Taomeow

Sumer: the "black-headed" vs. the "red-faced"

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

Sorry it's a bit long - but the story is that the wild creatures fled.  But of course it was him who had changed - so I guess you read it either way.  The point I was trying to make was that humans and animals naturally have affinity but the changes in man - sex and civilisation (?) - change his energy to make animals generally shun him - while perhaps a few select animals i.e. dogs could see through the changes to the original nature.  Thus they were not domesticated as such if you see what I mean.

 

Just a thought.

 

Civilization and domestication seperate us from our own wild nature.

 

This is actually the underlying theme of Women Who Run with Wolves, and where my ruminations end at this point. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

Civilization and domestication seperate us from our own wild nature.

 

This is actually the underlying theme of Women Who Run with Wolves, and where my ruminations end at this point. 

 

It's possible to argue that this is also about a certain type of sexuality which alters the characteristics of the subtle body.  Interested in people's views on this.  I am not trying to be prudish or judgemental but just practical.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

It's possible to argue that this is also about a certain type of sexuality which alters the characteristics of the subtle body.  Interested in people's views on this.  I am not trying to be prudish or judgemental but just practical.

 

 

 

You mean, hapless male falls victim to feminine whiles, and in so doing destroys/loses some higher aspect of himself? 

 

: wicked little laugh :

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ilumairen said:

 

You mean, hapless male falls victim to feminine whiles, and in so doing destroys/loses some higher aspect of himself? 

 

: wicked little laugh :

 

Well, that's not quite what I meant.  :)

 

Shamhat's whiles were specifically a trick designed to rob his powers, for which she used her sexuality (make-up, nudity and so on).  Enkidu is natural and yet naive - some imbalance is created because of the deception and this imprints on his subtle body.

 

Just thoughts.  Tell me I'm wrong :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Well, that's not quite what I meant.  :)

 

Shamhat's whiles were specifically a trick designed to rob his powers, for which she used her sexuality (make-up, nudity and so on).  Enkidu is natural and yet naive - some imbalance is created because of the deception and this imprints on his subtle body.

 

Just thoughts.  Tell me I'm wrong :)

 

This certainly seems the intent of the story.. scare young men, and damn the women willing to embrace them. A cautionary literary device to be sure. :lol:

 

Edit to add: Why is the "fall of man" (singular or otherwise) so often attributed to women?

Edited by ilumairen
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Apech said:

 

 

Sorry it's a bit long - but the story is that the wild creatures fled.  But of course it was him who had changed - so I guess you read it either way.  The point I was trying to make was that humans and animals naturally have affinity but the changes in man - sex and civilisation (?) - change his energy to make animals generally shun him - while perhaps a few select animals i.e. dogs could see through the changes to the original nature.  Thus they were not domesticated as such if you see what I mean.

 

Just a thought.

 

To your question mark: I think this illustrates the unnaturalness of sex in the civilized shape and form (which is what the animals must have felt -- and fled because of that): sex disconnected from what its essence is really about, a shared life and what arises from that, intimacy of the souls, not just bodies.  You don't share a life with a prostitute, she shares her body with you, but your souls don't communicate.  Wild animals don't view other animals as sex toys, they may be polygamous but sex serves the purpose of reproduction in this case, so it is still geared toward a shared life -- or they can be monogamous and then it is part of deep intimacy, part of friendship, loyalty, devotion, responsibility for the young and for each other.  Besides, none are physiologically equipped for prostitution -- which makes me wonder where human ability to have sex disconnected from everything else, including procreation, comes from.  Not in the sense whether we should, but in the sense why we can, why do we dedicate extraordinary amounts of inner resources to being able any day of the week.  Producing sex hormones for decades is very taxing on the body and nature is not usually this wasteful. 

 

The whole civilized sexual story is physiologically insane.  But even our species-specific physiology in this regard is, come to think of it, unbelievable.  What's the function of the hymen?  Outside civilization, none whatsoever.  So why would nature install one?  Was it even nature that installed it?..  And menstruation -- what exactly would a wild animal bleed every month for, to be smelled out and eaten by a predator?  And then the clash between the length of the reproductive period of a human female (decades -- while for most animals it's days in a year) and the civilized attitude toward it that changes like the weather -- now she's not in the position, socially, to have children till she's close to 40, but back then in some societies she could be too old to marry by age 18, without it meaning she could have a child out of wedlock.  And the sheer number of children we can have because there's no restrictions on our sexual activity and few on our ability to conceive -- while the human child is the most helpless and in need of the mother's undivided attention for the longest time of all animals.  How would nature account for a baby factory early civilization turns the woman's body into?  Or for the sketchy fertility of late stages of civilization (1 out of 7--9 conceptions happening today ends in spontaneous abortion at the earliest stage -- within days -- as it only does in a dying population of animals, e.g. in a doomed flock of sheep that the farmer knows he will soon lose because they have become too sick to reproduce)?

 

 

Edited by Taomeow
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ilumairen said:

 

This certainly seems the intent of the story.. scare young men, and damn the women willing to embrace them. A cautionary literary device to be sure. :lol:

 

I don't think so.  The other protagonist Gilgamesh who was king was becoming unpopular partly because he was exercising droit du seigneur which was pissing everyone off for obvious reasons.  Enkidu was set up to be his equal and opposite - a natural man.  The method of his 'capture' was again a man-made role that of prostitute/priestess.  This is all a consequence of civilisationary pressures - hence the distortion of the subtle body. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

 

....

 

The whole civilized sexual story is physiologically insane.  But even our species-specific physiology in this regard is, come to think of it, unbelievable.  What's the function of the hymen?  Outside civilization, none whatsoever.  So why would nature install one?  Was it even nature that installed it?..  And menstruation -- what exactly would a wild animal bleed every month for, to be smelled out and eaten by a predator?  And then the clash between the length of the reproductive period of a human female (decades -- while for most animals it's days in a year) and the civilized attitude toward it that changes like the weather -- now she's not in the position, socially, to have children till she's close to 40, but back then in some societies she could be too old to marry by age 18, without it meaning she could have a child out of wedlock.  And the sheer number of children we can have because there's no restrictions on our sexual activity and few on our ability to conceive -- while the human child is the most helpless and in need of the mother's undivided attention for the longest time of all animals.  How would nature account for a baby factory early civilization turns the woman's body into?  Or for the sketchy fertility of late stages of civilization (1 out of 7--9 conceptions happening today ends in spontaneous abortion at the earliest stage -- within days -- as it only does in a dying population of animals, e.g. in a doomed flock of sheep that the farmer knows he will soon lose because they have become too sick to reproduce)?

 

 

 

Nicely put.

 

Whence comes the hymen if not from nature????  

 

Perhaps it's nature's way of saying 'Hi men!'  ... :)

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

I don't think so.  The other protagonist Gilgamesh who was king was becoming unpopular partly because he was exercising droit du seigneur which was pissing everyone off for obvious reasons.  Enkidu was set up to be his equal and opposite - a natural man.  The method of his 'capture' was again a man-made role that of prostitute/priestess.  This is all a consequence of civilisationary pressures - hence the distortion of the subtle body. 

 

The prostitute/priestess dynamic you present here is most interesting, as it relates to the shifting Aeons as presented in the underlying theme of this topic.

 

The shift from sustaining mother earth, and sacred woman, may be interwoven in what you shared. 

 

Thoughts of biblical passages damning outside cults come to mind. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW How could it not be cautionary, if your suggested understanding regarding the subtle body is accurate?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

 

To your question mark: I think this illustrates the unnaturalness of sex in the civilized shape and form (which is what the animals must have felt -- and fled because of that): sex disconnected from what its essence is really about, a shared life and what arises from that, intimacy of the souls, not just bodies.  You don't share a life with a prostitute, she shares her body with you, but your souls don't communicate.  Wild animals don't view other animals as sex toys, they may be polygamous but sex serves the purpose of reproduction in this case, so it is still geared toward a shared life -- or they can be monogamous and then it is part of deep intimacy, part of friendship, loyalty, devotion, responsibility for the young and for each other.  Besides, none are physiologically equipped for prostitution -- which makes me wonder where human ability to have sex disconnected from everything else, including procreation, comes from.  Not in the sense whether we should, but in the sense why we can, why do we dedicate extraordinary amounts of inner resources to being able any day of the week.  Producing sex hormones for decades is very taxing on the body and nature is not usually this wasteful. 

 

The whole civilized sexual story is physiologically insane.  But even our species-specific physiology in this regard is, come to think of it, unbelievable.  What's the function of the hymen?  Outside civilization, none whatsoever.  So why would nature install one?  Was it even nature that installed it?..  And menstruation -- what exactly would a wild animal bleed every month for, to be smelled out and eaten by a predator?  And then the clash between the length of the reproductive period of a human female (decades -- while for most animals it's days in a year) and the civilized attitude toward it that changes like the weather -- now she's not in the position, socially, to have children till she's close to 40, but back then in some societies she could be too old to marry by age 18, without it meaning she could have a child out of wedlock.  And the sheer number of children we can have because there's no restrictions on our sexual activity and few on our ability to conceive -- while the human child is the most helpless and in need of the mother's undivided attention for the longest time of all animals.  How would nature account for a baby factory early civilization turns the woman's body into?  Or for the sketchy fertility of late stages of civilization (1 out of 7--9 conceptions happening today ends in spontaneous abortion at the earliest stage -- within days -- as it only does in a dying population of animals, e.g. in a doomed flock of sheep that the farmer knows he will soon lose because they have become too sick to reproduce)?

 

 

 

Is 'junk' DNA related to this as well. An unnatural alteration of the human genome?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to throw something in for consideration (I'll edit this out if it isn't that helpful), but the concepts of Phantom Time and New Chronology are something I was just listening to on a podcast, which can be found here: https://ourfakehistory.com/index.php/season-2/episode-43-what-is-phantom-time/#more-428

 

Now, obviously, the focus on the episode is loooooooong after Sumer. But the same reasoning is there that somehow is seductive to Sitchin sycophants and other weirdoes out there who, quoting the host of the show, "put so much scrutiny to established knowledge and history, yet don't hold this same level of scrutiny to bizarre and outrageous theories that appeal to them and require a lot of suspension of disbelief, especially of scientific tools like carbon dating". 

 

Given how much we have (or how little), and how much has been lost to time, war, entropy, and limitations of technology and everything else such as retrofitting contemporary norms towards understanding cultures and history, seeing something like this about the newly-discovered Tablet V of Gilgamesh https://www.ancient.eu/article/1286/new-gilgamesh-fragment-enkidus-sexual-exploits-dou/

 

makes me wonder how the hell we can make sense of it all (and stay on topic...). 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, mark said:

 

Is 'junk' DNA related to this as well. An unnatural alteration of the human genome?

 

Well, they (scientists with a clue among them) are beginning to understand and even occasionally verbalize (when it doesn't interfere with research grants) that "junk DNA" is a shy ignoramus's way to say "DNA we don't understand the function of" -- "yet" in the best case scenario, or "at all" to be completely honest.  Our "life sciences" always take this approach to whatever they don't understand and can't figure out how to exploit -- all "primitive" cultures have been essentially "junk" to them too for as long as they interacted. 

 

The alterations of the human genome is another story though.  There's no accounting in any natural way anyone can think of for what happened to our Chromosome 2 (and perhaps quite a few other things, but let's start there). 

 

Exhibit 1: Chromosome 2.  Here's what has been discovered about that baffling fusion once cytogenetic techniques advanced enough to notice (I wonder how much stuff we still can't notice in our genome because the techniques for noticing don't exist -- "yet" in the best case scenario or "at all" to be completely honest.)   

 

In the center of our chromosome 2 there were telomeric and subtelomeric DNA sequences (normally present at only one end of chromosomes, but not in internal areas) (2). This made it clear that the fusion of the two chromosomes had been complete, that is, from one end to the other. Nowadays, the availability of human genome and the genome of large apes has revealed how the genetic content of our chromosome 2corresponds to the sum of the two chromosomes of our ape ancestors.

3.Comparación del patrón de bandas del cromosoma 2 humano (HSA2) con los cromosomas 12 y 13 del chimpancé (PTR12 y PTR13, respectivamente). 2q21;2q13; 2q11.1 son las distintas regiones de nuestro cromosoma 2 que , en la zona de la fusión, corresponden a los cromosomas 12 y 13 del chimpancé. HSA-Homo Sapiens; PTR-Pan TRoglodites, es decir chimpancé. Image: comparison of the band pattern in human chromosome 2 (HSA2) and chromosomes 12 and 13 of the chimpanzee (PTR12 and PTR13, respectively). 2q21;2q13; 2q11.1 are the regions in our chromosome 2 that, in the fusion area, correspond to chromosomes 12 and 13 of the chimpanzee. HSA-Homo Sapiens; PTR-Pan TRoglodites, e.g.; chimpanzee. / Source: Molecular Cytogenetics.

 

 

However, it has also been found that the fusion area that originated our chromosome 2 lacks some regions and sequences that correspond to subtelomeric areas present in the two chromosomes fused in our species. In other words, the fusion must have involved loss and rearrangement of part of the genetic material of the two originally separate chromosomes in the ancestors we have in common with the large apes.

DENISOVANS, NEANDERTHALS AND LARGE APES: WHEN DID WE SEPARATE?

Analyses being performed currently on genomes of extinct species that are directly related to us, such as Denisovans and Neanderthals, reveal that these species already presented the chromosome fusion that originated the long chromosome 2 that is characteristic of humans (3). Therefore, this rearrangement of chromosomes goes a long way back in time: estimates using various methods date this from 0.75 to 4.5 million years ago.

 

The fact that Denisovans and Neanderthals had the same chromosome number as we do may explain why the descendants from inter-species cross-breeding with our species were viable and possibly fertile. This would also explain why traces of their genetic characteristics remain in our genome, as shown by the comparative genomic analysis of the three species. However, the hypothetical descendants of breeding between the three hominid species mentioned (46 chromosomes) and their large ape ancestors (48 chromosomes) would have had problems of chromosome incompatibility and would probably not have been viable. In fact, no traces of specific genetic characteristics of the large apes have been found in our genome. Therefore, the chromosome fusion may have acted as an efficient mechanism for reproductive isolation that isolated us from the ancestors of the large apes.

 

(for full article: https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/bioscience/the-origin-of-the-human-species-a-chromosome-fusion/ )

       

Edited by Taomeow
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

 

Well, they (scientists with a clue among them) are beginning to understand and even occasionally verbalize (when it doesn't interfere with research grants) that "junk DNA" is a shy ignoramus's way to say "DNA we don't understand the function of" -- "yet" in the best case scenario, or "at all" to be completely honest.  Our "life sciences" always take this approach to whatever they don't understand and can't figure out how to exploit -- all "primitive" cultures have been essentially "junk" to them too for as long as they interacted. 

 

The alterations of the human genome is another story though.  There's no accounting in any natural way anyone can think of for what happened to our Chromosome 2 (and perhaps quite a few other things, but let's start there). 

 

Exhibit 1: Chromosome 2.  Here's what has been discovered about that baffling fusion once cytogenetic techniques advanced enough to notice (I wonder how much stuff we still can't notice in our genome because the techniques for noticing don't exist -- "yet" in the best case scenario or "at all" to be completely honest.)   

 

In the center of our chromosome 2 there were telomeric and subtelomeric DNA sequences (normally present at only one end of chromosomes, but not in internal areas) (2). This made it clear that the fusion of the two chromosomes had been complete, that is, from one end to the other. Nowadays, the availability of human genome and the genome of large apes has revealed how the genetic content of our chromosome 2corresponds to the sum of the two chromosomes of our ape ancestors.

3.Comparación del patrón de bandas del cromosoma 2 humano (HSA2) con los cromosomas 12 y 13 del chimpancé (PTR12 y PTR13, respectivamente). 2q21;2q13; 2q11.1 son las distintas regiones de nuestro cromosoma 2 que , en la zona de la fusión, corresponden a los cromosomas 12 y 13 del chimpancé. HSA-Homo Sapiens; PTR-Pan TRoglodites, es decir chimpancé. Image: comparison of the band pattern in human chromosome 2 (HSA2) and chromosomes 12 and 13 of the chimpanzee (PTR12 and PTR13, respectively). 2q21;2q13; 2q11.1 are the regions in our chromosome 2 that, in the fusion area, correspond to chromosomes 12 and 13 of the chimpanzee. HSA-Homo Sapiens; PTR-Pan TRoglodites, e.g.; chimpanzee. / Source: Molecular Cytogenetics.

 

 

However, it has also been found that the fusion area that originated our chromosome 2 lacks some regions and sequences that correspond to subtelomeric areas present in the two chromosomes fused in our species. In other words, the fusion must have involved loss and rearrangement of part of the genetic material of the two originally separate chromosomes in the ancestors we have in common with the large apes.

DENISOVANS, NEANDERTHALS AND LARGE APES: WHEN DID WE SEPARATE?

Analyses being performed currently on genomes of extinct species that are directly related to us, such as Denisovans and Neanderthals, reveal that these species already presented the chromosome fusion that originated the long chromosome 2 that is characteristic of humans (3). Therefore, this rearrangement of chromosomes goes a long way back in time: estimates using various methods date this from 0.75 to 4.5 million years ago.

 

The fact that Denisovans and Neanderthals had the same chromosome number as we do may explain why the descendants from inter-species cross-breeding with our species were viable and possibly fertile. This would also explain why traces of their genetic characteristics remain in our genome, as shown by the comparative genomic analysis of the three species. However, the hypothetical descendants of breeding between the three hominid species mentioned (46 chromosomes) and their large ape ancestors (48 chromosomes) would have had problems of chromosome incompatibility and would probably not have been viable. In fact, no traces of specific genetic characteristics of the large apes have been found in our genome. Therefore, the chromosome fusion may have acted as an efficient mechanism for reproductive isolation that isolated us from the ancestors of the large apes.

 

(for full article: https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/bioscience/the-origin-of-the-human-species-a-chromosome-fusion/ )

       

 

That was a very nice read, thank you. Interesting that the genes resulting from the  chromosome fusion are strongly expressed in areas like the brain and gonads, and I guess by extension the kidneys as well.

 

I suppose the process of immortality and restoring jing would involve 'defusing' these genes, synergising with the organs most prominent in this process

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Taomeow said:

 

To your question mark: I think this illustrates the unnaturalness of sex in the civilized shape and form (which is what the animals must have felt -- and fled because of that): sex disconnected from what its essence is really about, a shared life and what arises from that, intimacy of the souls, not just bodies.  You don't share a life with a prostitute, she shares her body with you, but your souls don't communicate. 

 

 

My admittedly unscholarly take on Daoism is that it´s all about becoming whole, gathering up the parts of ourselves that have been split off into the center.  This kind of integration is my spiritual goal, anyway.  No area of human life so illuminates the issue of integrity/fragmentation as sexuality.  Perhaps this is why issues of sexuality (and particularly male sexuality) are a perrenial topic here -- much to the chagrin of many.  

 

I thought I had nothing to say on this topic but maybe I do.  Maybe much of what has gone awry in modern "civilization" has it´s roots in fragmented eroticism.  

Edited by liminal_luke
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

My admittedly unscholarly take on Daoism is that it´s all about becoming whole, gathering up the parts of ourselves that have been split off into the center.  This kind of integration is my spiritual goal, anyway.  No area of human life so illuminates the issue of integrity/fragmentation as sexuality.  Perhaps this is why issues of sexuality (and particularly male sexuality) are a perrenial topic here -- much to the chargrin of many.  

 

I thought I had nothing to say on this topic but maybe I do.  Maybe much of what has gone awry in modern "civilization" has it´s roots in fragmented eroticism.  

 

My teacher used to call civilisation 'syphilisation'.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Through the healing path I've undertaken in my thirty year relationship with my partner and wife, I have experienced a palpable realization, that if you want to subordinate a person from the inside and separate them from their authentic core power and sense of self; to isolate them from their subtle, natural inclinations, their expression of autonomous, natural powers, and abilities...

 

You control their methods of sexual expression and relationship.  Demonize and fetishize individual inclinations and expressions into marginalized unacceptableness.  When your core authentic relationship and expression of the life bringing and highly powerful force of intimacy and sexuality is repressed in the mind of the expresser... the seeds of slavery are planted and will seep into all other aspects of life, seemingly.

 

When my wife began to feel able and wholly free to express her sexuality on her own terms, and we undertook an exploration of our sexuality together, in whatever manner felt most authentic... the reverberating repercussions of this on her psyche, and my own, began a systemic cascade of awareness arousal, awakening and a subsequent dissolution and revolution of the paradigm of self that ended up reshaping of all aspects of her/our life.

 

Within a short span, she had reclaimed repressed abuse memories of her parents.  And with no doubt whatsoever subsequently severed all ties to the abusive toxicity of their relationship.  She barred them from any contact with our family and began the slow process of reclaiming stunted and previously demonized aspects of her natural essential self into the new unfolding realization of who she always has been, but was unable to express without intimidation, denial, rejection and outright denigration/bullying.

 

Several years after that, she had the self presence and clarity of awareness and love for herself to sever all ties with the toxic abusive career environment she had been working in for 14 years.  Her boss is/was cut from the same mold as our current president and her Father.  We would rather downsize our living arrangements.  I was elated.  I had long petitioned openly for her to leave the world of Venture Capital.  We gladly downsized our lifestyle.  Fewer things allows more space for living.

 

Now, some 10 years on, her transformation renders her nearly unrecognizable (in an admirable and inspiring manner) to those who knew her before the process of self liberation began.

 

Civilization... from earliest awareness it's had a flavor of being remarkably, uncivilized... at least, as I understand and define the term.

 

 

Edited by silent thunder
add the bit about leaving her job
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, silent thunder said:

Through the healing path I've undertaken in my thirty year relationship with my partner and wife, I have experienced a palpable realization, that if you want to subordinate a person from the inside and separate them from their authentic core power and sense of self; to isolate them from their subtle, natural inclinations, their expression of autonomous, natural powers, and abilities...

 

You control their methods of sexual expression and relationship.  Demonize and fetishize individual inclinations and expressions into marginalized unacceptableness.  When your core authentic relationship and expression of the life bringing and highly powerful force of intimacy and sexuality is repressed in the mind of the expresser... the seeds of slavery are planted and will seep into all other aspects of life, seemingly.

 

 

Silent Thunder,

 

What you say here strikes me as true and from the heart, and yet it´s also something I struggle with.  Gay men aren´t known for their steadfastly monogamous ways and my own life hasn´t strayed far from the culturally recognized pattern: I´ve had my share of sexual experiences in which bodies connected without a corresponding connection of psyches and souls.  My personal experience is that this feels icky.

 

I don´t want to, as you say, demonize and fetishize individual inclinations and expressions into marginalized unacceptableness.  I really don´t.  And yet it´s hard for me to imagine that the icky-ness around just-body sexuality that I´ve experienced isn´t somewhat generalizable to the larger population.  Some of my close gay friends think I´m rife with sexual hangups because I express my ambivalence about the casual hookups they reportedly find so fulfilling.  I´m famous in my small group for my "touch issues."  

 

If friends ask for my opinion, I¨ll say that we are all different and what feels bad to me might well be great for somebody else.  In other words, I lie.  Because privately I believe that just-body sex hurts people on a soul level, though perhaps not everyone is aware enough to feel the hurt.  (If this sounds condescending and judgmental I think so too, which is why I´m not more open about this.)

 

Really, I´m a mess of contradictions.  A slut who is also a closet prude.  (Actually,  I think sluttiness and prudishness often come together in a single package, though that´s a topic for another thread.  Or not.)  It´s enough to make somebody want to "retain jing."

Edited by liminal_luke
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Everything said:

Yeah, and I am saying about this point of your topic, that what you say, is true. But at the same time, you forget, that we are that civilization. It is this very topic that is part of that civilization. You are also speaking to that civilization. And you are also part of that civilization and the result of it. And this forum is also part of that civilization. And we are all part of that civilizartion. 

 

You seek to know the life before that civilization. And it is called the original anima way of life. And most of it has been killed or sacrificed as you have so clearly described. There is not much left of the original way of life, wiccans in ireland. Some sages in sedona. Most of it was allowed to be recognized in 70 and 80's and that's what we got. Jesus was crucified. All messengers of source were sacrificed. And you are mostly, like many humans, exploring translations of translations of translations of translations of translations of translations of translations, etc. 

 

In the past and still today, Like witches, burned, for the believe that they are witches. Doesn't mean that they are witches. Actually, voodoo came as part of the civilization. That was not the original anima way of life. As you are also practicing voodoo when you pray for the destruction of your fellow human beings, further pointing out to yourself that you are also part of that civilization, also contradicting your desire to understand how or why all of this came to be as it is. 

 

The ego is necessary development, that jim d. Has perfectly described in the animals. As humanity evolves to a more integrated realisation of their own true nature, the ego will be ascended. And the animals of this planet will be developing an ego, through our guided interactions with them. 

 

As I said, as stewards of the land. Like Robert Irwin is a wayfarer for this destiny of humanity. You do not need to look afraid of technology, when your human body is the most advanced technology you have. We also return to the natural way of life by discovering the wonders and "miracles" of nature, which is in reality completely normal and obvious. 

 

This human ego civilization life is actually very short. It is the shortest and most condenced and most vital and essential part of the evolution of any species. Also most difficult. Because it is actually the most simple and obvious dimension of creation. It is the evolution of free will. The gravitation unique self discovery. You explore the polarity of creation here. To make choices between service to self and other. Then you will further evolve your spiritual being based on the choices you make here in this life. Exploring more the negative or positive polarity. Which is why you have forgetfulness. To the degree of the choices you make. 

 

But in the end, all things return to their source of being. Wether you are a "witch" burned on a pile of wood, or a civilization praying for their own destruction. All things return to their source eventually. As these polarity serves only to create expansion and more variety. As you are unique yourself aswell. And through this moreness of variety, comes moreness of choice and potential for joyous life experience.

 

So nothing can ever go wrong and nothing has ever gone wrong. But in your lack of understanding, you can ask why things went wrong, and you thus carve out the path for yourself that things are always going wrong. And they will continue to go wrong for you, untill you accept the things which are actually going right. And then ask why things are going right. And then you will find the answer you truely seek, that most people wait untill they die, before they allow themselves the freedom to discover the true knowledge of existence. That is always well. As all is well. But in this life you can focus on things not being well. And so, you carve out a path of wrongness for yourself, make a civilization based on it, and expand from a new platform of new contrast and variety. To also eventually come back to the same source. 

 

Go away .

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Apech said:

I put Everything on 'ignore' but I can still see his post which is a bit annoying.

 

If Enkidu lived with the animals and used their watering hole etc. and didn't lose this affinity with nature until seduced by Shamhat - then perhaps the domestication of dogs is not domestication.  If we take Enkidu as our natural state that is.  Perhaps it's just that they retained an affinity with man when other animals lost it ... because of the energetic effects of civilisation (as symbolised by Shamhat as temple priestess/prostitute - especially given the emphasis on make-up = masking true nature)???  So dogs (and to a certain extent other animals) somehow retained the ability to relate to our inner nature - while 'wilder' animals did not.  Just a thought.

 

Or  reversed ; dog was one of the relationships retained  by Man and Man lost the ability  to relate to 'wild animals' .

 

( Thats why its important to have 'roof possums' and 'reincarnating magpies'   ;)  )

 

I remember 'Tooly'  getting upset and agro at some people saying to him " You are not even a real Aboriginal . "  He went off, and rightly so.  Made them sit down and wait on the spot, went off into the bush, came back later with turtle and snake and threw them at their feet " There ! There is your dinner ! "

One of the others ; "Where did you get the turtle ?"

" Out of the turtle hole in the river . "

" But there are not any turtles left in the river . "

" Of course there is, you just dont know how to catch them."

" How did YOU catch them then ."

" Sing turtle song, they come up to surface and then stick their neck up so you can grab them . ...... Idiots !   And you say I am not proper Aboriginal ! "

 

And these critics where Aboriginals themselves , but they where bought up in 'mission'  and never learnt the ways of the land properly - they had lost their relationships with the animals .

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Apech said:

 

 

Sorry it's a bit long - but the story is that the wild creatures fled.  But of course it was him who had changed - so I guess you read it either way.  The point I was trying to make was that humans and animals naturally have affinity but the changes in man - sex and civilisation (?) - change his energy to make animals generally shun him - while perhaps a few select animals i.e. dogs could see through the changes to the original nature.  Thus they were not domesticated as such if you see what I mean.

 

Just a thought.

 

 

Indeed . And I have  shown the reverse ;  go up to a huge Yumbar

 

what-to-do-if-you-see-a-snake-in-your-ya

 

and she comes up to me , 'sniffs '  (with tongue ) my hand , slithers up my arm and I 'nurse' her . 

 

Aboriginal friends are agog  " How do you do that ! "

 

'Well, I dont eat snakes ,  me, and my shit  do not give off the ordour of digested snake meat  . " 

 

(There is more to it of course, eg.  I won't have much to do with the  black snake  -  'atotemic'  to me . )

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ilumairen said:

 

This certainly seems the intent of the story.. scare young men, and damn the women willing to embrace them. A cautionary literary device to be sure. :lol:

 

Edit to add: Why is the "fall of man" (singular or otherwise) so often attributed to women?

 

Because ......   men .

 

Pathetic creatures we are .  Have you read my 'Raven's Tale '   its up somewhere here on Daobums. The part I am thinking of is when the raven gets the blame for the man ( "God - Bromius , or Apollo " )   killing his lover out of jealousy . ' He blames the arrow, the bow, even his own arm ... everything but his own jealous self . He blames the raven who mealy  delivered the news, as instructed. His rage and fiery fury  scorches the white raven  black , and black he will forever stay .'

 

Or the 'classic' line in the Chopper Reid  movie - he looses his temper and beats up his girl friends mother , then feels 'remorse' and turns to the girl friend and says " Now look what you made me do ! "

 

Big , violent , out of control bullyboys that never grew up and never learnt to take responsibility for themselves, actions and feelings .

 

They are a problem for men as well . I been battling that energy all my life  ..... it rarely, extremely rarely, comes from women . . .  and like women, I have had to resort to intelligence, subtlety, craftiness, persuasion, 'energy'  to 'preserve my domain' .

 

 

Edited by Nungali
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Apech said:

So the goddess conceived an image in her mind, and it was of the stuff of Anu of the firmament. She dipped her hands in water and pinched off clay, she let it fall in the wilderness, and noble Enkidu was created. There was virtue in him of the god of war, of Ninurta himself. His body was rough, he had long hair like a woman's; it waved like the hair of Nisaba, the goddess of corn. His body was covered with matted hair like Samugan's, the god of cattle. He was innocent of mankind; he knew nothing of the cultivated land.

Interesting, sounds like a feral Bigfoot like Esau (Isaac's grandson)...born wild.

Quote

The first one emerged red, like a hairy mantle all over, and they named him Esau.

Jacob said to his mother Rebekah, “My brother Esau is a hairy man, and I am smooth! If my father touches me, he will know I am not Esau.
She also took the skins of the goats and put them on Jacob’s hands and neck.

Isaac touched him and said, “Your voice sounds like Jacob’s voice, but your hands are hairy like the hands of Esau.

So, "wildman" Esau had the birthright, but "civilized" Jacob tricked both him and their Dad (Isaac, Abraham's son) out of it.

Quote

Isaac prayed to the Lord on behalf of his wife, because she was childless. The Lord answered his prayer, and his wife Rebekah became pregnant.  The babies jostled each other within her, and she said, “Why is this happening to me?” So she went to inquire of the Lord.
The Lord said to her,Two nations are in your womb,
    and two peoples from within you will be separated;
one people will be stronger than the other,
    and the older will serve the younger.”

What's interesting is that the whole Anunnaki lineage in Sumeria seemed to intentionally pit wild, free-spirited (Enki, Enkidu, Ishmael, Esau) and obedient, domesticated (Enlil, Gilgamesh, Abraham, Jacob) siblings/rivals against each other to divide and conquer their own lineage to ensure control and instill obedience to Anu (not Nature).  So, they served as public examples where the wild scapegoats always got demonized, while the civilized sheeple triumphed over them.

71fuRvQvNCL._AC_SL1005_.jpg
lord-is-my-shepherd.jpg

[Note how their leader is a single human "alpha male" middleman...not just the organic, decentralized, holistic whole of Nature.  So not only is Christianity humancentric...it is centered entirely around a sole, cult figurehead.  Which then allows Enlil total centralized control of his herd.]

 

Incidentally, it's interesting how Isaac's anti-Semitism was so strong that he preferred polygamous incest for his son over marrying the local Semitic women:

Quote
Quote

Again, all this is explicitly coded in the holy blueprint of Christian colonialism here! :lol:

Edited by gendao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

What you say here strikes me as true and from the heart, and yet it´s also something I struggle with.  Gay men aren´t known for their steadfastly monogamous ways and my own life hasn´t strayed far from the culturally recognized pattern: I´ve had my share of sexual experiences in which bodies connected without a corresponding connection of psyches and souls.  My personal experience is that this feels icky.

 

I am not a man that finds science and its theories proof of anything because what is true today, will be false tomorrow. I relate to your "booty call" expression of "icky." In my opinion, I don't think sex was meant to be misused, although I have contributed to the exploitation of another for my own gain. I wanted the outcome more than the relationship. I was in it for me, and for most, the sperm receiver for the night  was in it for them...she wanted a future and was willing to give sex for love and I was willing to give "love" for sex. Now, I was not a block of ice. In the moment, I truly thought that I could maintain a marriage and children, and have a girlfriend on the side. And if sex was a gift given, that much better for me. Eventually, the woman concluded that what she wanted, me, was not going to happen even when she tried going off the pill and then thought she caught me unawares. Living two lives brought me to my knees spiritually, emotionally, and psychologically. This happened because I tried to dissociate from the truth. Eventually, it destroyed my marriage too. Recovery could not ward off years of being a part time husband and father. It hurt everyone. 

 

So Liminal_luke, if it feels like your associates are trying to guilt you into following their lead, get away from them. Their misery needs company and support to keep the charade going. 

 

Yes, a moment's pleasure has consequences. It is an "icky" feeling to use another. 

 

This all happened in my 20's. I am now 73 and am experiencing Karma through ED. But this is a gratitude. If I were still sexually active, I would have missed the  spiritual awakening of learning to respect a female for herself, and not how good she is in bed. I have been married for eight years to a most honestly beautiful woman I have ever met. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Original anima way of life in sumeria:

In sumeria they wrote laws on the tablet. Because truth was law to them, and truth was consistent discoveries. Discoveries that were consistent, was deemed to be a law. And things that were being consistent was gathered and then brought back to the consistent, which was the tablet, wich was the consistent upon which they would carve the consistent, to be able to have a consistent consistency consistently reminding them of the consistencies that they had discovered.

 

So they found a butterfly, and deemed it to be beautiful. And they felt happy everytime they saw one. So many beautiful different colors and display of colorful wings, flying so awkwardly and yet so cute. They just liked butterflies. And they felt good everytime they saw one, so they deemed it to be important, consistently. So they carved it on their tablet. The shape of a butterfly. They didn't know why they kept feeling good about it, but they knew they did.

 

Sometimes a butterfly came and they experienced it to be less beautiful. The colors were not so vibrant. And they felt bad about it. But they still thought butterflies were consistently important to them.
Then they found an insect on its back, small feet trying to walk, they felt sad about it. This bug coulden't do anything to regain their natural freedom. And so they realised they had a desire, for all things to be free to express their full uniqueness. And now they understood why the vibrant colorful butterflies felt more like freedom to express their full uniqueness of being. Where as less vibrant colorful butterflies felt like less allowed expression of their uniqueness of being.


And so they wrote, consistent desire, freedom for all things to express the fulness of their uniqueness.


So they placed a butterfly in their mouth. Then spit it out, slimy on the ground. The butterfly coulden't move its wings anymore. Tried to save it but it died, and they became sad. They looked at the shapes on the wings to discover why they were so beautiful and unique all of the time. Every single butterfly had a unique identity which was amazing to them. And they realised that this uniqueness was in all things. Consistently.


So they wrote it down on the tablet. Everything is unique, and every single thing is unique to themselves in each new moment aswell. Ever change.


So they explored things which were more changing and things which were less changing. And they found that the things that change the most again pointed at the unchanging consistent nature of all things changing. So they deemed life in motion to be more evolved and more expressive of the consistent truth.


And they saw the birds to be the most free and most expressive of their freedom. They thought it to be more evolved beings. Higher. And they looked at the stars and sky and clouds and sun, while lying down on the floor, and they witnessed how all the trees strived to grow upwards. Everything seemed to grow upwards, but they were not certain of this, so they did not write it down on the tablet. They just continued to believe that all things up were more free and expressive of the greater unchanging truth of ever change.


They found that anything that emitted light was most gravitating upwards. Flame a star a sun. The flame ascended the heavens and in return blessed them with the warmth of its allowed freedom. And so they understood that the allowing of freedom is what was the source of their life. And so they explored further evermore. And wrote on the tablet, allowing freedom is the source of life and warmth.


They came to dead land and it was cold at night. Nothing grew upward, the soil was dry and barren. So they thought, how do we allow the freedom here? They went there to party. And go wild and express their full life, might it bring life back to the dead land. They brought all kinds of supplies every day to party on the dead land. Dance, eat and sit and commune and love, etc. Eventually, upon returning to their location of party one day, they found that a seed that was left in the ground, grew. And so they planeted many seeds. And everytime it rained, the seeds would grow.  


And they looked at the tablet, the allowing of freedom is the source of life. And they were happy.


So they thought that the birds were their creator, just as they are creators of the life bellow their feet. And in return for the allowance of freedom, the tree would sometimes grow beyond them and bless them in return with its fruits of appreciation. Of having been allowed to get closer to the heavens in its ever reach for the greater freedom.


They studied the sun and worshipped it. And how it created everything in their life. How it guided them the way and the moon and the stars. As the source of their being. The greatest allower of freedom. The giver of life to all. The source of life to all. And the birds were its messengers.


They prayed (original prayer was of appreciation for further receiving of realisation/knowledge/allowance of freedom as source of all uniqueness) to the birds many times. And they found that the birds were messengers of the clouds that live above, as bringer of rain and sustenance. And they found the rainbow to be the approval of the sun of the rain. The source or allower of the freedom of all uniqueness. The fractalized expression of the agreement of the sun of the most high allower of freedom and source of all uniqueness/life.


They found many stars above, but the sun was the biggest thing in the sky. And they seen it go up and down. And they seen it reflected in the flapping of the wings of the birds and butterfly. And they seen it reflected in their breathing. Up and down. Sleeping and standing. Resting and walking. And they knew the secret of the sun. Is the cycle of rising and descending. Like the birds flying and resting on the trees. Like the leafs growing and falling back to the ground. And growing up again as new life. And falling back down again. The secret of the ever change, ever new, ever replenishing, ever renewing, refreshing allower of all life.


Everything was perfect and good. Untill death came to them, they knew they would be allowed to become new life. Unlike any of the previous, refreshing and new. And so they let the dead in the ground, where all things of life seemed to return. Even the most high clouds. And the light of the sun. They wanted to build a grave for the light of the sun, where it could rest and express its dying back into the soil. Might they witness the emmerging of the sun out of the soil. They tried many things, but began with one stone. And watched how the sun created a shadow. And around that shadow they build things. And it became a rainbow. But the black rainbow. And they realised, this was where the rainbows go after they die. The highest knowledge. Of the unchanging ever change.


They were happy and all was good.


They experimented with the heights of the stones. And found the higher the stone, the further the dark rainbow reached. They believed the higher stone to reveal more of the secret of the sun. As they found the shape of a butterflies wing in the shadows. They build around it long stones. And now the shadow kept expanding the lower reaches of the wing.


It reminded them of the shape of a hill or mountain. And so they assumed that the sun was being reborn out of the tip of a mountain or hill.


So they allowed the freedom of the sun, might they receive its blessings evermore.


And dug holes deep into the top of the mountains. But it was too difficult and futile. So they let nature do its own thing. They realised the sun required allot of time to be reborn, like all things which were very expressive of the unchaning ever change.


Further explorers discovered volcano's where the seed of the sun was ready to errupt. They saw it mighty powerful rebirth of the sun. They fled and trusted that this is the way of the sun. And they allowed its freedom by witnessing the amazing burst of the volcano. And thanking it for the life that it would be giving them.


They saw how the massive fires rised up and how molten rock spilt out as the blood of the earth, birthing the sun anew. And they saw all is well. And the new born sun would one day bring its massive gifts to the land.


They explored many shapes and patterns of nature, and made endless discoveries of endless miracles of awe and wonder.


They saw how the inverted hill was the bringer of water and how the hill was the bringer of the light.


They wanted to become like the sun, and this is where it all went wrong. They were ment to bring life to the soil, by allowing freedom to the water, to allow the source of life. As was written on their tablets as the wisdom of their ancestors. But many people continued to study the sun. And seek to capture it for their greed. And many structures of greed was born. But most people did not care about the stupidity. Certainly not Moses. Yet the greed was strong and powerful and it kept growing. As they believed it to be important to capture the sun. And that it was possible and that it was the destiny of humanity. Yet most people were not arrogant. And allowed the freedom of the greedy, may they also bring a new source of uniqueness and life in return. So they let them rise and they helped them. With great difficulty. And struggle. They wondered how this was good and discussed many a night. How can we allow the freedom of the sun, when we are not even allowing the freedom of who we are ourselves? We will certainly die in this endeavour and humanity will perrish. This is defiance. Eventually moses saved them. And the freedom of the greedy dreamer was not capable of being allowed to be brought to full realisation. And so its blessings had all but been lost to them, as their efforts had all but been in vain. Or so it seems.

Edited by Everything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites