parietal art. The
timelines that he considers show that hand imprints were present from the earliest
instances of such imagery. However, he suggests that a reinforcement of the
genre came from the common reaction of the human nervous system to states of
altered consciousness associated to the presence of shamans who served as facilitators
of the myths that illuminated religious thought. The central role of myth in
the creation and subsequent utility of grouping mechanisms has been an
underlying constituent of this book.
While we cannot
prove that the creation of myths has been constitutional to the expansion of
mankind beyond the scale of the tribe’s proximity, we can certainly observe
that their universality may find an explanation in the teaching through which
the young are provisioned by the old and the experiences of the trusted ones
are passed to the uninitiated. So, before we return to some final thoughts on
the relationship of social order to computers and their networks, let’s consider
that the mechanisms leading from the observation of direct causes to the
constitution of myths are readily bound up in the images of hands and fingers.
The human hand
is a central feature of the human sensori-motor system. As we noted in Chapter
4, few naturally occurring organic structures offer the nuance of sensory input
or the finesse of motor action as the human hand with its fingers and opposing
thumb. Thus, the hand is central in the establishment of metaphors of higher
level communication (“Did you catch that?”). Moreover, the loss of the hand or
fingers constitutes a serious blow to the sensori-motor system. Hence, the
conscious removal of a hand or finger, whether actual or symbolic, would
constitute a serious actual or symbolic illustration of loss to the body of the
individual. Now, in some situations a person might cut a finger in the face of
possible higher physical threat such as further infection of the limbs, in a
way parallel to groups of humans forcing the ostracism of a person threatening
its integrity and survival prospects. In the extreme, the group might demand
the death of the individual, a ritual still observed in some states and
countries. Conversely, the preeminence of the group, perhaps even its survival,
may well demand altruistic sacrifice on the part of individuals within the
group. Thus, in the same way that cutting a finger can be symbolically
associated with the broader concept of sacrifice and separation in mourning and
other life events, the ritual sacrificial killing of humans in societies around
the world can be associated with a higher expression of societies being ready
to separate from some of their own in exchange for protection for the greater
number.
In Mythes et dieux des indo-européens (Myth
and Gods of Indo-Europeans), George Dumézil shows on the wide scale of Central Asia and Europe the consolidation of myths under common threads
of religious aggregations. For myths to form a learning basis of innovative
conquest of new territories of the mind there must be shared trust in them,
would it come from process or causality. For example, the shared ecstasy
enforced by rituals can be reflexive of fundamental mythology rooted in
religious revelation. For Dumézil, the common Indo-European heritage is the
tri-partite organization of society in clergy, warriors and producers. We
immediately recognize a trust-enabled policy infrastructure similar to those
our study of computer organizations has generated. Whereas computers today are
barely capable of associating symbolism to the treatment of threats in computer
networks beyond their mechanism of exceptions, their future management of myths
associated by common trust is to be expected. We have seen that the necessary
mechanisms of stimuli via need hierarchies, association via metaphors, and the
building of ontologies are all available today to computer networks, albeit
sometimes at the frontier of knowledge.
A worldwide
study of myths and religion of the depth of Dumézil’s is still to be made.
Dumézil himself establishes the parallel between his studies and comparative
Indo-European linguistics of
|