The War Among Notions
The Pilgrim’s Walking Stick: The War Among Notions
(Excerpt from Master Naba's book on Reincarnation)
The tendency we have to try to survive or live as long as possible can be recognized in all animals; but the concepted notions of good, bad, beauty, ugliness, etc., can only be classified on the basis of examples that are approved or disapproved by the society. The fundamental question of the nature of things and concepts has not yet been asked; it is the one that leads to the realization of the existence of everything that we classify. If we pay attention, we will notice that some of the words and numbers that we commonly use in our language can be found in diverse other languages that are not necessarily related to ours. We will notice that some of these words have kept the same concept as if they have served as a common basis for the expression of ideas for the whole of humanity. What interests us here is the dynamic that can be found in the meaning of words, concepts, and numbers:
- Some words remained the same since the period of Pharaohs, but in the language of Pharaohs, these words originated from a precise cosmogony that explains the origins of the world. The best examples are words like "crisis", "me", "captain", etc. For example, the word crisis in the context of African cosmogony since the times of pharaohs represents the cry of the Goddess Asseta (Isis) when she found out that her husband Wsr (Osiris) was dead. According to the definitions of writers in these times, the cry was so terrible that the whole world shivered. Humanity was trembling from fear for months. Nowadays, the definition of the word crisis still brings us close to the original "crisis". The idea of a sort of desperation in front of a fact or situation that we did not wish to see and all of the emotional reactions to that is still preserved in the word.
- Some words stayed the same in their pronunciation and the philosophical message was preserved, but the details have been affected by changes according to the social ideologies of modern times. The best examples are words like "trinity" and "three", etc. The word trinity originates from the African "ptrneter," and it projects the concept of a group of three Gods that accomplished the creation of the world. In the origins of this concept there are two trinities, the first trinity is the one of creator and self-created Gods. They are the first great God Ra, the second great God Amen, and the third great God Ptah, according to the cosmogony of Thebes. The cosmogony of Memphis has also presented Khnwn, Atumu, and Amen as the first trinity. The second trinity is constituted by the created Gods in the context of a world that is already existing. These Gods, through the fact that they have been created, are a bit more familiar to us and are composed of a God-father Wsr (Osiris), a Goddess mother Asseta (Isis), and a God-son Heru (Horus). Nowadays, the concept of trinity is, without a doubt, the most abstract and redefined symbol of every religion.
These few examples are mentioned in a brief attempt to demonstrate the philosophical landslides caused by social doctrines that, with time, have been infesting humanity. This fact simply complicates the survival of a message, whether it is emotional or intellectual. Most of the words that are used to carry messages are as old as humanity itself, but their definitions have been dynamic with societies. Some words that, just a few years ago, were associated with the concept of good or the best things that could happen to us, nowadays are associated with their exact opposite, and with time produced transitory meanings. This led to the fact that one can find a different meaning to any word as we go deeper and deeper into the past. This imposes diverse possibilities of meanings on every individual who can send or receive messages.
We are simply witnessing the agony of communication. The world of "like me" is the one that expresses itself. The "like me" has started by eliminating the natural environment, capitalizing on the weaknesses and needs of the "me", to regroup themselves and form the "like me". The famous "strength in numbers" has lured the "me" and led it to the slaughterhouse of the "like me". The irony in the fact that the "me" becomes the victim of the "like me," is that the "me" is led into associating with the "like me" by its will to survive: survival that it ends up losing because of the "like me". One has a tendency to oversee that it is the "like me" that builds the conceptual basis of the "me". The individual, then, becomes a philosophic saturation, not finding a reason to question his psychological heritage and advancing through life with the principle of philosophical dualism: the good against the bad, the acceptable against the unacceptable, the heroic against the treacherous… etc. When the whole world is viewed from this angle, the individual becomes a potential danger to the world itself; this individual does not have any taboos or sacred domain, the doable and the undoable being as dynamic as the reasons that lead to actions. One can then find good excuses for bad actions and bad excuses for good actions through this principle. The conclusion is that the individual is reduced to some sort of absence. His psychological evolution happens in a world in which everything is possible, under the condition that the individual can have access to the best excuses. In this modern world, excuses are not lacking.
This is the type of world this book is facing; this is the psychological background in which the reader's subconscious is battling. The message I am bringing does not look like its receiver because, first, the receiver has changed and is no longer the human of the past whose priority was the survival of humanity. It is conceivable that the modern human would also like to survive. The problem should be placed in the context of procedures and logics that are used.
I remember a dream that was told to me by one of my students several years ago. She said that in her dream she was taking a bath in a river with her two-year-old son. Water was reaching her chest. The depth of the river was forcing her to carry her son while she was bathing. The environmental decor, as she was describing it, made me think of the deep African bush where one can easily encounter ferocious animals. The image I was picturing of her dream was one of a happy woman taking a bath in the crystal clear waters of heavenly rivers. There were hungry lions and panthers observing them on the riverbank. This made her see herself and her son as prey that was protected from predators only by the river in the middle of which they were bathing. She noted that it was just a matter of time before these animals tried, at least, to attack her son. Suddenly the lion jumped toward the son she was holding in her arms. Her reaction was quick for she had just enough time to put him under the water. With all her strength, she pushed her son down deep and strongly held him with her feet; forgetting that her son was drowning, she then turned herself toward the ferocious animals with a smirk. Thinking that she has tricked the animals, she shows her empty hands to them, telling them they will never find where she kept her son. This small anecdote made me smile, especially when I asked her how long she kept her son underwater. "As long as it took for these animals to become discouraged and go away!”
These types of problems in defining this logic can be found in the attitudes of the modern human. The most visible picture is the one of a society that is so obsessed with freedom that it perceives anything that exists as a threat to its freedom. Nature in this case becomes a domain to keep all humans away from if we want to keep and maintain the idea of the survival of our concept of freedom. The old African writer, Amadou Hampâté Bâ, continued reminding the world about a Peuhle proverb that says: "When a person decides to run away from their destiny and travels incognito, he will find out when he gets there that his destiny preceded him and found a place for both of them."
By the fact that the modern human became the result of a mixture of new philosophies and doctrines, he is no longer the human being of the past. The receiver of the message I am bringing has changed. This makes the message and the messenger the problem for the new receiver. The message becomes a challenge to its receiver; the complexity of the message becomes the friend of the receiver's ego because the ego will find in this the reasons why the receiver should not look into it closely... but the will that is in everyone to search for the true faces of things is still the fact on which the messenger is basing his message. -Naba
