OK. So basically the Iranian branch is much more aggressive than the pontic branch of IE. We’re different races. Sorry. But man were the Iranains successful with all that aggression.
Statists and Priests love to teach the history of governments to give them legitimacy. But just as mathematics ought to be taught as a sequence of historical problems humans had to overcome, and we would understand it very easily, if we taught human history as the evolution of how our tribes evolved and expanded (now that we can teach it) we would find a very different world that was much easier to understand. And we would be a lot more concerned with peoples than corporate governments.
Human history is not a very long period to cover. It’s a few thousand years. if you study land masses at geologic time, it’s easy to understand. If you study the solar system at galactic time, it’s easy to understand. If you study man at tribal time, it’s easy to understand. If you study technologies at technological time, it’s easy to understand. But if you teach these things all as a cacophony of unrelated events without a surrounding narrative it’s confusing as hell.
Our myths make history seem long, mystical and confusing. But history of man’s evolution once we develop domestication is pretty simple. Before that it’s actually trivial, because it’s such a slow process.
What humanists won’t like is that each wave of increasingly aggressive human wiped out the previous wave of less aggressive people.
[S]o whomever brought it up, it looks like humans favor a similar evolution of symbols and then incrementally evolve into pictorial or phonetic. I suspect that like most things, the mark-making process like the language speaking process evolves out of efficiency – laziness. lol
So just as humans speak language humans can speak, humans draw characters humans can draw. Just as language evolves from harsh clear sounds to lazy songs (chinese), writing evolves from infrequent symbols, to that which we can write quickly.
Chinese Jiahu symbols c. 6600 BC
European Vinča Symbols c5300 BC
European Dispillo Symbols c5000 BC
Egyptian Hieroglyphic c. 3500 BCE – 400 CE
Ur’s Proto-Cuneiform c3500
Sumerian Cuneiform c. 3200 BC
Heiratic (egyptian) c. 2900
Cretan Hieroglyphic c. 2100 – 1700 BC
Linear A c. 2500 – 1450 BC
Linear B c. 1450 – 1200 BC
Phoenician c. 1200–150 BC
China c. 1200 BC.
Mesoamerica c. 600 BC
Germanic c. 500 AD??
Slavonic c. 900 AD??
[S]o whomever brought it up, it looks like humans favor a similar evolution of symbols and then incrementally evolve into pictorial or phonetic. I suspect that like most things, the mark-making process like the language speaking process evolves out of efficiency – laziness. lol
So just as humans speak language humans can speak, humans draw characters humans can draw. Just as language evolves from harsh clear sounds to lazy songs (chinese), writing evolves from infrequent symbols, to that which we can write quickly.
Chinese Jiahu symbols c. 6600 BC
European Vinča Symbols c5300 BC
European Dispillo Symbols c5000 BC
Egyptian Hieroglyphic c. 3500 BCE – 400 CE
Ur’s Proto-Cuneiform c3500
Sumerian Cuneiform c. 3200 BC
Heiratic (egyptian) c. 2900
Cretan Hieroglyphic c. 2100 – 1700 BC
Linear A c. 2500 – 1450 BC
Linear B c. 1450 – 1200 BC
Phoenician c. 1200–150 BC
China c. 1200 BC.
Mesoamerica c. 600 BC
Germanic c. 500 AD??
Slavonic c. 900 AD??
[I] think I have lost a bunch of you.
It seems we get truth.
It seems we get the high trust society.
It seems we get the western model of truth and trust produce economic velocity.
It seems we get the reproductive division of perception and cognition.
It seems we get that the anglo saxon and classical liberal model could not tolerate the enfranchisement of women and the loss of the church as a separate house of government.
It seems we get the century of mysticism, pseudoscience and propaganda caused by the Jewish century – now at an end.
But now that I venture into history in search of motivation to restore or sense of kin selection, it seems like everyone wants a single axis of causation: genetic, cultural, institutional, territorial.
But it’s all of them. Not one.