Spirituality
25 May 06
30 May 06
"When the Hebrews emigrated from Egypt during the XIX dynasty they took with them a caricature of Set and gave him the title Satan from the hieroglyphic Set-hen which was one of this god's formal titles...the account of the "fall of man" from Eden was adapted by biblical writers from pre-Judaic polytheistic traditions in which a divine and omniscient serpent, representing the female creative nature , was pitted against the created order of a male oriented divinity. It is for this reason that the serpent is stressed as demonic, in spite of the fact that the Genesis authors are compelled to harmonize their account with those of the surrounding peoples, and therefore must write that the serpent is a creature of God, and "more subtle [ Genesis 3:1] than any beast of the field which the Lord God has made."
Here we might suggest that the serpent saves humanity by putting it in touch with nature; death is recognized as a function of all nature, including humanity, and this knowledge is necessary for new life to begin. This would bring Jewish legends into more equivalent to other Near East traditions."
Anything to agree or disagree with here?
31 May 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYeah, but life is tough for hunter-gatherers, that's why agriculture got off the ground (so to speak) in the first place, and why it remains dominant now. The rose-tinted glass in those specs would have to be super-strong to turn the hunter gatherers rather meagre existance into a garden of eden type scenario.
The Greeks had their myth of the golden, silver, bronze and iron ages. If I recall correctly the golden is said to correspond to the hunter gatherer age when people lived off the fruits of the land, eating edible acorns and hallucinogenic mushrooms (amongst other things). Agriculture brings with it property, hence ownership, law and restriction. Wouldn't it make more sense if Eden corresponded with the hunter-gatherer stage?
31 May 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzThat is a common viewpoint, but not necessarily correct.
Yeah, but life is tough for hunter-gatherers, that's why agriculture got off the ground (so to speak) in the first place, and why it remains dominant now. The rose-tinted glass in those specs would have to be super-strong to turn the hunter gatherers rather meagre existance into a garden of eden type scenario.
"At the 1966 "Man the Hunter" conference, anthropologists Richard B. Lee and Irven DeVore suggested that egalitarianism was one of several central characteristics of nomadic hunting and gathering societies because mobility requires minimization of material possessions throughout a population; therefore, there was no surplus of resources to be accumulated by any single member. Other characteristics Lee and DeVore proposed were flux in territorial boundaries as well as in demographic composition. At the same conference, Marshall Sahlins presented a paper entitled, "Notes on the Original Affluent Society," in which he challenged the popular view of hunter-gatherers living lives "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short," as Thomas Hobbes had put it in 1651. According to Sahlins, ethnographic data indicated that hunter-gatherers worked far fewer hours and enjoyed more leisure than typical members of industrial society, and they still ate well. Their "affluence" came from the idea that they are satisfied with very little in the material sense. This, he said, constituted a Zen economy." (wikipedia)
Sorry for the cut and paste but I thought you might be interested in that. You see, you don't have to hunt or gather every day--you can store those yams, dry that meat--but farmers always have to work like devils--and their land needs protection, and they can't follow the game when there's a drought...anchored to their little plots of land...
31 May 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageHow do you explain the transition from nomadic hunter-gathering towards agricultural "sedentarism"(what's the correct term)?
You see, you don't have to hunt or gather every day--you can store those yams, dry that meat--but farmers always have to work like devils--and their land needs protection, and they can't follow the game when there's a drought...anchored to their little plots of land...
It seems to me that agriculture was a much more efficient way of finding nourishment. As for the problem with droughts and famine, eventually, societies have found a way to solve that problem: trade. It is impressive the decrease in famine periods after longer distance trade began.
31 May 06
Originally posted by PalynkaClimate change (it is surmised) was the trigger: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithisation
How do you explain the transition from nomadic hunter-gathering towards agricultural "sedentarism"(what's the correct term)?
I always wonder why some bees lives in hives (under a monarchy) and others don't (in anarchy).
31 May 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI think the word "saves" is a bit error-inducing, because humanity as it is now is not necessarily better than the non-natural man depicted in Eden.
Here we might suggest that the serpent saves humanity by putting it in touch with nature; death is recognized as a function of all nature, including humanity, and this knowledge is necessary for new life to begin. This would bring Jewish legends into more equivalent to other Near East traditions."
It would be indeed the serpent that led to the reshaping of men into their present form, but since that is not necessarily "better" I think the word saves is trying to give it a more positive connotation than it should be.
Is the knowledge of death necessary for new life to begin? I have my doubts even if I am partisan of the idea that death and the knowledge of its inevitability are essential to the fulfillment of man's potential.
31 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYes, but that supports the superiority of agriculture as a means for survival.
Climate change (it is surmised) was the trigger: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithisation
I always wonder why some bees lives in hives (under a monarchy) and others don't (in anarchy).
How idyllic would this Eden be if people had to travel great distances to find food, trips in which a considerable number wouldn't survive? Nomadic life would be especially tough for older (Neolithic old) people.
31 May 06
Originally posted by PalynkaWouldn't knowledge or at least a greater understanding of death lead to behaviour changes in general (i.e metaphoric 'New Life'😉? I don't suppose there would be too many chickens crossing the proverbial road if they knew what was up.
Is the knowledge of death necessary for new life to begin?
31 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by David CThe key word in my phrase was necessary. I thought it was clear with what I wrote after. I do think knowledge of death is desirable but I'm not so sure if it is necessary.
Wouldn't knowledge or at least a greater understanding of death lead to behaviour changes in general (i.e metaphoric 'New Life'😉? I don't suppose there would be too many chickens crossing the proverbial road if they knew what was up.
That knowledge of death leads to behaviour changes strikes me as obvious, but is it the only way to change behaviour? I have a hard time accepting that.
31 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI'd agree, one qualifier though.
That is a common viewpoint, but not necessarily correct.
"At the 1966 "Man the Hunter" conference, anthropologists Richard B. Lee and Irven DeVore suggested that egalitarianism was one of several central characteristics of nomadic hunting and gathering societies because mobility requires minimization of material possessions throughout a population; ow the game when there's a drought...anchher eored to their little plots of land...
"You see, you don't have to hunt or gather every day" (in a good year).
[edit; and settled agri can support higher populations too.]
31 May 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzThis is the point of my concern
I'd agree, one qualifier though.
"You see, you don't have to hunt or gather every day" (in a good year).
[edit; and settled agri can support higher populations too.]
Gen 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
01 Jun 06
Originally posted by frogstompHows about I rephrase it for you?
This is the point of my concern
Gen 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
And man stopped being a hunter gatherer at some undefined point in time (around 12,000 years ago) and took up agriculture.
01 Jun 06
Originally posted by PalynkaThis almost presupposes a hierarchy of societies with hunter-gatherers down low and agricultural societies higher up - and the transition from one to the other pre-ordained to occur as human societies advance.
How do you explain the transition from nomadic hunter-gathering towards agricultural "sedentarism"(what's the correct term)?
It seems to me that agriculture was a much more efficient way of finding nourishment. As for the problem with droughts and famine, eventually, societies have found a way to solve that problem: trade. It is impressive the decrease in famine periods after longer distance trade began.
I'm not so sure that's necessarily the case.
Certainly in Australia, while there is evidence for the development of some farming skills, the indigenous groups here subsisted quite nicely in a hunter-gatherer lifestyle for around 40,000 years. This only changed quite recently - 200 years or so.
01 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by amannionYes, on the flattest, driest, least fertile lump of rock on the planet. There's a good reason that agriculture never arose in Australia (and why it's full of so many dangerous animals too). Nothing indigenous in Australia worth growing.
This almost presupposes a hierarchy of societies with hunter-gatherers down low and agricultural societies higher up - and the transition from one to the other pre-ordained to occur as human societies advance.
I'm not so sure that's necessarily the case.
Certainly in Australia, while there is evidence for the development of some farming skills, the indi ...[text shortened]... atherer lifestyle for around 40,000 years. This only changed quite recently - 200 years or so.
01 Jun 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzThat's true but merely supports my point.
Yes, on the flattest, driest, least fertile lump of rock on the planet. There's a good reason that agriculture never arose in Australia (and why it's full of so many dangerous animals too). Nothing indigenous in Australia worth growing.
Agriculture arises where it's useful and supported by the environment - not as a gradual advancement of humans in some way.
(Although fish farms were relatively common in parts of south eastern Australia, and of course, the Aborigines used fire extensively as a land management tool.)
And we're not that dangerous are we?