The Evolution of Human Consciousness

Africa is the common homeland of all mankind

Africa also remains the last living repository of precisely what went on in our prehistoric periods.

The San Bushmen of the Kalahari are among the last remnants of our Stone Age culture.
Rural tribal Bantu groups are among the last remnants of our Bronze Age culture.
I spend half my life studying both the San and the Bantu tribes and have constructed our entire forgotten past from those researches.

One can argue that I am making suppositions.
That is true.
But I have reason for faith in my interpretations

Decades of direct experience on the ground among those surviving cultures, clearly reveal the social organizational imperatives that forced both family group hunter/gatherers and clan group agriculture's to remain within prescribed survival parameters.
Comparisons with existing shamanist practices as far apart as Siberia and North America with those practiced in Africa, tend to confirm basic Bronze Age cultural similarities.

From these researches I have defined the following.

The Stone Age is defined by Hunter/gatherer family groups who survive via a social ethic of meticulous sharing, and an intuitive spiritual sense that Nature is a conscious organism, jealously guarding against destructive trespass. They are all Animists

The Bronze Age is defined by an agricultural existence, extended family cooperation, oral-based communication and clan totemism.
Ancestral worship is practiced via the medium of psychically gifted shamans.

These fundamental social and spiritual realities are the the common prehistoric denominators that guided the development of all human cultures.

It is from that common foundation that all Iron Age nations were formed and developed individual script-based industrial organizations.

All of that prehistoric development is lost in all but the remotest regions of the world.

Three early English pioneer colonists were witness to the federation of the Nguni clans under the despotic rule of the warlord, Shaka Zulu, in the late 18th and early 19th Century. Their surviving diaries describing that momentous event provided me with a clear window into the exact moment a Bronze Age culture came to an end, and how an Iron Age of national organization began.

The on-going survival of a ruling dynasty also reveals why the need for and introduction of orthodox scriptures were a national imperative It made me realize that by learning the mechanics of grammar via scriptural missionaries, the precise spiritual stimulus was created to sustain conscientious craftsmanship as well as engage the human intellect in abstract reasoning, necessary for a further Age of scientific determinism and religious protest to arise out of the Iron Age.

Thus the Iron Age is defined by national industrialization with conscientious craftsmanship religiously sustained by orthodox Scriptural observances

The Steel Age is defined by international colonization, scientific intellectual self-determinism and religious protestation

This logical evolutionary progression of human development through four distinct Ages of mass changes of consciousness is common to all developed cultures.

With the introduction of the nuclear theory, which explains the relationship between orthodox religion and the reasons for protestation, all indications are the we now face a 5th mass shift of human consciousness into the formation of a Nuclear Age Global Cooperative, with us all involved in sustainable planet management and practicing an ontological form of spirituality.

If you are interested, the exact circumstances of my research can be found in
Psyche-Genetics - The Metaphysical Implications of Human Evolution.
If you PM me I will give you the link.

Quote :

I spend half my life studying both the San and the Bantu tribes and have constructed our entire forgotten past from those researches.

how can you construct the past from the present, surely that half of your life would have been better spent constructing the future. in maybe constructing yourself a bridge out of this new age bullshit.

Guest wrote:

Quote :

I spend half my life studying both the San and the Bantu tribes and have constructed our entire forgotten past from those researches.

how can you construct the past from the present, surely that half of your life would have been better spent constructing the future. in maybe constructing yourself a bridge out of this new age bullshit.

The present is predicated on past events
a good detective can find enough clues
in the present
to reconstruct those past events

Is that not how a murder is uncovered
even a cold case
20,000 years old?

MagnetMan wrote:

The present is predicated on past events
a good detective can find enough clues
in the present
to reconstruct those past events

Is that not how a murder is uncovered
even a cold case
20,000 years old?

MM traditions are carried forward in every society with an unbroken evolutionary trail, and the slower the advent of technology in that society the more realistic the expectation of "close to original" customs being practiced at present. So there is credence to your line of thought regarding the tribal cultures you have observed. In respect to your miriad of research and your defining of the 4 ages of man you could have saved yourself the trip and half a life time by going to the library where scholars plagiarized your incredible extrapolations in primary school text books. The fifth age you predict is on it's way as well, each leap in technology brings a new age. The driving force that brings a predictability to the social mechanics of each age is human nature, greed and an exclusivity seeking ego means that in all ages to come and that have passed you can bet that the human motive is involved in all transactions. Regarding the solving of a 20,000 yo murder you are correct, you look for motive and that is all you require to find a culprit, ask who was to gain from the demise. It is the point at which all murder investigations have been carried out from day one.

MM you include masses of verbiage in your threads but very little substance other than outrageous statements or alternately accepted mundane facts presented as a revelation. No offense intended.

Sonofgloin wrote:

MM d. In respect to your miriad of research and your defining of the 4 ages of man you could have saved yourself the trip and half a life time by going to the library where scholars plagiarized your incredible extrapolations in primary school text books.

I prefer going to the horse
and getting my facts direct from his mouth
I use the library only as a reference
ion that process I have confirmed existing truths
dispelled myths and old wives tales
and uncovered much that remained buried
and have emerged a wiser man
than all the libraries on earth

Let me test you
and your reference libraries
on a couple of the many vital points
of conscious evolution
that no library has in stock

1. Define how a hominid
became humanly conscious?

2. Man started off as a timid primate
who cannot hold his sphincter
in a sudden burst of danger
So tell me the origins
of courage?

MagnetMan wrote:

Sonofgloin wrote:

MM d. In respect to your miriad of research and your defining of the 4 ages of man you could have saved yourself the trip and half a life time by going to the library where scholars plagiarized your incredible extrapolations in primary school text books.

Let me test you
and your reference libraries
on a couple of the many vital points
of conscious evolution
that no library has in stock

1. Define how a hominid
became humanly conscious?

2. Man started off as a timid primate
who cannot hold his sphincter
in a sudden burst of danger
So tell me the origins
of courage?

Self actualization is a term better suited to your meaning I believe than human consciousness. That is the ability of our brain to think in abstract terms as opposed to the imprint and limited reasoning capabilities of the lesser creatures we share the world with. The new brain or the fore brain is the center for this abstract consciousness and we developed that when we brought more protein into our diets. Consider the supremely practical limbs and digits that we have evolved and our overall dexterity. No other creature on earth has the right combination of limb placement and body scale to allow them to manipulate their enviroment in the way we can even if they had Einsteins IQ.

Did our brain evolve to take advantage of our physical capabilities, or did we evolve physically to take advantage of a larger brain, we can not know for sure. Although the response from the genes to changing internal dimensions is a given exampled by the straightening up of the the fore head to accomodate the fore brain, it is all summation. Where this leaves us in regard to the evolution of self actualization no one can answer difinitively but our need for resolution is evident by the plethora of religions we invent to console our consciousness.

Re the origins of courage, it evolved with self actualization. All creatures have a fight or flight response built in for their own survival but only the higher creatures of our earth have the conscious thought process of self sacrifice for another creature. Once again there is no difinitive answer but it links back to the earliest societies of man who buried and mourned their dead.

MM you attempt to justify your arguement with questions boardering on the etherial that really are up for grabs and anyones guess. Your mind is an interesting place I believe there is quite a tale to tell in respect to as how you got it to where it is.

Sonofgloin wrote:

Self actualization is a term better suited to your meaning I believe than human consciousness.

Self realization is the standard term among metaphysicians

Action is automatic
analysis of action is the process of conscious reflection
the intuitive aspect of consciousness
then determines whether any action
was ethical
if not
guilt is registered
and atonement called for
If the atonement is not executed
the guilt is then buried in the sub-conscious

The rest of your answer
about how and why human consciousness developed
reveals a one-sided process of analytical deduction
there is zero inspiration
consequently your answer leaves us in the dark

Should I reveal it
you will find my answer
far more holistic

And your idea of how man developed courage
is naively off the mark
You intimate that it is all supposition
My research reveals otherwise
I can supply the exact time and circumstance
that forced man to get a grip
on his sphincter

And also explain in a common sense way
exactly how that
and why that
forced our specie into a radical change in social organization
and served to determine the future course
of human development

None of that is in any anthropological study
except mine

So the next question is:
are you prepared to let go of your patronizing attitude
and learn more about yourself?

[quote="MagnetMan"]

Sonofgloin wrote:

Self actualization is a term better suited to your meaning I believe than human consciousness.

Quote :

Self realization is the standard term among metaphysicians

MM that may be the case but I was replying to your question to define how a hominid became humanly conscious. Psychological self actualiization is defined as the process of uncovering, expressing and developing your inner nature. A person who is moved by their need to "grow" psychologically is in the process of self actualizing, self actualizing is a way of being by continually becoming more youself ,more human, more god like.

Whereas your response of self realizatin pertains to an enlightenment and esscalated awareness of the world around you and your response to it (the basis of metaphysics). Although both are terms related to non empirical studies your term is further from the source than mine in relation to the question you asked.

Quote :

Action is automatic
analysis of action is the process of conscious reflection
the intuitive aspect of consciousness
then determines whether any action
was ethical
if not
guilt is registered
and atonement called for
If the atonement is not executed
the guilt is then buried in the sub-conscious

MM if you were in a quiz I bet your special subject would be "the bleeding obvious"

Quote :

The rest of your answer
about how and why human consciousness developed
reveals a one-sided process of analytical deduction
there is zero inspiration
consequently your answer leaves us in the dark

I said it was all supposition and I presented no answers, just pertinant facts.

Quote :

Should I reveal it
you will find my answer
far more holistic.

You should, you should.

Quote :

And your idea of how man developed courage
is naively off the mark
You intimate that it is all supposition
My research reveals otherwise
I can supply the exact time and circumstance
that forced man to get a grip
on his sphincter

Ok MM I am ready.......lets hear it.

Quote :

And also explain in a common sense way
exactly how that
and why that
forced our specie into a radical change in social organization
and served to determine the future course
of human development

Untill we have time travell we can't know difinitively "how and why" but that is why we have philosophy and metaphysics to examine the cause and effect and motivators to human interaction with the reassuring thought that what ever we think we can never be proven wrong.

Quote :

None of that is in any anthropological study
except mine

Once again the bleeding obvious.

Quote :

So the next question is:
are you prepared to let go of your patronizing attitude
and learn more about yourself?

Probably not, I am about as self actualized as I am going to get.

Sonofgloin wrote:

MM that may be the case but I was replying to your question to define how a hominid became humanly conscious. Psychological self actualiization is defined as the process of uncovering, expressing and developing your inner nature.

So explain what act uncovered a hominid's first inclination toward humanness.

Quote :

Action is automatic
analysis of action is the process of conscious reflection
the intuitive aspect of consciousness
then determines whether any action
was ethical
if not
guilt is registered
and atonement called for
If the atonement is not executed
the guilt is then buried in the sub-conscious

Quote :

MM if you were in a quiz I bet your special subject would be "the bleeding obvious"

If those dual modes of comprehension were that obvious, why are they not applied in government schools?

MM wrote:

]And your idea of how man developed courage
is naively off the mark
You intimate that it is all supposition
My research reveals otherwise
I can supply the exact time and circumstance
that forced man to get a grip
on his sphincter

Quote :

Ok MM I am ready.......lets hear it.

No
you are not ready yet.
I will simply be sewing seeds on barren ground
you need a more fertile imagination

MM wrote:

] And also explain in a common sense way
exactly how the evocation of the courage ethic
and why that initiation
forced our specie into a radical change in social organization
and served to determine the future course
of human development

Quote :

Untill we have time travell we can't know difinitively "how and why" but that is why we have philosophy and metaphysics to examine the cause and effect and motivators to human interaction with the reassuring thought that what ever we think we can never be proven wrong.

You are reaching verdicts
without bothering to hear any evidence
which makes me question the sincerity
of your interest in the subject

It is acceptable in a court of law
that even if no physical evidence can be produced,
if enough circumstantial evidence is present.
a reliable verdict can result.
I have more than enough circumstantial evidence
I also have live evidence to prove my theory
on the origins of courage
as well as the origins of war.

MM wrote:

None of that is in any anthropological study
except mine

Quote :

Once again the bleeding obvious.

Well then
since you know the answer
obvious
and subjective as it may be
I would like to hear it.

MagnetMan wrote:

So explain what act uncovered a hominid's first inclination toward humanness.

MM define humanness please.

Quote :

Action is automatic
analysis of action is the process of conscious reflection
the intuitive aspect of consciousness
then determines whether any action
was ethical
if not
guilt is registered
and atonement called for
If the atonement is not executed
the guilt is then buried in the sub-conscious
If those dual modes of comprehension were that obvious, why are they not applied in government schools?

MM it's a thought process that we conduct ever day, did we do the right thing, did we do the wrong thing, will we loose something if we recant, can we stand the psychological trauma of battleing with our own personal moral compass. There is nothing in this obvious thought process that pertains to the school system other than our interaction with our peers. I is a psychological quandry not scholastic.

Quote :

No
you are not ready yet.
I will simply be sewing seeds on barren ground
you need a more fertile imagination

What a cop out, no answers just escapology.

Quote :

You are reaching verdicts
without bothering to hear any evidence
which makes me question the sincerity
of your interest in the subject

Once again you address nothing with this statement.

Quote :

It is acceptable in a court of law
that even if no physical evidence can be produced,
if enough circumstantial evidence is present.
a reliable verdict can result.
I have more than enough circumstantial evidence
I also have live evidence to prove my theory
on the origins of courage
as well as the origins of war.

You are correct and I will accept circumstantial evidence but you wil not give it. Telling me you have the information but I am not ready to receive it yet is bullshit (no offense)

Quote :

None of that is in any anthropological study
except mine
Well then
since you know the answer
obvious
and subjective as it may be
I would like to hear it.

How can I know your personal studies of the subject if you do not blab. All you say is "I have answers that are not published" what good is that if you do not share?

Sonofgloin wrote:

How can I know your personal studies of the subject if you do not blab. All you say is "I have answers that are not published" what good is that if you do not share?

You are as slippery as an eel, son
first you tell my theories are 'bleeding obvious"
then you grumble when I don't explain them

This is how it went:

MM wrote:

And your idea of how man developed courage
is naively off the mark
You intimate that it is all supposition
My research reveals otherwise
I can supply the exact time and circumstance
that forced man to get a grip
on his sphincter

None of that is in any anthropological study
except mine

sonofgolion wrote:

Once again the bleeding obvious.

Untill we have time travell we can't know difinitively "how and why" but that is why we have philosophy and metaphysics to examine the cause and effect and motivators to human interaction with the reassuring thought that what ever we think we can never be proven wrong.

I contradict this by saying:

MM wrote:

I can also explain in a common sense way
exactly how the evocation of courage
and why that initiation
forced our specie into a radical change in social organization
and served to determine the future course
of human development

And now you are accusing me
for not informing you.

How about a little politeness
before i discuss 40 years of hard work in the field
and then have to listen to you
dismiss it.

Original ideas go through three phases
1. Ridicule
2. Doubt
3. Oh! It is self-evident

Are we at the doubt stage yet?
Or is it still ridicule?

I can assure you
the answer
and all its subsequent social ramifications
IS self-evident
but as always
only after the fact.
and those facts
and they ARE facts
have never been revealed
by any other anthropologist

This general ignorance
about how man became human
and how he developed his basic ethics
is the reason why I have such distain
for all philosophers.

How can you construct a portrait of human behavior
iof you do not know
the very foundations upon which our human character
were built?

It is for this reason
that after 100,000 generations 'of conscious development
we still go to war
over religion
politics
race
you name it

Our collective self knowledge is superficially dysfunctional
My work gets to the very roots
of our social and spiritual behavior

It is the first work ever to do this
in such a fundamental manner

Certainly I expect initial rejection
even ridicule
and will probably only enmjoy posthumous recognition
so be it
I will die satisfied
that I did my homework

MagnetMan wrote:

How about a little politeness
before i discuss 40 years of hard work in the field
and then have to listen to you
dismiss it.

Are we at the doubt stage yet?
Or is it still ridicule?

This general ignorance
about how man became human
and how he developed his basic ethics
is the reason why I have such distain
for all philosophers.

How can you construct a portrait of human behavior
iof you do not know
the very foundations upon which our human character
were built?

Our collective self knowledge is superficially dysfunctional
My work gets to the very roots
of our social and spiritual behavior

Certainly I expect initial rejection
even ridicule
and will probably only enmjoy posthumous recognition
so be it
I will die satisfied
that I did my homework

MM, I certainly did not entertain the sensation of ridicule when I have replied to you. But I did enjoy pondering on the best factual replies i could muster to your questions coupled with barbed spikes of incitement. I consider you intelligent, and perhaps I considered you harder than you are, this type of barbed banter is a social pre requisite where I hail from and I will attempt to tone it down in future, even if the barb makes me chuckle and that is the point of the barb not ridicule.

How could I dismiss 40 years of observation, and passion, but we are going to disagree on many things.

Sonofgloin wrote:

[
How could I dismiss 40 years of observation, and passion, but we are going to disagree on many things.

You admit then
that there is no general knowledge
or even generally recognized suppositions
on when, how and what was the very first dim thought
that made us human
or when, how and why genuine courage
over and above fight/flee
originated?

And also admit
that if anybody can provide an original
and reasonable answer to those questions
and thereby spike a constructive debate
on a previous blank in our records
regarding the evolution of human consciousness
is doing us all a service?

If the answer is yes to both questions
I will gladly dispense with the sparring
and get on with it.

If the answer is no
Then please supply the general knowledge you have.

[quote="MagnetMan"]

Sonofgloin wrote:

[
How could I dismiss 40 years of observation, and passion, but we are going to disagree on many things.

Quote :

You admit then
that there is no general knowledge
or even generally recognized suppositions
on when, how and what was the very first dim thought
that made us human
or when, how and why genuine courage
over and above fight/flee
originated?

MM, I admit nothing...........and my recognition of your 40 years punching the clock in metaphysics and such suggests that I will listen to you because you have an inquiring mind and that you must be able to pass on to me something after 40 years of observation, but it's not a validation of your thought process.

In regard to your no general knowledge and no supposition statement, it is not true, these things do exist unlike (my opinion based on the Darwin theory) the holy grail of your quest to find the moment that ape became human. It was transitional over eons with dribs and drabs of further consciousness evolving over thousands of generations. If you want a single point of time that the brain became enlightened start researching into alien impregnation of our early ancestors because if that happened that would be the point at which we became human in one big bang, or birth as some suggest.

Quote :

And also admit
that if anybody can provide an original
and reasonable answer to those questions
and thereby spike a constructive debate
on a previous blank in our records
regarding the evolution of human consciousness
is doing us all a service?

Yes I will admit to that, but my previous statement still stands.......I admit nothing.

Quote :

If the answer is yes to both questions
I will gladly dispense with the sparring
and get on with it.

If the answer is no
Then please supply the general knowledge you have.

MM, I certainly do want you to further explain your thoughts on human consciousness, as I only have part time ponderings on the subject, but I have satisfied myself thus far that it was and is still an evolving consciousness and no single point of time delivered an enlightenment.

Sonofgloin wrote:

MM, I admit nothing...........and my recognition of your 40 years punching the clock in metaphysics and such suggests that I will listen to you because you have an inquiring mind and that you must be able to pass on to me something after 40 years of observation, but it\'s not a validation of your thought process.
I certainly do want you to further explain your thoughts on human consciousness, as I only have part time ponderings on the subject, but I have satisfied myself thus far that it was and is still an evolving consciousness and no single point of time delivered an enlightenment.

That is a fair enough compromise

Let me see if I can reasonably extend the statements and explanation you give below

Quote :

In regard to your no general knowledge and no supposition statement, it is not true, these things do exist unlike (my opinion based on the Darwin theory) the holy grail of your quest to find the moment that ape became human. It was transitional over eons with dribs and drabs of further consciousness evolving over thousands of generations. If you want a single point of time that the brain became enlightened start researching into alien impregnation of our early ancestors because if that happened that would be the point at which we became human in one big bang, or birth as some suggest.

My theory contradicts this significantly.

We know that around 2.5 million years ago, human consciousness made a technological break-through.
Stone tool-making suddenly emerged.
Prior to that nothing.
What-ever rudimentary tools and implements used by hominid family groups before that date were simply selected and picked up and used, un-worked, where available much like chimps still do today.
Digging sticks and wooden spears were more than likely roughly prepared, but there is no surviving evidence.

We know that for some 6 to 8 million years the cubic capacity of the cerebral cortex in the hominid brain kept enlarging itself.
Since 1973 we have known from work by Roger Sperry in lateral specialization of cerebral function in surgically separated brains that\" The main theme to emerge is that there appear to be two modes of thinking, verbal and non-verbal, represented rather separately in left and right hemispheres, respectively...\"

Sperry\'s initial findings on the separate functions
of the two sides of the cortex were qualified by J.E. Bogen at UCLA

Parallel Ways of Knowing
intellect...intuition
convergent...divergent
digital... analogic
secondary...primary
abstract...concrete
directed..free
analytic...relational
rational...intuitive
objective..subjective

My theory is that around 2.5 million years ago, enough neurons had evolved in the hominid cerebral cortex for a dim spark of communication to take place between the two hemispheres.
I believe that, just as an idea suddenly pops into mind, there was a distinct moment back there in prehistoric time when the very first inspiration took place in a primate psyche - and in that moment an ape-man, became a hu-man.

Allow me to apply my intuition and recreate that moment.

It is night.
A hominid crouches in the shadows
watching the family group at some distance
a spark of energy jumps across a synapse within his brain
he is dimly conscious that there is space
between him and the group
there is a dim sense of separation
THEY are THERE
HE is HERE

In this way for the first time in 3 billion years of organic evolution
a consciousness experiences itself as separate from the rest of nature.

An EGO is born

And its birth is to have a profound impact
on the whole of nature

I will continue if you are interested.

MagnetMan wrote:

I will continue if you are interested.

Yes, continue, by all means!

Unreasonable wrote:

MagnetMan wrote:

I will continue if you are interested.

Yes, continue, by all means!

With the emergence of the first dim ego
I place the birth of man at 2.5 million years BCE
I apply 25 years to a generation
and say that our specie has been evolving a human consciousness
for 100,000 generations


Having arrived at this conclusion
that humanness is defined by a self-reflective consciousness
and how and when that might have happened
my next thought was:
Why would Nature work for 3 billion years
to produce a single specie with a separated consciousness?

What was the survival purpose of having an ego as an identity?
Especially one which can be totally selfish
infinitely destructive
and now has the power to destroy
all those eons of organic investment?

That question is at the base of all human inquiry.

It took me years to find Nature's answer
It came in a moment of inspiration
I had made a difficult safari into the remote fastness
of the Central Kalahari Bushman Reserve
I was sitting around a campfire
watching a Bushman family group prepare supper

That same afternoon one of the younger males
had killed a springbok
it had been skinned and spitted over the fire
when the meat was ready
the elder male ceremoniously took the carcass off the spit
and handed it to the young hunter

He then cut it up into twenty three equal portions
and handed each portion to each member of the group

In that moment of meticulous sharing
I saw that young mans ego
extend beyond his narrow view of himself
It encompassed the entire group

In that moment of sharing
he became a giant

Ego taught us to share
meticulous sharing
accelerated our survival capacity
far beyond the rest of our primate brethren

Sharing thus formed our base social ethic.
It is the foundation of family values
It is the foundation of our intelligence

And when you mess with that ethical foundation
by allowing unequal sharing among the larger national consciousness
you create unending dissension

I have to go
but I will continue

MagnetMan wrote:

And when you mess with that ethical foundation
by allowing unequal sharing among the larger national consciousness
you create unending dissension

I have to go
but I will continue

...which not ironically-leads us to 'dissension' philosophy forums.

I look forward to your explanations MM; I knew you were hiding something from the moment I started reading you.

Do you account for warfare and in-group, out-group sexual reproduction too?? Don't let me throw you off-course though!

MagnetMan wrote:

We know that around 2.5 million years ago, human consciousness made a technological break-through.
Stone tool-making suddenly emerged.
Prior to that nothing.
What-ever rudimentary tools and implements used by hominid family groups before that date were simply selected and picked up and used, un-worked, where available much like chimps still do today.
Digging sticks and wooden spears were more than likely roughly prepared, but there is no surviving evidence.

Yes, ok

Quote :

We know that for some 6 to 8 million years the cubic capacity of the cerebral cortex in the hominid brain kept enlarging itself.
Since 1973 we have known from work by Roger Sperry in lateral specialization of cerebral function in surgically separated brains that\" The main theme to emerge is that there appear to be two modes of thinking, verbal and non-verbal, represented rather separately in left and right hemispheres, respectively...\

Yes, ok

Quote :

Parallel Ways of Knowing
intellect...intuition
convergent...divergent
digital... analogic
secondary...primary
abstract...concrete
directed..free
analytic...relational
rational...intuitive
objective..subjective

Ying,yang. ok

Quote :

My theory is that around 2.5 million years ago, enough neurons had evolved in the hominid cerebral cortex for a dim spark of communication to take place between the two hemispheres.
I believe that, just as an idea suddenly pops into mind, there was a distinct moment back there in prehistoric time when the very first inspiration took place in a primate psyche - and in that moment an ape-man, became a hu-man.

MM, here I differ from you ,but agree(sounds weird but it works for me). The corpus callosum is the white tissue that joins the two hemispheres, the width of the tissue determines the load of information it can carry between the two hemispheres. Strangely females have a wider CC than males, making them technically superior in information transfer than we guys. I believe that spark you speak of happened but it of itself is not the cradle of humanity as it was evolved and merely took it's place in the line of consciousness events that evolved as the brain evolved.

Quote :

It is night.
A hominid crouches in the shadows
watching the family group at some distance
a spark of energy jumps across a synapse within his brain
he is dimly conscious that there is space
between him and the group
there is a dim sense of separation
THEY are THERE
HE is HERE

Good moment, great example of conscious awakening and the probability of the occurance is maximum. Although if we are talking cause and effect, you are describing effect, I want to know cause.

MagnetMan wrote:

Sharing thus formed our base social ethic.
It is the foundation of family values
It is the foundation of our intelligence

And when you mess with that ethical foundation
by allowing unequal sharing among the larger national consciousness
you create unending dissension

MM, absolutely right, but I have considered the same thought but from a 180 degree stance. I have always considered social and psychological exclusivity the bane of humanity. Which equates to the same end..."I don't want to share with you" but on the broader pallet.

The cause was a genetic brain 'defect'. You could count it as a 'mutation'. Some would call it 'evolution'.

It has no cause because the event is infinitely-linked through time; it also has no true effect. It just is.

Therefore it seems this first Manimal became Man when his brain divided into two distinct halves.


Prior to the hypothesized event; the early Manimal may have had a singular cognition, unable to differentiate between I & Thou.

Quote :

Ich und Du, usually translated as I and Thou, is a book by Martin Buber, published in 1923, and first translated to English in 1937. Buber's main proposition is that we may address existence in two ways: that of the "I" towards an "It", towards an object that is separate in itself, which we either use or experience; and that of the 'I' towards 'Thou', in which we move into existence in a relationship without bounds. One of the major themes of the book is that human life finds its meaningfulness in relationships. All of our relationships, Buber contends, bring us ultimately into relationship with God, who is the Eternal Thou.

Buber uses two pairs of words to describe two fundamentally different types of relationship: "I-Thou" and "I-It."

For "I-It" relationships, the "It" refers to entities as discrete objects drawn from a defined set (e.g. he, she or any other objective entity defined by what makes it measurably different from other living entities). It can be said that "I" have as many distinct and different relationships with each "It" as there are "Its" in my life.

By contrast, the "I" in the "I-Thou" is a separate concept. This is the "I" that does not objectify any "It" but rather acknowledges a living relationship instead. The "I" in "I-Thou" is radically different from the "I" in "I-It." "I-Thou" relationships are sustained in the spirit and mind of an "I" for however long the feeling or idea of relationship is the dominant mode of perception. A person sitting next to a complete stranger on a park bench may enter into an "I-Thou" relationship with the stranger merely by beginning to think positively about people in general. The stranger is a person as well, and gets instantaneously drawn into a mental or spiritual relationship with the person whose positive thoughts necessarily include the stranger as a member of the set of persons about whom positive thoughts are directed. It is not necessary for the stranger to have any idea that he is being drawn into an "I-Thou" relationship for such a relationship to arise.

Despite the separation of "I" from the "Its" and "Thous" in this very sentence describing the relationship, Buber's two notions of "I" require attachment to a word partner. Despite our splitting of these individual terms for the purposes of analysis, there is to Buber's mind either an "I-Thou" or an "I-It" relationship. Every sentence man uses with I, refers to the two pairs: I-Thou and I-It. This instance is also interchangeable with Thou and It which would refer to I. It is bounded by others and It can only exist through this attachment because for every object there is another object. Thou on the other hand, has no limitations. When Thou is spoken, the speaker has no thing or has nothing which means that Thou is abstract. The speaker yet “takes his stand in relation”.

What does it mean when a person experiences the world? Man goes around the world hauling out knowledge from the world. These experiences present man with only words of It, He, She and It with contrast to I-Thou. What this means is that the experiences are all physical and do involve a great deal of spirituality. Previously I mentioned that the world is twofold. What this means is that our experience of the world has two aspects: the aspect of experience, which is perceived by I-It, and the aspect of relation, which is perceived by I-Thou.

Buber uses an example of a tree and presents five separate relations. The first relation is looking at the tree as a picture with the color and details through the aesthetic perception. The second relation is identifying the tree as movement. The movement includes the flow of the juices through the veins of the tree, the breathing of the leaves, the roots sucking the water, the never-ending activities between the tree and earth and air, and the growth of the tree. The third relation is categorizing the tree by its type, in other words, studying it. The fourth relation is the ability to look at something from a different perspective. “I can subdue its actual presence and form so sternly that I recognize it only as an expression of law.” The fifth relation is interpreting the experience of the tree in mathematical terms. Through all of these relations, the tree is still an object that occupies time and space and still has the characteristics that make it what it is.[1]

If "Thou" is used in the context of an encounter with a human being, the human being is not He, She, or bound by anything. You do not experience the human being; rather you can only relate to him or her in the sacredness of the I-Thou relation. The I-Thou relationship cannot be explained; it simply is. Nothing can intervene in the I-Thou relationship. I-Thou is not a means to some object or goal, but a definitive relationship involving the whole being of each subject. The inevitable fate of Thou is to become an It.

Love is a subject-to-subject relationship. Like the I-Thou relation, love is not a relation of subject to object, but rather a relation in which both members in the relationship are subjects and share the unity of being. The ultimate Thou is God. In the I-Thou relation there are no barriers, and this means that man can relate directly to God. God is ever-present in human consciousness, and manifests himself in music, literature, and other forms of culture. As previously mentioned, Thou is inevitably addressed as It. Because of this, the I-Thou relation becomes the being of the I-Thou relation. God is now spoken to directly not spoken about.

God is the worldwide relation to all relations. There is no world that disconnects man from God. What this is a world of It alone. The individual’s action is guided by I-Thou. "One who truly meets the world goes out also to God."

Coincidentally, Buber's I and Thou (Ich und Du) was published in the same year as Sigmund Freuds The Ego and the Id (Das Ich und das Es lit. "The I and the It").

I can personally-guarantee you folks that that was no "coincidence" at all. I wonder where Freud and Buber connect...

Unreasonable wrote:

Love is a subject-to-subject relationship. Like the I-Thou relation, love is not a relation of subject to object, but rather a relation in which both members in the relationship are subjects and share the unity of being. The ultimate Thou is God. In the I-Thou relation there are no barriers, and this means that man can relate directly to God. God is ever-present in human consciousness, and manifests himself in music, literature, and other forms of culture. As previously mentioned, Thou is inevitably addressed as It. Because of this, the I-Thou relation becomes the being of the I-Thou relation. God is now spoken to directly not spoken about.

U from the early 19th century as philosophy and enlightenment accelerated by literacy became the vocation of the free thinker, Ich und Du was identified as the point of reference from which to study interpersonal actions and reactions. Quite right too. But I have doubts as to whether you can attribute love to the Sie bin ich,Ich bin sie outcome. Love is chemically driven and the conscious has no domain there. So the selflessness that love imparts is not a conscious act, not an act of free will and therfore not the ultimate example of selflessness.....just a thought, what do you think?

I am impressed by the comments made so far
and the depth of thought that has gone into them

I am keeping my thumbs crossed
in the hope that I might have finally
bumped into some genuine critical collaboration
on a simple yet extremely complex new theory
on the evolution of consciousness.
So please keep up the constructive comments
as we go along

------------------------------

I am still deep in the Kalahari Bushman Reserve
it is 1972
As far as I know I am one of a handful of Europeans
to make a safari that far into the Central desert.
Laurence van der Post was there a few years before me.

But I am the first one trying to analyze the Bushman psyche
not just his daily behavior

It is midday
I am out with the women and children
gathering vegetables

The men left camp in the morning
to check on their traps and snares
and go hunting
hopefully to bag another gazelle
with a poisoned arrow
or maybe even a gemsbok (desert oryx)

If they do
that means meat for three or four days

No more daily survival grind
for all the family
big feasting day and night
until the entire carcass is consumed
much dagaa smoking (marijuana)
dancing chanting
going into hallucinogenic trances
predicting future hunts

Maybe
It depends on the luck of the hunt
and luck depends
on reverence for Nature

Thus when a large animal is killed
the horns are donned
and the dancing chant
is a cry of praise to Mother Nature
for the grace received
and the painting in the cave
is a record of thanks

In the meantime
the women and children
are gathering
They use digging sticks to unearth
a wide variety of tubers and roots
On the surface they find tsama melons
and wild cucumbers

Everything goes into spingbok-hide shoulder bags
the kids hunt tortoise,
run down lizard and snake
open anthills and greedily devour grubs

The group is led my the matriarch
she might be forty or sixty
I have no way of knowing exactly
she is as wrinkled as a prune
her corn-cob hair is gray
her naked breasts are as flat as parchment
the ravages of a life of breast-feeding

She has been pregnant since puberty
having a child every three years

All five of the younger women are her daughters
the kids are her grandchildren
they are all steatopygic
their buttocks distended with stored fat
like camels they can live in the desert
for weeks without food
and very little water

Two of the daughters carry infants
strapped to their backs with buckskin
one has thrown an elongated breast over her shoulder
and the infant breastfeeds while she works
A six year old girl has been carrying a three-year old sibling on her hip
she has been trudging with the load
through the heavy sand for hours

I am conscious that during the past week
I have never heard an infant cry
Breast-feeding and unbroken body contact 24/7
ensures a feeling of total security
there simply is no need to cry
and begin that awful modern mother/infant cycle
of manipulation and guilt
every time the infant is put down
and contact is broken

Nor have I heard a single adult rebuke
or seen a sibling squabble

Natural three year spacing
ensures that each infant
is properly weaned from the breast
and not pushed off too soon
Also
the visual difference in size
between each sibling
makes hierarchical acceptance natural
with no need to fight for dominance
thus it is entirely natural for the six year old
to accept the load of carrying her sibling
all work together willingly
without need for command

The Stone Age group is matriarchal
generations of these these women
have never left their family hunting territory
and never will.
The post-pubertal boys will migrate
and seeks mates with neighboring families

I am soaking in all of this family group behavior
and gradually becoming conscious
of more profound under-currents

I know from my diary that it is Sunday

But not here in the desert
there are no weekdays here
no months
no years
no hours or minutes
there is no crop to tend
to worry over infestation
or pray for rain
or expect a harvest
there is no past regret
nor future expectation
all that exists in Time
is the moment we are in

But Space does exist
I became conscious of that as the afternoon wore on.
We had reached some kind of invisible boundary

I noticed on a couple of occasions
when a child went over to dig up a tuber
one of the older females would ell her not to
as we began to circle back to camp
it dawned on me that the ripe tubers
on the other side of the invisible line
belonged to their neighbors

We had reached a territorial boundary!
Crossing it was taboo
Conflict lay in that direction
The taboo was both instinctive
and cultural
that tuber across the invisible line
belonged to relatives
the family of her own sons

No title deed
No policemen
No judge
No court
Man naturally respected
the territory and livelihood of his neighbor
and treated him
as he wanted to be treated himself.

Here was the Golden Rule
established by Mother Nature Herself

Sonofgloin wrote:

U from the early 19th century as philosophy and enlightenment accelerated by literacy became the vocation of the free thinker, Ich und Du was identified as the point of reference from which to study interpersonal actions and reactions. Quite right too. But I have doubts as to whether you can attribute love to the Sie bin ich,Ich bin sie outcome. Love is chemically driven and the conscious has no domain there. So the selflessness that love imparts is not a conscious act, not an act of free will and therfore not the ultimate example of selflessness.....just a thought, what do you think?

I think that you are incorrect where I highlighted.

Every particular human animal is conscious to different levels of degree.

Some are hyper-sensitive to stimuli; as it were. This creates a confusion between what is conscious & sub-conscious.

MM,

Does the tribe have a 'shaman' or active-thinker? Do they have a "medicine man"?

Who is the alpha male (patriarch) of the group and how does he interact with the alpha female (matriarch)?

What do they talk about? What is their relationship (is it sexual)? How does their language & conversation work?