Apr 14·edited Apr 14Liked by William Hunter Duncan
War used to be to take over, pillage, etc. Modern wars are created by the elite to manipulate, manipulate countries, manipulate money, markets, create financial gain, or financial ruin, and the bonus, population control.
Apr 14·edited Apr 14Liked by William Hunter Duncan
"Time is ever the hunter." This is beautiful! Thank you.
There seems to be a recent convergence of thought on this platform and within podcasts I'm listening to. I will listen to Schrei as well. The quotes are very good. I appreciate that you pointed out the false demonization/scape goating of Putin.
El Gato, John Carter, NS Lyons, and Harrison Koehli have all recently written, touching on the topic of finding meaning, connecting with larger than self. A topic I know I struggle with daily.
In the Michel Shellenberger episode of Jordan Peterson's podcast, (from which Harrison quotes) Jordan talks about his new book, Those Who Wrestle with God.
"human beings require ritual and trance states, for mental health and general well-being; abandoning that, thinking ourselves superior to that, that our reason and logic is sufficient, that we have evolved beyond that, is core to a lot of the problems we see in the world today."
I admire the work of all those writers, and aspire to write and think as well as they do. They have made me a better writer and thinker. Schrei is very challenging as well, for the modern Western mind. I have very much appreciated his podcast. He especially gets about the mythological, even more than Jordan Peterson does (his is mostly Christian based). I've long believed we are myth making and myth-made beings, leaving the logic and reason of modernity limiting and unsatisfying.
Somehow in my initial reading of your post, I skipped over or missed the paragraph with the language Amking cites above. I then saw it and was going to comment on the same wording when I saw his/her entry.
By the time I was born my parents had lost whatever religious faith they might have had when they were younger, so I grew up in a nonreligious household, gaining my exposure to the prevalent Jewish and Christian viewpoints via social osmosis - keeping my eyes and ears open, and my mouth shut. That, plus more directed study and reading over the decades, has not enhanced my acceptance of those views. I have thus struggled my whole life trying to understand this desire for transcendence, worshipping of divinity, mysticism, etc. exhibited by so many others in society. But I now also know that a substantial minority of people in the US, Europe, and elsewhere also share my skepticism.
While I have some sense of awe (or transcendence) in regard to the complexity of the cosmos, of biomolecular life, and of the human brain/mind combination, I seem to be perfectly happy focusing on the "logic and reason" side of things. I perceive that while it has not yet been fully demonstrated, eventually someone will show a logical progression for all of the steps necessary for the creation of life from inorganic, nonbiological chemistry. Understanding of the mind might be more difficult, but progress is being made (maybe?). And if God exists, He is so far distant in time and space, and power, from this insignificant star, planet, and evolved species called man, that I have no need or desire to worship such an entity, who probably would care much less for us as blobs of matter than many others might wish.
I could expand on this more, but basically it appears to be different strokes for different folks, having a range of preferences for mystic or transcendent experiences or understanding. I presume this is an evolved feature of our brains and psychology.
If you or Amking believe Peterson's new book, or the essays by El Gato, John Carter, NS Lyons, and Harrison Koehli actually explore this realm, I might be persuaded to examine their thinking as well. But it would have to be scientific and evolution based to retain credibility with me as an explanation. Are they?
John is open to the metaphysical and mythological. El Gato I expect less so. NS Lyons, I really don't know, it is certainly not the focus of his writing I am familiar with. Harrison I think is something of a mystic, deeply grounded in reason and logic. All of them are. I am certainly the only of the above who makes the esotere a primary focus. All of us are deeply grounded in logic and reason, and while tending conservative, very influenced by liberalism, as we all are.
I like Eliphas Levi's framing of it, calling the true Science the unification of Reason and Faith. As to God, the enchanted, magical perspective is that God is eternally present, everything is divine infused with the energy of creation, there is no real separation.
Ian McGilchrist speaks in evolutionary terms of the right and left brain, logic and reason, vs acceptance of the whole, including transcendence.
I'm probably paraphrasing him incorrectly, but he might be the one author I can think of to address your question. He has a great deal of YouTube videos, interviews, and of course, there are his books/tomes :)
It is so weird. I went to a couple of nephews BB games and felt like I was the center of attention for the first thirty seconds I walked in the door. Even walking around town, I was like, geez, I go live in the country for two years and now I'm attractive to these city girls? lol.
Perchance, have you grown a robust masculine beard? A lot of guys seem to end up growing wispy scraggly sparse beards (as the best that they can do?), and thus (at least to me) it conveys an attempt to show greater masculinity but fails to do so. Maybe the ladies pick up on that among their urban peers as well?
I personally prefer to be clean shaven, and since I am now retired, my beard comes out mostly white and never was too full to begin with, so I can usually shave every other day now. But I can still admire a another man's proper beard vs. a substandard one.
A very important issue to explore. Unfortunately this essay is rather repetitious, repeats a few points over and over, while also ignoring a couple as well.
But the phrase that most stood out for me was: "The basic cycle of life is this, everything that lives is food and the eater of food." We probably need to repeat such obvious knowledge more frequently to maintain proper perspective. So of course we hunted (and gathered and foraged) so we could eat, but this was not "war". War is the hunting or killing of our fellow humans, not other animals, mostly for purposes other than obtaining food. We in fact have some innate psychic resistance to cannibalism (or is that really just our Westernized cultural elements being dominant in our lives?) But hunter gatherer clans and tribal groups fought each other for women, slaves, or other resources (plus food, or perhaps to reduce the competition for scarce hunting grounds or diminishing herds, etc. ) Steven Pinker claims up to 30% of males died in such inter-group contests. [Incidentally, IIRC, David Goldman also asserts that in modern times one group ends up stopping a back and forth revenge cycle when 30% of the available males are killed on one side vs. the other. The losers give up because they have to, not because they want to.]
But even with that core biological observation, the essay neglects to explore the aspects of our evolution where "war" aided our species survival (if it did?). Peons to "the hunt" are certainly valid. Presumably the core survival benefit was evolving a brain suitable for the social and language skills and capabilities needed to cooperate in joint endeavors, such as hunting, gathering, building, moving collectively, etc. [i.e., beyond that already evident in some ape or pack species.]
I suspect the rather rapid development of plant and animal domestication also enabled or created situations where we lived in groups larger than Dunbar's number of 150 or so. This set of cultural adaptations overwhelmed the slower pace of natural selection, so we have ended up living in ways to which we are not yet "properly adapted". So we make do the best we can with the evolved physical and psychological characteristics that we have.
There may well also be added "benefits" from the mental competition of one apex predator vs. another. Many (if not most) of our social and technical advances were made as part of preparing for war or conducting war. Is this an extension of the smaller group's selection of an alpha male leader to a larger group, where our leader(s) then feel the need to dominant other groups? We can readily recognize now that specialization and trade results in creating and supplying more units of value, faster, and at lower net cost, than almost any war requires or achieves/obtains.
I would like to have seen this essay address some of those ideas/ topics. The essay is probably not so much wrong, as incomplete.
Good to see you back, and that is valid criticism. Of course the topic could be expanded, but the hypothesis is that we hunted, were were the hunted, that was a consciousness altering thing central to our origins and our being even now, we are utterly removed from that and very much confused about it. It is beyond to scope of this post or my expertise probably to get into the particulars about the evolution of humanity. I was just trying to give some context to how we got here.
As for Pinker, I consider him to have a particularly pessimistic view of our origins and an overly optimistic view of the progress we have made.
War used to be to take over, pillage, etc. Modern wars are created by the elite to manipulate, manipulate countries, manipulate money, markets, create financial gain, or financial ruin, and the bonus, population control.
A lot to think about there. Thanks.
"Time is ever the hunter." This is beautiful! Thank you.
There seems to be a recent convergence of thought on this platform and within podcasts I'm listening to. I will listen to Schrei as well. The quotes are very good. I appreciate that you pointed out the false demonization/scape goating of Putin.
El Gato, John Carter, NS Lyons, and Harrison Koehli have all recently written, touching on the topic of finding meaning, connecting with larger than self. A topic I know I struggle with daily.
In the Michel Shellenberger episode of Jordan Peterson's podcast, (from which Harrison quotes) Jordan talks about his new book, Those Who Wrestle with God.
"human beings require ritual and trance states, for mental health and general well-being; abandoning that, thinking ourselves superior to that, that our reason and logic is sufficient, that we have evolved beyond that, is core to a lot of the problems we see in the world today."
Good food for thought this Sunday morning.
Cheers William.
Thank you.
I admire the work of all those writers, and aspire to write and think as well as they do. They have made me a better writer and thinker. Schrei is very challenging as well, for the modern Western mind. I have very much appreciated his podcast. He especially gets about the mythological, even more than Jordan Peterson does (his is mostly Christian based). I've long believed we are myth making and myth-made beings, leaving the logic and reason of modernity limiting and unsatisfying.
Somehow in my initial reading of your post, I skipped over or missed the paragraph with the language Amking cites above. I then saw it and was going to comment on the same wording when I saw his/her entry.
By the time I was born my parents had lost whatever religious faith they might have had when they were younger, so I grew up in a nonreligious household, gaining my exposure to the prevalent Jewish and Christian viewpoints via social osmosis - keeping my eyes and ears open, and my mouth shut. That, plus more directed study and reading over the decades, has not enhanced my acceptance of those views. I have thus struggled my whole life trying to understand this desire for transcendence, worshipping of divinity, mysticism, etc. exhibited by so many others in society. But I now also know that a substantial minority of people in the US, Europe, and elsewhere also share my skepticism.
While I have some sense of awe (or transcendence) in regard to the complexity of the cosmos, of biomolecular life, and of the human brain/mind combination, I seem to be perfectly happy focusing on the "logic and reason" side of things. I perceive that while it has not yet been fully demonstrated, eventually someone will show a logical progression for all of the steps necessary for the creation of life from inorganic, nonbiological chemistry. Understanding of the mind might be more difficult, but progress is being made (maybe?). And if God exists, He is so far distant in time and space, and power, from this insignificant star, planet, and evolved species called man, that I have no need or desire to worship such an entity, who probably would care much less for us as blobs of matter than many others might wish.
I could expand on this more, but basically it appears to be different strokes for different folks, having a range of preferences for mystic or transcendent experiences or understanding. I presume this is an evolved feature of our brains and psychology.
If you or Amking believe Peterson's new book, or the essays by El Gato, John Carter, NS Lyons, and Harrison Koehli actually explore this realm, I might be persuaded to examine their thinking as well. But it would have to be scientific and evolution based to retain credibility with me as an explanation. Are they?
John is open to the metaphysical and mythological. El Gato I expect less so. NS Lyons, I really don't know, it is certainly not the focus of his writing I am familiar with. Harrison I think is something of a mystic, deeply grounded in reason and logic. All of them are. I am certainly the only of the above who makes the esotere a primary focus. All of us are deeply grounded in logic and reason, and while tending conservative, very influenced by liberalism, as we all are.
I like Eliphas Levi's framing of it, calling the true Science the unification of Reason and Faith. As to God, the enchanted, magical perspective is that God is eternally present, everything is divine infused with the energy of creation, there is no real separation.
Ian McGilchrist speaks in evolutionary terms of the right and left brain, logic and reason, vs acceptance of the whole, including transcendence.
I'm probably paraphrasing him incorrectly, but he might be the one author I can think of to address your question. He has a great deal of YouTube videos, interviews, and of course, there are his books/tomes :)
BTW, I think it's adorable that you notice the ladies noticing ;)
It is so weird. I went to a couple of nephews BB games and felt like I was the center of attention for the first thirty seconds I walked in the door. Even walking around town, I was like, geez, I go live in the country for two years and now I'm attractive to these city girls? lol.
Perchance, have you grown a robust masculine beard? A lot of guys seem to end up growing wispy scraggly sparse beards (as the best that they can do?), and thus (at least to me) it conveys an attempt to show greater masculinity but fails to do so. Maybe the ladies pick up on that among their urban peers as well?
I personally prefer to be clean shaven, and since I am now retired, my beard comes out mostly white and never was too full to begin with, so I can usually shave every other day now. But I can still admire a another man's proper beard vs. a substandard one.
I wear a beard but I keep it short, not more than a half inch long, cutting it regularly to 1/8in.
I am also calmer generally, more at ease, not immersed in this city life anymore.
A very important issue to explore. Unfortunately this essay is rather repetitious, repeats a few points over and over, while also ignoring a couple as well.
But the phrase that most stood out for me was: "The basic cycle of life is this, everything that lives is food and the eater of food." We probably need to repeat such obvious knowledge more frequently to maintain proper perspective. So of course we hunted (and gathered and foraged) so we could eat, but this was not "war". War is the hunting or killing of our fellow humans, not other animals, mostly for purposes other than obtaining food. We in fact have some innate psychic resistance to cannibalism (or is that really just our Westernized cultural elements being dominant in our lives?) But hunter gatherer clans and tribal groups fought each other for women, slaves, or other resources (plus food, or perhaps to reduce the competition for scarce hunting grounds or diminishing herds, etc. ) Steven Pinker claims up to 30% of males died in such inter-group contests. [Incidentally, IIRC, David Goldman also asserts that in modern times one group ends up stopping a back and forth revenge cycle when 30% of the available males are killed on one side vs. the other. The losers give up because they have to, not because they want to.]
But even with that core biological observation, the essay neglects to explore the aspects of our evolution where "war" aided our species survival (if it did?). Peons to "the hunt" are certainly valid. Presumably the core survival benefit was evolving a brain suitable for the social and language skills and capabilities needed to cooperate in joint endeavors, such as hunting, gathering, building, moving collectively, etc. [i.e., beyond that already evident in some ape or pack species.]
I suspect the rather rapid development of plant and animal domestication also enabled or created situations where we lived in groups larger than Dunbar's number of 150 or so. This set of cultural adaptations overwhelmed the slower pace of natural selection, so we have ended up living in ways to which we are not yet "properly adapted". So we make do the best we can with the evolved physical and psychological characteristics that we have.
There may well also be added "benefits" from the mental competition of one apex predator vs. another. Many (if not most) of our social and technical advances were made as part of preparing for war or conducting war. Is this an extension of the smaller group's selection of an alpha male leader to a larger group, where our leader(s) then feel the need to dominant other groups? We can readily recognize now that specialization and trade results in creating and supplying more units of value, faster, and at lower net cost, than almost any war requires or achieves/obtains.
I would like to have seen this essay address some of those ideas/ topics. The essay is probably not so much wrong, as incomplete.
Good to see you back, and that is valid criticism. Of course the topic could be expanded, but the hypothesis is that we hunted, were were the hunted, that was a consciousness altering thing central to our origins and our being even now, we are utterly removed from that and very much confused about it. It is beyond to scope of this post or my expertise probably to get into the particulars about the evolution of humanity. I was just trying to give some context to how we got here.
As for Pinker, I consider him to have a particularly pessimistic view of our origins and an overly optimistic view of the progress we have made.