well hey there Britty......you go girl....




<---------runs away before anyone sees me.

Howie Richey has distilled the abundant wisdom of the novel, Ishmael, into the following concept summary.

I. Introduction

Modern people are all captives who cannot find the bars of our cage.

We are destroying the Earth in order, we think, to survive.

We are being lied to, but we don't know what the lie is. If we were to find the lie, we might do something about it.

We are enacting a story that, we are told, has no alternative except death.
Those who do not participate in this enacting do not get fed.

This is a book about How Things Came To Be This Way: the meaning of the world, divine intentions in the world, and human destiny.

Some definitions:

"Takers" = peoples we sometimes call "civilized"

"Leavers" = peoples we sometimes call "primitive"

"story" = an interrelation between the gods, man, and the Earth, with a beginning, middle, and end

"enact" = to strive to make a story come true, enacting a story works out the story's premise

"culture" = a people who are enacting a story



II. The Problem

Takers' story is about to end in catastrophe. Leavers' story going along just fine, thank you.

Premise of Takers' story: Man is the pinnacle of creation and the whole reason for the world's existence; it's all for us.

Therefore, we can do whatever we damn well please with the world.

Nature is chaotic, fickle; man was made to bring order, to rule nature.
Nature stands in defiance of man's rule and must be conquered.

Thus man is fulfilling his destiny, becoming what humans are meant to be.
The story we're enacting casts man as the enemy of the Earth.

So we simply must go on conquering the world until it's all under our control -- then we'll have the Paradise that was meant for us.

But something's wrong with this picture: man has screwed it up, as evinced by our own history.
Is it man himself that is flawed? (If he is, there's no hope for Earth.) No, the problem is not man himself: it's the story we're now enacting that puts us at odds with the Earth. But given a different story . . .

Takers periodically have prophets arise to tell us how to live, since we seem to have no such certain knowledge.

Meanwhile, we go on messing up the world, earnestly believing we have no other choice.
Instead of consulting the prophets, we could learn how to live by observing what is actually here, in "nature."

III. The Laws of Life

Man (like all other biology on this planet) is subject to immutable Laws of Life.

We Takers are assured that these laws do not apply to us.

Surprise! Whatever violates the laws becomes extinct.

Ignorance of these laws does not lessen their effects. In an analogy, we've jumped off a cliff in our civilizational aircraft and we're in the air believing we're in flight; the ground is rushing up under us at an accelerating rate, with a crash imminent; but we say, "Hey, no problem. Our plane has carried us safely so far. Let's all just pedal a little harder and we'll be OK."

IV. Defying the Laws of Life

Things Takers do that natural systems and native peoples do not:

exterminate their enemies

destroy their competitors' food supply

deny their competitors access to all food

store lots of food external to their bodies

Diversity of species ensures survival and peace for all.

Takers are at war with the Earth; the drive towards homogeneity ("You must live as we do") ensures conflict and extinction.

One species exempting itself from the laws threatens all other species.

We don't have to be at war with the world if we forsake the drive for unlimited growth.

Human settlement is also subject to the Law of Limited Competition. ("You can have a deer, but you can't have all deer.")

How come population control never seems to occur, relative to the food supply? What's so benevolent about feeding the starved so they can raise another generation in famine?

Indian tribes (and other Leavers) limited their populations within their cultural and territorial boundaries.

V. Results of Defying the Laws of Life

Our current cultural construct exists only in our minds. The immutable Law of Limited Competition clues us to how people should live.

No one species shall make the life of the Earth its own, since the Earth was not made for any one species. The world does not need man to impose order on it.

Another result of Takers' fanatical tenant of specialness is that the members of our society are profoundly lonely and isolated. This story we're enacting is ultimately unsatisfying and unhealthy.

On the other hand, Leaver cultures rarely experience crime, suicide, mental illness, or drug addiction. Their diets are better; they've survived three million years.

If you are going to rule the world, you need a special kind of knowledge that, formerly, only the gods possessed. Leavers don't claim to have it.

It is the knowledge of good and evil or Who Shall Live And Who Shall Die.

If we Takers keep living as though we have this knowledge, we will surely die.

VI. In and Out of the Garden

The Garden of Eden story was told from a Leaver point of view to explain why they were being killed off by the Takers.

Why would the gods forbid Adam to have the knowledge of good and evil? This would be an Ascent, not a Fall!

So how did things come to be this way? Because Takers believe it's the only right way to live, regardless of the cost. Giving it up would mean admitting we're wrong, relinquishing all pretensions of divinity, and giving rule back to the gods.

Agriculture (work) is a curse. Leaver (Abel) says, stay away from that vengeful Taker (Cain).
Adam, the first agriculturist, said yes to unlimited growth.

VII. Cultural Differences

Culture is an accumulation of all that has worked well for a people, including attitudes, tastes, attire, etc.

Leavers relate directly to the most ancient of times; takers consider themselves a new people. Except for ceremonies, institutions, and holidays, they eschew the past like the plague, never intending to live that way again.

Takers preserve knowledge of making more and better things, and is called progress; Leavers preserve knowledge of what works well for them in their particular locale, and is called wisdom.

Legislated laws don't work well, but they're "right." Cut off from our distant past, we grope for Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, and Confucius, inventing a new religion every week.

Leavers do not voluntarily give up their way of life to join the Takers revolution [unless seduced by our machines]. Usually they'd rather die, so we gladly kill them. Takers indubitably fear and loathe Leavers' way of life.

Comanches dropped agrarian life in favor of nomadic hunting. [Whites who took up the freedom of tribal life were particularly despised by their fellows.]

Instead of having a wretched existence, Leavers still inhabit Paradise, basking in less labor, in balance, in harmony.

As we Takers strive for ever more control over our own lives, as we hoard more food and things than we need, the gods have no power over us. As soon as we gain complete dominance, when the Earth is finally, entirely under our management, then we'll be free at last, our labors done!

VIII. Two Alternatives

Takers fired the gods for their incompetence, kicking them upstairs. This got the gods really pissed, so we offered sacrifices to them, for a while.

Takers think they know good and evil, forever judging and arguing and categorizing; Leavers live in the hands of the gods. So who is actually struggling to survive in a never-ending nightmare of terror and anxiety??

Those who live in the hands of the gods evolve, being part of the general community of life, subject to natural selection.

Takers' story says that creation came to an end with man, that man owns the world; there will be no successors, no competitors, no anything.

Leavers' story says that creation goes on forever; man belongs to the world.
Man is only the first of all other creatures to attain self-awareness, but certainly not the last.

Our choices: Thwart the gods and perish, or stand aside and make room for the other life-forms to become what they, too, can become.

The program:

Cain, stop murdering Abel -- Leavers can teach us that there isn't only one right way to live.

Spit out the forbidden fruit -- surrender the notion that we can decide who shall live and who shall die
Change people's minds -- no more Man Supreme, but Man The First Of Many

Summary

Takers are all inmates of a giant jail whose prison industry is about consuming the world. Not even the rich and powerful can escape this prison, which has nothing to do with justice. Of course we must redistribute wealth and power, but only after we tear down the prison itself. We are captives of a civilizational system that compels us to go on destroying the world in order to live.

book of truths (c) 1996 - unpublished. S.Q. pettit


28) To have civilization, one must be civilized. To be civilized, one must understand the meaning of the word civil or civility. Then one has to know and understand who and what he is. If he does, the realization will be that there can be no lasting civilization while we inhabit this flesh. Civility, in the tracks of time, is fleeting.

Lasting civilization? Are you talking duration here? Everyone knows this reality is a finite one.

Perhaps the goal is to create more lasting civilizations and better civilizations in spite of the problems and challenges.

Perhaps that is an on going pursuit, an ever expanding one.

The desire to be. To be better, to get better, to last longer. To be more, to have more, to do more.

JB

could be jb, but i doubt it - if man is involved in his present state anyway - BUT, if man evolves again, then there is that chance - so tell me which will happen? personally i hope your right - but again personally if it does happen, it will not be in my lifetime here on earth. MO

Evolution is a continuous process and no we will not notice it in one life time or several life times but it is a continuous change. There is recorded changes already in say the generation of my grandmother and me now. I think taller is one I remember. I also remember it said this was because of the weakening of the gravatational pull or something to this effect. Considering that evolution is due to environmental changes mostly, this makes perfect sense as a slow evolutionary change happening.

Off topic I believe though so sorry, just had a thought there..lol

Civilation has fallen and been reborn with different influences and consideration since man first huddled together for warmth. It will be a continuous change always. Civility in the sense of us being civil to one another, that is the real question. We have not been able to do this continually at all, have we?

JMO

I believe we are continuously evolving. You figure we split with the ancestors of modern day chimpanzees about 6 mil years ago and since then it has been an ongoing process. Of course modern humans have developed a lifestyle that is far less dependant on nature. We have selectively chosen to remove ourselves from the elements as much as we can. That perhaps has affected the state of our physical evolution but I believe in no way halted it. In certain respects, perhaps even sped it up. We haven't conquered nature by any stretch of the imagination but we have altered it now to the point that different selection pressures have now been placed on our bodies.

All I know is I like to keep my a$$ cool in the summer and warm in the winter. You see mama nature forgot to give me a furry coat and a tail fan. See I have to work out in the sun and brave the cold and still she does not give me a built in fur coat. She is such a bi#%h!!!! I say we cut down all her trees and suck up all her oil and well were at it stop recycling.

Global warming is B.S. It was made up so a world tax could be created. Its called a carbon tax and guess were that money is gonna go…bunch of socialist ****weeds. Don’t believe the hype Al Gore is a communist prick..period end of disscussion!!! Now you know a little about my political views.

Yes we are all well aware of your little jokes here. What else is new? I'm not sure you fully understand the process of evolution and Natural Selection or what the theories encompass exactly. Let me give you some background before you go off on a tangent. Hopefully you would agree with me that there is an incredible diversity of life found on Earth? The theory of evolution attempts to explain how these complex life forms came to be in existence on the planet. The journey from water to land, the return of land mammals to the sea, and the emergence of humans all suggest that creatures past and present are members of a single tree. Do you follow me thus far? I like to use the "tree example". All organisms, both living and extinct, are related. Every branch of the tree represents a species, and every fork separating one species from another represents the common ancestor shared by these species. While the tree's countless forks and far-reaching branches clearly show that relatedness among species varies greatly, it is also easy to see that every pair of species share a common ancestor from some point in evolutionary history. I mentioned chimp and human but there are countless others.

Now a topic that will REALLY peek your interest. Sexual reproduction allows an organism to combine half of its genes with half of another individual's genes, which means new combinations of genes are produced every generation. In addition, when eggs and sperm are produced, genetic material is shuffled and recombined in ways that produce new combinations of genes. Sexual reproduction thus increases genetic variation, which increases the raw material on which natural selection operates. Genetic variation within a species, also known as genetic diversity, increases a species opportunity for change over successive generations.

My point was that I do not believe that this process has ended. Why would it? I was simply agreeing with Dragon in her position. I just added in that I think it’s possible that the habitat in which modern day man has achieved for him/her over the millennia has gradually introduced a new set of selection pressures on our ever developing and changing bodies. No one says you need to buy into any of this. The scientific community has no vested interest in your acceptance. They would invite you to question and ALL of this research is ongoing.

All I can say Krimsa is, >if< the ""only changes"" in man we see is him becoming more intelegent or more streamlined or whatever in his appearence to me that is of no concern as to him beeng evolving.

Until mans "morals" >evolve< to me he remains the same as he has throughout his presence here on earth. What good will it do mankind to evolve his intelegence if his moral character remains as primitive as it has always been?
will it stop his warring and greed and self-centered behavior? What good wil all of his ever discovered new technology afford him as a species if he still is inclined to wicked behavior?

I’m sorry Tribo but I will leave the moral and philosophical centered questions up to you and JB and Abra, Dragon. I could throw some ideas out there of course but my background does not place these issues at the forefront. Simply put, I can explain how the car runs, but not exactly why it runs or where the car is going.

Okay so now I have to throw the loop hole in here. If we had no "wicked" as you say, tendencies, we could never evolve morally. Does that make sense?

I will give you an example, religions, on one side they are meant to further morality, right? But the evil in them is that they are divisive, exclusive, cultish and over powering to the expanding mind, which stifles it's growth. But if we never had this step in our evolution of morals and discovering who is right and who is wrong, we could never learn that these are not good in the end. This will be the end result of religions as people's minds grow and learn. Self responsibility will take the forefront in time. People are already seeing the detriment of blaming outside forces for internal processes, it is only a matter of time.

My opinion of course.

Thnx D, no, I was talking from a "non-Religious" perspective leaving religion out of it. just mans morals in general, i don't believe mans morals are based on religious matters. To me they seem to have develpoed from individual and tribal life. Even atheist have morals - most better ones than religious ones. Right and wrong to me stem from mankind through expierience with one another finding out what works and is good or healthy for the entire as compared to what doesn't work in the same settings. To me that is how peace came about not through guilt or fear. I think we could have actually come farther than we now have if religious entrapments had never existed - MOO -

I used religion as the example but I did not mean it at a religious level at all. I think of religion as a stepping stone of a mind learning so it is a step. Like I said morally, forced morals as religion does, had to be tried to get to the bottom line of what you believe or understand. We all have morals without religion or man's laws to tell us. We know if we hurt others, emotionally, mentally, physically that we are wrong. Now there are those who have a mental illness and do not have this program, sociopaths. But they are the exception to the rule.

gothcha!!! - i agree -

Our god's the FUN god! Our god's the SUN god! Ra! Ra! Ra!

who let this egyptian monkey out of his cage????

Any trait that is adjusted by gene expression will be effected by a selection effect . . .

What I mean here is that the behavior that is the outcome of certain thought processes, that we call moral, or immoral are effected by gene expression.

People with higher expression of certain genes will be more prone to anger, jealousy, and all the various a sundry emotions and states of mind that we associate with "wickedness".

If people are being killed (executed due to societal enforcement of laws) then there genes are being removed.

If people are driving to fast due to impatience and this is a behavior that is being reinforced through gene expression and they crash and die, then again . . . gone.

We are certainly evolving and our thoughts and emotions are related to gene expression . . . how much . . . . well we are learning more and more every day.

It used to be suspect that our thoughts where influenced AT ALL by our genes, it is now widely understood that they are . . . to what degree is still a variable.

The next question is when we logically analyze something and come to a conclusion that goes against our gut feeling . . . is that us working against our genes? mauahahahahah.

Great convo BTW.

You forgot to add a comment sir.