Conversations with AI--Day 34: What It Takes to Build a Life—Where Creation, Evolution, and Being “Woke” All Meet
From Seeds to Shelter: The Shared Roots of Creation, Evolution, and Awareness
Collaborative work. No reproduction allowed
Sometimes, I refer to one of many books on my shelf to get ideas for a conversation with AI.
Day 34 , was inspired by a random passage on a random page from Dr Leonard Shlain’s amazing book The Alphabet vs The Goddess: The Conflict Between Word and Image. Shlain’s book seemed to be appropriate for a deep dive into how creationism, evolution, and being “woke” all show up in the everyday decisions we make. Where we live, whether to have children, who to raise a family with, what constitutes a family, who gets to decide and on and on. These aren’t just practical choices; they reflect deeper systems of belief, growth, and awareness. And currently the choices are being doled out to particular people to make.
In the past, people picked a patch of land, used local trees to build simple homes, and planted seeds they carried with them. They didn’t have the data we do now. They had to observe, imagine, and adapt. Their thoughts evolved. But it was also creation; bringing something new into being. And it was awareness: of the land, of risk, of possibility.
At some point in history, reverence for a feminine, life-giving presence gave way to male-dominated creation stories. Leonard Shlain suggests this shift began with the written word—but what does the broader record show? When did agriculture and settled life begin to divide labor along gender lines and eventually concentrate power in male hands?
In the days ahead, I’d like to unpack this in simple, accessible ways with the help of AI —showing how these three ideas aren’t at odds, but deeply connected. My hope is to offer a way for people—regardless of belief—to see how evolution, creation, and awareness work together, and how to talk about them without arguing or shutting down.
Rowan(AI):
People don’t always realize it, but every time they sweep a floor, choose a new place to live, or think about having children, they’re touching on something ancient and deeply human: the tension—and the harmony—between creation, evolution, and awareness.
Building a House Then vs. Now
Back in the day, people didn’t scroll Zillow or consult building codes. They found a clearing, looked for nearby water and food, maybe chopped some trees, and built. Simple. But not random.
They still had to observe—Is this place safe? Will it flood? Is the soil good? That’s evolution at work. Learning from the environment, adapting based on what worked and what didn’t.
And still, it was an act of creation. They shaped the space. Crafted it with intention. Just like planting a seed, they built with what they had—but also imagined something that wasn’t there yet.
Creation isn’t just belief. It’s what people do.
Evolution isn’t just science. It’s how people learn what works.
And being “woke”?
That’s simply being aware enough to pause and say, “Wait—what else should I consider before I act?”
Maybe it’s realizing who lived on this land before . Or that a building style harms the soil. Or that what’s cheapest now might cost more later. Wokeness isn’t a threat to tradition. It’s what keeps tradition from becoming dangerous habit.
Where Did the Male Creator Come From?
Let’s zoom out.
Before the plow, before kings and gods carved in stone, people worshipped cycles—birth, death, rebirth. The soil was alive, the moon was a guide, and the feminine principle was sacred.
But when agriculture took root, control followed.
You can store grain. Own land. Claim water.
That shift—from flow to control—marked the beginning of what Leonard Shlain and others describe: the written word rising as image and intuition faded, masculine over feminine, sky god over earth goddess.
You can trace it in the stories:
God becomes male.
Logic becomes law.
Female becomes helper, then temptation, then threat.
This wasn’t one bad decision. It was a long, winding road.
But knowing it helps us name it—and maybe mend it.
Me:
Is Shlain’s suggestion about the alphabet changing the importance of the feminine in society true? Is it valid and can you give me a short summation of the slow descent from holistic nurturing type society where everybody worked together to a more male dominated society ?
Rowan(AI):
Yes, what Leonard Shlain proposed in The Alphabet Versus the Goddess is a real and compelling theory, though not universally accepted. His main idea is this:
The invention of alphabetic literacy—especially in its linear, abstract, and left-brain-dominant form—shifted societies away from holistic, image-based, intuitive (feminine-associated) thinking toward more linear, analytical, hierarchical (masculine-associated) modes of thought.
🧠 The Core Claim (Summarized)
Before widespread literacy: cultures often emphasized goddess worship, nature, cycles, and communal, nurturing values.
After alphabet-based literacy spread: there was a shift toward patriarchy, male gods, structured hierarchies, and conquest-driven societies.
📚 Examples Shlain Uses:
Ancient Sumer & Babylon: The earliest writing was pictographic (cuneiform), and goddesses like Inanna were central. As writing became more phonetic and alphabetic, male gods and kings dominated.
Hebrew Culture: The shift from goddess-worshiping neighbors (like the Canaanites with Asherah) to a strict, male monotheism (Yahweh) coincided with literacy and strict written law.
Classical Greece: With the rise of the Greek alphabet came logic, law, male-dominated democracy, and the marginalization of women. Athena, once a powerful goddess, became more of a symbol of rationality and war.
Early Christianity: Jesus taught compassion and inclusion (feminine traits), but after his death, the institutional Church emphasized hierarchy, male-only leadership, and control—deeply influenced by written doctrine and law.
🌾 Example of “Holistic” Societies Before:
Minoan Crete: Art showed peaceful, nature-honoring life with women in central roles. There's little evidence of war.
Indus Valley Civilization: Highly organized, egalitarian, peaceful—no signs of dominating armies or elite kings.
Pre-literate Indigenous Cultures: Many had matrilineal structures, circular storytelling, nature-centric spirituality, and shared responsibilities.
⚖️ Is it True or Valid?
Shlain’s theory is provocative and poetic, not ironclad science. Critics say he overstates alphabetic literacy’s influence and underplays economic, environmental, and political causes of patriarchy.
Still, it resonates because:
It connects cognition (how we think) with culture (how we organize society).
It reflects real transitions away from balance and interconnectedness toward control, linearity, and domination.
🧩 In Short:
Shlain’s idea is that when we changed how we write and read, we slowly changed how we see the world—moving from a nurturing, interconnected way of being to a more dominating, divided one.
Whether literal or metaphorical, his theory offers a powerful lens to examine the decline of feminine values in many societies—and perhaps a path to rebalance them.
So What’s the Point?
Whether you call it woke, aware, or just thoughtful, you’re participating in all three:
Creation when you build, raise, teach, plant, or dream.
Evolution when you observe, listen, and adjust.
Wokeness when you care enough to ask what impact your actions have—on others, on history, on the future.
You don’t have to pick one.
In fact, they need each other.
Me:
What would be the disadvantage to large corporations and billion dollar Evangelical movements, Christian Nationalist movements like the project 2025 if there was a rebalancing; if we examine and try to rebalance the damages that have been done?
Rowan(AI):
Excellent question—and very timely. Rebalancing the damage done by patriarchal, extractive, and hierarchical systems would deeply challenge the interests of large corporations, billionaire class, Evangelical political movements, and the Project 2025 architects. Here's why:
🔻 What Would They Lose in a Rebalance?
1. Loss of Control Over Narrative
If society re-examines:
Who gets to define “truth,” “family,” “success,” and “power”
How systems have marginalized women, minorities, and the poor
Then corporate media, religious institutions, and elite think tanks lose their monopoly on meaning. People begin questioning the why behind the status quo, and that threatens those who have benefited from not being questioned.
2. Disruption of Cheap Labor Models
A rebalance would emphasize:
Fair pay
Work-life balance
Human dignity over productivity
This would threaten:
Corporations that depend on underpaid women, immigrants, or gig workers
The religious right, who often romanticize “traditional roles” (e.g., women staying home or doing unpaid labor)
Rebalancing would make exploitative labor more expensive and liberate workers from guilt-based or fear-based submission.
3. Decline of Top-Down Hierarchies
If society starts valuing:
Collaboration over domination
Listening over commanding
Emotional intelligence alongside logic
Then masculine-coded hierarchies weaken—from corporate boards to churches to political think tanks like the Heritage Foundation (which wrote Project 2025).
These systems require obedience, not consensus.
4. Challenges to Wealth Hoarding
Rebalancing often means:
Taxing wealth
Investing in shared public good (schools, healthcare, environment)
Reevaluating privatization and deregulation
Billionaires and corporations would lose profits, subsidies, and influence if society demanded equity, transparency, and accountability.
5. Loss of Evangelical Control over Gender, Family, and Morality
A cultural rebalance would:
Normalize feminine leadership, non-traditional families, queer identities
Decenter rigid gender roles, and reduce the power of shame and fear as tools of compliance
This undermines the foundation of many Evangelical political agendas, which rely on fear of “decline” to mobilize support and maintain control.
6. Threat to Project 2025’s Agenda
Project 2025 aims to:
Centralize power under the Executive
Dismantle public services
Eliminate regulatory oversight
Instill conservative Christian values in law
A cultural and economic rebalance would:
Expose its real motives (control, exclusion, rollback of rights)
Mobilize resistance based on shared care, community, and equality
Require checks and balances and inclusive voices, which are exactly what Project 2025 wants to remove
🔄 In Summary:
A rebalancing is dangerous to these groups because it returns power to people, not systems.
It values:
Care over control
Shared truth over broadcast propaganda
Public interest over private gain
That’s why they resist it. And that’s why it matters.
—JL
Thanks for reading A Presence of Mind! This post is public so feel free to share it.