Kaballah and the Zohar?

[gendanken]

Waking up is Zen you pseudo-intellectual brain fart.

So is fancy ignorance, you philosophical couch fry.

 

[gendanken]

On we go:

Invert: I now put language in as another tool, an area that I had not seen before. We are so amazed at the wonders of our tools that we can't get over them. We forget that they are tools. We make of them magical constructions of awe and wonder. But, there are those of an engineering mindset who is a bit more rational with their tool use. But, even these cannot get past the tools. We evolve our tools rather than ourselves. We become a tool of the tool.

Read:

"Writing is traced all the way back to the Mesopotamians but man had been talking for thousands of years before cuneiform or its symbolic predecesors. And all this talking allowed to roam among men unsupervised and without a medium to track its beginnings, this, to me, is what has made a once very simple invention (language) into a powerful giant: flexible, elusive and hopelessly implicit. And untamable. The same thing happens with heroine. All because of neglect."


And:

"Regardless of compulsion, I'm seeing that a man toying with a powerful dwarf made a giant he could no longer tame by forgetting why it was that he started playing with him.
The focus of control is no longer 'in'. Its 'out' as it is in the superstitious, no?


-gendanken, that language thread you hurdled through (fuck you fountainhed)

Control no longer internal, but externalized in the awe we have for our constructions. Yes?
From the simplicity of a graphite pencil to the majesty of architecture, how simple it is for the human to lose himself in his conceit that mingles with the fear and the greed in his need to control his environment.
Even that grating "chatterbox" on the inside- what happens to the senile and the criminal in isolation? The autistic child?
Deprived of social intimacy, each fills their void with substitutes rocking back and forth in ther madness or losing themselves in chattery obsessions.
All at the whim of that noisome, noisome chatterbox.
Ask the goat.

What this something is I don't know. Perhaps that's what I'm really looking for... Visions of super-brains lashing out at each other across unimaginable distances come to mind, but I feel that if these capabilities existed they would be more prevalent in our society. There has never been a single confirmed case of paranormal activity. In the presence of science, parascience falls apart

And there is no reason for you to think this absurdity even possible.

Symbolism- I'm rememering now you have the Naked Neuron checked out, yes? Turn to page 204. Blah- our pages may not coincide. Let's see.
Chapter 6, the Knowing Hand figure 97.
It shows a graph outlining the evolution in language from pictograph to word.
From pictograph, to Sumerian cuineform, to Babylonian modification, to Assyrian modification to finally a quirky little abstract we call 'word' that no longer bears any pictorial relationship to the thing it represents.
You see it?
This was the perfect culmination in which a disease we call abstract rule theory could thrive since it (the word) is so far detached from what it once represented, and to quote Rosa directly, "If the conclusion is regarded as valid though, without adding new premises, an error occurs -- and the outcome of reasoning is not adequate to the perceived reality"

Is this true? You once didn't believe in evolution? Or were you merely unsure about it?

Mother dear was a stifling, Catholic cow.
I got singed on the dogma.
OOhhh.

And I have even been digging at you with certain words in this vein without even realizing it.

Double speak.
Like?

And just for fun, you'll find this in the Naked Neuron as well:

"Moreover, although adults who are seperated from their spouse due to divorce, death or abandonemt may show many of the same symptoms as deprived children, its the male who is more likely to respond with limbic, infantile rage. ....Males are much more fraglie than females, but as adults, they are much more dangerous (gend: of course. Bigger thumbs.)....
Males, be it babies, little boys, or grown men, cannot tolerate being alone or suffering prolonged seperation from the primary source of contact comfort, affection, or self-esteem.....Their limbic brains are more fraglile"

Sweet, sweet, deliciously gorgeous revenge.
Fight the patriarchy!

Lastly:

And as to the passages, please do so. Always eager, even if it is off-topic. I don't think Bigal was all that interested in the Kaballah to begin with. And staying on topic is always difficult when there are so many elusive strands of connection flailing about. Limiting, as will. IMO

Why Netty was no nationalist:


"Humanity! Has there ever been a more hideous old woman among all old women? .......No, we do not love humanity; but on the other hand we are not nearly "German" enough, in the sense in which the word "German" is constantly being used nowadays, to advocate nationalism and race hatred and to be able to take pleasure in the national scabies of the heart and blood poisoning that now leads the nations of Europe to delimit and barricade themselves against each other as if it were a matter of quarantine. For that we are too openminded, too malicious, too spoiled, also too well-informed, too "traveled": we far prefer to live on mountains, apart, "untimely," in past or future centuries, merely in order to keep ourselves from experiencing the silent rage to which we know we should be condemned as eyewitnesses of politics that are desolating the German spirit by making it vain and that is, moreover, petty politics"

He calls himself and people like this, homeless.
Of which anyone as Proud and In Love with Self should be.
He was quite simply a good European.

 

[spidergoat]

The autistic child?
Deprived of social intimacy, each fills their void with substitutes rocking back and forth in ther madness or losing themselves in chattery obsessions.
All at the whim of that noisome, noisome chatterbox.

As though social intimacy were the preferable filling for our lives? Autistics often think in pictures, and they are not mad. Their obsessions are the opposite of chatter, being focused and complex. They have been given a reprieve from the desperate and common need to define themselves in terms of others.

Now, this still shows an extreme act of mind. That balancing act must be extremely difficult. But, levitation it is not. It's a trick. Strange that a religion that professes to be so honest and pure should perform such tricks. In full knowledge that it is a trick and nothing more.

At the highest level, there is little difference between skill and trickery. You want to be tricked, the Yogi gives you what you want, and while you are paying attention, he can get to the point, which is plain and simple, not so spectacular. Its the same technique as building cathedrals with pretty stained glass.

 

[gendanken]

Goat:

As though social intimacy were the preferable filling for our lives? Autistics often think in pictures, and they are not mad. Their obsessions are the opposite of chatter, being focused and complex. They have been given a reprieve from the desperate and common need to define themselves in terms of others

Their obssessions are just as manic as 'chatter'.

What are you doing in here anyway?

Is this thread some kind of water cooler for you?
This the halfhearted chitchat you throw out there like the common man does when you stick him near one?
The way you keep dropping in and out like this is just like the piece of shit you are. Peekaboo, peekaboo peeking out from an anus.
Fuck off.

 

[invert_nexus]

First, some quotes from "The man who...":

Dostoievski: There are moments, and it is only a matter of five or six seconds, when you feel the presence of the eternal harmony... a terrible thing is the frightful clearness with which it manifest itself and the rapture with which it fills you. If this state were to last more than five seconds, the sould could not endure it and would have to disappear. During these five seconds I live a whole human existence, and for that I would give my whole life and not think that I was paying dearly...

Dostoievsky was an epileptic as I'm sure you were aware. I can't seem to find any reference to what kind of epileptic he was... Probably before such things were that well known.

There is also some speculation about Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1180). It says, "It is impossible to ascertain in the vast majority of cases, whether the experience represents a hysterical or psychotic ecstasy, the effects of intoxication, or an epileptic or migrainous manifestation. ... A careful consideration of these accounts [of Hildegard] and figures leaves no room for doubt concerning their nature: they were indisputably migrainous, and they illustrate, indeed, many of the varieties of visual aura ...

In all a prominent feature is a point or a group of points of light, which shimmer and move, usually in a wave-like manner, and are most often interpreted as stars or flaming eyes. In quite a number of cases one light, larger than the rest, exhibits a series of concentric circular figures of wavering form; and often definite fortification-figures are described, radiating in some cases from a coloured area. Often the lights gave that impression of working, boiling or fermenting, described by so many visionaries...
Singer (1958)

And a description of Hildy's visions in particular:

I saw a great star most splendid and beautiful, and with it an exceeding multitude of falling stars which with the star followed southwards . . . and suddenly they were all annihilated, being turned into black coals . . . and cast into the abyss so that I could see them no more.

...

The light which I see is not located, but yet is more brilliant than the sun, nor can I examine its height, length or breadth, and I name it "the cloud of the living light'. And as sun, moon, and stars are reflected in water, so the writings, sayings, virtues and works of men shine in it before me . . .
Sometimes I behold within this light another light which I name 'the Living Light itself' . . . And when I look upon it every sadness and pain vanishes from my memory, so that I am a again as a simple maid and not as an old woman.

I've tried to find some online pictures of her visions, but haven't come up with the specific ones in the book. <a href="http://www.christianmystics.com/traditional/women/hildegard1.shtml">Here's</a> a picture drawn by her. It's not very clear though.


Speaking of autism, Sacks relates the stories of several autistic's that he has dealt with. The thing about autism, as Sacks relates it, is that they are lost in their clinical descriptions. The world marvels at their strange abilities. Being able to name any date in the next 40,000 years and have them tell you what day it will be on. To multiply 8 digit numbers in their heads. They are seen as computers, mere morons with a trick. But, in reality they are people just like everyone else. They have their trick and they take pride in it. But, they also seek order and beauty above and beyond the "simpleness" of their trick. They are humans with needs and desires just like any other. Never let go of the humanity of these characters, don't call them computers. They are men.

He relates a story about "the Twins". It was their trick to name any date within 40,000 years. But, they were more than their trick. Sacks relates how they would stand together and play a game. One would say a 6 digit number, then the other would pause for a moment and then smile. Then he would say a number and it would be the other's turn to pause and then smile. Turns out they were saying primes. Sacks went home and brought in a chart with primes up to 10 digits. He then waited until they were playing their game again and then he walked up and said an 8 digit prime. At first, the twins were somewhat weirded out that another should join in their game. Their pause was longer. But, at last the smile. They moved aside a bit and allowed room for Sacks in their circle. Then, one of the twins said a 9 digit prime. Sacks responded with a 10. The twins eventually were swapping 20 digit primes. And having fun doing it. The sad part of this story is that in the 70's the twins were seperated. Removing them from their number play allowed them to focus on reality enough to hold menial jobs, take a bus to work, etc... But, what cruelty to take from them this joy that they held.

He also relates a story of an autistic that was a musical savant. He had memorized Grove's Dictionary of of Music and Musicians. He could not sing well. But, he did perform in a choir. When his father died and he was moved into a home, he displayed his eidetic memory in a proud, snobby sort of way (He also memorized maps and the like). He spit and wiped his snot on his sleeve. The residents took a disliking to him. Finally, one day he comes up to Sacks and says that he needs to sing. He needs the choir. He has sung at the choir every Sunday of his life. Sacks complied (and the church was more than happy to have him back. His knowledge of Grove's was put to good use.) and the snot-nosed brat vanished. He was a man once more.

So, in this I guess I'm agreeing with Spidergoat. Autistics are more than their disability.

Gendanken. I'm not ignoring you. I felt I should post before the commentary. You know very well of my tendency to have the information train switch tracks.

 

[invert_nexus]

Their obssessions are just as manic as 'chatter'.

After reading Sacks' account, I have to disagree. Their obsessions can be manic. But the sense of order that they seek within these obsessions (when not being told to perform like a robot) bring them a form of peace and contentment. By the way, Sacks is the guy behind Awakenings. Seems from references in this book that the real Awakenings was quite different from the movie. Leonard is not even the central character, it seems.

By the way, I forgot to branch out on primes. It seems that many mathematic autistics focus on primes. What is it in our brain that relates to prime numbers in such a visceral way? Could this lie at the heart of some base function? Awareness?

All at the whim of that noisome, noisome chatterbox.

This is somewhat troublesome. If not the chatterbox, what is happening here? The twins in their prime communion were not using their chatterbox. They were using their right hemisphere. They were seeing the truth in the numbers. Not a rationalization of them. Perhaps they were not even using symbols. What we might learn if we could discover what it is they do... did. Bastards... The only why they could describe it was they "saw" the numbers. Another story from the twins: One day, by accident, Sacks dropped a box of matches and it's contents were disgorged on the floor. Quick as a flash, the twins "simultaneously" said 111. Then, one twin said 37. The other twin said 37. Then the first twin said 37 once more. Do you see what they did? They factored 111 into three primes. They somehow saw this. They don't have a clue how to add, how to multiply. They deal with the numbers in a different way.

Let's see.
Chapter 6, the Knowing Hand figure 97.

This was the chart I was referring to from the Epic of Gilgamesh translation methods page. Which thread was that? They blend together, somehow. It brings to mind another story from Sacks. The Man who mistook his wife for a hat himself. He suffered from prosopagnosia. He lost the ability to discern faces (as you related above by a different name). He was a music professor, but dabbled in painting as a hobby. Sacks visited his home and saw the progression of his art from realistic to the utterly abstract. At points in between, there were points that hearkened to cubism and modernism. But in the end, it was a mere jumble with no order whatsoever.

Monet comes to mind as well, for different reasons.

Double speak.
Like?

Certain references to diaphanous and labeling not always drawing fearsome images...

"Moreover, although adults who are seperated from their spouse due to divorce, death or abandonemt may show many of the same symptoms as deprived children, its the male who is more likely to respond with limbic, infantile rage. ....Males are much more fraglie than females, but as adults, they are much more dangerous (gend: of course. Bigger thumbs.)....
Males, be it babies, little boys, or grown men, cannot tolerate being alone or suffering prolonged seperation from the primary source of contact comfort, affection, or self-esteem.....Their limbic brains are more fraglile"

It is a consequence of our not being in touch with our emotions. When they get out of hand, we are unable to control them. Women are more ruled by emotions and so they take such instances as just another day. They have dealt with it since puberty.

He calls himself and people like this, homeless.
Of which anyone as Proud and In Love with Self should be.
He was quite simply a good European.

Yes, and now that you mention it, I recall several other disparaging comments towards Germans. Specifically towards their "sheepness". Their willingness to follow the great leader. His overman was to be self-led. Funny how the Nazi's overlooked this. Then again, it's not funny at all, is it?

 

[water]

[BTW]
Regarding poisons, bitterness and alkalinity, since you wee wondering about it so much -- I remember this from a highschool textbook: Rotten food tastes bitter. It is also alkaline. The sense for bitterness is a safety measure to determine which food is good to eat and which isn't.
(Try rotten fruit or vegetables -- if you manage to get pass the smell rejection. Or, the simplest -- out-of-date milk; this one's best as the smell doesn't suffice. Rotten eggs are too easy.)
[/BTW]

 

[spidergoat]

Is this thread some kind of water cooler for you?

Yup.

I think my comments make as much sense as your amateurish ramblings. Are you so desperate to prove you're not "common"? Please, let us sit on your lap and drink from your fountain of knowledge...

 

[water]

Gendanken,

Objective truth is absurd and unmanagable and in it no civilization would ever happen. Not otherwise.

I agree. What you stated has an intriguing implication:
Namely, animals and plants are also civilizations. Animals also act on certain errors, don't they? If you want to orientate yourself in an environment, some decisions have to be made; and we can suppose that *all factors* can never be taken into consideration, since there is limited time, energy and brain capacity.

So a decision is made on the basis of a limited number of premises. (That is, we, with our tools of informal logic call them "premises" and "conclusions".)

If our choice is based on a limited number of premises, it is possible that the chosen premises may not be the best ones, or the right ones. So the organism makes plausible guesses at best. This, we do, animals do.

And, what is the most, we, if we want to move on, we have to believe that it wasn't just a guess -- but that it was the truth, or we'd be paralyzed knowing that there's always another option we may not have considered.
The brain manages to fool its owner (and itself) twice: First by acting as if there are numerous options, and then by acting as if only one can be valid. But this is probably the basic principle of all life.

(To skip a few steps of reasoning This also implies that all life is a guess. And if so, all chemical reactions are a guess (they happen in a certain way, but who knows if this is "the best" or "the right" way).

Funky, how everything is relative.

 

[gendanken]

Yup.

I think my comments make as much sense as your amateurish ramblings. Are you so desperate to prove you're not "common"? Please, let us sit on your lap and drink from your fountain of knowledge...

God you're so fucking lucky I don't have much time today you enlightened little gnat, spritual piece of shit.
Why don't you spray a little Koan in the air, little boy?
Wake them up to your Zen, fucking puto?
Someone here went to the trouble of backing your gibberish up with statements on autistics and the incosiderable chunk of slime that you are you completely ignored him only to spite me.

You are SO damn lucky I don't have your fucking neck right now, Goat. You'd be choking up blood, and I'm not fucking kidding.

Rosa:

The sense for bitterness is a safety measure to determine which food is good to eat and which isn't.

Yup.

Invert:

After reading Sacks' account, I have to disagree. Their obsessions can be manic. But the sense of order that they seek within these obsessions (when not being told to perform like a robot) bring them a form of peace and contentment. By the way, Sacks is the guy behind Awakenings. Seems from references in this book that the real Awakenings was quite different from the movie. Leonard is not even the central character, it seems.

Invert:

But don't you think this same mania inside a sane person (example: the gossip who'd simply die without people) receive as much peace and contentment by socializing as the savant does from the primes and the telephone books he memorizes?

By the way, I forgot to branch out on primes. It seems that many mathematic autistics focus on primes. What is it in our brain that relates to prime numbers in such a visceral way? Could this lie at the heart of some base function? Awareness

!

I have no clue.

Long ago I read of these people that could look into a matrix filled with numbers and spot out the primes- their hygene, social skills and relationships suffered, in short all were practical retards but excelled in this fascinating ability to make out prime numbers.
And it blows my mind to think the most sensitive data in this world is guarded largely by a thin veil of ............prime numbers.

I wouldn't tie it with awereness solely- did you know there is an affliction that happens to people, think its called receptive apraxia- they can recognize a number or word or thing when looking at it, but if you drew it on their palm without their looking at them or asked that they stick a hand in a bag and guess what they felt with their hand they could not do it.
There was damage to the left lobe, centered around Wernicke's area, a language area adept in sequenceing and classifying data- like numbers and words and properties of things.
Destory it and you lose the "feel" of things, and can only recongnize them by looking at it.
Can't you 'feel' language and numbers? You don't need to know grammar or rules, you just.......'feel' it, don't you?

Perhaps these prime experts have someting magical in this part of the brain.

Shit, I'm out of time.
Ta.

 

[spidergoat]

Yer mean.

 

[invert_nexus]

I think my comments make as much sense as your amateurish ramblings. Are you so desperate to prove you're not "common"? Please, let us sit on your lap and drink from your fountain of knowledge...

Amateurish and rambling our discussion may be (more my fault than Gendanken's I think); but, at least we are discussing. We are learning. I have no shame in my rambling nature. If you can't see the connections, then perhaps you are too focused.

By the way, are you an expert on the brain? Do you have anything useful to add? I know you are a transcendentalist and might share some insight into that. But, part of that nature is to forgo true understanding of what is taking place. For you (perhaps), it is the symptoms that are interesting to you rather than the underlying brain function. You said as much when speaking of the Yoga. "You want to be tricked, the Yogi gives you what you want, and while you are paying attention, he can get to the point, which is plain and simple, not so spectacular." See, I don't want to be tricked. I want to understand the underlying psychology and physiology. Do you? Does the Yoga? Seems to me that you're lost in the icing on the cake. There's a cherry-filled center in there somewhere.

I've tried to discuss eastern religion with you one other time spidergoat. It didn't descend into insults as Gendanken's experience did (and I wasn't thinking in this physiological vein at the time either), but you just faded out of the conversation. Why was that? My thoughts were too vague and rambling?

Namely, animals and plants are also civilizations. Animals also act on certain errors, don't they? If you want to orientate yourself in an environment, some decisions have to be made; and we can suppose that *all factors* can never be taken into consideration, since there is limited time, energy and brain capacity.

Ahh, an error has crept in... Civilizations? Plants are more of chemicalization, while animals are more of a socialization. We as humans have gone beyond socialization and into civilization, which is a more complex form of social behavior. We, as civilized people, "socialize" to some extent with people we've never met. Never even conversed with. I feel myself socializing with Iraq because of my government's actions. Of course, as has been mentioned elsewhere, I don't really socialize with "Iraq" but with a construct in my mind as to what Iraq is. Another error...

We deal with life on a variety of levels. The limbic system (which is more in control of baser animals) operates on chemicals from the environment. The "nose-brain". The conclusions that our nose come to can be quite different than the conclusion that our right brain comes to which, in turn, can be quite different than the conclusion that our left brain comes to. And beneath it all is the reptile who merely goes about his tasks without ever attempting to conclude or learn in any way. We are creatures of inherent conflict of interests. Each of which contain their own errors. (Though it's possible that the right brain is the most correct. It doesn't lie. It remembers the "truth".)

And, what is the most, we, if we want to move on, we have to believe that it wasn't just a guess -- but that it was the truth, or we'd be paralyzed knowing that there's always another option we may not have considered.

Exactly the case when certain emotional centers are damaged and the subject cannot make up his mind. The tally list keeps growing with no satisfactory conclusion.

The brain manages to fool its owner (and itself) twice: First by acting as if there are numerous options, and then by acting as if only one can be valid. But this is probably the basic principle of all life.

Very likely so. The earliest animal lifeforms had only the most general of sensory organs. They "saw" very little. They had no controlled movement. They flopped, they flailed, hopefully their thrashing about would do something useful. Later, after the neuron was developed, animals could gain more information from their environment. And use it to a more controlled extent. Now they could detect chemicals wafting about, orient on the source of the chemical, and make a bee-line for it. Or away from it if it's a danger sense. We are built upon these simple beginnings and still contain their "truths" within ourselvs. Merely more complex, built-up.

And, life has evolved to take advantage of this incompleteness. This probability of error. Many species put out pheremones to trick their prey. The angler fish has that fancy little lure on it's head to lure it's prey towards it's maw. The cobra has eyespots on it's hood to confuse it's enemies. Errors are essential to life flourishing.

You are SO damn lucky I don't have your fucking neck right now, Goat. You'd be choking up blood, and I'm not fucking kidding.

Mellow... Mellow... Ommmm... Let's try not to enter the vicious cycle here. And, it's possible that you brought this on yourself by mentioning Spidergoat's name earlier. Did he do a search for his name to see who might be talking about him? Or did he just dive in to see what all the interest in the Kaballah was? If so, it's difficult to believe that he would maintain interest so long as to find his name in this morass D) of words.

But don't you think this same mania inside a sane person (example: the gossip who'd simply die without people) receive as much peace and contentment by socializing as the savant does from the primes and the telephone books he memorizes?

You misunderstand. In their obsessions they are manic. Memorizing telephone books. "Computing" dates 40,000 years in the future. Naming the key of a note and the intervals between. These are their social aspects that are so often seen when dealing with them. This is how they relate to "normals". It is a circus act. But, in their private lives, when they use these "tricks" in the way which suits them best. They are at peace. The twins and their prime play. The music savant singing in the choir. Another savant I've seen on television who can sculpt the most fantastic sculptures. These are their ways of finding peace.

Hmm, was just about to say the search for order... That once more implies the intepreter mechanism. But, is it possible that this search for order takes place in more than one location of the brain? Likely. Very likely. In fact almost certainly true. Tricky... Perhaps the difference is that their search for order utilizes more of the right brain functions than the left. Either that or their interpreter mechanism is damaged... When I brought it in from the split brain site, the images were missing and they don't see precisely where the false memories are in the left hemisphere. I wonder if there's ever been any autistic split-brains?

I'd say that performing their tricks gives them pride and self-satisfaction (a negative emotion, as evidenced by the snot-nosed brat) while their subtler manifestations provide contentment and peace (somewhat in line with the religious phenomena).

I wouldn't tie it with awereness solely- did you know there is an affliction that happens to people, think its called receptive apraxia...

Why, yes I did... Just got to that section of the book. But, I have also seen it referenced in various articles. The book merely sheds more light on the processes involved. Sometimes they can describe it (soft, fuzzy, hard, pointy) but they can't name it.

Can't you 'feel' language and numbers? You don't need to know grammar or rules, you just.......'feel' it, don't you?

Sacks tried to hypothesize a bit about what they were doing. He mentions that we can look at three vases on a table and see "three". We don't necessarily need to count. It is when the numbers get larger that we lose this "feel". When counting herds of animals, it is not useful at all to count individual members of the herd. Instead you try to single out groups within the group and get a "feel" for the number within that group and then add the numbers up when you're done.

Perhaps these prime experts have someting magical in this part of the brain.

Yes, but why primes? What is so special about them biologically that they should be singled out so easily. Is it possible that it's part of the brains way of splitting things into their components? When we look at a face, we see the face. But, this is a conglomerated image that is formed after it has been split and examined and poked and prodded. Prosopoagnosia prevents this reintegration of features. Also seen in schizophrenia. Perhaps these mathematic savants attempt the same thing with numbers and find that they can't divide the primes and so they become fascinated by them?

 

[gendanken]

Yer mean

No I'm not.
I put the ice in nice.

Vert:

Mellow... Mellow... Ommmm... Let's try not to enter the vicious cycle here. And, it's possible that you brought this on yourself by mentioning Spidergoat's name earlier. Did he do a search for his name to see who might be talking about him? Or did he just dive in to see what all the interest in the Kaballah was? If so, it's difficult to believe that he would maintain interest so long as to find his name in this morass () of words.

I will not enter into the moirass.
I will transcend to higher realms and keep peace.
I will be at the beach in 30 minutes, Oh my brother.

Therefore, this space reserved for commentary.
On coming back I plan to wow thou with prime numbers.

 

[invert_nexus]

I will not enter into the moirass.

Does she now tease me with my own misspelling? Or did I subliminally alter her spelling patterns...? Enjoy the beach.

 

[invert_nexus]

Funky, how everything is relative.

That's what I've always loved about the world. Everything is relative. It's so much more dynamic that way. I wonder how much this "relativity" is due to these translation errors. In a perfectly sensed world, a perfect recreation, can there be this relativity? Would it vanish with the "truth"?

Rosa, I've seen you call yourself a linguist. Is it possible for you to shed some light on the language part of Gendanken's theory? The language->animism->magic->religion. That language is like a software loop that has run amuck for millenia. Anything at all? You might notice we're very loose with the topic in this thread. What can you share of your lingual skills that might shed some light on the topic?

As though social intimacy were the preferable filling for our lives? Autistics often think in pictures, and they are not mad.

Whether you like it or not, your brain demands social intimacy. Some more, some less. But we all need something. Unless your brain is miswired, that is. If mummy didn't hug you enough as a child (sarcastic and cliche, but true.)

Autistic's are miswired, but I don't think it has anything to do with their amygdalla. Their limbic system is as human as we are. I'm sure that some have been "damaged" further by poor upbringing as a response to their handicap. But, on the whole, I'd say they're average humans in this department.

And that righ-hemisphere thinking you talk about is interesting. A human's usual storyteller is on the left side. A prodigious liar. Storyteller extraordinaire. But, this thinking in pictures suggests that they don't use this standard interpreter. Their "true" memory suggests this as well. Yet, somehow it must pass through the left before exiting the mouth. All sorts of implications here.

I wonder on the standard layout of an autistic. How do they match with a "normal"? How strongly lateralized are they? Is there an area of the brain that is in common with the disorder or is each case unique? Hmmm.

 

[water]

Gendanken,

But don't you think this same mania inside a sane person (example: the gossip who'd simply die without people) receive as much peace and contentment by socializing as the savant does from the primes and the telephone books he memorizes?

It is usually postulated that we remember something because it was accompanied by a certain emotion or emotional evaluation. If you take a flight from NY to London and everything is okay, you're not likely to remember the pilot's name. But if the plane gets into a strom and things get scary and dangerous (= you get emotionally excited), you are very likely to remember the pilot's name and all sorts of details. The "emotional filter" decides what will be rembered (rememberable) and what not.

For authists and the savants among them it is supposed (Spiegel Special 4/2003) that this emotional filter is somehow malfunct -- they may lack emotions/emotional evaluation, so the brain more or less mechanically picks one field of interest and puts all its power into it.
I haven't heard of the other option though -- that they should have too much emotions/too much emotional evaluation, and the brain can then process only one field of interest, because it put all the emotional evaluation in there.




Invert,

If you can't see the connections, then perhaps you are too focused.

Interesting -- from the POV of making errors: If one is too focused, somewhere near the objective truth, all connections seem to get lost ... Like when Gend said: "Objective truth is absurd and unmanagebale and in it no civilization would ever happen." We're seeing this at work right here in this thread. Meta. Wow.

Ahh, an error has crept in... Civilizations? Plants are more of chemicalization, while animals are more of a socialization. We as humans have gone beyond socialization and into civilization, which is a more complex form of social behavior. We, as civilized people, "socialize" to some extent with people we've never met. Never even conversed with. I feel myself socializing with Iraq because of my government's actions. Of course, as has been mentioned elsewhere, I don't really socialize with "Iraq" but with a construct in my mind as to what Iraq is. Another error...

If we agree that it is all a chemical soup ... then it becomes hard to actually differentiate between socialization, civilization and chemicalization -- they are all just "surface" terms.

We deal with life on a variety of levels. The limbic system (which is more in control of baser animals) operates on chemicals from the environment. The "nose-brain". The conclusions that our nose come to can be quite different than the conclusion that our right brain comes to which, in turn, can be quite different than the conclusion that our left brain comes to. And beneath it all is the reptile who merely goes about his tasks without ever attempting to conclude or learn in any way. We are creatures of inherent conflict of interests. Each of which contain their own errors. (Though it's possible that the right brain is the most correct. It doesn't lie. It remembers the "truth".)

I can't help but to think that you are breaking things into too little pieces.
The thing is that you can never observe *just* what the limbic system does, nor can you observe *just* reptile brain does etc.

We always deal with the *complete outcome* of the synergy of all these various systems. What each of them supposedly does is entirely a matter of our intelligent speculation and experiments. We can never really separately observe the function of only one of the levels or systems.

We can observe people with certain brain malfunctions -- but what if this brain malfuction has a long line of implications we haven't considered yet?

To take an absurd but not entirely impossible example: What if it should be that an authist's liver doesn't work right, and then the brain compensates the malfunction of the liver, but in the process loses its own normalcy?

Very likely so. The earliest animal lifeforms had only the most general of sensory organs. They "saw" very little. They had no controlled movement. They flopped, they flailed, hopefully their thrashing about would do something useful. Later, after the neuron was developed, animals could gain more information from their environment. And use it to a more controlled extent. Now they could detect chemicals wafting about, orient on the source of the chemical, and make a bee-line for it. Or away from it if it's a danger sense. We are built upon these simple beginnings and still contain their "truths" within ourselvs. Merely more complex, built-up.

Think big: If all is made by the same principle, then maybe our differentiations into what the right hemisphere supposedly does, what the left, what the limbic system etc. etc. -- are overanalyzations? Basd on us trying to pinpoint what cannot be touched? (Yes!)

So, I guess we should be aware that what we are actually examining is not the brain, or life etc. -- what we are actually examining is our *thinking about* the brain, life etc. We are trying to make our knowledge of these things concise. We are trying to find errors in reasoning -- and add new premises that would be in accordance with the observation of reality. However, the observation of reality is also based on previous premises -- that are either valid or not --, so what we do now, may be just finding new premises to support an argument, that we don't know whether it is true or not. Whew.

Errors are essential to life flourishing.

But what if we replace the term "errors" and say "choices", "directions"?
***

The brain manages to fool its owner (and itself) twice: First by acting as if there are numerous options, and then by acting as if only one can be valid. But this is probably the basic principle of all life.

A thought just popped into my mind: So there is the duality of the brain first acting as if there are numerous options, and then acting as if only one can be valid.
How do you reconcile this duality, once you are able to see it?

Very simply: It is somebody else who makes this duality be okay. This happened the instant that the (humanoid) organism was able to perceive this duality.
In order to perceive this duality, some consciousness is necessary; at the same time, awareness of self and awareness of other, which both come and can only exist simultaneously. -- The very basics of religious thinking!
Religious thinking stems from the mere fact of the primal awareness of having a brain (mind) and being able to orientate oneself in the environment.
Ha!

 

[water]

Invert Nexus,

That's what I've always loved about the world. Everything is relative. It's so much more dynamic that way. I wonder how much this "relativity" is due to these translation errors. In a perfectly sensed world, a perfect recreation, can there be this relativity? Would it vanish with the "truth"?

Yes, I think it would vanish -- there would be no room for it.
If thought and consciousness are based on choice and error, and in a perfectly sensed world there is no choices or errors -- then there's also no thought. No thought, no meta-thought, no relativity.

Rosa, I've seen you call yourself a linguist. Is it possible for you to shed some light on the language part of Gendanken's theory? The language->animism->magic->religion. That language is like a software loop that has run amuck for millenia. Anything at all? You might notice we're very loose with the topic in this thread. What can you share of your lingual skills that might shed some light on the topic?

I'd be glad if I can help ...

The origin of language and its implications. I don't have much time right now, but I'll get back to you later.
(As an aside: In the 1800s, the French Academy of Science forbade for a period of time to inquire about the origin of language, as the various debates back then were getting too furious ...)

 

[invert_nexus]

Interesting -- from the POV of making errors: If one is too focused, somewhere near the objective truth, all connections seem to get lost ... Like when Gend said: "Objective truth is absurd and unmanagebale and in it no civilization would ever happen." We're seeing this at work right here in this thread. Meta. Wow.

The function of the abstract? To maintain a grip on a target without becoming too focused? To home in around the edges, so to speak? I've mentioned this before, the calculus of the will, self, or mind. Maybe we can never achieve truth. But, we can draw closer.

If we agree that it is all a chemical soup ... then it becomes hard to actually differentiate between socialization, civilization and chemicalization -- they are all just "surface" terms.

This is true, but possibly not entirely. For instance, civilization means city dwellers, right? More importantly, to my eyes, it means that we are able to interact with other social units of our kind that we have no real proof that they exist. We have never sensed them in any way with any of our physical senses. Recently, we have the tv and telephone and computer to bring them closer, but even before these things, we knew that there were others of our kind on the other side of the earth. People who we would never meet. Never taste with our senses.

Plants dwell only upon the immediately apparent. As do the more simpler animals. As we go up the sliding scale of self-awareness, the animals are able to remember and conjecture more and more of the "invisible" world which does not exist in their senses at any one time. We humans have carried this to extremes. We not only socialize with others of our kind across vast distances of space, we do the same through time. We socialize with the ancient hebrews in their wars with the Canaanites. We socialize with Akhenaten in his Sun-god Heresy. We socialize with Cro-magnon man with his spear-thrower running down the ox. This to me is civilization. And self-awareness.

I can't help but to think that you are breaking things into too little pieces.
The thing is that you can never observe *just* what the limbic system does, nor can you observe *just* reptile brain does etc.

We always deal with the *complete outcome* of the synergy of all these various systems. What each of them supposedly does is entirely a matter of our intelligent speculation and experiments. We can never really separately observe the function of only one of the levels or systems.

Probably true, somewhat. I have mentioned the way our mind breaks things down and examines them in pieces before reintegrating them into a whole. It seems to be a function of our thinking. It is useful to keep this in mind. And sometimes to examine the small and sometimes the big. Always keep one in mind while examining the other. We exist in a duality sort of way. (more than a duality, actually) We are both the particle and the wave...

While it may be impossible to divide the particular effects of each area of the brain out at any given time (principle of uncertainty?), we can certainly work to glean the influences and tendencies that might be caused by the various parts. Surely you can see these things in yourself on occasion. It is difficult, and likely to be error-prone (as we must "interpret" what we sense). But, it's fun if you are into this sort of thing. We're not dealing with certainty here, we're dealing with limits (calculus). We can never fully understand ourselves. But, we can always get just a little closer.

Think big: If all is made by the same principle, then maybe our differentiations into what the right hemisphere supposedly does, what the left, what the limbic system etc. etc. -- are overanalyzations? Basd on us trying to pinpoint what cannot be touched? (Yes!)

What do you mean all is made by the same principle? The fact that we actually are a conglomeration of the whole rather than the individual bits (which differ in their functionings greatly)? Perhaps it could be called overanalyzed... But, look at the progress that has been made in psychology and neurology because of this overanalyzation. And it's not entirely untouchable. Some of the functionings of the inner self is clear enough to recognize as mostly coming from this particular function or that particular function. It is well to keep in mind the various levels of our mind, though. Perhaps, it is good to have someone who doesn't like to dwell on the small and the tedious, to draw attention to the whole.

So, I guess we should be aware that what we are actually examining is not the brain, or life etc. -- what we are actually examining is our *thinking about* the brain, life etc. We are trying to make our knowledge of these things concise. We are trying to find errors in reasoning -- and add new premises that would be in accordance with the observation of reality. However, the observation of reality is also based on previous premises -- that are either valid or not --, so what we do now, may be just finding new premises to support an argument, that we don't know whether it is true or not. Whew.

Yes, but there are different forms of logic. Sometimes one goes from the concrete to the abstract, sometimes to from the abstract to the concrete. I have never taken a logic course, so don't know about all these rules of logic and argument. I tend to think in... wide circles. I see connections in things that sometimes barely seem relevant and then work them in. I look at vast patterns and try to make a satisfying whole. An aesthetic whole, because in the end, that's all we have. Our emotional choice as to whether it sounds good or not.

And of course, it's just an excuse to study the intricacies of the brain which I love so much...

In a way, what we're doing could easily be likened to what the original animists did. We are taking what is unknown to us and attempting to place "labels" upon them. But, at least we are dealing with a bit more in-depth science than our ancestors.

But what if we replace the term "errors" and say "choices", "directions"?

Is there a difference? It's all in the motion in the ocean, you know...

A thought just popped into my mind: So there is the duality of the brain first acting as if there are numerous options, and then acting as if only one can be valid.
How do you reconcile this duality, once you are able to see it?

Emotionally, I'd imagine.

Very simply: It is somebody else who makes this duality be okay. This happened the instant that the (humanoid) organism was able to perceive this duality.

Emotions are gleaned from social contact. Without others, there are no need for emotions.

In order to perceive this duality, some consciousness is necessary; at the same time, awareness of self and awareness of other, which both come and can only exist simultaneously. -- The very basics of religious thinking!

Elaborate a bit here. What do you mean both come and can only exist simultaneously? And how is this the basis of religious thinking? Do you mean you cannot be self-aware if you are not at the same time aware? Is it somehow the fuzziness of these two awarenesses that is religious thinking?

Religious thinking stems from the mere fact of the primal awareness of having a brain (mind) and being able to orientate oneself in the environment.

Yes, but more. It takes more than mere awareness and the ability to orient oneself in the environment. It takes the ability to make that orientation abstract and to define and to segregate it. To transfer the fear of the unknown into the fear of a made-up god-figure. A sponge can orient itself in it's environment (somewhat...) and it's not religious. A shrew can do so even better and it is not religious. It is our language that gives us the means to give life to that which does not exist in concrete terms that is religion. It is the ability to orient ourselves in our internalized schema of our environment. This is where religion comes from. An interpretation of the fuzziness of our logic and pattern-finding.

Hmm. Let me see. You're speaking of errors here? That's how it started. So, you're reasoning from the fact that all life makes errors that all life is religious? But, we (with our language) have pushed the ability to make errors and to perpetuate them to even greater levels. Far greater than any animal that we are aware of. That's what I'm thinking.

Yes, I think it would vanish -- there would be no room for it.

I tend to agree. Thought would not be necessary in a perfect world.

The origin of language and its implications. I don't have much time right now, but I'll get back to you later.
(As an aside: In the 1800s, the French Academy of Science forbade for a period of time to inquire about the origin of language, as the various debates back then were getting too furious ...)

Can't wait...

Not a big shock about the banning of debate. Kind of leads to the religious ideal...

 

[water]

Invert Nexus,

We can never fully understand ourselves. But, we can always get just a little closer.

Closer to what?

But, look at the progress that has been made in psychology and neurology because of this overanalyzation.

I don't mean to make little of their efforts -- but what is all this good for?

An aesthetic whole, because in the end, that's all we have. Our emotional choice as to whether it sounds good or not.

Spooky, huh? You work and you work, analyze, test, re-research -- and what for? So that it feels right.

In a way, what we're doing could easily be likened to what the original animists did. We are taking what is unknown to us and attempting to place "labels" upon them. But, at least we are dealing with a bit more in-depth science than our ancestors.

Yes, but how can we know that they were any less successful than we? Modern humans are on the best way to destroy themselves with their progress, all within a couple of millenia. While other cultures lived on and on for millenia and millenia. Makes you wonder what's the difference and who's more successful.

“ But what if we replace the term "errors" and say "choices", "directions"? ”
Is there a difference? It's all in the motion in the ocean, you know...

There is a difference in the emotional evaluation of our work and being.

“ A thought just popped into my mind: So there is the duality of the brain first acting as if there are numerous options, and then acting as if only one can be valid.
How do you reconcile this duality, once you are able to see it? ”

Emotionally, I'd imagine.

Interesting that you suggest the *emotions* to be in charge of this.

“ In order to perceive this duality, some consciousness is necessary; at the same time, awareness of self and awareness of other, which both come and can only exist simultaneously. -- The very basics of religious thinking! ”

Elaborate a bit here. What do you mean both come and can only exist simultaneously? And how is this the basis of religious thinking?
Do you mean you cannot be self-aware if you are not at the same time aware?

Yes. Or something like that, I'm not sure yet.

Is it somehow the fuzziness of these two awarenesses that is religious thinking?

No, I don't think fuzziness, rather fusion.

“ Religious thinking stems from the mere fact of the primal awareness of having a brain (mind) and being able to orientate oneself in the environment. ”

Yes, but more. It takes more than mere awareness and the ability to orient oneself in the environment. It takes the ability to make that orientation abstract and to define and to segregate it.
To transfer the fear of the unknown into the fear of a made-up god-figure.

A "made-up god-figure" is something that comes much later in this process.
A "made-up god-figure" is a complex script that can be made only when a certain elaboratedness of intellect is already present.

A sponge can orient itself in it's environment (somewhat...) and it's not religious. A shrew can do so even better and it is not religious.

Gendanken pointed out once that animals don't have meta-cognition -- we assume that they don't know that they can think. They think, they are aware, but they presumably don't know that they think or that they are aware.

It is our language that gives us the means to give life to that which does not exist in concrete terms that is religion. It is the ability to orient ourselves in our internalized schema of our environment. This is where religion comes from. An interpretation of the fuzziness of our logic and pattern-finding.

But basically an animal's brain also interprets the fuzziness of its logic and pattern finding in some way. Hm.

Hmm. Let me see. You're speaking of errors here? That's how it started. So, you're reasoning from the fact that all life makes errors that all life is religious? But, we (with our language) have pushed the ability to make errors and to perpetuate them to even greater levels. Far greater than any animal that we are aware of. That's what I'm thinking.

The thing is that when it comes to religious thinking we usually think of elaborate cosmogonies and worship systems. But it's basically about scripts and schemes that enable us to orientate ourselves in the environment (including organize social life).

Bah, maybe I'm in a blind alley with this, but I'm trying to probe the analytical structure and see if it works at all levels ... something is bothering me but I can't put my finger on it yet. Argh.
Have patience.


You were wondering about "The language->animism->magic->religion. That language is like a software loop that has run amuck for millenia."

Well, that's definitely hard to say for sure, without having reliable archaeological findings. There is no agreement whether language came first, or a certain skillfulness of hands.

But I see no reason so far why the order shouldn't be as proposed -- the part animism->magic->religion is definitely a matter of going over to more elaborate scripts and schemes.

I see only one problem: The language that is postulated at the beginning of this order chain -- what was this language like? Did it already have syntax?

Bickerton thinks that at first there was a protolanguage, and hominids stayed at that point for quite long -- a protolanguage has only words, maybe added one after another, but no discernable syntax. (Something like what chimpanzees are able to learn and "speak".)

Then, several things had to happen that a change to proper syntactical language was possible: the brain grew, the circumstances of survival changed. It was the ability to think in syntax, in argument structure that then opens the door to proper language.
In order to make a sentence, you must know who the actant is, who or what is the object being acted on, what the goal of the action is etc. "A does something to B." "If C, then D."

But I'm not sure whether to put animism already into the time of protolanguage or not. Depends also on what you understand by animism.

Also, I don't see why say that language run amuck. Maybe in the Western world.
I have always been fascinated by indigenous tribes -- they seem to be stuck at some point, they are using tools that haven't changed for centuries, if not millenia (until the arrival of the whites). Why so? What made the differnece that some tribes evolved, and some other didn't?

Not a big shock about the banning of debate. Kind of leads to the religious ideal...

Not really. It was in 1866 when the influential Société de Linguistique de Paris in its statute forbade to inquire about the origin of language; the keeping of this ban was an act of free will though -- they realized that they simply didn't have the means to investigate about the origin of language, so the best they can do is come up with all sorts of theories that nobody can either prove nor disprove. And this was fruitless, so they banned the thing.



BTW, I'm starting a new work schedule this Monday, and I won't have much time for SF anymore. Yeah, I hope you miss me.

 

[invert_nexus]

Closer to what?

Exactly.

I don't mean to make little of their efforts -- but what is all this good for?

Good for? Or bad for? The research has positive and negative connotations. For instance, there is the positive side effect that we may be able to cure neurological disorders, discover the essence of our self-awareness, maybe even increase our neurological efficiency.

However, there is also the specter of mind control and the like.

Maybe it's just to give schmo's like me and Gendanken something to read...

Spooky, huh? You work and you work, analyze, test, re-research -- and what for? So that it feels right.

Of course, it is a bit of an oversimplification. But, in the end it is emotion that must decide the matter. Else the tally lists keep growing.

Yes, but how can we know that they were any less successful than we?

As I said, at least our form of animism is based upon a more sure understanding of things. The ancients knew next to nothing.

Modern humans are on the best way to destroy themselves with their progress, all within a couple of millenia. While other cultures lived on and on for millenia and millenia. Makes you wonder what's the difference and who's more successful.

I'm sure that the early humans came rather close to species death a time or two as well. Before they diverged and spread across the face of the earth. What if Eve had died? That mitochondrial mother of us all? Would we be here? Life's an obstacle course.

I imagine that the same could be said for the early technology of our ancestors, including religion with this category. It's entirely possible that humans were gathered together in a small environment at the time (after all it spread out with them.) It's possible that the revolution that happened in one human, one tribe, threatened to destroy the balance by which they had been surviving for thousands of years. We probably came close to the brink at that time.

But, I have often wondered about the technological advance that we have made. My great-grandmother moved to Kansas as a little girl in a covered wagon. She died in the 90's. That's some stetch of time to cover. Imagine the changes her mind had to cope with. (Didn't cope well... Alzheimer's) Our history stretches back some 5000 years or so. Before that, we were still here, but it was a world of shadow. There is no history. No writing. No stories. Imagine the countless genocides that took place with no one to cry for them. The countless beneficient kingdoms. The countless ruthless dictatorships. Everything that we have now basically, there was just no continuity. Oral traditions probably made up the bulk of history, and oral traditions can do a good job of keeping track... but only for so long. It all changed with written language. With written language, we emerged from the murkiness of shadow existence and began the long climb to what we have today. Ironic that religion (made possible by language and helped in it's task later by written language) has kept our ancestor's from reaching the point we are now earlier. Even now, religion threatens a new dark age. We must fight this. We must stop the trend of ignorance that is religion. We are on the verge of something... wonderful or... disastrous. But one must risk in order to gain. And, I think should we give up the specter of god, we might just get over this hurdle.

There is a difference in the emotional evaluation of our work and being.

Somewhat. Because it is difficult to examine ourselves to closely. But, in the end they are all the same thing. Different parts of a whole. A schema.

No, I don't think fuzziness, rather fusion.

Fuzziness... Fusion... Similar concepts in this regard. A fuzziness indicates that the edges are not apparent. Things blur together. Fusion indicates the same thing with stronger words. Fuzziness implies that they might be seperate however they appear. Fusion implies that there is no seperation. That the seperation itself is "fuzziness." Interesting. Awareness provides the resources which our self-awareness redefines. The good emotions of instinct to the profound emotions of religion.

A "made-up god-figure" is something that comes much later in this process.

Yes, I skipped some steps... Trying to keep the words down somewhat...

But basically an animal's brain also interprets the fuzziness of its logic and pattern finding in some way. Hm.

Yes, but it does it in a visceral way. It cannot hold onto these things by transforming them into symbols. Without language, it slips away. A wordless... something... or nothing... a dream-time.

The thing is that when it comes to religious thinking we usually think of elaborate cosmogonies and worship systems. But it's basically about scripts and schemes that enable us to orientate ourselves in the environment (including organize social life).

When I think about religious thinking, it's more about that feeling of rapture, self-satisfaction, ecstasy, faith. The cosmogony and ritual are mere icing on the cake. They are the elaborate story told to explain the religious feeling.

... something is bothering me but I can't put my finger on it yet. Argh.
Have patience.

I will. I hope you will have some time to devote to SF in the future. Don't let your work consume you...

Well, that's definitely hard to say for sure, without having reliable archaeological findings. There is no agreement whether language came first, or certain skillfulness of hands.

It seems that it's likely to be the hands. Broca's area in the brain (expressive speech) is adjacent to the motor cortex of the hands and of the mouth. It is thought that we started to use our hands (as primates do) in a semi-expressive way. And also our faces and mouth for body language (smiles, frowns, etc...). All these would stimulate that area immediately adjacent.

What is different about us than the apes is the angular gyrus in the inferior parietal. It is here that grammar comes in. A temporal sequencing. It is likely that this area got built up by tool use. As tools became more and more complicated, the steps needed to make the tools became more and more complex. We couldn't skip order. And thus comes grammar. (cutting it short somewhat. Tired of being long-winded...)

And, yeah, it all does come down to not enough archeological evidence for any surety.

I see only one problem: The language that is postulated at the beginning of this order chain -- what was this language like? Did it already have syntax?

I think so... It's likely that the cro-magnon were the first hominids with the angular gyruss. And syntax also comes from this. I think. Hmm. I believe that Cro-magnon was the first to have religion as well. Again, not sure. Need to do more research on this. Regardless, I find it likely that syntax and grammar were in place. It would almost need to be in order to make this jump. I might be on to something with this. I'll get back to it later.

But I'm not sure whether to put animism already into the time of protolanguage or not. Depends also on what you understand by animism.

I see. As I said, it's possible that syntax needs to be in place for this to occur. There must be a subject, must be an object, there must be grammar, else the explanation for "spirits" in nature seems to fail. It would be unexplainable... wouldn't it? ... Hmmm... Perhaps... Animism advanced protolanguage? Built up the angular gyrus along with tool use? I seem to find it preferable that true language came first. But, definitely something to think on.

What made the differnece that some tribes evolved, and some other didn't?

Individuals I think. History always comes down to the individual at certain points. Someone who rises above the crowd and finds something new. Among other things of course...

Not really.

The time was not right. They knew very little of the structure of the brain and also very little about the history of man. It could be said that we know only a bit more... but, what the hey? I'm not gonna let some Frenchie ban keep me down...

BTW, I'm starting a new work schedule this Monday, and I won't have much time for SF anymore. Yeah, I hope you miss me.

Of course, I will. I'm sure Gendanken will, too. You and her seem to have the best debates in this joint. Looks like it gonna be just Gendy and I in here for a while. Not that that's a bad thing, but she and I hold views that are close to accord in these matters. It's good to have a third opinion. Come back every now and again.

And thank you for your lingual contribution as well as others.