reply to post by Incarnated
I think it's "Babel", actually.
I have *an* understanding. I keep hitting this theory of mine hard, but the framework seems to offer answers to many, many questions and is
potentially a point of synthesis and syncretism of intellectual and religious thought. I just had to put that out there because some of you might
wonder why I keep pounding some of the same ideas.
Neanderthal and Cro-magnon did, in fact, interbreed. Neanderthal actually had a larger brain, and his brain function was arranged differently than
modern humans... unless you bring in autism and Asperger syndrome. Neanderthal had deep memory, "expert knowledge" (as a term to denote certain
cognitive capacities similar to our own), language, and the capacity for symbolic thought. What he didn't have was the forebrain capacity of
Cro-magnon, which we still have today. Neanderthal didn't have the ability to hold so many and varied items in short term memory at one time, and
this has repercussions on how we use language. Some interesting physical features of Neanderthal have been passed down to some of us. Red or fair
hair. Green or blue eyes. White skin. Curiously, they also had larger eyes, and a pronounced occipital bun, which made the back of their skulls stand
out in sort of a cone. Not all inheritors of the cognitive traits share the physical traits such as white skin or non-brown eyes. Different
populations have selectively bred out (via sexual selection) most of the Neanderthal physical traits. But not all cognitive traits.
The original offspring of the pairing between moderns and Neanderthal were, in fact, physically larger than either parent species. For another example
of this, and an explanation of why this happens, look up "liger" at Wikipedia. They were the Nephilim. These hybrids also benefited from what has
been referred to as "hybrid vigor". They got the best cognitive faculties of both parents. And what was that, exactly? Neanderthal's use of
language was entirely different from our own, as was were the evolutionary pressures that shaped his social disposition and his mind. What has been
mistaken for evidence of "primitiveness" in him has been the fact that he didn't seem to produce jewelry and status signifying ornamentation the
way "our" ancestors did.
The Neanderthal concept of "self" was not the same as the modern conception. To Neanderthal, "self" was known to be distributed among the group.
It might help to understand this by taking a closer look at how our concept of self evolved, first.
In primates, cognitive scientists have theorized that one of the great leaps made prior to language was the ability for an ape to run a mental
simulation in abstract "mindspace" of other apes and what they might do under certain circumstances. "If I show physical affection for the alpha
male in front of the alpha female, the alpha female will attack me." The ability to deceive for strategic gain, to manage strategic alliances and
keep track of sexual politics, and the ability to plan ahead all have roots in this evolutionary jump. One of the byproducts of this mental
arrangement however, is that you don't only have the ability to run a simulation of other primates, but also a simulation of your self. Imagine
yourself getting up to grab a cold one from the fridge right now. Aahh. Refreshing, isn't it. Yes, but it isn't easy to turn this simulation off. In
fact, just look around you. This fetishization of the self is what drives our economies! Are your teeth white enough? Do you drive the right car? Are
you worth the air you breathe? These questions and their answers are all contingent on our perceived separation of one from another. This persistent
delusion that we are separate and alone comes from the fact that we are mistaking the imagined self for the actual self. The Genesis story refers to
this as "the Fall".
Back to Neanderthal. His use of language was not used to build elaborate tales about himself versus others, or to construct a narrative of the
"self" such that others might judge his social rank. He also didn't make status-significant artifacts because individual status was not important
to him. He shared a very special faculty that exists in many of us today, though it lays dormant. Mystics strive to attain the experience of it. A
small percentage of people who go through secret society initiations are awakened to it. Some people experience it spontaneously under extreme duress.
It is a direct experience of a unifying consciousness that is not limited to the individual, but which coordinates the activities of individuals from
"on high". It is the direct experiential "we are all one" awareness. It's modern manifestations are seen here and there. Remote Viewing. UFOs. In
the Bible you may have seen it referred to as "The Morning Star", Lucifer, and Christ.
The confusion of consciousness in modern humans is the struggle for balance between these competing cognitive styles. Our language (all languages used
by the inheritors of this legacy) is actually two languages superimposed one atop the other. A portion of our awareness is dedicated to "network"
computation, and another to "node". The distribution of cognitive styles is not homogenous:
"Apparently, in contrast to autistic people who have limited awareness of other minds, schizophrenics are drowning in otherness, and are ‘other’
even to themselves. In fact the social character of reflective consciousness should have been recognised in 1998, when Gallese reported the discovery
of ‘mirror neurones’ and Milner and Goodale demonstrated that ego-centric perceptions are unconscious, whereas universalized (public and
shareable) perceptions are conscious. All these findings are consistent with social mirror theory, which holds that mirrors in the mind depend on
mirrors in society (Dilthey, 1883–1911; Baldwin, 1894; Cooley, 1902; Mead, 1934)."
[edit on 8-7-2008 by applebiter]
[edit on 8-7-2008 by applebiter]