4 ms·

Humanity has some 300.000 years of existing, and we can only trace back the prevalence of cult figures a few thousand years back. For all we know, it could be

Humanity has some 300.000 years of existing, and we can only trace back the prevalence of cult figures a few thousand years back. For all we know, it could be a temporary fluke and we'll snap back to something else. We could be beings with no default to snap back to, ever changing, destined to dissolve the prevalence of cult figures into something else in the following eras. In a few thousand years we could totally see this practice as some distant-past thing like making clay pots or carrying Roman dodecahedrons. The new cultural trend could become jumping off cliffs, and someone would be arguing that it's inevitable human nature. By the way, no rush to de-mythologize. I'm not fighting any dragon here, you do you.

MomsAVoxell 4mo ago
> a few thousand years back I beg to differ, but okay. I don’t disagree to your allusions that there is a banality to mob idolatry, but that’s a discussion for other forums, ironically.
- gaigalas 4mo ago
  Idolatry is not the same as mythologizing. And I never said there is a banality to it, just that there could be. We don't have enough to know.
  - MomsAVoxell 4mo ago
    In any case, you do seem to have overlooked that there are successful mythologies in the contemporary era - that indeed Fabrice and co., are worth understanding better not just for the nature of their work, but also the means by which their reputation preceded them - and lets not forget that the markets in which they operate are worth multi-millions of dollars worth of economy and they are clearly successful at scale.
    - gaigalas 4mo ago
      You are defending them from an attack that doesn't exist. I explicitly praised them, and claimed that we should understand their work. They're great developers. Also, what I did was make their myth-making fanbase uncomfortable. If one sees "liking Carmack" as some sort of identity, then offending the fanbase is offending the icon and vice-versa. One that takes this posture cannot see the difference between criticizing the person and criticizing the myth-making. In their heads, it's the same thing. In reality, it's not. That's why you (and others in the thread) treated the negative tone, which was towards the fanbase, as an attack to Carmack and Bellard themselves, even though it explicitly wasn't. In simpler terms, "if he's being negative, he must dislike the idols", which is a product of the mythmaking I foreshadowed since the beginning.
      - MomsAVoxell 4mo ago
        I just think you're missing a big point in the rush to denigrate mythology. It's necessary to the expansion of the subject, humans do it as a matter of course, and there's just no avoiding it.
        gaigalas 4mo ago
        It's not, you're being silly.
nixon_why69 4mo ago
We only have writing and, consequently, people who's names we know a few thousand years back. A cult figure before writing would have more limited reach, and be forgotten because their name wasn't written down. But they'd still have been a cult figure.
- gaigalas 4mo ago
  It's an interesting hypothesis we can never prove. We don't even know how old names are.
- zerohp 4mo ago
  The Buddha lived before writing in India. We have plenty of other stories that were passed by oral tradition before they were written down.
  - gaigalas 4mo ago
    The oral tradition you're probably trying to refer to is the Rigveda, which is amazing. It's like a human recorder that kept a series of vocalizations intact for thousands of years through chanting, with error correction mechanisms and all sorts of tricks to reduce drift over time. That's our oldest attested oral tradition, 2000 years or so. Stretching to a maximum of 6000 years if we're generous. Buddhism is like, a thousand years after that. It's all still super young though. Like I said, humanity has 300.000 years. Earliest petroglyphs from 50.000 years ago corroborate my point of view: they depict animals, and migrations and shit. Nothing that can attest some kind of cult towards individuals, no heroes, no holy images. So, yeah, talking about the Buddha "seems like old stuff", but it really isn't in the timescales that matter for estabilishing what "human nature" is, we've been human way before all that jazz appeared.
    - MomsAVoxell 4mo ago
      The stories of Narwala Gabarnmang say hi.
      - 4mo ago

MomsAVoxell 4mo ago

> a few thousand years back I beg to differ, but okay. I don’t disagree to your allusions that there is a banality to mob idolatry, but that’s a discussion for other forums, ironically.

gaigalas 4mo ago
Idolatry is not the same as mythologizing. And I never said there is a banality to it, just that there could be. We don't have enough to know.
- MomsAVoxell 4mo ago
  In any case, you do seem to have overlooked that there are successful mythologies in the contemporary era - that indeed Fabrice and co., are worth understanding better not just for the nature of their work, but also the means by which their reputation preceded them - and lets not forget that the markets in which they operate are worth multi-millions of dollars worth of economy and they are clearly successful at scale.
  - gaigalas 4mo ago
    You are defending them from an attack that doesn't exist. I explicitly praised them, and claimed that we should understand their work. They're great developers. Also, what I did was make their myth-making fanbase uncomfortable. If one sees "liking Carmack" as some sort of identity, then offending the fanbase is offending the icon and vice-versa. One that takes this posture cannot see the difference between criticizing the person and criticizing the myth-making. In their heads, it's the same thing. In reality, it's not. That's why you (and others in the thread) treated the negative tone, which was towards the fanbase, as an attack to Carmack and Bellard themselves, even though it explicitly wasn't. In simpler terms, "if he's being negative, he must dislike the idols", which is a product of the mythmaking I foreshadowed since the beginning.
    - MomsAVoxell 4mo ago
      I just think you're missing a big point in the rush to denigrate mythology. It's necessary to the expansion of the subject, humans do it as a matter of course, and there's just no avoiding it.
      - gaigalas 4mo ago
        It's not, you're being silly.

nixon_why69 4mo ago

We only have writing and, consequently, people who's names we know a few thousand years back. A cult figure before writing would have more limited reach, and be forgotten because their name wasn't written down. But they'd still have been a cult figure.

gaigalas 4mo ago
It's an interesting hypothesis we can never prove. We don't even know how old names are.
zerohp 4mo ago
The Buddha lived before writing in India. We have plenty of other stories that were passed by oral tradition before they were written down.
- gaigalas 4mo ago
  The oral tradition you're probably trying to refer to is the Rigveda, which is amazing. It's like a human recorder that kept a series of vocalizations intact for thousands of years through chanting, with error correction mechanisms and all sorts of tricks to reduce drift over time. That's our oldest attested oral tradition, 2000 years or so. Stretching to a maximum of 6000 years if we're generous. Buddhism is like, a thousand years after that. It's all still super young though. Like I said, humanity has 300.000 years. Earliest petroglyphs from 50.000 years ago corroborate my point of view: they depict animals, and migrations and shit. Nothing that can attest some kind of cult towards individuals, no heroes, no holy images. So, yeah, talking about the Buddha "seems like old stuff", but it really isn't in the timescales that matter for estabilishing what "human nature" is, we've been human way before all that jazz appeared.
  - MomsAVoxell 4mo ago
    The stories of Narwala Gabarnmang say hi.
    - 4mo ago