LANGUAGE OF THE GODS
Posted by anthonynorth on February 3, 2008
One of the most enigmatic places on Earth is Easter Island. Situated in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, 1,400 miles from its nearest neighbour, it produced a now extinct civilisation which should not have been able to socially evolve, who built mysterious stone statues that stared out to sea.
Why their hundreds of statues were built, no one knows. But so fascinating are they that most people fail to realise that this is not the greatest mystery of the island.
ANCIENT SCRIPTS
Rather, the Easter Islanders seemed to have the most peculiar writing. Known as Rongo Rongo, it has been found on numerous wooden carvings; and despite decades of research by our cleverest cryptologists, no one has yet decyphered what the writing means.
Many thousands of miles away, on the banks of the lower Indus River in Pakistan, stand the ruins of the city of Mohenjo Daro. Built during the enigmatic Harappan civilisation, the entire culture seems to have died out in the early 2nd millennium BC. Hence, little is known of the people, or how they lived.
One thing the people of the city did leave behind was an enigmatic script that, to this day, no one has been able to decypher. Many of the characters are of strange dancing men holding various objects in different positions in their hands.
Looking at the script, you get the sense of the genesis of Hindu gods; their vibrancy as they dance, holding various objects in their many hands. But there is someting even more interesting about this script.
SCRIPTS FROM THE GODS
If you compare many of the characters to Rongo Rongo, they are very similar. Indeed, this similarity is so obvious, yet so totally impossible, that few academics dare to admit the similarity.
Pseudoscholars by the dozen would look at this similarity, note the thousands of miles that separate these totally isolated ancient communities, not to mention the time difference, and decide it is evidence of contact through a lost civilisation such as Atlantis.
I do no such thing. Rather, I ask the question: do these ancient scripts – the only ones left to us from a very ancient time – offer the possibility of a joining of the human psyche at
a species level, the two scripts being evidence of an early psychic togetherness? …
This essay has now moved to Anthony North’s new website. Read more of it here, including his own theories and more data including Glossolalia, Individuality, Mythology and the Jungian Archetype.
(c) Anthony North, February 2008
BEYOND THE BLOG 
Mr Butterscotch said
Whilst I’m not a scientist (nor a pseudo-scientist), I’ve long been an advocate of the idea that we’re all far more similar than we like to believe, whether that’s on an emotional driver or indeed a need level. The society in which we live is merely a construct after all reflecting various dominant belief systems. In truth, the language of the gods is none other than the genetic characteristics that construct the human psyche at the very deepest level and this is highlighted by the way in which many semiotics (signs and symbols) in societies across the world are the same.
anthonynorth said
Hi Mr Butterscotch,
Yes, I can agree with that, except for one small matter. I think it is too early to tell whether this likeness is genetic or not.
It would be easy to say yes, but the behavioural gene appears to be still very much theoretical.
totaltransformation said
I would be willing to wager it is a result of a common creation and heritage (i.e. Tower of Babel). Wait, I have already wagered something on it- my soul. If said soul actually exists. HA! 😉
anthonynorth said
Hi TT,
Its been a long time since you visited.
Ah, metaphor, metaphor. Before, we were together. Afterwards, Babel mixed up the lingo as there were more and more incursions into Mesopotamia.
Very true. But the power of metaphor lives on. After all, can you understand the CinC of the latest incursion? 🙂
totaltransformation said
It has been a while indeed. I rely too much on the “my comments” section of the WordPress Dashboard and only tend to revisit sites that pop up on there. So I end up popping my head back in here when someone comments on one of your past threads. However, today I wandered in based on a Dashboard link.
thedesktop said
Maybe since all human brains are configured in the same way, we are destined to come up with similar ideas. If you take a look at most religion’s creation stories, you’ll see that they are fundamentally similar. If you examine early Chinese, Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Mesoamerican scripts, you will see that their successors were based off of silimar characters. Hmm.
anthonynorth said
Hi DT,
Yes, you could well be right – it could be brain configuration. Certainly, Jungian archetypes feature in all myths I’ve looked at. But if so, where does that leave individuality?
This is the point I make at the end. Individuality is maybe not all it’s said to be. We are arguably influenced more by species and other ‘outer’ impulses than our own.
After all, if all brains are configured the same way, then that’s a ‘species’ thing, and not of the individual.
anthonynorth said
Hi TT,
This is a problem I find with the internet. So much to look at, so much to do. So many outer influences we are flooded by.
Winslie Gomez said
Anthony
Great read! Loved the Myth and Instinct para’s.
Here is a link to another discussion on instinct. Hope you have no objection!
http://urbansemiotic.com/2008/01/30/in-gut-we-trust/
“we are One” in your conclusion is something the world needs to pursue, especially when we witness the fighting within small communities, where minor differences are exaggerated.
Thanks
anthonynorth said
Hi Winslie,
Thanks for the link. Yours words are very true. I understand it like this.
I have a concept called the Under-Religion and OverMind. In the above, the ‘connection’ we have is under-religion, but the way the archetypes reflect a specific local culture is over mind, leading people to think the myth and religion that follows is based totally within their own system.
Realisation that it is, infact, related to all such systems may be the way out of our conflicts. However, I won’t hold my breath.
Comananu said
John Dee, the astrologer to Queen Elizabeth I, thought the language of the gods was what has become known in occult circles as Enochian, or the Angelic Language.
But perhaps there are no gods and we are all simply caught up in One big ball of consciousness, experiencing facets of it in lifetimes. And so, as you say, we are all joined as One in consciousness.
I prefer this line of thought to that which as been proposed by Douglas Adams: that we are all – each one of us here on Earth – but One part of a machine that is calculating the meaning of the answer to the Ultimate Question: the question of life, the universe and everything. The answer, of course, is forty two. The problem I have with this theory – and why your theory wins hands down – is that I simply don’t fancy the idea of being blown up by vogons.
anthonynorth said
Hi Comananu,
Yes, I prefer your middle paragraph – One in consciousness, as I hint. Although I’m quite happy for it to be shook up now and again by a genius such as Adams 🙂
ropata said
Hi Anthony, this was very good. I have been around Pentecostal churches for around 20 years now and have encountered some interesting spiritual dynamics. I’d say we are surely individuals, but people can form ‘soul ties’ which form a bridge between individual souls. Also each person likes to think they are unique, and they are, but they are also formed from their ancestry, both spiritual, cultural and physical. Your identity is a collage of your mother, father, and their parents, and their parents, and so on.
I have found some other “weird people” 😉 online, that support your notions…
Jonathan Zap
Gagdad Bob
I have been privileged to experience many occasions of the love and father heart of Yahweh, he has affirmed many times, the scriptural promise in Isaiah 61.
regards, etc.
Harks said
Interesting read Anthony, I have a belief that it all comes down to frequencies. Thedesktop mentioned brain configuration, well our brain runs at a certain frequency 8 hertz I believe. Our brains could be like a radio transceiver we transmit and receive thoughts from other people around the world, Telepathy so to speak. It could account why there are so many similarities between cultures around the world at the same time, without having contact with one another. All we have to do is tune in, but I believe we can only do it on a sub-conscious level though.
Gerry Forde said
Hi! I believe that Jung said as with the body, so with the psyche and it was his belief that the two are not really seperate entities. Therefore if we look to a genetic understanding of archetype as per its expression in the body, we see millions of people all (practically) with arms, legs, bodies and faces – yet no two are exactly alike. Similarly, the archetype for say Mother maybe the same at the time we inherit it as babes but its expression in our lives will be individual. Pull the focus on everyone’s story back far enough and we can see the same patterns (e.g. hero myth) but go in for a close-up and the differences in feeling and thought patterns are there. (The differene between psycholgy and literature) As with the cognition process, there are two parts, the object and the subject experiencing the object. The object (archetype) may be the same but the subject experiencing it will be different. So, we’re not doomed to be carbon copies, individuation is still an individual experience and despite all the head nodding at the idea of karma, there will be plenty of conflict in the world in the forseeable future. Warmest Wishes!
Jo Burke said
Bravo, Mr. North! Well organized and literate presentation of the Collective Unconsious, Archetypes and myth.I am most familiar with calling the Sage archetype the Light Bringer. Best wishes to you.
anthonynorth said
Good morning Ropata,
Interesting links. Many thanks for your comment.
Hi Harks,
Thanks for the comment.
There’s been a lot of searches for any ‘signal’ being transmitted, but none have been found. If this does occur, then it is an as yet undiscovered energy – which, of course, cannot be ruled out.
Whatever causes it, though, does work at the unconscious level, which itself has a habit of working on the conscious.
Hi Gerry,
You’re absolutely right, but the point is, today we think there is JUST the individual. Yes, clearly we are on the surface, but I think an understanding of an underlying sameness, etc, could be good for knowledge, and even for getting along with each other.
Basically, our knowledge structures need a little tweak.
Hi Jo,
Many thanks for that. Your comment is much appreciated.
Selma said
I believe we are many, but we are one. To me, it’s the only thing that makes sense. Excellent post!
anthonynorth said
Hi Selma,
This is very true. I look at our intellectuals today, and the society they’ve sculpted, and I think, we’re only living in a half-world.
Most people miss out on so much.
Sue Hickey said
Hello Anthony and friends,
Just one note about “speaking in tongues” during the event we know as Pentecost – what happened wasn’t that the apostles started to speak a strange language – glossolalia – but that when they spoke in Aramaic or whatever, the others present, no matter what their language, understood them. In that Bible passage, the others present said, “how is that I understand them in my language, but they are foreigners who do not speak my language?” That is the gift of speaking in tongues, not glossolalia.
Hope this helps! Cheers, Sue
anthonynorth said
Hi Sue,
Technically, you’re right, but in most respects it is well accepted that glossolalia and ‘speaking in tongues’ are one. As I recall, the account also spoke of a seeming drunkenness.
Even the Oxford Dictionary to the Bible allies glossolalia with the account in Acts. It also agrees with the argument that known recordings of glossalalia are incomprehensible, without apparent grammar or structure.
red pill junkie said
But a nagging question remains:
If we are not as “individual” as we like to think, if we are constantly “shaped” by outside forces that are beyond our control, are we then accountable for our actions… for our sins?
A great food for thought as always Anthony!
anthonynorth said
Hi Red,
An absolute, total, unambiguous YES.
To me an ‘individual’ is an amalgam of outside influences. I’ll be exploring this in later essays, but not only archetypes, but emotions themselves seem to be species traits.
The amalgam that is the ‘self’ nonetheless has the choice of positive or negative, good or bad, influences. We can be the trickster or the hero, accept a higher urge towards joy than sorrow.
Regardless of the outside influences, it remains the amalgam that is the idea of the ‘individual’ that chooses. Those choices remain down to the person.
There’s no moral escape clause in this.
red pill junkie said
I agree with you.
Seems to me that part of the reason we are here, is because we are SUPPOSED to make those choices, that in the end will shape us MORE than all the outside inffluences combined.
That’s the essence of the Hero’s journey, I guess. Choice is at the core of transformation.
anthonynorth said
Hi Red,
Absolutely. Existentialism may hold problems within itself, but when placed within an overall view, choices rule, OK! 🙂
Wobbly Anomaly said
Read somewhere about all the letters of the Hebrew alphabet being made up from the 2dimensional silhouette of a 3d Fibonacci spiral as made by finger/hand/arm movements. Cant remember where but there was also some reference to an Arabic dance that produced all the letters of ‘a language’ by holding a glass of water in one hand and passing it underneath the arm without spilling. Vocal chords also follow the same growth patterns of the Fibonacci sequence so maybe there is some worldwide visual and vocal language that should be familiar to all (life) humans.
anthonynorth said
Hi Wobbly Anomaly,
An interesting thought, although I’m not aware of this idea. Does anyone know of any links? I’d be interested to see them.
museditions said
Tony, while others have commented on the information you’ve shared—which is phenomenal—I want to also compliment you on the writing itself. You draw us into the narrative with your dash(es) of mystery, suspense, and yes, even a bit of romance (“Romancing the Myths” perhaps). 🙂
I have as usual learned a lot today. The commonality of scripts is fascinating, as is the further elaboration by your commenters. I am reminded of the work of BruceLipton.com , who postulates that our cells contain antennae which constantly download information. In fact he says we “are” information, in that what differentiates us one from another is that and not our bodies.
I’m also reminded of a theory which proclaims we are fragments of the whole, cast off, as it were, into the universe to find our own way. We are therefore not individuals, but “pieces” of the one reality, yet we have unique experiences bouncing around out here which enable us to recognize each other as individuals.
Mmmm, yummy post—better than dessert!
anthonynorth said
Hi Muse,
Many thanks for your kind comments about my writing. Much appreciated.
The ‘antenna’ idea isn’t far removed from the idea of microtubules. A cell has a cytoskeleton made of the protein tubulin. It is extremely small and seems to resonate. It has been argued that its size and character is such that it can touch the subatomic, and act as a kind of on/off switch, processing ‘universal’ information – and, of course, allowing it into our consciousness.
Wobbly Anomaly said
Hebrew letters from Fibbonacci spirals/growth ration
– http://www.meru.org/
Theres also some ideas on here that the book of genesis actually describes the growth of a 3D spiral, from the middle outwards, and (in a similar way to the Vedic passages from India or at least this is my understanding)is turned into a story by the addition of vowels.
Couldnt find the Arabic dance but i’ll post links if i come across it again. I’m sure it must be reasonably well known.
I can certainly see there being an underlying natural mathematical ‘truth’ and similarity in communication when our means of communication rely on the natural (Phi in many cases) growth ratios of nature. There must be many natural, archetypal sounds and shapes that life makes due to our physical makeup.
Also, sorry about the vagueness, ive heard that Mozarts Magic Flute used many Phi ratios. Music itself uses ratios to produce harmonies and is another deep form of communication.
Peace love n magic
anthonynorth said
Hi Wobbly Anomaly,
Many thanks for the link. I’ve taken a quick look, but will have to give it some time, later.
Although I won’t elaborate here – there’ll be a post some time in the future – I’m becoming increasingly convinced that the answer to the possibility of universal consciousness could lie in mathematics. As a hint, the ‘law of large numbers’ indicates greater ‘order’ the larger the number of things involved, including events (coincidence?).
Pythagoras is first known to have devised math in order to deduce harmony in the world, expressed through music. As for ‘words’, in the Cabbala, they are creative, bringing everything into existence. Word Magic is thought to have come from such ideas.
Similarly, the idea of a 3D spiral immediately makes me think of the mandala, as an expression of the route to higher consciousness. However, whatever the answer to these mysteries, I certainly think we are One.
Jerry Heath said
Emergence and Synchronicity
In emergence the possible paths of activity (mechanisms avaialable) are limited, which is part of the development of totally new properties and rules that appear as the system evolves. “Constitutive characteristics are not explainable from the characteristics of the isolated parts. The characteristics of the complex [system], therefore, appear as ‘new’ or ’emergent’…” – Ludwig von Bertalanffy.
In synchronicity we have the same type of situation, but the possible paths of activity are not quite as limited so the outcome is unique but singular. The whole system does not render some new properties and rules but some part of the system shows behavior similar to the overall changes in emergence. This points to the probabilistic origin of both synchronicity and emergence. But in both cases, because of the limits on possible paths, the outcome is meaningful even though it can be shown to not be from a functional process (Jung’s definition of sychronicity requires that there is no functional relationship).
Functional is interpreted as association with the rule that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. In emergence, as with any probabilistic process there is no such thing as an equal and opposite reaction. It is often apparent that such a process is recognizable as some kind of information being expressed as distinct from a functional process where the outcome is determined so no information is gained or lost.
The underlying process (of emergence or synchronicity) is not functional and thus is lost to symbolic interpretation as symbols are a quite directly tied to functional interpretation. The symbolizing processes (logical and rational thought) is in effect functional and implies functional relationships. This makes understanding a process that is not functional, as we define emergence and synchronicity, difficult to express fully from a language standpoint, as we use language, since our modern language is particularly functional.
In Zen enlightenment the understanding of the universe lies in understanding that the void behind that universe is real and eternal. Recognizing the void reveals that existence cannot be purely temporal. Now the recognition of the void is related to the recognition of the existence of the not-symbolic (postulating a not-whatever is a common koan methodology for Zen enlightenment), which reveals the context of a meaning (the not-symbolic being the context for the symbolic) as more important, more universal, and more perminent than the defined meaning (which is sybolic rather than not-symbolic and often very reflexive in nature). The not-symbolic makes up the real universe (the context); the symbols only define the objective and subjective universes that we talk about.
Then archetypes are thought holes (or channels of meaning) where we can place ideas, but these archetypes can only be pointed at symbolically. Although we must discuss archetypes by using symbols so they fit into language (the shadow, the child), the archetypes are themselves not a symbol but a not-symbol that can hold some symbol which gives us meaning (through the symbol). Synchronicity then is recognized and understood when these not-symbols line up behind the occurence which has no “scientific” or symbolic explanation. Thus archetypes, which are the not-symbolic, clarify synchronicity by being the background for it. The archetypes are the shadow of the symbol.
The Archetype, expressed as something singular perhaps more general and universal, is the negative region to logical and rational thought. It gives the logical and rational meaning by holding the symbols in some configuration. But the configuration of the Archetype is like the (photographic) negative of the logical and rational process. So it fills the empty space of logical and rational thought. It also fulfills the meaning of such thought as such thought is merely symbols that have either no meaning in themselves or that may have some meaning but not exactly the meaning that is referenced in the logical and rational thought. Then archetypes are a way of logially distinguishing parts of the Archetype or archetypal reagion of thought.
But this archetypal region of thought is tied to the world that our physical senses encounter. Thus we only understand the world from our senses as it is carried to our rational thought through the archetypal region. The Archetype, and when distinctified, the archetypes, mediate our understanding of the physical universe.
The scientific universe is tied entirely to symbols and rests on symbols and their relationships. The emergent and synchronistic universe is tied to the not-symbolic. These considerations limit the usefullnes of an analysis of an emergent or synchronistic process if the analysis is entirely on the symbolic level. Understanding synchronicity and emergence requires recognizing the importance of the not-symbolic. Symbolism cannot fully logically carry us through an emergence as the process of emergence is not functional and thus not ammenable to functional, symbolic, logic.
To the Zen enlightened the true meaning can only be arrived at through the void. The void underlies true meaning. The context of this discussion is, more general, in that we seek to develop that the not-symbolic underlies true meaning. This is a more general understanding of enlightenment and emergent meaning. The not-symbolic provides the soil in which meaning can grow…in our thoughts. The symbols are nothing and mean nothing without the not-symbolic. Archetypes are the form of the not-symbolic.
The edge of language is meta-language but it is more distinctly the world of not-symbol. We recognize the meaning of the symbol or group of symbols from the world of not-symbol that surrounds the expression. The symbols in an expression fit into holes or channels of meaning that define what the symbols are in the expression and thus what the expression means. Without the holes or channels from the archetypal world of the not-symbol the letters on the page would be meaningless nonsense.
Jerry Heath
Jerry Heath said
Meaning and the Archetypes
I see Jung, and many others that had unique new messages at that time, as trying to say things carefully so they did not get blackballed by a very narrow minded scientific group. So he said many things cryptically so he could get accross some idea of what he was saying. I think he got blackballed anyway.
My studies have been in communication and culture. In those studies, structuralism indicates that meaning is in the foreground. There are these neat triangles of the sign, the signified, and the signifier. Each can be tied to other triangles that build the meaning reflexively in monster piles of triangles. But Mead points to a relationship between all that “has” been said and all that can “be” said which has the same reflexivity but here it is the behind the scenes linkage that defines who we are and what we mean. Wittgenstien continually refers to what something said appears to mean (to him) as you think about it (and that appears to be wordless thinking). He avoids the dialectic methodology so such thoughts can be considered.
When we understand what Wittgenstien and Mead are saying we see that the words themselves are not really the meaning. They are just symbols; we make the meaning. But how? I think that Jung answers this: Meaning is in the archetypes if we really understand that the archetypes are not the symbols we use to talk about them (such as “The Shadow”) but the “mental” space those symbols fit into that provides meaning to the symbols (Jung did try to say this). Particularly I see depression as the death of myth, whether that is because we loose confidence in myth or we turn myth into dogma and ritual. And the death of myth is the “death of meaning” or depression.
“To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow, … a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury but signifying nothing.”
I am also extending Jung into “all meaning” not just psychological meaning. When we loose all our myth (or reject all our archetypes) we loose all our meaning.
Jerry Heath
anthonynorth said
Hi Jerry,
Whilst your comments are relevant to the subject, they are not a continuation of the discussion, and far too long for a simple comment.
Can I suggest you comment shorter, and relevant to the discussion, or, get your own blog.
Many thanks.
ammananiame said
Just wishing you well in the wonderful diggen of the mind.. it truth the only way to see is to look and then really look over again ah to sea waves see what was missing or added just for you the one who looks will understand what part of this messages is for you. all you have to do is look for your special point of views. it will float write out at yah. another who sea beyond the letters. no.
anthonynorth said
Hi Ammananiame,
Many thanks for your well wishes.