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

[Jim D.]

I read something about the domestication of dogs as part of the thread. I have a vivid imagination and therefore fantasize about early man in a cave with his family and a dog or two. Now I am imagining that dogs attempting to trust the hand of a pre-human was much like "Dances with Wolves" attempt at trying to feed the wolf that came to his Post from time to time. The wolf was tentative but eventually took the morsel of food that was offered to him. It is matter of reinforcing good behaviors. But again, imagine how long that must have taken in an evolutionary sense to gain the trust of a wild animal where he would come inside and share a campfire, and respect the alpha male as alpha. If you watched the documentary on the Wolf Man, it teaches that getting the wolf pups when they are pups is an ideal time to integrate a man into a wolf's environment. He literally had to behave like their mother would to begin with, then get the pups to accept and accept that he was the dominant male wolf. But what is interesting is that when he took a short sabbatical from the pack, there was a shift in the dynamics and roles of the pack. When Wolf Man returned to the pack, he was no longer accepted as the alpha male. A new one had emerged. And that male had to show dominance over him buy standing on top of the Wolf Man, with teeth showing while salivating. The wolf positioned himself much to close to the Wolf Man's jugular. Moreover, not only was the new Alpha wolf defending his new roll with Wolf Man, but also defended his new role against another male wolf in the pack. Anything could have happened in the confusion and heat of the moment. Wolfman survived unscathed. 

[Nungali]

.

 

Edited November 30, 2019 by Nungali

[Nungali]

18 hours ago, Everything said:

Ok, so here I found the explanation of the irish accent, and he is LITERALLY AND VISUALLY describing the 2 dimensional motion of the arabic language in written form. 

I am literally struck by awe. I don't even know what to say anymore.

 

 

 

We will see about that, I suppose .

[Nungali]

3 hours ago, Taomeow said:

 

Interesting.  Definitely the kind of dog equipped to handle extreme cold temperatures still exists, and some are employed just the way they may have been employed 18,000 years ago.  (A note to anyone who would own a husky, or knows someone who wants to own a husky: please don't.  Don't -- unless you can engage that dog in shared activities all day long.  Huskies are like wolves, tribal, they don't do well on their own, they have to be part of a pack, a team, and have plenty of activity, or they start losing their mind.  It's not the dog that can be home alone just doing nothing, they are social and need a purpose.  A husky belongs where it comes from.)       

 

and in a group.  It isnt a 'lone dog' like a lap dog or Norwegian Buhund  (bred to live on barges )

 

 

[Nungali]

3 hours ago, Jim D. said:

Ms. Taomeow, I would guess that you are an intellectual and scholar of Anthropology...probably majored in it and wrote a thesis regarding the above. It would be difficult for most or all common men to discourse on this topic, but interesting to listen to and learn from you. 

 

   Daobums are not common men .      A lot of my own posts are on anthropology, I specialise in cultural anthropology.  Also ancient History, I specialise in Central Asia / BMAC .   Other members here have similar skill sets and education. Recently Apech was asked to offer his skill in  reading pyramid texts to sort something out for us .

 

Ms T . like a few members here is more of a 'Renaissance  Person '  ie. 'multidisciplined '

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/multidiscipline

 

(just so people dont think I am talking about that 'club that shall not be named ' )

 

 

3 hours ago, Jim D. said:

 

It would be like my picking a topic from a Sociology course I taught at the University level and expect my audience to respond intellectually...unless they too were of equal interest in their pursuit of knowledge and the etiology of man.

 

Oh yes please ! 

 

but new thread .

 

 

3 hours ago, Jim D. said:

 

For me, I would expect to see eyes glazed over. Even after three hours of Continuing Education, I too, squirm in my seat. I wish I could get up and leave, but then I would not get the Certification letter needed to prove to the Licensing body that I was there. Otherwise, I wouldn't go. I have been attending CEU's since 2000.

 

Thats the thing with doing non-graduate courses , you only attend the things you want, no pressure , no learning what you dont want  . If something arises one can fill in the gaps later by expanding your own curriculum .

 

It also allows one to get out more 'in the field' .

 

 

3 hours ago, Jim D. said:

 

I suppose I could relate to your interests in that I found it an interesting subject to teach regarding the development of the family going back to pre-human days. I think the course I taught was Marriage and Family. 

 

I put your subject up in my browser and found your original post. So, in my eyes that makes you famous. I am impressed. 

 

I do not have the background to anything substantial, so I will just listen. 

 

But one of the things under the microscope here IS 'sociology ' ;

 

" Sociology is a study of society, patterns of social relationships, social interaction and culture of everyday life. It is a social science that uses various methods of empirical investigation and critical analysis to develop a body of knowledge about social order, acceptance, and change or social evolution "

 

- Wiki .

 

' social order, acceptance, and change or social evolution'  might even be the crux of this thread  ?

 

[Nungali]

On 01/11/2019 at 7:19 AM, sean said:

Thanks for reports, moved shenanigans to:

 

@Everything don't post in this topic anymore. 🙏

 

 

A reminder

[Earl Grey]

1 hour ago, Jim D. said:

I read something about the domestication of dogs as part of the thread. I have a vivid imagination and therefore fantasize about early man in a cave with his family and a dog or two. Now I am imagining that dogs attempting to trust the hand of a pre-human was much like "Dances with Wolves" attempt at trying to feed the wolf that came to his Post from time to time. The wolf was tentative but eventually took the morsel of food that was offered to him. It is matter of reinforcing good behaviors. But again, imagine how long that must have taken in an evolutionary sense to gain the trust of a wild animal where he would come inside and share a campfire, and respect the alpha male as alpha. If you watched the documentary on the Wolf Man, it teaches that getting the wolf pups when they are pups is an ideal time to integrate a man into a wolf's environment. He literally had to behave like their mother would to begin with, then get the pups to accept and accept that he was the dominant male wolf. But what is interesting is that when he took a short sabbatical from the pack, there was a shift in the dynamics and roles of the pack. When Wolf Man returned to the pack, he was no longer accepted as the alpha male. A new one had emerged. And that male had to show dominance over him buy standing on top of the Wolf Man, with teeth showing while salivating. The wolf positioned himself much to close to the Wolf Man's jugular. Moreover, not only was the new Alpha wolf defending his new roll with Wolf Man, but also defended his new role against another male wolf in the pack. Anything could have happened in the confusion and heat of the moment. Wolfman survived unscathed. 

I watched the same one years ago. There’s a wolf sanctuary in Massachusetts where my friend volunteers in, and while the wolves aren’t tame, they are more sociable with humans than feral wolves.

[Jim D.]

Do you remember the gentleman who thought he had a special relationship with bears. He tried to introduce his significant other to his life style. Unfortunately, a rogue bear took both their lives. I have often thought what bravery his significant other manifested in trying to beat the bear off of him (Timothy Treadwell). She gave her life for him. Imagine overcoming self preservation for another. 

 

Thinking of social wolves as more trustworthy gives me pause to doubt. Even wolf/dogs cannot control their instinct to behave like a wolf. The shift from dog to wolf happens in a second. It is hard to control for this. 

 

How about when Wolf Man introduced his girlfriend to the pack?

 

Did you see the circus bear which was muzzled, attack his trainer by forcing him down while getting on top of him. A man standing by, kicked the bear in the face several times before it got of the trainer. 

 

We talk of dogs and our cultural relationship with them. It can be fascinating. 

[Earl Grey]

20 minutes ago, Jim D. said:

Do you remember the gentleman who thought he had a special relationship with bears. He tried to introduce his significant other to his life style. Unfortunately, a rogue bear took both their lives. I have often thought what bravery his significant other manifested in trying to beat the bear off of him (Timothy Treadwell). She gave her life for him. Imagine overcoming self preservation for another. 

 

Thinking of social wolves as more trustworthy gives me pause to doubt. Even wolf/dogs cannot control their instinct to behave like a wolf. The shift from dog to wolf happens in a second. It is hard to control for this. 

 

How about when Wolf Man introduced his girlfriend to the pack?

 

Did you see the circus bear which was muzzled, attack his trainer by forcing him down while getting on top of him. A man standing by, kicked the bear in the face several times before it got of the trainer. 

 

We talk of dogs and our cultural relationship with them. It can be fascinating. 

The wolves are more sociable but not tame like I said. How people build relationships with animals can vary, as Taomeow is discussing the historical precedents. Cultural factors and religious views definitely impact it, but a circus handler seems to have more of a capitalistic world view more akin to a master-slave relationship compared to a dog parent and dog. Seems is the key word, by the way.

[Everything]

9 hours ago, Taomeow said:

 

Some are taking themselves seriously, and nothing and nobody else.  So they might destroy the flow because they don't know how to jump into the flow that is not about their pet peeve, yet refuse to go elsewhere without urinating into it first.  Marking the territory, so to speak.  

 

The point begins with the OP exploring Sumer and other related civilizations of Mesopotamia vs. the way of life that went earlier that they somehow replaced -- forever.  And looking for similarities therein (and dissimilarities, and parallels, and unique features, etc.)  to some more generic features of "civilization" and its opposites.  So, it's either about, "Sumerians did/believed/initiated/invented etc. this and that -- here's an item for your consideration" or about "do we still do things the way they first did it in Sumer? -- here's an item (or an idea) to look at," or about "is civilization natural, or did someone merely domesticate us as cattle and brainwash us into believing it's a grand thing, and that we couldn't survive without it, and that we are in a perfectly natural process for our species?" and so on, stuff like that.  The OP's position is anti-civilization, she believes designating its opponents as "savages" is the ugliest projection ever undertaken.  She is suspicious of an extraneous intervention believing that as a hypothesis it explains our predicament better than either creation or evolution or a combo of both (without however excluding either as something that went before the intervention).  She is intolerant of any views that single out a nation, religion, race as the culprit (an ignorant self-serving idiocy, a fruitless and often cruel and extremely unjust cop-out that replaces an honest quest for answers because it is, well, an easy sleight-of-hand cop-out when answers are not easy to obtain.)  She is also not a fan of verbal diarrhea and of walls of unrelated pictures erected all over the barely visible path she's trying to discern.  Everything else is welcome.   

 

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. 

[Apech]

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.

[welkin]

On 11/24/2019 at 11:14 AM, gendao said:

Well sure, the 100% sustainable, aboriginal lifestyle is tough...which is why they deserve so much appreciation and respect!  Not derision as "merciless savages!"

 

And yes, a lot of the colonialist ecological damage is simply irreversible at this point.  The spread of invasive species and extreme depopulations/extinctions of native flora and fauna cannot be undone.  You can't unring a bell or stuff some genies back in the bottle.  You can't bring the Dodo bird back or stop all mile-a-minute weed.  You can never really restore a land back to native forest or prairie without invasives now.  Which is why Christian colonialism deserves to be held FULLY accountable for its planetary ecocide and STOPPED!!!

Most people don't realize the true scope of its damage unless they ever really delve into ecology...and even then you have to eventually figure out ON YOUR OWN that it was the root of all evil there.

That said, of course I have done what I can to help turn the tide against invasives, along with some native restoration.  But that is but a very tiny drop in the bucket...

 

Liked

[KuroShiro]

11 hours ago, Taomeow said:

 

Interesting.  Definitely the kind of dog equipped to handle extreme cold temperatures still exists, and some are employed just the way they may have been employed 18,000 years ago.     

 

Hmm, I don't know, an Ice Age seems to be a different beast than present conditions. I'd think they would have migrated South.

 

12 minutes ago, Apech said:

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

 

So the effortlessly annoying is annoyed?

 

12 minutes ago, Apech said:

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.

 

This NHK Doc. seems to be interesting, it talks about how oxytocin levels rise when the children look into the dog's eyes. The levels  in the dog also increase (12:10).

 

24:00:

When did the special relationship between humans and dogs begin? The oldest evidence of the 2 species living together was found among ruins in the Paleolithic Era (Eynan ruins - 12,000 years ago) that's around the time when humans began farming.

 

26:00:

Wolves and foxes.

 

Quick search:

oxytocin-chemistry-between-people-and-dogs-real

the-look-of-love-is-in-the-dogs-eyes

 

[Everything]

In a long distant past. In Sumeria.

There was a dry white slightly yellowish stone. At the edge of this was the stone darker brown. And bellow you had the green lush forrest where the sumerians lived. Where the water poured from the dead land to their land. They wrote in tablets. Carved by tools. And they explored all that was under the sun. Inside the sun was an expansive dark red core, almost black. That pulsed like a heart. And in resonance with that of the heart of the earth. All was well. And in perfect harmony. Life was joy.

 

Then from above the dead lands, came the scavengers. With their tools of scavenging. They had known only the lack of life and did not believe in its abbundance. So when they came to sumeria, they came to fight with the life they found. And strangle in to the ground beneath their feet, laying waste to everything they could find. Minimize the full expression of life, in order to be able to consume it in lesser more digestible form. As they knew not the fullness of life. It was strange and alien to them. And it was destined to be crushed. So they helped it a hand in their own demise. 

 

After they left, the survivors were scared. As they had lost everything they loved. And they thought that they did something wrong. With guilt and disgrace, they started life anew, from a difficult path. Scavenging for what was left of the abbundance they had known. With great grief, consuming the very remains of their ancestors. Their lush green forrest. Now completely burned. And they grew weary of the return of the killers. So they prayed to the might of their last visit. And built similar tools of destruction, might they survive their return. And hopefully avenge their ancestors. They became builder of tools of destruction and practiced the art of war. 

 

As their civilization grew, the scavengers returned, and sweeped them again. They were prepared to fight but lost without a single succesful blow. 

 

Next generation, they realised, they had to sacrifice their own humans in order to learn how to kill. With more succes. To understand the true art of battle. And so they did. Eventually they succeeded and grew big and mighty. Supported by the remaining remembrance and resemblance of who they once were. Their civilization grew mighty and no scavenger ever could match their might again. They expanded the land and grew the green further beyond. 

 

As their explorers of and beyond the dead zones found a vulcano in the mits of all the dead land. They realised that this was the God of War that had made the scavengers so strong and mighty and determined to succeed. And so they grew temples of worship around it in order to expand their military might, might they receive the blessings of this volcano. And they did receive it, indeed. 

 

Swallowed by the scorching smoke and ashes and swallowed by the molten rock. They all but vanished in a big quake, that they previously thought to be the joyful voice of their joyful green lands, speaking in praise of the humans of the lush green land that was of their ancestors. And as the great king found his temples swallowed by the throat of the voice of his essence of being. He understood, that the entire purpose of their civilization has always been to live in abbundance, only to be swallowed by the god of earth and all land. And freedom from life itself was the ultimate achievement. And so he send out many many people out to kill as much as they could and not return untill they die. Which ment, no return at all. Death was the goal. And in doing so, he wanted the volcano its voice to expand its joy and reach his home. And swallow the  most sacred land of his ancestors.

 

Many people protested, but they had no power. And no say in the matter. As they all knew they would die one day. So some of them left. And headed away from their god, and king, abandoning their god. And land.

After a long time, the land was swallowed by the volcano as the people started slaying eachother in the midst of the quake. 

And the survivors had received the message of grief in great disgrace and shame. As ashes raining down on their land. Covering everything in eery grey dry dust. So... They eventually found the rain of their grief had cleansed all death and brought new life ahead. And so they feared for their end. And so they punished their own abondenment of their destiny by building temples of self punishment, might they extend their life and live one more day. They believed that the more they suffered, the more reprief they would receive. The more they would be allowed to continue to live. And they became strong and mighty. 

 

As scavengers came, they greeted them with open and loving arms. They praise their art of humiliation. And the scavengers were befuddled. They were flabbergasted. They felt great honor and respect for these beings who seemed to love them unconditionally. They submitted themselves to their joyful way of life. And addopted their art of self inflicted suffering. 

 

As their civilization grew, the mighty king of ever repriefing life, came to love his humans so much. That he decided that physical pain was no longer enough. He thought he could inflict such a great pain unto himself, so as to RESSURECT ALL OF HIS ANCESTORS! This was a big undertaking. And it required immense suffering. That he knew, and his queen knew. Physical pain was not enough. It would require a pain that is far greater. For the rituals of physical pain had grew old. And no longer offered reprief. 

 

So the king in support of his queen, decided to sacrifice their most beloved humans, to death. Pre maturely. In order to feel the never ending pain of grief once again. And so he did. And they both, and all of their communion cried mightily. And they feared to be the next one. And as people, in honor of their king and wisdom, and in agreement with his quest, decided to volunteer as sacrifice. And as they approached the king in submition, the king grew silent and angry. He was outraged! As if the very Gods had ridiculed him. And so he asked the young man who was his family. And the young men grew silent, and fearful. And tried to run away. The guards were ordered to capture him and he was tied to a pole as every single one of his family was slayed and murdered before him as their blood was spilled on him as he screamed for forgiveness. And he died a long painful sorrow with his family in ruins around him. Rotting together with them in the center of the city. No one was allowed to be happy. 

 

All the old rituals of physical self harm that had brought them so much joyful life and freedom and worthiness, was deemed forbidden and punished by emmediate execution. 

After a long while, they also forbid the consumption of food untill famine brought death to them. And reproduction was only allowed during great suffering. 

 

Eventually, the king had suffered so much, as all of his beloved creations were dying one by one. He helt firm that his ressurection would succeed. And every sacrifice that was made would be restored again by this immense great endeavour of his.

 

As only a few of his people remained. They discussed long hours in their gathering house of the king. And as the king claimed responsibility for all of it, everyone agreed that the final act of reprief would have to be the murder of the queen by the hands of the king himself. And so he did. He died from grief. And refusal to move or eat. Lying on the ground. And suffering greatly. For a long long time. He hallucinated many many times all of his ancestors and people. And the last of his people killed themselves in great sorrow aswell. And the king died.

 

The end. 

_

So what is greatest realisation of this story? Where do you see the value. It is there, but you have to look into the core in order to find where it is. Furthermore you can feel your way around the story in order to identify it. 

Edited November 30, 2019 by Everything

[Earl Grey]

From walls of new age platitudes to unrelated memes and conspiracies, why is it so hard to stay on topic? Not just here, but everywhere? Good grief.

[ilumairen]

10 hours ago, Jim D. said:

Do you remember the gentleman who thought he had a special relationship with bears. He tried to introduce his significant other to his life style. Unfortunately, a rogue bear took both their lives. I have often thought what bravery his significant other manifested in trying to beat the bear off of him (Timothy Treadwell). She gave her life for him. Imagine overcoming self preservation for another. 

 

He developed the relationship through respect and observation, and stayed past the time he knew it was safe to stay. And I wouldn't characterize the bear as "rogue," but elderly with worn down teeth, hungry and desperate to survive another winter - which of course he didn't. 

 

 

10 hours ago, Jim D. said:

Thinking of social wolves as more trustworthy gives me pause to doubt. Even wolf/dogs cannot control their instinct to behave like a wolf. The shift from dog to wolf happens in a second. It is hard to control for this. 

 

I watched an interesting (and somewhat shocking/sad) documentary on Wolves in Minnesota. If one can stomach the callousness of (some) humans and indifference to social structures not our own I would recommend it.

 

10 hours ago, Jim D. said:

We talk of dogs and our cultural relationship with them. It can be fascinating. 

 

The reboot of Cosmos has an episode which delves into this, and the natural evolution of the wolf/man relationship as one with mutual benefit. 

[ilumairen]

3 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.

 

May I suggest it was man who lost the affinity, with some few among them maintaining it?

[Apech]

8 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

May I suggest it was man who lost the affinity, with some few among them maintaining it?

Quote

 

GILGAMESH went abroad in the world, but he met with none who could withstand his arms till be came to Uruk. But the men of Uruk muttered in their houses, 'Gilgamesh sounds the tocsin for his amusement, his arrogance has no bounds by day or night. No son is left with his father, for Gilgamesh takes them all, even the children; yet the king should be a shepherd to his people. His lust leaves no virgin to her lover, neither the warrior's daughter nor the wife of the noble; yet this is the shepherd of the city, wise, comely, and resolute.'

The gods heard their lament, the gods of heaven cried to the Lord of Uruk, to Anu the god of Uruk: 'A goddess made him, strong as a savage bull, none can withstand his arms. No son is left with his father, for Gilgamesh takes them all; and is this the king, the shepherd of his people? His lust leaves no virgin to her lover, neither the warrior's daughter nor the wife of the noble. When Anu had heard their lamentation the gods cried to Aruru, the goddess of creation, 'You made him, O Aruru; now create his equal; let it be as like him as his own reflection, his second self; stormy heart for stormy heart. Let them contend together and leave Uruk in quiet.'

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.

Enkidu ate grass in the hills with the gazelle and lurked with wild beasts at the water-holes; he had joy of the water with the herds of wild game. But there was a trapper who met him one day face to face at the drinking-hole, for the wild game had entered his territory. On three days he met him face to face, and the trapper was frozen with fear. He went back to his house with the game that he had caught, and he was dumb, benumbed with terror. His face was altered like that of one who has made a long journey. With awe in his heart he spoke to his father: 'Father, there is a man, unlike any other, who comes down from the hills. He is the strongest in the world, he is like an immortal from heaven. He ranges over the hills with wild beasts and eats grass; the ranges through your land and comes down to the wells. I am afraid and dare not go near him. He fills in the pits which I dig and tears up-my traps set for the game; he helps the beasts to escape and now they slip through my fingers.'

His father opened his mouth and said to the trapper, 'My son, in Uruk lives Gilgamesh; no one has ever prevailed against him, he is strong as a star from heaven. Go to Uruk, find Gilgamesh, extol the strength of this wild man. Ask him to give you a harlot, a wanton from the temple of love; return with her, and let her woman's power overpower this man. When next he comes down to drink at the wells she will be there, stripped naked; and when he sees her beckoning he will embrace her, and then the wild beasts will reject him.'

So the trapper set out on his journey to Uruk and addressed himself to Gilgamesh saying, 'A man unlike any other is roaming now in the pastures; he is as strong as a star from heaven and I am afraid to approach him. He helps the wild game to escape; he fills in my pits and pulls up my traps.' Gilgamesh said, 'Trapper, go back, take with you a harlot, a child of pleasure. At the drinking hole she will strip, and when, he sees her beckoning he will embrace her and the game of the wilderness will. surely reject him.'

Now the trapper returned, taking the harlot with him. After a three days' journey they came to the drinking hole, and there they sat down; the harlot and the trapper sat . facing one another and waited for the game to come. For the first day and for the second day the two sat waiting, but on the third day the herds came; they came down to drink and Enkidu was with them. The small wild creatures of the plains were glad of the water, and Enkidu with them, who ate grass with the gazelle and was born in the hills; and she saw him, the savage man, come from far-off in the hills. The trapper spoke to her: 'There he is. Now, woman, make your breasts bare, have no shame, do not delay but welcome his love. Let him see you naked, let him possess your body. When he comes near uncover yourself and lie with him; teach him, the savage man, your woman's art, for when he murmurs love to you the wild' beasts that shared his life in the hills will reject him.'

She was not ashamed to take him, she made herself naked and welcomed his eagerness; as he lay on her murmuring love she taught him the woman's art For six days and seven nights they lay together, for Enkidu had forgotten his home in the hills; but when he was satisfied he went back to the wild beasts. Then, when the gazelle saw him, they bolted away; when the wild creatures saw him they fled. Enkidu would have followed, but his body was bound as though with a cord, his knees gave way when he started to run, his swiftness was gone. And now the wild creatures had all fled away; Enkidu was grown weak, for wisdom was in him, and the thoughts of a man were in his heart. So he returned and sat down at the woman's feet, and listened intently to what she said. 'You are wise, Enkidu, and now you have become like a god. Why do you want to run wild with the beasts in the hills? Come with me. I will take you to strong-walled Uruk, to the blessed temple of Ishtar and of Anu, of love and of heaven there Gilgamesh lives, who is very strong, and like a wild bull he lords it over men.'

http://www.aina.org/books/eog/eog.htm

 

Quote

 

 

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.

Edited November 30, 2019 by Apech

[ilumairen]

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. 

[Apech]

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.

 

 

[ilumairen]

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 :

[Apech]

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

[ilumairen]

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. 

 

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

Edited November 30, 2019 by ilumairen

[Taomeow]

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 November 30, 2019 by Taomeow

[Apech]

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. 

 

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.