Kevin's Watch

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2012 2:14 pm**

Is a manifestation board anything like a Deck of Dragons?!?!?

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2012 4:03 pm**

Fist and Faith wrote:It seems to me you're adding a step. Why not think the literal fact that, observably, every person is created/born from other people leads to the literal belief in an Adam/Eve/Creator? Why would humanity have begun its existence with the complexities you're talking about, instead of interpreting things literally? And if they did, why would the village witch have been so feared? I don't get the impression that villagers feared her evil-eye for metaphorical reasons. They thought she would turn them into a newt.

Because between the literal fact of where babies come from, and the fact-of-belief "there must have been" is the STORY. And people are innately aware of this, it is part and parcel of our mental function. It isn't an "extra step," it is how our brains function. The "complexity" I was talking about is how we use/negotiate between metaphor and literal. But the existence of, and the gap between is an integral/necessary aspect of intelligence as we know it...and both the gap and awareness of the gap predates humans, though simpler/more primitive.
I think people severely underestimate the "primitives" understanding of story as story and overestimate belief in the "evil-eye" as literal "black magic" or whatever.
Though, as someone....Ali?...roughly said, there are always some who are more literal-minded, some less so. [though usually even the most literal minded are more than willing to recognize other peoples myths as stories. Not so much for their own.]

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2012 4:47 pm**

I either don't understand what you're saying, or I disagree. I can't see how we could have begun as beings of such great understanding of ourselves that we'd start off with stories of all these things that we knew were actually metaphors of out own fears, desires, loves, etc, then come to be a species that largely believes these stories, or the stories that replaced the originals, are fact. That means we're becoming more ignorant of ourselves. More afraid of the dark.

I also wonder how many of the more literal minded people are willing to recognize the myths of others as stories, and how many of them simply say those are false beliefs.

What do you mean about awareness of the gap predating humans? What species was aware of it, and how do we know?

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2012 6:44 pm**

Fist and Faith wrote:I either don't understand what you're saying, or I disagree. I can't see how we could have begun as beings of such great understanding of ourselves that we'd start off with stories of all these things that we knew were actually metaphors of out own fears, desires, loves, etc, then come to be a species that largely believes these stories, or the stories that replaced the originals, are fact. That means we're becoming more ignorant of ourselves. More afraid of the dark.

I also wonder how many of the more literal minded people are willing to recognize the myths of others as stories, and how many of them simply say those are false beliefs.

What do you mean about awareness of the gap predating humans? What species was aware of it, and how do we know?

We've always done both.
And in some ways we ARE becoming more ignorant of ourselves [in other ways the opposite]. In tons of ways we are more afraid of the dark. Some of that is cuz we know more of what might be hidden there...but some of it is darkness we've created, and some of it is that we are insecure, if not outright incompetent, in our own bodies and minds and how they fit/function in the world.

That's a good point...there are many who consider other's beliefs simply false...it's a fine, though interesting distinction.

On the gap, some other primates and mammals can distinguish...and more importantly connect...things and representations of things.

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2012 6:58 pm**

On the last point, I think we're talking about two different things. It's one thing to understand that a drawing/object/whatever represents something else. Possibly something not present. Even something that does not exist (or no longer exists) in physical form. But that's not the same as knowing that the thing represented is actually a metaphor for some part of the human psyche. Knowing a statue represents the death god of your religion doesn't mean you know that that death god is also a representation - of our fear of death, our whatever. That makes the statue a two-generation representation. As opposed to a picture of the Grand Canyon, which represents the Grand Canyon, and that's as far as it goes.

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:40 pm**

Fist and Faith wrote:Is a manifestation board anything like a Deck of Dragons?!?!?

No.

www.indiesunlimited.com/2012/10/20/gett ... -you-want/

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2012 11:27 pm**

Fist and Faith wrote:On the last point, I think we're talking about two different things. It's one thing to understand that a drawing/object/whatever represents something else. Possibly something not present. Even something that does not exist (or no longer exists) in physical form. But that's not the same as knowing that the thing represented is actually a metaphor for some part of the human psyche. Knowing a statue represents the death god of your religion doesn't mean you know that that death god is also a representation - of our fear of death, our whatever. That makes the statue a two-generation representation. As opposed to a picture of the Grand Canyon, which represents the Grand Canyon, and that's as far as it goes.

I'm with you on this one, Fist. Much and all as I enjoy Vraith's theorising this is a step too far for me. I'm not saying that there mightn't often be one or two people in the power positions who'd possibly have an inkling but the rest, I think it's very unlikely. (And that's not to denigrate the people of the past or to raise up the people of the present.)

Maybe I haven't read enough anthropolgy but, for me, it's connected with the awareness of the unconscious. Symbols etc. are related to projections, i.e. the unconscious seen in the exterior world. IMO, it's not possible to know the true source of a symbol's power without knowing about the unconscious at which point you are a 'modern'. I think that much of the witches' and shamans' power came from an intuitive understanding of the unconscious (the shaman's Underworld journey is a good example). But the idea that the general populous were aware of it seems unlikely.

Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart is a good example of a fictional depiction of a worldview destroyed by another worldview's trampling on and falsifying of core beliefs. I don't think that a culture can fall apart if it's aware of it's unconscious metaphorical basis. It may change and adapt but, IMO, it will not completely collapse.

u.

Posted: **Wed Oct 24, 2012 1:29 am**

ussusimiel wrote:
Fist and Faith wrote:On the last point, I think we're talking about two different things. It's one thing to understand that a drawing/object/whatever represents something else. Possibly something not present. Even something that does not exist (or no longer exists) in physical form. But that's not the same as knowing that the thing represented is actually a metaphor for some part of the human psyche. Knowing a statue represents the death god of your religion doesn't mean you know that that death god is also a representation - of our fear of death, our whatever. That makes the statue a two-generation representation. As opposed to a picture of the Grand Canyon, which represents the Grand Canyon, and that's as far as it goes.
I'm with you on this one, Fist. Much and all as I enjoy Vraith's theorising this is a step too far for me. I'm not saying that there mightn't often be one or two people in the power positions who'd possibly have an inkling but the rest, I think it's very unlikely. (And that's not to denigrate the people of the past or to raise up the people of the present.)

Maybe I haven't read enough anthropolgy but, for me, it's connected with the awareness of the unconscious. Symbols etc. are related to projections, i.e. the unconscious seen in the exterior world. IMO, it's not possible to know the true source of a symbol's power without knowing about the unconscious at which point you are a 'modern'. I think that much of the witches' and shamans' power came from an intuitive understanding of the unconscious (the shaman's Underworld journey is a good example). But the idea that the general populous were aware of it seems unlikely.

Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart is a good example of a fictional depiction of a worldview destroyed by another worldview's trampling on and falsifying of core beliefs. I don't think that a culture can fall apart if it's aware of it's unconscious metaphorical basis. It may change and adapt but, IMO, it will not completely collapse.

u.

Except the evidence we do have [from the oldest records of actual "storytelling," from the remnants of unadulterated "primitives" like the !Kkung] tells us that people clearly understood symbol and metaphor and teaching through stories/fiction. And that the "literalization" was often, if not always, imposed upon the "masses" by power.
And bio/physio/neurologically we aren't different from our ancestors in functionality. Every average 3 year old clearly understands there are differences between literal and metaphorical...even if they haven't sorted out which is which in particular instances.
Metaphor/symbol/story are every bit as much a part of our humanity as having two forward-facing eyes with color vision. If you don't/can't, there is a defect.
The "second-generation representation" is mostly a matter of self-reflective capacity...which a few other creatures also have, though we are [currently, AFAWK] the top of that ladder.

Posted: **Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:50 am**

My favorite C-esterton reference was when HLT posted that giant quote and then belaired us. But there actually was something Rus posted where I think C-esterton was relevant, related to propaganda. Mostly insofar as you guys seem to be willing to take a lot of claims about human nature and myth thousands of years ago, despite having been born in the last century, while still claiming people are complex (but I guess you're assuming the complexity is distributed evenly and in-order to everyone).

As far as knowledge goes: if people are talking about [complete/total] knowledge as merely knowing what it is possible to know, rather than what one can conceive of knowing, or are talking about randomness as a force that causes something to be indefinite prior to its resolution, rather than something that one believes could have brought about possibility 2 even after possibility 1 came to pass (i.e., they believe in more than one possibility), I really need to know this if you want to read my response to any particular point you made with those words included XD That includes Vraith, even though he asked me explicitly what I thought.

I'm looking for a clarification, but if you see something to argue about, I'll probably be interested. I understand if you guys feel like we've passed into other territory though

H---I wonder what you think of peeps like me who like to try to know/understand everything while knowing full well it is impossible?

Long story short, I think people should often do what they wanna do, will frequently do what they want to do when they can, and I think trying to find things out can be fun regardless of what your goal is. So I don't think there is any argument I can give about why it would be in your own interest to act differently from how you prefer to act.

I also don't think there is any reason to try and convince you it would be better for anyone besides yourself to not do what you're doing, and if I did argue for such a thing the argument would be BS.

But on the supernatural...I'm pretty sure it will conceptually always exist among people...because we are not fully rational beings. [if the day comes when we ARE, we will no longer be people...we will be something else]. Because the supernatural in all aspects fundamentally rests on the question "why?" [in the sense of "purpose"]...rationality will never answer that question, it doesn't even CARE to...in the rational mode, "why?" is a mythical question in the same way, for the same reasons, that a unicorn is a mythical beast.

I agree with that. There are some thoughts I might have where every ounce of rational thought/logic/etc I aim at those thoughts persist, even if I believe that thought goes so far as to be self-evidently false.

It's important to remember, however, that "supernatural" does not necessarily mean "not natural," going by the structure of the word (the prefix). The main assumption seems to be that everything is natural. That's fine, but then you might as well say "There's no such thing as the super-everything and nothing transcends the laws of everything!" That's right - everything exists by law and nothing doesn't exist, so nothing isn't subject to the laws of everything. Not only is nothing supernatural, but nothing is THE supernatural. The existence of nothing would slam existence into a transparent hole.

Even much "less evolved" primates than us have no problem at all recognizing the difference between a thing and a representation of a thing...and even more importantly can USE the representation to communicate ABOUT the thing.

Do we? I don't think I've ever recognized a thing that wasn't a representation of a thing. I mean, the signals that convey our surroundings to us are representations of our surroundings, not our surroundings. And just as I represent myself, all things represent themselves. Well, I guess some things (rocks) just present themselves once for a very long time.

I definitely agree we can use those representations to communicate about represented things, though.

I think people severely underestimate the "primitives" understanding of story as story and overestimate belief in the "evil-eye" as literal "black magic" or whatever.
Though, as someone....Ali?...roughly said, there are always some who are more literal-minded, some less so. [though usually even the most literal minded are more than willing to recognize other peoples myths as stories. Not so much for their own.]

I think some people severely overestimate their ability to make sweeping assumptions about people from thousands of years ago by cherry picking accounts.

I would argue that if one assumes that people of the past did not believe in the myths they created, compelling stories about the Trojan War lose an incredible amount of relevance, insofar as the gods are completely inseparable not only from the plot, but the psychology of the characters. Yes, the gods represent "natural forces," but the characters believing in natural forces as independent personalities with motives is hugely relevant to taking what the Iliad is saying seriously. It might be possible for a concise and compelling explanation, but I think it would have to be a retcon.

I'd also argue that Thucydides - a guy who definitely seizes on some important universal truths in something that doesn't appear to be a myth at all - either misunderstood a truth being conveyed by the Iliad or conveyed a misunderstanding of the Greeks in general about the Iliad (and the Odyssey).

Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart is a good example of a fictional depiction of a worldview destroyed by another worldview's trampling on and falsifying of core beliefs. I don't think that a culture can fall apart if it's aware of it's unconscious metaphorical basis. It may change and adapt but, IMO, it will not completely collapse.

I thought that TFA was a story about Okonkwo's inability to accept change and adaptation. The unwillingness of the other Ibo to join him probably saved their lives. I also think Okonkwo committing suicide can be read as a condemnation of himself or the Ibo or both. I'm not sure it was a story of the Igbo (sp?) culture's "collapse" if collapse means end. I would have to read other books by Achebe to get a better picture of what happened after according to him, but the end of TFA did not seem to end with the collapse of the Ibo - just the intentions of the Brit officer to bring it to an end. Either way, I'm really happy you brought it up because I really loved that book.

Posted: **Wed Oct 24, 2012 11:08 am**

Vraith wrote:
ussusimiel wrote:
Fist and Faith wrote:On the last point, I think we're talking about two different things. It's one thing to understand that a drawing/object/whatever represents something else. Possibly something not present. Even something that does not exist (or no longer exists) in physical form. But that's not the same as knowing that the thing represented is actually a metaphor for some part of the human psyche. Knowing a statue represents the death god of your religion doesn't mean you know that that death god is also a representation - of our fear of death, our whatever. That makes the statue a two-generation representation. As opposed to a picture of the Grand Canyon, which represents the Grand Canyon, and that's as far as it goes.
I'm with you on this one, Fist. Much and all as I enjoy Vraith's theorising this is a step too far for me. I'm not saying that there mightn't often be one or two people in the power positions who'd possibly have an inkling but the rest, I think it's very unlikely. (And that's not to denigrate the people of the past or to raise up the people of the present.)

Maybe I haven't read enough anthropolgy but, for me, it's connected with the awareness of the unconscious. Symbols etc. are related to projections, i.e. the unconscious seen in the exterior world. IMO, it's not possible to know the true source of a symbol's power without knowing about the unconscious at which point you are a 'modern'. I think that much of the witches' and shamans' power came from an intuitive understanding of the unconscious (the shaman's Underworld journey is a good example). But the idea that the general populous were aware of it seems unlikely.

Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart is a good example of a fictional depiction of a worldview destroyed by another worldview's trampling on and falsifying of core beliefs. I don't think that a culture can fall apart if it's aware of it's unconscious metaphorical basis. It may change and adapt but, IMO, it will not completely collapse.
Except the evidence we do have [from the oldest records of actual "storytelling," from the remnants of unadulterated "primitives" like the !Kkung] tells us that people clearly understood symbol and metaphor and teaching through stories/fiction. And that the "literalization" was often, if not always, imposed upon the "masses" by power.

Are you saying the stories told by the !Kung are exactly as they were when first told in ancient times, and we can consider them to be factual records? I can't imagine how we know that. Just because the current storyteller says, "This is the story as it was told in the beginning times."? I'm thinking the stories can become more complex as the people's thoughts, and ability to think, do.

Vraith wrote:And bio/physio/neurologically we aren't different from our ancestors in functionality.

From which ancestors? 5,000,000 years ago? 10,000? Which was the very first species to think one thing represented another? And did that species understand all of the types of representation we're talking about? And how do we know?

Vraith wrote:Metaphor/symbol/story are every bit as much a part of our humanity as having two forward-facing eyes with color vision. If you don't/can't, there is a defect.

Yes, they are every bit as much a part of our humanity. But were they all every bit as much a part of the first species that understood any of it? I still don't see that all types of representation must come as a package.

Posted: **Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:32 pm**

[I can't edit the above with my Galaxy Tab, so I'll add on here.]

You said less evolved primates (We can argue that phrase another time.

No, I know what you mean.) recognize the difference between a thing and a representation of a thing. But those primates do not think a thing is a metaphor for some part of their collective psyche, do they? So there are definitely at least two kinds of representations that can be recognized, and they do not always come to a species at the same time. Why are you certain they came at the same time with us?

Posted: **Wed Oct 24, 2012 1:13 pm**

On the question of whether the first myths were understood to be literal or metaphorical ... if you are the person making up the story, you have to know it's not true. If you didn't literally see a Beast Master who continuously sends new generations of animals for you to kill and eat, you probably know that the source of this image is yourself. The act of making up a story as an adult is different from being told a story by authority figures as a child. After repeating these stories for many generations, I think the distance between the original author and the act of reinforcing these upon the next generation would have a cumulative effect of rendering them as literal interpretations. But in their origin, that would be the time when it would be most likely for their true metaphorical status to be recognized.

Consider the Bible. For some people, they won't even imagine that it was just a story made up by someone. Forget for a second whether or not it actually is the word of God or no more true than The Chronicles. Think of the weight of all those generations enforcing the belief that it's literally true. Give Donaldson's work about 2000 years, pass it through a Dark Age or two, allow people to forget its origins, and it's conceivable that people could think of it as literally true. But it's impossible to think they would do so now. And that's not because we're smarter than we were 50,000 years ago.

People aren't stupid, in general. And the first humans weren't, either. They recognized that the stories they were making up were stories they were making up. Just like we do.

Posted: **Wed Oct 24, 2012 1:38 pm**

But I don't think the stories were made up full-version right off the bat. What it there was an earthquake. Those who experienced it might have agreed that there must be a huge serpent (or whatever animal in the area was often seen going under the ground) under the ground, moving around to cause it. We're talking about extremely uneducated people. I don't see that it's out of the question that they thought this. How recently did we think maggots arose from rooting meat and mice arose from piles of wool? And, as I said, it was Jung who said he had the overwhelming feeling of a giant serpent underground when he experienced an earthquake. He knew it wasn't the case, and he understood the process within himself that have him that feeling. Still, it's what he thought. The first people could easily have felt the same, and did not have any education in any of the fields that Jung had to tell them otherwise. Some time later, something was added to the myth, because something else was observed. And something else was added later.

We know that myths did, indeed, change over time. Two gods became one; two pantheons became one; one pantheon was revealed to be the overlords of another... All because people experienced new things.

Posted: **Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:30 pm**

I think there are different kinds of myths. There are those that connect people with what it means to be human, and then there are those that are proto-scientific attempts at explaining natural phenomena. A giant serpent causing earthquakes isn't supernatural, even if taken literally.

Posted: **Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:25 pm**

Do we have evidence that one type came before the other? My first thought is that primitive people contemplated why the plants grew or the ground shook before they thought about why the sight of that male interacting with that female caused anger. Someone may think it was more likely the other way around, but is there evidence either way?

Posted: **Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:49 pm**

The source of the material for original myths is interesting to speculate about. For me there are a number of obvious places to suggest. One is the natural world itself: the cycles of nature, the seasons, birth and death, animals, the weather and so on. These obviously provide images, examples and patterns that our human mind cannot help but soak up and use as raw material. Another is imagination e.g. we hear thunder and try to imagine the size of the being that could make such a noise. And another is the dreamworld. Symbols are a significant part of the language of dreams.

And for me, it is here that I begin to see the real world come into contact with the 'supernatural'. Jung's collective unconscious points to this. The idea that all humans draw from a shared well of symbols, so that creation myths can be strikingly similar in totally separate and unconnected cultures. It could be argued (from a structuralist perspective) that this demonstrates the underlying structure of the brain itself, but that, for me, is too reductive and leaves too many experiences unexplained.

I agree with Z, that most (now or in the past) people left to their own devices will take the world as they find it and deal with it pragmatically without feeling the need to make up complicated explanations for it. I would hazard that most myths, legends and religions are actually more concerned with human society than with human individuality. When I studied the sociology of religion one theory proposed that religion comes into being at the communal meal, where the individual gets a sense of being part of something bigger and feels the power of that. I would think that much of the need for myths comes from this enlarged sense of self and that this then later feeds back into a more individually focused form of storytelling.

u.

Posted: **Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:16 pm**

ussusimiel wrote: It could be argued (from a structuralist perspective) that this demonstrates the underlying structure of the brain itself, but that, for me, is too reductive and leaves too many experiences unexplained.

Hmmmm...as you've probably guessed by now [I've probably repeated it enough in various places for many reasons] I abhor things reductive. But whether reductiveness happens as you say here kinda depends on if you think the structure is determinative [which tends to reduction] or generative [which doesn't].

U. wrote:
I agree with Z, that most (now or in the past) people left to their own devices will take the world as they find it and deal with it pragmatically without feeling the need to make up complicated explanations for it. I would hazard that most myths, legends and religions are actually more concerned with human society than with human individuality. When I studied the sociology of religion one theory proposed that religion comes into being at the communal meal, where the individual gets a sense of being part of something bigger and feels the power of that. I would think that much of the need for myths comes from this enlarged sense of self and that this then later feeds back into a more individually focused form of storytelling.
u.

Avoiding nitpicking/quibbles, I basically agree. Story is communication, communication is social even in specific cases where the topic/subject is where/how/what the individual is.
Which indirectly brings me to Fist's most recent point/question. I can't actually answer with certainty, I'm not sure it is answerable by direct evidence. But, all things taken together, I think the two kinds of contemplation you propose happen simultaneously, and are partially integrated...certain things belonging to one or the other, but some overlapping. I think one major source of this is the evolutionary trend towards beings with fewer instinctual/hardwired behaviors and more learning/adaptive capacity.

Posted: **Wed Oct 24, 2012 7:01 pm**

ussusimiel wrote:I agree with Z, that most (now or in the past) people left to their own devices will take the world as they find it and deal with it pragmatically without feeling the need to make up complicated explanations for it. I would hazard that most myths, legends and religions are actually more concerned with human society than with human individuality. When I studied the sociology of religion one theory proposed that religion comes into being at the communal meal, where the individual gets a sense of being part of something bigger and feels the power of that. I would think that much of the need for myths comes from this enlarged sense of self and that this then later feeds back into a more individually focused form of storytelling.

Your first sentence is not supported by the others. They're all speculation. Don't get me wrong, though. My stance is nothing more. The fact that most people believe that their religion is the literal truth and fact of existence is not proof that an individual or group raised without any reference to or hint at any religion or anything supernatural would not live pragmatically and without complicated explanations. But it's certainly not proof that they would. Did various teachings catch on to a phenomenal degree that is actually in opposition to the way you think people really are? My speculation is No. I think those teachings caught on to such a degree because people, on the whole, want and need absolute answers to these questions.

Posted: **Wed Oct 24, 2012 9:36 pm**

Returning to something mentioned in the OP, ran across an article...I think at Huffpost...followed link and arrived at this:

well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/acupuncture-provides-true-pain-relief-in-study/

Haven't delved into it much yet, might never, but it's out there...and now here.

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:22 am**

Fist and Faith wrote:
ussusimiel wrote:I agree with Z, that most (now or in the past) people left to their own devices will take the world as they find it and deal with it pragmatically without feeling the need to make up complicated explanations for it. I would hazard that most myths, legends and religions are actually more concerned with human society than with human individuality. When I studied the sociology of religion one theory proposed that religion comes into being at the communal meal, where the individual gets a sense of being part of something bigger and feels the power of that. I would think that much of the need for myths comes from this enlarged sense of self and that this then later feeds back into a more individually focused form of storytelling.
Your first sentence is not supported by the others. They're all speculation. Don't get me wrong, though. My stance is nothing more. The fact that most people believe that their religion is the literal truth and fact of existence is not proof that an individual or group raised without any reference to or hint at any religion or anything supernatural would not live pragmatically and without complicated explanations. But it's certainly not proof that they would. Did various teachings catch on to a phenomenal degree that is actually in opposition to the way you think people really are? My speculation is No. I think those teachings caught on to such a degree because people, on the whole, want and need absolute answers to these questions.

Good catch, Fist. I realised there was a contradiction in that paragraph after I'd posted it, but I let it stand as it touched on something that interests me. (Which may relate to my friend's previously mentioned Hegel-based argument

)

Part of what I was trying to express related to the idea that someone could be so caught up in daily living that they had no time or need for myths. It's not that the dreams or the imagination of the person would not be engaged with the material, just that it wouldn't be in the foreground of that person's life. I think this is possible so long as everything goes along in a normal way. It's when something goes awry that explanations are necessary.

Or when the person wants to do something that their society doesn't permit. Then stories/myths are necessary to explain the taboo. This may also be a point where the person is forced to question for the first time whether they actually believe their society's myths. (I am reminded of Freud's Civilisation and Its Discontents.) Depending on how they subsequently behave they may be seen as mad or bad and treated accordingly.

This foregrounding of myth could possibly lead to a sharpening of a sense of the individual's position in the world. Which raises the interesting question of whether, as you contend, that self was present already? Or does that self only emerge in the social context? (At a talk I attended by the Irish-language poet Nuala Ní Dhomhnaill she called the pre-modern Irish-speaking society the 'amoeba'.)

It is probably no coincidence that the more individualised people become the more organised religion (and society) becomes to deal with that localised sense of power. It probably also follows that the more the individual comes to value their soul/spirit, the more enmeshed the protection of that soul/spirit becomes with the protection of the values of the society that surrounds it. (Apologies for the large leaps in the argument here. Blame Hegel

)

While I don't agree with this fully, but I am interested in the thrust of the argument and I recognise its strengths as a materially-based explanation of the emergence of the importance of the idea of soul/spirit.

u.

Kevin's Watch

The Clash of Science and Unreason.