The Enlightenment and Cosmopolitanism v Religion

From a Jonathan Korman Facebook thread on The Death of the New Age 
The problem with all religions, traditional, New Age, Pagan and for that matter sport warrior worship,  is that they focus inward. If not on self on the small group of "us."  Only "we" can save the world by converting everyone to "our" solution.  While some religions are moving toward the celebration of life, all life, it seems that no God, goddess, or guru can figure out how to satisfy the ego needs for belonging with a concern for those not like "us."  The Enlightenment and its modern descendent Cosmopolitanism does not give the ego the intermediate step of "us" but forces concern for all.

It begins with Jefferson. All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with  certain unalianable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.  Implicit in this statement is that these rights are accepted and enforced by all reasonable and civic minded people collectively and individually ready and willing to mutually pledge to their Lives, their Fortunes and their Sacred Honor.  They do not pledge to a leader or to a nation but to each other and to a cause.   

Empowerment of Women and the Rape Culture

not-so-good-men-project

 They're clearly trying to reach Regular Guys and the universe of gender politics

In response to this excellent post and other news including the public gang rape in New Delhi and numerous articles on women all over the world including India now being able to choose how many children they wish to have including none.  Add to that the empowerment of women in being able to choose the man that will be the father of those children.  And the woman's choices not only in sex, but in living, working, and self fulfillment.  It may be time to consider the implications of the title.

All of these have contributed to the fact that a large portion of the male population has been denied any opportunity for consensual sex, as they do not have the necessary respect to gain consent.  They are locked in the old culture where the man is the aggressor, and the woman is compliant.  There are women who remain in this culture as well, cultures change slowly, but contraception has given women a different kind of empowerment in that they can engage in casual sex without fear of the major consequence of pregnancy.   They can send those mixed signals and enjoy the resulting sex, preferably without rape, but in any event without consequences.  But where does that leave the men who for one reason or another always get the unmixed signal of  NO?  Sorry to say it is their fault, or at least the fault of the sexist culture they live in, but most women do not like the idea of being property even for the reason of having sex.  For those men the two choices are rape and internet porn.  Obviously the latter is preferable and commonly the only option, but opportunistic rape will still occur. 

Women secure in their empowerment generally have no interest in and avoid the rape culture.   They  send no mixed signals, they do not even go to places where signals can be mixed.  For them sex is a result of a relationship not a goal, and any man that doesn't understand that won't get any signals at all. 

On Blood Donations

Banshee Arts

Blood and kinship. In some contexts, the two are synonymous. We say that we share blood with someone if we are familially related to them, if we are ‘blood kin’. Sharing blood is also understood as a way to establish kinship where it does not exist from birth: the old blood brotherhood or sisterhood. Why does this work (or to look at it another way), why is it believed to work? Because our blood is the essence of our life – it is the vehicle and condensed liquid form of life force. To share that is to be kin.

To share that is to be kin.  

A couple of hundred donations many shared with several patients in need.  Call it a thousand unknown kinfolk of mine out there.   Makes it hard to think badly of anyone.  Eh, brother or sister?

Peer Pressure Morality

SciAm

 This is an astute observation because research on the motivation of soldiers during combat—well summarized by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman in his deeply insightful book On Killing (Little, Brown, 2009)—reveals that a soldier's primary motivation is not politics and ideology but devotion to his band of brothers. “Among men who are bonded together so intensely,” Grossman explains, “there is a powerful process of peer pressure in which the individual cares so deeply about his comrades and what they think about him that he would rather die than let them down.”

As a social primate species, we modulate our morals with signals from family, friends and social groups with whom we identify because in our evolutionary past those attributes helped individuals to survive and reproduce. We do not just blindly concede control to authorities; instead we follow the cues provided by our moral communities on how best to behave

One only has to look at Westboro Baptist, Think Tanks,  a JW Kingdom Hall, the NRA Leadership, et al. to see this modulation in action.  No amount of pressure from those outside the group will have any effect on the peer group.  

An ex-UU none on the blue road.

UUWorld/Morales/comment

As an ex-UU none who studied religion and spirituality at the university and beyond at All Souls in NYC and later beyond UU I have a couple of suggestions.
1. Take our spirituality seriously. You lost a promising UU spiritual leader (it wasn't me) by banning an atheist from a God discussion group at a UU Church. Keep in mind that spirituality is a human attribute that has nothing at all to do with God or religion.
2, You may keep and use the God meme, as long as it is clear that it is a spiritual learning meme rather than something to pray at or worship. You can even still pray if it is clear that prayer is a way to focus thinking usefully.
As an aside, not a suggestion, we all have our own social and political action vehicles that we choose for ourselves. Social pressure to conform to particular social values is Katy, bar the door! for most of us even if we agree with them. 

I love the scene of Ben and Elaine barring the door with a cross in The Graduate.  I have  been tempted frequently as I left a UU church for good, prevented only by not being able to find a cross. 

Wish List

Instead of Books I won't read, toasters that burn religious symbols in toast, DVDs I won't watch, and other nicknacks that I won't look at after I put them on the shelf,  all of the following contribute to my personal wellbeing and would appreciate a donation to keep doing so:

San Francisco Choral Society

http://www.sfchoral.org/site/support-us-2/

A premier symphonic chorus, inspiring and enriching people's lives through the joy and power of choral music.  We frequently perform commissioned or co-commissioned works.  Recent performances include Terra Nostra an Oratorio by Stacy Garrop, Battle Hymns a performance piece by David Lang, and Seven Songs for Planet Earth by Olli Kortekangas.

OR

New York Choral Society 

http://www.nychoral.org/support/ 

The New York Choral Society is a vibrant, ever-renewing musical community which believes in the power of music to impact all lives, enriches the cultural life of New York and beyond through the world-class quality and artistic creativity of our performances, and is committed to delivering excellence to our singers, our audiences, and our supporters.

OR

Volti 

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?token=9nvFJp-KVwGCzxC0xuKMhbjuc8zkkkBoVfsSaxxdjb3DtPNmDw-nsSX4BvwaUnLxoJEKO0

 Push the boundaries of your experience with the professional singers of Volti and conductor Robert Geary. Bold, daring, stimulating music from the shimmering edges of creative thought. Lushly gorgeous performances that traverse the range of human emotion. Join Volti for an exciting journey of discovery, a joyous exploration of what’s still out there…

If it was composed in the 20th century it is nostalgia for Volti. 3 or 4 world premier performances per program is the norm.  Support your local musical choral composers.

OR 

The Yosemite Conservancy

http://www.yosemiteconservancy.org/webcams/high-sierra

This webcam shares a stunning view of Yosemite's high country, including Tenaya Peak and Clouds Rest. 

Yosemite webcams are maintained through the generous support of Yosemite Conservancy donors.

Atheist Sexual Morality

beliefnet
One of the reasons to side with the atheists in matters of sexual morality is that the atheist community is far superior to at least the Christian community in dealing with the modern fact, I use that term advisedly, that it is no longer the norm even among Christians for women to be married soon after puberty "To cleave only unto the husband" and spend her life barefoot and pregnant.  Women and men tend to seek partners with similar educational and vocational interests, which frequently means deferring marriage until mid 20's or later.  Perhaps a bit younger for women. 

Marriage or parenting vows, take your pick, are generally taken after considerable thought with little impetus from sex.  Indeed sexual compatibility is generally well proven by the time of parenting vows.  And the pair bond is well established usually through contraceptive monogamous sex long before the vow is taken and the contra lost.  The moral imperative is that the parenting vows are the binding ones and generally are anticipated to last through adulthood of the planned children.  No instant gratification or fashion involved.  It is a well thought out moral commitment. 

OK.  That takes care of the grown ups.  What about the horny teens? The Our Whole Lives program, a joint venture between UU and UCC, recognizes the fact that at an early age children and young adults will experiment with sexual activities.  OWL does not "Just say NO," that is a proven path to unwed parenthood.  Please note there are two unwed parents for every child born out of wedlock.  A much better moral standard is to understand that sex happens and that it is critical that when it does both partners are responsible, willing, and ready for it.  The common question "Your condom or mine?" is a simple way of insuring this moral standard.  Using this moral standard a sex act is no more (or less) significant than dirty dancing or if you prefer a formal Pas de Deux. 

Why men are losing

The war on men
By Suzanne Venker

Worth skimming to "Feminism serves men well: they can have sex ... with no responsibilities whatsoever."  after that it gets hilarious. 

What the author ignores is that all such sex is sterile.  Just enjoyable gymnastics, some good exercise, and the prick removes himself from the gene pool.  No loss.  If the woman wants to contribute to the gene pool there is no problem finding men with good genes to provide them and the prick might find himself living with a baby that is not his.  He may leave, but there will be others who will trade sex for living space with or without children.  It is that "They want to provide for and protect their families--its in their DNA."  The DNA doesn't know or care where the y came from.  She may imply that the sex is not sterile, but only she knows for sure. 

However, the norm will be that men not threatened by the half the population that is intellectually and economically equal will find equal partners in the procreation business, sharing all the joys and work of bringing up a child in their own image.  Neither will be virgins, but adolescent sterile gymnastics will have long since lost their allure.

It’s all so unfortunate – for women, not men. Feminism serves men very well: they can have sex at hello and even live with their girlfriends with no responsibilities whatsoever.
It’s the women who lose. Not only are they saddled with the consequences of sex, by dismissing male nature they’re forever seeking a balanced life. The fact is, women need men’s linear career goals – they need men to pick up the slack at the office – in order to live the balanced life they seek.
So if men today are slackers, and if they’re retreating from marriage en masse, women should look in the mirror and ask themselves what role they’ve played to bring about this transformation.
Fortunately, there is good news: women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.
If they do, marriageable men will come out of the woodwork.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/24/war-on-men/#ixzz2DLIzIa

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/24/war-on-men/#ixzz2DLIzIawc

It’s all so unfortunate – for women, not men. Feminism serves men very well: they can have sex at hello and even live with their girlfriends with no responsibilities whatsoever.
It’s the women who lose. Not only are they saddled with the consequences of sex, by dismissing male nature they’re forever seeking a balanced life. The fact is, women need men’s linear career goals – they need men to pick up the slack at the office – in order to live the balanced life they seek.
So if men today are slackers, and if they’re retreating from marriage en masse, women should look in the mirror and ask themselves what role they’ve played to bring about this transformation.
Fortunately, there is good news: women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.
If they do, marriageable men will come out of the woodwork.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/24/war-on-men/#ixzz2DLIzIawc

It’s all so unfortunate – for women, not men. Feminism serves men very well: they can have sex at hello and even live with their girlfriends with no responsibilities whatsoever.
It’s the women who lose. Not only are they saddled with the consequences of sex, by dismissing male nature they’re forever seeking a balanced life. The fact is, women need men’s linear career goals – they need men to pick up the slack at the office – in order to live the balanced life they seek.
So if men today are slackers, and if they’re retreating from marriage en masse, women should look in the mirror and ask themselves what role they’ve played to bring about this transformation.
Fortunately, there is good news: women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.
If they do, marriageable men will come out of the woodwork.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/24/war-on-men/#ixzz2DLIzIawc

Sports and Drugs. In re Lance Armstrong trashing.

 When the option is to drug or drop out of the sport you love and are good at at the top level, Which was most sports in the 80s and 90s. We can applaud those who chose to play at the drug free level but I only know the names of three. All of which might well have doped their way to fame and fortune but chose not to. They were near the top of their game in competition with druggies, but chose to pass on the fame and fortune due to the need for drugs. 
I am not ready to condemn anyone who made the other choice. If you have trained all your life in the sport of your choice and are the top of the game, but competing at the next level means drugs, I refuse to disrespect those who choose to compete. 
To live comfortably or perhaps at all I need asthma drugs. Are you going to give me a pass just because they are legal.

Bigotry and Retards

An Open Letter to Ann Coulter

Posted on October 23, 2012 by Tim Shriver

John Franklin Stephens

The following is a guest post in the form of an open letter from Special Olympics athlete and global messenger John Franklin Stephens to Ann Coulter after this tweet during last night’s Presidential debate.
Dear Ann Coulter,
Come on Ms. Coulter, you aren’t dumb and you aren’t shallow.  So why are you continually using a word like the R-word as an insult?
I’m a 30 year old man with Down syndrome who has struggled with the public’s perception that an intellectual disability means that I am dumb and shallow.  I am not either of those things, but I do process information more slowly than the rest of you.  In fact it has taken me all day to figure out how to respond to your use of the R-word last night.
I thought first of asking whether you meant to describe the President as someone who was bullied as a child by people like you, but rose above it to find a way to succeed in life as many of my fellow Special Olympians have.
Then I wondered if you meant to describe him as someone who has to struggle to be thoughtful about everything he says, as everyone else races from one snarkey sound bite to the next.
Finally, I wondered if you meant to degrade him as someone who is likely to receive bad health care, live in low grade housing with very little income and still manages to see life as a wonderful gift.
Because, Ms. Coulter, that is who we are – and much, much more.
After I saw your tweet, I realized you just wanted to belittle the President by linking him to people like me.  You assumed that people would understand and accept that being linked to someone like me is an insult and you assumed you could get away with it and still appear on TV.
I have to wonder if you considered other hateful words but recoiled from the backlash.
Well, Ms. Coulter, you, and society, need to learn that being compared to people like me should be considered a badge of honor.
No one overcomes more than we do and still loves life so much.
Come join us someday at Special Olympics.  See if you can walk away with your heart unchanged.
A friend you haven’t made yet,   John Franklin Stephens
Global Messenger
Special Olympics Virginia

My comment on facebook 

J'Carlin: It is high time that words referring to mentally challenged people used as insults be treated as the bigotry that they are. I have worked with mentally challenged people who have used other abilities to make a useful place for themselves in the world, and with others that have been warehoused with no opportunity to develop other skillls because of their mental challenge label. In either case the label is a cruel insult to the disabled and evidence of a mental disability of the user of the term. That mental disability is the lack of common decency and respect which has its own label which should be used freely and openly "Bigot." Or as Rollins should have said more concicely: Ann Coulter is a bigot and should STFU.

I had the pleasure of working with an IQ challenged person who was never allowed to be labled by his parents, who used his "people skill" ability in a customer experience capacity to make a respected career for himself.  Although I trained him in the CE skills, in my follow up with customers I found that he was much better at the job than I, even though technically I was clearly better.  Any technical errors were forgotten as each customer was in fact the special focus of his attention and knew it. Absolutely critical to creating a satisfied, loyal customer.  He certainly taught me important lessons in the CE which served me well in my career in this customer critical area. 

Atheist Living

Beliefnet
It is almost impossible to not be moral and compassionate if you are an atheist as there is no alternative.  You have no choice but to do the very best you can for the expanding circle of people that you consider your chosen society.  It isn't so much having an apple fall on your head, we can't always be so lucky or so smart, but we do what we can to make it probable that those that are can take advantage of it.  Education, critical thinking, and creative attitudes can all be encouraged, and certainly exploring top level thinking like the existentialists is important to being able to take advantage of those opportunities. 

The Gish Gallop

beliefnet

As I demonstrated earlier in this thread, all the founders of the major branches of science were Christians, modern hospitals were invented by Christians, Christians ended slavery in the US and Britain, modern universities were invented by Christians, the largest charities in the world were founded and are run by Christians, the United States was founded by primarily Christians, and has been one of the countries that has produced the most good in the world and I could name more.

A classic example of the Gish Gallop.  If you put enough lies in a short enough paragraph it is impossible to refute them all in any reasonable way.  In this case each phrase has been the topic of many posts on this thread alone clearly defining the lie and misleading partial truth in the phrase.  

Thanks to Daily Kos for pointing out that the Romney debate was won with this technique. 

Retroactive Culture Change - Fail.

September 30, 2012

The Kissing Sailor, or “The Selective Blindness of Rape Culture”

• 96 Comments

Most of us are familiar with this picture. Captured in Times Square on V-J Day, 1945, it has become one of the most iconic photographs of American history, symbolizing the jubilation and exuberance felt throughout the country at the end of World War II.
http://cratesandribbons.com/2012/09/30/the-kissing-sailor-or-the-selective-blindness-of-rape-culture-vj-day-times-square/

Retroactively trying to change a culture or even using a past culture to criticize a current culture is a fool's errand.  I grew up in that culture and never imagined that the sailor asked for prior informed consent of the nurse.  Sailors at liberty from an all male environment were expected to be aggressively promiscuous as were most single men at the time.

It was in fact a male aggressive culture, a reflection of the dominant religious culture of female submissiveness.  Ask any cheerleader at the time about the victory parties.  Or the loss parties for that matter.  It was an article of manliness dogma that if you could get a woman in a compromising position good for you!  The then current excuse for the man was if the woman didn't want to be molested she should have stayed home.   Directly related to the current Muslim attitude to women.  It isn't the man's fault if the woman is alone and improperly dressed. 

Better to focus on examples of current non-consensual sexual contact which have a better chance of changing current culture than bitching about the past. 

Lets fight about this shit:
 http://unwinona.tumblr.com/post/30861660109/i-debated-whether-or-not-to-share-this-story

excerpt:

I often ride the Metro when I commute from North Hollywood to Long Beach in order to save money.  I bring a book, pointedly wear a ring on my ring finger to imply I’m married (I’m not) and keep to myself.
Without fail, I am aggressively approached by men on at least half of these commutes.  The most common approach is to walk up to where I am sitting with body language that practically screams LEAVE ME ALONE and sit down next to me or as close to me as possible, when the train is not crowded and there are many empty rows.  Sometimes an overly friendly arm is draped over the railing behind me, or they attempt to lean in close to talk to me as if we are old friends.  Without fail, the man or boy in question will lean to close and ask me
What are you reading?
Is that a good book?
What’s that book about?

Free Will and Religion

beliefnet

Why am I misunderstanding freewill?

Let's cut to the chase. People make choices. These choices have various levels of constraint on them for a variety of reasons. This has nothing to do with free will in a religious context.

Free will in a religious context is whether human choices are controlled by God, or if certain choices such as a choice of a religious tradition or belief in God are unconstrained by God. For an atheist there are no choices constrained by God as there is no God. It is really that simple.

If you want more on constrained choices, all social animals have what passes for a conscience which is trained initially by mama smacking herm on the butt when hesh does something not permitted by the herd or society. As hesh gets older mentors and/or alphas take over from mama with increasing severe punishments up to exclusion from the herd or tribe which is in effect a death sentence quick or slow depending on the environment. Those who watch the fate of one "thrown to the wolves" very quickly internally constrain the behavior that led to the action.

None of this is really conscious behavior, either in training or accepting the constraints of the conscience. It is simply part of staying alive in the group. Humans and perhaps other animals have some conscious control over the dictates of conscience, and may choose to behave differently from the group if necessary or desirable. You may call this free will or intelligent choice, it makes no difference. The alpha says frog you may or may not choose to hop. But you know in some cases refusing to hop is to be thrown to the wolves. In some cases the wolves are a better choice. This is free will.

In a religious context if a major component of your self worthiness is defined as sin, say not believing in the local God or one of His stupid rules, the atheist wolves may be the only choice. We really aren't as scary as mama tol' ya we are, but for some religious people especially teens suicide is a reasonable alternative. Always talk to an atheist first.

From Bible-Belt Pastor to Atheist Leader

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/magazine/from-bible-belt-pastor-to-atheist-leader.html?hpw

After a few quick searches with the terms “pastor” and “atheist,” he discovered that a cottage industry of atheist outreach groups had grown up in the past few years. Within days, he joined an online network called the Clergy Project, created for clerics who no longer believe in God and want to communicate anonymously through a secure Web site.

Early in the article it mentioned that he couldn't pray for a parishioner in difficulty. This is typical of converts of every sort. Many atheists resent prayers and resent being asked to pray.

As a life long atheist, with many good friends who are devout, I have learned both to pray and recieve prayers without hypocricy. I learned this when a devout Catholic friend was in a profoundly tragic situation and asked me for help in the form of prayer. He knew I was an atheist but also had been to performances where I had sung catholic prayers. He said "Please pray for me. God even listens to atheist prayers. They are special for God since he gets so few of them."

I chose appropriate prayers for all involved and sang them as devoutly and meaningfully as I could. Certainly as far as I was concerned I was singing into a void, but a void which contained my friend's God. Where is the hypocricy here?

An Atheist on Woo-woo

This atheist is immune to woo-woo as I have no need for a focus at all, within or without. My focus is to get from one day to the next in compliance with the mores and values of my ERSSG contributing whenever I can responsibly, and sharing those mores and values with those able to learn. And not incidentally sharing those mores and values with those who try not to learn. Those who have transcended religion to woo-woo are prime candidates for learning to take personal responsibility for their lives and their "spirituality" that sense of knowing what is true and in resonance with the world they live in which is simultaneously a reward and an incentive.

Natural Spirituality

Atheists know better, and recognize this sense of wonder and profound truth as a natural reaction of the mind/brain to reinforce critically important social and philosophical truths. No God or Ground of Being required. These truths are distributed over a lifetime of learning and there is no real connection between them except that they collectively are the defining elements of ones mores and philosophy. I know where the important elements come from and none of them come from any external uberGod unless you want to call my family and kindergarten teacher, et al. God.

An Atheist on Tillich

Tillich, op. cit., pp. 20-21 -- "Philosophy necessarily asks the question of reality as a whole, the question of the structure of being. Theology necessarily asks the same question, for that which concerns us ultimatly must belong to reality as a whole; it must belong to being. Otherwise we could not encounter it, and it could not concern us. Of course, it cannot be one being among others; then it would not concern us infinitely. It must be the ground of our being, that which determines our being or not-being, the ultimate and unconditional power of being. But the power of being, its infinite ground or 'being itself,' expresses itself in and through the structure of being. Therefore, we can encounter it, be grasped by it, know it, and act toward it. Theology, when dealing with our ultimate concern, presupposes in every sentence the structure of being, its categories, laws, and concepts."

Atheist philosophy asks nothing except how do I navigate living between birth and death and interact reasonably with my fellow inhabitants of this planet. Tillich does not get to redefine philosophy as the question of the structure of being, let alone the ultimate and unconditional power of being BS er God. It is pure and unadulterated theology with no more worth to an atheist than Yahweh, God, the Higgs Boson or the tooth fairy. None of which provide anything useful to my life except perhaps some lessons from myth. 'Being itself' doesn't even have any useful mythology or lessons. The entire lesson is have faith in being itself and feel good. It doesn't even get me from one minute to the next. I know how to feel good without bullshit.

Tillich's ultimate concern is indeed theology as it deals with that overriding meaning or "Ground of Being" in one's life. It has no more to do with an atheist's everyday living between birth and death than God, god, or any other ultimate concern. An atheist is aware of and compliant with the mores of herm chosen social support group, but there is no worship or ultimate concern about those mores simply the natural and genetic imperative of a social animal.

Much of this comes from reflections on an undergraduate religion seminar focused on Tillich conducted by a leading academic theologian Dr. Robert McAfee Brown. His Doctorate was in the philosophy of religion.

The Creator of the Universe!

There is no creator, and even if there were there is no god that could be identified with it.

I am the Creator of the Universe due to my Experience of Solipcism. Of course I am not going throw these pearls of Solipcism before the swine of theists. But trust me. I am the Creator of the Universe. If you piss me off I will remove you from the Universe after I die or maybe before. Only True Believers in Solipcism will still exist. Your puny gods die with me.

Social Humanism

It is self-evident that atheism rejects a dualist worldview. But that is only the starting point for the worldview of an atheist. Materialism and naturalism may be small and unimportant parts of that world view, but social humanism would generally be the foundation of the world view. Many individual nuances as there is no supernatural unifier. But I for one would be comfortable with a social humanist worldview description as a first layer cut.

Social humanism is based on the fact that humans are extremely intelligent, rational, social animals whose very existence is based on support from a large group of other humans for child socialization, food production, social support, and economic activity. The beginnings of social humanism were in tribes of closely related people that were nomadic hunter-gatherers, and herders. Compliance with the mores of the tribe was reinforced from childhood as children played games based on those mores. The mores were also reinforced at social gatherings where music and dancing provided the mate selection opportunities for the single members of the tribe. Once families were established shortly after puberty, living was essentially support for the family and tribe in that order.

As agriculture became more important to the tribe expanded to a village and the social humanism focused on a central gathering place where the culture of the village was maintained and supported. Specialization and leisure permitted the the lore masters to become respected and supported members of the village. Titles varied, but they generally were healers, councillors, and leaders of the group activities for mate selection and lore reinforcement again with music and dance.

(To be continued.)