I enjoyed this as a Christian. I could talk to you for hours about the questions you posited here. I will say that Cain slew Abel out of jealousy and banishment happened to him. Satan led a rebellion due to his pride and angels fell. Oh I could seriously conversate about this stuff and wish I could at length.
Well, you've found your perfect audience!!! The story of Cain and Abel is one that I hope to eventually incorporate into an anarchist interpretation of the Bible, which, as it stands, is the most canonical version of the World Story that exists, despite the greatly overly-hyped Scientific Revolution, which mostly succeeded in stripping the story's basic structure of most of its beauty without fundamentally replacing it.
Well Cain was cast out, then you have to read Enoch, then take into consideration that Noah was a descendant of Enoch and his wife Naamah Tubal Cain who was a descendant of Cain. I also think lone wolves don't necessarily want to be an alpha but are sigmas.
Yes, this is the same archaeolgical evidence, the same stella, that I noted in my recent article on Jewish Messiahs. Thanks Jessica for providing this link which gives more detail than I had seen before.
The trouble, according to scholar Bart Ehrman (if I remember his name correctly), lies in that this is the only archaeological mention of "the House of David" uncovered so far, and the details are sparse.
However, there are more troubling things to me about the Old Testament and about David in particular. If the biblical stories are true, then David was praised by God for being a mass murderer of a similar sort as the kings and emperors of Babylon, Persia, etc. I find this unacceptable. If the biblical stories are accurate we have hero worship of someone willing to slaughter and torture "for God."
Mind you, I was raised Christian and was an admirer of David growing up. Somehow the gory, brutal aspect of it all did not deter my admiration.
interesting theory! Not sure on which level you're reading things... Do you regard Noah, Enoch, Cain and Abel as historic figures? I tend to read the Old Testament as pure myth, but I'm open to all perspectives.
I'm a Bible believing Christian. I'm just glad your interested. You do know Abraham has a tomb, archachelogical evidence shows David was king, I can continue. If it were to be uncovered at some point there was evidence of their existence would that change your mind? Why would there only be a few verifiable people and not all people be real from the Bible? Then there's genetic Eve.
I didn't know that! Could you provide some links please? I've previously promoted the idea that King Solomon is not historical, but Jesus is. This is based on my interpretation of the available evidence I have seen. I'm always willing to reconsider if new evidence becomes available.
Pretty sure you'll love these links, as they are guaranteed debate-winners with anyone who isn't a Biblical scholar, archaeologist, classicist, or antiquarian!
I think the Cain & Abel story is one of those very, very ancient archetypal human stories (like the hunting ones 'the one that got away' and the fairytale 'monsters in the forest' (told to children as a moral fable to stop them wandering into forests where predators lurk). C&A is specifically about ostracism - it's the same story as Jesus' 'Prodigal son'. Interestingly, this is backed up by psychology (as is your entire article) - ostracism and separation from the social group directly causes depression (especially left amygdala, which processes negative emotions). Depression then becomes the 'motivation' to seek reconciliation (all human beings recognise and understand reconciliation and are extremely quick to do it to someone who says sorry). The motivation simply stems from the human brain's desire to avoid pain, which depression (and guilt) really is. The 'pre-emption' of this desire to avoid pain then becomes the 'conscience' - which filters out 'bad intentions' before they ever reach the decision-making bit of the brain (pre-frontal cortex). I would perhaps argue that one thing which separates or distinguishes the 1% (the Cains of the world) from the 99% is they have a completely different 'filtering mechanism' - thus they have no conscience with regards to interactions with the 99%. This allows them to carry out any crime they like and provides them, or their group, with a distinct survival advantage. This is one aspect, I would suggest, of the different neurological evolution of the 1% compared to the 99%...
Once again I love your thought process here, breaking ever more new ground in the quest for understanding human nature and thus our potentials going forward, for a more humane society (along with rehabilitated relations with Nature).
Here is one area of your exploration that appears a loose end: You point to reconnection with the group soul of the pack, as a correction to our current dis-ease of separation. Good in theory... but the problematic part is the bonding as a tribal group that pits its collective self in violent competition with other tribal groups. In other words, in an ancient world with lots of space, it was more viable to have harmony and cohesion within the group, at least, and call it done. And even there the even more primal alpha urges are still active to drive individual consciousness and intratribal conflict! Now add growing populations and competition for territory; meaning more opportunity for alpha warrior leadership and status. Now add a global scale and the group soul consciousness (Omega point) is an appealing solution, but it seems the level of abstraction is still a stretch for most of our tribal allegiances. And even then, translation becomes messy (uncontrolled borders, globalist alphas taking charge and stealing the world soul for their own gratification, etc.). Just thinking out loud here... ;)
Ah yes, the problem of politics... Anyone with the most rudimentary understanding of human social behaviour can imagine cooperation within an in-group..
But what about what one group of humans is in competition with another group?
This is where serious political philosophy begins. The problem of politics is complicated by the the fact that human psychology operates according to a primal dichotomy of Friend or Foe, which is then simplified according to in-group/out-group dynamics. This appears to be a feature of human consciousness and is probably unavoidable.
I believe that we should look to the contemporary Maya. Despite the fact that there are more than a dozen Maya languages, I have never heard of a single example of intra-Maya racism. Maybe some speakers of "prestige dialects" consider themselves superior, but I don't even know how you would go about proving that. Despite their
It would be unthinkable for a woman from Zinacantan to wear the traditional dress of a woman from Chamula, despite the fact the two cities are less than 30 minutes from each other. This taboo is a true taboo, in the sense that it is universally observed. It would be almost inconceivable to break it. But why?
The two cultures are a great example of what David Graeber calls schismogenesis - the two cultures developed in opposition to each other. The Chamulas valorize courage, whereas the Zinacantan Maya pride themselves on their skills as diplomats. It's not hard to figure out how these two cultures are two sides of the same coin.
My point is that they are separate - they do not blend into one, and their attire is testament to their differences. But they live in peace. And you will see this throughout the Maya world.
Remember, the Maya culture has never been defeated or assimilated. Even though they are now overwhelmingly Catholic, their Catholicism is a Maya-fied version that is, I would argue, indisputably distinct from Roman Catholicism. The best evidence for this would probably be the famous church in Chamula, which was formally excommunicated by the Vatican for practicing animal sacrifice in the church itself.
My point is this - the Maya have a solution to the problem of politics, and it manages the ever-present risk of Us Versus Them thinking through culture.
I would like to make a study of this at some point.
That's a good model to start from (the Maya), for widening the network of groups living in harmony (compatible differences). With the next step up, though, comes trouble: when the Maya have to contend with Incas, Aztecs, or other predatory peoples (in the end, Europeans). I'm not citing precise history here but the principle: at some level conflict emerges because outside of one's soul-group appears another group: the Others. All of this of course is politics, as you say, but also particularly "primate politics," chimps or whoever. Still that human element--the individual self-distinction--makes it a different ball game (no Mayan joke intended). What's new and unique is not the intergroup conflict but rather, the conflict between one's group and oneself--or even at the individual level, between one's group self and one's individual self. Back to you! :)
My friends would marvel driving fast down a road in rural Mexico that I could tell them that the man walking down the road was a Mexican or Mayan from one hundred yards I was always correct and they didn’t understand how. The secret was the Mayan hearing the car coming would stop and face the road and prepare for the moment of passing while the Mexican would very seldom even look back. The Mayan culture understood personal responsibility and free will. The Mexican had his faith his destiny was in gods hands. I’ll probably get bashed for this because to try to make a point I have simplified the equation but that is my understanding. I am awed at your thirst and the drinking of thought and knowledge and your reasoning. I take most of my thought from the teeming cosmos. Ideas are aliens. I think language and conceptual thinking has been the cause of our fall out of love. But I believe it can be instantly reversed and annihilated. The concept of nothing. Once one realizes this concept for the fraud that it is one becomes free and can function and perform his or her (what is the word) not purpose but close to that. Cogs in the wheel. Anyway thank you for your stimulating thinking and sharing and I feel that you are fulfilling your destiny as are many souls here on Substack
Ostracism only ever happened to what we now call the '1%' - the wannabe alpha males and dominants who are not beneficial to the group. Dunbar's number allows for their detection and ostracism before they ever get to a position of dominance - thus the peace of prehistory. After the agricultural revolution, with increased population sizes and the need for overseers for the workforce etc.) the limits of Dunbar's number come into play, and the 1% are able to survive - usually by concealment, deception, and above all mimicry (evil always pretends to be good). After several more thousand years this minority group got into positions of social authority then consolidated them, then created ideologies and belief systems (like religions) to justify their authoritarianism. It's been like that ever since.
I think it's important not to fall into the trap of generalising about 'human nature' and including the behaviour of the 1% in that nature. They are entirely separate (I would even argue to the extent of being a separate species by virtue of their alien behavioural tendencies; like war, or child abuse) and require a different anthropological history. History, then, since around 5,000 years ago and the advent of modern statism, is simply the history of the 1% lording it over the 99% and imposing 1% stuff on the 99%, against the 99% wishes. This is why the 1% need to tell the generalised 'narrative' of the human story and make the 99% believe it. The so-called 'fall from grace' in other words, was not the responsibility of humans, it was imposed on humans (obviously this makes the doctrine of original sin extremely evil - it's why we should be Pelagians).
But this is why we normal people must always exercise our freedom to say 'your narrative doesn't apply to me'.
Human beings are still good. They've only been made to forget it...
It's also why I suggest that the 5000 year machinations of the 1% are simply a group survival strategy, to protect themselves from ostracism by the 99%. That's why they mimic and tell generalised narratives.
What comes to mind is the Great Reset focus of a collective consciousness but, a consciousness laser focused on the precepts of the One World Overlords (Sustainable Goals). The goals imply a collective hive sentenced to a digital realm, where it is suggested you are devoid of a soul (nature itself). Kman, editor, DIGILEAK WORLD Newsletter
I have a book recommendation for you: The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, by Julian Jaynes(1976).
Jaynes offers a very solid theory that human beings were not individually conscious in the same way we are until the Bronze Age Collapse. There's an awful lot of circumstantial archaeological evidence to back his theory up, and some literary evidence as well, notably the Old Testament and The Iliad.
Gods are real to the characters of the Iliad, actually appearing and talking to them, and all-powerful. In the Odyssey, a clever human being outwits the gods, something that would have been inconceivable to Odysseus' ancestors according to Jaynes.
I think you just might find that Jaynes' theory fits in with your anarchist mythology quite nicely, and he'll probably give you some ideas.
I enjoyed this as a Christian. I could talk to you for hours about the questions you posited here. I will say that Cain slew Abel out of jealousy and banishment happened to him. Satan led a rebellion due to his pride and angels fell. Oh I could seriously conversate about this stuff and wish I could at length.
Well, you've found your perfect audience!!! The story of Cain and Abel is one that I hope to eventually incorporate into an anarchist interpretation of the Bible, which, as it stands, is the most canonical version of the World Story that exists, despite the greatly overly-hyped Scientific Revolution, which mostly succeeded in stripping the story's basic structure of most of its beauty without fundamentally replacing it.
Well Cain was cast out, then you have to read Enoch, then take into consideration that Noah was a descendant of Enoch and his wife Naamah Tubal Cain who was a descendant of Cain. I also think lone wolves don't necessarily want to be an alpha but are sigmas.
Yes, this is the same archaeolgical evidence, the same stella, that I noted in my recent article on Jewish Messiahs. Thanks Jessica for providing this link which gives more detail than I had seen before.
The trouble, according to scholar Bart Ehrman (if I remember his name correctly), lies in that this is the only archaeological mention of "the House of David" uncovered so far, and the details are sparse.
However, there are more troubling things to me about the Old Testament and about David in particular. If the biblical stories are true, then David was praised by God for being a mass murderer of a similar sort as the kings and emperors of Babylon, Persia, etc. I find this unacceptable. If the biblical stories are accurate we have hero worship of someone willing to slaughter and torture "for God."
Mind you, I was raised Christian and was an admirer of David growing up. Somehow the gory, brutal aspect of it all did not deter my admiration.
We all have the right to believe what we want.
interesting theory! Not sure on which level you're reading things... Do you regard Noah, Enoch, Cain and Abel as historic figures? I tend to read the Old Testament as pure myth, but I'm open to all perspectives.
I'm a Bible believing Christian. I'm just glad your interested. You do know Abraham has a tomb, archachelogical evidence shows David was king, I can continue. If it were to be uncovered at some point there was evidence of their existence would that change your mind? Why would there only be a few verifiable people and not all people be real from the Bible? Then there's genetic Eve.
I am familiar with the "Mitochrondial Eve" theory but I thought it had been abandoned. Could you link to people who have made that argument recently?
Can you show me something where it was abandoned? I hadn't heard the theory where the genetic tracing had been abaonded.
I didn't know that! Could you provide some links please? I've previously promoted the idea that King Solomon is not historical, but Jesus is. This is based on my interpretation of the available evidence I have seen. I'm always willing to reconsider if new evidence becomes available.
Solomon is David's son. There's that whole temple thing. Surely you don't need evidence of that. Do you need evidence of Abraham's tomb?
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/the-tel-dan-inscription-the-first-historical-evidence-of-the-king-david-bible-story/
The evidence for the historical Jesus: https://nevermoremedia.substack.com/p/was-jesus-christ-a-real-person
and: https://nevermoremedia.substack.com/p/was-jesus-christ-a-guerrilla-warrior
Pretty sure you'll love these links, as they are guaranteed debate-winners with anyone who isn't a Biblical scholar, archaeologist, classicist, or antiquarian!
I think the Cain & Abel story is one of those very, very ancient archetypal human stories (like the hunting ones 'the one that got away' and the fairytale 'monsters in the forest' (told to children as a moral fable to stop them wandering into forests where predators lurk). C&A is specifically about ostracism - it's the same story as Jesus' 'Prodigal son'. Interestingly, this is backed up by psychology (as is your entire article) - ostracism and separation from the social group directly causes depression (especially left amygdala, which processes negative emotions). Depression then becomes the 'motivation' to seek reconciliation (all human beings recognise and understand reconciliation and are extremely quick to do it to someone who says sorry). The motivation simply stems from the human brain's desire to avoid pain, which depression (and guilt) really is. The 'pre-emption' of this desire to avoid pain then becomes the 'conscience' - which filters out 'bad intentions' before they ever reach the decision-making bit of the brain (pre-frontal cortex). I would perhaps argue that one thing which separates or distinguishes the 1% (the Cains of the world) from the 99% is they have a completely different 'filtering mechanism' - thus they have no conscience with regards to interactions with the 99%. This allows them to carry out any crime they like and provides them, or their group, with a distinct survival advantage. This is one aspect, I would suggest, of the different neurological evolution of the 1% compared to the 99%...
Once again I love your thought process here, breaking ever more new ground in the quest for understanding human nature and thus our potentials going forward, for a more humane society (along with rehabilitated relations with Nature).
Here is one area of your exploration that appears a loose end: You point to reconnection with the group soul of the pack, as a correction to our current dis-ease of separation. Good in theory... but the problematic part is the bonding as a tribal group that pits its collective self in violent competition with other tribal groups. In other words, in an ancient world with lots of space, it was more viable to have harmony and cohesion within the group, at least, and call it done. And even there the even more primal alpha urges are still active to drive individual consciousness and intratribal conflict! Now add growing populations and competition for territory; meaning more opportunity for alpha warrior leadership and status. Now add a global scale and the group soul consciousness (Omega point) is an appealing solution, but it seems the level of abstraction is still a stretch for most of our tribal allegiances. And even then, translation becomes messy (uncontrolled borders, globalist alphas taking charge and stealing the world soul for their own gratification, etc.). Just thinking out loud here... ;)
Ah yes, the problem of politics... Anyone with the most rudimentary understanding of human social behaviour can imagine cooperation within an in-group..
But what about what one group of humans is in competition with another group?
This is where serious political philosophy begins. The problem of politics is complicated by the the fact that human psychology operates according to a primal dichotomy of Friend or Foe, which is then simplified according to in-group/out-group dynamics. This appears to be a feature of human consciousness and is probably unavoidable.
I believe that we should look to the contemporary Maya. Despite the fact that there are more than a dozen Maya languages, I have never heard of a single example of intra-Maya racism. Maybe some speakers of "prestige dialects" consider themselves superior, but I don't even know how you would go about proving that. Despite their
It would be unthinkable for a woman from Zinacantan to wear the traditional dress of a woman from Chamula, despite the fact the two cities are less than 30 minutes from each other. This taboo is a true taboo, in the sense that it is universally observed. It would be almost inconceivable to break it. But why?
The two cultures are a great example of what David Graeber calls schismogenesis - the two cultures developed in opposition to each other. The Chamulas valorize courage, whereas the Zinacantan Maya pride themselves on their skills as diplomats. It's not hard to figure out how these two cultures are two sides of the same coin.
My point is that they are separate - they do not blend into one, and their attire is testament to their differences. But they live in peace. And you will see this throughout the Maya world.
Remember, the Maya culture has never been defeated or assimilated. Even though they are now overwhelmingly Catholic, their Catholicism is a Maya-fied version that is, I would argue, indisputably distinct from Roman Catholicism. The best evidence for this would probably be the famous church in Chamula, which was formally excommunicated by the Vatican for practicing animal sacrifice in the church itself.
My point is this - the Maya have a solution to the problem of politics, and it manages the ever-present risk of Us Versus Them thinking through culture.
I would like to make a study of this at some point.
That's a good model to start from (the Maya), for widening the network of groups living in harmony (compatible differences). With the next step up, though, comes trouble: when the Maya have to contend with Incas, Aztecs, or other predatory peoples (in the end, Europeans). I'm not citing precise history here but the principle: at some level conflict emerges because outside of one's soul-group appears another group: the Others. All of this of course is politics, as you say, but also particularly "primate politics," chimps or whoever. Still that human element--the individual self-distinction--makes it a different ball game (no Mayan joke intended). What's new and unique is not the intergroup conflict but rather, the conflict between one's group and oneself--or even at the individual level, between one's group self and one's individual self. Back to you! :)
My friends would marvel driving fast down a road in rural Mexico that I could tell them that the man walking down the road was a Mexican or Mayan from one hundred yards I was always correct and they didn’t understand how. The secret was the Mayan hearing the car coming would stop and face the road and prepare for the moment of passing while the Mexican would very seldom even look back. The Mayan culture understood personal responsibility and free will. The Mexican had his faith his destiny was in gods hands. I’ll probably get bashed for this because to try to make a point I have simplified the equation but that is my understanding. I am awed at your thirst and the drinking of thought and knowledge and your reasoning. I take most of my thought from the teeming cosmos. Ideas are aliens. I think language and conceptual thinking has been the cause of our fall out of love. But I believe it can be instantly reversed and annihilated. The concept of nothing. Once one realizes this concept for the fraud that it is one becomes free and can function and perform his or her (what is the word) not purpose but close to that. Cogs in the wheel. Anyway thank you for your stimulating thinking and sharing and I feel that you are fulfilling your destiny as are many souls here on Substack
Ostracism only ever happened to what we now call the '1%' - the wannabe alpha males and dominants who are not beneficial to the group. Dunbar's number allows for their detection and ostracism before they ever get to a position of dominance - thus the peace of prehistory. After the agricultural revolution, with increased population sizes and the need for overseers for the workforce etc.) the limits of Dunbar's number come into play, and the 1% are able to survive - usually by concealment, deception, and above all mimicry (evil always pretends to be good). After several more thousand years this minority group got into positions of social authority then consolidated them, then created ideologies and belief systems (like religions) to justify their authoritarianism. It's been like that ever since.
I think it's important not to fall into the trap of generalising about 'human nature' and including the behaviour of the 1% in that nature. They are entirely separate (I would even argue to the extent of being a separate species by virtue of their alien behavioural tendencies; like war, or child abuse) and require a different anthropological history. History, then, since around 5,000 years ago and the advent of modern statism, is simply the history of the 1% lording it over the 99% and imposing 1% stuff on the 99%, against the 99% wishes. This is why the 1% need to tell the generalised 'narrative' of the human story and make the 99% believe it. The so-called 'fall from grace' in other words, was not the responsibility of humans, it was imposed on humans (obviously this makes the doctrine of original sin extremely evil - it's why we should be Pelagians).
But this is why we normal people must always exercise our freedom to say 'your narrative doesn't apply to me'.
Human beings are still good. They've only been made to forget it...
It's also why I suggest that the 5000 year machinations of the 1% are simply a group survival strategy, to protect themselves from ostracism by the 99%. That's why they mimic and tell generalised narratives.
Great article. Very thought provoking Crow.
What comes to mind is the Great Reset focus of a collective consciousness but, a consciousness laser focused on the precepts of the One World Overlords (Sustainable Goals). The goals imply a collective hive sentenced to a digital realm, where it is suggested you are devoid of a soul (nature itself). Kman, editor, DIGILEAK WORLD Newsletter
I have a book recommendation for you: The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, by Julian Jaynes(1976).
Jaynes offers a very solid theory that human beings were not individually conscious in the same way we are until the Bronze Age Collapse. There's an awful lot of circumstantial archaeological evidence to back his theory up, and some literary evidence as well, notably the Old Testament and The Iliad.
Gods are real to the characters of the Iliad, actually appearing and talking to them, and all-powerful. In the Odyssey, a clever human being outwits the gods, something that would have been inconceivable to Odysseus' ancestors according to Jaynes.
I think you just might find that Jaynes' theory fits in with your anarchist mythology quite nicely, and he'll probably give you some ideas.
This is right-on. Thanks. "The poet alone mourns its loss..." Something I know firsthand