human objects, and vice versa.

Recursion is the looking within of which I spoke. And, to my mind, undoubtably falls prey to displacement. Making the little man in our brains. The homonculous.

Vicariousness is the ability to "walk in another's shoes." Through this ability we transfer our emotions and POV to possibly existing in others and vice versa. This seems to be a further abstraction of displacement. This gives us the possibility that others are just as real and valid as we. I think that my confusion might be in that displacement does not need an object and vicariousness does? When we vicariously walk in Jesus' footsteps, we are using displacement to first posit that Jesus ever existed then using vicariousness to place ourselves within this creation?

Hmmm, this is a proverbial sticky wicket for me. Let me try something. Ealry man was an adept pattern-finder. It was used in practical terms for survival. Language was in fact a way of finding patterns within sounds and applying symbolic concepts to them. So, the first language was an exercise in... displacement/vicariousness. Through language we came to a means of communicating concepts that we could only posit before. It was a means of coming to an understanding that others have... No, this isn't working... Recursion was also needed because to realize thoughts in others, one must first realize those thoughts within oneself. I think I get a glimmering... All three were used with the first use of language. I need to think about this a bit more.

Much better off if you kept one- serves to tame those things flying inside uncontrollably.

I think I somewhat fear someone finding them upon my death and thinking "What a whackjob that guy was..." But, shit, what do I really care?

Any language lends itself to animism , right? What is it? Dead articles we call symbols that aim to caputre life in its linings.

I've found some things on the subject of written language as well. I always thought of spoken words as analogous to written words. Turns out the brain doesn't. Makes sense, I write better than I speak. I'll write more on this in my later post.

This is what I meant.

I get you. But, theft is such a negative word. We're using it right now. The whole concept of rebuilding the wheel... But, we have advanced so far, that it might be a good time to attempt to start the framework from scratch. But, as you said regarding smilodon's tooth in the other thread, easier said than done...

I'll say it in Latin then:

Me no speaka the latin... I'm a cretin...

Not really- the American Southeast is sprinkled with thousands of nondescript churches filled with black and white idiots handling snakes, healing, and speaking in tongues.

Yup, you got me there. It's easy to be blinded by one's ideas... And it's interesting to note that it is the protestant religions which carry to such extremes. Catholicism is dogma pure and simple. Protestantism is limited only by imagination and the mores of those nearby.

No- Ramachandran is a brilliant neurologist. I'll tell you about his miracle of miracles: amputating an amputated limb, if you'd like.

Sounds interesting. Tell away. By the way, this leads to another concept I've discovered I'll expand upon later. I'll just put in this quote for now.

The President of the United States is lying in bed, waving his right hand at his Secretary of State in a gesture of dismissal. The President is alert and seems intelligent. He is talking forcefully, angry at his subordinate, who has suggested that the President is ill and perhaps should delegate some of his duties to others until he recovers.

Indeed, the President's left side seems to be totally paralyzed -from a recent stroke. His left arm lies limp. The President cannot walk because his left leg will not function. However, the President seems blissfully unaware of this disorder, steadfastly denying that there is anything wrong with him. It is, of course, this denial of his illness that has particularly upset the President's personal and official families. They have tried to reason with him, pointing out to him that his left arm is lying there, paralyzed. But he denies that it is his left arm. Indeed, he is somewhat puzzled about what a strange arm and leg are doing in his bed with him.
http://williamcalvin.com/Bk1/bk1ch7.htm

I've seen references to a book called "The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat." Read it? I've got to get to the library one of these days. The internet is far too full of crackpottery for serious research. <a href="http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articles2/reptbrain.html">For instance.</a> This site cracked me up. A pity how easily science lends itself to this sort of thing. (Pot calling the kettle black? Nah, I think we're trying to stay within the limits of reality.)

I have a journal entry concerning it, but I feel this will be long and my hands will hurt.
Care to see it?

Love to. And perhaps, somewhere deep inside, I receive a small jolt of cruel glee at the thought of your hands cramping spasmodically...


Whew, as I said, I have more to say in another post, but contemplating yours has got my mind whirling around a bit. So, I need some time to cool down a bit before I begin.

 

[invert_nexus]

Its far more complicated- how can you possibly think this when our ancients deified the unknowable? Man was knowable- and so magic had to come from the skies and spoken by a charlattan that knew how to lie about it.
Not mankind.

Perhaps this is where the misunderstanding lies. I have been thinking of magic as a practical sort of thing. She doesn't love me so I need magic to make her do so. My son is sick so I need magic to heal him. The crops are dying so I need magic to make them grow.

It is the "charlatan" who is the practicioner of magic that is the center of religion. That's why I feel religion comes before magic. If only in the mind of the charlatan, and not fully fleshed.

And, by the way, is the charlatan a charlatan if he believes it himself?

Man was knowable

Was he? Isn't the greatest fear fear of your fellow man? The unknown that dwells within others that must be labelled and codified in order to reduce that fear?


Edit: Rereading the my charlatan story, I begin to see more clearly your idea of magic being first. But, the charlatan had religion before he discovered the magic. Perhaps only a spit second before. But, before nonetheless. Religion being awe of the unknown. A need to define the unknown. Luckily, the interpretive mechanism is extremely fluent as demonstrated by our poor president above.

 

[gendanken]

But, the charlatan had religion before he discovered the magic. Perhaps only a spit second before

Fuck, man. No, no, no.
Ever seen the look on a cat who sees something fliying in the wind? He archs his back in fear- he can't see the wind. The fear dispels as soon as the wind dies but give it some language to think with and it (fear) freezes inside into a lasting concept that will devour him- Guilt.
This is a mysticim that with magic becomes a religion.
One of the earliest forms of mysticism was phallic worship- man had no fucking clue how the internal secrets of reproduction worked, so they deified it in their confusion. And so, the lingam and the yoni.

The feeelings of awe that defines what is mystical are first in line, the charlattan then pounces on this to make magic, and the prole rolls over into his dungeon-church to make him a priest.
Animism. Magic. Religion.

You're wack, mack

(and it is right to call it a reptlitian brain- its the old cortical system devolped from the nose. The "nose brain", no? Concerned with the four F's if not mistaken: fighting, fleeing, feeding, and fucking. All of this is incorporated into the limbic system or, achaically, the reptile brain.
You make it seem as if reptile brain is only the ANS)

 

[invert_nexus]

Ok, I'll accept your terminology. It is semantics. I have been defining religion and mysticism as parts of a whole. But, for clarity, we shall seperate them. They do tend to blend together, but one is more complex than the other.

With that redefinition, we are mostly in accord.

As to the reptilian brain, have you read the MacLean site I linked to? It is the one that speaks of the three "brains" of which we are made. It is old (like the 50's I think), but seems to make sense

In animals such as reptiles, the brain stem and cerebellum dominate. For this reason it is commonly referred to as the "reptilian brain". It has the same type of archaic behavioural programs as snakes and lizards. It is rigid, obsessive, compulsive, ritualistic and paranoid, it is "filled with ancestral memories". It keeps repeating the same behaviours over and over again, never learning from past mistakes ... This brain controls muscles, balance and autonomic functions, such as breathing and heartbeat. This part of the brain is active, even in deep sleep.

The Limbic System (Paleomammalian brain). In 1952 MacLean first coined the name "limbic system" for the middle part of the brain. It can also be termed the paleopallium or intermediate (old mammalian) brain. It corresponds to the brain of the most mammals, and especially the earlier ones. The old mammalian brain residing in the limbic system is concerned with emotions and instincts, feeding, fighting, fleeing, and sexual behaviour. As MacLean observes, everything in this emotional system is either "agreeable or disagreeable". Survival depends on avoidance of pain and repetition of pleasure.

I have also found references to the "reptilian brain" being superstitios and possibly at the root of religious feeling. I haven't yet gathered my thoughts yet to make the full post. I feel hot and sticky. A shower first. Damn summer.

 

[invert_nexus]

Ok, I'm going to drop the above controversies for a moment and try to add what I've found during my web searching yesterday. Delving a bit more into the physical rather than the philosophical. And we can then see if we can tie them into the philosophical quandary in which we find ourselves.

I've already mentioned the <a href="http://www.nimh.nih.gov/press/prmonkeytalk.cfm">Monkey Talk</a> findings from earlier this year, which seem to point to the language centers being formed. The suppression of activity in the other hemisphere in order to lateralize language and to increase efficiency. Interesting that the left should be chosen in the monkey as well as the man. I wonder why this asymetrical phenomenon should be focused so tightly across species. And it is even unknown why we as humans tend to lateralize in such a consistent way.

There is a rough correspondence between handedness and this "lateralization " of language. Most, but not quite all, right-handers have language in the left brain. Left-handers, who are 15 percent of the population, are another matter. More than half of them also have language on the left, bringing the total of left-brain language up to 93 percent of the population. About half of the remaining left-handers (3 percent of the population) are true mirror-image reversals, with language in the right brain.
http://williamcalvin.com/Bk1/bk1ch7.htm

It also mentions that in the cases where lateralization is not so drastic. Where language resides in part on the right. These people are prone to learning disorders. Stuttering, dyslexia, and the like. An example of a child's language skills after a hemispherectomy... "For example, when asked to repeat back the sentence "Wasn't the poor cousin helped by the old lady," one nine-year-old who had had the left hemisphere removed shortly after birth said, "Wasn't by the cousin helped by the old lady," while another recalled this sentence as "Wasn't the poor cousin . . . helped the old lady." Children with right hemisphere removals make few such grammatical errors." It's odd that the right brain removal should not affect grammar. One would think that the remaining half of the brain would be equally crowded and would show similar effects. Strange.

By the way, it also mentions that while the young are less lateralized, there are asymetries present even in the fetus. The planum temporale, for example. And that the asymetry is greater in men than women.

Ok, that's interesting but tough to tie in. But, here's an interesting bit. In the example I gave above of the ailing president, a massive stroke on the right side of the brain removes the concept of leftness from the individual. There are examples shown of people drawing, half a house, half a clock, half a flower. Strange shit. And what's even stranger is that the person is absolutely unaware of anything odd. To him, everything is right as rain. Also, if an oddity occurs that the brain can't explain. It denies it. It will make up a story in the flash of an eye. There is mention made of tests where cards are shown to each hemisphere of a split-brain person. The example given is a chicken to the left brain and a snowstorm to the right. The object is to pick a card that derives from the image shown. The right hand points to a chicken's foot. Ok, nothing wrong there. The left hand points to a shovel. Again, perfectly reasonable. Now, when asked why he pointed to the shovel, the patient made up a story about how he would need a shovel to clean up the chicken coop. The stroke victim will deny that that's his arm. Will deny that anything is wrong with him. That he would get up if only his "brother" would take his arm off him. The interpretive mechanism is designed to "confabulate" stories about what is happening.

False memories originate in the left hemisphere. As this MRI image indicates, a region in both the right and left hemispheres is active when a false memory is recalled (yellow); only the right is active during a true memory (red).
http://cwx.prenhall.com/bookbind/pubbooks/morris4/medialib/readings/split.html

Unfortunately, the images are missing on the page. But, it clearly shows our predilection for making stories. Explanations. And it lies in our language. Our right brain (language free) does not lie. It remembers true. It doesn't explain.

George L. Wolford of Dartmouth has lent even more support to this view of the left hemisphere. In a simple test that requires a person to guess whether a light is going to appear on the top or bottom of a computer screen, humans perform inventively. The experimenter manipulates the stimulus so that the light appears on the top 80 percent of the time but in a random sequence. While it quickly becomes evident that the top button is being illuminated more often, people invariably try to figure out the entire pattern or sequence - and they deeply believe they can. Yet by adopting this strategy, they are correct only 68 percent of the time. If they always pressed the top button, they would be correct 80 percent of the time.

Rats and other animals, on the other hand, are more likely to "learn to maximize" and to press only the top button. It turns out the right hemisphere behaves in the same way: it does not try to interpret its experience and find deeper meaning. It continues to live only in the thin moment of the present - and to be correct 80 percent of the time. But the left, when asked to explain why it is attempting to figure the whole sequence, always comes up with a theory, no matter how outlandish.

Fascinating stuff. I've always been captivated by these split brain findings. It should be noted that it's possible that these split-brains don't apply to our brains. It's possible that the epilepsy which plagued them altered the brain functions.


Now, onto proprioception. I found this in the link you gave in the thumb thread.

It has been suggested that "proprioception", the ability to know where parts of the body are without visual confirmation, is located in the left parietal hemisphere. Patients with this area of damage will generally point to the incorrect part of the body when asked to locate another specific part:

"She could scarcely even sit up - her body 'gave way'. Her face was oddly expressionless and slack, her jaw fell open, even her vocal posture was gone.
"Something awful's happened ," she mouthed, in a ghostly flat voice. "I can't feel my body. I feel weird - disembodied."

This was an amazing thing to hear, confounded, confounding. "Disembodied" - was she crazy? But what of her physical state then? The collapse of tone and muscle posture, from top to toe; the wandering of her hands, which she seemed unaware of; the flailing and overshooting, as if she were receiving no information from the periphery, as if the control loops for tone and movement had catastrophically broken down…

…"What I must do then," she said slowly, "is use vision, use my eyes, in every situation where I used - what do you call it? - proprioception before. I've already noticed," she added, musingly, "that I may 'lose' my arms. I think they're in one place, and I find that they're in another. This "proprioception" is like the eyes of the body, the way the body sees itself. And if it goes, as it's gone with me, it's like the body's blind. My body can't "see" itself if it's lost it's eyes, right? So, I have to watch it - be it's eyes. Right?"

Oliver Sacks - The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat. P45-46.
http://www.23nlpeople.com/sensory_motor_cortex.htm

This is often used as the spirit, the soul. The metaphysical mumbo-jumbo. I mentioned in another thread about moving the mental arm without moving the physical arm. I guess I was referring to proprioception. The concept of the arm.


Ok, enough cut and paste. Let's try to connect the dots a little. What we're talking about is language and the structures in the brain which make language possible. First, we have the the suppression of the other hemisphere. The reordering of the functions to a new structure. Left/right. And, we have the mental disorders that happen when this is not done well. Next, we have the interpreter mechanism. Residing in the left brain and given voice by our language, constantly expounding the meaning of things. And, lastly, we have proprioception. Our mind's eyes of the body. Let's see what I can do with them...

We return once more to our primitive man. He has been using his pattern-finding skills to survive his harsh wanderings. His language skills have also lent their weight to this survival. He has become so good at it, that he now has leisure to examine things more thoroughly. He notices the ant hill and wonders what made it. He notices the clouds and wonders what makes them. All about him are wonders that are crying out for explanations. This is the perfect opportunity for the interpreter mechanism to make itself known. Explanation needed? Sure thing. Here it is. As man is a social creature, the easiest explanation for mysterious forces is for human-like beings to inhabit them, to motivate them.

So, animism is born. A world of spirits and faeries. The unknown forces of the world begin to take on a human flavor. And as such, they can be dealt with, bargained with. In steps magic. The bargaining in action. Now, man has a means by which he control these forces. Fear is reduced even further. But, at the same time it increases. Because if I can have magic, so can you. In steps the priest, to take the magic from the hands of the common man. It is he that intercedes on behalf of his people. It is he who dwells in strange lands of mysticism. And the fear is then transferred to the priest. And religion is born.

I suppose the question is is mental illness necessary for this scenario. And how rapid was this development. Magic was in the hands of the common man all the way until christianity made itself known. The language of Babylon was saved only by use of this magic. A man would write his spell on a tablet and his magic was done.

This is what I'm thinking. Magic was for man, but only so much could be done by those who did not have the "knack" for it. It took time, it took devotion, things which the average person doesn't (or didn't) have. They were too busy eking out their miserable little existances. And trying not to offend the spirits. True magic made itself known in proprioception. The ability to remove oneself from the body. To wander the strange wastes. It takes a special kind of person to accomplish this. Either a liar or a madman or both...


I still have yet to come to terms completely with your trinity of language. I've only made it to page 7 of the language thread. I'll read some more of it tonight and see if I can't grasp what you're so vehement about. I understand what you're saying, but it seems somehow incidental... Perhaps if I could tie them into the proper brain function.


Edit: Oh, what are your thoughts on that first charlatan? Was it man or woman? Women show less lateralization than men... The earliest religion known is the Earth Mother... I think the phallic cults came later and were subordinate. Judaism is a reversal of earlier fertility cults and subordinated women into a patriarchal society.

Edit again: I think mental illness was brought in with the transfer to religion. That first charlatan was likely insane.

Edit the third: Heh, just made it to the post you pasted above. Funny, right before the part you pasted you mention the parietal lobe... Proprioception...

 

[gendanken]

AHA!

Muahhahahahaha! Oh sweet progress!
Ever been in a room filled with people and smelling fart but kept quiet, secrectly wondering that no one else smelled it? And then along comes another brilliant retard that goes "Whoa- who farted?". He's a brotherman.
What we are simply trying to do here is dissect this thing we call "I" into its material parts that humanity insists on calling 'mind' and not 'brain'. Since all religious explanations (including Kaballa) fail in showing me somthing tanglible as evidence for Soul then automatically I have to believe these phenomena we feel so intimately that it makes us immortal are all brain phenomena. And the only way this general idea of Soul and Spirit could have spread globally and maintainned itself all these years *is* lanuage- language is someting like its housekeeper. Or something. We cannot pinpont every single behavior precicely to one spot of the brain but every part of our body is undeniably mapped there. Why should mind be any different?

First must- recognize the futily in bickering over semantics.
Second must- recognize the futiliy of making explanations too abstract.
Third must and most important- agree that religion is mysticism or any of its mutant forms institutionalized.
Gets this shit out of the way.
Sevi?
Only then can we plow further. Also, biological explanations are far more intriguing. Philosophy should be its midwife.
SO!
On reading your reference to the president, my toes curled. Its obvious to me now that you never looked up Cotard's syndrome (asshole). Thought you were acquanited with all this already but from these latest posts I see you haven't been so I get to do what I love most- lecture.
Kidding.
Hemiplegias and agnosias are by far one of the most fascninating things I find in the human mind- its not simply that a stroke patient seems insensible to the paralysis on one half of his body(even their pictures, as you've just found, reflect this Halfitis) but its fascinating all the more that he continues to deny this paralysis when its blatantly pointed out. I could understand if it was merely indifference, but its a funny little kind of denial- he'll refer to his limb as his and not his simultaneously as well.
Says Ramachandran:

"It is the vehemence of the denial (gend: not just the indifference to the paralysis. Expaining that is cake) that cries out for explanation. Indeed the reaon ansosagnosia is so puzzling is that we have come to regard the INTELLECT as propositional in character (gend: conclusions following premises. Think causility, simple shit) and one ordinarily expects propositional logic to be interally consistent. To listen to a patient deny owenerhisp of her arm and yet, in the same breath, admit that it is attached to her shoulder is one the most perplexing phenomena that one enounters as a neurologist"- p. 132

Some patients can write out whole sentences, but when asked to read them they can't or simply deny they even wrote them. Some, as in prosopoagnosia (sp?) can recognize faces as faces, technically, but not as familiar objects personliazed by the human attached to it. They'll see a face- eyebrows and all- but not recogize it as their mother's or their own. Yet call it his own or his mother's.
This tells me intellect is overrated.The very fact that this glitch in the human mind even exists, to me, makes the phenomena of religion or mysticm all the more approproate for it: Controlled Insanity.

Concerning the differences in hemispheres (lateralization), think on this: The right hemisphere is someting like a left-wing revolutionary open to ideas and if there's going to be a paradigm shift (loahte Khun's phrase and how these stupid sciforumers prostitute it, but hell) its going to be the right lobe.
He, the right, is an optimist. Something like a Ghandi on strike.
The left hemisphere is something like the right wing conservite clinging to the status quo. He, the left, is a pessimist. Something like a manic Puritan with a serious case of OCD. You can also think of the right side as a Democrat and the right as Republican.
When either side is damaged, neurologist have this uncanny ability to predict the presonaliy of the person afterwards.
Meaning:
If the right side is damaged, the patient becomes paranoid, manic, obsessive, suspicious and reclusive. The left hemisphere has taken over. Describes a radid Puritan quite well, wouldn't you say? Or a Christian Republican.
If the left side is damaged, the patient becomes passive and apathetic, hopeful and phlegmantic. The right hemisphere has taken over. Describes a
pussy Ghandy quite well, would't you say? Or a careless Democrat.

The fact that we can trace these suscpicionss and manias that are the groundwork for religion to, at least, the left side of the human brain and predict with accuracy that person's personalty post-truama is the closest we can come to the feet of God, and Zen, and Kaballa and kill the Oneess with science.
Personality is character.
Character is I.
I is soul.

Look up Phineas Gage.
To wit- the reptilian brain would also play into this with its conservative impulses, but it could never have graduated into the mysterious realms of abstracts without the right hemisphere to fasciliate the translation. Which is, essetially, the stuff of religion.
Sagan writes brilliantly on this- dude, go to the fucking library already. Take out "Demon Hauted World" or "Broca's brain".

You see the cotrolled insanity? If it was just left on its own, it'd just be insanity. But its not left on its own, language is there to aggravate and instituonalize it in a thing we call Religion. Controlled insanity.

And at last:

Ok, enough cut and paste. Let's try to connect the dots a little. What we're talking about is language and the structures in the brain which make language possible. First, we have the the suppression of the other hemisphere. The reordering of the functions to a new structure. Left/right. And, we have the mental disorders that happen when this is not done well. Next, we have the interpreter mechanism. Residing in the left brain and given voice by our language, constantly expounding the meaning of things. And, lastly, we have proprioception. Our mind's eyes of the body. Let's see what I can do with them...

We return once more to our primitive man. He has been using his pattern-finding skills to survive his harsh wanderings. His language skills have also lent their weight to this survival. He has become so good at it, that he now has leisure to examine things more thoroughly. He notices the ant hill and wonders what made it. He notices the clouds and wonders what makes them. All about him are wonders that are crying out for explanations. This is the perfect opportunity for the interpreter mechanism to make itself known. Explanation needed? Sure thing. Here it is. As man is a social creature, the easiest explanation for mysterious forces is for human-like beings to inhabit them, to motivate them.

So, animism is born. A world of spirits and faeries. The unknown forces of the world begin to take on a human flavor. And as such, they can be dealt with, bargained with. In steps magic. The bargaining in action. Now, man has a means by which he control these forces. Fear is reduced even further. But, at the same time it increases. Because if I can have magic, so can you. In steps the priest, to take the magic from the hands of the common man. It is he that intercedes on behalf of his people. It is he who dwells in strange lands of mysticism. And the fear is then transferred to the priest. And religion is born.

At last.

Here. You got it- you've done a good thing and a bad thing here. Good, in that you've completely understood.
Bad, in that you've killed off any other chance for discussion because you have, in those few paragraphs, paraphrased my whole Idea.
I don't simply move to say religion IS language. Psychosis, fear, and social intimacy is religion. Language is what has made it universal and, like relgion, has gone on to become a giagantic monster we can no longer tame with a label since it has evolved into an integral part of Self we can no longer...objectify. Language and religion have become emotional.


See???

 

[gendanken]

It also mentions that in the cases where lateralization is not so drastic. Where language resides in part on the right. These people are prone to learning disorders. Stuttering, dyslexia, and the like. An example of a child's language skills after a hemispherectomy... "For example, when asked to repeat back the sentence "Wasn't the poor cousin helped by the old lady," one nine-year-old who had had the left hemisphere removed shortly after birth said, "Wasn't by the cousin helped by the old lady," while another recalled this sentence as "Wasn't the poor cousin . . . helped the old lady." Children with right hemisphere removals make few such grammatical errors." It's odd that the right brain removal should not affect grammar. One would think that the remaining half of the brain would be equally crowded and would show similar effects. Strange.

In patients where the brain has been seperated (split-brain operations, usually done on epileptics) when the right half is specifically given a task such as "pick up the apple after you pick up the dildo", the person will pick up (with its left hand) the apple. And then stop.
The right side is horrible at understanding temproal-sequential rules, which is the basis of language and grammar. It responded to the first item in that sentece regardless of grammatical relationship- Pick up the apple. You and I would have picked up the dildo first.

Only the left, specializing in pattern making, can dream this up in its sequential brilliance:
Word then grammar then sentence then paragraph then page then book. Language. Literature.

 

[invert_nexus]

I must admit, I forgot to look up Cotard's syndrome. I went out searching for left-brain and animals and ended up with some 20 pages or more that I still haven't completely worked through (interestingly, I found the split brain page with this search.) I had developed the idea that Cotard's syndrome was the images seen by a blind person and it didn't appeal as heavily as it might.

Bad, in that you've killed off any other chance for discussion because you have, in those few paragraphs, paraphrased my whole Idea.

Seems there should be more that can be filled in somehow. Although, we would need to delve into anthropology a bit more, I'd think. For instance, this revelation didn't occur overnight. How long between steps might it have been. Might there have been backsliding and other shifts? Perhaps steps that are missing? Written language came later and utilizes different parts of the brain in it's functioning. Music is a major part of Judaism. It also uses different parts of the brain. Did it originate from a single source? Or was it a phenomena that occured again and again? (I still think there was a single source. One that spread to all human tribes that came close to it.) How does art play in?

Perhaps, it was good in that your theory has been elucidated, and now we can elucidate it further rather than dwell on trying to explain what you have already. I am still somewhat unsure of your trinity of language and it's centralness to the process. As I said, it seems incidental to the process. As in, none of this could have happened without language. The abstraction that language makes possible through the trinity.

Towards this end, I again recommend the Masks of God. It is somewhat hard to posit early myth and religion formation without knowing of the first religions, even in the limited extent it is possible to know them in these post-christian days. I'll make it to the library tomorrow. Once again, I'm going to walk out of the library with a stack of books that will awe those who witness the spectacle. It's always a sight to see...