SallyA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I think your hypothesis might be re-worded to
> present the idea that the culture as a whole
> was not capable of conceiving of superstition
> . . They were died on the wool believers
> presenting what they lived as their own reality.

It's impossible for me to imagine that a culture that lacked the infrastructure of science and industry could possibly have had high technology as we know it. I don't think I could imagine a culture that lacked words of superstition but then I suddenly realized this is exactly what I've been studying for years now.

Of course individuals vary but every individual spoke this same language so any superstitious people would have to have made up their own words.

> On another level of your concerns . . Which facit
> of living would be closer to experience, and thus
> to meaning . . . The spiritual aspects of their
> lives, or the creations in the material
> (mirror-capable) world? I would guess those
> things which they delt with in living . . .

Good question.

They obviously had a strong spiritual side. Perhaps this is another artefact, like ritual, of being otherwise, so sensible.

Perhaps their interest in history, humanity, and the future success of humankind sprang chiefly from this spiritual side and this was the major source of their humanity and what ties them most closely to we homo omnisciencis. How this spiritualness manifests in people without words of superstition may be something forever difficult for us to understand.

> Each level has costs, do not be called a gas by
> your father takes on new meaning.

Indeed!

1922 + 2 (Nt. 744). if (thy) father calls thee "’Iḫ.t," retreat, such is not thy name.