Pet Peeve 2, Ancients where not wiser then we are today on any level. Options

Being that my original post had no biters yet, and while I know there have been a few posts I have made where there is fundamental differences (all common used bindings are earth based comes to mind) in common placed posts, people have been kind enough to not be critical.

However, here is my attempt to pick a fight, not really but at least a debate.

I despise the stupidity in the concepts that any of the ancients or indigenous tribes where wiser then we are today, or that their life style was better then ours is today in the “developed countries” of the world.

Now the first thing that must be understood is we still have or maintain a percentage of every level of development. Therefore, showing how tribe X today is more destructive then they where 50, 100, or 1000 years ago does not count in this discussion. If they are at the same level of development as they where 1000 years ago, but have the tools of today, of course they are more destructive.

What I am arguing is, that the sages or highest point of that time or subset, does not even come close to what we have today, not in ultimate height (that is to say peek greatness), not in breadth, (that is to say the common man experience). I am willing to argue this in either pure numbers or even percentages of population worldwide.

There are certain locations who have moved backwards from their great moment, that is to say the time that their societies where the shining star of the world, but I would argue that in 90% of those cases even now they are of higher development spiritually/socially / interpersonally then they ever where. The notable exceptions are places that are currently war torn or poverty-stricken.

What am I saying?
1. Native tribes where not more ecologically conscientious then we are today, they did not try to protect the planet or land more.

2. Tribes where not more peace loving then we are now.


3. The great wisdom schools of the ancients have little if anything to teach us today, other then possibly techniques and historical value. In addition, even there I am sure it is mostly historical in value not mind blowing with one or two possible exceptions.

Item 1 and 2.
This is the most amusing, and the one I see most commonly played out in the romanticized new age movement.

Native tribes, notably Native American (both continents not just North America) tribes. Where not the noble savages we think of them to be, nor am I arguing that they where the bloodthirsty savages we see depicted in early westerns, but they where savages and barbaric for the most part.
In both continents and throughout the continents with few notable exceptions, once they grew to a size or a level of advancement where they could overcome their neighbors by force, they did. Except when it was beneficial to them not to.

At the time Europeans came to the Americas in large numbers (1500s and 1600s) tribes where either still in nomadic or early agrarian status. Some tribes where in early agricultural stages, thus city-states and in one arguably two cases Imperial capacities. Thus they where the equivalent of the Europe 1000-2000 years earlier.

The only reason they did not make a bigger affect the land they where living on or to wage war was because they where not capable of doing so, those that where did, Mayan, Inca, Aztec, Mississippian and evidence of others tribes, though those are more remote in time and they are more arguable. All these civilizations raped the land around them and brutally subjugated smaller tribes around them.

The only reason they where not worse was because they where incapable of it, not because of higher wisdom or a concept of nobleness.

When Europeans appeared on the scene, the Europeans where more technologically advanced, and for the most part early on, traded and exchanged goods for services when appropriate. Europeans allied themselves with some tribes when expedient (warring after long time rivals of the allied tribes) until the numbers of Europeans, where a force to be reckoned with as far as settlements and then the real push began.

Now that said, many Europeans where of equal or lower level morals then some of the tribes, but on a whole the Europeans where more advanced on both levels. The only thing to note here, is going to the “new world” attracted sociopaths because they knew it was less likely that their actions would be seen as terribly as in Europe, or they where avoiding authorities in Europe.

So with this, why do we fall into admiring prehistoric/agrarian cultures as role models for our actions today?

As for wisdom…other then the Mayan Calendar, and much of the myths/ shaman traditions, I see little of consequence. The shamanic traditions are of some value, but not very high, I will expand this in with point 3.

Item 3.
There is no ancient civilization that we factually know of today that can give us any huge breakthroughs other then historical clarification and remotely possible some techniques for doing things, and I am numbering the specialty changing at possibly two or three. Other then in those areas, we have surpassed them in every conceivable way including mythical/magickal aptitude.

This one is great, because I almost immediately turn off the moment someone says/writes “previously hidden (or secret) ancient teachings” except for my interest in them historically (Dead Sea scrolls, giving a validation to the torahs reputed age). Now I honestly then fight the urge to see where this rabbit hole leads and inevitably it leads to a very shallow experience, however sometimes there is some value there, and it is not ancient, but the concepts are sound with other modern techniques (they where just trying to sell it).

The reason they have nothing important to teach us, is because mostly we have surpassed them in every conceivable way. There is nothing that they are rumored to have provided or done, that people of their stature today cannot do and do better.

Extreme examples: King Solomon.
Other then the speaking to animals there is nothing on the physical plane of existence that Bill Gates (no longer the richest man) can accomplish, much less the leader of any of the 20 top countries in the world (something that I think Israel was considered to be in at the time) could do. Move 40,000 people 2000 miles in a day, not really a problem, would hurt but possible, especially if we where talking Microsoft event. Buildings, I would argue that Microsoft campuses have been built and maintain is as good as anything in Jerusalem at the time, and based on needed function as good.

What is more, I believe bill gates will have a bigger impact on more people and percentage of people during his life then Solomon did. I speak from professional to personal to health, sanitation and education. The only area where Bill Gates cannot compare is the level of control over people that Solomon had. However the number of people and percentage of people who know of Bill Gates currently Vs Solomon at the time, totally in favor of Gates.

When we get into mystic traditions and such, there is no conscious state mentioned in any texts to date that cannot be reached by today’s mediators and taught to hundreds if not thousands of people in less time and less dangerous to the students then systems used more then 1000 years ago. I would also argue that today’s students end up with a more profound understanding of things, as they have a much wider viewpoint.


I had a 4th point, but it was the same size as these three, and I think this is enough.

I'd recommend a little research before dismissing our recorded history as bunk, A healthy dose of Greek philosophy would do wonders...as to showing just how little we have advanced intellectually over the years (ie Hippocrates, "the sacred disease", Critias, "Religion as Human invention", Aristophanes, "Lysistrata") , Perhaps you'll find them struggling with the same issues that we have today. Research things thoroughly then go on the warpath. (ie even using king solomon as an example to prove your point, when there is no historical proof he ever existed).

I am not sure what led you to believe I was attacking history, or any of the giants of history whose shoulders we stand on today. I am pointing out, that the romanticism of “finding an ancient manual for X” will not grant anything new of lasting value other then clearing up and improving historical data. Something I think is incredibly poor in most sectors and that history is richer then we conceive of at the moment by far, not to mention a very worthy endeavor.

As for the examples you gave, except for Critias, "Religion as Human invention", I have not read. I did need to refer back to the others, as I am terrible with names.

The whole point I am using King Solomon as an example is most of what is attributed to him is legend. And is relatively well known lore in this community. I compare him with a modern person who is doing things right now, that are comparable if not surpass any of the accomplishments attributed to Solomon for the benefit of humanity.

At best, morally Solomon was Ethnocentric. Bill Gates is being world centric in his charitable affairs.

As far as intellect, and genius, I would have a very hard time saying that the Ancient Greeks did not do incredible accomplishments.
They outlined petty much everything we think of as education today, though we are more compartmentalized today, it is the same set of subjects.
They outlined the concepts of philosophy as we know them today, where at best the modern philosophers of morals and human experience have just added more distinctions, filled in the details, made it finer grain.
They where masters of sculpture even by today’s or any times standards.
As for literature and drama, it is easily arguable that their best works stand up to today’s.
There is no current working form of government that was not explained by the ancient Greeks. (except possibly the idea of citizens not having to own land, but I am not totally sure on that)

However, after rereading my post I am still not finding where I mention anything that lessened the accomplishments of the past, other then saying that we will find or discover nothing today that will change our world in a profound way. That there are things that formed the course of history, absolutely. Would historical proof that Solomon, or Jesus, or Socrates walked the earth make a profound difference today? Doubtful, it might be for some, but there is little that definitive proof in those cases will do except fill in our history.

Definitive proof that the sites of Egypt are many times older then currently accounted for? Not even that except filling in history.

I am guessing in the following area I was very faulty with my use of words.

This one is great, because I almost immediately turn off the moment someone says/writes “previously hidden (or secret) ancient teachings” except for my interest in them historically (Dead Sea scrolls, giving a validation to the torahs reputed age). Now I honestly then fight the urge to see where this rabbit hole leads and inevitably it leads to a very shallow experience, however sometimes there is some value there, and it is not ancient, but the concepts are sound with other modern techniques (they where just trying to sell it).

In this area I probably should have expressed it as such:
Other then my interest in the historical value of documents such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, in the case of giving validation to the reputed age of the Torah. I almost always turn off the moment I hear or read “previously hidden (or secret) ancient teachings”. I have to fight the urge and trick myself into going down that rabbit hole to see where it leads, and in every case so far it has lead to a very shallow experience except when it comes to historical context. There are some things of value, but they are not ancient, it is window dressing on modern techniques (the wording is just a gimmick to sell more books/dvds).

Except for that possibility, I am not sure where you thought I was claiming history as bunk?

Allow me to say I am not all together unsympathetic to your viewpoint. Especially regarding anglo new age types naming themselves starwolf and smoking the peace pipe are just insulting native peoples and perpetuating falsehood by believeing in a idealised type of society that never existed.

Another interesting paradigm to explore would be this

"Would historical proof that Solomon, or Jesus, or Socrates walked the earth make a profound difference today? Doubtful, it might be for some, but there is little that definitive proof in those cases will do except fill in our history. "

And i could agree that because the masses are already locked into their own reality tunnels that anything contrary to that just goes unheeded and unlearned.

Regarding mystery schools and such, I think that the key is in understanding and application of the ideas.

This is a fascinating topic that really touches on a huge chunk of the modern occultist's worldview as far as the place of the ancient peoples and their wisdom in our modern world.

I think I agree with the majority of what Paxx has to say, but while I think it's fair to say that we are more advanced today than we were at the time, to say that they were not wiser in some respects is I think not quite where my opinion rests.

A lot of our current advancements, our scientific development, implementation of that science in our world, comes from that ancient wisdom - alchemy in particular was an early version fo the science that we have today, particularly chemistry. Physics arose out of the same curiosity and one could argue that it really began by asking questions about chemistry. The truth or falsity of that claim is lost to history now.

Another problem with looking at the 'wisdom of the ancients' is that there's only a very small amount that we can say for sure came from them. Over ages and ages of regurgitating old axioms and revisiting mystery cults, etc., there are additions or outright invented philosophies that have been attributed to the ancients when in reality they are more recent than anyone knows. While solomon is a historical figure in the holy books of big three monotheistic religions, whether he actually accomplished any of the things that are written about him, or if he authored the grimoires attributed to him, is debatable. What we consider the wisdom of the 'ancients' might very well come from a time not quite so ancient as many people think.

There is a kind of security in attributing solid wisdom to the far flung past. People believe that if it has survived for a long time, thousands of years for instance, then it must be a kind of sacred thing that couldn't be lost over the ages because it was meant to be a part of our human culture forever. But, there are plenty of other things that have lasted the ages which aren't sacred or even good too. Inhumane practices in various cultures across the globe, the subjugation of women, the subjugation of weaker peoples by stronger ones, the practice of waging war over religion, tyranny in all its forms, these kinds of things have survived thousands of years of so called advancement just as well as mystery religions, 'ancient' wisdom, and the 'divine' messages of many bloody and dangerous religions. I hear the argument constantly that if Christianity was not the true path to salvation, it wouldn't have lasted as long as it has, or made such an impact in the world.

But the point is, if someone hears that some bit of wisdom or lore is attributed to such and such a guy, thousands of years ago, they instantly perk up their ears and pay attention, sometimes because they feel that they can advance themselves in some way by knowing it, sometimes because of a human interest in ancient culture, and sometimes because it creates a kind of continuity with the past that makes us feel as though we're connected to something bigger than us.

And Paxx is right about cultures that are more eco-friendly than 'modern' civilization. Crude technology harms the environment, and no culture would have developed 'clean' technology before 'dirty' technology. For that matter, every civilization, given the resources, will develop technology along those lines out of necessity. Populations grow, get out of hand, and no culture will willingly sacrifice great numbers of their people in order to preserve the balance between themselves and the natural world they survive in. If they want to keep some kind of balance, they spread out and destroy a neighboring culture rather than reduce their own in any way. The world was brutal and wartorn in the past, even when some areas were having a 'golden age' of peace. Even within a culture there are serious problems and there always have been. 'Ancient wisdom' has never fixed the world.

For that matter, I think that what we consider 'ancient wisdom' is just a collection of basic principles that are intrinsic to the spiritual path. The ancients got them from people more ancient than themselves, and they have been responsible for some aspects of our evolution, but we continue to evolve and grow on that track in different ways. The variety of modern day spirituality is not unlike the diversity of the gene pool across humanity. It may not all be good, but the more there is, the greater the amount of possibility that exists.

Ancient wisdom should be respected, taken into account, but not lived by strictly. If we deify it and put it on a pedestal, and believe that they were so much more spiritually and philosophically advanced than us, then we lose sight of how great a lot of modern day wisdom can be, even though much if it is just reinvention of the wheel. It's just another way that we collectively get stuck in the past. Just like an individual does, so will the whole of humanity act like one very complicated individual.

Even in the case of greek philosophy. Granted, a lot of what we practice today in western culture at least, stands on the shoulders of the greeks - but, their philosophy arose from the observations of their culture at the time, from medicine, science, art, society, architecture, etc. Similarly, we look at our modern day versions of those same things, and derive new philosophies from those things, all of which evolved from older versions. Now we look at, say, M theory, and develop a philosophy that puts that development in science into perspective for our modern lives and how we live them. We derive philosophy and wisdom from everything around us, and as the world we live in evolves and advances, so does our philosophy and wisdom. So, we are more advanced in both regards than the ancients were. THey may have been less distracted, and those elements of their culture may have been more respected by their cultures, but that does not mean they were more advanced, only that people had less to look at.

peace

Advancement is hardly something that occurs in a single direction, propagated by one culture, or one civilization. Just as the Mesoamericans lacked combustion-ballistics technology in the 1500's, so too did everyone but the Chinese in the 1100's. There are also far older things in Nature that until recently had no man-made equivalent; heavier-than-air flight (birds), nano machines (viruses), crystal microprocessors (cell membranes), etc. Not to mention all the stuff we STILL can't make, such as spider's silk.

I'm sure, especially when it's part of the foundation of other knowledges, any knowledge that is equivalent to what our knowledge-base already has is redundant. Natives building a natural-fiber bridge using techniques handed down unchanged for centuries is none too remarkable in our world of modern engineering. Likewise, their culture probably wouldn't care about our ideas of using scarce metals to build bridges when they've got a perfect system already. Our culture and a more ancient/primitive culture might have zilch to talk about for information tech, but a lot to trade about the nature of the universe, the human condition, and survival in different environments.

When it comes to magic, everyone in the world already has the one requirement: themselves. Ceremonies, incantations, relics, tools, iconography... all boil down to supporting, rather than causing, what we hope to achieve. Anyone from any time, any culture, anywhere has some insight into the nature of our self that no one else does. It'd be a shame to ignore any unique individual (let alone a group) just because their ancestors didn't have as many global trade routes as ours did.



Oh... wait... this is the Sewer Fight Club! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) What I really meant is ALL of the preceding long-winded rantings make as much sense as the reverberations of recently digested legumes. Claiming we're advanced means nothing, EVERYONE has done that throughout history, and as we all know now, they were sooo wrong! The honor has to go to the 2800's when the last being on the planet gains Transcendence Of All Material And Thought. Hell, the majority of us have trouble maintaining a corporeal body for more than 75 years! Compared to the future, we're like mud-puppies with a sharp stick accidentally impaled in a non-vital body part.

This post has been edited by SeekerVI: Nov 3 2007, 05:28 PM

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/offtopic.gif)

I refuse to be compared to a mudpuppy. How dare you. It implies I have intimate knowledge of living in a submerged environment and being sexually mature at a fetal state…I am utterly offended, how dare you, you pion-minded future loving freak. All indicators are we are running towards a dark age that make the last dark age look like a golden age of enlightenment. You think your little weenies from 2800 will have an ounce of ambition or physical prowess.

No, they will be boring big head small body freaks. They will have three toes on each foot, and their eyes will be useless near sighted soft spoken freaks. If you had to visit them you would wish to hang out with the Morlocks as opposed to these pansy ass not even pretty surface dwellers. Sure they will have kind hearts and love all living things.

But in reaching enlightenment by age five and stop using verbal/visual conversation by 10, because in describing anything you limit its possibilities. By sexual maturity they would already be atrophied. One would relish in destroying such mental perfection, except your big headed freaks would not even remember what pain was, simply seeing it as a sensation trying to distract them from their bliss as they are eaten alive by the next inheritors of the earth, or perhaps the unwashed masses who where cast out of eden, until the big headed freaks forgot to maintain their automatic security systems.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/chop.gif) .........(IMG:style_emoticons/default/blowup.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/zap.gif)
..........(IMG:style_emoticons/default/shoot2.gif)

Yes, that was fun.

It must be your intimate knowledge of being submerged in the soupy mud of ignorance that would lead you to those conclusions! Your neotenous state of imagination cannot conceive of a fate for mankind, other than inflated sexual dominance maneuvers on a national & nuclear level! US?! Doomed by our own feeble technology?! A laughable scenario. The civilizations of our past did not doom themselves with greek fire or gunpowder, sure they killed a lot of things, but we're still around (if you hadn't noticed).
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/insane.gif)
Perhaps, salamander, you have trouble comprehending events like a Technological Singularity, or once-occult knowledge rampantly exposed to all, through an integrated world-wide-web of knowledge. Future "children" would be instantly connected to the total knowledge of the post-human race, no longer requiring years of tutelage from others. Artificial intelligence, robots, servitors, tulpas and the like could all be utilized for any grunt work, thus freeing aware beings of the world for other eutopian pursuits. Virtual spaces, replicating nano machines, temporary astral inducing cryogenics, bio-energy interfaces, and all sorts of other mechanisms, will turn invisible the line between what is real and imagined.
What would you do if you had all the time, resources, tools and knowledge in the world? Look at the impact just one Jesus, Buddha, or Zoroaster had on the surrounding psycho-spiritual terrain, can you imagine the effect of millions appearing at the same time and in our globally communicating culture?
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/wizard.gif):

Aquinas spoke of the mythical City on the Hill. Soon that city will be a reality, and we will be crowned it's kings. Or better than kings. Gods.
- Bob Paige (DeusEx)

No, your civilization will fall for the same reasons as all the others. Failure to maintain self sufficiency. Already it your city on the hill cries and is breaking at the seems. Your need to expand your foolish ideals to others. The slaves or your perceived lessers will upraise and dominate you, pillage you and you will be forced to live in walled cities with no knowledge of how to attain the will to even clean up your own excrement.

As you dream of attaining the knowledge of centuries your wisdom equals 0. Your life experience sums up to null. So plug in, and I will be the nightmare and your Devil, I will be the one your automaton maternal figures warn your physically useless lab created offspring of, when they misbehave.
Your offspring will have to be lab created because you already lack the desire, and soon will lack the ability to engage in the necessary acts for their creation.

You attempt to insult me by calling me salamander, I am the passion you have already thrown out to the depths. From those depths, I will engulf you in fire and disassociated pain.

Trust in your tuplas and androids in keeping you safe, it will not take long for them to see the futility in maintaining you and your offspring, there will be no interaction from you, you will think of yourselves as the Gods on the hill. It will be easy to be the demons from the depth. Except for the fact that I will take extreme glee in ripping your oversized heads from your feeble bodies, all I would have to do is ask your “slaves” to do the job for me.

So go and create your own jail.

Had some weird dreams after reading this thread... (IMG:http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/31.gif)

...you would wish to hang out with the Morlocks as opposed to these pansy ass not even pretty surface dwellers.

Well, you know how the saying goes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohyeah.gif)


*ahem*


A dystopian future of big-headed ultra-humans kept in reinforced holding pens by once-slave robots turned overloads is the stuff of fiction!
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/book.gif)
When the world of matter becomes as malleable as any virtual environment, when beings of flesh are no longer isolated from beings of spirit, when needs of the many and the few cannot conflict; the self that is can be sufficient. Any limits of the future are merely measurements; Primordial laws of survival, Ancient religious dogmas, Medieval barriers of isolation, Victorian shunning of passion, Industrial disregard of life... as layers of the past they will remain where they are, built upon and traveled away from.
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/bicycle.gif)
It is not the future order that is breaking, but ours! Crushed under the incomprehensible weight of that to come.
It is the current social order that cries out, as dead pyramids of false power decay into living plains of true prosperity; for the first time, the future will grow in harmony with (rather than destroy) the world. The bonds of ignorance which enslave will be sundered by the light of transcendent knowledge shining from the horizon. Anguish will disappear like the night, when its source is known not as the world, but us! Frustration will vanish like mist when we see ourselves as the sole creators of our own impediments. Peace will bloom in the open clarity of the future's dawn.
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/00000002.gif)

Being that my original post had no biters yet, and while I know there have been a few posts I have made where there is fundamental differences (all common used bindings are earth based comes to mind) in common placed posts, people have been kind enough to not be critical.

However, here is my attempt to pick a fight, not really but at least a debate.

I despise the stupidity in the concepts that any of the ancients or indigenous tribes where wiser then we are today, or that their life style was better then ours is today in the “developed countries” of the world.

Now the first thing that must be understood is we still have or maintain a percentage of every level of development. Therefore, showing how tribe X today is more destructive then they where 50, 100, or 1000 years ago does not count in this discussion. If they are at the same level of development as they where 1000 years ago, but have the tools of today, of course they are more destructive.

What I am arguing is, that the sages or highest point of that time or subset, does not even come close to what we have today, not in ultimate height (that is to say peek greatness), not in breadth, (that is to say the common man experience). I am willing to argue this in either pure numbers or even percentages of population worldwide.

There are certain locations who have moved backwards from their great moment, that is to say the time that their societies where the shining star of the world, but I would argue that in 90% of those cases even now they are of higher development spiritually/socially / interpersonally then they ever where. The notable exceptions are places that are currently war torn or poverty-stricken.

What am I saying?
1. Native tribes where not more ecologically conscientious then we are today, they did not try to protect the planet or land more.

2. Tribes where not more peace loving then we are now.
3. The great wisdom schools of the ancients have little if anything to teach us today, other then possibly techniques and historical value. In addition, even there I am sure it is mostly historical in value not mind blowing with one or two possible exceptions.

Item 1 and 2.
This is the most amusing, and the one I see most commonly played out in the romanticized new age movement.

Native tribes, notably Native American (both continents not just North America) tribes. Where not the noble savages we think of them to be, nor am I arguing that they where the bloodthirsty savages we see depicted in early westerns, but they where savages and barbaric for the most part.
In both continents and throughout the continents with few notable exceptions, once they grew to a size or a level of advancement where they could overcome their neighbors by force, they did. Except when it was beneficial to them not to.

At the time Europeans came to the Americas in large numbers (1500s and 1600s) tribes where either still in nomadic or early agrarian status. Some tribes where in early agricultural stages, thus city-states and in one arguably two cases Imperial capacities. Thus they where the equivalent of the Europe 1000-2000 years earlier.

The only reason they did not make a bigger affect the land they where living on or to wage war was because they where not capable of doing so, those that where did, Mayan, Inca, Aztec, Mississippian and evidence of others tribes, though those are more remote in time and they are more arguable. All these civilizations raped the land around them and brutally subjugated smaller tribes around them.

The only reason they where not worse was because they where incapable of it, not because of higher wisdom or a concept of nobleness.

When Europeans appeared on the scene, the Europeans where more technologically advanced, and for the most part early on, traded and exchanged goods for services when appropriate. Europeans allied themselves with some tribes when expedient (warring after long time rivals of the allied tribes) until the numbers of Europeans, where a force to be reckoned with as far as settlements and then the real push began.

Now that said, many Europeans where of equal or lower level morals then some of the tribes, but on a whole the Europeans where more advanced on both levels. The only thing to note here, is going to the “new world” attracted sociopaths because they knew it was less likely that their actions would be seen as terribly as in Europe, or they where avoiding authorities in Europe.

So with this, why do we fall into admiring prehistoric/agrarian cultures as role models for our actions today?

As for wisdom…other then the Mayan Calendar, and much of the myths/ shaman traditions, I see little of consequence. The shamanic traditions are of some value, but not very high, I will expand this in with point 3.

Item 3.
There is no ancient civilization that we factually know of today that can give us any huge breakthroughs other then historical clarification and remotely possible some techniques for doing things, and I am numbering the specialty changing at possibly two or three. Other then in those areas, we have surpassed them in every conceivable way including mythical/magickal aptitude.

This one is great, because I almost immediately turn off the moment someone says/writes “previously hidden (or secret) ancient teachings” except for my interest in them historically (Dead Sea scrolls, giving a validation to the torahs reputed age). Now I honestly then fight the urge to see where this rabbit hole leads and inevitably it leads to a very shallow experience, however sometimes there is some value there, and it is not ancient, but the concepts are sound with other modern techniques (they where just trying to sell it).

The reason they have nothing important to teach us, is because mostly we have surpassed them in every conceivable way. There is nothing that they are rumored to have provided or done, that people of their stature today cannot do and do better.

Extreme examples: King Solomon.
Other then the speaking to animals there is nothing on the physical plane of existence that Bill Gates (no longer the richest man) can accomplish, much less the leader of any of the 20 top countries in the world (something that I think Israel was considered to be in at the time) could do. Move 40,000 people 2000 miles in a day, not really a problem, would hurt but possible, especially if we where talking Microsoft event. Buildings, I would argue that Microsoft campuses have been built and maintain is as good as anything in Jerusalem at the time, and based on needed function as good.

What is more, I believe bill gates will have a bigger impact on more people and percentage of people during his life then Solomon did. I speak from professional to personal to health, sanitation and education. The only area where Bill Gates cannot compare is the level of control over people that Solomon had. However the number of people and percentage of people who know of Bill Gates currently Vs Solomon at the time, totally in favor of Gates.

When we get into mystic traditions and such, there is no conscious state mentioned in any texts to date that cannot be reached by today’s mediators and taught to hundreds if not thousands of people in less time and less dangerous to the students then systems used more then 1000 years ago. I would also argue that today’s students end up with a more profound understanding of things, as they have a much wider viewpoint.
I had a 4th point, but it was the same size as these three, and I think this is enough.

IMO your ignorant, and should open your mind, dont be so closed minded. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/bigwink.gif)

I am "native american" on both sides of my family, and yet I heartily agree with you.

Ancient people are NOT "more advanced"/"more enlightened" than modern people, and we should hope that is the case, or else it would be lights out for humanity.

Ancient man did not live in harmony with his environment, but raped the shit right out of it. (If not so, then where did we inherit our land-raping tedencies? They did not just spring up overnight by any means, nor are they the products of industrialization.)

The fact that ancient peoples were not overborne by pollution and war is not a testimonial to their "oneness with the Earth" but rather to the fact that there were not so many humans then.

Speaking from my own personal resource of knowledge: Native American tribes were nearly uniformly bloodthirsty and cruel in a way that we over-civilized Westerners can scarcely imagine. Be glad--very glad!--that the human race has advanced to relative peacefulness and tolerance since those times. xoxoxo

@ Seeker VI:
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/giveup.gif) I submit, the extent of my devils advocate ability, while not reached is getting thin. I am too much of a futurist, however I also believe we are just coming to understand the pathologies that will be associated with my and future generations. While many call it apathy, I believe this is what is leading to a new spiritual awakening (magick being one spoke of) that will be a truly bright frontier.

However it is easy to see the good things to come of it, the bad things are harder to detect, calling them shadow objects is a good analogy/description I think.

But it will be good to see. The Current crowd is impressive in the speed that they took control over the industrialist/scientific crowd. But it left us with Black and White moralists Vs. everyone is right, lets just sign an agreement with no teeth in it and say we all did a good job.

The Next group will be striking in how quickly they come to power, and the difference it makes. But it will take someone to break down the current establishments.

The pluging up and tuning out is another shadow object that can prolong that from happening.

@Aphrodite
Please expound on my ignorance. I agree I am closed minded, but none of us can be perfect. However illuminating my incredibly small brain pan may increase it’s ability to undo the locks that hold it tightly wrapped in the darkness of ignorance.

In short, I am not sure if you are kidding with the (IMG:style_emoticons/default/bigwink.gif) or if there is something that you can point to as far as closed mindedness.
Both I would love, A: finding the humor as the whole point of this or B: truly knowing where I may be not looking or something I am not aware of (and there is an incredibly huge universe of things I have no idea that I don’t even know about)

I am right with ya, paxx.