Does the topography of water and land predict the geographical direction of cultural development - and some of its basic characteristics? What role does the attraction to the blue color in the sky play in the idea of God? Why did Hitler fail to establish a new religion while the Jewish Marx and Freud succeeded in creating a global ideology? How did Freud's subconscious create psychoanalysis? And why must a philosopher not understand that what drives him is a banana? Another page from the banana notebooks
Blue movies
Turkey is to blame for the civil war in Syria, and to some extent in Iraq as well, because it stole water from the Euphrates with the Ataturk Dam, to establish a new agricultural project in its territory at the expense of the poor peasants in the surrounding countries, whose difficult situation forced them to migrate to cities, and in drought they starved, and the lack of water led to internal war. The scarcest resource in the world is not energy or food, but water, and areas of water scarcity are the areas of wars and terrorism. Not areas of Islam. Therefore, there is relative calm in Israel after solving the water crisis, and the Arab Spring is actually a phenomenon of drought. Humans are genetically programmed to go to places where there is water, through their aesthetic sense, and they enjoy it with brain reward even just by seeing it. That's why people love to travel to water sources so much, and faint at lakes and waterfalls, and the same instinct causes people to still want a sea view, and that the vast majority of urbanization is near water, and that people love to go to the sea and travel in Europe. The same instinct caused people to sail on ships, and developed trade, as well as addiction to showers and flowing water in general, including in the aqueducts of the Roman Empire. That's why blue design dominates various sites like Facebook and others, and blue eyes are considered the most beautiful. And if they're in a blonde desert, then the beauty is emphasized like an oasis (although the attraction to blonde and gold is probably also from the attraction to water, to the shiny). Homo sapiens in Africa was programmed to be especially attracted to water, and therefore spread rapidly throughout the world, including to places beyond the sea that previous races did not reach. That's how it quickly reached Australia and America. The gap between the empires in the New World and those in the Old World was only about two thousand five hundred lonely years, despite a split of about thirty-three thousand years, since the arrival of humans in America, which could have been expected to cause a larger standard deviation, and a wider lag of the Americas, disconnected from the large mass of humanity. How can this be explained? Because there were occasional cultural connections between them and knowledge transfer throughout the period (and not just in the Bering crossing), as can be understood from the Aztec myth about the ancient white civilizer, who would return as a messiah one day, which served as a time bomb that caused them to collapse before the Spanish. But the Spanish would have destroyed them anyway, with epidemics and guns, it would just have taken longer, and therefore the micro-historical case had no macro-historical impact, and their fate was sealed. There are graves of heavens in pre-Columbian America, so there were people who accidentally arrived there and transferred knowledge and diseases. Otherwise, the death rates would have been even higher. As long as the skies were blue, people were drawn to fly, but the black space scares them, so you don't see much adventurousness and attraction of the human species there, and space discovery is stuck. The most famous space image is of the blue planet itself from the moon, which only makes people want to go home.
Why Italy twice?
Why did Italy lead twice, both in Rome and in the Renaissance? Usually the center migrates, so what is it about the Italians (this didn't happen for example to the Greeks or many other peoples, who led only once). Geographically, because Italy is the center of the Mediterranean, and when they returned again from the regression of the Middle Ages, then at that stage Italy again had the advantage, and not since. That is, because history went backwards then passed through the same place twice, and when it went even further back, at the peak of the Middle Ages, then it even returned to the Middle East, and to Mesopotamia and Persia. And at the peak of the Middle Ages with the Crusaders it returned to the Land of Israel and Jerusalem. And so war also visited Germany again and again, in every round, because it is the continental center of Europe. Because the center of land attracts wars, like the Mongols, or Napoleon (eastward), or Iraq and Iran and the Middle East and Arabs in general, and central Africa. While the center within a sea attracts trade. Europe is the most breached continent, and therefore progressed the fastest, and the Middle East has the most large rivers, Euphrates Tigris Nile, which were the ancient trade artery. And it's not just Europe, but Western Europe, almost every country there was of global importance in its turn, because trade was such that its cost at sea, at any distance, was even less than a short distance on land (in the ancient world if you transport grain more than 80 km on land it's not economical because the animals eat more than the grain they carry, so a big city had to be close to a water bay). It's like the brain is folded because the cortex is worth much more than the inside, precisely because it's half isolated, so you can process information in an orderly manner, and the further you get from it the harder it is. Therefore, the water line is the most important thing. At first, culture develops along a river, and then along a sea coast: initially in an archipelago, like Greece and Troy, where it's most breached, and then on a peninsula like Rome and Carthage, where the land tongue is the largest (and therefore when trade returned in the Renaissance then culture returned to Italy), and then on a large island, like England and Japan, and finally on a whole continent surrounded by oceans, like America. Each time like in a fractal the distance grows, but always the water line is the central cultural and commercial interface and that's where the big cities are. Just as today the interface, the internet, is the most important, especially where everyone has an interface, like Facebook, it's more breached, and the more breached a technology is the more it wins. The website network was more breached than television, and the user network even more breached than it.
Why Italy twice?
The more correct explanation is that where the forefront of religion is located, that's where progress develops. Egyptian mythology was very good in stability, but never spread outside Egypt, it was too centralized, but Greek mythology was much more successful, with human gods, and therefore less centralized as a myth and allowed decentralized expansion, and the Romans succeeded because they copied it, against the human sacrifices of the Carthaginians. But once the front of Christian religion moved to the Eastern Church, the Western Church and Italy deteriorated, and only in the Renaissance did it become again the religious front, the most advanced place religiously (not secularly!). And then Spain was the front (with the Restoration, including the Inquisition), and in the Reformation the Protestants and the English were the most advanced religiously and therefore rose, and then the USA became the religious vanguard and thus rose, and the Soviet Union collapsed quickly because there was no religion in it, despite the fact that it could have become an empire of hundreds of years. And in the ancient period when the Middle East was the religious front, that's where civilization grew, and when the Arabs were at the forefront of religious innovation, they conquered the world. That is, look where the religious front is and understand where human flourishing will be, that's the predictor, and not a specific religion, and still the United States is the place with the most religious innovation in the world. What was the religious innovation of Italy that brought the Renaissance? The use of Christianity to create a social super-class with multi-national and supra-state validity (the secular and corrupt papacy funded by the entire Christian world) and an advanced combination of Christianity with art, especially sculpture and painting, but also poetry, with Dante being the pioneer (as in Greece with Homer, where that was also the advantage. And in Judaism the advantage was the combination of religion with storytelling in the prose genre, which was avant-garde then both religiously and literarily). Nazism was a great failure because it wasn't religious, and if it had been a religion, it would have been one of the most common religions in the world. Hitler could have created a whole mythology, and said that he received the word of God, and created a Nazi version of Christianity, and given a new gospel. But because he wasn't a successful artist, but kitsch, his religion lacked enough mythical, mystical and religious dimensions, and preferred to be pseudo-science, and so did Communism. That is, science destroyed the development of possible religions, not out of itself, but in fact that prophets like Hitler and Marx and Freud, who in any other period would have been like Muhammad, Jesus and Moses, took it as a model, and thus their ideas were deprived of their religious dimension, and became ideologies that die within dozens of years, while religions have a lifespan of thousands of years, and they know how to renew themselves and produce new prophets from within. But precisely pseudo-science sticks to a single ancestor, because its source is not from above, but only from the past, from the founder, and lacks the dimension of the above, and can only connect backwards, and degeneration is rapid. In contrast, religions renew themselves, because you can always reconnect upwards, through the path of the specific religion.
Moses the man
Freud is an inexhaustible source for interpretations, and people have made careers out of taking every concept and structure and psychological phenomenon of his and copying it to a cultural, or artistic, or social, or philosophical or even economic phenomenon. Why does this succeed? Because interpretation is legitimate in a field that seems religious to people, unconsciously, and these copies are seen in the development of all religions. Freud had a good Jewish instinct to invent such concepts, and all kinds of provocative structures and scandalous myths. And therefore the greatest structural proximity to psychology is that of Christianity. He was an artist in taking all kinds of ideas and moods from his time and turning them into myths - like Paul. Because the secular cannot manage without a religious dimension, so he invented psychology, and copied the Trinity family to the real family, and replaced confession with psychoanalysis. This created a framework that was missing in secularism for dealing with personal problems, which was traditionally entrusted to religion. Once upon a time for the problems that today you go to a psychologist for, you would go to a priest, hence the great emphasis on patient confidentiality, as a substitute for priest confidentiality. Christianity regulated the myths of sexuality, until psychology took over the role. And this includes the answer to how to live a good life, which was missing in science, so they invented a religious part of science and called it psychology, and threw into it orphaned roles like treating the soul. And it's completely religious thinking that there is a soul and it needs to be treated. Freud's Jewishness made him have the appropriate thinking for founding religions. Because a Jew is a person who lives in a creative, fertile myth, and therefore can create myths, and all this without being a charlatan, but understanding the creation of myths as natural. Therefore, he was the most successful religious man of the twentieth century. And therefore the founder of Scientology, who was a real charlatan, felt so threatened by him. He understood that he was the competitor. The creation of myth needs to be unconscious, and therefore science was important to Freud to separate between his conscious as a discoverer and his subconscious as an inventor. An artist must not be aware of the sources of his creation, otherwise it will dry up and become an ideology. A writer who understands his work would better not write a book but write an article. The perception of the artist as having wonderful control over his art originates from people who are not actually talented in the artistic act, despite having great interest in it and a host of intellectual talents - critics and researchers. Often these will praise a writer (for example) as having full control of language or plot, despite the fact that any writer who really has such control - his art will not survive. This mistaken perception of control has severe consequences in the field of culture, particularly towards new writers who are influenced by it, and come from a position of control. This is an illusion that stems from the uniqueness of the text, as if everything in it is in its right place, but so it is in everything unique. It's not recommended to write out of lack of control, on the contrary, the subject is supposed to control the author, and not the author the subject. The subject provides the control. Literature is written about a subject that is not clear to you yourself from the outset, but you have a deep interest in it. And the more you yourself honestly grapple with it through writing, and not put on shows, the more harmonious the book will be. This is the harmony of the natural, of the organic, and not of the mechanical controlled, of the unnatural. A book controlled by ideology, idea, emotion, skill, or even a person - is limited. In a good book, something that the artist himself does not understand controls. Shakespeare did not understand what he was writing about. And did not understand Shakespeare. And so in a good religion. Freud would not have been Freud without his enormous blindness, achieved thanks to the scientific guise, just as a writer disguises his soul through literary distancing, and precisely because it hides it is interesting, precisely because it is a cover there is a secret in it. If a writer dared or could write the secret explicitly it would not be interesting, like the explicit name. It's a secret that he himself does not understand or is unable to deal with. Usually it's an uninteresting biographical secret, which is a matter for literary gossip, or for psychology. Weak people write literature. Strong people cope. And mediocre people go to a psychologist.
