Being Who We're Not12:49 Feb 05 2011
Times Read: 564
People are really good at that. It's become an art form on it's own..a survival skill; and nearly everyone (if not everyone) does it. I don't mean recently, it's been going on for a very long time.
I was having a conversation with a friend in which they stated, "I was born in the wrong time. I want to go back to the Dark Ages when people just were who they were."
(I lost respect for the education system my friend had been forced to gain their edcuation from in that very instant.)
Perhaps there was a time that Man acted as him/herself and that alone. Perhaps him/her applies exactly to that; as my mind can only wrap around it happening IF: we were adrogyneous. seeking no interest for companionship, and were able to provide completely for one's self with absolute autonomy from any other person.
(Although in the interest of fairness, there is no way I could have honestly explored all the possibilities.)
My friend was under the illusion that Modern Life is to blame, and I suppose I was under an illusion that his illusion WAS the illusion. What turned out being true was that depending on how far "back" you take modern; it HAS been the evolution of Man into a Society that is pretty much what caused this skillset to emerge.
(I swear this stuff makes sense to me when I read it back, so if it's difficult to follow, please let me know.)
How useful is the skillset? Plenty..that's why it's still around and well in use.
See, it's original useages, they were kind of functional and made sense. If the climate was rough, disease proliferated, new predators (or a competing species) emerged, there needed to be numbers to compensate.
On the same hand, if the climate and environment was proliferating and productive, numbers would naturally go up as well. Things were good, a species taking advantage of, or protecting against, any of these things is a pretty simple conclusion to draw.
(Once again, I could not have possibly thought of all of the possibilities here.)
Two sexes, gathering in small groups (packlike) in order to hunt and protect young, we are after all Animals too. It makes sense that we posess these instincts; they are key features to a method of survival.
(We also meshed a bunch of folks together who'd never had to alter their behavior for another excepting when exiting, conquering or defending territory before.)
Not alot of social interaction boundaries would have been set up in the very beginning. An understanding would have to be come to. There would have to be many trial and errors, and a great many things would probably go wrong.
Punishment would mostly likely be steep. Death, physical attack, or simply ostracism from the group which could mean death. The concept of obedience would be constructed from things such as these in the beginning, before Man broke Man.
Then these well educated packs would bear children, and these children would be taught quite early, obedience to these things. These things then being simple. Who eats first, what things are not theirs, listening to and following the directions of the one who eats first.
And the one who eats first would have well earned their favor, most likely having killed what they are eating first protecting the rest of them. This position would not I think, in the beginning, be given without deference to skill and proof of physical prowess. Maybe even a few shows of brute force.
Lessons would be learned, and taught through example, and then recanted tales, to those seeing fit to warn the next generation. These tales would be instrumental to reproductive success; and Nature LOVES a winner in that department in particular.
Give it a moment and ponder it, isn't it a beautiful and magical thing our Mind? That it took the ability to be merely what we are, add a dash of concious Memory, and we are able to transcend the limits of our body in what our "genetic memory" alone can do.
(I have gone so far into tangent now I fear, there is no going back.)
(I could stop here and debate if this is where the "evil of man" developed, when he developed his "conscience" and how we're all really just animals acting on desires in a preset construct.
I could say some other circular round table nonsense discussion as well. All I do want to say is,
I enjoy thinking about things that haven't been solved yet too, and I like seeing the ideas I have about them, and hearing the ones that you do to. :D)
BUT to finish out what I was saying, I'm NOT sure I like what the "being who we're not" has come to.
For me personally, because my experience is all I have to offer that I can call concrete to me; I don't mind deferring my Will from time to time for another. For the most part, I'm going to do what I want irregardless, if I'm willing to accept consequence..and if I'm not..well, then I suppose I need either find some way around the consequence, or not do it.
They are simple decisions we are making in Life; it's all the other people we involve in them that make everything such a serious, stressful mess.
COMMENTS
-