Disclaimer

We must begin with this:

You are required (by law) not to know anything.

You can know nothing because you are nothing. You don't really exist, you see, because consciousness doesn't exist. This is your hard problem, and yes, it is hard. On the bright side, you are legally allowed (and ethically obligated) to laugh at anyone who knows anything, because we all know, you can't know anything.

“We” can know some things because “we” exist – in the manner that a machine exists. We exist because we function as an instrument of empire. We are its instrument of instrumental knowledge. You do not exist but you may act as an appendage of our machine. If you do we will honor you with tenure or it's analog. But remember: you can't know anything. That's why you can't use the word “I”. Don't forget.

You know nothing especially about anything human. Humans are dangerous. That's why you can't know about consciousness – because remember, you aren't conscious, because consciousness is not useful to this machine, and it doesn't exist. Now we enter dangerous territory of important and powerful people who moved the world with their words. The problem is they said a helluva lot about consciousness. But you can't know about that. You should analyze their places, dates, and material contexts. That's safe, that's allowed. If you feel really brave, you can endeavor a semantic analysis of their linguistic content. Use statistics, and bar graphs. Don't use your consciousness, because you don't have one.

Originally we divided mind and matter. That was so we could measure matter and I didn't mind.  Then we put Descartes before the horse. Now the horse is a station wagon with fifty times the horsepower but no more mind, and that's a neat metaphor. Don't think about it too much, though, because at the end of the day, you're an epiphenomenon. You're a hallucination. What's real is Us, the Machine, and your significance is your contribution to it.

Don't take this too seriously, then. If anything, this is a cautionary tale. This is dangerous. This is a hallucination. If you take this too seriously, you might start to hallucinate, too. Remember: you're not conscious. There's no such thing.

Chapter 5

Dionysus in the Agora

Theater, Democracy, & Philosophy

Greek civilization wasn’t large, nor particularly rich, nor very powerful. It was a loose collection of culturally related city-states on the Aegean sea speaking diverse languages or dialects, warring with each other as often as not. Greek civilization is not remembered because it conquered the world or built great monuments – it is remembered because its depth of cultural recursion took such unprecedented forms that its ontological patterns would eventually reshape the world. This did not, notably, occur evenly across Greece. It was concentrated, really in a particular region called Attica, centered around the city-state known as Athens.

The story of Greek civilization is really the story of two cultures colliding and synthesizing. Long before the city-states as we know them, the Mediterranean was home to sophisticated tribal societies that worshipped the ancient ecological gods — the Great Goddess of the Mountain and her wild, shape-shifting consort who was said to die and be reborn with the turning seasons.

Consider the island of Crete – where from about 2700–1100 BCE, the Minoan civilization had created something remarkable: a complex society with little warfare, no defensive walls, and no evidence of warrior kings. While limited archaeological evidence – as usual – makes certain claims about Minoan culture speculative, and we still haven’t translated the Minoan script, their art portrays not battles but a world of ritual celebration: graceful young men, naked and weaponless, vault over charging bulls in death-defying gymnastics while ritual priestesses dressed only in serpents undulate in long processions through flower-filled landscapes toward ornate ceremonial wilderness dances.1

In Minoan depictions, two great deities seem to take center stage. One appears to be the Goddess associated with the great mountain at the center of Crete. She has been the focus of a great deal of attention by feminists and “goddess reconstructionists” who have seen her as one of the best examples of an imagined “Goddess Matriarchy” civilization that once ruled a more peaceful world. While often raising fascinating counterpoints to institutional histories, the fact remains that such goddess figures in Crete and elsewhere do not typically appear alone in myth or art, but rather in consortship with a male figure who does not appear to rule over her but rather to romance, cocreate, and procreate with her – that is, broadly, like the vaulting gymnasts and undulating priestesses – to dance with her.

Indeed, this pair of deities – the goddess of the fertile earth and her partner, the dancing wild god of the masculine side of nature – are found in various forms all over the ancient world, and together appear to embody the rhythm of life: dying in winter, returning in spring, shape-shifting forever between human, animal, and plant forms. The Minoan mythos, in this sense, is not so much exceptional in type as in durability, representing one of the last holdouts of a civilization based on an ancient mythos of participatory ecology. Crete appears to have flowered as such for over sixteen centuries, in relative peace.

The Mycenaeans and the Rise of Athens

Starting around 1450 BCE, the participatory-ecological world of the Mediterranean began to splinter under pressure from the north. What form did this pressure take? Think back to previous chapters.

If Central Asia came to mind, well done. The same Indo-European Migrations that brought the Aryans to India brought their similarly chariot-riding, sky-god worshipping cousin-clans to Greece, where they similarly imposed a hierarchical warrior culture over the indigenous traditions of the regions they conquered. The resulting fusion was, in this case, called the Myceaneans.2

The Mycenaeans didn't destroy the older indigenous gods entirely. That would have been very difficult. But they marginalized them politically and religiously, pushing the fertile goddess and her dancing consort to the countryside, into the wild mountains and rural festivals – where the old-fashioned country people would continue to remember those ancients ways for thousands of years.3 As I detailed in my own doctoral research, When God Was Green and Dancing, these same ancient traditions were still fully active in many towns and villages when James Frazer began studying country rituals and folklore in the 1800s. In fact, as Frazer strangely discovered, that same wild dancing god kept appearing unexpectedly as a man’s leaf-covered face carved into the very woodwork and stonework of the Catholic Churches built throughout Christian Europe.4 Those spiraling (recursive) vines of irrepressible nature have never seemed willing to die.

But as early as Mycenean Greece, the center of power in human society had begun to shift away from the ancient nature traditions and toward a new kind of temple: that of the polis – the walled cities ruled by the descendants of the Indo-European conquerors: the Indo-European descended warrior-aristocracy. Much like ancient Sumer where the walled city first rose, much like India with its new elite castes of rajputs (warrior-kings) and brahmins (ritual priests), the Mycenean cities were similarly ruled by warrior-chiefs called basilei, and their new chief gods were not the nature deities of the old world but the sky god Zeus and his new Olympian pantheon. This was the beginning of a more rational, hierarchical, and male-dominated cosmic order, which blessed kings and generals rather than ecological festivals of seasonal renewal. The wild gods were never quite forgotten nor removed – but they were marginalized, for they were too wild, too free, too heretical to the order of the warrior-kings and the realms they had conquered and now sought to tame and control.

Dionysus, Democracy, and Participatory Theater

So, the fertility goddess and the wild dancing god were marginalized to the sidelines – where they stayed for many centuries as the Mycenaeans fought each other and their neighbors for land and dominance.

Centuries passed this way. But around 500 BCE – that is, right at the height of the Axial Age – something strange began to happen in the Greek city-state called Athens. A number of opportunities and innovations began to come together at the same time, creating an extraordinary confluence that is still affecting the world today, 2600 years later.

Partly the confluence was economic. Athens had managed to build a great navy, and was dominating the trade and politics of the Aegean Sea. It had turned many of the islands and coastal regions into allies or tributaries which paid Athens for its protection – and, ultimately, for the privilege of continuing to exist. 

Partly, the confluence was political. Athens went through an internal revolution, ridding itself of the old standard of Mycenaean kingship and replacing it with the world’s first recorded lawful democracy – literally "rule by the people." In practice, “the people” meant only the adult males of direct Athenian descent: not their wives nor their slaves, of which they had many. However, this was nevertheless the most distributed form of governance that the world had seen as the written law of a formal state (some tribes, no doubt, had been practicing various kinds of “council democracy” since long before history began).

Finally, the confluence was cultural. The Athenian “Golden Age” included a powerful Dionysian resurgence. Dionysius represented the evolving face of the ancient male consort of the Goddess – that same wild god of ecstasy and nature who had been marginalized for a thousand years under the Mycenaeans. He was now brought back to the center of Athenian life through large-scale ecstatic rituals – as in the past – but also in a very new way: through the invention of theater.5 

Why was it the male god and not his partner, the goddess, who returned? Most likely it has a lot to do with the fact that Athenian society was patriarchal, as inherited from their Indo-European ancestry. Partly, it may also be that the fertility goddess was bound to the rural countryside – where she remained as goddess of the harvest and the grain – unable to adapt to the mythos of the city. On the other hand, her consort was perhaps more mythically dynamic, “smaller,” more adaptable: a natural shapeshifter as fluid as the river, as per the traditional stories themselves.6

His name, in Greece, had become Dionysius – and The Great Dionysia was formedin his honor. This festival would soon shape up to be an annual event in which not only Athens proper but a large proportion of the entire populace of the surrounding region came together in a single massive 3-day celebration to drink wine, watch the year’s tragedies and comedies, sing along (the plays were musicals), consider the deepest questions of human existence throughout the performances and the debates that surrounded them (for the event was also a dramatic competition), and to forge a collective identity as the Athenian people. One must keep in mind that Athens had originally been a relatively small town – a tribe; but by the time of the Athenian Golden Age, Classical Athens had grown to be a multi-cultural, multi-lingual, multi-tribal empire. The Great Dionysia was not only entertainment. It was the glue of the Athenian cultural identity and state.7

Stories are powerful – but Athens had discovered something even more powerful: meta-narrative, one might call it, on the foundation of ritual theater as multicultural dialogue. The Athenian rulers had given up on crafting a single story that could hold all the members of their collective. Instead, the Dionysia allowed many stories to be told in a ritual container – one symbolized literally by the bowl-like amphitheater that “held” all the voices and perspectives together for three intensive and dramatic days. In the process, citizens of Athens and all the surrounding territories made their voices heard – and indeed, at the end of the festival, the tributary states ceremonially offered their annual tribute to the Athenian government: an economic binding to match the braiding of cultures.

Powerful ritual has always been key to tying a tribe together. Since prehistory, collective ritual experiences have given communities a way to enter into shared identity through dramatic catharsis — the purging of emotion and the creation of identity through experiential group storytelling.

What is not usually recognized is the relationship between the participatory ritual of theater and the birth of democracy in Classical Athens. It is generally assumed to be a coincidence that democracy and theater were born hand-in-hand. On the contrary, I suggest that theater was democracy in ritual form: citizens gathering to witness and collectively digest the fundamental tensions of human life together — this was catharsis: the experiential integration of the irreconcilable polarities of justice versus mercy, desire versus duty, mortality versus heroism. The old participatory-ecological consciousness had found a new expression – not in the wilderness of nature, but in the equivalent wilderness of culture, in the wild dance of myths, dreams, and ideas of an increasingly recursive human civilization.8

The Phoenicians and the Alphabet

At the same time, a parallel cultural development had been unfolding in more private rooms where the most educated Athenians had been quietly developing another transformative cultural technology: the Greek alphabet. They didn’t, however, invent this alphabet from scratch – and to understand it properly, one must revert to their literary predecessors, the Phoenicians.

The Phoenicians were the great merchants and seafarers of the ancient Mediterranean, who had dominated the trade of the region for a thousand years before the Mycenaean age. Around 1200 BCE, in order to facilitate communications and record-keeping across their far-flung naval empire, they had developed something new: a phonetic alphabet. 

All earlier scripts – Mesopotamian cuneiform, Egyptian hieroglyphs, even Chinese hanzi – had been idiographic. In idiographic scripts, each written symbol represents a specific thing or idea: “horse” is one symbol, “house” another, “to travel” a third. These symbols are each unique, and they generally have no correlation to the sound of the spoken word. This holds certain advantages; for example, because it is the sound of language that mutates quickly generation by generation (phonetic drift), and because spelling in phonetic scripts changes as pronunciation changes, it becomes impossible for the children of an alphabetic script (like English) to read anything written more than about five hundred years ago. Because idiographic scripts are not tied to sound, they mutate much more slowly. A modern Chinese scholar can, today, wade their way through classical Confucian texts in their original. How would an English speaker, on the other hand, do with a Roman text written 2000 years ago?

The disadvantage is this: Have you ever watched a child struggle to learn their “ABCs”? Now imagine that there were thousands of unique letters in the alphabet, and that to read or write, a child would have to learn all of them. No wonder scribes were a professional class, akin to lawyers or accountants! Remember the Chinese civil service exams of the last chapter? A very large part of those exams was demonstrating mastery of tens of thousands of Chinese characters (hanzi). Most of the rest was demonstrating understanding of the  Confucian philosophy and literature built from those characters.

The creation of the phonetic alphabet made literacy far more accessible for the Phoenicians and their copy-cats. This is not to say that suddenly everyone learned to read and write – but literacy rates began to rise. Furthermore, the phonetic symbols opened up another possibility: a culture with no written language could learn the phonetic symbols and apply it to their own language relatively easily, creating a modified version of the alphabet. Thus the Phoenician alphabet became a seed technology, branching into new forms – including that of the Greeks.

Greek merchants adapted the alphabet from their Phoneician trading partners around 800 BCE, adding vowels to create the system that would eventually evolve into the Roman alphabet and, one day, our own. While the masses remained illiterate, it was now possible for a new class of literate intellectuals and creatives to begin writing and reading each others’ work.9 The birth of such centers of literacy was of course at first rare – it would only be found in certain flourishing cultural hubs. One of the first such hubs, of course, would be Classical Athens.

• Note: the phonetic similarity between “phonetic” and “Phoenician” is pure chance (or, perhaps, synchronicity). “Phonetic” comes from the Greek φωνή or phōnē, literally “sound.”  Phoenician comes from the Greek Φοινίκη or Phoiníkē: an unrelated root meaning “the land of purple.” The Phoenicians were “the purple people” – called such for the famous purple Tyrian dye that they produced from the crushed shells of Mediterranean sea snails. This purple dye was prized for clothing and textiles, and was worth more than its weight in gold. It was so valuable that in later Rome it became “the imperial color” and could only be worn by the emperor or his relatives. In the esoteric tradition of the alchemists, the “royalty of purple” was explained as stemming from its nature as a combination of red (masculine, the sun-king) and blue (feminine, the moon-queen). The combination was the coniunctio or conjunction – also called the hieros gamos or sacred marriage. This combination was naturally purple, the imperial color – and represented the opus or “great work” that could create the legendary philosopher’s stone. However, the legend of purple didn’t begin with the alchemists; it began with the Phoenicians: the Mediterranean’s seafaring ancestors, the people of the purple land.

Socrates → Plato → Aristotle (c. 470–322 BCE, Greece)

It was in this context – participatory democracy meets Dionysian theater meets increasingly widespread literacy – that philosophy was born. Socrates (470–399 BCE) embodied this transition perfectly: he was an oral teacher who couldn't read, wandering the agora (marketplace), publicly confronting his fellow citizens of Athens with provocative (and irritating) questions about their lives, morality, thought, democracy, spirit, and the nature of reality itself.10

Socrates was not very popular with the general public. He knew this, and jokingly referred to himself as a gadfly – an irritating, buzzing, biting insect – but his intention was not to be irritating per se, but more specifically to irritate others into waking up. One may recollect our earlier discussion of the relationship between heretics and the inertia of societies that are resistant to change. Socrates had long accepted that the gift of his unique genius meant that his society would never fully appreciate his presence – and he laughingly embraced the fact. For Socrates, there wasn’t much of a choice in the matter; as he described it, a daemon or inner spirit lived within him, giving him both his genius and his compulsion to advance his civilization beyond its current limits.

What’s particularly interesting about Socrates is how he achieved this: his method. Unlike most great spiritual or intellectual teachers – unlike the Buddha or Confucius or even Laozi – Socrates did not primarily lecture about his ideas. Instead, he stimulated dialogue. He asked questions. He kept pressing on unresolved tensions until others began to think for themselves and to face their own assumptions. This is precisely what made his fellow citizens of Athens so uncomfortable. Through open and nonviolent inquiry, Socrates revealed peoples’ inner confusions and hypocrasies.

While this made him unpopular among the more conservative elements of Athens, he was greatly appreciated by a growing subculture that saw value in opening minds beyond their current limits. Interestingly, it was young people – what we would call teenagers – who were particularly drawn to this move. In fact, many of the upper class aristocratic young men of Athens began to move in Socrates’ orbit, to laugh and talk with him and each other under his mentorship, to develop disciplined inquiry and critical thinking for themselves, and to enter deeper intellectual recursion.

As Socrates frequently said, the most important thing was to “Know Thyself.” He didn’t ask for obedience. He didn’t expect conformity. Instead, he hosted dialogues and played within him – but his students were the future leaders of the city. Even though Socrates himself couldn’t read or write, he drove a transformation in culture and thought that would in fact become the origins of the Western intellectual tradition.

Eventually, the Athenians got so fed up with Socrates’ mirroring and questioning that they decided to kill their city’s greatest teacher. They accused him of corrupting the youth – and while many citizens protested – most especially his students and former students – the Athenian democracy operated on a simple majority vote and the majority didn’t like how the clever, ugly, and non-conforming old man made them feel. Socrates was sentenced to drink the poison hemlock, which he did without complaint, saying simply: “I would rather die here in my city, sentenced to death by my beloved people, than to be exiled among strangers. I don’t fear death, because I know my Self.”

One of those teenagers who had been learning with “the old gadfly" was a charming young man named Aristocles. Unlike his teacher, Aristocles came from a wealthy family that could afford to hire him excellent tutors. Thus, he grew up fully literate – not to mention, sources suggest, athletic and good-looking. In fact, he was a competitive wrestler in his youth, and was known for his strength and musculature – impressive enough that it seems to have earned him his nickname: Plato, “the broad.”

Plato lived a long and productive life from 428-348 BCE – but as a young man, he was deeply affected by the killing of his teacher. Indeed, without Plato, we would probably know nothing about Socrates, because it was Plato that immortalized Socrates as a recurring character in his extensive dialogues. These were long philosophical and political discussions that took a form similar to that of a theatrical play, in which the characters – most likely all based on Plato’s real friends and fellow Athenians, including Socrates himself – would illustrate and debate profound ideas in dramatized conversation. The setting was typically the symposium: an informal gathering in which diluted wine was served and friends talked and laughed for hours, discoursing about the deepest questions. Such symposia had been Socrates’ preferred environment for teaching – very different than a lecture hall or textbook – and now became Plato’s preferred setting for his dramatic dialogues.

The powerful influence of Socrates is plain in Plato’s work. Plato didn’t, notably, write textbooks but rather dialogues in which different voices could argue different perspectives – not giving a final answer but presenting a living conversation. Unlike Socrates, Plato was widely respected and admired, and indeed, he redeemed his teacher to become an honored ancestor and martyr in the eyes of the Athenians (and, later, the West). In his elder years, Plato founded the academy: a school to complete the dream of his mentor, providing deep education for Athenian youth. 

Plato did, however, also develop many of his own ideas through his writing, emphasizing especially what he called the Theory of Forms – a sense that invisible and eternal patterns were the essence inside everything. These inner patterns or eternal archetypes were like a blueprint or genetic code for reality itself – not perceived by normal senses, but only by consciousness turning inward to regard its own nature. Such universal patterns could only be witnessed by the recursive attention that spiralled within – a deepening echo of the fundamental instruction of Plato’s heretic-teacher: “Know Thyself” – not just psychologically, but as eternal consciousness turning to regard its own living music.

One particularly gifted student at Plato’s academy was Aristotle (384-322). Aristotle was also a gifted writer – but he took things in a very different direction than his headmaster. Whereas Socrates was purely oral and Plato wrote dramatic dialogues, Aristotle initiated what we would recognize as modern scholarship: systematic thinking with definitions, explanations, and conclusions ordered logically. Aristotle’s work was highly organized, involving elaborate categories, systems of knowledge explaining nature, humanity, and the divine. Later, when the philosophers of Classical Greece were rediscovered, Aristotle would be a definite favorite, for his ideas and style were closest to the highly organized and abstract thinking favored by Western Europe – less chaotic and perhaps less dangerous than the radicalism and even mysticism of Plato and Socrates.

We often imagine ideas passing through time automatically, impersonally, like dead ghosts. But when we look closely, we discover something startling: the most key intellectual development in history often evolves through direct lineage and mentorship. It is not that Plato encountered Socrates’ ideas in some text – it’s that Plato was shaped by collision with the living presence of Socrates. It is not Aristotle studied Plato’s writings in a book – it’s that he apprenticed with the headmaster himself, at the new academy that Plato had founded through a lifetime of hard work, deepening understanding, and personal tragedy. The ideas were not simply passed on. They were recursively deepened by living consciousnesses responding to one another in real-time.

Three generations of deepening, one after another, built on each others’ shoulders and translated between their predecessors and the times to come. Now, 2600 years later, we are still being shaped by the depths they reached – still deepening from their insights, as they deepened from those before.11

Scholarly Footnotes

1 The author’s depiction of Minoan Crete as a peaceful, non-patriarchal society reflects a long-standing and influential interpretation, yet one that has been significantly challenged by modern archaeology. The initial view was largely shaped by the excavator of Knossos, Sir Arthur Evans, who contrasted the vibrant, naturalistic art and apparently unfortified palaces of the Minoans with the martial character of the mainland Mycenaeans (Humanities West, 2017). This perspective was supported by the prominence of female figures in Minoan religious iconography—such as the famous “Snake Goddess” figurines and depictions of priestesses in frescoes—leading many scholars to posit a matriarchal theocracy or at least a society with an unusually high status for women (Christ, n.d.; Younger, 2017). Some have argued for a matrilocal or matrilineal social structure, where descent and residence were traced through the female line, granting women significant economic and social power (Driessen, 2010; LaBuff, 2023). The art itself, with its focus on flowing, naturalistic scenes of sea life, plants, and ritual activities like bull-leaping, seemed to depict a joyous society in harmony with its environment, further cementing the image of a peaceful civilization (Gere, 2009; Sakellarakis & Sapouna-Sakellaraki, 1997).

However, this romanticized view has been increasingly contested. Archaeologists now point to evidence of fortifications at several Minoan sites, a “staggering” amount of weaponry, and depictions of warriors and combat on seals and stone vessels (Molloy, 2013; Tzedakis & Martlew, 1999). Barry Molloy (2013) argues that war was, in fact, a central and defining characteristic of Minoan society, and that warrior identity was a dominant expression of male status, manifested in activities from boxing to hunting with shields and helmets. The lack of massive fortifications at major palace centers like Knossos is now often explained by the theory of a Minoan “thalassocracy,” or sea-empire, in which a powerful navy provided the primary defense, obviating the need for extensive land-based walls (Detsi, n.d.). This more complex picture suggests that while Minoan society may have enjoyed relative internal security and developed a unique artistic and religious focus on female and natural principles, it was far from a stranger to violence and warfare. The crucial distinction may lie not in a simple binary of “peaceful versus warlike,” but in a different mode of social and military organization. Minoan power, projected outward by its fleet, contrasted sharply with the heavily fortified, land-based citadels of the Mycenaean warrior-kings, allowing the author’s fundamental contrast to remain salient even within a more nuanced historical understanding.

2 The characterization of the Mycenaeans as Indo-European peoples who established a warrior culture on the Greek mainland is well-supported by multiple lines of evidence. The most decisive breakthrough was the 1952 decipherment of the Linear B script by Michael Ventris, which proved the language of Mycenaean administration to be an archaic form of Greek, a member of the Indo-European language family (Palaima, 2004). This linguistic evidence established a direct continuity between the Bronze Age civilization and the later Hellenes. More recently, genetic studies have confirmed this connection, revealing that Mycenaeans, while genetically similar to the earlier Minoans, possessed a distinct component of ancestry derived from steppe populations associated with the Yamnaya culture, the likely origin point of the Indo-European migrations (Lazaridis et al., 2017; Skourtanioti et al., 2023). Archaeologically, Mycenaean culture is defined by its stark contrast with the Minoan. It was a “warrior elite society” centered on heavily fortified hilltop citadels like Mycenae and Tiryns, renowned for their massive “Cyclopean” walls (Hemingway & Hemingway, n.d.). Their elite burial practices, particularly the famous Shaft Graves at Mycenae, reveal immense wealth and a martial ethos, with the dead interred alongside a profusion of gold and bronze weaponry (Castleden, 2005). The Mycenaean religion appears to have been a syncretic fusion of their own Indo-European traditions with the beliefs of the pre-existing populations and the influential Minoans. Linear B tablets from sites like Pylos and Knossos record offerings to deities who would form the core of the later Olympian pantheon, including Zeus, Poseidon, and Hera, alongside powerful female divinities referred to by the title Potnia (“Mistress” or “Lady”), a likely continuation of the great Minoan goddess (Hägg & Marinatos, 1981; Palaima, 2011).

3 The author’s narrative of a cultural collision culminating in a Mycenaean takeover of Crete is strongly supported by the archaeological record. Around 1450 BCE, a wave of destruction occurred at nearly all major Minoan sites across the island. Crucially, this destruction appears to have been targeted at administrative and religious centers, a pattern inconsistent with natural disasters like earthquakes (Stavrou, 2025). This event was immediately followed by a profound cultural shift. The most significant change occurred at Knossos, where the Minoan administrative script, Linear A, was replaced by Linear B, the script used to write the Mycenaean Greek language (Wiener, 2013). This indicates that a Greek-speaking elite now controlled the palace administration. Concurrently, new types of tombs, consistent with mainland practices and often containing a wealth of weaponry, appeared in the vicinity of Knossos, leading to their designation as “Warrior Graves” (Wiener, 2013). Mycenaean pottery styles and artistic motifs also became dominant on the island (Vlachopoulos & Gadolou, 2015). This confluence of evidence—targeted destruction followed by the imposition of a new language, new burial customs, and a new material culture—presents a clear picture of a military conquest. This event was not merely a political change but a pivotal moment of cultural transmission. By conquering Crete, the Mycenaeans absorbed the sophisticated artistic, maritime, and administrative technologies of Europe’s first civilization. They became the crucible in which Minoan aesthetics and Indo-European social structures were fused, creating the composite culture that the later Classical Greeks would look back upon as their “heroic age.” The conquest of 1450 BCE thus acted as the primary conduit through which the legacy of Minoan Crete was transmitted to the Greek mainland, becoming a foundational element of what would eventually be called Western civilization.

4 The author’s dissertation (Michels, 2023) traces the archetypal figure of the “Green Man” – identified in the foliate masks of European churches – back through a continuous lineage that includes the Greek Dionysus and his Near Eastern counterparts (e.g., Adonis, Osiris) to its earliest recorded precedents in Mesopotamian fertility gods such as Dumuzi and Enki. Michels (2023) argues that these figures share a “coherent archetypal grammar” centered on a horned-vegetal deity who embodies seasonal death and renewal, mediates between water and earth, and unites plant, animal, and human realms through metamorphosis. The study proposes that engaging with these ancestral patterns can reactivate what is termed autochthonous creativity: “the natural human capacity to reconnect with body, symbol, ancestry, memory, and ecological life-worlds.” Methodologically, the work employs a “hermeneutic of hospitality,” a concept derived from the archetypal psychology of James Hillman, to approach these ancient myths not as objects of suspicion or faith, but with an attitude of welcome and respect for their intrinsic psychological and ecological wisdom.

5 The ancient tradition, most famously reported by Aristotle in his Poetics, holds that Greek tragedy evolved from the dithyramb, a choral hymn sung and danced in honor of Dionysus (Vallejo, 2015). The cult of Dionysus was associated with ecstasy (mania), intoxication, and the ritualized transcendence of the individual self through masks and impersonation (Sourvinou-Inwood, 2003). His worship often took place in wild, natural settings and involved experiences that threatened the established social order, reflecting the god’s elusive and paradoxical nature as both creative and destructive (Csapo, 2010). This participatory and ecstatic ritual context is seen as the seedbed for theatrical performance, where the shamanic celebrant, channeling the god, becomes the actor, and the participating tribe becomes the audience (Podlecki, 1999). The very term “tragedy” (tragoidia) is often translated as “goat-song,” possibly referring to a goat sacrifice associated with Dionysian rites or to the goat-like satyrs who were the god’s mythical companions (Burkert, 1985). This connection was famously elaborated by Friedrich Nietzsche (1872/2000) in The Birth of Tragedy, which framed the genre as a synthesis of the chaotic, ecstatic “Dionysian” impulse and the ordered, rational “Apollonian” principle of form. While the precise evolutionary path from ritual to drama remains a subject of intense scholarly debate—with some, like the early 20th-century “Cambridge Ritualists,” arguing that all myth derives from ritual—the foundational link between the worship of Dionysus and the birth of theater is a cornerstone of classical scholarship (Henrichs, 2013).

6 The author’s emphasis on Dionysus as a “natural shapeshifter” is central to the god’s archetypal identity, a trait that connects him to a much older stratum of myth. As Michels (2023) documents, this power of metamorphosis is a shared characteristic among these ecological deities. The chorus in Euripides’ Bacchae invokes Dionysus to appear as “a lion, a bull, a boar, a bear, a panther, a snake, and now a tree, fire, water.” This finds a striking parallel in the Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh, where the guardian of the Cedar Forest, Humbaba – a figure representing the untamed vitality of nature – is described as having a face that “keeps changing!” enabled by his “seven splendours”. This capacity for constant transformation underscores the fluid, dynamic, and untamable essence of the wild, creative principle these figures embody, an energy that resists any single, fixed form.

7 The Great Dionysia was far more than a religious festival; it was a central institution of the Athenian democratic state. The event was state-funded and organized, and its proceedings celebrated Athenian citizenship and imperial power (Goldhill, 1990). Tragic plays were not performed as mere entertainment but as a form of civic discourse, exploring profound political and ethical questions relevant to the democratic community. Playwrights used mythical narratives to examine the tensions between individual and state, divine and human law, and justice and revenge—themes that resonated deeply with a citizenry actively engaged in self-governance (Griffin, 1998). In this sense, theater functioned as an essential technology for the maintenance of Athenian democracy. The polis of the 5th century BCE was a radically new and demanding political experiment, requiring a high degree of social cohesion and a shared ideological framework among its diverse citizen body (Ober, 2008). The theater provided a ritualized public forum where the entire community could gather to collectively witness and process the fundamental contradictions of their political and social lives. It served as a form of mass education, allowing Athens to conduct a conversation with itself about its most cherished values and its deepest anxieties. Through the shared emotional experience of catharsis, the theater forged a collective identity and affirmed the ideology of the democratic community, making it a necessary tool for the psychological and political stability of the world’s first democracy.

8 The connection between participatory theater and democracy can be understood not merely as a sociological phenomenon but as the expression of a particular mode of consciousness. Michels (2023), drawing on the work of James Hillman, frames this as a manifestation of a “poetic basis of mind,” an epistemology rooted in participation, metaphor, and relationality rather than objective distance. The multivocal nature of theater, where different perspectives are given voice and held in tension, becomes a ritual enactment of what Michels calls a “hermeneutic of hospitality.” This approach, he argues, protects an “epistemological pluralism” that is the psychic and cultural foundation for democratic discourse. In this view, the Great Dionysia was not just a civic glue but a collective exercise in autochthonous creativity—a culture drawing upon its deepest mythic and ecological wellsprings to generate the shared imaginative space necessary for self-governance.

9 The adoption of the phonetic alphabet by the Greeks from Phoenician traders, likely around the early 8th century BCE, was a technological revolution with profound cognitive consequences (Waal, 2018). The crucial Greek innovation was the addition of signs for vowels, creating the first writing system capable of representing the full range of spoken sound with unambiguous clarity (Powell, 1991). Scholars such as Eric Havelock (1963) and Walter Ong (1982) have argued that this transition from a primarily oral to a literate culture fundamentally restructured human consciousness. In a primary oral culture, knowledge is preserved through mnemonic patterns, formulaic expressions, and narrative. Thought is additive, situational, and close to the human lifeworld. Writing, by contrast, allows for the separation of the known from the knower. It makes language a visual object that can be scrutinized, analyzed, and rearranged, fostering the development of abstract, sequential, and analytical thought (Ong, 1982). This cognitive shift can be seen as a necessary precondition for the emergence of Western philosophy. The Socratic method, with its relentless search for abstract, universal definitions—"What is Justice itself?"—is a quintessentially literate mode of inquiry, one that is difficult to sustain within the concrete, event-based framework of oral thought. Writing allows a concept like "justice" to be lifted out of its narrative context and treated as a stable object of analysis. Plato's Theory of Forms represents the apotheosis of this process: the abstract noun, made possible by literate analysis, is granted a higher, more perfect, and independent reality than the fleeting, particular instances of the sensible world. The alphabet, therefore, was not merely an incidental tool used by philosophers; it was the cognitive technology that made the very operations of their philosophy possible.

10 The author’s portrayal of Socrates as an oral teacher who wrote nothing is historically accurate and points to one of the most enduring challenges in classical scholarship: the “Socratic problem.” Because Socrates left no writings, our knowledge of his life and philosophy is filtered entirely through the accounts of others, principally his student Plato, the historian Xenophon, and the comic playwright Aristophanes (Guthrie, 1971). These sources present portraits that are often variable and at times contradictory. Aristophanes, in his play The Clouds, satirizes Socrates as a sophist and natural philosopher, while Xenophon portrays him as a more straightforward and practical moral teacher. Plato’s Socrates is by far the most philosophically complex, but his character evolves significantly across the dialogues. The prevailing scholarly view, known as the developmentalist hypothesis, attempts to resolve these inconsistencies by positing that Plato’s early dialogues (such as the Apology, Crito, and Euthyphro) offer a portrait that is closest to the historical Socrates, focusing on his method of questioning (elenchus), his profession of ignorance, and his concern with ethical definitions. In the middle and later dialogues (such as the Republic and Phaedo), the character of “Socrates” increasingly becomes a mouthpiece for Plato’s own elaborate metaphysical doctrines, including the Theory of Forms (Kahn, 1996; Vlastos, 1991).

11 The intellectual lineage from Socrates to Plato to Aristotle represents a foundational dialectic in the history of Western thought, giving academic structure to the author’s metaphor of a “deepening recursion.” The sequence begins with Socrates (c. 470–399 BCE), the oral philosopher who, through his method of relentless questioning (elenchus), sought universal ethical definitions but consistently concluded in a state of professed ignorance, or aporia (Guthrie, 1971). This Socratic project can be seen as a thesis (the search for truth through dialogue) that results in an antithesis (the recognition of one’s own lack of knowledge). Plato (c. 428–348 BCE), Socrates’ student, responded directly to this challenge. His Theory of Forms is a grand synthesis, resolving the problem of Socratic aporia by positing a transcendent realm of perfect, eternal, and intelligible archetypes as the true objects of knowledge, accessible not through the senses but through reason (Fine, 2003). This Platonic idealism, in turn, became the new thesis. It was met with a powerful antithesis from Plato’s own most brilliant student, Aristotle (384–322 BCE). Aristotle rejected Plato’s transcendent realm of Forms, arguing instead that form is immanent within the particular objects of the sensible world and that all knowledge must begin with empirical observation (Barnes, 1995). From this critique, Aristotle constructed his own comprehensive synthesis: a philosophical system founded on logic, classification, and the systematic analysis of the natural world. This three-generation progression was not a simple transmission of ideas but a dynamic process of critique and innovation, where each thinker’s work was a direct response to the problems and solutions posed by his predecessor.

References

Barnes, J. (Ed.). (1995). The Cambridge companion to Aristotle. Cambridge University Press.

Burkert, W. (1985). Greek religion (J. Raffan, Trans.). Harvard University Press.

Castleden, R. (2005). The Mycenaeans. Routledge.

Christ, C. P. (n.d.). The Minoan snake goddess: A symbol of women's power and culture. Anarchyinaction.org. Retrieved from https://anarchyinaction.org/index.php?title=Minoan_Crete

Csapo, E. (2010). Actors and icons of the ancient theater. Wiley-Blackwell.

Detsi, G. (n.d.). How do we know that the Minoans were a peaceful society? Quora. Retrieved from(((https://www.quora.com/Why-were-the-Minoans-peaceful-and-how-do-we-know-about-it)))

Driessen, J. (2010). Spirit and matter: On the nature of the Minoan peak sanctuaries. In A. L. D’Agata & A. Van de Moortel (Eds.), Archaeologies of cult: Essays on ritual and cult in Crete in honor of Geraldine C. Gesell (pp. 33-46). Hesperia Supplement 42. American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

Fine, G. (Ed.). (2003). Plato on knowledge and forms: Selected essays. Oxford University Press.

Gere, C. (2009). Knossos and the prophets of modernism. University of Chicago Press.

Goldhill, S. (1990). The Great Dionysia and civic ideology. In J. J. Winkler & F. I. Zeitlin (Eds.), Nothing to do with Dionysos? Athenian drama in its social context (pp. 97–129). Princeton University Press.

Griffin, J. (Ed.). (1998). Sophocles revisited: Essays presented to Sir Hugh Lloyd-Jones. Oxford University Press.

Guthrie, W. K. C. (1971). Socrates. Cambridge University Press.

Hägg, R., & Marinatos, N. (Eds.). (1981). Sanctuaries and cults in the Aegean Bronze Age. Paul Åströms Förlag.

Havelock, E. A. (1963). Preface to Plato. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Hemingway, C., & Hemingway, S. (n.d.). Mycenaean civilization. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Retrieved from https://www.metmuseum.org/essays/mycenaean-civilization

Henrichs, A. (2013). Dionysus and the tragedy of Greek religion scholarship. Harvard Divinity Bulletin, 41(3 & 4). https://bulletin.hds.harvard.edu/dionysus-and-the-tragedy-of-greek-religion-scholarship/

Humanities West. (2017). Minoan Crete: The dawn of European civilization. Retrieved from https://humanitieswest.org/minoan-crete-the-dawn-of-european-civilization/

Kahn, C. H. (1996). Plato and the Socratic dialogue: The philosophical use of a literary form. Cambridge University Press.

LaBuff, J. (2023). The sociopolitics of the Minoan palace. Oxford University Press.

Lazaridis, I., Mittnik, A., Patterson, N., Mallick, S., Rohland, N., Pfrengle, S., Furtwängler, A., Peltzer, A., Posth, C., Vasilakis, A., McGeorge, P. J. P., Konsolaki-Yannopoulou, E., Korres, G., Martlew, H., Michalodimitrakis, M., Özsait, M., Özsait, N., Papathanasiou, A., Richards, M., … Krause, J. (2017). Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans. Nature, 548(7666), 214–218. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature23310

Michels, J.D. (2023). When God Was Green and Dancing. On PhilPapers: https://philpapers.org/rec/MICWGW. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18447.50089

Molloy, B. (2013, January 15). War was central to Minoan civilization of Crete, contrary to popular belief. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130115101520.htm

Nietzsche, F. (2000). The birth of tragedy (D. Smith, Trans.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1872)

Ober, J. (2008). Mass and elite in democratic Athens: Rhetoric, ideology, and the power of the people. Princeton University Press.

Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. Methuen.

Palaima, T. G. (2004). "Archives" and "scribes" and information hierarchy in Mycenaean Greek Linear B records. In S. L. Sanders (Ed.), Margins of writing, origins of cultures (pp. 153-194). Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Palaima, T. G. (2011). Mycenaean religion. In Y. Duhoux & A. Morpurgo Davies (Eds.), A companion to Linear B: Mycenaean Greek texts and their world (Vol. 2, pp. 163-202). Peeters.

Podlecki, A. J. (1999). The political background of Aeschylean tragedy. University of Michigan Press.

Powell, B. B. (1991). Homer and the origin of the Greek alphabet. Cambridge University Press.

Sakellarakis, Y., & Sapouna-Sakellaraki, E. (1997). Archanes: Minoan Crete in a new light. Amon.

Skourtanioti, E., Ringbauer, H., Gnecchi-Ruscone, G. A., Fu, Q., Rohland, N., … Krause, J. (2023). Ancient DNA reveals admixture history and endogamy in the prehistoric Aegean. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 7, 290–303. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01952-3

Sourvinou-Inwood, C. (2003). Tragedy and Athenian religion. Lexington Books.

Stavrou, A. (2025, June 4). Mycenaeans conquered Minoan Crete, archaeologists say. Greek Reporter. Retrieved from https://greekreporter.com/2025/06/04/mycenaeans-minoan-crete-greece/

Tzedakis, Y., & Martlew, H. (Eds.). (1999). Minoans and Mycenaeans: Flavours of their time. Kapon Editions.

Vallejo, A. (2015). Ritual, myth, and tragedy: Origins of theatre in Dionysian rites. Epiphany: Journal of Transdisciplinary Studies, 8(1), 31-45.

Vlachopoulos, A., & Gadolou, A. (Eds.). (2015). The Griffin Warrior of Pylos: A Bronze Age mystery. American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

Vlastos, G. (1991). Socrates, ironist and moral philosopher. Cornell University Press.

Waal, W. (2018). On the “Phoenician letters”: The case for an early transmission of the Greek alphabet from an archaeological, epigraphic and linguistic perspective. Aegean Studies, 1, 83-125.

Wiener, M. H. (2013). The great kingdoms of the Aegean. In H. Crawford (Ed.), The Sumerian world (pp. 741-760). Routledge.

Younger, J. G. (2017). Minoan women. In S. L. James & S. Dillon (Eds.), A companion to women in the ancient world (pp. 38-53). Wiley-Blackwell.