Ancient Universalism?

By: Jonathan Seidel

Sixth century naturalistic transformation   

In the span of a single century some of the most important and influential ideologies emerged at different areas of the globe. In Western Europe was presocratic philosophers, in Eastern Europe was Zoroastrianism, In Western Asia was Confuciusion, Legalism Maoism and Taoism and in Eastern Asia was Buddhism and Jainism. While the Persian Empire conquered much of this vast era, Cyrus’ share began after Thales and didn’t reach India nor China. So what is up with this shift?

An interesting fact to note is with the exception of Zoroastrianism none of these were traditionally religious. Even Zoroastrianism has its own religious quibble. Though the religion may be millennium older. What is frequented is its official appearance in writing in the sixth century. While there is no denying that these movement could all emerge at the same time in different locations, it is interesting that they all occurred in the same century. There are other variables to consider namely their own sociopolitical makeup yet the similarities between the ideologies does seem to have an underlying connection that seems to be remiss. What is the patten that holds these ideologies closely wound? Each holds a more naturalist flow to life. Absent mythology and incoming philosophy. Some even cling to some metaphysical or spiritual aspect to keep with the old instead of denying it outright. There is a clear transition and it occurs almost simultaneously. It could be a coincidence or it could be fate. What is the secret? Where is the pattern?

Mythology was slowly losing its edge in Phoenicia and Egypt by the tenth century. Phoenicia had scholarly works that profited in the ninth century. Dedicating works to astronomy and philosophy that preempted the greek thinkers. Many greek thinkers borrowed Phoenician manuscripts to dial in their own thinking. Using it as a springboard for their own ideas. Phoenicia was a prosperous shift in thinking. Egypt may have preceded it. The holistic thought process in the eleventh century. They had reduced their paganism to more naturalistic deities. The decline of polytheism was not with Roman Christianisation. The latter ended much of paganism though Germanic paganism endured. Monotheism like Judaism or Zoroastrianism in its more ancient state shifted the balance to a single deity. The intrusion of external cultures and imperial influence reshaped the perception of religion. Paganism had a slow decline in specific areas. Those tainted by cross-cultural inspiration. Germanic tribes survived away from intruding monotheists, the same can be said of the American natives. Hinduism survived given its less theistic perspective and the non-dogmatic compulsion of eastern empires. The flux of such tendencies has a western imprint.

The gradual decline of paganism in the Middle East is no shock that the Abrahamic religions all emerge from that area as well as western philosophy. Grappling with multiple cultures at the same time only furthered the perplexity of the world. Phoenicia began its philosophical enterprise in the ninth century which made its way to the presocratics in Ionia. The late empires from Assyria to Babylon and Persia all centred around the same area. Egypt may have been at a lower stage than its previous glory but it was still a stronghold with influence. The entire Middle East from Turkey to India with areas of North Africa in the mix. There is an obvious mix and matching that allowed for the progress of history. The similarities between the cultures is baffling. Cross-references are nested in the mythological lore. There is always a creation and a flood story. While this may play into a diffused situation which classifies all various religions, the specificity that relates the middle-eastern groups is from a history of discussion and conversion. Controlling areas crossing with one another on the battlefield and trading. The Middle East was a crossroads of debate and harvest.

Which leads to the inquiry of India and China. Neither of them were part of any Middle Eastern conflict nor under their imperial rule. Unlike the europeans, they did reduce their lore. There must be a connection. Though Europe didn’t operate in the same regard. The similarities between the European tribes and American tribes may demonstrate a linkage. Both remained polytheistic for a long time. Both remained villagers for a long time. There is seemingly a lack of urbanisation and centralisation. China and India were both imperial and urban. The flow of information and trade was strong towards the east instead of the west. Though merchants did link Europe with India. There is archaeological evidence even if the depth is quite blurred. There is a theory that the Scythian empire was the catalyst for uniting the Celts with India but also the backbone of philosophy. Since the Scythians were in charge of this vast arena it wouldn’t be shocking to see that they lectured the public on the nuances of philosophy. There is some reservations namely the lacking impact in Europe, the seemingly anonymous impact on Greece and where China fits in. The Scythian impact may have been incredible but sufficient to overturn centuries of belief is quite difficult. While Christianity spread through a single empire, this theory suggests the Scythians toppled several different empires.

To be frank it is not all that crazy if the goal is simply to trade resources and ideas. Scythia was powerful. The empire ran much of eastern Europe. They spread far and wide. The array of cultural and religious notices in other cultures is quite thin though. The influence of a single civilisation on so many others is plausible but needs more evidence. Even if it is the civilisation itself, what is the initiative? Word of mouth? Secularising beliefs is a big shift beyond shifting religiosity. Meaning the potential influence on monotheism is interesting but to deconstruct mythology without leaving much of an imprint themselves is gruelling. It is more probable that it is more than a single civilisation and a blend of culture. In the same breath, Scythia despite its closer roots to Celts than Phoenicia did not alter their beliefs. Whether the Celts and other tribes were ignored can be mustered in the face of the classical fertile crescent. There was trade but apparently the ideas didn’t manifest in the same way. Scythia binds all these groups together but their own culture was polytheistic. Their religious details are found in Roman authors but the level of secularism doesn’t seem to have the same effort. Naturalisation seems to be foreign to their animal deities. Their impact on the religious naturalism seems negligible even if they made their way to the far reaches of Eurasia.

An alternative proposal is the breath of textualisation that rapidly spread through  the Middle East. The era of classical inequity beginning in the eighth century saw a decline in mythology with the advance of literacy. Literacy was most common under imperial rule. Imperial rule centralised economies as well as pushed for urbanisation. People moved to cities for better economic avenues. With the cities being the centre livelihood and growth more were exposed to the development of man. Mythology was mainly oral. Passed down from person to person like a game of telephone. Stories embellished with fantastical aspects. Some were carved into stone or painted with cave art. For the most part this was designated to those in the scribal seats. Those of regal or aristocratic heritage. Urbanisation brought people to the centre and offered everyone the possibility of partaking in the art of writing. Human capability was furthered by the people themselves no longer needing to rely on priests for divine blessings. Literacy was a form of reformation. The rapid development of trade aided those who previously in the lower social classes to ascend. As people ascended they recognised the diabolical rituals they wished to desist from. No more human sacrifices as one example. The expansion of trade and prosperity made people question their beliefs. Scythia’s long trading range may have assisted in this but they were not the only traders. Phoenicia was among the innovators. 

Instead of the caste system shoving the lower class aside to the countryside they now were all bottled up in the city centre. The economic growth led to these social inquiries and reformers seeking to take advantage of it. Many of these religious ideas were institutionalised and many sought to overthrow them for a new current of thought. The naturalism that is so prevalent sought an equality of sorts to underlie much of the institutional discrimination. With literacy rates rising and trade expanding, the caste system was seemingly obsolete. The old peasantry were now strong middle class-men. It seems more plausible that it wasn’t Scythia that brought ideas but that their linkage of both continents brought forth the conversation. It brought forth the prosperity that had people rethinking their lifestyle and philosophy. A fast-paced consumerist upheaval was gnawing at the static repression of old. Liberation was at its peak and trade being the key theme cemented its value in realistic portrayals. It was the mythology that subjugated people and nature that liberated them. An ironic ploy to the classical tenants of divine morality. If anything, it was the new non-theistic groups that began pondering the genuine aspects of life. Philosophising about the correct way of living. All of this discussion was in the Middle East to Western Asia. From Ionia to China. Areas all under urban growth and trade expansion. 

Italy was further east than Greece and did not rid its paganism until Christianity wreaked havoc in the late stages of the empire. In the early days of the empire, pagans were fighting pagans. The roman gods battled the germanic gods. A war of polytheistic might. Whose gods were stronger, whose culture better. Christianity ended up corrupting and crumbling Rome as its imperial might lost its way. Yet the Hellenistic prowess did venture into Rome prior to its destruction. There were thinkers in Rome during the pagan era though by that time the state had become the centre. The empire housed the old lore but didn’t hold to its beliefs as tightly as it once did. Christianity was a triumph not over paganism but over imperialism. It was one universalist ideology over another. Nordic tribes kept to their lore until the Middle Ages. Christianity under their English powerhouse sought to erase their foolish paganism. Vikings still held tight to their oral messaging. The Danes has even conquered England but more exposure to the Christian West made them more susceptible to give up their religiosity. It wasn’t always to become Christian but to the lavish “modernity” of the Middle Ages. For others, literacy was a transition to Christianity. Christianity was superior because it was technologically superior. Danes were oral and ancient. Archaic and wrong. Christianity was mechanistic and strong. Books on Christianity overpowered the strong norse heritage. 

The outgrowth of naturalism in the sixth century leading to various new ideologies finds some similarity to the rise of secularism in the age of exploration. The downfall of feudalism which had to do with more monarchical power and the death toll of the black plague brought people freedom they never had. Peasants were able to capitalise on the available open land and monarchs could retain more structure for trade than nobles. The renaissance revived the Ancient Greek teachings and spawned humanism and capitalist liberty. Leading ultimately to the reformation and secularist thinking. The enlightenment was the final straw that brought in democracy to the forefront. Urbanisation following the fall of feudalism with the spirit of the Renaissance fuelled naturalistic thinking. Galileo and Newton followed through to Bacon and Locke. A tumultuous time for rethinking in an age of transition. An age of rising literacy amongst peasantry and the peasantry making their way up the ladder. Urbanisation didn’t become entrenched until the nineteenth century with the industrial revolution doubling in size. Moving up and feeling more liberated was a process. The reformation prodded itself on equality amongst men and everyday biblical guides. Splintering much of Judaism as well into more modern focus. The Renaissance didn’t have the same degree of diverse impact nor as far reaching but it was spawned by exploration and commerce.

Trade breeds ideas. The fact that in both eras naturalism was sought indicates a common historical theme. Whether that be in ethical lifestyles or in humanistic thinking. It was commerce that united the trend with a few more variables to topple the repressive institutions preventing innovation. The static leaning rulers who wished not to break with their traditions. With more people enlightened they were able to fend for themselves. Yet they needed somewhere to look. They needed a guide. They were newly liberated. Prisoners for so long and absent direction. The binding ideological elements of humanism and protestantism paved a way for surviving in an economically successful area. To be among everyone else more free and more dignified. Away from the abuse of old to the serenity of new. Ironically they both occurred in the first century of the millennium. There is a coincidence though history does tend to repeat itself and renaissance thinkers did look to their greek ancestors for some insight before charting down an unknown future. Commerce and urbanisation cultivated new ideas. Raising the downtrodden enlightened to a new idea. A new way of life of naturalistic focus and human empowerment. 

Just Like Animals

By: Jonathan Seidel

Animal otherness: linguistic distinction and human discrimination (Berger, 5)

There is an unremarkable element in the human relation to animals. Human intellect has empowered man to denounce animals as inferior beings. Able to feast on them as the top of the kingdom. The intellectual description goes further in demeaning undesirable humans as animals.

To be an animal is to be less than subhuman. It is to be a brainless and violent. Darwinian survival of the fittest characterises the impolite and amoral behaviour of the animal. The animal is shrewd and obtuse, unreasonable and irresponsible. Anything short of posh is animalistic in its instinctive desire. Aspirations muddled by human craving. Lustfully seeking to quench unattainable thirst. The true human is in control of his actions. Strong and brave he is balanced in his life. He reasons and deduces. Speaks and clarifies. The pinnacle of the animal kingdom. The most evolved creature. A superiority complex embedded in his DNA. Generationally educated in sacred and mundane atmosphere. Civilisation is away from the animal jungle. A place of horrid murder and savage actions. Despicable behaviour with no tolerance for compassion nor polity. There is no order or rule. There is simply carnage, each fighting to stay on top. A chaotic arena fighting amongst the dubious. A colosseum of faceless wizardry. The gladiators fight preying on the weak slaves. A bloodbath inevitable. 

Animals are uncivilised in the human mind. Roaming the jungle and hunting one another. It is a battle royale to see who will be the last man standing. It is a fight to the death. The jungle is a place for animals to kill one another. To remain servants of nature. To be herded sheep in an illusionary mark. Their lacking intellect cannot escape the natural prison. Only man civilised can build and fortify himself from nature. Nature will still come for him. Disasters will befall him but he uses his resources to fight back. Using nature itself to defend himself. He will not be a pawn in nature’s game. He is better than the animal because he can outthink nature. He can build shelters and weapons to defend against other creatures. Nature’s overwhelming force cannot destroy him. While animals run to shelter, he stands in place, screaming bring it on. He builds a covering to protect himself from the rain and heat. He conducts electricity to cool him down and heat him up. A tornado or an earthquake may destroy his shelter but he can always build another one. It is will that will be his success or downfall. All is at his disposal, it is a matter of using his strengths to survive. His genius is his salvation. He reasons his best options and prevails.

It is only fitting that the civilised man looks down upon the animal. The animal has no kingship nor material excess. He is not adorned with gold nor beating with life. He is a part of the cyclical order of nature. Beholden to her whims. He cannot escape her grace nor her wrath. Animals are the unfortunate devolved creatures that cannot escape their fate. They are hunters and to be hunted. Natural selection has sealed their fate in the monstrosity of nature’s laugh. Human perception is in the negative. If humans can outdo nature and nature controls animals so can humans. Humans hunt animals for food. While a part of the natural cycle, hunting for sport could be construed as up taking nature. This isn’t a task executed for hunger but for pleasure. Owning pets is a declaration of control. A dog is put on a leash, a fish in a tank. A servant to its master. Trained to follow commands. Both are domesticated either a souvenir or in servitude. Man’s knowledge gives him the tactical advantage. His intellect enhances his own ego. His abilities only strengthen with time. The more inventive, the more advanced the further from animals he becomes. In his mind, he is the controller of reality. Anthropocentrism is at its finest. 

Man distinguishes himself further and further away from animals. His enlightenment only elevates his own expertise. He is literate. He is fashionable. He is clearly elevated. The more he knows the more he acquires. It is his intellect that takes primacy. His preoccupation with his intellectual prowess fosters its egotistical might. He may be slower than other animals, less intuitive and more vulnerable but he is smarter. He is more capable. Yet all the observations are strictly empirical. He senses that he is atop. His actions stress a superiority but it may be false. He has little way of knowing. Animals act differently. Their seeming deficient intelligence is based off speech and mathematical incapability. He doesn’t see their theorems or their merchandise. He doesn’t see their cities or their weaponry. They are but primitive creatures. He is the most evolved. He is the ape that was. The greatest of the mammalian species. The power to build and destroy within an instant. Yet this is all in the eye of the beholder. All in his perception of animalistic inferiority. A monolithically biased account of animal existence and preconceived notions of natural development. 

Animals are far better at certain things than he is. He cannot run like a cheetah nor swim like a fish. He cannot soar like a board nor shield like a crab. His intellect is his greatest charm. Man’s ancestors were easily too weak and ignorant to recognise their true gift. It was only with experience that they realised their true potential. The intellect which provides no skill. Man is weak and frail. He is slow and disheveled. He was the target of the animal kingdom. The lowest of creatures. He is weak amongst the primates. A chimp could knock out a professional fighter. Gorillas would smash him. He traded brawn for brains. The chimp may be able to knock him out but man could invent brass knuckles to knock out the chimp. The theory that humans grew weaker with enhanced cognitive function isn’t exactly true. Weakness was not so much diminished strength but improvised use for more lower body power than upper body. A strategic use for running and hunting. Humans were not just smarter but more clever. Able to outrun a cheetah with a car, fly faster than a bird and swim quicker than a fish. Man’s intellect built machines to rise through the system. Each invention took years but man’s genius of domesticating donkeys and camels to ride long distances, to build shelters outside the jungle with walls and weaponry for protection gave them the edge. The intellect was almost a cheat code to ensure the survival of man. 

Despite man’s apparent elevation to the top. An uncharacteristic and unprecedented growth in history, he is still insecure. He builds to fend off the horror of his existential dread. He can’t beat reality. The top of the kingdom is but a lonely place. He cannot conquer death nor save from the cancerous deployment. Immortality is but a foregone conclusion. To feel more alive he takes on his brethren. No animal kills like he kills. No animal hurts its brethren like he does. Man is the most violent and cruel being. He ego and esteem offset his compassionate animalism. He is not impassioned by natural aspects but by greed. The desires incumbent on his intellect. His desire for control makes his devilish aspirations a reality. A tragedy ignorant to the animals. His great intellect is also his greatest burden. Bringing him so much good and yet so much evil. He can rise so high and fall in an instant. His realisation of this crusade is his own pitfall. He cannot be ignorant to the horror of his existence. His intellect is too great. The darwinian program fails to account for the anomaly of emotional depression. The neurological art of seduction and deprivation. Its power is beyond comprehension. A blessing and a curse. Unable to control the stress or damper the failures. Obsessed with his mind no matter the downfall. 

Animals possess intelligence. They may not be able to cultivate complex equations or construct gigantic pillars but they do have a sense of their own. Their limited intelligence provides some hope to their existence. Animals can communicate whether through whistling or pheromones. They organise themselves in social groups with a higher acceptable determinism. They possess the ability to recognise themselves in the mirror. Knowledge of their intellectual capabilities is limited at this point in time and it does seem it inferior to human capability but there is a charming respect for their lives. They can be jealous and violent. Monkeys address inequality, wolves get homesick and elephants mourn their loved ones. The drift is not different. Many a time it is just inexplainable and incomprehensible. If it can’t be understood it must be less. Despite evidence of exchanging goods and falling in love. They lack the complexity of humans and are more attuned with their habitat. They do not lack individuality but do lack freedom to choose a separate way of life. The more intelligent the more free thinking the more independent. Animals should not be seen as dumb though some species are lower on the intelligence totem pole than others. Human intelligence is unique but it is not exclusive. 

The historical rise of anthropocentrism is commonly painted as the bible but this is modern rendition of the ancient book. Most ancient groups including the Israelites, Egyptians and Chinese saw animals as an equal along the human side. To whatever degree nature permitted man to infest animal flesh need not undermine the moral compass of these ancient civilisations. Natural selection is a part of nature and man will eat animals but that doesn’t take away from treating them with dignity. Just as defeat by an enemy while disappointing can be accepted so to with the defeat of the animal. Anthropocentrism is not the human elevation over animals but the human subjugation of animals. Man is told to conquer and guard. To be a warrior in a field. To protect god’s land and his creatures. To indulge but balanced. The shift becomes apparent in the mid sixth century. It is ironically the growing ascetic views in western and eastern models. In this naturalist shift with the formation of pre-socratic philosophy in the west and Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism and Jainism in the east subscribed to a proto-darwinian landscape. No longer was the deity the sum of all or the ruler the head with all others beneath. Now the lower class could elevate. The difference was not between a deity and his congregation but humans and animals. Humans while caring for animals saw themselves as superior. Animals have been used to eat and to plow fields. The normatively of these events does not suspect an ideological hierarchy or a superiority complex. Humans used animals and in return cared for them. Darwin’s theory still held back then but it wasn’t done with malicious ideological intact.  

Only with the naturalist thinking. When the deity is removed does humanity become its own exclusive core. Does the semantic reading of the bible become the deduction of many. Animals perceived as humane are shot down to nothingness. To be an other unnerving of human needs. The hellenised efforts only broadened this point. The ideological leap for the theological monistic Christians furthered this tool to subjugate others. Marking humans as animals. Dehumanising became a new trend for difference and destruction. Once animals were reduced to otherness, other humans could too. A destructive and nefarious cycle that has continued through the ages. The naturalist emerged during commercial expansion and technological advancement. The human intellect was marvelling in its prestige. Prosperity led to urbanisation and rising literacy rates. Humanism grew sharply influencing the recently downtrodden to embolden themselves. All packaged up in an enclosed city. An industrialised ethos united away from the countryside. Away from the jungle. How much better and isolated from their animalistic counterparts. The enlightened do not need inferior instincts to survive. They have a mind and money. 

This naturalist perspective also sought asceticism. The presocratics and eastern compatriots sought to distance from materialistic excess. The lower class didn’t need materialism to be human but to deter from the materialism. The aesthetic was the animal. Animals needed adornment. They needed to kill and be violent. The way to be truly human was to desist from these desires. To reach enlightenment was to be one with nature. To be one with nature was voiding all nature provided. To move against the current of natural progression. To resist the temptation of aggression and might. A worlds away from the aesthetic appeal of jewellery and status. Placing all humans on a horizontal chain with other species below. Desire was alien. It was the devil incarnate. Asceticism came into contact with the bare minimum of human expression. While greek nudity was probably more pragmatic than ideological, the cynics deprivation for nudity was an ascetic appeal. Apparel itself is a marker of desire. It is contextual and regulated to human aspirations. No animal wants money but it is animalistic to want money. A figure of speech that identifies devious natural instinct with animal attachment. The ascetic ideal is to be deprived in an angelic way. Diverse variations but one that attempts to mark the deprivation with a human supremacy. Esoteric and mystical waves seek to recover a human ornament with superior intentions.

Human virtue was the highest of compliments. It was human discipline that derailed its own selfhood in the face of animalistic desires. Yet in this way it was a hatred of true humanity. Human was animal. His determined fate was to be of the animal. He tried to conquer with power and discipline and yet at the end of the day could not muster such iconoclasm. He could resist as much as he could but could not defeat nature. He could not overpower his needs. He could belie objectivisation and other desires but not undeniable urges for satiation. Asceticism is to a degree anti-humanism. Though the ideological front to control is also anti-humanism. There are two extremes that are dually intellectual and not naturalistic. It beckons its own hypocrisy and self-contradiction. To control life is to be above the natural order. Yet he is an animal. He cannot escape his fate but he tries. He prioritise his cognitive power to ponder and excel. The first step was building beyond and then it was destroying beyond. The eternal focus on man’s capability in the aesthetic or ascetic appeal in an ego trip for human centrality. His evolution or his divine gift is a curse. He is an animal but can never truly be one. He is an outcast by nature. Recognising this truth he has envied for more knowledge to outwit his own isolation. To make the most of this and feel better amongst the lonely creatures in the universe. There is no ignorance and no robotic affiliation. Choice rears its head and the mental wounds are apparent. 

A balance struck by the near foolishness of intellectual superiority. Desires that compound the rational mind. Contemplating and considering the choice. Individuality is at stake. Losing freedom is dreadful. Integrity and urgency align in a mix of psychotic hope.  Demonstrating beyond a doubt that cognitive power is at an all time high. Yet there is no bliss. The balanced pre-naturalist thinking was equally disturbing in many regards. Yet the affinity between man and animal was more aligned. The ethical chamber was not a utopian protection. Yet prior man was an animal. He may have lead the animals but he was a man of the jungle. He was Tarzan incarnate. Animals were respected and sought for moral guidance. Man subdued each other with no selectivity. Naturalism elevated man to equal status then subsequently to penalise those men who didn’t fit in. For a brief window all was equal but then the other animal was associated with the dehumanised. The discontent and the deformed. Logistical amoral decisions were met with an ideological liberation. A liberation that eventually hunted its own kind like dogs. There are things to be remiss about. Their moral carnage holds no bounds. Both ascetic and aesthetic are bound by human elevation. 

There are two aspects in today’s world the materialistic aesthetic and the environmental ascetics. The human projection of their own fame and fortune. The adornment with picture perfection. The standard of being and expression. A way of demonstrating superiority is by accumulating the quantity of material qualities. The blatant ferocious autonomy insinuating the ability to do whatever the desire. Not chained down by any system nor be deprived of any liberty. On the other side is the environmental assault on animal rights. Depriving of the natural order for their own moral high ground. Deciding not to partake in the darwinian cycle of life. Preaching as some higher truth for betterment of humanity. Bringing about animal realisation through their picture perfect wisdom. To be individualistic, to be free of the shackles of nature. Both sides play against the natural order. Their naturalism is set in their own alterations of progress. Pushing their own agendas against the chaotic jungle of the universe. Ensuring their own protection under a guise of humanism. It is a deceptive tactic to control the world. A way of breaking the mortal coil. Filling with desires to feel accomplished or campaigning for animal safety to feel inspirational. Both sides are right and wrong simultaneously. The issue isn’t the indulgence or resistance but the extreme engagement in one side. The dogmatic appeal that fails to consider the other side. The extremist who cannot balance himself. 

Partaking in the world is not a sin nor a folly. The human intellect is both graceful and devilish. Animals are to be respected but also eaten. It is a part of evolution, a part of all species. Man is to follow his dream. Yet also facilitate the genuine nature of animal progression. His intellect too much drives his ambitions. Animals work in packs. Where is the determined nature of collectivist mantras. Where is the concern for one another. The intellect refuses to acknowledge the weak. It is the emotional instinct that does yield violence but for brethren. Universalism is a lie. Particularism is sacred. A species aiding their own. It is not about us-them but a part of the determined product. A part of the natural cycle. Not too bossed with demonstrating non-human desires in ideological championing. Beauty standards and meditative training are cases of such radical unnatural interventions. Obsession is the danger, moderation is the key. Work alongside animals cherish their existence but do not suppose a superiority complex. Do not place oneself above in some divine nor biological scheme. Such is the flaw of the axial age. Such is the flaw of anthropocentrism. It is not about what you do but what nature does. Falling in line with the natural order is not slavery. It is liberation from existential dread and intellectual fantasies. Part of a collective in the holistic web of creatures. All standing together at Pride Rock to welcome nature and her gracious gift of life.   

Accursed Taboos

By: Jonathan Seidel

Agricultural shifts that led to ontological beliefs: inferior women in the kitchen, enslaving humans and eating meat. 

As humans we have certain beliefs about our species. We create metaphysical truths about who we are. We fail to acknowledge socio-historical factors as excuses for those changes. It is taken as a given that a long standing norm should stay a certain way. We create fantastical illusions concerning these truths. While religion has only worked to solidify these ontological truths, it is apparent that they are reflective of an internal ethic than human nature. 

Lacking many resources to the distant past we accept that which is available to us. If that society mirrors our own we are the correct path. Yet while archeology has begun to uncover variances in ancient cultures unfortunately, there is due inaccuracy in archeological salvage. It is imperfect and cannot be the representer of the sole truth. Still, religion’s absolute truth model coexists with moderated composition. Religion has fortified these claims as the creedal pillars indoctrinating the public into a service model. The mythos of educated growth transforms into scientific recollection. 

While religion has spoiled much of the historicist mentality, there is an emergence to these claims from the downplayed schizophrenia. There is a maniacal retaliation against such constructivist claims. The naturism that hard pinned in the nexus of compatible seniority. The trans-generational consistency is less a coincidence and more fed up of classical human frailty. Genuine human faults are perceived in the sinful genetics of man. These are hormonal digestive silkworms. A worldview of objective ejecting dogmas. There is little challenge to resisting norms. Persistence seeks to undermine inquiry to its veracity. 

Resisting meta narratives about humanity are not simple. Empirically the illusionary consistency is deranged yet cohesive. The matrix consumes the fictional motif traversing through societal expression. What may seem like an eternity is solely a few generations. A formative approach examines the situational aspects. Scepticism rears its ugly head. Challenging the current strata in its postmodern nihilism. A bratty child shouting “are you sure” “are you sure” pointing his finger in his younger sister’s face taunting her. A level of arrogance mixed with ignorance haunts the cynical attitude. Maybe humanity is doomed to cyclical mania. There is no escape as long as humanity exists. Bound to act in a predestined way.

Cynical summoning is a heap of kind hearted betrayal. Religious archetypes further grand expositions of human failure. The soul is purified in the cognitive dissonance rallied toward the defiance of his ill natured obviation of consequence. A destructive monstrosity begetting his true self. An axiomatic fact in his extension to the world at large. Seduced by the pornographic media into extensive gazing through raging disemboweled positioning. Captivated by the materialistic monster shoving him to nearby synchronicity. Follow the leader. Reach for the fruit just waiting to be plucked. Don’t ask questions accept the gift just smile and continue on. Don’t check for bugs or any other toxic additions. 

Looped into an endless endeavour. Accepting facts without further scrutiny. Generational consistency startles the sceptic. Signalling the perpetuated norm to its desired target. The prosecutor is left in the dust. Witnesses are barraged with intuitive notions. Easily identifiable remarks by their latent historical recollection. So routine in their Truman Show motivated persona. Conspiracy theories foster ill will on the public. They are to be disparaged quickly. Despite their frequent uptake they are swiftly removed from centerstage. Cockblocked by the media shortly undermining their source. Treated as cheap retconning with no ounce of truth. Yet simultaneously blackballed from any investigative inquiry. Branded with no more lettering.

So now what? The absurd captivity of hyper inflated terminology. Normative encapsulation trapped in a fictional cycle. The role of everyday activity is socially habituated. It neither speaks to prehistoric sapiens nor to primitive consciousness. The straggling counter model crudely suggests a stagnant progressive flow. With little recourse to change. Unable to escape the horrid nightmare. Such restrictive access boxes in human capability. Taking science to a varying degree of pseudo-intellectualism. Drawing conclusions strictly visually. Seeming off but a possibility. Things are not always as they appear.   

Thinking critically about the nature of human evolution. Daring to the depths of possibility. The minimalistic potentiality of crazed foolishness. Refusing to take anything at face value. Rechecking accepted work generationally. Was Newton and Einstein correct? Could they be incorrect? While there is a truth to science and history it does not mean that we have solved it. Context is key. It is possible calculations are off. They were correct one day but not the next. Perfection is hard to come by. There is no reason to muster in angst at the imperfection. Adept scholars recognise the eternal battle of discovery. There is still much unknown in the discovered region. Scratching the surface of the wider categorisation failing to drop beneath the surface. 

A single crystallisation is a monumental achievement but it also only moves the needle a meter. Review and refinement moves the needle back a little. Sceptic empowerment reevaluates the notorious endowment. Discrediting is for jealous fools, repetition is for honest colleagues. The field is not for self fame but for global comprehension. Those in it for the former reason are muddying the field with their razor sharp cleats. They play dirty for their own fortune. Gaining any edge to get on top. It is a representative profession. Working on behalf of humanity. Grinding for egotistical necessities does little to reach the truth. It hinders capability whereby there is a special interest to do otherwise. To either hold back truth or refuse to pursue it. 

Politicised avenues ignore the registered capacity to be honest and forthcoming. There is a caveat that can easily be discerned but easily ignored. An obvious dose of coercive mania with little evidential metrics. Any unanimity or censorship is call for surveillance. Is their rightful reason to be so calm or pejorative. Blocking white supremacy is important in removing their audience access but not everything is genuinely red flagged. Triggering words or phrases hit emotional highs even if there is little silver lining to their insult. Blowing things out of proportion further divides the helping hand. Decimating any middle ground and any truth to beholden in the public sphere. It red-lines the truth kernels plucking them from the overall picture. Cutting them from context in a vicious poking effort. 

Habits are solidified as the transparent norm. Progressive hunting is combatted with regressive taunting. Both vying for objectivity. Claiming their narrative is the historical reality. Both concoct similar political schemes in hopes of parrying off deceptive answers. Playing politics in a genuinely driven lane. On path to a culture war that is socially manifested. Neither side has the mantle. Projecting bits of evidence to support their cause. It is an agenda driven monstrosity. Capturing the independents in the loony bin. Opining their opinions as factual absolutes with emotional undertones. Pathologically seeking empathy over data authenticity. Weaponing language and falsifying narratives to fit a subjectively just cause. Whining about a potential future with only partial predictions. 

The transition from evidence to emotional appeal is so quick. It lacks any hard evidence. Just look at the cute puppies, the crying babies and the weathering storm. Hypnotic empiricism classifies truth in the visual cornea. Brainwashed to perceive that which is not present. Day dreaming of a fantasy that will never be. The banter persists attempting to engrave the words on the heart. Take them seriously or be labeled evil. A bastard with no concern for society. Wake up to the illusion clouding judgement. Do not take simple sentences for factual data. Check other sources and push back. Belittling slogans pervade the media hemisphere. Thinking this way or that way is the mark of satan. Dubious scare tactics plunge fear in the soul. Not wanting to be ostracised, wishing for other’s approval submits allegiance wilfully.

Humanity is an evolutionary species. Dynamic in attitude and expression. Continuously growing towards the green or the grey. There is little to be taken as absolute. Facts are opinions for the moment. Science continues to refine its earlier theories. History has added more data to the mix. The clear division is taking conclusions as is in their undeniable force. Little can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. There is a fine line in accepting points. Accepting with a grain of salt testifies to the possible inaccuracy whether intentional or mistake. Yet convincers are propping ideas from their heads. Even with an extended pdf slideshow, it does not automatically validating. Recognising the agenda driven nature. Someone is out to change your mind for a reason. Listen to them but be internally sceptical that their argument is exact. Using big terms to throw you off the scent is a dangerous attack move to force surrender. Be weary, take a step back and analyse the situation.