morality within evolution

[DrFree]

Juantoo3,

Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately a bit of punctuation got attached to the URL in my previous message. Here's a working URL:

http://www.bio.umass.edu/faculty/biog/margulis.html

Doug Hofstadter emerged in ancient history, i.e., before the web. For a brief bio, see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Hofstadter

Looking forward to an interesting conversation.

DrFree

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, DrFree!

Thanks for the links. The first, regarding cellular biology, left me a little puzzled. I am unsure what bearing this has on moral development.

The second, a bio about Prof. Hofstadter, sounded interesting concerning Artificial Intelligence, but again I am puzzled as to what bearing on the subject at hand. Did I overlook something perhaps?

I am very curious about the "prisoner's dilemma" exercise you mentioned, as to how it plays out and the ramifications for moral development in a cooperative society.

[DrFree]

Juantoo3,

Thanks for continuing the conversation.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

The first, regarding cellular biology, left me a little puzzled. I am unsure what bearing this has on moral development.

This reference was part of a response to a remark by Abogado on November 15, "Morality as a motivating force for human behavior pales in comparison to emotion and self-interest." One of the important points that Lynn Margolis makes is that evolution occurs concurrently a all levels of existence. In particular evolutionary processes occur at the community level. The point I was trying to make is that moral rules are an important factor in the evolution of cultures. Those with poor systems of morality have a level of dissension that disadvantages them in competition with more effective moral systems.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

The second, a bio about Prof. Hofstadter, sounded interesting concerning Artificial Intelligence, but again I am puzzled as to what bearing on the subject at hand. Did I overlook something perhaps?

The only point of this reference was to mention some computer simulations that indicate that immoral behavior, even if it apparently works in the near term, is not a strategy that is selected by evolution.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I am very curious about the "prisoner's dilemma" exercise you mentioned, as to how it plays out and the ramifications for moral development in a cooperative society.

The dilemma is the basis of the specific simulation described by Hofstadter.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, DrFree!

Thank you for the clarification. I suppose what I was attempting to get to is what it is you are referencing. I would be very interested in the source materials, that way I can actually be conversant on the subject. I think you raise some interesting things to consider. I would like to look at them a bit more closely. Thanks.

[MagnetMan]

I spent some time with the San Bushmen of the Kalahari in order to get some grasp of animism. Mitechondrial DNA traces the orgins of all human societies back to them. They are our original Stone Age ancestors. As far as I could gather in the all-too-short time I spent with them, animsism stems directly from natural evolution, Bushmen never invented it intellectaually, it is an innate part of their psyche. Other isolated Stone Groups tend to confirm it's universality. From an early age (after weaning) there is an innate sense among Bushmen children that any serious trespass on Nature will result in painful retaliation. When a disobedient child is admonsihed by nature the whole family gets a chuckle out of the poetic justice that is administered. They live a life in spiritual partnership with Nature. As our species evolution progresses into further stages of maturation, the fact that we invested some 99,000 generations in a Stone Age milieu, with a consequrnt behavioral imprints of family and spiritual values, bodes well for our ability to transcend our present immature attitude towards spitritual influences.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by MagnetMan

I spent some time with the San Bushmen of the Kalahari in order to get some grasp of animism. Mitechondrial DNA traces the orgins of all human societies back to them. They are our original Stone Age ancestors. As far as I could gather in the all-too-short time I spent with them, animsism stems directly from natural evolution, Bushmen never invented it intellectaually, it is an innate part of their psyche. Other isolated Stone Groups tend to confirm it's universality. From an early age (after weaning) there is an innate sense among Bushmen children that any serious trespass on Nature will result in painful retaliation. When a disobedient child is admonsihed by nature the whole family gets a chuckle out of the poetic justice that is administered. They live a life in spiritual partnership with Nature. As our species evolution progresses into further stages of maturation, the fact that we invested some 99,000 generations in a Stone Age milieu, with a consequrnt behavioral imprints of family and spiritual values, bodes well for our ability to transcend our present immature attitude towards spitritual influences.

Haute Couture. Crude thinking. Nature does not rule over man. Man rules over nature. Nature is at the mercy of man, ultimately. Man rules. Nature abides, or else earth dies. That is a sad fact, but a fact non the less.

Think about it. Technically we can stop a Hurricane with one low yield nuclear weapon. Stop it dead in it's tracks.

Technically we can change energy sources, literally tomorrow.

Nature holds nothing on man. We decide which way we are going to go.

That is fact. Politics and greed are a different matter...

my thoughts.

v/r

Q

[MagnetMan]

Haute Couture. Crude thinking. Nature does not rule over man. Man rules over nature. Nature is at the mercy of man, ultimately. Man rules. Nature abides, or else earth dies. That is a sad fact, but a fact non the less.

Think about it. Technically we can stop a Hurricane with one low yield nuclear weapon. Stop it dead in it's tracks.

Technically we can change energy sources, literally tomorrow.

Nature holds nothing on man. We decide which way we are going to go.

That is fact. Politics and greed are a different matter...

my thoughts.

v/r

Q

All very true! Is that not marvelous! And just imagine the magic we will be capable of in future Ages! But let us never forget that we are Nature's supreme creation. We never evolved apart from Her. Both Her and Father Sun smile at our daring and our triumphs

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by MagnetMan

All very true! Is that not marvelous! And just imagine the magic we will be capable of in future Ages! But let us never forget that we are Nature's supreme creation. We never evolved apart from Her. Both Her and Father Sun smile at our daring and our triumphs

I would like to believe that Magnetman. I think however that we must conciously blend with nature, simply because we have shown throughout history that we have never been part of nature. We are the strange ones, that nature could never bring into its fold...

v/r

Q

[MagnetMan]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

I would like to believe that Magnetman. I think however that we must conciously blend with nature, simply because we have shown throughout history that we have never been part of nature. We are the strange ones, that nature could never bring into its fold...

v/r

Q

My dear we are the exceptional ones - we are Nature's central reason for Being - she has worked for 3 billion years to produce our near god-like status. Our evolution is on-going, we are still a work in progress. We are currently in our rebellious teens, fiercely independent, self-determinate, recklessly gambling at Russian roulette with nuclear guns. Giod the Father is both proud and fearful for us - for He loves a daring son. But millions of us have begun to realize that we have been behaving like prodigal sons, gambling with our inheritance, and have returned to our family estate. They are oit there fighting for cleaner air, saving jungles and cleaning up the ocean. All the damage we did to our planet while growing up can be repared. We all have to join together in a co-ordinated effort to get our planet back on track. We have got to believe it is going to happen. Let me quote Psyche-Genetics again: "An egalitarian global society all working together to steward the home planet as a single family estate, is not a Utopian pipe dream, it constitutes the next imperative step in our evolution."

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Magnetman, welcome to CR!

But let us never forget that we are Nature's supreme creation. We never evolved apart from Her. Both Her and Father Sun smile at our daring and our triumphs

At a certain level, very deep, I agree.

Mitechondrial DNA traces the orgins of all human societies back to them.

Ummm, I've been looking into this MtDNA thing a little lately. Not quite sure I agree with your assessment. MtDNA seems to show a "common ancestor," and since one of the major concensus lines is that modern man came from a cradle in Africa, I can see you implying that these wonderful people you spent time with as being the root of all humans now living, but I'm going to have to take a raincheck until that is shown definitively. Afterall, Africa has had its own internal migrations through the millenia. That is to say, the modern Bushmen have no doubt "evolved" during the time in question as have all other "lineages" of humans now living. Even other "stone group" civilizations, what few still remain.

animsism stems directly from natural evolution, Bushmen never invented it intellectaually, it is an innate part of their psyche. Other isolated Stone Groups tend to confirm it's universality.

I will grant that there are similarities among animist groups. I can see a great deal of similarity with Native American beliefs as well as I understand. I presume the Australian Aboriginal peoples, and possibly isolated Polynesian tribes, contain elements in their rituals and belief system that correspond well with what you present as a way of dealing with and interacting with the world around them. I suspect similarities with the Aboriginal peoples of South and Central America as well.

Depending whose research you hold to at a given moment, it is reasonable to predict that Pre-historic humanities all had similarly constructed belief systems, all based on animism. Somewhat rhetorically, where, when and why did G-d enter the "picture" (the consciousness of humans), and what was the result of that entrance? From father sun and mother earth to G-d the Father Creator doesn't particularly make any evolutionary sense to me.

the fact that we invested some 99,000 generations in a Stone Age milieu,

Perhaps I am being a bit, ummm, uptight about this, but the word "fact" to me has a very specific meaning that, in a scholarly discussion, should be strictly adhered to. I am presuming your comment to be metaphorical, or allusary, in which case the correct word to use is not "fact." The "fact" is, we don't know precisely how many generations from the first appearance of what was to become human until now, nor will we likely ever, barring perhaps time travel (which I suspect is impossible going backwards). Like I said, I am being nit picky about the use of the term, but expressing an opinion is perfectly acceptable, particularly when that opinion is supported by fact. Inferred or invented facts are not "facts." Yes, there have been many, very many generations. But at some point very recently something happened. Something wonderful. (thanks Arthur C. Clarke)

I do wish to say thank you for contributing to an old friend. This has always been one of my favorite threads.

I also think you must have had a wonderful experience living with the Bushmen. I find so much to cherish when I am privileged to visit other cultures, even if it is just across town. But culture is always most poignant in its native environment.

-------
Kindest Regards, Q!

Nature does not rule over man. Man rules over nature. Nature is at the mercy of man, ultimately. Man rules. Nature abides, or else earth dies. That is a sad fact, but a fact non the less.

Ha-Adam was made to till the ground, to tend the garden. Ha-Adam represents, actually or symbolically, the first farmer, ushering in the age of agriculture and historic humanity. The pre-Edenic Adam (6th day creation, male and female "created He them," hunter-gatherers) had some type or kind of shamanic / animist belief system.

There are a number of evidences to show S / A belief systems across a great deal of the known world in ancient times. And into this mix suddenly, "out of nowhere," monotheism springs up in the middle east. Along side, in conjuction with the known beginnings of agriculture in the Fertile Crescent, crops up almost as suddenly a multi-god pantheism. Both are but islands in a sea of animism.

Yet those islands, the one in particular, have grown to control half of the world. A sizeable portion of the other half has roots in animism (origins of Taoism as I have read from some of that persuasion), and another sizable portion, Hinduism, having roots I have yet to trace.

Interesting side notes, the cultures of the Southern Hemisphere have the least "divergence" from animism, and no culture from the Southern Hemisphere has any real influence on the world stage.

Those cultures that became influential are those that adopted agriculture and / or animal husbandry: monotheism (Judaism), the multi-god pantheon of Mesopotamia, Taoist Orient and I would presume Hindu India. With the exception of Taoism, animism was largely left behind from whatever benefit was bestowed upon humanity by, or along with, agriculture.

I suppose I have gotten away from your comments. I don't see man as having "rule" over nature. Man has long sought ways to bend nature to his will, that is part and parcel of agriculture, of "tending the garden." But an untended garden will revert to nature. Nature is a closed system. It functions just fine without human intervention. It can be a bit unpleasant to watch sometimes as it goes about its business, but man is not necessary to the operations of nature.

Having said this, humanity has "carved a niche" for itself in nature, a niche begun in agriculture but now encompassing all that we call science and technology. Modern humanity, especially in the developed world, has not lived anything close to nature since the end of WWII. There have always been cities, to be sure, since Mesopotamia. But there used to be a lot more people in the rural areas, living on farms and ranches and such. Nature wisdom is very strong wisdom, the kind that country folk in general seem to have, and city folk loose or never get. Even something like the Old Farmer's Almanac, which was begun in partnership with Benjamin Franklin, demonstrates nature wisdom and the need for it in an agrarian society. How much more so it seems needed to an animist society, who lives in nature sans technology.

Besides, were it not for technology, those of us in developed societies would be lost, without a compass. We would be lost without nature wisdom.

I suppose on reflection that the agrarian age began humanity thinking about how to subdue nature in order to survive. Animist societies attempt to conform to nature in order to survive. I always saw "dominion" as granted to Ha-Adam not as subduing, but more like conforming. Pruning the dead branches and clearing the underbrush, so to speak. I realize that is not typical Christian teaching, wherein the seldom spoken interpretation of "dominion" is dominance, of bending nature's will to our own.

Nature holds nothing on man. We decide which way we are going to go.

That is fact. Politics and greed are a different matter...

I agree that humanity can choose which way they will go. They did it at Babel. Why should it be different now? As I recall, G-d's reason for the destruction of the tower and confusion of the tongues was that humanity was getting too close for their own good, that "nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do." Technology has always been a puzzle to me, morally speaking, in that technology is a two-edged sword. One that is all too often wielded by unskilled hands. Technology also requires destruction of nature and the "perfect" closed system. Nature too has destruction, or destructive elements, but is balanced with re-creation. Not so with technology, bent by the will of humanity. Nature does what it can to clean up after the messes caused by technology, but some messes just don't clean up very well.

Yes, politics and greed are a different matter, but they too have a place in this picture, of humanity bending nature to its will.

I think however that we must conciously blend with nature,

I think animist societies do consciously (and unconsciously) blend with nature. Since Western cultures do seem to have a "dominion" attitude towards nature, the conscious part is largely lost. The unconscious part is still there, but out of focus for lack of use. I think this is where some of the more modern pagan traditions get a bit off-track, in that they claim antiquity (Gerold Gardner notwithstanding) and by extension animist nature wisdom as source, but the approach is dominion in the Western sense. Bending nature to human will.

For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction. Some Native American prophecies I have read speak to this concept applied to nature itself. That nature will only accept so much bending before it breaks, and will retaliate in self-defense before it reaches that point. The pendulum swing. The ebb and flow, the cycles of the moon, the rise and fall of the tide, the coming of the seasons.

Why would man stop a hurricane, let alone with an atom bomb. Besides the complications of the fallout, that hurricane serves a natural purpose. It vents heat from the oceans. Stop the venting, and the energy will be released in some other manner. Whether the oceans cook all of the fish, or something great and seismic parts continents further, or the lower atmosphere grows so humid it serves as a lid on a kettle, or any of a host of things I cannot fathom will occur. Nature will relieve itself, just as a human body needs to relieve itself. Whether inspiration, perspiration, blood letting, urination, defecation, nature has analogues that correspond and will be done, regardless of the will of humanity. Indeed, if these things could be circumvented, then it could honestly be said that nature is dead. And when nature is finally dead, it is a pretty safe bet that humanity will be dead right along with, at least those in proximity to that nature. Kill the natural system of the earth, and everything on the earth dies, eventually. I think much more sooner than later.

simply because we have shown throughout history that we have never been part of nature. We are the strange ones, that nature could never bring into its fold...

I see this a bit differently. We are the strange ones because we have grown, mostly, out of nature. We are not in nature's fold only in our minds, our will. We are, constantly, in nature. But we are no longer animal. We have outgrown our animal existance, but we are still subject to it. We have outgrown our animal nature because of G-d, for lack of a better way to put it. G-d separated us from our animal mind, yet left us the reminder of it. G-d gave us the means to overcome our animal self in conjunction with agriculture, yet in order to be agrarian we required and maintained our nature wisdom. At least until recently. The more we went to cities and subsisted on technology, the more we forgot our nature wisdom.

"Stone group" peoples never really left nature wisdom.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Magnetman!

Originally Posted by MagnetMan

My dear we are the exceptional ones - we are Nature's central reason for Being - she has worked for 3 billion years to produce our near god-like status.

You are free to believe as you will, I do not personally see myself as anything "god-like." I am not sure I appreciate the condescending attitude with "my dear..." Perhaps I am misreading, but it is appreciated when speaking here to treat others as equals, not misguided little children. Thanks.

Our evolution is on-going, we are still a work in progress.

Evolution = work in progress.

Giod the Father is both proud and fearful for us - for He loves a daring son.

G-d loves all of us, He seeks that love to be returned to Him. The circle and cycle of love. Since I cannot speak for G-d, I do not know that He is proud, or fearful, for us. I have a hope based in His love, but that hope has no connection to daring.

But millions of us have begun to realize that we have been behaving like prodigal sons,

And billions more haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Let me quote Psyche-Genetics again: "An egalitarian global society all working together to steward the home planet as a single family estate, is not a Utopian pipe dream, it constitutes the next imperative step in our evolution."

Didn't see that quote the first time around. This reads to me like an advert for Greenpeace or some such non-sense. Militant environmentalism is still dangerously flawed in its thinking. I mentioned technology being a two-edged sword. One good side is that more mouths can be fed better food for the same amount of effort. This is where I see applied Taoism in the rice fields of the Orient as being a very nice example of applied nature wisdom. By being connected with nature wisdom, and using nature to their advantage (rather than outright dominance and bending by will), for centuries they have been able to produce bumper crops. Militant environmentalism has a mindset of "fight fire with fire," a scortched earth policy still leaves a scortched earth. G-d did create humanity, all of humanity, with all of its flaws and its blessings. Being given the gift of technological ability is a blessing, but humanity must be prudent in wielding technology. Groups like Greenpeace would rather humanity return to the cave, at all cost, sooner than later, bedamned the consequences. And no mistake, that is the end result if they have their way, whether or not they admit or even see.

For all of the problems created by technology, I find I prefer the life technology has given us, when compared with living in a cave. Increased lifespan, better medicine, the free time and ability to hold a discussion such as this one, time to think and reason and dream, all things lacking or in very short supply living in a cave.

[MagnetMan]

Originally posted by juantoo3
Kindest Regards, Magnetman, welcome to CR!

Depending whose research you hold to at a given moment, it is reasonable to predict that Pre-historic humanities all had similarly constructed belief systems, all based on animism. Somewhat rhetorically, where, when and why did G-d enter the "picture" (the consciousness of humans), and what was the result of that entrance? From father sun and mother earth to G-d the Father Creator doesn't particularly make any evolutionary sense to me.

God is simply a noun. He has many names in different cultures. The salient point as that all cultures, without exception, came up with a supreme Being. He was never in the picture during the Stone Age. Ma - the Great Mother ruled the Universe then. The reason then was basic, Stone Age cultures are matriarchal - the young males migrate, the females remain on the home territory. The male God came into the picture during the Bronze Age, when defense against lion predation, and later during clan vendettas, males became the object of veneration and females migrated. Finally, Father Sun and Mother Earth makes perfect evolutionary sense. We, together with our Earth are all manifestations of stellar energy. And Earth birthed us.

The "fact" is, we don't know precisely how many generations from the first appearance of what was to become human until now, nor will we likely ever, barring perhaps time travel (which I suspect is impossible going backwards). Like I said, I am being nit picky

Your criticism about the above "fact" is valid. I extrapolated that fact myself. I put a lot of thought into it. We know that the earliest hominids emerged some 6 million years ago - but at what point did our expanding cortex reach a point when enough neurons connected to make us have our first awesome experience of self-awareness? I was writing a book on human evolution and I needed a start-up date. Judging from the increasing sophistication of Stone Age implements, I figured 2.5 million years could we be close enough. I then allocated an average of 25 years per generation. 100,000 generations fitted in nicely. As you say, we will never know exactly when 'ape'man became 'hu'man and I stand corrected before all nit pickers.

Hwaheri Bwana

You are free to believe as you will, I do not personally see myself as anything "god-like." I am not sure I appreciate the condescending attitude with "my dear..." Perhaps I am misreading, but it is appreciated when speaking here to treat others as equals, not misguided little children. Thanks

If we have the power to destroy all of nature we are indeed God-like. I meant it in the reverse however. We took a wild blossom and re- presented it on the altar of God as a perfected rose. Perhaps demi-gods would be more accurate. Of course you may choose to see yourself as you wish. As to “My Dear” I was brought up to believe it meant nothing less than a term of endearment. It’s the word we put on all our letters, even business ones – If it were condescending, business would never get done Besides, I believe I was addressing someone else when I posted it.

Since I cannot speak for G-d, I do not know that He is proud, or fearful, for us. I have a hope based in His love, but that hope has no connection to daring.

You are trespassing again here. Sarcasm is unnecessary. Three strikes and you are out. We are free to see and describe God as we wish and I can speak for Him if I so wish as I am his son as are we all..

And billions more haven't a clue what you are talking about

Quite right. But those of us who do have a lot of work to do to try and convince them.

Didn't see that quote the first time around. This reads to me like an advert for Greenpeace or some such non-sense.

Sarcasm again. I stopped reading from here. I will accept an apology – or you’re out. Pity, your politeness in greeting and signing off was refreshing.

[juantoo3]

Kind Regards, Magnetman.

I am sorry you feel the way you do. No sarcasm, now or before. My previous words were carefully chosen, over four hours worth.

You are trespassing again here. Sarcasm is unnecessary.

How can I be trespassing in my own thread? Pardon me sir / madam, I have only "trespassed" in order to engage you in conversation.

Three strikes and you are out.

That sword cuts both ways. I did not engage you to be hostile against you. Neither will I back down if you bring hostility to me.

We are free to see and describe God as we wish and I can speak for Him *(G-d) if I so wish as I am his son as are we all..

As you wish...in my understanding the part I bolded is a gross blasphemy.

Besides, I don't even know you...why should I allow you to speak for G-d to me? Or believe you? Or even care?

...those of us who do have a lot of work to do to try and convince them.

Ah, now...you wouldn't be out to try to convert us poor, misguided unbelievers now, would you? You do realize that would be totally against the operating parameters of this forum, don't you?

I will accept an apology – or you’re out. Pity, your politeness in greeting and signing off was refreshing.

I do feel sorry that you feel the way you do. It is sad, but I cannot help but feel that such an attitude would cloud the observation of a culture such as the Bushmen. It would make things very difficult to be impartial and disconnected, as would be required for scholarly observation.

As for apologizing for politely and respectfully disagreeing with you...don't hold your breath. It will be a very, very long time in coming.

Now, we can either continue in a good-natured spirit, or end this conversation, or degrade into a cesspool of calling each other's ancestry by several kinds of animal names. The choice is yours. Personally, I think the last option is a waste of time. The middle option is regrettable but not impolite. The first option would be best in my opinion. That choice is now up to you.

[juantoo3]

He (*G-d) has many names in different cultures.The salient point as that all cultures, without exception, came up with a supreme Being.

Agreed, although I am inclined to think the "supreme Being" concept was expressed in a number of ways, sometimes contradictory. For example, in seeing "G-d" in various aspects of nature, it could easily be interpreted by an outsider that each aspect of nature was a specific god. The storm god, the wind god, the sun god, etc, could just as easily have been different aspects of the same god. In that sense I can agree with the idea of a "supreme Being" belonging to all prehistoric cultures.

He was never in the picture during the Stone Age. Ma - the Great Mother ruled the Universe then.

Ummm, I am going to have to disagree. When looking into the cave paintings a few years back, probably the most startling find I came across was a cave in Italy, at the time (late 1990's) dated as the oldest cave paintings known. Something like 25k years BP. Inside was found a complete mask of the "horned one." It was extrapolated that this mask was likely worn by the male shaman of the hunt. The horn is always intrinsicly associated with the masculine gender. So...

The reason then was basic, Stone Age cultures are matriarchal - the young males migrate, the females remain on the home territory.

This is not a valid automatic assumption.

The male God came into the picture during the Bronze Age, when defense against lion predation, and later during clan vendettas, males became the object of veneration and females migrated.

Was there not predation, by lions and others, long before the Bronze Age? Even "clan vendettas" surely existed long before this time? (That is, afterall, the root behind the traditional explanation of the disappearance of Neandertal.)

I am thinking that even in pre-historic times, "male"-ness was not a bad thing. Men were typically hunters, women typically were nurturers. As we know from anthropology, these things are not cast in stone, it is certainly possible that under certain conditions (such as losing a "spouse") both the man and the woman can play either role. Women can provide if the need requires, and men can nurture (short of direct suckling) if the need requires.

If men became, as you say, "the object of veneration," I would suppose that to be more the direct result of the art of war as it developed in Mesopotamia. Males were soldiers, soldiers were war heroes, war heroes were venerated.

Even in looking to other animist cultures, I am not certain I see patriachy or matriarchy in the sense we describe today. In Native American cultures the male / man has his powers and stature, just as the female / woman has her powers and stature. Equal? Perhaps not, but decidedly distinct. Where the one treads, the other is not typically welcome, unless under unusual circumstances.

Finally, Father Sun and Mother Earth makes perfect evolutionary sense. We, together with our Earth are all manifestations of stellar energy. And Earth birthed us.

Like the old song, "we are stardust, we are golden, we are billion year old carbon..." I will grant animist cultures understand this on a very deep level, whereas it has taken western society several thousand years of science and technology to finally get around to confirming it. I still suspect that "father" and "mother" in this context are ambiguous, even to some degree interchangeable. We use these terms today out of historical respect. I sense that animist cultures, at least Native American ones, do not on their deepest levels relate the distinction of gender. Gender in this sense, applied to divinity, is tradition for the sake of understanding by those beginning to learn, the initiates. Those who understand, know that G-d is both genders, yet neither gender. In other words, gender is mostly unimportant at the deepest levels when considering divinity.

[Quahom1]

True colors shining through...

Truth is we don't know squat.

Q