Language is the shadow cast by the mind into the world. People often mistaken the shadows for the light or simply think the shadows can tell them more about the light than the light itself.

Interesting. Never heard of these scrolls before.

I was looking for something a little more specific. I have a broad enough knowledge and wish to learn more about the development and evolution of Islam specifically (within an anthropologic and political sense).

Do these cover the history from a secular perspective or are they laden with religious rhetoric? I am looking for more scholarly work that tries to be objective and provide facts rather than add speculative or religious connotations.

Thanks

If I was prone to losing the will to live in response to people struggling to articulate their thoughts, I'd have murdered myself a long time ago. — wonderer1

:grin: :up:

I do go on to suggest that is may be this kind of process that refined our reasoning too. Not sure if you got to that point or lost the will to live listening to me tripping over nearly every word I said :D

Thanks for reference. Doubt I will be able to find a copy of that book though. Does he make any cross-references with other religious traditions?

This is me making a pig's ear of this topic and rambling on :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlXj9cBTpVU&t=901s

I tried! I will keep trying :D Not sure if it makes anything I am talking about more clear OR less clear?

To the extent this generalized (and I grant, likely oversimplified) perspective is granted, I then doubt that egotists' sophistic competition for new ideas can lead to improved reasoning anywhere near as much as the sincere hunt for the truth(s) that await to be found, both physical and metaphysical. The very same overall dichotomy I'd then ascribe to humanity's history of conceptualizations regarding divinity, or spirituality, or god/s. Some emerged out of competitions for power-over others and yet others emerged out of competing views, competitions to this extent, for what is genuinely true - such that truth (and thereby awareness of what is real) becomes the prize that is to be won (and not an ego's greater power-over that which is other which bolsters one's magnitude of egoism). And, of course, there then can be rivalry galore between these two overall ambitions and resulting forms of respective competition.

In short, I don't find that all notions of divinity, spirituality, and god/s are there strictly due to oneupmanship - which, if true, would entail that all such accounts are strictly about granting some egos more power over other egos and that none of these concepts were in any way obtained via sincere inquiries into what is true and thereby real. Most interpretations of Buddhism, as one example, don't in any way strike me as being about oneupmanship - but, instead, as addressing being about as egoless as is possible. — javra

I cannot really disagree here either. I probably am just more curious about it having a bigger effect than we would initially think.

Before any search for truth I think this is a likely candidate that helped develop an initial search for the truth.

As a kind of counter argument to what I am thinking, I am aware that we are born with certain rational faculties. I read this several years ago. Maybe someone else will find it interesting enough to read too:
The Scientist in the Crib

I am unsure what is controversial. We absolutely have an innate capacity for language. There are instances where individuals have no, or minimal, language and manage to pick it up even in later life.

I guess it is good to have some controversy in areas that seem obviously true. I do have my own way of viewing language and by 'language' I mean something that is probably not the same as how many others use the term. So, yeah, disagreements will arise due to use of the term probably.

This doesn't go against what I am saying. Animism would not prevent people from having competing views and partaking in one-upmanship in term of items possessed. The underlying point I am making is people grappling in a competitive state with abstract ideas.

It is clear enough that if something moves we read social attributes into it. This has been shown again and again with non-lingual babies having emotional reacts to images of shapes 'attacking' other shapes.

I am looking very specifically at what I am proposing here. Not really interested in other ideas related to God/Religion unless they can be combined with what I am talking about.

Seeing Faces and Seeing Object As Sentient is interesting but I do not see how it relates to what I am saying directly?

Not all scientist agree that language is innate in humans
— Sir2u

This is true — T Clark

Really? Who disagrees? How so? Seems a strange thing to dispute, but likely it is the concept of 'language' they are using. Some linguists are quite happy to state that bees have a 'language' while others are not.

Granting that I"m properly understanding this quote, I don't identify the conceptual drift toward monotheism(s) with the key instrument to the development of reason. Instead, I tend to identify monotheistic notions of God with the average human impetus, or desire, for some authority that overshadows all others. This, in turn, can either lead to authoritarianism, if not despotic yearnings and practices, which I view as bad/unethical/etc. or else toward egalitarian universals of being: with "natural laws" quickly here coming to mind as one version of this (be they found in materialisms or in monotheisms or else in spiritualities such as the Logos of the Stoics ... the latter, quite obviously, standing at a stark crossroad to most monotheistic worldviews wherein a superlative personhood as absolute authority is championed from which the logos ("the word") stems).

In short, I disagree that the development of reason is to be associated with the "ultimate personhood" issue. (Whether one to any extent agrees or disagrees with it, Buddhism is certainly entwined with a vast amount of reasoning, for example, and there is no ultimate personhood in it.) — javra

I am saying something more like the 'one-upmanship' led to progress in Reason. As you rightly point out both Western and Eastern traditions have a history of debate (as I outlined).

I can get this, though I find it overlooks the yet quite persisting perspective of "Nature worship" to be found in a significant quantity of Western traditions (with various forms of Neo-paganism as one blatant example). A Buddhist or Hindu, for example, does not engage in the same trains of thought as do Westerners when it comes to this, such that Buddhism and Hinduism can at best only be described as forms of Nature-worship only from the vantage of Westerner's projections. This much like they could all be declared as "pagans" by some monotheists. — javra

The concerns of each tradition are quite different for sure. The God concept is a primary issue for Western traditions but not at all for Eastern.

To this effect, having read Eliade's "Shamanism" some time ago, you'll find the notion of nature-worship quite well alighted to the concept of shamanism, for example. And shamanism, though nowadays in some cases extended to Eastern traditions - say, for one example, by addressing the original Buddha as a shaman of the East - is well enough rooted in Western practices and perspectives: shamanism historically stemmed from Siberia with enough affirming it to originate from traditions along the Caucasus Mountains, and from the latter we get the term "Caucasian" which, at least in the USA, is often used to strictly denote white people of European decent.) — javra

To be fair Eliade makes it pretty clear he is talking about Shamanism not shamanism - as in not the true name associated with Siberia but a global phenomenon.

Again, contemplating the strictly Western notions of (non-monotheistic) Logos, as one example, is to itself be addressing "higher concepts" that concern the cosmological concerns you specify. No superlative personhood required. — javra

I think I see where you are slightly misunderstanding what I am saying. This is why I tried to steer clear of one particular example. The story is the competitive element here NOT the personhood. In the Western tradition clearly personhood has been a primary mover in the development of theological thinking, but elsewhere it was certainly not that big of a concern at all.

Pretty much. But I am also saying this may be more than it sounds as it could have played a big part in developing logical reasoning.

Once again you are confusing modern ideas and principles with caveman mentality. — Sir2u

Well, this is what I am saying you are doing ... so we are kind of stuck aren't we :D

Just because they did not get all of the answers correct does ot mean that they did not try to do the best with the knowledge available. — Sir2u

Yes. But you can agree they did not have demarcated logical principles or scientific method. No Evidence, Facts or concept of Causation in the way we do. I mean, this can been shown with people today to some degree (and even seen on this forum from time to time).

purely fabricated for some small individual purpose or simple pleasure? — Fire Ologist

I would not say 'simple pleasure' as the social interactions between people is highly complex. Maybe it was trivial to some and not to others. We can see how with the advent of civilization that people were curious enough to write about narratives and look beyond the surface. A kind of artistic 'critical analysis', a dissemination of taste, played out publicly.

So I wouldn’t say you need competitiveness or exaggeration to come up with the idea of god. — Fire Ologist

The one-upmanship is just what we do. I am not saying it is I am suggesting maybe it could be a bigger factor than we realise in social groups where Evidence and Facts are absent (in the modern sense) and that the aesthetics of the situation play are much harder role in the development of ideas leading to formal reasoning.

First Question. No. Meaning certainly not like we do. Many animals can complete complex instinctual tasks and solve complex mathematical problems. They, for the most part, cannot abstract anything like we can. That said, some clearly display creativity and cooperation which does often require a degree of 'rationality' ... but that is likely a stretch of the term.

Second question. Yes. They can clearly communicate. If you mean 'language' then, not really. Many animals share common features that humans possess but not share the whole collection.

Third question. Intuitive thinking is part and parcel of rational thinking - in the sense that reason with out emotions is naught.

Because they didn't have analytics. I am not saying people couldn't think only that certain intellectual paradigms had not been reached (such as Evidence and Reason) in any common sense we understand them today. Science is younger than the Church for instance.

Our concepts of cause and effect are modern concepts. It is foolish to assume otherwise given that even in Newtons time people thought his ability to plot out the motion of a ball to be magic.

Simple questions that helped them to survive are analytic. — Sir2u

No they are not. Meaning they are not simple questions they only look simple to us who know better. I imagine you might ask in the same light why would someone not clean their hands before tending to someone else's wound ... because there was no germ theory. Again, another instance of something we see as 'obvious' yet did not arise until long after the rise of the modern sciences.

Personally I have found throughout life that the areas I tend to dismiss end up being the very ones I need to look into at a later date.

My initial interest in philosophy was probably philosophy of mind, epistemology and aesthetics. Recent branching out into political philosophy, economics and ethics has been fun.

I think if you find something or someone uninteresting it is just a case of fining a different viewpoint on whatever it is that appeals to you. I find it hard to read any single work/philosopher in isolation and get way more out of combining opposing positions (philosophers/philosophies) which always keeps things dynamic and interesting.

When it comes to what bothers you or what you find uninteresting it is usually a sign that you need to look at that thing a little harder and give it more credit.

From this vantage, in further considering the divinity ≠ nature worldview, one could potentially go from “my dad can beat up your dad” to “my deity can beat up your deity” to “there is, or else must be, a deity (i.e., a personhood) which is supreme and cannot be beaten by anything other”. A bit tongue in cheek maybe, but psychologically believable all the same, I think. This being in relative keeping with the OP. — javra

Yes. It ALL sounds tongue in cheek :) It is simple yet possibly a key instrument in so many factors including the development of Reason itself perhaps?

Still, this tends to overlook the diametrically opposite worldview of God wherein God = Cosmic Divinity = Nature. — javra

And the latter are not part of the predominant Western tradition as mentioned. Hence why I stated there is no Primary equivalent in Eastern traditions (note: I use the term 'traditions' rather than 'religions'). Brahma is an especially concept that really does not fit into the Western conceptions of God.

I should perhaps have outlined the Monotheistic nature of Western/Middle Eastern traditions shifting dramatically away from pantheisms and birthing the concept of God as an amalgam of 'ideas' under the hood of a singular form.

Still, this tends to overlook the diametrically opposite worldview of God wherein God = Cosmic Divinity = Nature. (A perspective that can be found in many non-Abrahamic worldviews as well as in Abrahamic ones, with at least certain forms of Kabbalism as example of the latter). In this worldview of God = Nature the following childhood paradox of God loses its validity, for it fully translates into: “If Nature is all-powerful, can Nature create a rock that is too heave for Nature to lift?” You’ll maybe note that in this understanding, God = Nature per se holds no personhood and cannot be personified as something that “can lift a rock” (as though the rock were something other than itself). In this latter worldview, then, the gods (again, with a small “g”) maybe could each lift their own share of rocks, but no individual god equates to the cosmic totality of being which in this worldview is pantheistic God/Nature. — javra

This outlines the modern Eastern and Western differences. Underneath though I guess I am suggesting personification or not we are viewing the slow and steady progress of human intellect toying with higher concepts and occasionally becoming seduced by them to greater or lesser degrees, with greater or lesser focus on this or that cosmological concern (life, death, morality, harmony, justice, nature etc.,.).

Note: I have always been more in favour of a plurality of forms than one almighty. But there is certainly power in the application of one ruling concept.

Here is an excerpt from Philosophies of Religion, Timothy Knepper talking about the elements from which Hinduism arose:

By this point in time, there was a flourishing diversity of schools - ones that eventually come to be thought of as "Hindu," as well as ones that are Buddhist and Jain, probably also a materialistic-sceptic school called Carvaka or Lokayata, possibly others, too. The context is one in which these schools engaged in public debate (katha), often before rulers or assmeblies, usually for reward or prestige. For two of these kinds of debates, disputation (jalpa) and refutation (vitanda) the objective was victory. For a third kind of debate called "discussion" (vada), however, the goal was truth.

(Knepper T., 2023), Philosophies of Religions: A Global and Critical Introduction, pp. 24

I think this kind of encapsulates the idea of a kind of Theological Olympics. It is also fairly obvious to note that through Western traditions, although conflict existed, science and philosophy are massively influenced by theological discourse as they are by Confucian ethics wholly separated from the God concept (mono- or pan-). The South Asian scheme seems to sit between the two both geographically and in terms of its attention to ethical concerns and deities.

But I would bet that they did know the concept of "smarter being" and used it to explain things that they could not. — Sir2u

Why would they question things they did not understand. This is certainly a modern analytic assumption that drives at the heart of why I found the idea fascinating (see my previous reply to Outlander if you didn't read already).

Anyway, need to let this one stew for a while and read a quite a bit more. I might have to dip back into Eliade's book on 'Shamanism' too and see if anything links up with all of this. I would say most of the work is ethnographic rather than ethnological though.

Edit: Sorry, must've missed that last sentence. So, perhaps like two stone age military generals talking about say, how they destroyed a village. One says, he killed everything in sight and nothing was alive or unburned for miles. The other responds his endeavor was far greater and the land was so destroyed it was uninhabitable and nothing would grow even to this day, etc. To the point the tale gets passed on and the man and his endeavors (whether factual or not) become something of a folk legend on steroids to the point he's attributed to being not even human but far above? Something like that? — Outlander

Yes. Given that FACTS did not exist in the sense they do today this may be even more plausible than it seems. The lack of EVIDENCE (because it did not strictly exist) would allow for the strength and depth of the narrative to take on a life of its own.

In Eastern traditions there are examples of how ideas competed and manifested with varying styles of debate. I am starting to wonder whether these are off shoots of more 'primitive' forms of competitive displays that led to the advent of more rational thought. Meaning, the stories COMPETED first and were QUESTIONED much further on down the line. Of course, all of this would have changed forever with the birth of writing.

I have been of the mindset for a long time that modern religions arose through the use of mnemonics, and now I am starting to think that maybe, much further back, the intent to preserve information came through and due to comparisons between imagined and real stories. EVIDENCE and FACTS themselves began with imaginative interplay and incremental one-upmanship.

The development of the specific term God is middle eastern/western. There is no primary concept of God (or religion) in the East.

It is an idea had just yesterday so need to look into it more. Not sure how much weight there is to it tbh.

I am well aware of all of this. The thought came to me by thinking about the different approaches/perspectives of religion across the globe. I was basically backtracking in terms of how reason and logic developed in the West compared to the East. The concept of God does seem to latch onto imaginative ideas and dealing with extremes; and it is that that got me thinking about how humans interact and behave. It is a bit of a stretch I know that, but I do not think I have heard of this idea before so threw it out there.

An interesting read and nice OP. However as someone said on here before, it would be logical to assume religion(s) and god(s) came about from the initial belief of animism, which likely came about due to pareidolia. — Outlander

I know this. I am not really here to compete with other theories ... ironically! :D

I guess my main line of thinking here is that humans are kind of new to reason. Applying reasonable explanations by assuming how we see the world is part and parcel of why I started to think like this.

Take for example how God has come to be defined (in Western/Middle Eastern Traditions) as all knowing, all seeing and all powerful. It seems fairly feasible that competing ideas of some act between peoples could result in a gradual process of Good to Better to Best to Ultimate (God). There are fairly clear instances of individuals being given a Deity level status - as mentioned in the East although there is no God in the main tradition of Buddhism it is pretty clear to see that the actual person is given something akin to an Ultimate Status even if not literally conceived of as a God (by most Buddhist sects).

As for animism, I am not really sure that can be called a 'Religion' in the Western sense anymore than Confucianism or Shamanism. The term Religion doe snot translate into Eastern languages really. They adopted the Western concept of Religion - through the God concept. The terms shukyo (Japanese) and zongjiao (Chinese) were created to apply to Western religious traditions. That said, undoubtedly many Eastern traditions have adopted the God concept in part.

Going back to the Middle East it is fairly apparent that cities had traditions that developed into God concepts too. This plays into the competitive concept of state versus state but in a more direct and concrete fashion. By this stage though we are probably way, way past the kind of incremental steps I am talking about that arose through some form of exaggeration for entertainments sake.

I was thinking slowly and incrementally.

At some point someone would talk about someone with an ability to do something better than anyone else and this concept over time - tied in with storytelling - could develop either a concept of a being powerful in several areas or, with more Eastern thought, a concept of a unifying energy.

It is more or less our seeming natural propensity to imagine beyond the limits of our immediate scope and experience that I am talking about and that this is an advantageous attribute if we wish to impress others. Given that weaving a complex and compelling story in prehistory would have similar effects to evidential facts today I think there is weight to this general lien of thinking.

By this I mean that in modernity people are - in general - accustomed to ideas of Truth and Facts whereas prior to the more substantial development of our rational schemes I think the weight of a story would be as compelling then as Fact and Truths are today in term of believability and general acceptance of a world view.

Do you see what I mean? It sounds like a bit of a simplistic conception at first, but given that we are kind of closed off in our own paradigm of modernity it does take a little bit of bracketing to attempt to conceive of a world where rational thought and concrete ideas of cause and effect had no place in the day-to-day living of human social groups.

You used to be able to find free pdf for the edition I have a few years back. I would download the one I pointed out and just skim through. Don't worry about understanding it too much, once you read through more and more you get accustomed to the jargon.

The Gazzaniga one's are particularly good. I think I still have studies printed out somewhere on the section of Language comparing human capacities with various other animals. It was pretty cool!

Anyway, his pop science is probably a good way in too. I would recommend Damasio too as they are likely quite different perspectives - I personally find Gazzaniga's work more rigid.

Also, check out these too:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGtZek7RPts&t=1695s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilrelFkDYls

I honestly do not know who you are talking to or what you are talking about in some of your replies.

It probably makes sense in your head but that is precisely where it has stayed. If you want to back track over the past couple of exchanges and remedy it I will continue.

:up: I have the book, will look tomorrow. Thanks

The reason our little notes on perception always center around red is that it's associated with a close to universal feeling: it's hot. Red comes from mind meeting world. — frank

Another 'theory' is that we relate oranges and reds to ripe fruit. I have no idea how far this has been tested though. On the surface it seems like a reasonable assumption ... but they can be wrong of course.

Where does Goldman Sachs' annual profit come from? — Vera Mont

What has that got to do with:

The only reason people need to work as hard as they do is produce surplus.
— Vera Mont

This is simply wrong. Unless you are making a clear distinction between 'work people enjoy' as 'non-work' and 'work people don't enjoy' as 'work'. I work fairly hard at my job and study hard too. This idea of 'surplus' sounds like a Marxist ideology rearing its head? — I like sushi

?

No, I can't; I see a bloody great pit to fall into, and a long slow painful climb out again. — Vera Mont

And how is this not a fatalistic attitude? And this:

For the few years or decades they stay in effect, before the next reactionary administration or regime overturns them. See US Supreme Court decisions on voting rights and reproductive rights. — Vera Mont

?

I have no revolutionary schemes. — Vera Mont

I never said you did nor suggested it. I actually agreed with you.

Which passage? I read that book a couple of years ago.

The only reason people need to work as hard as they do is produce surplus. — Vera Mont

This is simply wrong. Unless you are making a clear distinction between 'work people enjoy' as 'non-work' and 'work people don't enjoy' as 'work'. I work fairly hard at my job and study hard too. This idea of 'surplus' sounds like a Marxist ideology rearing its head?

... against determined opposition, even from the people it would most benefit... You still can't get there from here, except by climbing over a mountain of rubble. — Vera Mont

Surely you can see the problem with these kinds of views and a slippery slope.

Any kind of 'for your own good' attitude aimed at population groups is an inherently bad idea. On top of that this idea of societal collapse vision is one step away from causing heaps of rubble as it was inevitable anyway (hence why I pointed out the danger of fatalistic attitudes previously).

The best they can do ... is introduce minor local improvements. Under the current global system with its entrenched rules, procedures and assumptions, no major change can be made to the structural or economic organization of any society. — Vera Mont

I think it can be quite surprising how minor changes can have a huge impact. The biggest problem with revolutionary schemes is that they are large in scope. I do agree that small minor improvements are the best way forward, but I am clearly more optimistic than you regrading their potential overall impact on society at large. Within the space of a couple of decades we've seen smart phones and apps severely change the face of communications and media distribution ... the hard part is relieving the hiccups! :)

This looks cool!: https://epdf.pub/the-cognitive-neuroscience-of-mind-a-tribute-to-michael-s-gazzaniga.html

The ones I have on my shelf are called Principles of Neuroscience and The Cognitive Neurosciences III (the later by Gazzaniga and is a selection of studies split into specific areas of research) There will be newer editions now I am sure!

What about if there are people who do not want to work or do anything. Are they allowed to receive the same for free that others work hard for? Do you really think there would be no resentment by those working hard everyday and getting basically the same as those not working hard or is it that you think those in change of businesses will simply pay people more in order to gain employees? Will this all just magically balance out in your mind without any hiccups?

Other than to say some people are greedy and so they should be forced to give up their wealth I am not really seeing much follow through with how you expect this would go smoothly or otherwise if governments implemented this scheme.

I am imagining we are talking about the basic needs for living here - which is costly. Do you think it is likely a significant number of people scrapping by would simply stop working? Would unemployment rise? What steps would be taken to ease the transition or do you imagine there would be no real needs for a safety net?

I can’t imagine that goal would mean more freedom to the people. — Igitur

You are also assuming people WANT more freedom or that an equal amount of freedom is GOOD for them. Maybe?

I think Stanford falls down in areas like this. Leave it to anthropological studies to decide! Let the lawyer and legislators quibble over justice and that kind of nonsense :D

Culture is what animals (humans) do when they are together. It is our common understanding and/or regulatory scheme (axis mundi).

The best definition I have seen is from Geertz (even though it is actually a definition of religion) as it sums up humanity pretty darn well ;)

Well, it could be argued that so-called 'culture wars' have been happening since time immemorial. — Amity

I think it is just called Culture ;)

In my opinion, the only thing holding a utopian society back the actual viability, which primarily depends on perfect individuals. — Igitur

And those who dictate who is 'perfect' bring in the next totalitarian rule ... no thanks!

Is there enough air for everyone to breathe? Is there enough clean water for everyone to drink and wash in? Is there enough food for everyone to be nourished? Is there enough shelter for everyone to be warm and dry? I don't see the problem -- except that a few people take a hundred or thousand or million times as much as they need, piss in the pool, and leave the other people to fight over whatever's left. — Vera Mont

How do you think that would actually go down? Do you believe everyone would see this as fair and just?

Pluralism for me please!

Neuroscience is HARD science insofar as it can be backed up by medical evidence. However, there is a lot to be learned at this stage, especially as each person is unique. — Jack Cummins

This is a common misconception. A great deal can be elicited from a comparatively small sample. I know this because an actual practicing researcher in neuroscience from Italy told me this. Granted, when it comes to medication and such all pharma is doing is basically carpet-bombing the brain it is far, far away from laser-guided missiles AND even then there is the issue of negative feedback (eg. drugs for depression).

This means that there is a complex interaction between brain chemicals and human interpretation of experiences. So, understanding human will and choice involves both science of the brain and a person's meanings. The latter is harder to formulate into science. The most positive way forward would involve quantitative and qualitative research, possibly involving the psychological therapies as well as forms of psychoactive medication. — Jack Cummins

It is not simply HARDER it is not science. I do not think taking psychoactive drugs will reveal much about will or choice and I am unsure why you even suggest that they would? Psychology is a SOFT science and is too poorly grounded in empiricism - yet still clings to it. I prefer the phenomenological approach (which I discovered reading cognitive neuroscience textbooks).

Speculation is fun, but if you want to get serious you have to get your hands dirty and commit to the grind ;)

It is better that seeking psychiatric help! Anything that comes before medication should be recommended.

In today's world many people do not have the social outlets they need to confront personal issues. Forms of basic therapy are more or less a means of mental maintenance than treatments of disorders.

All that said simply not using social media so much would help SO many people out - especially teenagers!