History of Human Civilization - Facts 4 Religious/Political/Social/Cultural Arguments

[Dante]

History of Human Civilization - Facts 4 Religious/Political/Social/Cultural Arguments
History of Human Civilization - Most Arguments Need Facts

[youtube]EwPh4dHDmx0[/youtube]

It is easier to understand where people are in error in their beliefs, if not easier to defeat their arguments (because of how human mind's work), if you know a few basic facts.

Dante

dD

 

[Dante]

Campbell is speaking about the historical record of cultural mythology, and religion.

I always found Campbell's writings and lectures fascinating, because for me they expose some of the cultural and historical past I believe the Abrahamic religious sects of today, and some of the ideological sects today would love us to forget. All the arguments about traditional this or that, the battles over who owns the moral high ground, and whose god supposedly created our universe ... why we have societies and laws and governments...

Most of these types of arguments lack a context of where our cultures and traditions actually sprang from and how...the how, what, where and why of it all.

Without the religious and philosophical nonsense that pushes economic and political theories onto us as rational and reasonable, to be taken as givens...you heard them all before...god given rights, natural rights, etc...most of those arguments seem just plain silly and ignorant when put into a true historical context. They fall apart. Facts are powerful, even when ignored by seemly educated and intelligent people.

The historical record going back to before civilization as we understand it existed, helps point us to the how, what, where and why of western civilization. It helps explain world civilization and the history of mankind, of life as we understand it.

History is powerful. If you follow the historical records as laid out by people with a deep yearning to understand, people like Joseph Campbell, you will find life more understandable. You may not like what you understand, what you believe will most likely be challenged, but it will free you.

 

[Dante]

Western Civilization : Near East Up to about 10,000 bc, People are all foraging nomads; hunters, and root and vegetable gatherers...domestication of food sources starts new economic realities, new government entities, societal structures..

"where you have herders the male is the important person" "he is the one rounding up the animals and killing the animals...you have a warrior accent"

Sargon of Akkad, also known as Sargon the Great "the Great King" (Akkadian Šarru-kīnu, meaning "the true king" or "the king is legitimate"),[1] was a Semitic Akkadian emperor famous for his conquest of the Sumerian city-states in the 23rd and 22nd centuries BC. The founder of the Dynasty of Akkad, Sargon reigned during the last quarter of the third millennium BC. He became a prominent member of the royal court of Kish, killing the king and usurping his throne before embarking on the quest to conquer Mesopotamia. He was originally referred to as Sargon I until records concerning an Assyrian king also named Sargon (now usually referred to as Sargon I) were unearthed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargon_of_Akkad

 

[Dante]

[youtube]FnPix6cunzo[/youtube]

Mathematical Mythologies

Cities/Civilization/Writing

Professional class recording observations of the heavens

 

[legaleagle_45]

History of Human Civilization -

Have you ever read "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn?

 

[legaleagle_45]

Western Civilization : Near East Up to about 10,000 bc, People are all foraging nomads; hunters, and root and vegetable gatherers...domestication of food sources starts new economic realities, new government entities, societal structures..

I would not consider the domestication of animals to be a significant shift in culture from the nomadic hunting gathering lifestyle. I think Campbell did not think that deliniation out too well. The primary change in culture was with the advent of agriculture and the corresponding rise of permanent settlements... giving rise to a distinct need for property laws and some form of record keeping. Tending flocks from one area to another is not all that different than hunting except that your quarry is easier to find.

 

[Dante]

History of Human Civilization

Have you ever read "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn?

Nope. Know of it. What is interesting is that a few cultures/people/civilizations around the world are evolving in similar ways. Some just disappear. But western civilization, we know out roots. Today we conveniently pick and choose what we ant to use and ignore when making arguments about who we are, where we came from...

 

[legaleagle_45]

you heard them all before...god given rights, natural rights, etc...most of those arguments seem just plain silly and ignorant when put into a true historical context.

Natural law theory does not rely upon the existence of God or the non existence of God. It fits just as well into a Darwinian Universe and it replaced a political philosophy which did rely upon God, to wit, the Devine right of Kings.

The problem is that many people who denigrate natural law theory do not understand natural law theory and certainly have never read Hobbes' Leviathan or Locke's 2nd Treatise, let alone Grotious or Pufendorf or Rousseau. It is especially disheartening to see liberals trash these ideas, since they form they very roots of liberal political thought.

 

[legaleagle_45]

History of Human Civilization

Have you ever read "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn?

Nope. Know of it. What is interesting is that a few cultures/people/civilizations around the world are evolving in similar ways. Some just disappear. But western civilization, we know out roots. Today we conveniently pick and choose what we ant to use and ignore when making arguments about who we are, where we came from...

It is an interesting read and allows you to view humanity from a different perspective.

 

[Dante]

Western Civilization : Near East Up to about 10,000 bc, People are all foraging nomads; hunters, and root and vegetable gatherers...domestication of food sources starts new economic realities, new government entities, societal structures..

I would not consider the domestication of animals to be a significant shift in culture from the nomadic hunting gathering lifestyle. I think Campbell did not think that deliniation out too well. The primary change in culture was with the advent of agriculture and the corresponding rise of permanent settlements... giving rise to a distinct need for property laws and some form of record keeping. Tending flocks from one area to another is not all that different than hunting except that your quarry is easier to find.

Campbell has laid it all out. His writings are based on historical finds. Do you misinterpret what he actually says about domestication of food sources'? The idea that Campbell did not think something out well, is hilarious. He was on the top of his field for so many decades. The man did nothing but spend time thinking things out.

Campbell has spoken and written about the peoples/societies in the Near East (and the Levant) who are considered here to be the forebears of our Western Society. Around 10,000 bc, they were foraging nomads who changed. He speaks of hunters and gathers of roots and vegetables who developed domestication of food sources which leads to agricultural societies and herders of domesticated animals in the Near East.

River lands and high mountainous fertile regions: Raise crops: Agricultural societies: The record shows these societies to be a mostly female based in their mythology...mother Earth, Goddesses... They develop what we would call cities

Broad Grazing lands: Herding societies: The record shows these to be male based in their mythologies and warrior like, as they kill for survival.

Domestication of food sources happens and we see agriculture and herding. Agricultural societies start developing around centers of organization

3 main groups of people: Agriculture based people. Then we have the two herders who are Arabian desert, the Semitic people, and the Indo European cultures. They coming into contact with the agricultural peoples. Walls for protection from warrior herders, start appearing around settlements/cities.



Two things: Agriculture and domestication of animals

 

[Dante]

Have you ever read "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn?

Nope. Know of it. What is interesting is that a few cultures/people/civilizations around the world are evolving in similar ways. Some just disappear. But western civilization, we know out roots. Today we conveniently pick and choose what we ant to use and ignore when making arguments about who we are, where we came from...

It is an interesting read and allows you to view humanity from a different perspective.

I have viewed humankind and life from different perspectives. It is how I got into Christian and Eastern Mysticism. But I am dealing more with facts more than perspective here.

but thank you. I will revisit that tome

 

[Dante]

you heard them all before...god given rights, natural rights, etc...most of those arguments seem just plain silly and ignorant when put into a true historical context.

Natural law theory does not rely upon the existence of God or the non existence of God. It fits just as well into a Darwinian Universe and it replaced a political philosophy which did rely upon God, to wit, the Devine right of Kings.

The problem is that many people who denigrate natural law theory do not understand natural law theory and certainly have never read Hobbes' Leviathan or Locke's 2nd Treatise, let alone Grotious or Pufendorf or Rousseau. It is especially disheartening to see liberals trash these ideas, since they form they very roots of liberal political thought.

Natural Law theories demand certain precepts about how man developed and evolved. Most of the precepts Ive seen put forth are debunked by advances in science and understanding since the days of those you adore and put on pedestals. They all have clay feet

Being a liberal, I do not trash ideas so much as I move on from outdated ones.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Campbell has laid it all out. His writings are based on historical finds. Do you misinterpret what he actually says about domestication of food sources'? The idea that Campbell did not think something out well, is hilarious. He was on the top of his field for so many decades. The man did nothing but spend time thinking things out. .

Nope, I think he was probably just a bit rushed in front of the camera.... as I said, the lifestyle of herders was not significantly different from hunter gatherer. Agriculture changed everything... and significantly.

Re female myths vs male myths... Ever read up on what comparative cultural anthropoligist Margaret Mead had to say on this subject? Interesting observation about the male ego being based upon deep seated insecurities about their own value.

Nomadic and herding societies tend to be more apt to adopt a monotheistic religion than a society which is based upon agriculture.... need the rain and the sun and the seasons for agriculture... not so much with herding.

 

[Dante]

Campbell has laid it all out. His writings are based on historical finds. Do you misinterpret what he actually says about domestication of food sources'? The idea that Campbell did not think something out well, is hilarious. He was on the top of his field for so many decades. The man did nothing but spend time thinking things out. .

Nope, I think he was probably just a bit rushed in front of the camera.... as I said, the lifestyle of herders was not significantly different from hunter gatherer. Agriculture changed everything... and significantly.

Re female myths vs male myths... Ever read up on what comparative cultural anthropoligist Margaret Mead had to say on this subject? Interesting observation about the male ego being based upon deep seated insecurities about their own value.

Nomadic and herding societies tend to be more apt to adopt a monotheistic religion than a society which is based upon agriculture.... need the rain and the sun and the seasons for agriculture... not so much with herding.

Campbell rushed in front of camera? Hardly. He says it again

The domestication of animals and then the formation of cities and writing



Campbell speaking of the transformation of peoples/societies and their mythologies

 

[legaleagle_45]

Campbell has laid it all out. His writings are based on historical finds. Do you misinterpret what he actually says about domestication of food sources'? The idea that Campbell did not think something out well, is hilarious. He was on the top of his field for so many decades. The man did nothing but spend time thinking things out. .

Nope, I think he was probably just a bit rushed in front of the camera.... as I said, the lifestyle of herders was not significantly different from hunter gatherer. Agriculture changed everything... and significantly.

Re female myths vs male myths... Ever read up on what comparative cultural anthropoligist Margaret Mead had to say on this subject? Interesting observation about the male ego being based upon deep seated insecurities about their own value.

Nomadic and herding societies tend to be more apt to adopt a monotheistic religion than a society which is based upon agriculture.... need the rain and the sun and the seasons for agriculture... not so much with herding.

Campbell rushed in front of camera? Hardly. He says it again

The domestication of animals and then the formation of cities and writing

I wil say it again. the domestication of animals by itself did not significantly alter human society. Agriculture did significantly alter human society. That those who practiced agriculture also practiced the domestication of animals is perhaps part of the problem I am having with what Campbell is stating.

The very first animal that was domesticated was the dog. The dog was was not our food supply (nope, I am not going to make a Korean Restraunt joke). The dog was our hunting buddy.

 

[Dante]

[MENTION=43021]legaleagle_45[/MENTION]

Campbell mentions the nomadic foraging peoples, hunters and gathers of roots and vegetables. The hunters are nomadic foragers of animals. I think I see where you are stuck. Foraging - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nomadic foragers developed domestication of food sources: foragers of roots and vegetables developed agriculture, and foragers of animals developed domesticated animals.

legaleagle_45 "I would not consider the domestication of animals to be a significant shift in culture from the nomadic hunting gathering lifestyle"

The domestication of animals allows for a huge change. The foraging hunters become herders.

 

[Dante]

Nope, I think he was probably just a bit rushed in front of the camera.... as I said, the lifestyle of herders was not significantly different from hunter gatherer. Agriculture changed everything... and significantly.

Re female myths vs male myths... Ever read up on what comparative cultural anthropoligist Margaret Mead had to say on this subject? Interesting observation about the male ego being based upon deep seated insecurities about their own value.

Nomadic and herding societies tend to be more apt to adopt a monotheistic religion than a society which is based upon agriculture.... need the rain and the sun and the seasons for agriculture... not so much with herding.

Campbell rushed in front of camera? Hardly. He says it again

The domestication of animals and then the formation of cities and writing

I wil say it again. the domestication of animals by itself did not significantly alter human society. Agriculture did significantly alter human society. That those who practiced agriculture also practiced the domestication of animals is perhaps part of the problem I am having with what Campbell is stating.

The very first animal that was domesticated was the dog. The dog was was not our food supply (nope, I am not going to make a Korean Restraunt joke). The dog was our hunting buddy.

Campbell is speaking of the people in the Near East: Campbell "The domestication of animals was the first really, formidable and basic transformation, the second was the founding of cities and the invention of writing"

In the Near East it did. I say in other areas it did. This is what the historical record shows. It is NOT a matter of perspective. Archeological finds, bear this out

 

[Dante]

quote: "Most hunter gatherers could not easily store food for long due to their migratory lifestyle."

 

[legaleagle_45]

you heard them all before...god given rights, natural rights, etc...most of those arguments seem just plain silly and ignorant when put into a true historical context.

Natural law theory does not rely upon the existence of God or the non existence of God. It fits just as well into a Darwinian Universe and it replaced a political philosophy which did rely upon God, to wit, the Devine right of Kings.

The problem is that many people who denigrate natural law theory do not understand natural law theory and certainly have never read Hobbes' Leviathan or Locke's 2nd Treatise, let alone Grotious or Pufendorf or Rousseau. It is especially disheartening to see liberals trash these ideas, since they form they very roots of liberal political thought.

Natural Law theories demand certain precepts about how man developed and evolved. Most of the precepts Ive seen put forth are debunked by advances in science and understanding since the days of those you adore and put on pedestals. They all have clay feet

Being a liberal, I do not trash ideas so much as I move on from outdated ones.

Natural law theory states that anything we could do in nature is a "natural right". When we come together to form a society we form a social compact whereby we give up certain natural rights to enjoy the protections which society offers.

However, there are certain things which can not be bargained away in the social compact, because we would not be able to obey any law forbidding them even if whe tried... thus these things are called unalienable natural rights and it relies upon the fact that there are things that make us what we are. We need to breathe, we need to eat, we think, etc.

A law which tried to cut down on greenhouse emissions by making it unlawfull to breathe on Tuesdays and Thursdays not only would not be obeyed, it could not be obeyed, even if you wanted to.

People are thinking creatures and will believe what they believe. If a law was passed which required you to believe that the sky is lime gree in color, you might pretend it is, but deep down you will still believe the sky is blue.

Under this line of thought, unalienable rights are those biological and instinctual behaviors which define what we are... and as I taught my students... a bear has a natural right to shit in the woods. One problem area for many people is that unalienable natural rights can and are violated by governments. That does not mean that they are not unalienable... it just means that the governement violated your natural rights. Hitler violated the Natural Rights of Jews, because he made it unlawful to be what they were. They could not change themselves to comply with the dictates of the law reagardless of how hard they tried.

From unalienable rights we proceed to fundamental rights or auxillary rights as Blackstone called them. These are closely related to unalienable rights and serve to protect preserve and enhance an underlying unalienable right. The 1st amend primarily protects auxillary rights which protects the underlying unalienable right of freedom of conscience. The 2nd amend primarily protects an underlying unalienble right to self defense...the basic insictual fight or flight response... if someone were to throw water in your face you will blink your eyes, even if a law said that you could not.

 

[Dante]

Natural law theory does not rely upon the existence of God or the non existence of God. It fits just as well into a Darwinian Universe and it replaced a political philosophy which did rely upon God, to wit, the Devine right of Kings.

The problem is that many people who denigrate natural law theory do not understand natural law theory and certainly have never read Hobbes' Leviathan or Locke's 2nd Treatise, let alone Grotious or Pufendorf or Rousseau. It is especially disheartening to see liberals trash these ideas, since they form they very roots of liberal political thought.

Natural Law theories demand certain precepts about how man developed and evolved. Most of the precepts Ive seen put forth are debunked by advances in science and understanding since the days of those you adore and put on pedestals. They all have clay feet

Being a liberal, I do not trash ideas so much as I move on from outdated ones.

Natural law theory states that anything we could do in nature is a "natural right". When we come together to form a society we form a social compact whereby we give up certain natural rights to enjoy the protections which society offers.

However, there are certain things which can not be bargained away in the social compact, because we would not be able to obey any law forbidding them even if whe tried... thus these things are called unalienable natural rights and it relies upon the fact that there are things that make us what we are. We need to breathe, we need to eat, we think, etc.

A law which tried to cut down on greenhouse emissions by making it unlawfull to breathe on Tuesdays and Thursdays not only would not be obeyed, it could not be obeyed, even if you wanted to.

People are thinking creatures and will believe what they believe. If a law was passed which required you to believe that the sky is lime gree in color, you might pretend it is, but deep down you will still believe the sky is blue.

Under this line of thought, unalienable rights are those biological and instinctual behaviors which define what we are... and as I taught my students... a bear has a natural right to shit in the woods. One problem area for many people is that unalienable natural rights can and are violated by governments. That does not mean that they are not unalienable... it just means that the governement violated your natural rights. Hitler violated the Natural Rights of Jews, because he made it unlawful to be what they were. They could not change themselves to comply with the dictates of the law reagardless of how hard they tried.

From unalienable rights we proceed to fundamental rights or auxillary rights as Blackstone called them. These are closely related to unalienable rights and serve to protect preserve and enhance an underlying unalienable right. The 1st amend primarily protects auxillary rights which protects the underlying unalienable right of freedom of conscience. The 2nd amend primarily protects an underlying unalienble right to self defense...the basic insictual fight or flight response... if someone were to throw water in your face you will blink your eyes, even if a law said that you could not.

Natural law theory can state anything it wants. You can say it states one thing and other who believe the theory say it states something else. Go fiigure

Unalienable natural rights are a man made construct, just like the Easter Bunny. What makes us what we are as mankind? I say self awareness, consciousness, the ability to form abstract concepts like Unalienable natural rights. The only thing we have to do as a living being is take a breath and die. The brain is not fully formed when men are born. The life of man is dependent upon outside support to live beyond birth. Man is born totally dependent on other human beings

Your 'greenhouse emissions' thing is as as is your 'the sky is lime green in color' analogies/nonsense/arguments/examples

A bear does NOT have a Right, natural or unnatural, to shit in the woods. A Bear shits wherever it is because of a bodily function, not because it is exercising a right. I do hope your students were much smarter than you gave them credit for.

Did Hitler and the Nazis make it unlawful to be Jewish? No, they did not.

Freedom of conscience? I like reading novels too

Your rantings about what the Bill of Rights is about are frighteningly ignorant and imbecilic. And I am being kind here.