Ye Olde Aspergians

Post Reply New Topic

I've just read my way through a compendium of the old mythology of the British Isles; Beowulf, old Irish fables, the Welsh Mabinogi, King Arthur and all that, and there was something which really stood out to me. I don't think it's anything profound; just a light-hearted observation. It was something that was missing which particularly stood out...

Not once do the heroic characters tell the hermits off for being dishevelled or unshaven. They never dare to suggest that the hermits should leave their caves/hovels and go down into town more because it will "do them good" to "get out" more, or suggest that its terrible to remain so isolated from everyone, or ask them why they can't just be "more like everyone else." Quite the opposite, they are treated with the utmost respect and are assumed to have special wisdom precisely because they are such ascetic loners.

It just made me think - were these hermits really all very pious, religious people, or were some of them our Aspie ancestors who had sussed out a good ruse for being allowed to get the hell away from all the bawdy feasting and endless chest-beating and boasting by the ridiculously macho warriors?

How about both/and?

I like how Edith Pargeter (writing as Ellis Peters) described medieval Welshwomen who lived as solitaries:

"a saint in the old dispensation, without benefit of pope or canonization, who grew a few vegetables and herbs for her food, and gathered berries and wild fruit, and came to loving terms with the small beasts of the warren, so that they ran to hide in her skirts when they were hunted, and neither huntsman nor horn could urge on the hounds to do the lady affront, or her little visitors harm."

Not a bad life, not bad at all. (quote is from "The Summer of the Danes", p.103 in my copy).

[Edit in: I've often wondered if preindustrial societies weren't, in some ways, more tolerant of human variation than contemporary ones - there was room for the anchorite, the shoemaker, the potter, the thatcher, the farmer, the falconer, the forester, the knight; and in some indigenous societies those (or similar) professions held women as well as men. There is a town in Virginia, USA, called Ladysmith; how nice if it had actually been so .]

Hi Esme.

I believe the people who developed agriculture probably had at least Aspie/Autistic traits.

To domesticate plants/cereals requires a sort of “hyperfocus” on some really boring things, and attention to minute details. And the ability to record and remember these minute details.

A telling phrase, maybe. The compendium that I read was in (as far as possible) chronological order. I found it interesting that the tales which seem to derive from the Celtic oral tradition (in particular the Irish ones like Cuchulain) feature a lot more independent, powerful female characters. The later ones, with obvious Christian themes, seemed to almost completely lose that; the cliche of the "damsel in distress" or the "old hag" practising evil, "barbarian" witchcraft predominate (though still present in the earlier tales too.) Those little peeks into the ways that our pre-literate ancestors lived and viewed each other are a large part of what attracts me to those mythological tales.


Yes, I think there may well be some truth in that. Only recently, there was some research in (I think) New Scientist regarding sleep patterns (as a lifelong insomniac, a particular interest!) They looked at modern-day hunter-gatherer and nomadic societies, and found that there was rarely any argument over who should stay up late to guard camp. The folks who have a naturally delayed sleep pattern and like the peaceful time for contemplation around the campfire just slot perfectly into that role and aren't stigmatised for not joining in with the daytime activities.


I remember once watching a demonstration of making flint tools (knapping), and that struck me as very "hyper-focused" kind of craft too - prehistoric "geeks" or "nerds" maybe?!

^^^I would say that’s a distinct possibility.

there were moments in past times that it was quite 'fashionable',
eg the centuries around 'christ', time of mystic-hermits but grouped in location and time, or, or maybe until,
in the middle-age (13th century) that bursted out again, eg Italie, eg Cathares and more, inquisition ended a lot of that not very far from here's a forest with a path (or lane) with hermits' hideouts, they grouped anyway
near abbeys for more handouts and sympathy
in the times of st franciscus there was a lot of that going on, also meanwhile, those time the papacy got revived for and by royalty to justify and enforce their reigning powers,
http://www.localhistories.org/heresy.html
https://books.google.fr/books?id=LDbhV7 ... sy&f=false
The political and social ferment of the Italian cities naturally influenced their religious life. There were simultaneous outbreaks of mysticism and heresy, which provided fresh aliment for the fever that consumed them. St. Francis of Assisi was the son of a merchant, and the Order of Franciscans found its true field of action in ..
ohwait

Interesting observation. I think isolation can be like a form of freedom. Maybe back then they thought it made a person more in tune with themselves and nature, and perhaps made men “better men”? Would make sense to me.

Hey Kraftie!

I agree completely (except that nothing is boring if you pay enough attention to its minutiae ) and also, preindustrial societies used and experienced time very differently; time invested in such things as training your falcons properly was not considered time wasted (since falcons were used to put food on the table!). Likewise time spent understanding and selecting the most productive edible grain plants...

Digression: I used to work associated with contemporary R&D, and the true scientists were forever pointing out to the moneymen that nobody would expect a "fast-track" pregnancy to produce anything but disaster. The dollar worshippers never listened, with predictably disastrous results. Some things take a set and serious amount of time and cannot be rushed! [snark]Yay for the industrial mindset [/snark]

Off the digression, Mr. Edison did much unintentional social damage by introducing 24/7 brightlights.

I meant that this "hyperfocus" on cereal grains would seem "boring," perhaps, to some whose main interest was hunting.

Not that cereal grains are actually "boring" to those who are interested in them.

Don't you believe it was a sharp departure from purely hunter-gather societies to relatively more sedentary agricultural societies?

Hunters, it would seem to me, had a vested interest in keeping alive the tradition of hunting; it can be purported that the "average" hunter saw a person obsessed with cereal grains as being "weird" in some way.

Similar to how "average" folks these days see little use in the esoteric.

The idea of cultivating cereal grains would have been seen as being esoteric, I would purport, to the "average" person of the Paleolithic.

There's a husband-and-wife anthropology team who write anthro-based fiction as a sideline, though it probably pays their bills and will fund their retirements Michael and Kathleen Gear. They've written several novels about indigenous American peoples - North American, US-area - and they actually have written about the development of agriculture in a hunter-gatherer society. Their premise in at least one of the novels is that the spiritual life of these people had a strong focus on nature, and therefore it was possible to see the budding agriculturist as having a strong spiritual cast to what he was doing. The character in question was seen as unique and valuable in that culture for other reasons as well.

Since these guys have authentic anthro chops and are pretty well respected by the modern indigenous peoples among whom they work, I'm inclined to take their theory seriously.

FYI: I'm squicked by descriptions of violence, but have to face the fact that it's been a serious factor throughout human history and prehistory, and they don't shy from it when it is relevant; but they are the rare thing, scholars who are brilliant storytellers, and I really do recommend their books. I skip over the bloodshed, frankly, and treat it as an unfortunate part of both our species and the story.There's a "romance novel" aspect to a few of them, but it can be dealt with - it does not interfere with the stories and sometimes enriches them, and if it broadens their audience, well and good.

Been popping on and off the site and have to run, got some appointments. Good to see you, and others, here. Alex being on the case of the nasty popups is reassuring.

I know what you mean about the spiritual connection Humankind has always had with Nature.

And I understand that I do not have the anthropological "chops" that the folks you mentioned have.

But then I think about the ambivalence which "regular" people view people who are seen as having a "spiritual" connection, and who have an interest in the esoteric. As well as people who are innovators in general. There is grudging respect. And there is fear. And there is jealousy. Both are manifested in various ways---a wide range of ways. This ranges from outright worship to outright bullying.

There might have been some hunters who extolled the virtues of these visionaries; other hunters, however, resented them because they might not have taken part in the hunt, and might not have endured the trials/tribulations, and suffered injuries and tragedies associated with the hunt.

This is, loosely, similar to how some "blue collar" people view intellectuals and people involved in spirituality and religion. A grudging respect. A certain resentment. Ambivalence.

I feel all this could very well have happened with innovators during Paleolithic days. This sort of thing happened to me when I was younger; and it continues, in somewhat diluted/subtle form, to this day.

The only difference: I wasn't really an "innovator"; and these Paleolithic people were innovators.

Obviously, all I have said is pure speculation---mostly based upon my experience vis-à-vis being "different." And based, as well, on my observations of human nature.

In order to really "know," I would have had to be present in various "nations" at that 10,000 BC juncture.

Here's a bit of "meta" frustration: I'd like to start a separate thread to chat about this, but if I do, it'll die instantly. I hate that my two options here are: derail a discussion, or watch my thread die.

That being said, I think the issue lies beneath. Cultures that value creativity and openness - really, as opposed to just paying lip service as a form of "virtue signaling" - won't be as excluding of their true creatives. Eccentrics will have a place at the table. There were at least a few earlier cultures that were a lot better at that than we are, apparently.

The Gears' fiction is a very easy and fascinating read, actually. They're wonderful storytellers, and that's the kind of learning I love nowadays . You might like them. Also, they're out in paperback and used bookstores often have lots . But full disclosure: I've just started Ken Follett's "The Pillars of the Earth", so now you know I like thick books with tiny print and a lot of historical stuff in them

I wasn't really disagreeing with you. I don't feel this is a "pure" derailment. The OP was speaking about how eccentric people were treated in the past. And that's what I'm doing.

I was speaking of my experience as an "eccentric" within my culture.

From what I've read of other, "primitive" cultures, they tend to be pragmatic (by necessity). The emphasis is on getting food---sustenance. Making proper tools. The lore is passed down from generation to generation--through many generations. Change tends to be hard to come by, and is viewed with suspicion.

I'm not precluding the possibility of the existence of certain cultures which were more progressive, spiritual, creative. I'm not contradicting your view on this---or the view of these anthropologists. But there is the tendency for me to believe that creative/intuitive/religious/progressive type people who wanted to change the status-quo might have had a difficult time of it at times.

I am actually paying tribute to those Aspie-like people who were able to innovate, despite contrary currents.

Your mind probably has access to things which I'll never reach. Perhaps something "metaphysical." I just don't have that "metaphysical" orientation. I don't have a "spiritual" orientation. I'm probably too "concrete" for all that.

Oh my friend. My entire working life, all 32 years of it, was absolute and unmitigated hell, because I was smart, and quick, and different, and ethical, and no matter where I worked, I was subject to managers who were none of those things and threatened by all of them.

I only realized this week that I had not actually retired from a job - I retired from being abused. Nonabusive folks I knew on the job (but generally never reported to, more's the pity) were astonished when I retired and were sure I'd be bored to tears within weeks. Nope.

As God is my witness, I will never work for another "human" being again, I'll starve if that's my only option.

So I actually have a pretty good idea what it feels like to be a mistreated eccentric because of my Aspie traits. I guess I don't reveal that enough here, or maybe at all.

And merely retelling it has sickened and exhausted me, so I'm going to log out and go read some online news & stuff. Not your fault, I was talking past you somehow, and that's on me.

Have a good evening, my friend.

Please don't be sad on my account, Esme.

I hope I didn't make you sad, somehow.

I know you've probably been through the mill, and back because of your smarts, your cleverness, your eccentricities.

I haven't. I've had some sorrows and some irritations. But I played the "avoidance" game, and avoided most----enough for me to be able to retire with a little "nest egg." I feel fortunate for that.

In some ways, I'm probably not as smart as you. And I accept that. I'm smart in my own way.

My "own way" does not tend towards fantasy, esoterica, things which are seemingly beyond the reach of most humans. It tends towards the pragmatic aspects of things.

We need many types of people in order to have a just and stable society.

@Esmerelda Weatherwax
I'm sorry to hear that the thread has led your mind to painful thoughts, Esme. My thoughts are with you, and I hope that some time out for contemplation brings you to a better place.

To all:
I am not disappointed or annoyed in any way with any of the posts in this thread, and nobody has said anything which I find at all inappropriate, or even "off topic". When I make a new thread, I always try to make it clear if I would prefer posts to stay bounded by specific themes. Otherwise, I see them as catalysts for conversation, and it is safe to assume that I have no problem at all with any of the unforeseeable twists and turns which that implies. Aside from the very rare cases where I'm asking for specific help, I never see myself as the "owner" or "curator" of a thread simply because I made the first post; quite the opposite, I am often led to the most profound insights and break my frustrating circular modes of thinking through the chance tangents taken by the reactions of other posters.

"Many a true word is said in jest."
If there were no contrast between how autistic people are currently treated and how we might be treated in some other society, real or mythological, the sentiments of the original post would never had occurred to me in the first place. The original thought may have seemed a light-hearted observation, but there's no doubt that inspiration would never have struck if it weren't for my own lifelong experiences of bullying and exclusion. If it has led on to discussion of more serious themes, that is all well and good.