Update: Homo sapiens, and animals in general, are complex entities still not understood by science. Certain aspects of religion are still relevant, but suffer hopeless confusion. The ‘soul’ of man is lost to science but we dare hardly neglect the idea. The realm of ‘spooky’ physics suggests at once the range of answers but we cannot get far with the idea, but the point is that man/animals have a complex dimensionality we don’t understand. But homo sapiens is something different. Man has an aspect that seems as if on the boundary of space/time, and we know little of such things. This is beyond observation, like the noumenal in Kant, and we are defeated by reductionist oversimplification. The obsession to explain man as evolving from apes has never found any clear answer. The idea is entirely legitimate but has never succeeded very well overall. The evolution of language is too much to expect in isolation: it requires a balanced extension in a range of properties: it would seem then that ‘soul x’, psyche, mind, language, consciousness (modulating in ranges of awareness) are a complex package characteristic of man and that somehow they must emerge together in order for any of them to become functional. The ‘soul’ then is a really mind in its space/time fringe or slightly beyond aspect. Homo sapiens is constantly obsessed with this and senses a realm beyond, but (as Kant/Schopenhauer put it so well) none of this enters man’s range of perception. To some degree this aspect may be borderline reality in animals, but still latent. We don’t know.
It would seem therefore the emergence of homo sapiens (no doubt actually of course we must include neanderthals, but we can’t quite be sure of the distinction???) has many of the characteristics of a software upgrade, happens very quickly (tens of thousands of years, but perhaps less than hundreds of thousands of years), occurs in restricted regions/ populations (Africa?) and then diffuses globally. Natural selection isn’t going to produce such a complex unity piecemeal. The dummies of biology who think that should be considered science paupers, poor fellows, and our remarks a feat of remarkable generosity to the ‘can you spare time?’ beggars of biology.
The idea of a ‘soul’ has many variants, but here we encounter a version that fits with a Buddhist psychology: man at death in the various books of the dead shows just this ‘at the margins’ ur-soul/psyche whose outer psychology is stripped in death as a core remains just at the boundary of space/time.
We have no way to proceed easily here save by noting the extreme contraction of time periods from any claims of slow evolution.
The reality is that homo sapiens is something new in nature and does not evolve continuously from the animal realm, despite very clear connections to primate evolution in many respects in a contradiction not really a contradiction.
The connection to the original post lies in the obvious relation of language in general to its instruments of speech and thought, viz. among many, the place of poetry and song in evolution and the evolution of language….
This article is not without interest, but in general the evolution of language is completely beyond the Darwinian paradigm. It is almost incredible that ‘scientists/biologists’ still consider Darwin’s theory adequate to this truly difficult task.
A close look at the data of the eonic effect is a MUST in this environment of deluded scientism…It is the only direct evidence we have of any kind of ‘macro’ process, and this just might give a hint about earlier evolution, which we never observe directly as to its mechanisms beyond observation of the facts of evolution.
In the range that it is clear, despite its limits, we see that macro-evolutionary processes in world history indirectly generate much of the great literature (and much else) and direct its production. We infer this indirectly, but the overall situation is completely suspicious. The macro effect in the eonic series is directly correlated with the greatest literature, in the range of the eonic sequence: the Iliad and Odyssey are good examples. The early history of Greek epic is not clear and no doubt has a ‘primordial’ aspect, so to speak, going back to the Indo-European phase (we hardly know), thus a whole series of sagas no doubt pre-existed the phase of Archaic Greece: then presto! in the Archaic period an amazing crystallization takes place and within a half century we have the constellation of the classic pair, the Iliad and the Odyssey, fully formed and complete with a background of ‘Homeric materials’ related to this and part of the larger corpus mostly lost.
As we study more and more examples of these macro effect in direct concert with the eonic sequence, we suspect with a feeling close certainly that behind these literary secondary effects lies the primordial macro induction of language in hommo sapiens> This could never have been a random process leading out of animal grunts. The history of language emergence is still barely known but we can see that to a high probability it is an earlier version from what we see in the collation of homeric texts (and many other examples throughout world history). Early man must have this mysterious induction play out in another instance of’system action’ and ‘free action’ as a potential is realized. But this must also have a genetic aspect, which complicates an account about which we know little.
A close reading of WHEE might help here. The current realm of evolutionary biology is out in left field and completely oblivious to their own subject.
Let us state the dramatic point again directly: evolutionary macro processes generate the linguistic (seed) behavior of homo sapiens, including his later literary forms in a mystery of system and free agents.
Homer knew the point….’Sing Muse’….We may no longer accept the mythology of ‘muses’ but the basic point is clear.
Scientists and biologists have been trained to never find the answers to issues of evolution…
Source: When was talking invented? A language scientist explains how this unique feature of human beings may have evolved