View Full Version : Sapiens Fear Extinction with Insignificance


coberst
02-28-07, 03:30 PM
Sapiens Fear Extinction with Insignificance

“What will come of my whole life…Is there any meaning in my life that the inevitable death awaiting me does not destroy?”—Tolstoy

Meaning is number ONE. What wo/man fears most is extinction, which includes insignificance.

Wo/man wants assurance that their life has somehow counted; if not for her or his self then at least within the overall scheme of things. If there is some kind of “judgment day” then I want to be in ‘that number’ that matter. While alive I want to know that “I am somebody”.

Religion is our primary means for responding to that basic need to be somebody. Otto Rand says that all religions spring up “not so much from…fear of natural death as of final destruction.”

“It is culture itself that embodies the transcendence of death in some form or other, whether it appears as purely religious or not…culture itself is sacred, since it is the “religion” that assures in some way the perpetuation of its members.”

Our dichotomy of sacred and secular aspects of social life is an egregious error. There is no such thing as a distinction between sacred and secular in the symbolic affairs of sapiens. Sacred is that which transcends the natural world while secular is that which is of the natural world. In the world of symbolic affairs such distinctions do not hold.

“As soon as you have symbols you have artificial self-transcendence via culture. Everything cultural is fabricated and given meaning by the mind, a meaning that is not given by physical nature. Culture is in this sense “supernatural” and all systemizations of culture have in the end the same goal: to raise men above nature, to assure him that in some ways their lives count in the universe more than merely physical things count.”

Self-transcendence, i.e. transcending nature via culture, does not provide a simple means to deny the primacy of death; the terror of death still lurks beneath the veneer. We have shifted the fear of death onto a new level of anxiety; we must “now hold for dear life onto the self-transcending meanings of the society in which we live…a new kind of instability and anxiety are created.”

In our attempt to deny evil, i.e. death, we bring a new and grotesque form of evil. “It is man’s ingenuity, rather than his animal nature, that has given his fellow creatures such a bitter fate.” Wo/man has, through ingenuity, heaped great evil on the world; far greater than could ever be created by our animal nature.

Quotes from “Escape from Evil”—Becker

Baron Max
02-28-07, 08:14 PM
Meaning is number ONE. What wo/man fears most is extinction, which includes insignificance.

I disagree. I just don't think most people even think of dying ...at least until it's damned near, or perhaps after witnessing a shocking accident.

I wonder if you have any documentation that shows that people are so highly fearful as your post claims? If so, could you post it for us?

I do wish you'd start reading something other than that damned Becker character!

Baron Max

Grantywanty
03-01-07, 07:02 AM
Sapiens Fear Extinction with Insignificance

Our dichotomy of sacred and secular aspects of social life is an egregious error. There is no such thing as a distinction between sacred and secular in the symbolic affairs of sapiens. Sacred is that which transcends the natural world while secular is that which is of the natural world. In the world of symbolic affairs such distinctions do not hold.



Sounds like you are or he is focussing on the monotheisms. I don't think this fits native american groups amongst others. And it retains the same split that bothered me elsewhere. Natural is this one area - a less meaningful one - and culture, the sacred, humans and their meanings are another.

Do you notice this split? That's the first question.
Why do you think it is necessary to separate nature out from the sacred?

coberst
03-01-07, 09:04 AM
Do you notice this split? That's the first question.
Why do you think it is necessary to separate nature out from the sacred?


Primitive wo/man made this separation. It appears that it is 'natural' to believe in a 'hereafter'.

As I see the problem, we started out with shamans and witch doctors who became powerful as a result of such feelings and from this developed religion. Religion has absconded with these feelings and have thus captured many vital concepts that have been defined in a way as to make these shamans and witch doctors very powerful.

Society must recapture these concepts that have their source in human instinct and give these concepts a more enlightened meaning. We must take back these concepts and make them more agreeable to our nature. Such vital concepts cannot remain the treasure of the leaders of Islam and Christianity.

We must create new meaning for the concepts behind such words as morality, soul, immortality, etc.

Grantywanty
03-03-07, 06:35 AM
Primitive wo/man made this separation.

I don't think you are correct. Certain specific groups developed this split and most of these were monotheistic. Groups that relate their 'religions' to specific locations on the earth tended not to separate culture from nature or the sacred from nature. This is a late development by certain groups who unfortunately also like to build weapons and are good at it.

It appears that it is 'natural' to believe in a 'hereafter'. That life does not end at death is common, but the monotheists denigration of nature and 'this life' is an exception. They moved the sacred as far as they could from nature, with particular emphasis on the human body. This split was not made by other groups.

As I see the problem, we started out with shamans and witch doctors who became powerful as a result of such feelings and from this developed religion.

Again, this seems to me is treating all religions like the monotheists. There are groups today that have a continuous line of shamans back to before the arrival of 'westerners'. At no point did their religion develop the kinds of sacred profane, sacred nature splits so problematic in monotheisms.


Religion has absconded with these feelings and have thus captured many vital concepts that have been defined in a way as to make these shamans and witch doctors very powerful.

This also misses that there are groups where the distinction between shaman and regular citizen is much more permeable and flexible. Take the !Kung where everyone participates in healing rituals and everyone can engage in the direct healing of the sufferer. There is temporal flexibility about who is central to these rituals, even within a single evening. Both sexes can be healers.

Society must recapture these concepts that have their source in human instinct and give these concepts a more enlightened meaning. We must take back these concepts and make them more agreeable to our nature. Such vital concepts cannot remain the treasure of the leaders of Islam and Christianity.

They are not their treasure however good they have both been at colonizing and oppressing groups and individuals who got/get in their way.

coberst
03-03-07, 08:16 AM
Granty

I try to find the context for these quotes but it is very difficult and some of them I cannot find so I am not sure from whence they come.

My aim is to point out that religion has confiscated many concepts that are necessary for comprehending human nature. While this situation is in tact those people with strong anti-theist ideologies will not touch these words and therebu they cannot learn how to treat these concepts in a manner that will broaden their understanding of human kind.