Interesting that they couldn't draw 3 dimensional objects and yet physically built the largest 3 dimensional structures on earth. I think we know very little of ancient people because we always look back through the lens of materialism , when ancient people seem to of existed in a differing state on consciousness. Its very arrogant to believe that they were childlike and not as advanced as us just because they hadnt mastered materialism as much. We are the children when it comes to consciousness and understanding the non physical aspects to existence.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
"We are the children when it comes to consciousness and understanding the non physical aspects to existence."
I agree.
Like a child I am sometimes in awe when I look, listen, observe, interpret the vast variety of explanations about the human psyche and achievements. I believe that even understanding the physical existence I only scratched the surface - from what I think I cannot separate the physical from the mental realm, the two are linked together and effect one another in a way, it astounds me.
Do you know the work of Alan Watts? He often talks of how a child is "as close to god" as we ever get. I don't believe he is referring to a religious version of God but a metaphysical interaction with the creative aspect of the Universe. A child see's wonder in everything because their brain is in balance, both the carnal side and divine side working in equilibrium. As a society we soon train them out of that way of looking at things and direct them into a physical, material way of interpreting whats around them, we kill off the inner child and then wonder why so many adults have a deep feeling of dissatisfaction. Getting back to the point, I believe ancient people and even some modern indigenous peoples have kept a much better balance in their brain architecture right into adulthood and so far from being inferior to modern mankind they are actually superior in interacting and interpreting the non-physical aspects of existence. This is why "mythology" seems so random and confusing to us and we dismiss it as quaint stories. Mythology and ancient religion deal with a mind before matter model, using personification as a vehicle to explain consciousness and we do it the injustice of taking it literally and then arrogantly dismissing it as nonsense.
Yes, I listened to Alan Watts over and over again. I love his eloquent art of talking and his unusual way of taking a matter and turn it into something I have never thought of.
In one of his lectures he asked children what a "thing" is and the kids started to describe things in using their characteristics like "a thing is round or square etc." - but one girl said a thing is a "Noun". He felt quite impressed by that observation and referred to it by saying that "a thing" comes from "thinking" and "naming" it. Names are Nouns and therefor we get a notion of things in the way we think of them.
I made the experience with my son and other kids that they stopp going deeper into the matter once they got a name for it. Like looking at a tree asking "what's that"? and being answered it is an "oak". In many occasions that was enough of an explanation and walking through a park with other kids they told one another: "look, that's an oak!" and the other kid replied: "I know. And that is a beech tree!" - I felt that is the condition you talk about, when schooling puts names into the brains of our children and that is that.
It neglects what a tree can be, the variety of meaning it can gain.
So a tree for me is a living being, hosting ever so many other living beings, casting shade to humans, impresses painters, accompanies his tree fellows, protects plants from direct sun light, dies eventually and gives food to the soil, insects and all kinds of creatures. Just by using the given name of a certain tree, does not give this profound insight in our surroundings.
Mythology is for me a very good way to connect with my inner realm, for it touches something I otherwise cannot get hold on. The work of C. G. Jung presents a good deal of mythological aspects. After listening to a recording on youtube I remembered a dream of mine and got in touch with what I experienced and should take care of. But it is not easy to connect with it. Guess it is just no habit to take mythology serious.
Excellent points. Yes the naming of something and the thinking in "words" is to me part of "living in the echo" as Watts so eloquently puts it. (have you read Alphabet Vs the Goddess by L. Shlain?)
I believe there is another aspect to this though, the material Tree that you describe is still illusionary. We use the word "tree", Nature/God uses a physical tree but both are essentially creating a symbol to understand consciousness in the material realm we occupy.
If energy and information combine to form matter, we have dual aspects of non-material combining to create symbols built in matter. This essentially is the dual aspects conveyed in all ancient belief systems. For instance the holy Trinity which i'm sure you know is Egyptian and maybe even older conveys Osiris as Information, Isis as Energy and the result of their union the physical manifestation of their offspring Horus. Jesus is the same personification of this concept.
Understanding ancient mythology as a science of consciousness , using personifications to explain the non-physical realm into the physical is the reason Jung and other great thinkers studied them in depth. Only a fool would dismiss ancient beliefs as mere bed time stories.
Good to have a dialogue with you.
I haven't known that Trinity is related to the Egyptians but I can follow easily your assumption it is even older. Why not? Many of our knowledge and beliefs can be followed far in history of mankind. The different interpretations resonate with us - with one more, with another one less.
What I always need is to integrate the insights into my daily life - and therefor into what "matters" with me. Without the connection to my physical existence I find it difficult to take in what I have learned or realized. I want to use wisdom - or whatever you may call it.
In almost every case I come to the point that mythology, psychology, sociology etc. for me only makes sense to dig into when what is stated can be connected to ethics. Ethics is an important Noun for me but even more significant is how I live them out in my relations to humans and all other living beings. Not easy.
May I ask for what and how you use your knowledge and insights? I really would like to know.
P.S. haven't read the book you mentioned.
An example of the Egyptian trinity
I agree, especially to the argument with the construction of the pyramids. Brunner-Traut mentioned this in her research, but she argued, that the shape of the pyramid was very simple and the Ancient Egyptian would never have been able to built complex halls and domes of metal and steel like we do today. But I think it needs more to build a structure like the pyramids in such a monumental way, than just a favor for toy building blocks. As we now know a deep mathematical understandin and physical knowledge was required.
But I want you to consider that we as egyptologists can only draw conclusions from the material heritage that we have access to. The rest is and stays speculation.
That's the trouble with these things there is far too much speculation stated as fact, that gets repeated. Its ok for "experts" in a field to not know things, the trouble is they always feel compelled to fill in the gaps in their knowledge with conjecture. Its very clear to an engineer that the mathematics and draughtsmanship needed to build any of these amazing structures is missing from the historical record. unfortunately there are some very closed minded people within Egyptology and this is holding us back from a true understanding of these wonderful artefacts.
This is indeed a true fact, but the reason for this lays in the history of Egyptology itself. It is (with other scientific subject) a very young and need to find a place in the academic world after the first "gold rush" when the excavators from all over the world rest without any documentation or publication. A lot of rumors and half-knowledge was used to build up secret societies. So, to keep the balance. It was a lot of Egyptologist. This led to an Egyptology that might be perceived as "stubborn".
No, not really. As far as I can see, Egyptology is in a transformational process. Especially young Egyptologists are more open minded than most of the people would imagine. The problem is just the academic boundaries in general (also in other subjects and research fields). No one is really "free" to publish crazy hypotheses without weighing the risks of being dismissed by collegues.
But more courageous people are coming up, believe me...
Ok well you know more than me about this and sounds like there is reason for optimism. I hope moving forward in the beautiful subject of Egyptology their are more like you and less like Zahi "Gatekeeper" Hawass.