dragons

[Rebeckah]

This was amazing. My brother sent me an email/thesis about how dragons are a composite symbol from the primal fear of eagles, snakes and big cats left over from when we were mud people. I spent hours writing about how the dragon is a kundalini symbol, and explaining what K is, yada. I sent this email *reply to all* which went to everybody in my family, which will freak my atheist dad out, no doubt, LOL! Well, he ~wanted~ me to write more! LOL!

When I reread it, I realized I was writing my grad essay. I'm going thru the classes again tho. It was really neat to watch this work in my life. Like Goddess is saying *write this now*. Lots of the lessons went that way for me too. Meaning the next lesson would *show up* somewhere for me. This was amazing since my brother and I never write each other, and he has NO interest in dragons as far as I know, but he ~knew~ to send it to somebody in the family. cool huh?
Rebeckah

[Mystress]

 Share them both with us, OK? Post it here!
  Blessings..

: This was amazing. My brother sent me an email/thesis about how dragons are a composite symbol from the primal fear of eagles, snakes and big cats left over from when we were mud people. I spent hours writing about how the dragon is a kundalini symbol, and explaining what K is, yada. I sent this email *reply to all* which went to everybody in my family, which will freak my atheist dad out, no doubt, LOL! Well, he ~wanted~ me to write more! LOL!

: When I reread it, I realized I was writing my grad essay. I'm going thru the classes again tho. It was really neat to watch this work in my life. Like Goddess is saying *write this now*. Lots of the lessons went that way for me too. Meaning the next lesson would *show up* somewhere for me. This was amazing since my brother and I never write each other, and he has NO interest in dragons as far as I know, but he ~knew~ to send it to somebody in the family. cool huh?
: Rebeckah

[Rebeckah]

Here's the email my brother sent me about dragons. Like most things, once I reread it, I found different points of view in it. But I still take issue with the evolutionary view. {Meaning we're nothing more than monkeys.}

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David E Jones. _An Instinct for Dragons_. New York: Routledge, 2000. 175 pp. Bibliography and index. $24.95 (cloth), ISBN 0-415-92721-8.

Reviewed for H-Nilas by Marion W. Copeland
mediaone.net="" t="">, adjunct Tufts Center for Animals and Public Policy, Tufts Veterinary School, North Grafton, Massachusetts

Deeply Etched Responses

Perhaps the most startling revelation in Jones' exploration of the human affinity for the dragon is not that so many cultures have imagined dragons in so much the same way or even that those similar images have been assumed that of a real creature, but that what explains the similarity and affinity is the shared biological heritage of all humans--all primates. "The world dragon," Jones explains, "was formed by the nature of our own shadowy progenitors'
encounters with the creatures who hunted them over millions of years" (p. 25).  The significance of those encounters first occurred to him when Jones was observing the behavior of the African vervet monkey who give "distinctive alarm calls at the appearance of three different predators: leopards, martial eagles, and pythons." Preparing his field notes for a lecture on vervets, Jones found the images of the three predators--feline, raptor, and eagle--merging in
his own mind into that of a dragon (p. 4).

Following what he accepted as inspiration, Jones discovered
supportive evidence "in the field of communication theory" as well as in the fields of "brain evolution, information processing, and memory," all of which have observed that "the brain merges different but related items into single information-rich units" (p. 55).

Herbert A. Simon discovered in 1974 that assembling compound symbol structures--"chunks"--is a basic mechanism of memory.  Animal cognition theorist, Donald Griffin suggests the term "template" for such a particular "sensory pattern," while Earl Count coined the term "biogram" for "patterns that are transmitted genetically." "The
human biogram," he wrote, "may be seen as an evolutionary
transformation of the primate biogram, which is in turn a
transformation upon the mammalian biogram, and so on down the phylogenetic scale" (pp. 58-59).  

Based on their insights Jones concludes, "The dragon is an expression of such chunks, indexing, biograms, ... a brain-dragon that was created during the time when our ancient ancestors [creatures not unlike the vervet, perhaps]
were adapting to a life on the ground.  The deeply etched patterns of recognition and responses to the three major predators, honed among arboreal primates for millennia, were lumped at this point into a general predator category, the culturally phrased expression of which is 'dragon'" (p. 60).

That the raptor-snake-carnivore complex constitutes a pervasive presence in human phobias lends further support to Jones' theory. The most obvious characteristic of the dragon is reptilian. Secondary are the creature's raptor and carnivore features (wings, fangs, and claws).  The most common human phobia is fear of snakes, and although fear of cats and birds is less prevalent, these are nonetheless frequent and much documented phobias.  Based on
information from such disparate fields of study, Jones comes to the suggestive conclusion that "the dragon image [is] ... a kind of clock, or temporal map of an important aspect of the history of primate (and, therefore, human) predator/prey relations" (p. 78).

He also finds it supportive that human heroes worldwide are cast as dragon-slayers in the early phases of "cultural evolution."  Later dragons may acquire a more balanced reputation, symbolizing both good and evil, or even evolving to represent good.  Thus, dragons also serve as a clue to the development of politics and religion in
individual human cultures.  In the West, where dragons were for centuries believed to be both real and related to the devil, dragons proved an encouragement to centralized organization under a "dragon-slayer."  Once such organization was established, the dragon became a symbol of state and, over time, "its nature changes to reflect that fact."  That the Eastern dragon has existed as "the
friendly consort of emperors" for many more centuries than has been true in the West seems to Jones to explain what is often assumed to be a contradiction between the Western and Eastern dragon.  The latter has simply had longer to mellow.  The Western dragon is still in the mellowing process (p.  111).  Hence while 21st century young
adults take the challenges of _Dungeons and Dragons_ quite
seriously, their younger siblings cuddle with Puff the Magic Dragon.

I have only two quarrels with Jones, neither having to do with his major premise which I find both convincing and appealing, since it reinforces acceptance of humans as another animal, all of whom are coevolving.  (I would like to see biograms considered in studies of every human cultural archetype!)  First is my disappointment at what
probably was the publisher's choice to use only black and white illustrations.  The illustrations included are ample and are clearly tied-in to points made in the text, but such a potentially colorful topic, so richly represented in the art of so many cultures, requires more than a color cover to have maximum impact.  My second disappointment is Jones' total rejection of any possible influence of dinosaur fossils (or indeed of a truly ancient predator/prey relationship) on the development of dragon images--or for that matter of the influence of dragons on efforts to recreate dinosaurs "in the flesh" (though I realize that is another study altogether).

In his Introduction, Jones states emphatically that dinosaurs "cannot be the model for the dragon because dinosaurs had become extinct many millions of years before the evolution of humans.... How can one recognize something as a dragon unless one already knows what a dragon is?" (p.  3).  While logical, his statement contradicts the basic concept of biograms, and seems to me to be based on dualistic assumption.  Later in the text he seems to realize that the biogram concept does not rule out ancestors who walked with and were eaten by dinosaurs but remain adamant about any possible merging of the two creatures in the human imagination: "even though the most ancient ancestral roots of the human line existed at the time of the dinosaur, ... our primal ancestors would
come to have a relatively longer history with basic primate
predators of the contemporary era than of the dinosaurs, thus tilting the scale in favor of the three [predators] ... and not the dinosaur as the most likely models" (p. 114).

Why either/or when it would seem even more supportive of Jones' argument to consider the possibility that the two predator images, the earlier stored deep in the reptilian brain, merged in human consciousness?  This possibility would enhance Jones' major thesis that all thought and image, human and nonhuman, flows from the  evolutionary process.  It would also strengthen his conclusion that "In the end, we find that our psyches are stalked by fabulous creatures whose outlines, etched by evolution and polished by natural selection, remind us that we are still ancient being possessed of an instinct for dragons" (p. 119).

      Copyright (c) 2001 by H-Net, all rights reserved. H-Net permits the redistribution and reprinting of this work for nonprofit, educational purposes, with full and accurate attribution to the author, web location, date of publication, originating list, and H-Net: Humanities & Social Sciences Online. For other uses contact the Reviews editorial staff: hbooks@mail.h-net.msu.edu.

------------------------------

[Rebeckah]

So here's my response to my brother. My Dad {who also read this} sent me an email that asked: *What's with all this dragon crap?* I laughed. That's just him.

Oh yea, my brother just got his PhD in History, and we were joking about what PhD stands for, and discussing porno sites simultaneously, thus the private joke at the end about PhD being a Porno Hut Degree.

Sorry for the repitition of the lesson material, I wanted to explain some of it to my brother cuz I know he hasn't encountered the concept of kundalini before. I'm writing an essay about my experiences which I feel is more of the grad essay than this regurgitation is. joy Rebeckah

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The dragon is a symbol of the kundalini energy. The kundalini is a very ancient concept/reality. The fire breathing winged serpent, symbolized also by the cadaceus wand seen in ALL medical professions as the symbol of healing, also the astrological symbol of Mercury.... it IS the symbol of the life force energy- SPIRIT within.

The K serpent is coiled 3 1/2 times at the base of the spine, and arises usually around age 38-42. Which is what we term our *mid-life crisis*. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it time for Russ's mid-life crisis which might explain the interest in the symbology? Keep digging babe. {lemme know if ya' want some links.} Anyhoo, many people have already awakened K energy, or can awaken at different times. {I always was, started closing down in my 20's, then re-fired in my early 30's, and then fought it like hell until now. Never knew what it was tho. Not like they teach this in high school.}

Why do so many men have heart attacks around age 40? cuz the energy is rising and men usually have blocked heart
chakras. The K energy keeps pushing to try and get through the block. The energy {Spirit within} is trying to get them to express their feelings. Women express/claim their power and men express their feelings at this time. It's not an actual *snake* within, but the energy movement is similar to the undulating of a snake as it moves around each chakra center. It *breaths fire* destroying all resistances in it's path, or else it destroys you. Literally. Fighting it will kill you, as I almost learned the hard way. hehe. Xtianity terms this as the *descent of the Holy Spirit*. It's actually an arising energy from within. The ego giving way to the divine will of spirit. It's an ancient process that some, not all, go thru in life. This is what
most religions discuss in their books: the process of spiritual awakening, or enlightenment. The taming of the dragon. The descent of the spirit. The path of the initiate. All religions are very similar in symbology if you look at them objectively.

Some religions that were ignorant of the truth of the serpent demonized it, and did it quite well at that, I might add. Just as they made women into the *original sinners* via Eve. Women are the holders of the birth mysteries. Women have 10 times the spiritual power that men do because they carry the child within themselves. It takes ALOT of energy to sustain another life for 9 months, just ask a mother.

Christianity had to supress womans sexual power in order to dominate them. Why,.. any woman that had so much sexual
power as to give a celebate priest an erection must be an evil witch right? Like men aren't horn dogs to begin with!
...Xtianity took the empowering symbols of truth and demonized them, and shamed, guilted and killed people into following their ways. Stupid people are easy to control, ya' know? Nothing against Xtianity, per se, as all conquering tribes enforced their lifestyles over the conquered tribes. War actually perpetuated the species through better mixed breading. Spiritual truths & moral beliefs are the first to be surpressed in the name of assimilation. It's what made this country what it is. shrug. Humans like to fight & dominate. Doubt that will change.

But, like all things, the truth always comes out, it cannot be killed, only hidden temporarily.

I think the author didn't do near enough research into dragon/flying serpent symbology. Reading the most primary Joseph Cambell book on mythology will point out how Eastern religions have/do use it as a symbol of the life force spirit. Sounds like he's just reacting from a patriarchial mind set, and that he relates most of it to animalistic FEAR cinches it for me. There's more than one side to every story, and I'm just telling you another side.

> Hence while 21st century young
>  adults take the challenges of _Dungeons and Dragons_ quite
>  seriously, their younger siblings cuddle with Puff the Magic Dragon.

Let's not forget Barney. C'mon. ya' wanna start analyzing kid's toys? Let's talk about the anatomically challenged Barbie doll. My psyche is more traumatized by HER than a spiritual symbol of a dragon. Are you measuring up to GI Joe yet? {This might bring more photos from Gary? Hey! you should see MY six pack from coughing!!!!

And what about Teredachtyles? Never mentioned those dynos. Very real dragon symbols there. Didn't that guy ever watch
a Godzilla movie?

How sad that he lumps humans into a more animalistic category than a spiritual category. Lemme guess, he's also a
liberal animal protecting eco-nut? Trying to equalize humans with animals? Truth is, we're superior to animals which is why and how we can be having this discussion thru the internet. & why WE bread ~them~ specifically for our dinner. {can ya' tell I've been listening to Rush Limbaugh today?}

>  This possibility would enhance Jones' major thesis
>  that all thought and image, human and nonhuman, flows from the
>  evolutionary process.

LOL!!! EVOLUTION!!!! Explain how any human had a new thought then. If we can only imagine and think based upon what has previously been thought or imagined, progress would be too linear as to almost be non-existant & WAY too damn slow. Thought is NOT always linear, nor built upon what has come before. What about Einstein? 4th grade education doesn't give one much to build upon. Must be more huh? Like, oh, mebbe spiritual stuff? Einstein used to take cat naps and upon waking from those states where the veil between the unconsciouss and conscious minds became thin he had phenomenal imaginings which lead to things we're only now grasping in full.

It would also strengthen his conclusion that
>  "In the end, we find that our psyches are stalked by fabulous
>  creatures whose outlines, etched by evolution and polished by
>  natural selection, remind us that we are still ancient being
>  possessed of an instinct for dragons" (p. 119).

LOL!!! Are YOU scared that a huge dragon is going to munch you for breakfast? I'm not. My psyche is not stalked. It
sounds like his is. I do the work on myself to face my, er, ah, dragons. giggle. The mythological figures of mermaids are still in existance, as well as centaurs, and dozens of other mytholgical creatures. Does anybody obsess about  hem? In his defense though, he may be accessing a deeper part of his psyche, which according to the Jungian paradigm contains the archetypes of mass consciousness, as well as mythological creatures.

And I haven't even begun to talk about how thoughts become things that those with clairvoyant sight can observe in the
astral plane.

Why is he picking on the dragon? Cuz of what it represents? Symbolism within society is much deeper than making a
composite based on fearful primal imaginings. Most of it ties back to sex.

Sorry darling, but this guy with his PornoHutDegree didn't do NEAR ENOUGH research into the actual symbology before writing his book. sheesh! Way to get your sister blabbing though.
Rebeckah

PS: re-reading this I realized that I just wrote my graduation essay for the Kundalini class I'm in. I've written it 5 times already, and never liked it yet. LOL. Thanks for that big bug in my butt. too funny. Love and joy to you all.

[Percyval]

this is great stuff, Rebeckah... i really enjoyed reading it... good luck with your brother and dad... *grin*... it's wonderful that it opened up this discussion in your family...

warmly,

percyval

[Rebeckah]

:
: this is great stuff, Rebeckah... i really enjoyed reading it... good luck with your brother and dad... *grin*... it's wonderful that it opened up this discussion in your family...

: warmly,

: percyval

Thank you percyval Your responses are always so kind and loving. Just wanted to let you know that I appreciate that & you. thanks
Rebeckah