Secret_History

26 The Secret History of the World
not mean the ancient Egyptians or Babylonians or Sumerians, but rather peoples of
far greater antiquity than they, and that the Egyptians, Babylonians, Sumerians,
and so on, retained only a distorted and corrupted version of these ideas in the
form of myths and legends which they elaborated and utilized in their “magical
practices”. Further, that it is only in the light of the present day scientific
knowledge that the true ancient knowledge, depicted in these myths, legends and
religious rites can be properly understood. This is not to say that we are suggesting
that we understand or have interpreted all of them. We are only saying that there
are many ideas in these ancient stories that suggest the former existence of an
advanced science that may have enabled an interface between layers, or
dimensions of reality, on this planet in archaic times.
This idea is not original to us, as many readers will know. However, we do think
that we have been able to shine a light into certain dark corners that have been,
heretofore, poorly understood. Arthur C. Clarke pointed out, “Any sufficiently
evolved technology is indistinguishable from magic.” When we divest our minds
of preconceived notions about what the ancients may or may not have known, and
we just look at myths and legends, the substrate of religions, over and over again
we see descriptions of activities, events, terms and potentials that express such
things as a knowledge of free energy, anti-gravity, time travel, interplanetary
travel, atomic energy, atomic molecularization and demolecularization; just a
whole host of doings that were formerly understood as the wild and superstitious
imaginings of howling savages, that today - with scientific knowledge - are
becoming commonplace activities. Many scholars explain that such stories were
attempts to understand the environment by personifying, or anthropomorphizing,
the forces of nature. Other interpreters make the mistake of assuming that it was a
“sacred science” in terms that strictly deny any form of material interpretation.
I gave this idea a great deal of thought at one point, all the while observing my
five children develop, paying close attention to how and when they noticed things
in their environment, how they explained phenomena to themselves and each
other; avoiding my own input as long as possible so that the child’s originality
would develop as naturally as possible. One of the earliest observations I made
about my children (and other children with whom they interacted) and their
reactions to their environment, was that they pretty much just accept it as it is.
They don’t seem to need “explanations” for it. It is what it is until some adult
repeats to them some story about it which may entertain them or frighten them.
Until “stories” are told to them, children are intensely busy just imitating what
they see other people do, most generally the adults in their lives. Without fantastic
tales being told to them, their games of make-believe consist of ordinary mundane
dramas. Even when they are told magical stories about flying horses or people
with super powers, they often resist these dramas in preference for those that
directly apply to their own experience and observation.
Perhaps the comparison of the development of a child’s thinking in relation to
their environment, to the development of evolutionary thinking of human beings in
general is a stretch. But, I do think that it ought to give us some pause to question
just where and how the creation of myth and legend actually served human beings,
evolutionarily speaking. Why would anyone tell a story about a man with magic
sandals that enabled him to fly if they are merely anthropomorphizing the forces of