Blake

Thanks for your contributions, copernicus & Seeker196. In turn:

[c] For sure, the communist Russian & Chinese regimes promoted a cultural turn toward atheism. However, as someone pointed out in the thread from last year, strictly speaking it is the governments that were atheist, & I'm not sure how profound their effect was on the cultures they were trying to control. As has also already been pointed out, Chinese religious culture has atheist tendencies anyway. I set an even crazier standard for my search, namely, are there cultures that are not only atheist, but nonreligious to boot. (Although, come to think of it, might it be possible for a culture to be theistic, but nonreligious?--i.e., with some sense of a supernatural power, but which in practice they totally disregard, without worship, burial, etc.? Probably not, except in theory.)

Guthrie's book does sound quite interesting. The various sciences of the mind are another interest of mine, so I'll check out Sally Morem's review. Thanks!

[S] I like the sound of Hinayana Buddhism. Should I feel the need at some time for religion, my sympathies would definitely tend in its direction I'd be curious to check that out further at some point as well; if you have any texts that you'd particularly recommend, I'd love to hear about them.

Blake

brighid

Amos,
You are OH so wrong about the lack of existence of matriarchal societies. There are many modern ones, including the following: the Indonesian Tunsa of West Sumatra, the Minangkabu of Indonesian <a href="http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~psanday/eggi2.html," target="_blank">http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~psanday/eggi2.html,</a> the Mosu of Southwest China, the Meghalaya of North East India, the Hindu Nairs of Kerala, India. Sumerian society was matriarchial and many of our own Native American civilizations were matriarchal, such as the Iroquis, Huron and Cherokee. Many present day African societies in Nigeria are also.
Here is some information for you to look at in regards to this subject:
May I suggest the article "Society and Sex Roles" by Ernestine Friedl?
Community leadership revolves around the control of the most valuable
resource. When this resource is protection from enemies, then power
correlates with offense and defense. When this resource is food, it
correlates with whoever supplies the most valued food. Among
hunter-gatherers in temperate climates who are not in conflict with other
groups, women gather about 60-80% of the food consumed. Men bring in
20-40%. In these societies, power is shared relatively equally. Note
the use of the word "relative". Men *tend* to have a little more power
than women, but not much. They have this little bit of power because
meat, which they bring in, is a scarce resource.
Among the Inuit, on the other hand -- another culture which traditionally
has had little conflict with other groups -- men dominate in all areas.
Why? Because the diet is 95% meat, which is supplied by the male
hunters. Women, instead, process the meat and other products derived
from animals instead of producing it.
Among the Iroquois, women raised food, controlled its distribution and
helped choose male political leaders. Men dealt with politics and
diplomatic matters. Men, technically, were the leaders of the society,
but the women had so much power they were effectively equal. There is a
large difference between societies in which women cannot question orders
given by men and societied in which women are consulted and heeded
extensively.
And note I said *generally* above. Anthropology is full of waffle-words
because cultures vary so widely that almost no statement can be said with
finality. In *general*, production confers power. It is not the
*amount* of production that determines who, in the end, is most powerful;
it is the *value* of what is brought in. Hunter-gatherer women bring on
over 50% of the total food, yet men have slightly more power because meat
is valued more highly than vegetable matter. In cultures located in
areas where extensive conflict and competition is occurring between groups
for resources, indeed the gender responsible for protection and fighting
will probably be more powerful.
<a href="http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/danny/anthropology/sci.anthropology/archive/july-1996/0389.html" target="_blank">http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/danny/anthropology/sci.anthropology/archive/july-1996/0389.html</a>

Some films on the subject:
<a href="http://www.nau.edu/~wst/access/media/medial.html" target="_blank">http://www.nau.edu/~wst/access/media/medial.html</a>

Ladies of the Lake [Filmakers Library] 1998. [DIRECTOR: Matriarchial Society] Summary: Film about the Mosuo culture in southwest China where power is handed from the matriarch to her most intelligent daughter. The women live together, apart from their husbands whom they see only at the end of the day and property is passed down from mother to daughter. [Keywords: Naxi (Chinese people); Matriarchy - China - Yunnan Province; Ethnology - China - Yunnan Province]

Great site about the Scientific Evolution of Matriarchy in Nature and Society:
<a href="http://www.artemiscreations.com/scienceofmatriarchy/" target="_blank">http://www.artemiscreations.com/scienceofmatriarchy/</a>
Science often has come into conflict with patriarchal culture, and it is often science which has had to suffer defeat.

Darwin's theory of natural selection was adopted, in spite of its contradictions of many fundamental religious beliefs, because it could be used to legitimize British and European colonialism in terms of a survival of the fittest, the fittest being taken as white northern European males. Yet Darwin's equally brilliant discovery of sexual selection was initially attacked and then ignored for decades as sexual selection means feme selection of males and males adapting to the criteria upon which femes selected.

Whenever scientific findings are in conflict with widely held religious, moral, and political ideological beliefs, an ideological iron curtain seems to descend to block the scientific theory. This has certainly proven to be the case with matriarchy.

For well over one hundred years, a number of respected scholars have been convinced that the evidence shows that our sentient species came into consciousness, language, and culture as matriarchal. This list of scholars includes Johann Jacob Bachofen, Lewis H. Morgan, Friedrich Nietzsche, Carl Gustav Jung, Frederick Engels, Erich Neumann, E. O. James, Erich Fromm. Joseph Campbell, as well a substantial number of feme and feminist scholars. Many of the feminist scholars who are convinced of the reality of the age of matriarchy deny, however, that femes dominated males during this period. Matriarchy entails the domination of males by femes just as patriarchy entails the domination of femes by males.


Brighid

christ-on-a-stick

Maybe check out the history of some of the tribes in Papua New Guinea.

I lived there for four years with my *gasp* missionary parents. It is a small island (actually PNG is only HALF a small island, the other 1/2 is called Irian Jaya) but as recently as oh, 50 years ago there were up to 700 different dialects spoken namely because the deep jungle/canopy rainforest type terrain made the tribes there very "remote" from each other even in a relatively geographically small area. Anyway, from the history that I read of it while I was there, apparently many of these tribes, upon the white man's entrance, had never heard of "God" concepts before. They were still more of a totem-and-taboo type society with some fetishization of objects, etc., rituals and the like, but absolutely no god-belief.

That is of course until the missionaries showed up to teach them the error of their ways. Grrrr! I won't even get started on that...

christ-on-a-stick

Sorry, the "mad face" was supposed to be at the end part... still gettin' the hang of the smiley thing.

Amos

Hi Brigid, I was actually waiting for your reply and know about some of the tribes you cited. I have no time now but maybe later (thanks for the links). I will accept that I overstated my case but would like to point out that there was (and still is) always a good reason for matriachial societies. Most often this was polyandre or else it was often perceived but not real. To be sure, in primitive societies male dominance is seldom (never?) abused to become oppressive as a social norm.

Maybe I should point out out that even in our society females have more repsonsibilities, more power, more wisdom and are actually the backbone of our civilization. In a marriage relationship women are like our subconscious mind and males are the conscious mind from where they pretty much act like loose cannons that venture into the unknown. Some would say that the success of a marriage is always built on the shoulders of the woman because that is where everything is downloaded upon. Yet she will never boast about this but carry his burden and send him out time and time again into new ventures to be explored for their common good. This actually is also in the bible, already in Gen.2:10-14. Is there also not a Psalm to this effect?

Within the individual this same is true. The subconscious mind is the seat of wisdom and the conscious mind (blank slate) is where learning comes from ("the woman saw that the tree of knowledge was good for gaining wisdom Ge.3:6). This means that woman (TOL) is the seat of wisdom and the idiot TOK is just needed for gaining wisdom.

In the Church, this is also true. Women are and always were the backbone of the Church but can't speak from the pulpit because the pulpit is symbolic of the conscious mind (faculty of reason). No, this does not mean that women are not rational but it means that the faculty of reason is first born out of woman (blank slate at birth) and later filled out of the controversy between human (conscious mind) and woman (subconscious mind). She now becomes the one who dangles the carrot before him.

In the nation this is also true. Women are the true gatherers for the nation and the Church is meant to collect and gather all of the wealth (alert, LOL). The Church will be above and below the state but never part of it. The Church (senate or upper house) is meant to guide and instruct the "lower house" (parlement or faculty of reason) while remaining infallible because it moves the nation throught the ages. Infallible now means in charge of destiny and this is the role of woman on all levels, the metaphysical, physical (in marriage), communal, national and universal.

The Church, much like woman, will be below the state to pardon and console its members when they become victims of social oppression. So does the woman at home or he'll go and find consolation elsewhere.

When scholars think that "sentient species came into consciousness, language, and culture as matriarchal" they fail to realize that masculinity is an illusion (the fleeting chromosome wherefore God cannot be proved) and must be engendered by the female and that also the vitalitity of males and maleness must be maintained by females -- which makes womanity the backbone of the church, nation, marriage, and individual. Failing to do this will first diminish maleness of males and next males as individuals. This is one reason why boy babies are prized all over the world and is why we see a decline in boy births in N.America these days (selective abortion will only increase the problem for the next generation).

In case you wonder, I predicted our decline in boy births and needed to explain the unusual high amount of boy births found in polyandruos female dominant societies.

Amos

Amos

[QUOTE]Originally posted by christ-on-a-stick:
[qb]
Hi christ-on-a-stick, their "absolute no go-belief" was only because your parents had god in a box. The rituals, totems and taboos were their mythology. Their taboos were their laws and is the most important part of each and every mytholgy.

[ February 10, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

christ-on-a-stick

Hi Amos,

Not sure I follow you???? Yes, their "totems and taboos" were their equivalent of "laws"... I don't think anyone would argue that all cultures reaching a certain level of societal organization create such "laws" and social mores for themselves... but I don't see how this affects the fact that they didn't believe in a supernatural God.

Sorry if I'm being dense, I just do not understand your point. (not being sarcastic).

Panta Pei

Hey christ-on-a-stick

Referring to an Amos post: "Sorry if I'm being dense, I just do not understand your point. (not being sarcastic)."

Welcome to our happy world with Amos here at the II

You might want to create a hotkey for that sentiment. (being sarcastic).

Amos: Any patterns emerging for you?

~ Steve

Amos

Sorry my fault, and I should have added that the vision of the tribe and its prosperity must exist before the tribe was formed. There, as in every other civilization, a tribal member had a supernatural experience from which he received insight into the nature of reality and the way to achieve this mental state for his fellow tribesmen. The laws and social taboos are always the key ingredient to reach this state of mind.

It doesn't matter if you call it God, or not-God, or good spirits because they are a reality and exist in the mind of every human being. That is to say, the renewal of our mind is an event that is native to man during menopauze and there, as well as here, this happens to some people. The renewed mind is the mind of God in our mythology and for them it is the shaman or whatever they call it. As the tribe evolves the myth can be enhanced and beautified, as did ours, along with its prosperity and status.

I should add that salvation (and knowledge of what we call God) is not something we search for but comes as a thief in the night. If we search for it it will not be the real thing or it would not be called "thief in the night." Since this is true for us it is also true for them and therefore also available to them without ever having heard the word God.

Amos

Amos

Not really, except that if billions of people do not understand one more doesn't bother me.