​

     In the history of civilization, we find two broad approaches to the human problem of change both in the individual and social dimensions. In our quest we considered both these approaches but found them to be inadequate in view of the time to which we belong. The first approach is more recent and raises this issue from the standpoint of contemporary specific problems—political, economic, social, cultural and individual/personal—which individuals and societies confront today. In this approach incremental improvements and modifications (possible within the existing structure and environment and its constraints) in behavior and thinking of individuals, groups and larger social institutions is the main thrust and objective. Consequently the measure and criteria of change in human thinking and behavior is in terms of this objective. Of course in order to begin this process reactive means of revolt and violence have also been adopted for instance in the Socialist and Fascist movements. Where capturing of political power was viewed and used for creating the ground for and streamlining the incremental process of individual and social change. 

The successes and failures of the practice of this micro and piecemeal approach, in dealing with human problems of thinking and behavior, are now on the table for us to assess, and learn from. In our view they are pointing to the need for moving toward a more general, holistic and long-term approach. Because despite the fact that the issue of changing man’s thinking and behavior has to be raised in all these specific micro contexts we need a general approach, which can act like an anchor or common junction, to which all these specific and micro problems/issues can be linked. 

This brings us to another very important thread of thinking and approach which man has been employing to think and do in relation to this issue. One finds this approach in the history of philosophy and religions, where similar questions were raised in different ways within the parameters of communication that existed in different times and places, which were centers of the birth and development of philosophy and religions. In this approach people who felt and thought deeply about the human problem were able to have a sense of man needing to change from the very roots of his mental and emotive make-up. More importantly, a crucial feature of this progression of human thought was the fact that it was all embracing (it embraced man as an individual and then the whole of Nature) and provided a holistic system of thought, which was a reference for all fundamental and micro matters pervading every area of human life. 

However, both these approaches, we submit, have a fundamental insufficiency. They have not been able to view the human problem of change from the standpoint of the mechanics and evolution of the mind. The latter could not objectively do so because so far the observation and knowledge of these mechanics have been beyond man’s reach. While the former approach has been so entangled with managing and firefighting the social and manifest individual (at the behavioral level) causes of human condition and their consequences that it has been unwilling to delve into the mechanics of the mind, and seriously confront the question of changing man through a further evolution of his mental processes.

​

Given the above backdrop we would like to explore a different but contemporary approach having the merit of being both general and fundamental. We propose to look at the issue of man from the standpoint of the human evolutionary process of which he is a part. Today we have ample verified material on human evolution on the basis of which we can develop a general approach to contemporary common man and the problems which engulf him. An approach through which man can take a more objective and holistic view of himself and his life and then initiate a sustained intelligent process of changing his existing mental operating system and evolving a new one driven by a developed intellect and mature sensitivities. 

 

The stage of human evolution that we propose to zero in on is the period starting from when the Hominid, after transiting to the new species called ‘Homo Sapiens’, acquires the facility of developed language, starts making complex tools, and begins to undertake developed agriculture. That is when he enters the Neolithic period of his evolution and starts proceeding towards civilization. The critical importance of focusing on this stage is two-fold. Broadly speaking, it enables us to observe the mind of the ape becoming the mind of man. And more specifically we can identify the actual change that takes place in the mind and also what does not change. A corollary of the latter is that we are able to then observe how the general and real problem of the human mind arises from the reality that in part it has changed significantly and in part it continues to be the old mind. So man evolves this anomalous state of a hybrid mind which is part animal and part human. This in turn implies that the change that took place was partial and the Homo Sapien needs to complete its transition to a qualitatively new species—the ‘human’ species. So what we are really saying is that the current ‘man’ has not yet made the transition to the ‘human’ stage of his evolution, which began when he became the Homo Sapien and more specifically the Neolithic man. 

 

When the Neolithic man starts moving towards civilization then due to his growing mental (emotional and intelligence) and physical capabilities he acquires a more developed (compared to the ape) mental platform on the basis of which he starts operating. One can see this platform more clearly when the period of civilization begins, although it is visible even at the Neolithic stage, when man starts doing things which he was not doing earlier. His learning, knowing and then the application of that knowledge clearly starts extending to those areas which are beyond the reach of animals. To name a few, developed tool making, making elaborate homes, stitching clothes, domesticating animals, agriculture, etc., which are clearly way beyond the purview of animal mind and capabilities.   

It is the emergence of these new mental capabilities, with new applications, and then their growth and accumulation which produces a visible change in the mind and culture of man and his external environment at the dawn of civilization. It is with reference to this manifest change that we felt justified in labeling the Homo Sapien as ‘human’ at that stage. We began to see this as a new beginning and virtually an end to evolution. Even today that is how we would like to see it instead of seeing it as unfinished business. So what we are actually wanting and doing is to validate the state and identity that we have acquired during our evolution in Nature. 

 

It is this existing general position of contemporary man that one needs to confront head on. While acknowledging the huge changes that have in reality taken place after the partial evolution of the Neolithic man, we still need to at least ask the question that has the process of change on the evolutionary scale come to an end today? Did man complete his evolution with the beginning of civilization? Is contemporary man the final product of evolution? In our opinion any inquiry into the human condition needs to begin from these questions concerning the Neolithic man and his journey towards civilization. Here we part company with those thinkers and researchers who want to begin with man in the period of civilization. According to them with the coming of ‘civilization’ man a discontinuity occurred in the human evolutionary process, especially on the mental plane. To substantiate this position they look at the mind-boggling features of civilization like knowledge changes, very advanced tools, ideas, fallouts of sophisticated language, especially writing, and so on, which are completely new and qualitatively different from the Homo Sapien and even Neolithic stage of man. On the basis of these changes they extrapolate that man’s natural evolution has come to an end. Hence their focus becomes managing and superficially improving the existing (supposedly fully evolved) man and his condition. 

 

We put forth a departure from this position and propose that due to the changes (anatomical and mental) that had already taken place during the evolution from ape to Neolithic man, the Neolithic man had already got himself a basic ‘platform’ (for his mental and physical processes) out of which logically flowed language and civilization. So the dramatic changes we see in the mental capabilities of ‘civilization’ (including contemporary) man are actually changes in the mental superstructure, which arise especially with the advent of verbal knowledge and the capabilities and processes it unleashed in the period of civilization. But the basic platform upon which this superstructure of mental processes and their applications are built remains what evolved at the Neolithic stage. And which is essentially a carryover from the ape stage. Generally speaking therefore, on the biological plane man has gone through an evolutionary transition in terms of body anatomy including the brain, but mentally he has not.  Let us scrutinize more closely the above proposition. By ‘platform’ we are referring to the basic emotional and mental paradigms/fundamentals and their genetic roots upon which the emotional and mental superstructures of the ape are based. Where the emotional superstructure consists of the specifics of likes and dislikes and then layers of emotional choices based on these and other mental inputs, leading to emotional executions in the form of enmity or endearment, friendly or hostile behavior and so on so forth. The mental superstructure consists of cognitive and problem solving capabilities and the executory processes developed to give effect to the conclusions and choices flowing from these capabilities. These two superstructures are interconnected, continuously interactive and influencing each other. But the fundamental paradigms (emotional and mental) of the choice making process are the ‘platform’ upon which all other mental processes arise and operate. 

 

These paradigms are made up of two elements. One, the subjective or consumer based relationship with the outside world, which arises out of a basic sense/sensitivity that emerges in a living thing for its form. This sensitivity informs it of being unlike inanimate things/objects and makes it perceive everything else including members of its own species, as the outside world. And that is what becomes the basis for its consumer based relationship with this world. The second element is that all other capabilities (mental and physical) are then used in aid of that basic emotional choice making process. It is on the basis of this platform that all mental processes of every living organism are integrated and have grown and changed in evolution; piece by piece out of an evolutionary process, which in our view is essentially a hybrid genetic process and not a mere biological process. Thus whether it is an ape, Neolithic man or the contemporary man, the evolutionary (or genetic) platform remains essentially the same at each stage without any discontinuity.What happens is that when the genetic evolution resulting in the ape becoming bipedal reaches the stage of Homo Erectus then we find marked biological changes which produce a whole range and variety of new capabilities, that start to go way beyond the original need which caused them. Especially the manipulative mental capabilities, which open up the flood gates of other multiplying capabilities that unleash a spiraling process of tool making and its growing applications. Thus a whole interactive and rapidly growing process is unleashed in man’s life, between tools and his mental and physical capabilities and the changes they start producing in the external environment in terms of domesticating animals, proper agriculture, and so on. Hence begins the journey of the Neolithic man towards civilization. But the series of changes (both within his mental superstructure and outside of him) that ensue in this journey we are submitting are quantitative ones and not qualitative changes in his core mental design. 

 

Even the emergence of language as a process, we are saying, is a quantitative change, which produced qualitative consequences. Any process and its consequences must be seen as two separate steps. The consequences cannot be linearly and directly attributed to the process because they are a non-linear product of both the source and circumstances. It is well known today that the internal and external processes responsible for producing language were in the form of quantitative steps. Whether it was the anatomical changes in the form of an increasing brain size, emergence of broca’s area, shifting of larynx lower down in the throat, etc., or changes in the external environment arising from tool making, domestication of animals, farming and other collective multifarious tasks, which necessarily required the use of language and hence fueled its emergence and development. It was an interactive and spiraling process of quantitative changes at both these levels out of which language arose and then matured and gave rise to qualitative consequences in human existence. 

 

We know that language made possible the emotional experience of having discovered a new world of Literature, Science and Philosophy, which was a far cry from when it emerged for tackling and coping with growing group level tasks and problems. At that initial stage words and language must have been looked upon as simple tools of convenience. But then the language process went on snowballing and produced these qualitative consequences and their innumerable applications in the human world. These were clearly different from the changes at the various earlier stages of human history. But that does not mean that the basic processes resulting in qualitative consequences also became qualitatively different. That does not appear to be the case. The quantitative changes that were unleashed in the last 9 to 10,000 years, have accumulated sufficiently to produce the qualitative progress that we see around us. 

The issue is that these consequences have today created a crisis between the old structure/process (with its unchanged basic platform) and the requirements of these qualitative consequences, which is the new reality. So a clash has arisen between the logic of the old structure/system and the new reality, the basis for an evolutionary crisis, which can only be resolved by producing a qualitatively new process or species, for that matter. Thus today we are confronting a real crisis of evolutionary dimension. Our existing mental platform has come in conflict with our existing reality which has hardly anything in common with the reality that the ape or even the Neolithic man confronted. In order to resolve this conflict and crisis we need to evolve a fundamentally new platform for our lives in current times. We have gone to the moon and back, made new inventions, achieved mind boggling amounts of labor productivity, ad infinitum, on the basis of our pre-existing inherited basic mental platform, which was not originally meant to handle these new consequences, and the complexities and opportunities arising out of them. Hence the crisis and need for a completely new mental and emotional platform upon which the feeling, understanding/thinking and doing of contemporary man needs to be built. And since this is the biggest crisis that has emerged in Nature in terms of consequences, dimension, complexity, implications and involves the dynamic of all hitherto evolved energy processes hence linear and piecemeal approaches will not work in its resolution. It can only be resolved through the further evolution of the lopsided and partially evolved mental platform that we achieved when we became Homo Erectus, Homo Sapien and then Neolithic man.  

​

In order to get a deeper and clearer sense of the above mentioned crisis and its resolution we need to observe more microscopically what exactly was happening in the mind of the Neolithic man after he acquired the facility of verbal and then written language and began moving towards civilization. This will not only inform us of the actual changes and consequences that arose with the addition of language but the ensuing trajectory that the civilization man’s mind took which has brought him to this current evolutionary crisis. 

 

What happened to the mind and environment of the preverbal Neolithic man with the addition of a developed verbal component; its consequences, implications and the issue of integrating the nonverbal and verbal minds.There is strong and growing evidence today that anatomically and also genetically, the lineage of modern humans goes back to the male and female specimens existing between 200,000 to 100,000 years ago in Africa. And since ‘Homo Sapiens’ means ‘the wise man’ (Diamond, 1992, p. 31) so it has been suggested that the development of biologically modern Homo Sapiens was also accompanied by significant changes and modifications in behavioral patterns and a leap in cognitive evolution. A contrary view also exists on this issue which proposes that cultural and behavioral change lagged far behind the biological change and it was only around 40,000 or probably earlier, 35000 years ago, that the ‘The Great Leap Forward’, referred to by Jared Diamond (1992) happened. Wherein one finds clear evidence of painting, carving, developed tools and other behavioral changes like body decoration, etc., from where as Jared Diamond (1992, p. 27) says “… Only a few more dozen millennia were needed for us to domesticate animals, develop agriculture and metallurgy, and invent writing”. 

 

In our view although some important behavioral and cognitive changes began to take place 35000 years ago but the concrete beginnings of our contemporary post-civilization mind go back to no more than 6 to 7000 years ago. This was a period when some distinct and defining factors began to emerge almost at a parallel level in the life of the Neolithic man. The most critical and important of these factors was developed language, whose benchmark is the written script. It was the application of a mature language process which then led to social scale agriculture, emergence of philosophy, structured religions and organized state power.          

 

We are proposing that with the addition of this new mental component of developed language in the mind of an individual existing 6000 years ago, a much bigger and more complex change took place which had far greater implications than the hitherto biological changes in human history and even in pre-human biological evolution. The verbal mind, which eventually gave birth to the intellect, was a substantively different component added to the pre-existing nonverbal mental processes. And it is due to this component that the ‘human’ category emerged in Nature after the ‘Homo Sapien’. So far we have not seriously taken note of this huge addition and its implications for the emerging mind of the ‘human’ category specimen. We saw and recorded the far-reaching and long-term unfolding consequences of the verbal man’s increasing mental capabilities and their applications which brought about massive changes in his external environment. But these were incorporated smoothly within our existing anthropological framework and habit of looking at man in terms of the identified classifications in human history. We failed to look at language and its impact as the trigger which actually gave rise to a problem of evolutionary dimension within the new ‘human’ category. A problem of reintegration of the new (verbal) with the old (nonverbal) mind through further evolution. 

​

Man shares this evolutionary problem (between old and new, not in terms of verbal and nonverbal) with all hitherto living species which went through an evolutionary process. Unfortunately, we have not taken note of this because we have been too preoccupied with the more manifest and tangible problems that the new ‘human’ category has been confronting and experiencing during the period of civilization. Hence we just focused on those physical and mental capabilities with which man was able to work upon and transform his external environment. Consequently instead of further evolution of the mind, our primary interest became adjusting, manipulating and shaping it as a tool for making and doing things in the outside world and as a part of an expanding social structure. In fact we became arrogant and started denying any further evolution. 

 

The most important implication of the emergence of the verbal component was the problem of its integration with the pre-existing complex nonverbal mind (which had already gone through the primitive shamanistic magic period and become quite advanced) and the emerging sensitivities in the ‘human’ period. But that in fact did not and has not happened and instead the trajectory our mind took after the addition of the verbal component has brought us to the present stage, where we have come face to face with this evolutionary issue in the form of a clear crisis (of acute unprecedented problems and disintegration) in our internal and external lives. In order to understand this crisis let us go back to what was happening within the mind before the coming of language, and trace what actually happened with the addition of the verbal component, especially the maturing of language and intellect; how we reached the present situation and what we can do to successfully resolve it. 

 

One can understand the basic character of the essential pre-language nonverbal mind by observing the mind of all earlier life forms, especially developed mammals and our immediate ancestors, the apes. This will reveal that it has its own system made up of needs, coded in genes and genetic programmes, and the basic processes; emotional, cognitive, problem solving and then doing/Will, for pursuing those needs. This mental system is able to activate the physiological processes to correspond to the conclusions it arrives at. Which means it is the main or dominant process, but not entirely, because one part of it is also autonomic. Both parts and their activities are controlled by genetic programmes but one has applications which involve voluntary nervous activity going through like/dislike, cognition, problem solving and then doing, while the other is involuntary and does not involve any of these processes. For our purpose we will be focusing on the former. 

 

The nonverbal voluntary mental activity is activated by the needs (coded in genes through repetitive experience) arising from the conditions of survival of that biological form. These needs (whether positive or negative) involuntarily activate the mental processes to voluntarily pursue and apply themselves to their fulfilment and for the survival of the form. This is the basic nonverbal mind, which keeps developing and getting elaborated (as the needs start growing and acquiring new forms along with the growing complexity of the environment) as we move up the evolutionary ladder. And it becomes quite developed in the stages beginning from the Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens (pre-language) onward. In the case of earlier species their mental response systems were primarily short-term and immediate, so they could be operated through simple software. But in the stages of Homo Sapiens onward needs and tasks requiring long-term response became a regular feature, for example, seasonal needs, and then needs and tasks involving journeys and collective activity. At that stage simple genetic software, mental programmes and their direct activation of physiological systems no longer remained the only way of operation. There had to develop a mental superstructure of thinking, preferences, habits, temperament, etc., as a new level of activation capability. And by the time the Homo Sapien had gone through the shamanistic period his nonverbal mind had become quite advanced and he had acquired a personality ensuing from a developing emotional and mental superstructure, along with new capabilities and tools. So the nonverbal mind had developed a fairly advanced interaction with its environment and its basic character was adversarial towards both Nature and other members of its species. 

 

Of course at that time the adversarial relationship with its own species was neither very developed nor sophisticated. The elaborate and complex man vs man relationship had to wait for proper and mature language and its corollaries, which happened around 6 to 7000 years ago. At that stage, inevitably, this new verbal component was captured and used for elaborately pursuing this agenda of the nonverbal mind. So on the one hand the verbal mind had to play second fiddle to the main nonverbal mind and serve its purposes and on the other hand at a parallel level and underground it kept growing and developing as intellect. One can see a whole history of its heroism and its capability of determination which the preverbal mind did not possess. The latter’s determination was to the extent of physical acts for ensuring biological survival. But the former’s determination went far beyond the physical. In fact no physical obstacles, including the disintegration of the physical form, could deter it. It remained intact despite being put in chains or crucified, and so on. One can say therefore that the verbal mind or the early intellect was clearly not destined to suffer infant mortality as an event in evolution. But it had to go through a period of trials and tribulations, of trying to survive and grow within the dominant framework of the pre-existing nonverbal mind, which had hijacked it and was using and abusing its capabilities (since its inception) for an adversarial relationship with the environment.  

The above might give the impression that the preverbal mind just used the verbal mind while itself remaining beyond the influence of its functioning. That is not so. We need to take note of how much of the essential nonverbal mind was also lost and neglected with the emergence of the verbal mind. There are three reasons for this. One, the verbal mind was a bit like fashion and when a new fashion comes then the old fashions are discarded. So on that note it is reasonable to assume that many of the functions of the nonverbal mind would have gone out of fashion with the coming of the new fashionable verbal mind.  Two, functions are limited by time and energy available for using those functions. We know that the verbal mind is a very busy mind which is capable of many tangible functions enabling an individual to be more opportunistic, exploitative and undertake many more applications. So the new capabilities of the verbal mind would have been more attractive to man and he must have got busy with using them. Thus all his time and energy would have been consumed by the verbal mind while the nonverbal mind and the development of some of its important functions would have been neglected. The third reason is that with the advent of verbal mind the struggle of individuals and groups with Nature shifts primarily to man versus man. So now the struggle is with both. When man makes more products out of his verbal mind then the nature of human struggle changes drastically and becomes primarily with other human specimens and that begins to largely consume his attention, mental energies and time available to him. 

 

Due to these three reasons the basic nonverbal mind got sidelined and neglected.  And that in turn made man lose interest in the further evolution and development of his mind as a whole. He lost contact with his nonverbal mind and exchanged that connection with his new engagement of man versus man and its huge spectrum of concomitants (predominantly contradictions). The nonverbal mind was relegated to the sidelines in the shroud of ‘human nature’. And man began to cash in on the achievements of the verbal mind and no longer wanted to be disturbed by any conception of further evolution. That is how he made this world for himself which had all pretenses to being perpetual as there was going to be no evolution. Throughout the period of civilization we can see the stance of man towards himself and how he has been killing, grabbing and destroying individuals, things and groups under the garb of ‘human nature’. How his obsession with the attainments and avenues opening up with the coming of the verbal mind and then intellect made him forget his nonverbal mind, which had actually brought him to this point and stage from being an insect or worm. We know that the nonverbal mind has been the prime mover of all evolution in living things and also produced the verbal mind. So it was a kind of patricide performed against the nonverbal mind, whose consequences can be observed today at all levels. 

 

Today contemporary man is struggling to curb and find solutions at the verbal level, to the problems generated by the mind-states produced by the verbal mind but not succeeding in that. Evidence of that is the blunders, stupidities and criminal absurdities that men in high positions of knowledge and expertise are committing today across the globe. The human bankruptcy that exists today compared to the early period of civilization, when sidelining of the nonverbal mind had not reached the current level, is clearly telling us that we cannot possibly find solutions in the framework of the verbal mind. No amount of Psychiatry, Psychology, tricks, strategies, incentives, management science, etc., is going to help us. In fact track record shows it has made matters worse. And we have sacrificed quite a few generations in this process of wrongfully trying to address our problems.    

 

At the same time we do also acknowledge that the above explained situation was the first step of the new ‘human’ species. And it is totally understandable to us that if a new species is taking its first baby steps then they will not be very mature but in fact logically lopsided. This is what we observe in the history of all civilizations; the process of their emergence and attaining heights of progress and then their stagnation and downfalls and then the emergence of new ones. In addition, where ever civilizations emerged in the past and with whatever specifics, one can observe the continuity of the underlying theme of spending most of one’s time and energy on man versus man. And even man versus Nature now becomes subordinated to this principle theme. The complexities and superstructures of the contradiction between man versus man overshadow, color and condition his connection with Nature. So he is not looking at Nature from the standpoint of the further evolution of the verbal mental processes but trying to develop the applications of the first version of the ‘man versus man’ software. In view of this, the verbal mind, despite being superior in many ways, has been far more lopsided and defective than the developed nonverbal mind was. At this point man needs to take a second look at himself and revisit the nonverbal mind to figure out what assets/functions it developed and then neglected and partially lost. It is by focusing on the neglected functions and resources of the nonverbal mind that we, as a species, would be able to find some clues in our quest for moving on to the adult version of the new ‘human’ category. Where the hallmark of adulthood would be that man is able to discover the objective processes and components of the nonverbal mind and the rest of his mental processes through developing intelligent understanding, by verbal standards, which the hijacked and co-opted verbal mind could not achieve. 

 

Up to now the understanding of mental processes has been inaccessible to the ‘human’ category man.  And he has been reacting to this inaccessibility by focusing more and more on the applications of the verbal mind in its infant stage. Where it only focuses on the things outside and not within himself and the main framework of that focus is man versus man.  

 

If we observe the experience of the new ‘human’ category’s doing and behavior and the minuses and pluses of the civilization it has produced, we will clearly see that it is not being able to solve the problems and contradictions which have arisen out of the man versus man framework. The bulk of our internal and external problems and issues are mentally manufactured both on the individual and social planes. So when we solve some of our problems then at the same time we create more and new types of problems; there is an increasing ratio of problems that we are continuing to create than what we resolve. Hence we end up in a never ending spiral of problems and contradictions that are evident today in any area of human thinking and doing. We feel therefore that individuals and groups trying to solve their problems while remaining within the circumference of this framework is a nonstarter. We would like to submit that we cannot find any stable and long lasting solutions within this existing framework where our minds are fully and assertively engaged in pursuing more of conflict and negative competition (both overt and covert) based interaction with each other.  

 

In this situation the only logical solution is that existing man has to refashion and reengineer all of his mental processes; emotional, intellectual, temperamental processes, emotional hierarchies and all other mental components and processes. Of course this reengineering will include an intelligent integration of the old (nonverbal or largely emotional) biological and new (verbal and intellect based) post-biological minds within the contemporary ‘human’ specimen. A task which can only be achieved by acquiring a sufficiently intelligent understanding of his entire mental complex. That is the process through which man will leave behind his child hood phase and become the adult or mature ‘human’ category and then discover the applications of this understanding for quantitatively and qualitatively modifying the existing mental processes and adding new ones. Here we would like to propose that contemporary man is in a position to intelligently understand and undertake this intelligent integration and further evolution of his mind. An opportunity which was not available to all earlier individuals like prophets, mystics, ancient philosophers, etc., as they did not have adequate knowledge fund about the mind and Nature’s mechanics and evolution. So we are making a plea in the 21st century for a fresh attempt in this direction now on the platform of the knowledge that is already available and what we can generate ourselves. We just need to take a more holistic and comprehensive view of our minds and not remain comfortable with our hitherto ignorance about them that we use under the garb of ‘human nature’, and which gave us the license to do all kinds of irrationalities and perversities producing unending contradictions and conflicts. We need to go beyond this situation and move on to a new plane of operation which is in sync with Nature’s own process and its logic of evolution to more complex and stable forms.       

​

Notes

​

i. Enhancing the cognitive and emotional capabilities of individuals and influencing, correcting and modifying their social and economic behaviors through the use of neurotechnologies and its applications and various psychological techniques and methods is common practice today. To see an example of this please see the following link: http://www.caltech.edu/content/caltech-scientists-develop-novel-use-neurotechnology-solve-classic-social-problem 

​

ii. Which are fundamentally a product of his mind, whether in the individual dimension or at the social level, where the mind acquires the form of a mind-set and very complex and many-layered social patterns. 

​

iii. The use of the term ‘Hominid’ has been revised several times. Originally it referred to a family of primates including humans and their closest extinct relatives (like Homo Erectus, Neanderthals and Australopithecus). But in modern terms it refers to humans and the great apes (Chimpanzees, Gorillas and Orangutans).   

​

iv. This is the scientific name for the human species. And it is the only surviving species of the Genus Homo.

​

v. If it were not for these new capabilities and their consequences then logically it would not have been possible for us to think of ourselves as ‘human’. 

​

vi.  For our existing mental formation it is easier to accommodate the evolutionary transition from multicellular animals to the Neolithic man but the problem arises when we confront man somewhere between Neolithic and the beginning of civilization and especially with the onset of civilization. From that stage onward we start believing that man has reached the end of evolution (or the change process in Nature) and is the final product and not a work in progress. 

​

vii.  One can observe the marked difference between the anatomy of the ape and the Neolithic man, although even there, if we look a bit more closely at the biological differences and commonality between them we will find more of the latter. One clear pointer to this is the DNA we share with them, almost 98.4 percent (Diamond, 1992, p. 18). In fact, one can observe that the biological/anatomical changes between the fish and the birds have been far greater and more distinct than between the ape and the Neolithic man.   

​

viii. As argued earlier, in our view the genetic process is a hybrid process. It is partly biological and partly mental. The structure, functioning and especially the evolution of genes and the genetic mechanism do not exist and operate only at the level of and in terms of complex organic molecules like DNA, RNA and proteins, etc. That is one side of the coin, so to speak. The genetic code itself, its functions and the process of modification of genes would be involving mental processes. Because we know that the organic molecule can have memories of form and shape but not in our view of interaction with the environment and drawing conclusions about what changes to make. That is not possible if the gene was merely an organic molecule. This complex activity of a mental nature which then leads to the modification of genes and the genetic code can only be possible if the gene had a mental component in it. This becomes more evident when we come to the formation and functioning of emotional and mental capabilities and patterns and the process of their modification. It is not possible to address the question of our hitherto lopsided evolution and further mental evolution in terms of emotional and mental changes if we view evolution only as a biological process. We have to see evolution as a genetic process, which in turn is a hybrid of the biological and mental.

​

ix.  In fact, in our opinion, it was the need for a change in capabilities experienced mentally by the developed ape which in the first instance, stimulated the biological change in joints and consequently bipedal movement, through the genetic process. 

​

x.  We think all evolution has proceeded out of this dialectical process. An accumulation of quantitative changes does not ipso facto produce qualitative changes. Quantitative changes produce new qualities at the stage of consequences (not at the level of the basic process which is the cause of change) and it is the accumulation of these consequences which eventually create a crisis, whose resolution will then produce a qualitatively new process. These are the mechanics of the actual dialectical process and the emergence of the new from within the old. 

​

xi. Here we are referring to the molecular evolutionary theories (supporting the ‘Out of Africa 2’ model) proposing a ‘Mitochondrial Eve’ and a ‘Y-chromosomal Adam’ (not one female and male but many) (Edwards, 2012) existing somewhere in Africa between 200,000 to 100,000 (different analyses propose different dates but the overall period is roughly this) years ago from whom the modern human race is supposed to have descended. (Retrieved from: http://anthrojournal.com/issue/october-2011/article/analysis-of-two-competing-theories-on-the-origin-of-homo-sapiens-sapiens-multiregional-theory-vs-the-out-of-africa-2-model) 

​

xii. According to a reference given by Sophie Edwards (2012) in her paper, behavioral modifications like “clear organization of space, shown in dwelling structures; high frequencies in transport over long distances, of lithic raw materials; symbolic and non-figurative art; jewellery being made from shells and the growth in population density (Thames and Hudson 2008).” suggest a leap in cognitive and intellectual evolution” when anatomically modern Homo Sapiens emerge.  (Retrieved from: http://anthrojournal.com/issue/october-2011/article/analysis-of-two-competing-theories-on-the-origin-of-homo-sapiens-sapiens-multiregional-theory-vs-the-out-of-africa-2-model). Richard Leakey (1994, p. 93) also finds a close connection between biology and behavior. According to him “…The biological novelty we see in the anatomy of the archaic sapiens,[about half a million years ago] including the Neanderthals, is clearly accompanied by a new level of technological competence….”     

​

xiii. Which began to differentiate the Neolithic man from the earlier stages of his evolution.

​

xiv. The inception of written language meant that now language would not be used occasionally but consistently and with a continuity. And for that verbal language fund and the products it encased had to be saved. Hence the critical importance of written script, which made that possible.  

​

xv.  Here we are referring to proper cultivation of hybrid grains and not just crop gathering of natural grain. 

​

xvi. All these processes were dependent upon the application of developed language. For instance, proper agriculture on a large scale was not possible without developed language. It would not be possible to subdivide and effectively coordinate and operate the different categories, kinds and varieties of labor involved in agriculture without the help of developed verbal language and its encasement in some written script. The same goes for philosophy and structured religion. 

Chronologically speaking, we can see that philosophizing as a more consistent process emerged earlier than structured religion. In fact, the latter in its origins could only arise out of the former. We find the oldest evidence of consistent philosophizing after the facility of developed verbal and written language and not before it. Here we would like to caution the reader not to confuse earlier shamanistic type religious ceremonies involving some magical oral medicines or antidotes (in the form of some utterances not involving proper language) along with drugs or other potions with later religions based on religious theory of creation of man, and its purpose and the laws governing the created in relation to the creator. The former neither involved proper language nor was it a proper structured religion. There was a concept of an invisible ‘spirit’ world existing in parallel with the human world and connecting to it and appeasing it was the purpose of different magical ceremonies and rituals performed by Shamans, who were seen as intermediaries between the human and spirit world (McNeill & McNeill, 2003, p. 

​

xvii. But the main drive behind this was that basic drive in all living things of trying to defend and protect themselves from external threats whether from other living things, natural environment or the unseen spirits. So at that time the basic plane of motivation and doing of these primitive religions was the same as that of other living things. And it was the proto-language period, where very elementary verbal language was used and for this specific purpose. With structured religions we find a shift occurring. There we find the employment of a more developed intellectual process to create a complex religious structure and framework, to organize and manage a growing social existence. But this was not possible without developed language including the written script.  And once we have structured/organized religion becoming an integral part of man’s inner and outer life then one finds the inception of organized states, which means organized power. Because it was religion in conjunction with organized power which could control and manage the expanding mental and social existence of man. Thus monarchy and the feudal order with concentrated and organized state power became possible only after structured religion and not before that.

​