So, I went through some of the pieces in your, quite impressive, output to make myself better acquainted with your line of thought. As it seems, during the last six years you’ve managed to write a refutation of every conceivable argument against your basic premises (did I get them?). While I agree with a lot of points you make, especially when it comes to exoteric religion and (not only modern) civilized society in general, there are some key misconceptions on your part that contribute to the differences in our reasoning.
The most striking one would probably be your interpretation of animism. While it’s true that animism is strongly dualistic and may appear pseudo-polytheistic, it is neither theistic nor anthropocentric in your sense of both words. Even though we must consider that current-day animism most probably deviates from the original one (it did not survive in vacuum), you certainly won’t find gods in it. Animism deals with forces that the animist considers natural (no matter whether manifested or immanent), and these forces are all treated as equal, i.e. there’s no hierarchy in them. They are merely considered as stronger or weaker (or with different qualities) in relation to each other. What’s more, animism also exhibits clear signs of zoomorphism (with a lot of abstract, geometric imagery — I’ll come to this later), of which anthropomorphism is but one tiny fragment. Thus, as a whole, animism is more ecocentric than anything else. You may also call it “naive naturalism”.
If you look at the history, you will realize that the concept of god as we know it today emerged around 6000 years ago, and you can trace it to the Proto-Indo-Europeans. I won’t bore you with details as I addressed this topic elsewhere (and also many times during our conversation)— suffice to say, it was the discovery of unity of existence and departure from animistic dualism that, due to misunderstanding of the said discovery by population in general, gave rise to gods. It was the discovery of Absolute (as visible in Vedas, but also e.g. Judaism and Christianity), that through a lack of actual knowledge led to theism as you understand it.
We can only argue about ancient Sumerian, Canaanite, or Greek religions and their esoteric intentions — their exoteric forms were clearly polytheistic — but when we look at Hinduism, the overall picture should become quite clear. While Hinduisim’s exoteric form clearly exhibits what anyone would call polytheism (and I would dare to wager that it is, indeed, understood that way by the majority of practicing Hindus and may even be a somewhat official attitude among Brahmins), when we examine it closer, Hinduism, at its core, is not theistic at all — it’s through and through non-dual, even though explained in zoomorphic imagery that clearly references its animistic roots.
You can see this pattern in Judaism, Christianity, even Islam, and quite ironically also Buddhism (which underwent the process of “deification” during the years that followed after its conception by the same process of misrepresentation). Thus, what we traditionally call monotheism actually does not exist. De facto, all exoteric religions are polytheistic. But even that sort of misses the point, because, as I imply, this seeming and make-believe (poly)theism is but a remnant of “undigested” non-dual understanding of existence[1] (especially the concept of Absolute) introduced into (or pulled over) animism with its plethora of spirits of various degrees of strength and flavor. Not surprisingly, you can also find the same non-duality at the core of all above mentioned religions (and then some).
Now, let me return to geometric patterns in visions. I guess you would not argue that they are a clear testimony, that animism, and in extension all religions without fail, are tied to entheogens and their influence on our brain and its pattern creation/matching. Alas, the way you understand e.g. mass hallucinations is somewhat limited (since they generally work on a much more subtle level than what you say — that is, well beyond the crude, aware mass pareidolia, where one individual points out something and others immediately see it as is the case with face or rabbit on the surface of Moon), which makes me think that you have not much experiences with regard to “vision quests” and similar things.
As you’ve mentioned many times throughout your writings, we, no doubt, perceive several times more than we are aware of. That, however, does not mean only information that directly triggers our senses, but also various kinds of noises and disturbances. It’s quite plausible that brain, being a bio-mechanic electromagnetic “computation” device consisting of 80% water, would be susceptible to all kinds of extrasensory interference. After all, Moon’s gravitation moves tides (and its influence on menstrual cycle seems legit even as far as science goes), solar flares can wreak havoc on our electronics, etc. Thus, you may say that under proper conditions (manipulated perception or shifted awareness) we can “communicate” with Sun, Moon, and who knows what other forces that are normally outside of our awareness. This communication of course would be bidirectional as physics tells us, it’s just a matter of relative strength. It’s also worth to notice that this communication would take place no matter if we are aware of it or not. And these are only the “external” impulses.
Filter it all through the vocabulary (or set of patterns) of an average hunter-gatherer or “primitive” agriculturalist, and you should see the reason why we are left with zoomorphic, or, when no other pattern can be meaningfully constructed, abstract geometric imagery. Of course, I don’t try to imply that our ancestors were aware of electromagnetism, gravity, or air pressure in the sense we are, but they were definitely much more aware of how they directly influence us. Naive naturalists, indeed.
By the way, did you know, that until around c. 4000 BC (i.e. before the birth of current civilization) society was animistic, egalitarian, with no sudden spikes in population, changes in the size of settlements, no signs of warfare, or shifts in technology, and this status quo was present unchanged for almost 5000 years, since the advent of agriculture? What’s more, isn’t it striking that except for change in social structure (centralized storage and redistribution of food with rise of elites c. 3900 BC), no significant change in the rest of aforementioned areas happened for the next few hundred years?
Anyway, with these facts on the table (and some personal experiences added to the mix) it’s hard for me to believe that ancient folks were scared of nature, and that that’s the reason why they, frightened, run around creating culture. Sure, they understood that there are forces that can annihilate them in a blink of an eye, but they were also aware of the more pleasurable aspects. The sole fact that for 5000 years they could uphold an egalitarian society (and that’s merely from the dawn of agricultural revolution) says to me that nature is certainly not amoral, even if Michael Phelps would indisputably dominate us both in the swimming pool.
[1] or, better said, animism that naturally evolved into non-duality
