Interesting book. I skimmed briefly through it — it has that Castanedian feel :) I agree with Abram’s observation that pictograms hold the supposed meaning of what they should represent better than phonetic transcriptions. That’s sort of the reason why we still paint pictures, make music, or try to evoke images through poetry. I also like his insight into animism — it’s pretty spot on. There are however few things that are quite off.
Writing with very high probability didn’t emerge as a literary tool. No one knows for sure the actual age or what was the original purpose of Tartaria tablets (5500–2750 BC), but there’s a certainty that Sumerian proto-writing (ca. 3500 BC — pictograms predating Egyptian hieroglyphs, which were most probably influenced by Sumerian culture) which later became cuneiform (ca. 3000 BC) developed as an accounting “device”. Written myths came later (ca. 2600 BC).
Yes, as it seems Chinese writing was in its inception used predominantly for ritual purposes, but it dates back “merely” to 1250–1192 BC. And also, where do we draw a line between cave paintings and miniaturized versions of the same? (as in figurative art, etc.)
Then there’s the problem that while animism is present all across the globe, and is obviously the result of pure experiential observation, the centers of non-duality can be found only within cultures that came into contact with Proto-Indo-Europeans. And also consider that even thought animism has a common core (quite logically) its actual shape widely differs across cultures, while non-dualism is almost word-for-word identical all across the globe.
Also let’s not forget that the idea of an intermediary (shaman, medicine man, witch, etc.) between material and spirit world is an animistic “invention”. Non-dualism basically postulates that everyone is shaman.
All in all, it’s an interesting read, but where Abram blames writing for “split in perception”, I would blame writing only for legalism and rigidity (i.e. “if it’s set in stone, or more like clay, it must be true, hence unchangeable”).
Anyway, thanks for tip ;)
