The origin of mankind

[Karl]

Flaw is determined by context ,whereas, propensities may be predetermined. Propensities out of favorable context would constitute flaw.

 

A propensity to limp due to a physical problem , or have some mental slowness, I would agree. Even then they are only flaws in context. I have a spot on my face that would be a flaw in a beauty contest, but not whilst I'm reading a book.

 

Nungali is saying its a mental 'program' we are born with which has flaws. Yet adds that these can be eliminated.

[Nungali]

No I am  not saying its a mental program at all. 

 

 

if anything it is a genetic program 

 

See .... you did it again !

 

 

Edited May 13, 2016 by Nungali

[Karl]

Dont waste the corn Karl, I find I have a seemingly irresolvable communication problem with you,  so debate jut seems to lead to confusion. I notice I am not the only one that seems to feel that with you. 

 

I will try once more to be clear, without you changing my words to terms you can refute:

 

 

 

yes, thats better.  I had issue with the overall statement, now you have narrowed it down ( this happened last miscommunication too ) .

 

 

 

No, I didnt say we did. 

 

 

 

But I didnt say they had skills and flaws built in m  I said quite clearly : "  I am talking about my essential nature, 'style' , 'spirit', 'personality' , inherent skill set' etc.  "  and  " We 'come here'  with a certain 'program' running, a certain 'skill set' and a set of  'flaws' that can be fixed .... or not, and certain lacks in some areas . " 

 

read 'skill set' (as I said before ) 'propensity', flavour, demeanor, abilities, personality etc.   A child doesnt come with built in carpentry skills but one of the little twins I was with, at an early age was clearly more dextrous and interested in such things, he was the 'practical one, the other was the dreamer and poet.     Or, as I have said before, even observe a litter of puppies, I dont mean the runt syndrome - they all have different personalities. 

 

I cant explain the mechanics of it, its been something I have been questioning and a few times posted on .... I have just observed this. 

 

 

 

 

A child can be 'the shy one', without something changing that he may remain that way, it could be considered a flaw by him later (or not ( he may be able to deal with or not or reverse or modify it)  These are pretty obvious observations. . 

 

 

 

 

 

No, Only of I modify my terms to suit your understanding of them. 

 

 

Thats very black and white .   "Laws" ?  I am talking about tendencies; and ;personality, very flexible things

 

 

 

 

 

But I am not, you see. You are setting your own parameters as mine and then arguing with 'me'. 

 

 

 

 

The proof is in the twins, bought up the same, at a very very early age, one could tell they were different types of people ... and the puppy litter.  They are two of the things that led me to think this.   

 

You also might note that I never gave any 'non-materilistic' explanation, all I said is that what the genetic code can convey may be much more complex than we image.

 

There are some very interesting twin studies around;

 

The two guys that lived apart and developed the exact place and size skin cancer at a later age.

 

The two that had diverse health; one excellent one bad , he had a heart problem and the doc knew about the twin thing, he contacted the brother and said get a check up. The bro laughed he was a health nut and his brother didnt work out and ate junk food, but he went for a check up - straight into hospital, emergence heart surgery and saved his life.

 

The little twin girls adopted out  as babies; one bought up in mid west USA by straight Christians, the other by rad parents in Sweden.  They studied them 14 years later, both had the exact same style and movement of flicking their hair out their eyes and other mannerisms   .... mannerisms   mind you ....   and never met . 

 

I am not running some anti materialist agenda here or trying to prove anything, just my observations - the only method of transference I can think of is the genetic code. 

 

People have problems because I question their assertions and definition, mostly for clarity as in this case.

 

What this boils down to isn't a 'program' running, but a genetically inherited propensity. As you have just proven-everyone is unique and different, be it pups in a litter or babies in a family. No issue with that. Twins share common genetics and shared the same womb for 9 months so they share similar features and mannerisms up to a certain age, then change.

 

There is no mental code running. The genetics will make a person more likely to be artistic like a parent/ancestor or to have a mathematical aptitude if that's in the family. However, a child cannot automatically be an artist or a mathematician. At birth he can't even see very well and the world is a chaos of colours, movement, shapes, sounds, smells and sensations that are not yet cognitively banked. The child has to create all concepts from precepts. He must learn for instance that a ball rolls, but a book doesn't move. He will drop an item over and over again discovering the result is the same, he learns causality (not yet as a concept) but as a perception; he learns perspective that small objects, held closer, look bigger than large objects further away. He has to learn all this before he can begin to become an artist or mathematician. He will perhaps begin drawing what he sees and then experience a particular pleasure in doing it and want to do more of it, or a pleasure counting and understanding ratios of things and gets pleasure from the understanding.

 

 

 

 

 

[Karl]

No I am  not saying its a mental program at all. 

 

 

if anything it is a genetic program 

 

See .... you did it again !

 

 

 

I replied before I saw your recent reply. I agree it's genetic propensity, but it's not a program. If you can drop 'programme'-which is clearly something consciously cognitive, then we can move forward.

 

 

[Michael Sternbach]

 

The proof is in the twins, bought up the same, at a very very early age, one could tell they were different types of people ... and the puppy litter. They are two of the things that led me to think this.

And this happened in modern times?! I'm truly shocked!

 

You also might note that I never gave any 'non-materilistic' explanation, all I said is that what the genetic code can convey may be much more complex than we image.

 

There are some very interesting twin studies around;

 

The two guys that lived apart and developed the exact place and size skin cancer at a later age.

 

The two that had diverse health; one excellent one bad , he had a heart problem and the doc knew about the twin thing, he contacted the brother and said get a check up. The bro laughed he was a health nut and his brother didnt work out and ate junk food, but he went for a check up - straight into hospital, emergence heart surgery and saved his life.

 

The little twin girls adopted out as babies; one bought up in mid west USA by straight Christians, the other by rad parents in Sweden.

What, even people allegedly of Christian faith got involved in this kind of man trade? Such hypocrisy is beyond belief!

 

They studied them 14 years later, both had the exact same style and movement of flicking their hair out their eyes and other mannerisms .... mannerisms mind you .... and never met .

 

I am not running some anti materialist agenda here or trying to prove anything, just my observations - the only method of transference I can think of is the genetic code.

I can indeed think of something else (even though it may be complementary to or pertain to another - but "parallel" - level than your theory, rather than contradict it). Namely astrology. Bear in mind that twins have a rather similar natal chart, in most cases.

[Michael Sternbach]

Back to the question of humans being animals. Well, part of us is.

 

My view of this is based on the "doctrine of signatures", and on an essentially neo-Platonic/Hermetic model of the Cosmos. According to this view, existence evolves through a number of levels. "Below" the human being (and there is no evaluation connected to this), there is inorganic matter, plant life, and animal life. Those forms if existence are more closely connected to the Earth. "Above" the human being, there are levels of non-material existence. In the Abrahamic traditions, these belong to angels, archangels etc, all the way up to the nous. Other traditions speak of various Deities, Bodhisattvas etc. It really makes no difference. Those are the levels that we associate with the the heavens, or various spiritual realms.

 

Human beings are right in the middle zone between the realms "below" and "above." It's as though angelic beings have taken hold of animal bodies, (quite literally) uplifting them, while severly limiting their own original cosmic awareness at the same time. The reasons for this go beyond the scope of this post, but I might talk about them somewhere else soon.

 

Certain Asian traditions are particularly explicit about Man being the link between Heaven and Earth. Thus, the two middle lines of an Yijing hexagram belong to Man, with Earth below and Heaven above. In Zen meditation, we are instructed to simultaneously sink into the ground and stretch our spine as if our head were suspended from above. The middle part of a plant represents Man in Japanese flower arrangement, etc.

 

Plants are mediators between above and below in their own right. But as living beings, they are pre-conscious. Which is to say that their consciousness hasn't really woken up yet. They exist in a dream state as it were.

 

They drive their roots down into the chthonic realms and open their blossoms or crowns to the sky. They spend their existence in perfect harmony with the Cosmos that surrounds them. At the same time, they have little choice but to thrive and wither with the conditions that are surrounding them. They can't move places in order to accomodate to changing circumstances the way animals can.

 

With the animal, separateness and individual existence begins. With this comes the "fight or flight" response - the foundation for survival skills on an individual level.

 

The human being is the only animal that has an upright spine. With

numerous nerves protruding from it, it reflects the roots, stem, branches of a tree. This may not be immediately obvious, because on the physical level, our lower end doesn't reach down into the ground, nor does our upper end resemble a plane that opens up to cosmic influences like a radio telescope; instead, we have heads which are closed spheres, essentially.

 

But the morphology of the plant is present in the system of our chakras, ranging from "root" to "crown." The crown chakra is actually seen as connected to the pineal gland which we now know to be sensitive to sun light, much like the leaves or petals of a plant.

 

The human being is the completion of the macrocosm turning into a microcosm. This is understood both in Daoism and in the Hermetic tradition (among others, Paracelsus wrote about this). Thus, the origin of Mankind is the blending of animalic and angelic existence. Still bound by physical conditions, to be sure, the human being is able to master and transcend those conditions by the application of free will, imagination, higher intelligence. Those are reflecting the angel within us.

[Marblehead]

Well, I won't judge anyone else but I am an animal.  I am also a primate which makes me a mammal as well.  I have cousins with whom I share 97 percent of my DNA.

[Junko]

Sure you are King kong.!

[Eques Peregrinus]

Since we are speaking about Paracelsus, in his Philosophia Sagax, he mention humans having multiple souls, namely mineral, vegetable, animal and human... I should reread it, I really do not remember what he was saying about them... 

 

In his Paramirum, he also mention an Ens Seminis which constitute the human body, which provides its complexion and temperaments, etc... without any influences from planets or stars, because children inherit their Ens Seminis from their parents, which inherited it from theirs, up to Adam and Eve.

[Michael Sternbach]

Well, I won't judge anyone else but I am an animal.  I am also a primate which makes me a mammal as well.  I have cousins with whom I share 97 percent of my DNA.

 

That's a no-brainer!

 

[Michael Sternbach]

 

Since we are speaking about Paracelsus, in his Philosophia Sagax, he mention humans having multiple souls, namely mineral, vegetable, animal and human... I should reread it, I really do not remember what he was saying about them... 

 

In his Paramirum, he also mention an Ens Seminis which constitute the human body, which provides its complexion and temperaments, etc... without any influences from planets or stars, because children inherit their Ens Seminis from their parents, which inherited it from theirs, up to Adam and Eve.

 

Very nice. Paracelsus mentions the Ens Astrale as the influence of the celestial bodies on illness and health.

 

My own experience as a medical astrologer showed me that we should not think of the astrological influences as separate from other influences that are genetical, environmental, biographic etc. Direct cosmic influences may exist, but most of all, the chart is a symbolic summary of everything that is in the make up and life experience of an individual.

 

In the Paragranum, Paracelsus says: "Within man are the sun and moon, the planets and all the rest of the stars, and also the chaos." In other words, Man is a microcosm.

[Nungali]

People have problems because I question their assertions and definition, mostly for clarity as in this case.

 

Then you would have said ;  'What do you mean by   " ............ "   -  how does that work?'  Instead of assuming what I meant and taking a stand against the assumption. 

 

 

What this boils down to isn't a 'program' running, but a genetically inherited propensity.

 

Two things I talked about seem conflated here; 

 

1. The 'propensity' of the individual type, unique, individual - ' personality' or 'spirit' (essential nature ) .

 

2. . General Human traits - these were likened to a computer program ... sorry we do come with them , like the bio survival program, like the fight or flight reaction.  This is the Theory of  Exo-psychology where to understand these concepts they use a model of mini brains, curcuits or liken them to computer programs.  How, for example the bio survival circuit works basically is modified by 1.   then comes the environmental / learning factor.

 

 

As you have just proven-everyone is unique and different, be it pups in a litter or babies in a family. No issue with that. Twins share common genetics and shared the same womb for 9 months so they share similar features and mannerisms up to a certain age,

 

LIke flicking their hair out their eyes in the womb ? 

 

 

then change. There is no mental code running.

 

Okay, there is no mental code running. Dont know why you made that term up and keep refuting it ? ? ? 

 

 

The genetics will make a person more likely to be artistic like a parent/ancestor or to have a mathematical aptitude if that's in the family. However, a child cannot automatically be an artist or a mathematician.

 

I dont read anyone here disputing that. 

 

At birth he can't even see very well and the world is a chaos of colours, movement, shapes, sounds, smells and sensations that are not yet cognitively banked. The child has to create all concepts from precepts. He must learn for instance that a ball rolls, but a book doesn't move.

He will drop an item over and over again discovering the result is the same,

 

... and hold a fire truck above his head while lying flat on his back and let go .....   right in the face "Whaaa!"   (me watching GFs baby learn about gravity.)

 

 

 

he learns causality (not yet as a concept) but as a perception; he learns perspective that small objects, held closer, look bigger than large objects further away. He has to learn all this before he can begin to become an artist or mathematician. He will perhaps begin drawing what he sees and then experience a particular pleasure in doing it and want to do more of it, or a pleasure counting and understanding ratios of things and gets pleasure from the understanding.

 

 

yeah yeah ....  thanks for the lesson  - I know all that and that isnt what I am refering to .

 

 

But dont let me stop you ....   you are on a run, best keep going .     

[Nungali]

And this happened in modern times?! I'm truly shocked!

 

As that great line in the Blue's Brothers said  " How much for the leeetle girl ? " 

 

 

 

 

What, even people allegedly of Christian faith got involved in this kind of man trade? Such hypocrisy is beyond belief!

 

Ha!   They been at it for centuries. 

 

 

 

 

 

I can indeed think of something else (even though it may be complementary to or pertain to another - but "parallel" - level than your theory, rather than contradict it). Namely astrology. Bear in mind that twins have a rather similar natal chart, in most cases.

 

 BIngo !    I took their charts into account ... its not that ,,,, a couple of mins aint gonna make that difference.  So, same environment, same treatment, same everything, same chart .... but very different people.

 

Actually, they turned up out the blue yesterday - the twins, now grown up more, and the older boy now 10 ... and a new little sister !   (And mom - XGF -  who says "When I left, you shrugged and said 'you will go off, rampage around, have another baby, probably a girl, and then come back'. Well, you were right ....  Here I am ! " 

 

 

 

Well ... that certainly set off a sky rocket in the Hermitage !  

 

But at least I can now do more  experiments on the twins  

 

( Psssst ..... Michael .... you take 2 , you get a discount  )

[Nungali]

I replied before I saw your recent reply. I agree it's genetic propensity, but it's not a program. If you can drop 'programme'-which is clearly something consciously cognitive, then we can move forward.

 

I replied to your reply before I saw your reply to my reply to your post .  

 

Okay I will drop program , happy? 

 

Now ... about these  8 circuits we are born with  ....   

[Michael Sternbach]

As that great line in the Blue's Brothers said  " How much for the leeetle girl ? " 

 

 

Ha!   They been at it for centuries. 

 

 

 

 BIngo !    I took their charts into account ... its not that ,,,, a couple of mins aint gonna make that difference.  So, same environment, same treatment, same everything, same chart .... but very different people.

 

Actually, they turned up out the blue yesterday - the twins, now grown up more, and the older boy now 10 ... and a new little sister !   (And mom - XGF -  who says "When I left, you shrugged and said 'you will go off, rampage around, have another baby, probably a girl, and then come back'. Well, you were right ....  Here I am ! " 

 

 

 

Well ... that certainly set off a sky rocket in the Hermitage !  

 

But at least I can now do more  experiments on the twins  

 

( Psssst ..... Michael .... you take 2 , you get a discount  )

 

Hmm... Before, you gave several examples of separated twins developing in very similar ways. I'm not sure what you are trying to get at... (Not for the first time, I might add.)

 

And no, a couple of minutes usually won't make a big difference regarding the natal chart. Even though they might, in cases where the ascendent is about to change etc.

[Karl]

I replied to your reply before I saw your reply to my reply to your post .  

 

Okay I will drop program , happy? 

 

Now ... about these  8 circuits we are born with  ....   

 

I wouldn't dispute 'circuits'. We do have reflex reactions, automatic sense integrating directly to precept, a propensity towards some skill, automatic biology, pleasure/pain detection.

 

That's outside what I understand and is more for a biologist/scientist.

[Nungali]

Perhaps a better model is a blank circuit board .  For  X ²  years we have  developed  certain traits that have made us 'human' .

 

One we could say is 'artistic expression' . This is expressed as the 'artistic creative circuit' , it kicks in at a certain age in the child / individual and development of the species ( HS)  at a certain stage .  I am not saying 'Man'  as such came with that, it was probably developed.  But still, 'man' is born with it now , along with the bases 'instincts' , the bio-survival level, fight flight, etc.

 

So it is inherited somehow but as a blank circuit board , of a certain pattern, with a certain pathways.   What components get added through learning experience, and  the way they are assembled and operated by individual 'propensity'  results in what output occurs artistically and creatively . 

 

Thats how I figure the exopsycholgy 'programs' work.  

 

If you really want to refute it, best to attack the higher circuits - they are linked with all sorts of 'fanciful' stuff, like 'non-local' consciousness   [ as well as levels developing in individuals and rase evolution, each level or circuit us ascribed a location; Bio survival - brain stem and 'hind brain' , artistic creative - frontal lobes,  Neuro genetic ( level 8 I think )  - in DNA , etc ]

[Nungali]

Hmm... Before, you gave several examples of separated twins developing in very similar ways. I'm not sure what you are trying to get at... (Not for the first time, I might add.)

 

And no, a couple of minutes usually won't make a big difference regarding the natal chart. Even though they might, in cases where the ascendent is about to change etc.

 

That doesnt disrupt what I 'am trying to get at' .   The similarities were examples of certain 'inherited traits  or medical conditions', given to (hopefully) explain what I meant about a 'code' being transferred (probably genetically via DNA )  in more complex ways than we realise .   Thats what the research seemed to show.

 

This is part of what makes us up,

 

The differences (between the baby twins for example)  was a personal observation I had and leads me to postulations about 'individual spirit'  or propensity .... again, another dynamic in the code . 

 

Like when we breed two variant types and we get a range produced, just a lot more and bigger range ( near infinite )  for 'propensity or 'personality.

 

They are two of the main factors   ( thats' what I am getting at )   and added to that comes their combination, modified by the type of experiences and environments they encounter. 

 

So yes, we do come with a 'code' and a 'propensity'  (otherwise we would all be identical )   and both are demonstrated (differently ) in observing twins.

 

Incidentally, the twins being different and having different codes and propensities (but similar 'circuit boards )  has been a long time astrological curiosity to me.   If I give astrology as much value as many seem to do, how can such twins be so different.

 

Some twins seem copies of each other and have coincidental lives, yes, one can cite them as the positive astrological example ... but what about those that  start off  different and develop different lives  with the same chart, time, location, parents, and environment and response ? 

 

 

THAT  is the question

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Marblehead]

Actually, the thread question was not well defined.  (Makes for a fun discussion though.)

 

The origin of mankind:

 

Do we mean:

 

The evolutionary origin of Homo?

The humaneness of man?

The modern (civilized) human?

[Karl]

Perhaps a better model is a blank circuit board .  For  X ²  years we have  developed  certain traits that have made us 'human' .

 

One we could say is 'artistic expression' . This is expressed as the 'artistic creative circuit' , it kicks in at a certain age in the child / individual and development of the species ( HS)  at a certain stage .  I am not saying 'Man'  as such came with that, it was probably developed.  But still, 'man' is born with it now , along with the bases 'instincts' , the bio-survival level, fight flight, etc.

 

So it is inherited somehow but as a blank circuit board , of a certain pattern, with a certain pathways.   What components get added through learning experience, and  the way they are assembled and operated by individual 'propensity'  results in what output occurs artistically and creatively . 

 

Thats how I figure the exopsycholgy 'programs' work.  

 

If you really want to refute it, best to attack the higher circuits - they are linked with all sorts of 'fanciful' stuff, like 'non-local' consciousness   [ as well as levels developing in individuals and rase evolution, each level or circuit us ascribed a location; Bio survival - brain stem and 'hind brain' , artistic creative - frontal lobes,  Neuro genetic ( level 8 I think )  - in DNA , etc ]

 

It's way off my route so I'm not going to get involved in the complexities of it. I leave the engine alone and drive the car epistemologically speaking. The wiring isn't at all interesting, only the tool itself. How a table functions from the perspective of its atomic structure and energetic components is uninteresting-the table is an existent, it has specific attributes and I can know them directly.

[Nungali]

Actually, the thread question was not well defined.  (Makes for a fun discussion though.)

 

The origin of mankind:

 

Do we mean:

 

The evolutionary origin of Homo?

The humaneness of man?

The modern (civilized) human?

 

 

No, I meant that is the question that Michael didnt seem to understand I was posing. 

 

The thread title is quite clear - the origin of mankind

 

 

Now,  'mankind'  means  .....    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Nungali]

Actually, Karl, you make a good point about leaving the engine alone and the wiring, Its probably best you do. Leave it to the mechanics to  take care of. Exo-psychology was developed to be have a 'mechanical' use ... that is, to repair broken human circuits. They did a lot of work in prisons treating 'uncurable'  hard case prisoners - many of whom ended up that way by their circuits being programmed wrong, so they helped them reprogram them - with some success. 

 

Eventually it got banned.  Like many systems of individual empowerment do . 

 

As far your table goes, all I can say is , thank god for the surrealists . 

 

 

Edited May 14, 2016 by Nungali

[Marblehead]

Now,  'mankind'  means  .....    

 

 

 

 

The common attributes of men.  What about the women?

[Nungali]

They are the kind part.

[Michael Sternbach]

 

No, I meant that is the question that Michael didnt seem to understand I was posing. 

 

The thread title is quite clear - the origin of mankind

 

 

Now,  'mankind'  means  .....    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I still don't quite follow you, even though you yourself seem to be perfectly clear about what you mean. I guess, that must be due to