02-05-2010, 10:37 PM
Anthropology and the Law of One
I would like to explore some anthropology concepts, and how they relate to the Law of One.
I don't have reference links for the anthropology material. But I don't think matters much, because my goal is to explore how these ideas might shine a new light on the Law of One. I invite you to join me in this exploration.
Some anthropologists believe that humanity, as we now experience our physical bodies, evolved in groups, tribes or clans of about a hundred individuals. These tribes traveled together, hunting and gathering. About a third of the individuals would have been infants and children young enough to need at least some watchfulness from the adults. When a smaller group went out for the hunt, there were still many different adults who could watch the kids together.
This means that what is normal for a human being is to grow up with several other kids of all ages, watched over by a group of caring adults. Not every adult would be perfectly attentive and caring at all times, of course. However, chances are excellent that most of the time, if there was a dangerous situation, or the kid called out for help or needed something, there would be a good-enough response, soon enough. As a result of growing up this way, the kids would have the fundamental emotional security to expect that they are good enough people, and able to handle a world where there is enough caring and resources to meet their needs.
I believe that this is a natural development from the Law of One perspective. From unity with our fellow souls, we would have then emerged into unity with our fellow incarnate humans. The shocks of this 3D world would have been much easier to adapt to.
With the agricultural revolution, tribes expanded to cities, and priests who understood the astronomical signs of the flood seasons could consolidate their political control. Perhaps this is part of what Ra referred to as mistaken interference in human history.
Yet still, most people would have grown up in some kind of extended family or community situation with a variety of other kids and mostly caring adults.
From this perspective, the industrial revolution was a disastrous change for the worse in human development. Yes, workers got to migrate closer to good-paying work opportunities. But the destruction of the extended family meant that far fewer people had their early years surrounded by caring relatives who offered "good enough" help and love and encouragement. If just one couple - or more likely, just one mother - doesn't have their act together, the physical and psychological consequences can be devastating to the child, who doesn't have anyone else to ask for help.
I think this is why there has been, in recent centuries, so much more indigestible catalyst leading to neuroses and other intrapersonal and interpersonal problems. This could have been part of what Ra discussed as the increasing intensity of catalyst that has dramatically shortened lifespans.
Do you think I might be on track with these explorations? Or is there a more productive different way to look at these matters? Are there specific passage of the LLR material that address these issues?
I would like to explore some anthropology concepts, and how they relate to the Law of One.
I don't have reference links for the anthropology material. But I don't think matters much, because my goal is to explore how these ideas might shine a new light on the Law of One. I invite you to join me in this exploration.
Some anthropologists believe that humanity, as we now experience our physical bodies, evolved in groups, tribes or clans of about a hundred individuals. These tribes traveled together, hunting and gathering. About a third of the individuals would have been infants and children young enough to need at least some watchfulness from the adults. When a smaller group went out for the hunt, there were still many different adults who could watch the kids together.
This means that what is normal for a human being is to grow up with several other kids of all ages, watched over by a group of caring adults. Not every adult would be perfectly attentive and caring at all times, of course. However, chances are excellent that most of the time, if there was a dangerous situation, or the kid called out for help or needed something, there would be a good-enough response, soon enough. As a result of growing up this way, the kids would have the fundamental emotional security to expect that they are good enough people, and able to handle a world where there is enough caring and resources to meet their needs.
I believe that this is a natural development from the Law of One perspective. From unity with our fellow souls, we would have then emerged into unity with our fellow incarnate humans. The shocks of this 3D world would have been much easier to adapt to.
With the agricultural revolution, tribes expanded to cities, and priests who understood the astronomical signs of the flood seasons could consolidate their political control. Perhaps this is part of what Ra referred to as mistaken interference in human history.
Yet still, most people would have grown up in some kind of extended family or community situation with a variety of other kids and mostly caring adults.
From this perspective, the industrial revolution was a disastrous change for the worse in human development. Yes, workers got to migrate closer to good-paying work opportunities. But the destruction of the extended family meant that far fewer people had their early years surrounded by caring relatives who offered "good enough" help and love and encouragement. If just one couple - or more likely, just one mother - doesn't have their act together, the physical and psychological consequences can be devastating to the child, who doesn't have anyone else to ask for help.
I think this is why there has been, in recent centuries, so much more indigestible catalyst leading to neuroses and other intrapersonal and interpersonal problems. This could have been part of what Ra discussed as the increasing intensity of catalyst that has dramatically shortened lifespans.
Do you think I might be on track with these explorations? Or is there a more productive different way to look at these matters? Are there specific passage of the LLR material that address these issues?
