What would you like to do? Would you like to ask questions? No, no. May I? Yes. Well, I would like to ask, how would you say that when you saw a warlike abrogation of people, like pride or whatever, if you looked at how they socialized their labor, you could see that they seemed to be very lawful and very kind of graceful. And I wonder whether you have seen that in the warlike side of the camp? Perhaps something different to the Scandinavian socialization. I'll take that first and then perhaps you can say something. You put your finger on a very, very important, essential element of the system, of how the dominator system maintains itself. Regardless of how it really came about, and we talked a little about that yesterday and maybe we'll talk about it more today, what happened subsequently was that the ways of maintaining the system became institutionalized. They became habitual. And one of the ways of maintaining the system, which may have started with privations, with traumas, if you will, with the kind of thing that Reich called, you know, the things that lead to character armoring, it may have started for natural reasons, environmental reasons, but then it became part of child rearing. And it's not accidental that so many of the most warlike of these tribal societies that we still see today practice very barbaric forms of genital mutilation. Because that's a way of traumatically beginning already very, very early. You know, be it genital mutilation of women, I don't know how many of you know that millions of women in Africa and in many of the Muslim nations have their clitorises cut off. I mean, we don't like to talk about it, and yet I must talk about it. Because we must understand that these are not just quaint ethnic customs. Neither was it the quaint ethnic customs, you know, the foot binding that performed, you know, and really mutilated the foot of Chinese women. These are all practices that become institutionalized in a dominator system of society, and we must recognize them as such. But of course it was also for males. The original circumcision of males in many of these cultures is really horribly painful. So, yes, from these very extreme forms to less extreme forms, and the fact that today, look, a tremendous partnership trend, and Alice Miller, by the way, any of you know the work of Alice Miller? She's fabulous, and she put her finger on it. Because what she talks about is the institutionalization of dominator ways of child rearing and birth. And birth, well, that's another subject. I mean, what we've done with birth. But you see, these are all the ways that we've done it very cleverly to maintain the system, which is killing us. So it's time to leave them behind. But the thing that happened is that today, look, we no longer say, "Spare the rod and spoil the child." We call it child abuse. That is a very powerful partnership trend. Okay. You were about to go into what a leadership structure would be like in a partnership society. All right. I find that so fascinating because, again, it's emerging. And you know where it's emerging most visibly? You're going to laugh. It's in the corporate literature. Pick up Fortune magazine, and you find these big articles saying, "What we need is a new type of leader." And what do we need specifically? Well, we don't need this guy anymore, you know, the model of the manager as the cop, as the controller. But they're finally discovering that that inhibits creativity. It's the productivity thereby. What do we need? We need a leader that can inspire other people to work together in teams. I mean, it's very, very interesting. I mean, obviously, this is preparing the kind of leadership that can provide leadership in a partnership society. But I really want to say that the two images from the title of my book, "The Chalice and the Blade," to me most visibly and dramatically conceptualize these two very different styles of leadership. You know, the blade is a leadership through fear. You better enjoy this or else. You better obey or you'll be punished. And the chalice is the elicit... The chalice has from remote antiquity been the symbol of spiritual leadership, hasn't it? Of regeneration, of creativity, of transformation, of illumination, of bringing forth in us, eliciting in every one of us, our greatest creativity, our greatest potential. That is the symbol of that kind of leadership. Could you talk about the Victorian era, how they raised children, and how that kind of set the world up for World War I and World War II? Well, you know, that would take another hour probably to really go into it. But there is a fascinating work by a man called Theodore Rojak who basically put his finger on what some of these periods of warfare are really about. And he talks about World War I. And it was really a resurgence of the masculine, close masculine. Okay, I really have to say masculinity and femininity. Even what we associate in Jungian terms with the yin and the yang are very much products of dominator stereotypes. And as we unravel and reweave, we have to leave behind this idea that, you know, the feminine is passive and cold and dark. I mean, consider it for a moment. It doesn't sound very good. And that, you know, the masculine is the active. As a matter of fact, you know, in many of the earlier symbology, it's quite the opposite. So we have to untangle the symbols. But the point of it is that Rojak points out, as have others, that it was a resurgence of the masculine ethos and contempt for woman, contempt for the feminine. And so the Victorian era, of course, you know, being a predecessor of that, but it's much more complicated in the Victorian era. Because in the Victorian era, some of the rejection by women of sex was also a rejection of servitude. Just as women going into convents in the Middle Ages was a rejection of a form of family organization where they were really male chattel. You know, they were sexual and economic property. So it's very complicated. I won't go into a lot of detail. Yes. Last night a woman brought up about the condition of women as single parents, you say. And I was thinking in terms of the partnership shift and changing mode, what would you comment on the tendency of women to give up almost entirely on having a male partner as parent for parents, at least in America, male parents to give up on the idea of continuing to nurture their children or starting to nurture them once they separate from their mothers? See, ours is a period, I think, that you'll agree with me, parents, of transition. It's a period that we would call a period of tremendous systems disequilibrium. And we know in terms of our own personal history that for patterns that have been very, very rigid to change, we have to go through a very painful time very often as the old patterns begin to disintegrate so that they can reform into something new. And I see a lot of what's happening with the family as fitting into that. Both trends towards partnership and still trends towards a dominator society. It's a constant tension between the two right now. But getting specifically to the issue of the single mother, I don't think that it's accidental that so many of the young men who have come out in this newer generation who are rejecting the old male stereotype to varying degrees came out of single mother homes, single family homes, single parent homes. Because they did not have that, you know, if you cry your father's going to beat you kind of thing. That's just one part of it, you see. But the real problem, you know, where are the good men? I mean, that's really one of the issues. Well, the good men are in every man. But they have a tremendous struggle coming out at this time. And of course the 80s were a tremendously important period of hammering back in again the ideal of masculinity as the dominator. So it was a setback in very, very real ways. Not just legal, but on the mythopoetic. And we live by stories. Those stories really set us back. So I think what I'm saying to you is that this is part of the dislocation that we're seeing. I think that there will be some kind of regrouping as we move with very, very -- there will continue to be family, but it won't be the procreation-oriented male-headed so-called patriarchal family. We're going to be seeing much more partnership families. And these units will not only be units of women and men. It will be also of men and men and women and women, of old people. In other words, family will be redefined more in terms of the clan, of the extended family, but again, not the patriarchal clan. That's as long as we do our work and we make it move in this direction, because obviously the choice is up to us. It's not going to happen by choice. Do you want to say something on this, because I think that's such an important subject? Well, I think you're right that the clan motif is what is gaining ground. I think the nuclear family was such a theater of violence for the male ego to exercise itself. Every man a king, this is the banner under which the nuclear family flies. And certainly the people in the Amazon that I'm most familiar with, there are extreme dominator societies in the Amazon. And then there are societies that seem to have a more equitable arrangement. And it always seems to involve a larger social grouping than the family. As early as the 1950s, Marshall McLuhan was talking about what he called electronic tribalism. And this, I think, is coming to be the nuclear family as it is glorified in the 20th century. It's largely an economic unit created out of 17th and 18th century forces. So it is not written adamantine. It is not in the genes. It's a very temporary arrangement, while the other, the clan arrangement, does have a morphogenetic field of millennia. And so I agree with that entirely. You have many more. I was curious, when you were talking about the invasion of the North, why was it that they didn't look at the partnership model and say, "Well, that looks better than what we have, let's integrate." And so I have a feeling there's something very insidious in the dominant model that makes it blind to the benefit of change. I think you've answered your own question. Yes? Can I say something about that? I recently have asked this very same question, and I have an idea which I'll try out on you, which is, I think that the trigger event in this scenario that you're asking about was the domestication of horses. And that that happening at that time, which it's known that it did happen at that time, changed the relationship of these peripheral nomadic peoples. And they suddenly saw opportunity, easy pickings. And so they mounted horses. It was an extension of the hunting psychology and began to be predatory upon these societies. Before the domestication of the horse, it was unthinkable because populations could not be rapidly transported and attack and successfully overwhelm sedentary populations. We're going to talk more about technology, but that's just one of the early instances where it was definitely technology that tilted events in favor of the dominator as against the partnership society. I think that's a very important element, and I'd like to expand it further to suggest that if we talk technology, we think of the first technology really after foraging is gathering and hunting. Because animals forage, but gatherers and hunters do store. They have containers and they share, which is very, very human, of course. But then you get this bifurcation, don't you, of people who become primarily agrarian, although they do domesticate some animals, and others who become in the more arid, less hospitable areas, but still sustainable to a certain extent. They become pastoralists. And it occurred to me that there may be something about the dependence on meat in a pastoral society where you raise little animals that you kind of like, you know, because they're so cute and loving, but you know that you're going to kill them, that that's the whole purpose of the whole exercise here. That that in itself may be part of the process. And there's so many parts of this process of the character armoring, of the deadening of empathy. But I would suggest that maybe in that technology itself there are. And I'm one, as we discussed yesterday, I don't see one cause. I'm not a biological determinist or an environmental determinist or a this or that determinist. I see a multiplicity of factors. The complex system, you always have a multiplicity of that. But I would suggest that that's another factor. [Audience member] I don't see how that's a norm in religion, that there's more liking of all the viruses. I don't know that much about you, but it doesn't seem like you're very close to those force invaders. How come they got that? [Morris] Well, those are later. I mean, see, most of the societies about which we have written history, in fact, all of the societies about which we have written history, I could almost say, are already infected by what I think of as the dominator virus, which is spread by war. I mean, war really spreads it. It's like a virus that spreads the dominator system. And so that, again, is a... You are the woman who asks all these marvelously three-hour questions. I love it. That's a very complex thing. But I do have to tell you that, for example, in Finnish folklore, and I happen to know this because I've traveled to Finland several times, and in fact my book, The Chalice and the Blade, has been acquired for publication. It will be published in Finnish. It's been acquired for publication in Germany, France, Italy, Finland, and also Brazil by now. It's been marvelous. It's been really extraordinary. But the thing about Finland is that there's earlier folklore there, indicating very definitely an earlier partnership tradition, with overlays, then, of the other things. So it's very complex. Yes? When you talk about history, prehistory, I always think of history as being the period where you have written records. That's right. And when you link history, therefore, with the dominator theory, is there some--or the dominator model-- is there some link, do you feel, between the process of writing and the dominator model? Is that merely coincidental? Well, let me answer that question by giving you some information. The evidence now is--again, a U.C.L.A. archaeologist, Maria Gimboudas, has--well, she has discovered it. Some of these were Vinca tablets, which were thought to be classical Greek colonies, in some obscure, you know, scripts. She has discovered that there is a language, a written language, a symbology, if you will, of writing, that annotates Sumerian, you know, supposedly started in Sumer about 3,300 years ago. I could never understand that because, you know, it was found in a temple, which was still a temple dedicated to the goddess and the priestesses. But presumably, the priestesses did the writing to keep mercantile records. And I could never understand why we as a species would do our first writing just to figure out how many pots of something we own. It didn't make sense, you know. And, of course, what this earlier writing was, was a mythical, poetic, symbolic, symbolic, sacred language, which she is trying to decipher. But the most important example of a historical society which still maintains its orientation primarily to the partnership model is Minoan Crete. And a British archaeologist--excuse me, a Greek archaeologist, Nicholas Slayton, who excavated Minoan civilization on the island of Crete and Santorini and surrounding areas very, very extensively for over 50 years, they're suggesting that the legend of Atlantis, the legend of this ancient civilization that was far more advanced, was sent into the sea, that again, it's based on a garbled folk memory of this earlier civilization, which, if we have time, I can tell you a little about because it's so extraordinary. Because, you see, there were in that time, at the end of Minoan civilization, which by then had already--which by then shifted into Mycenaean, which is the hybrid society between the invaders and the earlier ones, there were tremendous cataclysmic events, tremendous volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, enormous tidal waves, and literally, like in this little island-- what's left of it is little--Santorini, because about two-thirds of the island was literally swallowed by the sea. And the first one to suggest this theory was Peter Delmarinatus, who was the head of the Greek archaeological service. So it's tremendous detective work that we're doing. And, of course, that's what archaeology is about. It's really--I think of it as a space journey into our past, but also into our future because of the implications. You know, it's like time travel into our past, but really the importance is for our future. Yes? Can you speak about how the choosing of homosexuality for men, given the history in many different societies where the initiation rites were so painful that men would choose to be another man's second wife or would not go through into being initiated into a man because of the dominator society? Can you speak something about homosexuality? Why don't you say it yourselves more loudly because I don't want to-- I'm just curious about the choices that men have made into homosexuality because of dominator societies and not being able to express themselves in a feminine way, having a relationship with the goddess, perhaps, and also in history how different tribal societies, the initiation rites were so painful that oftentimes like in Native American societies and in Africa, in different places they would choose to be a man's second wife rather than be initiated into this domineering, controlling, all-powerful male in the society. I just wonder how that relates to homosexuality in society today and to AIDS. Well, that's a four-hour question, but I'm going to try to answer at least part of it. I think clearly just as we have completely distorted heterosexual sexuality into either calling it sinful and something that you only do for one reason, folks, and that's to impregnate a woman, right? I mean, not for pleasure, not for bonding, how that puts a barrier to communication because, of course, lack of communication is the sine qua non. It's the stuff of which dominator society is made. So all of the institutions are designed to prevent it or to equate what we've done. We see it so much in the modern pornography industry, which is again a resurgence really of dominator models, the erotization of dominance, right? I mean, so heterosexuality has been completely distorted by the dominator model. We're trying to reclaim it. Homosexuality, equally so. And you have really, by giving the examples that you did, have pointed out some of the ways in which men have been pushed into it in some tribes. But, of course, as Janais, the French writer, pointed out, the classical, if you will, the traditional homosexual relationship is a parody. It's a caricature, an exaggerated caricature of the male/female dominance subservient, the sadomasochistic relationship that is supposed to characterize the male/female relationship. And what I want to suggest to you is that the misogyny, you know, that is part of the culture, and it's not only part of the homosexual community, it's part of the whole dominator system, all of these things interweave in a complex way to make us confuse sex, which is an act of giving pleasure and taking pleasure, with an act of giving pain and receiving pain. I mean, it's an amazing thing. And the thing I want to end with is the Greeks. You know, classical Greece was a hybrid society. There's a chapter in the "Talus and the Blade" on the Greeks. And I've had some very, very interesting feedback from classical scholars who have said, "Wow, you know, I mean, that really, the archaeological data, bringing it together this way, really explains a lot of what was happening there." But consider homosexuality in Greece. Of course, this so-called cradle of democracy, where women lost their votes. I have to tell you this. I have to tell you this. I just have to. When Augustine tells a story, which is a wonderful clue, he says that the way that Athens got its name was that there was this contest where they were going to either name it after the, you know, Pluto, the god of the underground, you know, the god of the underground, or Athena. Athena, of course, is a direct descendant of the goddess, except she now has become this insane combination of the goddess of wisdom and war, which, you know, only the dominated system can do that, but that's OK. And apparently the women, and there was one more woman, they voted for Athena. So, in punishment, now listen, in punishment, St. Augustine relates that women lost the right to vote. And we're told that Athens is the cradle of democracy. And of course, that's very interesting, because half the population in Athens were women, right? And they were literally house, under house arrest. I mean, the apartheid was so great, you know, they were segregated into the women's quarters. And 90% of both men and women were slaves. So we have this, you know, very free society, right, which is sort of a joke. But it's a hybrid society between some of the earlier, you know, the Gnoan, very definitely, I mean, as Clayton points out, you know, the Gnoan tradition flourished still, you know, in the beautiful art, and in many of, but we don't have time for the whole thing. But the thing that I wanted to tell you was about homosexuality, which is so fascinating. The accepted norm for homosexuality, and the only way it was tolerated, was if it was between an older man... There's still... Yes. Terence mentioned this idea of a northern people's mounting on horses, and coming back and dominating the cradle cultures. Could you talk about the fact that these people were also, were essentially the sons of those that had been exiled from those cultures in the first place? Because no one leaves the cradle culture voluntarily. Somehow they didn't conform, or there was something in their psychology that they couldn't cooperate, and they were sent away. And they went into northern areas, they had to harden, they had to, so their survival qualities were much more difficult, and that created a different psychology, and then when they found a vehicle, they came back and essentially destroyed the culture that had at some point earlier rejected them and thrown them out. And that's always like the return of the prodigal, only this time it was a horse. Well, you know, that's a very interesting theory that you propose. Fortunately, I don't have any data. See, it's very difficult. I mean, we can hypothesize on what happened and how it happened, but the hard data just isn't there yet. The hard data that we have is what happened when they came in. That we are beginning to acquire. And I think with time we'll also get more and more clues. But I think you have been spinning some very interesting theories there. Yes? You speak to a section about how to discriminate between true partnering and partnering that is fostered by the dominant society to gain economic profit. And I can go back to this. Scandinavian countries worked in work clause years ago. I think we looked upon it but without any sense of being threatened by it. The Japanese do the same thing. And now it's a key element of the industrial complex to duplicate them because we're threatened by them economically. Well, again, that's a very interesting question, especially the Japanese phenomenon, which is such a mix of the really very paternalistic and very dominator and yet a basic partnership understanding. And I don't even know how to begin to answer that except to say that we have to be very careful with the terms that we're trying to reclaim. I mean, I'm trying to reclaim for us the term "partnership." And you're quite right. We need to make distinctions between the way that it's been used conventionally. And also, we want to reclaim terms like "family" and "tradition" because these traditions are much, much older, okay? And they lasted for much, much longer. So, I mean, this is part of our reclamation work. But the second part of what you're saying, which is the issue of economic competition, the dominator system artificially creates scarcity. And that's an area that I explore in some of the later chapters of "The Talus" and "The Blade." But I think it's something that we really need to understand very, very clearly. See, all of these things are tremendous opportunities for work, tremendous amount of research. Once we see that there is what the dynamics are of the dominator system, then we can begin to also create the alternatives and to come out of it. So I would have to leave it, you know, in these very general terms. Yes, David? This, by the way, I did introduce David. That's David. I just want to talk quickly to your point because I'm both a social psychologist and I'm a refugee from the business world. Oh. And from the viewpoint of a social psychologist, rather than what you're saying, there was work by one of the great geniuses of the San Francisco, Kurt Lewin, studying participatory work within the work context, group discussions. I mean, instead of the hierarchical thing, the leader tells the workers what to do, the workers gather together and discuss with the leaders and so on, and they come up with a consensus, and he found the power of that work. Now, that went into a lot of literature that went to the corporate world. There were a lot of training groups and a lot of consultants made their livings for many years. Going into the corporate world, they were hired by the hierarchy to go in there and in a sense build the illusion in the corporate world that it was all teams. Boy, you've got a say in this, you've got a voice in the decision of where we're going and so on. But unfortunately, everybody knew, including the consultants themselves, that it was a sham because when you really got down to the core of it, it was still Mr. Big calling the shots and you got fired and hired. No 60-day notice for a plant closing, it just flopped. Overnight, the whole partnership thing could be thrown out. The interesting thing that's happening, you mentioned Japanese, the interesting thing that's happening now is because the Japanese have this system that on one point has a lot of hierarchy but also has a lot of this teamwork stuff and it's genuine because that system is now present. Economically, it goes deeply. At last, the corporate world is being forced beyond. The consultants now can go out there and sell and what amounts to the partnership way of thinking in the corporate world with some hope that it may catch on simply because the people upstairs and the people that invest in all these industries are really scared. They can see they're going down the drain unless they become true, unless they really make this partnership thing work. That's why it's very, very exciting in the business. I think you can respond just a little further, more sound, and respond to your initial question. Can you stand up? To respond to your initial question, I think there might be just a slight, well, not a danger maybe, but a problem in where there would be a difference between the true partnership type of society which goes on and is economically sound for itself and doesn't seek to exploit another party, a bunch of people, for that type of economic gain. Now, it might be just a little insidious if typically male-dominant societies, the domineering society can bring women into its domination philosophy and incorporate what used to be a very powerful and good partnership type of society into a domineering society and just use the aspect of the partnership to exploit other people in the same way that the male-dominant society has done for so long. It would be not fortunate if that were to happen. You've brought up the whole problem of co-option, and that's really the danger. And that's why the clarity is so very, very important for us at this time, so that we can understand that it's not enough to give it lip service. We have to live it. And you know, it's not easy because every one of us, I mean, people say to me, "Are you a liberated woman?" And I, you know, I mean, nobody in my generation that I can think of could even remotely make such a claim. We all carry a tremendous amount of dominating stuff in us. And so that, you know, our main task is -- well, it's not our main task. We have to do everything. People say, "What do we have to do?" The answer is everything. We certainly have to work on ourselves a great deal in order to do that. Yes? Some calls that I see is in schools you see a lot of teachers actually starting to go over to trying to teach co-operation and trying to preserve and honor children's self-esteem. And I think that's a significant change. Because that wasn't the model. It was familiation and authority in schools, and that quickly, quickly changed. No, and I think that's a very important element because the dominator system thrives on this idea that I'm just grubbling. It's no accident that most of the world religions which are dominator -- you know, they have tremendous partnership elements in them, but they also have this tremendous overlay of dominator stuff that you literally grubble before the deity. I mean, I'm this poor worm, and forgive me my sins. And that's really where I think that the shamanistic experience is such an important element to sort of really reconnect with our innate worth. Yes, it's a dignified religion. [laughter] But it's interesting what you were saying about our being formed by our past. We need to recall and define ourselves, I think all of us, as the adult children of male chauvinists, and perhaps create support groups and disentangle ourselves. [laughter] Now we've got a whole bunch of them. But see, the thing is that we're all trying to disentangle ourselves. I'm just looking at Sid Kelshang, who's sitting in the audience, and who sent me a wonderful manuscript trying to understand from a different perspective some of the things that we've been talking about. When we look at our past, and I think this is the real empowering aspect of this new knowledge -- this very old knowledge, really -- of our past is that we can then look at the full history. And that's a very important empowering element in us to validate those impulses in us. It's not being radical or new or any of the stuff that we're being told, but it's being very, very deeply rooted. I think that there are two people way in the back. Yes. Oh, Robin. Can you stand, Robin? Because it's almost impossible to hear unless you stand. Is there any way that we are going to get beyond the dualism in this between the dominator in partnership, the bad guys and the good guys, the repudiation of all our ancestors for the last 3,000 years as having taken these disastrous turns to try and get us to our destruction, and that we are the only people who are going to be in 3,000 years of history? Well, that whole issue of not throwing out the baby with the bathwater is how I think about it. I guess that's sort of a very -- I think that the dualism is only a dualism of possibilities. It's an issue of free choice in the ultimate sense, I think, that as a species, we're very flexible, and we have -- I would say we have these two basic choices. We have many, many, many other choices, and these two basic choices are very, very complex. So I'm not in the least bit suggesting -- just as I'm not suggesting that this is an issue of women against men, you know, I mean, I always stress this in my work, that it isn't. It's a question of the kind of organization, the kind of vision, and the kind of actualization of the vision, the kind of structure that we choose. I don't think it's an issue of pointing the finger, Robin, and saying, "Look at the terrible things that you did to us," because it's the terrible things we did to ourselves, and we all know that there is this shadow part of us. And I mean, if you want to take it, you know, to that level, sure, there's always, you know, that other possibility. We have a choice of being very cruel. We have a choice of being very kind. But what we're discovering is that these are not just personal choices, that these are choices that are very, very, very much related to our social structure, social environment, and this whole idea of healing ourselves. You know, trying to heal yourself in a dominated society is sort of like going up on a down escalator. So that's what we're talking about. It's not a question of finger-pointing and of, you know, of saying, "This is a, you know, this is bad." In fact, the whole attraction of partnership is that it offers a positive path, or rather, many positive paths, because it is a pluralistic. I think that's really what I want to stress. It's a pluralistic path. And you had a -- Yeah. I'm curious if you know of any evidence that would support the notion that the shamanic or sacramental use of psychedelic plants is in any way related to whether or not a civilization or society becomes more towards the partnership or more towards the dominant mode. Well, that is, of course, one of Terrence's arguments. And I would say this, that -- Well, let me first clarify something. What I just said is that I see many paths. And so I see many paths to shamanism. And I see the shamanic experience as not an elite experience. I see the shamanic experience as something that every one of us is capable of. And demonstrably so. And I see many paths to that spiritual, mystical knowing, the real knowing of our oneness with one another and with the world. Now, I think that there's absolutely no question that the plants do provide a very powerful avenue to that. And however my sense about the plants providing a powerful avenue, as I've told Terrence, and maybe we can talk about that some more, is that it has to be also in the context of a number of social support systems. Because our imagination, having been so filled with dominator images, can, through the hallucinogens, also go in some pretty horrific, non-healing paths. Now, to specifically answer your question, there's very sparse evidence. Because after reading Terrence's work, and he writes as eloquently -- well, not quite as eloquently, because I speak like a physician, but he writes so eloquently -- I was -- I mean, you really start looking at it with new eyes, which was such a gift from you. And of course, I saw among some of the Bulgarian artifacts, you know, the Balkans, some mushrooms. Absolutely no question. You know, there are these statuaries of these mushrooms. And we know that most of the imagery of the art of the period is sacred, religious. So there was no question, but it was an isolated instance. It was just one. You know, I know that the Minoans used the poppy. So probably, though, and as you will -- as you confirm, the poppy does not necessarily confirm hallucinatory. You have to do a lot of treating of it. So one could say that maybe, you know, that's an indication that they used plants, you know, for the shamanic experience. And your favorite example -- I should really let you talk about this. Oh, you're doing well. I'm also very fascinated by the early Neolithic -- well, actually, the African -- those are your most potent arguments, I think. Well, please talk about it, because you can talk about the formal potency. Yes, well, I will talk in detail about this. I'll maybe just say a little bit now. It ties back -- I enjoyed your exegesis of Genesis this morning. But the one symbol that you didn't dwell on or mention was the fact that the issue was an issue about plant use. That Eve was tossed out of the garden because she ate of the fruit of the tree of life and involved Adam in that. The serpent was the minion, as you said, of the goddess. And the serpent said, "If you eat of this plant, you will become equal to Yawa." And Yawa apparently agreed with this assessment that the plant was a true rival, that the union of the plant and the woman was a worthy rival to his suzerainty in this situation. And the expulsion into history was essentially removal from access to the fruit of the tree of knowledge. And it's very interesting and ties in with what we said last night about monotheism, that monotheism gives permission for this image of the ego, which is powerful, not to be questioned, paternalistically domineering, etc. Even, and perhaps unconsciously, in Rian's choice of symbols, the chalice is the symbol of partnership and transformation and unity, but it is quite simply a utensil for holding something which you drink, a sacrament. The chalice without the sacrament is simply a vessel. So I will talk probably tomorrow a lot about this and of the scenario of the emergence of human self-reflection in Africa and how it relates to mushrooms and the partnership society and the goddess. My argument, and I'll just say this here, against the absence of overwhelmingly convincing physical evidence, is first of all that the truly central mystery of a religion is never portrayed or spoken of. It always is only symbolically indicated. And to my mind, the coincidence in the ancient Middle East of goddesses with cattle, they're always mixed up together. Well, the third and secret term in that trinity is the mushroom. The goddess and the cattle are linked in association with the mushroom, which is never mentioned. So we'll talk more about that, but at, for instance, Melart's site, you pronounce it so well. It's actually spelled C-A-T-A-L, but it's called Chatozuyuk. Chatozuyuk. The overwhelming motif is of cattle, lovingly and beautifully portrayed. 16,000 years earlier at Altamira, the motif is cattle, lovingly and beautifully portrayed. In the Tseli frescoes in the central Sahara, it's cattle. And I think the cow is the fusion symbol both for the goddess and the mushroom, because it is the caring attitude, the gentleness, the giving of milk and of nurturing, and all of this that makes the cow and the cow goddess the major symbol carrying this thing in the Neolithic. I'm right in saying that you're a magician with words, because you do present a very, very coded argument. I would still say that I believe that while I have no doubt that the use of plants, so much was lost of the knowledge of plants. We were yesterday talking about how some of the last vestiges of that in the West were burnt with the witches, the so-called witches, the wise women, who were burnt at the stake, not at the, well the church of course was going into the medicine business, but it was much more complicated than that. They were actually healing people with these old methods. And so much of this lore has been lost. I have no question that plants, that our evolution and the intimate symbiotic relationship with the plant world is fascinating and yet to the really recompensatory, and you are one of the main killers of that story. But I would still say that there are many paths in my estimation to the shamanic experience, to the gnosis, to the knowledge, and that the ancients used many of these paths, that it was not exclusive to the use of the plant. And I would also really want to stress this point, that it is tremendously important, I think, for us to understand that when the ancients used the plant, and specifically the hallucinatory, revealing the plant not as addictive, that was one of the questions, the plant as the addictive use and the revealing use, when they used it for not to escape, because see, so much of the dominator system requires escape through addiction. So it's tremendous, because it's such a miserable reality, who wants to live in it? You know, you escape through addiction to alcohol, or to mechanical sex, or to bulimia, or to anorexia, or to opium, you know, the opiate of the people, or to religion, etc. So it's very dangerous at this point, I think, to really not understand that it has to be very carefully embedded in rituals that is geared to partnership. And that that is the key, and I would hope that perhaps you can explore that to some measure. Because I'm convinced that when the ancients used these incredible plants, you know, that suddenly we've come into another universe, another reality, which was much more real than the experiential one, and that they really sort of had very highly developed telepathic and other abilities, and they found all these sites, you know, that are sacred and so on, that we now know have some power too, that this was deeply, deeply embedded in ritual, very carefully, very deliberately, and that if we are to use the plant again, then it has to be done by, again, very carefully, very deliberately, and most important, very lovingly, very carefully, developing the ritual. Yes, I think... psychoactive drugs exist along a spectrum of effects, and to talk deeply about drugs, we're going to have to shed everything that we've been educated in the matter, which is a kind of blurring of distinction, in order to empower a general condemnation. As sociologists, or as people looking at how these things affect culture, what you want to pay attention to is the operational effect, and the spectrum runs from total addiction to a total dissolving of all behavioral patterns, and some compounds reinforce a narrowing of the focus of consciousness, unexamined machine-like activity related to the acquisition of the drug, and then at the other end of the spectrum, there are compounds and plants which dissolve machine-like unexamined activity, dissolve behavior patterns, and which expand the focus of consciousness tremendously. And the truth that is hard to hear is that human beings have never existed independently of the effects of one group or the other. In other words, the idea of a drug-free society is an utter fiction, and always has been, because we are symbiotic creatures with the vegetable kingdom, or queendom, and this symbiotic relationship is most apparent to us as self-reflecting entities in the subtler effects of what we might very broadly call foods, so that when you look back through history, you're looking at opium, sugar, coffee, tobacco, hallucinogens, and these are all pushing and pulling us along the spectrum of addiction and constricted consciousness versus dissolving of social programming and reconnection to the larger natural surround. And so there are dominator drugs and dominator use patterns, and there are partnership drugs and partnership use patterns that reinforce open-endedness and creativity and this sort of thing. But what is not available as an option is the notion of the drug-free society, because foods themselves impinge on the neurological functioning and the level of neurotransmitters and the degree of alertness and attention and this sort of thing. I found myself a couple of weeks ago saying, "A person who does not take drugs is like a computer that does not use software." It doesn't do anything. And so then the question is not a kind of moralistic pontification against drugs, but an intelligent awareness of choices and options based on historical experience. Well, that's all I really want to say about that, but it's important to make that point because we are going to have to increase the sophistication of our own understanding of the drug problem, because part of the articulation and implementation of the partnership society is going to revolve around this issue of reconnecting with these shamanic tools and re-realizing how, to what a truly intense degree, we are a symbiotic creature. If we do not maintain our connections to the vegetable world, to that source of gnosis, then we wander in alienation and existential self-doubt. That's why there is, as you doubtless picked up, this difference between Rian and I on this point. She is more, in this case, the sociologist, and I am more the biological determinist, because I really think the embedding in nature is far more real and strong and intense than we know, because we are, of course, the apex of a long process of alienation. Can I ask a question? It's a gate, it seems to be, what I'm hearing here, so that it has a fear-dominator logic in your well-reasoned argument that I have. You're talking to me, and you're saying that it sounds like I'm saying this is the mechanism by which it happened, and therefore I'm closing out other options. In the most open way. Well, I am a frank propagandist for this point of view. Nobody was saying it till I was saying it. I think it's fine if one person says it. I'm interested in seeing it demolished. The way to truth, you don't have to fear to test truth. If it's true, it can withstand any sort of onslaught. Perhaps not demolished, perhaps emulsified. What does emulsion mean, literally? Softened. Softened and penetrated by another medium. Conducive to absorption. I love that metaphor. I would like to suggest that maybe this afternoon, when we talk about technology, we can think of plants as technologies and how their use really differs. Definitely. We can get into the template of the partnership and the dominator society, because I think that really, to a very large extent, we have to address that issue. To really emulsify. I think that's good. Let me ask you a rather obvious question here. When you were starting to get into the dominator drug versus the partnership drug, I was beginning to get very excited. Am I right in assuming that at some point this afternoon and tomorrow, you are going to say, "Okay, here it is. I'm blocking it out and listing one versus another." I think this would be an extremely valuable contribution, because in my own experience with the whole application of the dominator partnership model, you take every area, politics, economics, child raising, and so on. You apply this model, and all of a sudden, by being able to push things into that camp or that camp, you gain a tremendous clarity. I think that this would move forward the whole controversy about the drug scene right here. When are you going to do that? Well, if not this afternoon, certainly tomorrow, but it's on my agenda for sure. I'm interested in what both of you are saying, and I'm thinking as I'm sitting here, and I really don't know how to word it, that I'm sure there must be and is ancient knowledge about not eliminating, not eliminating the drug possibility or getting caught up in the dogma of any kind, but the ability for people to be inducted by those people who carry the vibration in their central nervous system, for instance, in perhaps ancient rituals, ancient groups, where they hung out as perhaps a group, not necessarily the guru-dominated idea, but that could be a person that sells shoes, but who carries a vibration, which is an induction into the energy field, which would do exactly the same thing as a psychedelic experience, and that it is possible for hanging out with people in ancient times, where they--I always think of the serpent in terms of the final central nervous system, which of course the Egyptians had it somewhat this way, and the mastodon, the feminine marriage, which is the partnership. So I'd be interested in anything you had to say about that, also in a balance with the central shamanism. Well, I think shamanism is the institution that you're indicating. I mean, it is--we forget in the modern presentation of shamanism that the really central motif of it is curing, which is transferring energy from one person to another and leading people to higher states of adaptive activity. It is the exploring of the invisible world, which is stressed in psychedelic shamanism, is not simply an academic concern of the shamans. They are doing this in order to acquire power, and the purpose for acquiring the power is to heal. That's the end result of the whole thing. And I think as this archaic revival moves along and as the partnership notion becomes better understood, the shamanic model as a characterological map for each of us will make more and more sense, because it is an empowering of direct and immediate experience, which is what the dominator thing sucks away from us. We are turned into citizens who are kind of sociological placeholders who receive their orders from the organs of media that pass it on from the establishment. The dominator thing to function must undercut the notion of the uniqueness and the freedom of the individual. And shamanizing works in the here and now to empower felt experience. And so that causes me to think that those sensitivities, those ratios of feeling, are what are going to be engendered in the new people who will live in and perpetuate the post-historical partnership society. You know, in my experience of shamanism, there is such a range, an extraordinary range of how shamanism manifests itself. And I think one of the best examples is the contrast that Michael Harner drew between the Hivaro culture or the Shuar culture and the Amawaka, who used the same major psychedelic, Banisteriopsis coffee, but where the social behaviors of these two groups who live in a relatively proximate situation is highly contrasted. The Amawaka being much more partnership oriented, and the Hivaro or the Shuar being much more dominator oriented. And I think that's just one of many, many examples, the Yanomamo are another good example, where the use of maybe 15, 20, 30, 40, 50 different kinds of cultivated hallucinogens doesn't seem to abrogate behaviors which are quite dominator-based. So, you know, my question is, it's like drawing an idealistic Russovian picture of the Neolithic. It's my usual, and I have some experience of shamanism, personal and direct, in terms of my, you know, past 20 years in the area, to just say that it's really, I think, dangerous to characterize the Neolithic idealistically as it is to characterize the range of behaviors found in the shamanic cultures idealistically. But rather to look realistically and discerningly at these particular, at the trends that arise within these great range of cultures that we're talking about here, and then from the dark mirrors or from the problems that we perceive, the moral and ethical problems about interrelatedness or the lack thereof, that do occur, for example, in some shamanic cultures, that we need to, you know, be discerning. Yes, well, when you do fieldwork, the first thing you discover is that all academic categories are artificial. What dealing with shamans is about is dealing with individuals. And some of you may know F. Bruce Lamb's book, The Rio Tigre and Beyond, where a essentially urban mestizo shaman involved in rosewood gathering expeditions in extremely remote areas of the Amazon comes upon extremely unassimilated, uncontacted people and takes ayahuasca with them and discovers that they don't know what they're doing. They don't know how to make it right. And he makes it for them and says, "You don't do it that way, you do it this way." And it knocks their socks off. So this is a case where that illustrates your point that if you are romantic about these things, if you have synthetic notions of what constitutes cultural purity and that sort of thing, you're going to get into trouble. Shamanism from the inside is very much an attitude like the very best attitudes that you meet in scientific research. It is a desire to know, to find out, to explore. And dogma is sort of the shockwave which trails along behind it. But dogma serves the function of social ordering. When you get in with these guys and women who are doing this stuff, there are no social rules because they are extra-environmentals. That's what shamanism, another possible definition of shamanism, it's the condition of being extra-environmentally related to your own culture so that you can set the paradigmatic agenda. Everyone else is inside the context of the language, but you are creating the context. And so you have a very, very different relationship. So yes, I would agree. I would say what you're talking about, as you characterized it, is something that Jose once called neo-shamanism. That is that we look at a range of cultural and psychological and social behaviors that are deemed shamanism. And then we extract from that range a type, a type which actually becomes an archetype or an ideal type to which individuals like us can relate. But my problem with that is that once you enter the domain of shamanism, it's rather like Christ's 40 days in the desert when the devil came along or when Mara came along to Buddha. There is a point in the journey which is definitely characterized by the experience of temptation and the possibility of things going awry, so to speak, of things going in ways that are anti-social and anti-environmental against the grain of compassion or against the grain of correct relationship with environment is there. Well, there's no knowledge without risk taking. And this is what the new age doesn't want to hear. That, you know, the belief is current that it can be packaged or it can be gotten from a guru or something like that. The fact is, you know, it really comes, I think, in a dimension where there is real risk and real fear. And that's a tough mountain to climb. If you've climbed it a hundred times, you still won't want to climb it the hundred and first time. And I think shamanism throughout history and prehistory and worldwide has always suffered from this. It's very rare that you meet someone who would prefer to shamanize rather than to talk about it, you know. And it's the shamanizing that is important, not the talking about it. I'd like to say something on that. And it's this that I think that the points that you make are very important, that we can't really talk about the shaman, because the image that immediately springs into our minds when we think of the shaman, for example, is male, because that's what's been presented to us. And yet if we look at some of the oldest scenes of what was probably shamanistic dancing in Paleolithic caves, it is women, some of them pregnant. And that gives us a clue, which of course is very interesting, of some of the early perception of the shamanistic experience as being very much connected with women's mysteries. The mystery not only of birth, which is an enormous mystery, but also the cyclic menstrual, lunar cycle. And that I think is really very, very interesting, that when we talk about shaman again, we sort of disengage ourselves from the stereotypical notions of what is a shaman, and this whole idealization of the shaman, because the humor, I mean, shamanism can also be used to incite people into a hypnotic trance to go and disembowel their neighbors, you know, and have so be done. And one could even say that Hitler, in a sense, used some of the shamanic techniques of, you know, this torchlight, you know, the trappings of... So it's very, very dangerous, I think, to idealize it. And again, I am glad that you, again, stressed that we need, it's very, very important, as I said, that we not idealize these earlier Neolithic cultures that are now coming to light. The informative thing about them is not that they were ideal cultures, because they were not ideal cultures. The informative thing is that what they seem to tell us is that the early direction of our cultural evolution in the mainstream seems to have been orienting towards the partnership model more than towards the dominator model. And of course, in reality, we're always talking about a matter of degree. I mean, there is, I was going to say, there's no such thing as a pure dominator of partnership culture. Some of the examples I gave you come pretty darn close. But on the other hand, people being human beings, even the most oppressed of beings, somehow find subtle ways of finding partnership modes, even within the most horrible dominator structures. So powerful is that part of us. But I really want to stress that. So this is a parent that I will confess, I know very little about. I'm going to be talking more. A bell is going off in my mind. One of my great interest in my particular area of research has been through the original Mac David. It happens to be an extremely powerful concept for analyzing all kinds of creativity, social change, and so on. The interplay between the charismatic individual bearing the charisma and the institutionalization, the bureaucratization of the charisma, which is an extremely powerful tool in sociology. Now, my question is, see, I keep hearing, when you're talking about the shamanic experience, I keep getting the message, "Aha, that relates to charisma, the charismatic individual, the visibility." You were saying something about extra-environmental, how did you phrase it? How did you use that thing? You're able to transcend the web. You're able to transcend the social web, the environmental web. Is that it? Yes, you become an extra-environmental. Yes, and of course, this is the key, not only to the individual's creativity, it's the key to the individual who goes beyond the boundaries, the norm, any system of society, any system of cognition or of emotion, and takes it to the next step. Of course, the point that Rian is making, like I said, that person can also take the next step, which is the wrong way, as Hitler did. How do you relate, or how do you think of the shamanic experience and the shaman in relation to the idea of charisma and the charismatic? Do you mean charisma in the generally understood sense of social magnetism, or do you mean in the more philosophical sense of an empowering from on high and a descent of spirit into matter? We should identify what it is and then deal with it after, because we've got a healthy drug called food. Well, this is rich stuff, and I'm interested to go into it, and I'm very interested. We got to a good place, because the real question is about this experience, about how there's something that some people here know what is meant, and some people don't, and it's very hard to be halfway in between, because we're talking about something real. This transcends ideas. It's an experience accessible in the world, and it casts the argument Rian is making in a whole new light, and it casts our relationships to each other in a whole new light. So we will pick up this theme in the afternoon. What time do we begin? We just were discussing. What time would you like to begin? What time is it? We conclude at five. We conclude at five. Oh, my gosh, already one. Yeah, we'll lunch in here until at least two. Well, let's start at 2.30. 2.30, and then we can run. We can go to 6.00. Okay, well, 2.30 then. And we also need to get to some of the very important questions you raised yesterday in our DTM, so we've got quite a bit of time left. This is KPFK Los Angeles. We've been listening to the beginnings of a seminar at the Ojai Foundation on man and woman at the end of history with Terrence McKenna and Rian Eisler. Rian Eisler, the author of "Chalice and the Blade." The seminar comes in five tapes, and they are available from the Ojai Foundation. The five tapes are $40 total, and again, it's man and woman at the end of history. The Ojai Foundation address and phone number is Ojai Foundation, Box 1620, Ojai, California, 93023. Ojai Foundation, Box 1620, Ojai, California, 93023. Five tapes comprising man and woman at the end of history, available for $40. {END} Wait Time : 0.00 sec Model Load: 0.69 sec Decoding : 1.52 sec Transcribe: 4393.28 sec Total Time: 4395.49 sec