On The Origins of Prayer
Imagine a mortally wounded near-human beast grunting and screeching for help in the wilderness. No organism answers. The beast continues to grunt and screech for help until its death. It is calling to specific near-human beast-friends while entertaining an abstract vision of rescue or salvation. At the outset of its sufferings, we might say it is in every sense simply calling to its beast-friends. As time unwinds and death approaches, the abstract vision (again, imagine) of rescue or salvation begins to dominate. The mind of the beast begins to transition from "help, friend X, friend Y, or friend Z!" to "help, any friend!" to "help, any creature!" to "help, anything at all!" as the beast and its thought process grow more and more desperate.
Considering the climax of this process: Is the cry of the beast a prayer?
If the cry of the beast is no prayer what can we do to it to make it a prayer?
Considering the climax of this process: Is the cry of the beast a prayer?
If the cry of the beast is no prayer what can we do to it to make it a prayer?
Comments (102)
An interesting question.
No. The instinct is kicking in -- it's an automatic response to a threat or injury.
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
When the beast no longer thinks it's in control of the situation and wishes for a chance.
"Oh father in heaven, give us our daily bread!"
:lol: Is prayer basically a cultured crave for tit and milk? Gotta remember that one in church! I'll put an extra dime in the basket!
So we might say that prayer qua hunger is first directed toward an absence. "I'm having an unpleasant feeling! I feel something is lacking! I cry out to X that that something might come!"
As the mother comes to be seen as an answer to the prayer of hunger - as mother takes the place of X or absence - the prayer begins to take the form of basic human communication.
You mean to say God's simply sublimated boob fetish? :scream: :lol:
Yahweh [math]\downarrow[/math]
recall that in ancient Israel, before Jews conquered promised lands, they were faced with tribes who sent their children into fire to please pagan gods.
In todays mexico, early tribes sacrificed people or a regular basis because belief was, if they don't do so it will be end of sunlight and thus end of the world.
These early rituals become too harsh to bear any longer at some point (which is evident and not new), therefore there was the need to please gods in less painful way, and the prayer was born.
basically I think prayer was replaced with blood sacrifice at some point because it would be unusual to quit blood sacrifice without proper replacement, it would mean the end of beliefs and religion.
Would prayer and meditation necessarily have different origins? Studies suggest both reduce stress, increase forgiveness, increase self-control, etc. I personally see it as meditation being the east's "discovery" of whatever it is and prayer being the west's.
As a result, perhaps animals do "pray," even if they don't have a concept of God/gods. I think it depends if prayer needs an idea of "god" or the idea of a reciever.
It is does not take much to see that there is a connection between asking a question (or crying our for an answer) and said question/call being answered by some unseen force within.
A human’s sense of authorship shifts and changes quite a lot. Some people even believe we are just ‘passengers’ of a sort and that the claim to authorship is lain on after the said events.
However, my intuition revolts, for some unknown reasons, against this easily demonstrable factoid. Something in me tells me that everything has an effect, should have an effect.
On that view, walking under a ladder or breaking a mirror or wearing a lucky tie, and so on, all, should produce an effect, desirable/undesirable is an open question. As herein relevant, prayer is a bona fide cause of misery/joy/something else.
Note, prayer is, bottom line, telekinesis/psychokinesis, matter being directly influenced by (good/bad) thoughts (prayer) i.e. shortcircuiting normal channels of affecting matter (contact). Spooky action at a distance in other words!
Mark Vernon is a writer I have a lot of time for. Very intelligent analyst of cross-cultural and trans-historical sources of spirituality.
Incidentally I didn’t like the suggestion in the OP at all, because it’s Darwinian. Darwinian theory is crap at this kind of thing.
What I often wonder is how anthropologist consider the stuff they consider in their study. Do they consider the worlds the cultural members live in as real worlds, or merely as study objects? Interesting stuff, but out of touch with reality? I remember reading Florinda Donner's story and was disappointed when reading she made it up. But at the same time she showed how it should be.
Have you done any units in it? I did a couple of years of anthropology and found it utterly fascinating. Agustin Fuentes seems fascinating. (So many books, so little time.) Anthropology has this way of being able to transcend all the usual disciplinary boundary stuff and open up wholly new perspectives on humanity. So, of course if they're worth their salt, they will reveal those perspectives.
Haha! Great cartoon! :up:
"A wide-ranging argument by a renowned anthropologist that the capacity to believe is what makes us human Why are so many humans religious? Why do we daydream, imagine, and hope?"
The capacity is human indeed. Does he think that that's an indication for the reality of gods? And our praying to them? Or is it seen as a resort to something when being unable to actually improve oneself?
Yes indeed. Florinda Donner wrote a great story about one particular small group of people in the rainforest. She seemed to have become one of them. She saw a member killing a baby with a stick. The baby was kept with the face down until the stick was pushed against it's back and made it crack. She didn't like it but the members had no problem doing it. They would be punished if they did that here, in the western world, which nowadays is the whole world.
I'm curious if Agustin thinks the world he describes is real, i.e., religion referring to real gods.
Thanks :smile:
As to what is being communicated through this universal, telepathic language is up to the individual. That much is a choice.
In wester way of life (that is, not meditation life) there is thing called "contemplation"
Quoting 180 Proof
To both of you
If human neoteny is a fact, no one has seen an adult human!
We could be juvenile chimps for all we know. We share 99.9% of our DNA. :rofl:
Agent Smith will return with more disturbing thoughts...
:smile:
I've still a pair of gills dangling around in agony...
Is that the "general" view? God being a mental replacement of failed parenthood? Weird rationalization...
:chin: Anaximander's fish idea turned out to be true.
He had a fish idea?
Contemplation=meditation?
Yep!
Which is a highly questionable conjecture, and on further investigation it turns out to to be a prejudice pure and simple.
Damned!
Well, it's presented without investigation, as if it's true.
Don't ask me. You said the concept of God stems from an urge for parenthood, or having good parents.
You wrote:
"Possibly. The general view as the concept of god growing from a ‘loss of parental guidance’ thingy theory is kind of along those lines too. I don’t buy that completely, but it likely plays a part in human psychology."
Or learn to write. Although? You wrote, in very good English, that there is the theory that the concept of god grows from a ‘loss of parental guidance". It's a theory, but its applied. Which means, viewing religious folks in a light which is questionable because one knows nothing about them.
No, it works by thinking in addition to praying, but more focused on thinking, focusing on something ex. religious and thinking how this was and trying to get meaningful message out of it.
ex. you can contemplate over certain verses from the bible for extended period of time, trying to grasp it's most deep secrets, correlating the verse with other passages or books.
there are also other ways of contemplations, including non-religious ones.
In short it's about focusing on something and thinking about it for extended period, ex an hour or 2.
Contemplation is old-fashioned way of trying to get close to God, it was introduced as a countermeasure to meditation movements in western world.
see also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemplation
In respect of the thread, it is a reasonable thing to consider ‘crying out’ as a babe as having some possible relation to prayer. Personally I find ‘prayer’ hard to categorise. Seems like a very loose concept.
Double damn! It's true! We evolved from marine creatures - amphibians are the missing link. Kiss the frog princess, he's a prince!
In every Philosophical study you first need to define your terms.
I think the definition will provide an answer to your question.
Dunno... I think crying out like a babe has little to do with prayer, though who knows what goes on in the baby's mind? No one has memories of that golden age, and maybe we were closer to gods than we will ever be again.
Triple Damned! The Trinity damnation!
Are frogs the missing links?
:monkey:
Anthropology should be considered a branch of primatology. That should put some of us who're obnoxiously self-aggrandizing in our place. Temet Nosce O Monkey, even if Hairless! :grin:
This philosophical inquiry centers on how a word should be defined.
1) You can pray to people (ex. random persons), sometimes your prayer will be considered and fulfilled and sometimes not.
2) You can pray to God, same way sometimes your prayer will be considered and fulfilled and sometimes not.
I would categorize it as passive way of survival, ex. not doing anything and gaining stuff. :smile:
Always thought you might be one of the million monkeys. How's Hamlet coming along?
The article goes on to discuss how this eventually gave rise to doctrinal religions, mentioning shamanism, early cave art, and other anthropological evidence. I find it a lot more credible than the usual 'sky gods making thunder' routine which is generally used to dismiss religion.
:lol:
AS seems the undertaker of philosophy while burying the undertaker at the same time. A strange ying and yang Ouroboros, committing philosophical suicide while pulling himself out of the swamp by his own hairs! An unfathomable clown, always having the last laugh. The new age philosopher, a welcome star, eternally falling brightly, but when we stand on our hands, he's actually shooting upwards!
But maybe we're all just juvenile chimps... :lol:
:monkey:
[quote=Hamlet]To [s]be[/s] ape, or not to [s]be[/s] ape, that is the question:[/quote]
So, not a matter of belief as much as a measure of respect. Honoring the gods may not bring hoped for results but pissing them off seems like a bad idea.
Being polite was the first martial art.
There's no challenge, just a thought experiment and a discussion.
Contrary to forum mores, philosophy, the love of wisdom, is the obverse of warfare.
That's the idea. :smile:
Simple! I'm not going to prayer meetings anymore. My ears hurt from all the screaming! :snicker:
You must have strayed into a den of Pentacostals: Where a chorus of HELLLLPs can ascend to tongues of fire.
:fire: :hearts: :fire:
Don't burn the baby.
By the way, when you quote a forum member, if you highlight your selection and use the quote tool (it should appear somewhere on your screen - alternately, it's the cartoon bubble above the text-entry box) the name of the poster you're quoting will appear in red in your post and the poster will receive a notification. If the poster's name appears in black in your post - no notification. :smile:
[quote=Shock the Monkey][i]Cover me
when I run
Cover me
through the fire
Something knocked me
out the trees
Now I'm on my knees ...[/i][/quote]
:monkey: :pray:
Always loved his unique voice.
I'm curious: you call yourself an ekstatic or ecstatic (I forget): I'm curious how you go about it. PM is fine if you'd prefer not to advertise. Silence is always fine vis-a-vis the merely curious.
I have my own pentacostal techniques and (say) hebephreebies but lately prefer the peace of zen. At times un-conated tongues of fire surprise me.
:up:
My year and a half of Zen back in the early '80s really had helped me with my flashbacks :sparkle: later in that decade.
As for me today, Zzz..., this sketch from an old post
Quoting 180 Proof
For me 'philosophizing' (i.e. reflective inquiry/practice (praxis) + dialectics off/on-line) is how I contemplate daily. It's been decades, however, since I gave up praying or meditating. Aside from strictly regulating my sleep cycle, my other reliable ecstasies include 'walking daily' and 'listening to jazz' while e.g. preparing-eating meals (alone @home) & cleaning / rearranging my place.
:clap:
Transcendence, the world demands it, on a daily basis as far as I can tell. 9 times outta 10, [s]we[/s] I fall flat on my face; being selfish (sensu amplo) is hardwired, instinctual, irreresistable, but [s]we[/s] I must try, oui monsieur?
Is the word ecstasy an exaggeration here?
Are you defining ecstasy as ego-suspension?
Play is fun and connective and can induce an ego-eliminative flow state. But I don't think of play as ecstatic.
Sleeping can be ecstasy in the lucid dream state....
Contemplation, philosophical or otherwise, can be wholly engrossing, expansive and rewarding. But still to my ear ecstatic has an exaggerated ring.
Or are you thinking more etymologically?
from ek "out" (see ex-) + histanai "to place, cause to stand," from PIE root *sta- "to stand, make or be firm."
More definition one than definition two?...
noun
1.
an overwhelming feeling of great happiness or joyful excitement.
"there was a look of ecstasy on his face"
2.
an emotional or religious frenzy or trance-like state, originally one involving an experience of mystic self-transcendence.
— 180 Proof
Or are you thinking more etymologically?
from ek "out" (see ex-) + histanai "to place, cause to stand," from PIE root *sta- "to stand, make or be firm."[/quote]
[quote=Ms. Marple]Most interesting![/quote]
In ecstacy we step outside of ourselves!
(Brief) suspension of ego. :up:
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
Yes.
Self-abnegation! :fire:
Did you ever come across the psychiatric "disorder" known as Cotard's delusion? It's defined by what has been termed "nihilistic" delusions. A typical symptom is the patient vehemently denying their own existence: "I don't exist" i.e. "I'm dead."
Anatta (no self) in Buddhism is also a similar sentiment.
Transcendence via self-negation: To leap beyond what I am I must reject what I am.
No. :rofl:
Except when a baby or adult requests help from an unknown source. Nothing supernatural in that equation. The source qua unknown could just as well be natural.
:chin: :snicker: What then?
I would also agree that humanity's relationship to Allah/Yahweh is essentially one of parental nature. Even though other gods may not have followed the same pattern.
1. A request for assistance. When one embarks on some kinda a project, small or big, one realizes that no matter how good the planning, things could go wrong for various reasons. Thus we pray for assistance to the gods to ensure the success of our enterprise.
2. A request for protection. The late Ray Liotta said in an interview that he wasn't really sure if he believed in god(s) but, he went on to say, found himself praying during his trials and tribulations of which he had a fair share.
Thus prayer is an acknowledgement that
1. We aren't fully in control of our destinies (assistance).
2. Our safety and security isn't guaranteed, nor is timely help on the way from our brethren all the time (protection).
Why aren't we at the helm, in the driver's seat completely? Other people and the universe itself aren't necessarily aligned to your goals, are they now? Though protection is somewhat similar in nature to assistance, you can tell the difference betwixt them by looking at the anxiety level. You're not as desperate in one as you are in the other. Interesting, oui? :snicker:
Quoting Bird-Up
Glad you found it interesting.
We're, as you said, animals, primates to be precise, but to continue on as animals, apes, we must be more than animals, apes! Unselfing? We have to be more you see, being ourselves just won't cut it! Is this "affliction" exclusively human or do other animals too require unselfing?
X, please keep her safe for me.
X, please keep me safe for her.
:fire: :heart: :fire:
This ego-bashing has gone too far! Would you rather trust 4.5 billion years of blind evolution (yes ego) or a mere 2.5 million year old brain (no ego)? :snicker:
:snicker: Ego is, to my reckoning, critical to survival. There has to be an exaggerated sense of self-importance in each individual if the species as a whole is to survive - nature errs on the side of caution I suppose.
[quote=Deng Xiaoping]It does not matter if the cat is black or white so long as it catches mice.[/quote]
:snicker:
That said, our brains too are evolutionary organs i.e. we better listen to what it hasta say about anything, including evolution itself. The error report (religion, ethics) the brain has generated is not exactly something to celebrate about. The next phase of life: [math]Is \to Ought[/math] only intelligent beings like us can bring that about.
Snug in one's castle one can unself for a spell.
:up: