Is it True? (Page 1 of 2)

Thanks for posting this, Flinter. I have a lot to say on this subject. Before I proceed with my rant, though, I want to let you know that even though I disagree with this article, I don't mean to be malicious or to discourage you from posting! On the contrary. It's just that I am a polemic by nature. So here goes:

Things are changing. Something's coming. I think there will be massive social, psychological, ecological, and spiritual upheaval. But I'm highly skeptical of sites like futurehi, key23, techno-occult, and others of the "technology is the answer" type. The site on which this article appears was in my favorites list for months, along with some others of its kind. Eventually I began to notice that even though they appeared to cover spiritual topics in an intelligent manner, the sites were really nothing more than delivery vectors for pro-technology propaganda.

Something I've said again and again is that technology is not neutral. It develops within a cultural context. Black powder was invented by the Chinese in 200 B.C. At first it was nothing but a curiosity. For hundreds of years it was used only for fireworks. It wasn't until 1232 A.D. that it was used by the Chinese in a military capacity. Shortly thereafter it was discovered by Westerners, who used it in rockets, guns, and cannons to propel hunks of metal through the bodies of human beings for the purpose of killing them from a comfortable distance. Further developments along these lines have resulted in spectacularly destructive long-range weapons that wouldn't have existed had the culture not experienced a pressing need to build upon the original technology in such a way. Once a direction was established, that direction was pursued. At the end of the branch of black powder technology is the atomic bomb, and other weapons of mass destruction.

Cultural forces decide which technologies are promoted and utilized, and for what purposes. If the dominant culture is blind to long-term consequences, it will produce technologies which fit together to form non-sustainable systems of living. Civilization itself is such a system. As time goes by, these systems ossify; making it even more unlikely that alternative technologies will be developed, let alone pursued. Towards the end, as the crises of non-sustainable civilization mount, stakes get higher and higher, and morality falls by the wayside. Survival (of the system: the concept of civilization itself) trumps everything. Developments pile on top of other developments, eventually branching off like limbs on a tree, each one ending in disaster. What kind of fruit will be produced by the branch of technology on the tree of non-sustainable culture? As it says in the bible, thorn bushes do not produce grapes.

A dangerously self-destructive system is exactly what our culture of control and subjugation has produced. Are the masses not under the thumbs of the rich and powerful, that minority at the top of the pyramid? Our civilization and its technologies could not have emerged without the slavery, bloodshed, and ecological destruction which is its legacy. It could not have emerged without the ubiquitous pattern of the pyramid: that hierarchical form of power and control which feeds energy into a few at the expense of the many--and ultimately at the expense of all humanity and the planet itself. What good can come of a system patterned on the pyramid of control? A system that wastefully devotes so much energy to nothing more than its own propagation? Will a technological utopia really be the final culmination of all its efforts, after a history of destruction and misery punctuated by brief glimpses of the good that used to be? The techno-utopians Strieber is playing to think so! They think it is going to produce something fabulous and breathtaking that will instantly erase all the evil it has caused. And they think everybody will have the option of taking part, as long as they act fast.

My position is that while civilization may appear to produce an oasis in the desert, in reality its inherent selfishness is responsible for desertification. It destroys the landscape as it sucks in elements used to construct and maintain the oasis. It gives back nothing. When all the elements it can reach have been depleted, the oasis dries up, and only the desert remains. And this happens under the best of circumstances! If it operates like this on the ecological level, it works like this on all levels.

The article is focused on a cyclical cataclysm that is supposed to occur every 12,500 years, and was prophesied by "Pacal Votan, a Mayan ruler of the sixth century A.D." as next appearing in 2012. It credits an unknown civilization with passing on the knowledge about the 12,500 year cycle:

Strieber's first instinct is to protect the idea of civilization, to try and make sure its ideas survive even if that means more people have to die supporting it to the bitter end. His second instinct is to denigrate anyone who thinks they can do without the system. Of course survivalists are stupid and selfish! Of course getting seeds and becoming a horticulturalist is not the answer! That's only for crazy people! Or for poor deluded rubes who think they can cheat certain death! These are blind assumptions propagated by a system of human specialization and technological control which seeks to protect itself and replicate itself at any cost. Without people who think the system is indispensable, it would shrivel and die. It doesn't want to die--that's not in its programming. It isn't capable of accepting the fact that because its methods are non-sustainable, it must die. In its final panic it is throwing wild techno-utopian fantasies our way, the likes of which can be found later in Strieber's article, and all over these kinds of websites.

Strieber is saying you are ignorant and un-enlightened if in the face of a global crisis you choose to rely upon the methods by which mankind survived for hundreds of thousands of years before civilization, when hunter-gatherers and horticulturalists thrived. It's oh so much more fashionable to rely on civilization--whose cornerstone (agriculture) is non-sustainable, destructive, and ultimately doomed. Civilization also promotes specialization, which means when the system falls apart, vital nodes are destroyed and everybody dies. Natural tribal arrangements promote holistic knowledge which is mirrored in the minds of each one of its members. Strieber and his ilk want to make sure the data--the programming instruction set for civilization, along with the particulars of its operation--survives. They want to do so by mimicking the strength of the tribal culture: the fact that its wisdom is found in each member's mind, not just in the mind of the specialists. Techno-utopianists want a melding of computer and man so that man's survival instincts can be exploited to protect that data.

The guys Strieber is targeting with this crap are obsessed with magic and technology. They are what happens when spiritually naive people (mostly powerless males) internalize technological models without looking at the basis for these models: their cultural roots and their pre-historical foundations. These models are "thought forms" which accomplish a purpose--just like the twisted gauntlet an electron has to traverse in order to produce a computation in a computer's CPU. Magic may be real, but if it is channeled through a pattern before reaching its goal, then it does the work of the one who created the pattern, not the one who issues the energy. These techno-utopian nerds are not aware of their own backwards assumptions regarding the beneficence of civilization. Every magical act they perform in this state of ignorance gives power to the idea of civilization and its technologies.

Anyway, I've got some more to say about this article, which I'll probably post tomorrow. Thanks again for opening this interesting conversation.

Wow czyx, you really touched on alot of points I've also come to agree with. The whole idea of sustainability of modes of adaptation (hunting/gathering, pastoralists, small scale horticulture, industrialism, etc.). Humans have lived for 99% of their existence as hunter/gatherers. If we are to take the least Western influenced hunter/gatherer tribes alive today (Yanomamo of North Brazil and South Venezuala, or the Australian aborigines for example) as somehow representitive of archaic homo sapiens, then we sure had the sweet life for a long time! For thousands and thousands of years they survived and lived quite afluently, working at most 25 hrs a week on subsistence activities (food gathering) and spending the rest of the time visiting, dancing, singing, reflecting and celebrating life.
Pastoralism, or subsitence on domesticated animals, was more time consuming and labour intensive, but nonetheless was geared toward sustainability. Not only that, it was also effective at extracting maximum energy from grassland pastures that are not rich enough to plant crops (or they may be but intensive agriculture is a turning point in sustainability) nor was biodiversity in terms of flora and fauna abundant enough to suit the h/g lifestyle. A unique and efficient adaptation, despite the fact that it exploited animals (in pastoralists' defense, many cultures care deeply and even worhsiped their animals because they brought them life).
Industrial civilisation and our current post-industrial world are doomed to crash like agriculture intensive state sytems of the past. Dependence on non-renewable resources has overriden natural "feed-back" mechanisms that prevent over-consumption in other less complexe (in terms of social organisation) societies. We are in a Malthusian nightmare, population rising exponentially beyond Gaia's carrying capacity and sucking her dry in the process. Just like you said czyx, mainstream science and tech has spawned and evolved in a cultural context who's consciousness is geared toward exploitation, monopoly and accumulation of capital, with waste figures estimated by some to be as high as 47%. Centralisation and the growing economic gap between the ruling elite and the "common people" (kinda like Marx's bourgeoisie and proletariat) are all part and parcel of this self-destructive ideology and consciousness.
I also have much to say (and learn!) in this area and also in other related areas of consciousness and symbology. I'll stop talking now before I bore everyone and I apologize if this post is a bit dry and academic. Czyx, you wrote with eloquence and concision (btw, are you studying anthropology? because the terminology you use is part of the discourse of cultural ecology). I truly hope we can discuss more and explore these ideas (and others) in greater detail. I also hope others will join in this topic and throw in their thoughts because it is a topic that affects, and is affected by, everyone. Everybody's opinion is valid and valued !

As usual, and even more intense . . . this is one hot compelling dialogue.  The humility, edgyness and intellect make these thoughts very seductive . . . just as our technology on earth is increasingly addictive, compelling and powerful.  I'll read the posts again tomorrow.

It seems ET's have shared some techno information with us that they used destructively?  Now, they need to survive and this is what they can share.

Maybe earlier civilizations on earth have already misused greater abilities?  Did we learn a thing or two?

There is a chance we can do better this time around.  Maybe humanity has enough heart, enough love to change a similar outcome and balance the negativity.  Maybe we can bring in enough light!  It may take just a few of us . . . even one.

Technology is an external expression of a latent internal ability.  I believe that technology can provide a good mental framework for functioning in a world where technology is no longer necessary.

Take for example telepathy.  In theory it is possible for us to be in telepathic communication with each other, yet actual telepathy is rarely experienced by people.  We use the telephone instead.

Imagine what would happen if you woke up tomorrow with full telepathic abilities.  You would be bombarded and overwhelmed with the messages everybody else is sending you.  Imagine being in the middle of a cozy afternoon with a special lady and your mom "pops in" to say hello. 

Through the telephone we have developed the technology of voice mail, which allows us to prerecord a message to anybody that calls, and provides an opportunity for them to leave a message for us which we may retrieve later at a more convenient time.

We could use this model and apply it to the ability of telepathy to make it more manageable.  To this extent, I think that technology can be helpful.

It's the dependence on technology, or the belief that some technological advance will make all our troubles suddenly disappear that is very concerning to me.  The important question in my mind is if it is possible to develop a technology that makes technology unneccesary.

There is an idea out there, promulgated by the writing of Gurdjieff and others, that human beings exist at a critical interval in the scale of life.  Without our presence in physical bodies, there would be a break in the universal circuit of energy.  Our bodies are designed to receive energy in certain forms and transmit it in other forms.

I think that perhaps the global network of pyramids was an ancient culture's successful attempt at creating a "technology" that made their bodies no longer necessary.  I'm not sure exactly how this may have worked, but I don't think that it works any longer.

This is because the geomagnetic parameters of the planet are in flux.  Hence, the system of pyramids has gradually become more and more untuned.

At the same time greater and greater amounts of energy are flooding the planet.  As a result more and more bodies are necessary to transmute the energies.

[ASIDE:  There was a time years ago when I was very involved with a friend who was doing some channelling.  One of the most useful things that came out of it for me personally was the idea that I am not here to DO anything; I am here to hold a frequency of love.  What I DO is my own business]

So anyhow the question is can we create a technology that supplants the need for human bodies in the circuit of physical life?  Moreover, can we create a technology that is adaptable to changing conditions, eliminating the need for massive numbers of us to incarnate before a pole shift.

This is of course all conjecture.  But I don't think it is too far of a stretch.

Let's suppose that you knew for sure that on some particular day the earth's magnetic field would suddenly drop to zero, stay there for a while, and then come back online with the pole at a new location, which you also could predict with reasonable accuracy.

Do you have any idea the amount of energy that could be harnessed if you had the right equipment at the right time and place?  Forget about woo-woo ascension scenarios for a moment.  Assuming that there were some satisfactory way of storing the energy, there would be enough electricity to power the planet for another 13,000 years!

We're not quite on the same page here.

What I'm saying is that if you compare the evolution of science and technology with the evolution of consciousness, you will find some very close parallels.  What emerges at particular points in time for a few people as true abilities of consciousness is reflected for the rest as a technological advance.  This levels the playing field.

Technological developments are based on our internal abilities, not the other way around.  When I read about a new development in technology, I don't run out to buy the latest gadget, I reflect on what internal ability that I may be unaware of that the technology represents. 

I don't think that convenience and manageability are absolute values by any means.  Certainly we should weigh them against the values of freedom and opportunity.

A person is never really gone, with or without technology.  I would argue that technology has made this easier to see, not more difficult.  The difference is if you are using the technology with awareness.

I agree that technology is not necessary, however it may act as a catalyst for growth.  Absolutely, the analogue exists in the "natural" world.  However, millions of years of pre-technological human evolution would suggest that we weren't really bright enough to notice this.

Don't forget that things like the ability to make fire, or simple tools, is technology as well.

Without fire and tools, we humans would still be restricted to spending our days hunting and foraging for food and seeking shelter from the elements.  Hardly a world of possibility.

Well this seems to be the crux of the dilemma.  I contend with this on a daily basis.  If my private life were laid bare for all to see, would I still engage in the same activities?  At this moment, I would say probably not.

What do you suggest as an alternative?

What if they did exactly what they were intending to do?

Do you really believe that we are forced to incarnate against our will? 

What I am suggesting is that human bodies, as a necessary and integral part of nature, have a unique ability to make certain cosmic/higher dimensional energies (including love) available to other forms of life on Earth, and the Earth itself.  We are entering into an area of greater density of energy. Hence a greater need for the functions that human bodies, and only human bodies, can provide.

So given that I have the use of this body, I can choose to channel these energies consciously, but I cannot choose to not channel them at all. 

Well I suppose I could choose to end my own physical life, but I don't personally consider that an option.

Technology provides for the possibility for the Earth to sustain a greater number of human bodies on the planet than would otherwise be possible.

It also provides for the possibility of a soul using a particular body to gain enough experience, in one lifetime, to become aware enough that it would consciously choose to use its body in a manner which supports its basic functions of energy transmutation.

It also provides for the possibility of a group of souls, living as a society, to come up with a way to eliminate the need for physical incarnation while maintaining continuity of the functions that it provides, and through that the need for technology in whatever form.

That sounds good to me!

(tenetnosce, I think we are on the same page, we just have fundamental differences in opinion. That is ok. In this post I will address some of the things you've said, but mostly I'll be making a kind of position statement to anybody who'd like to listen.)

Trying to find a silver lining in a dark cloud seems like a harmless or even helpful thing to do, but there may be serious costs involved--especially when it is only your imagination of the silver lining that allows the black cloud to persist. I don't think one should build a spiritual system out of high tech metaphors, which is what the techno-utopians are doing. Spiritual ratification of destructive technology is dangerous and short-sighted.

Attempting to make use of a power you do not understand by engaging in a practice you have not properly prepared for is warned against in any spiritual tradition containing even an ounce of truth. In the modern world we make use of many technologies we cannot possibly understand, because the system of specialization required by civilization has become way too complex for any one person to hold in mind. We don't understand the system, and we don't really understand its products. We may use cars, phones, and computers every day, but no individual person in history has ever had the skill to make even one of these items from scratch. He'd have to know how to extract and smelt metal, how to produce plastics, how to build a precision machine to lay down circuitry, and so on. For one man to produce a piece of high technology it would require more time than his lifespan allows. It would require mastery of techniques at every level right up to the top.

As individuals we do not have a true, comprehensive, and holistic understanding of the historical context or current operation of our technology. The facts of life (for instance, the limited human lifespan) preclude this understanding. This is why most science is necessarily death-based. Great scientists of the Western tradition do not stand on the "shoulders of giants", but on a mound of their predecessors' bones. The scientists of the past committed their lives to filling a fictitious group mind with data. This data storehouse has been referenced to create gadgets and systems that can be used by anyone, regardless of spiritual attainment, wisdom, or maturity. As individual recipients of science's "altruism", all we can provide is a vague description of how we've been told these devices operate. If one happens to be an expert, the vague description becomes more complex but the entirety of the context remains just as incomprehensible. What is happening now is a reification of the hypothetical group mind from which was derived the data these technologies depended on for their development. This mind--which started out as nothing more than a "useful fiction" serving to organize scientific research information into accessible libraries--is being concretized through NBIC technologies even now. Eventually, we will be told we can strip off our bodies and step directly into the newly concretized group mind where we can spend eternity happily playing with the data therein. This is insanity. This is regression.

When you make use of a simple technology, (like the Indian teepee/travois, for example) in the context of a culture where pointless waste is discouraged, (like many Native American cultures) it is possible for you to have a complete understanding of the technology, how destructive it is, and the cultural context into which it fits. Since there is little specialization (no career teepee-builders) each member can directly observe changes at the micro level of the technology where it interfaces with nature. An Indian returning to a pine forest periodically as his tribe wanders would be able to observe the health of that forest firsthand. A decline in health would be an immediate sign to lay off that forest when it came to extracting resources. A pandemic of unhealthy forests in the absence of natural disaster or drought would be a clear and unavoidable sign to all involved that their way of life would need to change in order for the tribe to survive. A change in social structure or cultural content might be called for to alleviate the damage. And because of the simplicity of their technology, there would be little to impede the needed changes. I'm not saying the Indians had heaven on earth, but they had a much healthier basis for their culture than we do.

At lower levels of technological development it is possible to deal with the spiritual cost that is incurred when you take elements (such as trees and buffalo) from the land. When you live in an overly sophisticated and non-sustainable culture like ours, however, this "karmic fallout" is overwhelming and way beyond your control. Management of the culture's karma requires Prozac for the workers and satanic death-cults for the elite. You can try going vegan or buying a hybrid car, but you'll always share in the pain unless you disconnect completely. (From civilization, not from life!) Unfortunately, with near-total ignorance of the natural world you won't survive long disconnected from the machines that feed you--and the machines that feed them--unless you do some serious preparation.

The meta-machine is grossly inefficient. The longer it runs the bigger it gets. The bigger it gets the more it eats, until it has eaten practically everything and disconnection from it becomes pointless. Reliance upon the machine even when it has plenty to eat makes you sick and depresses your spirit. This is the state of modern man, this is the nature of his culture, and this is the result of his technology. It takes a particularly malicious brand of ignorance (commonly mislabeled "hope", but more akin to "wishful thinking") to desire the continuation of these karmic circumstances through stop-gap measures such as corporeal transformation or space travel.

At lower levels of technological sophistication it is less dangerous to allow yourself to take spiritual lessons from particular pieces of technology. The teepee I mentioned earlier probably has some valuable meanings for those Native Americans who used to build them. I have no idea what those meanings are because I've never experienced that culture. But right off the top of my head, I can see that the dwelling is similar to the living human body in that it is comprised of skin (buffalo skin) over bone (lodge poles), it is heated through metabolism (fire), it breathes (through permeable cloth) and it excretes waste (through the smoke flap). There are probably other metaphors to explore, but I can see how the teepee could possibly have been used to elucidate certain aspects of the operation of the body in order to provide instructions on staying healthy by understanding one's needs.

If you pick a particular technology from today's system and claim it has spiritual value because it points to a latent human potential, you must take into account the history and context of the technology before you begin to pursue activation of the potential. Because in our ignorance we can only see the fruits (the technology) but we have extremely limited experience of the tree (the path it took to get to us). This is by design. Technology sells itself by hiding its history. At first glance it seems the technology just "appears" and so on a conceptual level can be plucked out of thin air as an object for the mind to study and consider. We may not buy the technology in question, we may not even use it, but if we try to apply only its discrete operation to our internal operation, there is a dangerous risk. The individual risks activating a potential he does not understand well enough to use safely, and/or introducing a malformed ability. For instance, the existence of television might have a corollary in human psychic remote viewing. But remote viewers are used by governments for nefarious purposes. Had these remote viewers followed a natural path to the activation of their powers, the path itself would have taught them the proper use of the powers by exposing them to a correct understanding of the larger context in which the powers arise. Helping governments do what they do (subjugate humans) would then be out of the question for the individual with naturally activated remote viewing ability.

It was necessary for me to say all this in order to get to the issue of proposed modifiers of latent internal abilities appearing before the activation of the ability. You can say technology arises from internal abilities, but in the flow of time in which we are currently traveling, and given the circumstances of the dominant culture, most people--including the sincerest of students--will encounter the technology before the ability. This is due to the fact that technology is ubiquitous, while men and women of attainment are not. So in reality, when we look at a technological development such as voicemail and propose that it indicates a desirable way in which a possible ability like mental telepathy should be modified or developed, we carry over a great many assumptions and value judgments which serve only to reinforce current models. Those models are necessarily the very same which gave rise to the technology being modeled.

By accepting the technology on its own terms, (terms which dictate a very short-sighted view) you allow it to frame the issue. If telepathy were to develop as a part of a natural process rooted in truth, it would not be necessary to look to current technology of our day to figure out how to use it. If artificial telepathy were to be developed, it would not be necessary to battle it by the use of "natural" telepathy any more than it is necessary to battle George Bush or the rest of the psychopaths in the political arena. When you accept their terms, you've already lost. When you accept the terms of current technologies, you've already lost.

I firmly believe two things must be present for a given technology to be acceptable as a teacher: the technology must be rooted in an unassailably beneficent aspect of nature, and the path of its development must be knowable in its entirety. Only when the path of the development of the technology is something a person can experience and verify firsthand can that technology be called trustworthy. We can have fun speculating about a group of kindly beings from outside this dimension who are injecting grand technology into our timeflow for the purpose of saving us the way they saved themselves, but I see no evidence for it, nor does the idea resonate with me. Ideas of this kind seem to result from wishful thinking. (In Strieber's case I suspect something much worse, though I don't know what.) Such ideas are generally used to support a pre-existing desire to avoid change (of a difficult personal nature) and to allow oneself permission to give in to technological inertia ("freely" provided by a few thousand years of civilization).

Ideas agreeable with the current trajectory of civilization are prevalent among techies who have little spiritual experience outside of that which can be forced through the use of drugs like LSD, psilocybin, and marijuana. (I dropped acid once and I like smoking pot from time to time, but I have to abide by the "don't believe everything you think" rule of psychedelic drug usage.)  When these drugs act upon a mind rooted in scientific materialism and full of nothing but logical instruction sets, programming languages, video game experiences, gadget lust, science fiction TV shows, and the humiliation of daily cubicle life, what happens? Imagination takes over and freedom is sought after. But it is the freedom of running at the front of the pack rather than the back. They want to stay comfortable in their nice technologically supported lifestyles, so they cannot conceive of leaving the pack. Designers who don't understand the greater purpose of their designs, these guys blindly facilitate better prisons, better weapons, and better profit schemes for their masters in exchange for the thrill of being a part of the vanguard doing something "new". Their lack of wisdom means their imagination can only be applied to the data in their heads, and can only work towards limited ends. Their ends are technology's ends, which are civilization's ends, which are the dominant culture's ends, which are the selfish elite's ends. The selfish elite class is eternally obsessed with accrual of power, exercise of control, and mastery over death. It is no coincidence that life-extension technology is so important to them. They want to rule this world forever.

I have said before that I think the religion of the future will be based on psychedelic drug use. I think this religion will be informed by technological psychedelia as people allow their brains to be rewired with computer interfaces. The computers (or Computer, as it may be) will also be the object of worship. This will form a false religion: one without the esoteric core of truth harbored by more or less "legitimate" religions. The flimsy esoteric core will be experienced as simple slack jawed amazement at the operation of the exoteric shell, which after all will be nothing but a control mechanism. Spectacle will replace divinity.

If a technology can come along that will destroy all technology, those with foresight will use it to transmit a final warning message: do not use this technology--it's about to blow. Those with discernment can then walk away. This is the nature of the internet, I think. But after the system inevitably crashes, both the technology and the message are lost, so why bother trying to "harden" the technology to last past the crash? Does that not faithlessly assume regeneration of the system as you know it in the future? The best thing we can use the internet for is to sound a klaxon while we prepare for the emergency. Because the real work is always done in the real world. The closest thing to a real outer world I know of is the natural world, which if it is a simulation still contains--in a greater concentration than any virtual world dependant upon it--those elements of the eternal world which pierce through all veils and cannot be denied. These are the mysteries of life/death, day/night, sun/moon, sleeping/waking, inhalation/exhalation, and more. Counterpart to the natural outer world is the natural inner world, wherin each individual experiences his or her spiritual life and develops methods of sharing it with others.

We lament our state and our current direction, but we don't think to ask what kind of culture would be wise enough to recognize and turn down bad practices such as non-sustainable technology upon first consideration. I think this is the one of the most important questions presented by the coming changes, and something we should focus on. We should also try to figure out the true nature of the changes so that we aren't duped by a cunningly timed facsimile. I'd like to get into this in future posts.

Thanks, Ian. I was able to read through half of that paper today, and I'll finish the rest later. It touches on something I've been thinking about recently, namely the rituals that accompany the manufacture and use of technology in some cultures. I read a very interesting interview a while ago that introduced me to the idea of a spiritual economy of technology where debts to the earth are repaid by rituals. The following post is conjecture based on that idea:

Ritual burning of incense is something many cultures all over the world have been doing for a long time. The production of incense by an individual is possible at what I consider to be an obviously sustainable level of technological development. Incense, unlike television, leaves no doubt as to its human authorship. It is easy to see how incense could have first come about as the result of people noticing the different smells of burning trees and plant material. The attempt to isolate and recombine such materials in order to produce a substance which gives off a pleasing smell when burnt is a simple, natural, and completely understandable human technical endeavor. It's probably also fun.

The making and burning of incense might have a very important cultural role as a balancing ritual designed to help the conscious individual keep internal and external technology in mind. This is plausible if the making and burning of incense is looked at as a method by which the external technology of fire making and fire usage can be connected to the internal world.

Does the burning of incense have a ritual meaning in and of itself? Incense is burned today in religions from Catholicism to Buddhism, but when it is done outside of a traditional religious setting the pleasing smell is usually the only point. Even in the alternative spiritual practices that I'm aware of, burning incense is always secondary to some other ceremony. Why is it historically associated with sacrificial rituals, specifically those of animals? I find the idea of killing an animal just to burn it up to be perverse, so I am inclined to think that burning incense must precede animal sacrifice on a moral scale running from good to evil. If the burning of incense started out as a sacrifice of some sort, what was the point? What was being sacrificed, and why? A few plants have to lose their lives to make incense, but their death seems incidental due to their nature as food to so many. Although we certainly should be thankful and respectful to the plants, perhaps the sacrifice of the time it takes a person to make the incense is the more important point? Isn't time a most precious thing to a living body? Doesn't mammalian life itself have the appearance of a slow burn which culminates in death and the smolder of decomposition? (And here it seems Death is the god being worshipped by animal sacrifice--Death who is gratified and pleasured by a fast burn.)

Along with the burning of the incense, a ritual artifact might be necessary, perhaps a carved incense holder or even a spoken prayer. The artifact would be designed in such a way as to cause one to remember and give thanks for the "fire inside". The ritual might be applied each time a fire is lit, so that if a fire is lit and there is not incense burned, a debt is incurred that must be paid back with more incense and prayers at a later time. This would protect the internal meaning of the fire. It wouldn't be able to get away from you and become a part of a more complex technology without your complete awareness.

The point would be to indicate the preciousness and meaning of life by way of an apparently absurd "waste" of time. Most technology is valued at the basest level for its convenience. It allows us to take a shortcut through time. If faithfully accompanied by accurate rituals, the manufacture and employment of technology is slowed down. Only so many of these rituals would be feasible, given the number of hours in the day. A large part of so-called "primitive" life is relaxation and meditation. When the rituals cut into relaxation time, making life unnecessarily harder, it is a sign to scale back the complexity and/or number of these rituals. But when the rituals are tightly bound to the technology, there is only one way to decrease the rituals: scale back the technology. The technology of ritual balancing can defeat all technology, because it contains its end within itself. The very weight the rituals add to life is their purpose. When the burden is light, it is very light. But when the burden is heavy, it is very heavy. Only when you do not complete the rituals do you invite the danger of over-technologization, and only when you ignore the meaning of the rituals do you allow external technology to become unmoored.

A natural shaman innately knows the truth of technology's spiritual economy. If his role is misunderstood and he is expected to be a singular repository of rituals rather than one of many teachers of the deepest meaning of existing rituals, (and if he agrees to the "specialist" status in the tribe) he will end up taking on the problems of those whom he counsels. At that point, he is stuck in a machine which deprives the people of meaningful experience while over-burdening him. He should refuse to carry out the rituals before it is too late for his own soul. If he does not, he has only a few options that I can see, none of which are good.

The first option for the specializing shaman is to disconnect consciously from the rituals while still performing them. This grants him less discomfort along with an elevated status in the tribe. It also drains the rituals of meaning as they are oversimplified and/or applied to situations where they do not fit, simply so the people will be mollified. The second option is that he can enter more deeply into the rapidly expanding pool of rituals in order to begin using select rituals to control the people. This may be done for his own benefit, or for the benefit of other specialists such as tribal rulers who will tell him it is for the good of the tribe that he take their orders. This is a type of internal and political corruption. Shamanic magic in this context involves perverting existing rituals and introducing new ones which when pursued to their natural conclusions require rape, torture, vivisection, and murder. On the first wrong path the rituals will become empty. On the second wrong path the rituals will become too complex and/or horrible. A confusion of paths and results is possible, too, where some rituals become superstition while others become dogma.

When the shaman heads down the wrong path he causes the rituals to take forms that are either not meaningful enough or not elaborate enough to communicate to the people the nature of their technology and its internal costs. This causes the people to suffer. As the people suffer, they ask more of the shaman. An empty shaman becomes emptier, and a devious shaman becomes a black magician. Eventually the people forget about the rituals and resign themselves to misery. Imbalanced technology blossoms under the direction of black magicians while empty shamans stand guard.

Really, the number of rituals, their meaning, and their complexity should be such that each and every member of the tribe can hold them all in mind at once, perform them regularly, and teach them to the next generation. When this is not possible due to too much bad technology, the answer is to abandon, scale back, or re-engineer the technology--not to transfer the rituals to specialists. When shamans are generated by a tribe, it is a sign of a problem. Slavery--in this case, that of a man to a function--is never a good thing, even if it is "voluntary" as in the case of the black magicians.

Based on my thoughts above, I would say that because individual Trobrianders do not apply rituals to the construction of their personal canoes, their culture is deficient. I think it shows a lack of respect for the earth and a devaluation of the individual. The economic system supported by sea-going expeditions and the power the system lends to their hierarchical social structure is more important than illumination of the individual in this tribe. "Wise people come and go, but the economic system is here to stay!" their technological rituals seem to say. In doing further research I was not surprised to find out that the Boyowans, as the people of the Trobriand Island call themselves, have other problems. Since being discovered by modern civilization, they have taken on many aspects of European culture such as playing a version of cricket and wearing shirts. This culture did not know enough to say no to "free" (i.e. ritual-less) technology.

Today's high technology certainly blows our sense of power right out of proportion. It confers upon us the illusory status of master as it so effortlessly achieves what we perceive to be our will. It does this even if we have no knowledge of its being-transforming effects, no understanding of its dynamics, no memory of its construction, and no natural inclination to achieving its evident goals.

Sounds about right. We've already been symbolically microchipped, and we don't even know it. I have a problem with the fact that such internal human technologization is not addressed by our culture in such a way that a person has a chance to free himself of--or make an informed choice about--the "technology inside". This appears to be a design of the elite, who want external/internal technologization to proceed in its current (obviously destructive) incarnation without us worrying our pretty little heads. We'd be horrified if we knew how mindlessly robotic we are, and we'd get to work on tearing down and rebuilding. But rebuilding would proceed at not nearly the same scale, and with very different goals in mind. The goal and scale would be best dictated by what is healthy and sustainable in the natural world. If it is possible to build a high technology culture that is still natural, it'll have to be built from the ground up anyway, so abandonment of current technology is necessary. Cults and secret societies try to accomplish such goals, but their attempts seem to stem from incomplete knowlege at best and control fantasies at worst.