Confusion at the tower of babble.

What is the truth behind the stories of the tower of babble and the confusion of man? For many generations this has been confused into thinking this was an introduction of several languages across the globe of mankind. This however is untruthful. We’ve just about mastered translations between one language to another, but this had done nothing to elevate the confusion of the masses.

Have you ever had conversations with other people and you realize you might as well be talking to a wall? Maybe you and another person have had a conversation and you both thought you were talking about the same thing, but something just didn’t seem right?

This is because the confusion of mankind was on a consciousness level. I’m not talking about intelligence here. I speaking about how we perceive and retrieve and conceive consciousness data, (thoughts). This is the confusion that took place so many thousand years ago.

Do you understand what I’m talking about?

yeah yeah, I understand...

The world is about to end...

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]

I know the theory is a good one. I can talk about it equally with with theologians or cognitive scientists. Why does no one ever seem to want to touch this? It strains belief that no one wants to even pour derision on the idea. How can it possibly be uninteresting to anyone? I suppose if I said "Jesus was a caveman" then that would get a rise out of folks. Hello? Is there anybody out there....?

At the end of the day, I suppose that religion is attractive to people because its job is mystification. Science is attractive to people because it demystifies. Putting them together makes something that is difficult to accept for either group.

Good.

[edit on 7/8/2008 by bigbert81]