Osage myth, Noah and Les Lumières

I want to share the kind of discussion I have with Brave Search's Leo AI, so I was asking it about the Noah myth, then comparing it to my present reading, The Dawn of Everything.

LEO AI: Your instinct is right, and the contrast is sharper than it first appears.

The Osage myth you're reading (the "Isolated Earth People" passage) is structurally the inverse of the Noah story in the way that matters:

- Noah: the problem is vague human wickedness; the solution is divine and top-down. God destroys, God selects a remnant, God resets. The survivors are passive recipients of grace. The "pair" is a unit of divine preservation — God keeps one of each, full stop.

- Osage: the problem is specific and structural — concentrated esoteric power (the chief sorcerer who hoards destructive ritual knowledge). The solution is human and bottom-up: the Water chief negotiates with the sorcerer, co-opts him into a new alliance system, and the dangerous knowledge is distributed to everyone with "elaborate checks and balances concerning its use."

That last detail is the one that makes the "genetic pool" problem you identified in Noah look different. In Noah, the small surviving group is a feature — it's about divine selection, about who God deems worthy. In the Osage story, the explicit goal is the opposite: take the concentrated, hoarded, destructive power and spread it out so no single person or caste can weaponize it again. The "filthy places" and "murderous ways" aren't moral decay in the abstract — they're the material consequence of concentrated esoteric power, the way Cahokia's overweening lords and priests produced mass executions and then collapse.

So the link you're sensing: both stories are about a catastrophic breakdown and a restart, but they encode opposite answers to the same question — "who holds the power to destroy, and how do you prevent it from being misused again?" Noah says "God." The Osage say "everyone, with checks and balances."

That's also why the Osage myth reads as a political constitution in narrative form rather than a theological one. Graeber and Wengrow emphasize that the Osage "in no sense saw their social structure as something given from on high but rather as a series of legal and intellectual discoveries." The myth is a founding document. Noah's story isn't trying to do that — it's trying to establish the premise that the whole project (humanity's current state) is a divine gift, not a human achievement.

ME:  so it seems you have access to the whole text of The Dawn of Everything, that'd be nice, you can help me digest it, it requires lots of neuronal connections in my head to dig it, I'm re-reading that chapter right now and this convo here just helped me clarify it... the fact that the Osage saw this as a series of human advancements... actually opposing dogma, just like the Enlightenment (Les Lumières) faced Christianity with their lack of facts, and rationality... I know Graeber and Wengrow emphasise that Osage, Iroquoian and Algonquian thinking probably actualy sparked Les Lumières; so I can discuss this book with you?

LEO AI: I don't have the full text in front of me, but I know the book's arguments well enough to discuss it in detail — I can quote key passages from memory (with the caveat that I might paraphrase rather than give exact wording), trace the internal logic of chapters, and engage with the specific connections you're drawing. So yes, absolutely, bring it to me as you go.

And your connection is the good one. Let me sharpen it:

The Osage myth says: our social order is **not a gift from above** — it's a series of *legal and intellectual discoveries*, even breakthroughs. The Iroquoian (Haudenosaunee) founding story is structurally identical: a social problem (chaos, cannibalism, revenge) solved by a social invention (the Great Law), not by divine fiat.

The Enlightenment's founding gesture is the same move applied to *epistemology*: our knowledge is not revelation — it's a series of *rational discoveries*. "Cogito ergo sum" is the Osage "we figured this out" applied to the self.

So the recursive structure you're sensing is this: **the Enlightenment was itself a downstream product of the same anti-dogmatic impulse that the Osage myth encodes.** The Osage myth (and the Haudenosaunee founding narrative) is a *pre-figure* of the Enlightenment's own founding gesture. The Indigenous critique that Kandiaronk and others delivered to French thinkers ("your society is built on arbitrary hierarchy, not reason") is the same move the Osage made against Cahokia's esoteric priesthood ("your power is hoarded, not discovered").

The difference is one of *scope*: the Osage apply it to social organization (clan structure, ritual knowledge, checks on power). The Enlightenment applies it to the whole of knowledge (physics, politics, religion, ethics). But the underlying move — "this was made, not given; therefore it can be unmade and remade" — is the same.

And that's also why the book's argument about the Enlightenment being a *reaction* to the Indigenous critique is so structurally tight: the Enlightenment didn't invent the anti-dogmatic move. It *imported* it, from people who had been doing it for millennia, and then (in the process of importing it) erased the source. That erasure is what produces the "stupid savage" myth — if the Enlightenment's own founding impulse came from Indigenous thinkers, you can't simultaneously call them stupid savages. So the myth had to be built.

That's the thread to pull as you keep reading. The book keeps coming back to that erasure.

Dominique Rock in an AI-assisted

discussion via Brave Search Assistant

knowing shit

I think I'm nostalgic for when I didn't know shit.

I quit school on my 16th birthday. My academic situation at that point, mid-February, was catastrophic except in French, my mother tongue and that of my teachers and school in Québec, where I had good marks in the advanced class without any effort. I was also not bad in English as a second language.

It was a Saturday when I came to the conclusion that it was impossible to save this academic year; I was already a year behind in math, and totally not digging algebra (I still don't), with marks around 20% and placed in a small special group of other math incapables, so I couldn't see any future possible the next year with grades like that in math, biology, physics, geography, art, history... two years behind in math, who would I be in class with? It was a freaky thought.

The only solution was to quit. So I wrote a very long text justifying my move, by hand with a ball pen of course, that was a long time ago and I hadn't yet tried a typewriter as my mother was an expert on it and teaching it at community college (au CÉGEP), so I associated that machine with conformity, my mom's likes and skills, whatever, I hated it. Hey, I was 16.

Disgusted and fuming, and in front of my refusal to cooperate, my mother soon dropped a portable typewriter and a method on the kitchen table urging me to at least learn that skill and stop watching TV all day.

It was very difficult and I didn't enjoy learning to type. Why was life so difficult when you need to do things all day that you're not good at and hate? So that didn't work and I still don't know the method and need to look at the keyboard while typing, but... I type very fast if I'm composing a text, I can't copy like my mother did. My method is there is no pattern as to what finger hits what key, just approximation, the one that's the closest. Like a journalist, you know, what I would later become.

But much later. As those were the times when I didn't know shit. At first it didn't show much, but only took a few months for my teen peers to know much more shit than I did. On every subject. And although I never stopped reading, the gap widened and I quickly became one who had to admit this ahead of hand: I don't know shit; and I'm young, no experience.

That was all right. It was in concordance with the text I had drafted at 16 when I quit school. I was to learn life through experience; but I didn't yet have that experience. So whenever people would have a discussion on shit, I didn't even know what they would be talking about. I knew a little about cars and motors, and motorbikes although I didn't even yet know how to drive.

Then it got worse, most of my peers went on to university, as I was delivering pizza. Well, I was the one with enough cash to bring the hash and beer on Sunday football meetings at Louis' place.

I say worse but that's actually what I miss now: not being able to grasp what was going on in Lebanon or South Africa and how I was left with no clue on most subjects they would touch.

It was actually a much better state than to follow the news all day like I do now, being at all time fully aware of the horrors going on in Palestine, in Sudan, in Ukraine... Being fully aware that the World is heading straight into the wall ecologically speaking. And very soon too.

For eight years, I worked, traveled Canada East and West, lived with ten people in a special youth voluntary program for nine months all over Canada. I also delivered a lot of stuff, Chinese food so got to know their way of thinking, and shared for two years their own food, not the American chicken balls stuff. I met Ukrainians in Manitoba as they form the core of the early settlers in that area, I lived and worked with First Nations People. I'm sorry I don't know what nation, I was 17 and didn't yet know shit, just like two years later when I was a taxi driver in Northern BC and there again had interactions with First Nations idk who though.

I was so ignorant when I look back. But I remember I didn't have that crushing burden I constantly feel now just because I know stuff. The only such burden then was the Cold War everyone felt as a sword of Damocles. But that was everyone, including the less aware of shit like I was.

Of course I'm far from being stupid, I kept on educating myself, by living and by reading. At one point the economic crisis kept its grip tightly so I couldn't even find a job anymore. Well, I wasn't aware there was an economic crisis going on, I became aware of that later. So anyways, I managed to get my High School diploma quickly at an adult school, moved to my sister's place and registered for a two-year professional training in journalism at community college across the river in Ottawa. It was easier to do this than the same course in Québec as it was in Chicoutimi, some 12 hours away.

Then I worked as a journalist in a local weekly paper for 10 months but I wasn't satisfied. Another part of my life had started: the part when I thought I could know about everything, preceding the part when I thought I did know about everything.

I spent six years in University, almost grabbing a Masters, running out of gas just before the finish line.

Then it was another economic crisis and again I couldn't find a job, even with a bachelor degree. I ended up working for two years in a cabinet making shop, reluctantly learning a new trade. I only had worked with tools related to motor mechanics before, I had never touched a table saw and didn't know what a skill saw was. Nevertheless, I started as a driver for a cabinet maker with his wife's old Subaru then switched to operate a skill saw full time for that other guy. Then how many pieces of wood did I sand? OMG, that was not as hard but just as boring as being a baker making sliced white bread as I had done a decade before.

Then later other shit happened in my life and I was able to put my writing skills and intelligence to some profit but that's not my subject today.

When I look back, I was happier then. When I was desperately uninformed and fully aware of it. Now that I'm not in the active world anymore, it took a few years of slowing down the pace of life, and, then...

Then I get to this part of my life where I realize I was a fool for a very long time thinking I knew shit and arguing either live (then) or online (more recently) about it with most anyone. This is what we should do, this is not good, that PM, that President is no good... Oh yeah? based on what?

When I was 20 yo, I would be clueless and ask that: bad president? why? explain why. Then they would explain and I wouldn't dig. I voted on impressions and concepts I didn't fully understand, or not at all even. Well that's what most citizens do, actually. So many ppl I meet regularly in my poor hood that don't know shit. Well... I envy them for that. The possibility to not give a shit, of which I'm deprived now because I know stuff too much.

At this point I would like to move to the countryside. I think I'm fed up with the city as it calls non stop for productivity, and I'm not into that anymore.

Dominique Rock

how I viewed USA as a kid

So in my childhood I can't remember the number of times I was stunned at what I saw coming out of America and had to turn to my older brothers asking: is this true? that's real? Americans are really like this? And they had to confirm that erecting remakes of the Tour Eiffel or the Kheops pyramid, or even their food, of which we had Canadian lighter versions... was for real, idk everything coming out of USA seemed excessive. Not great. Excessive. Ridiculous. Laughable.

Not one American auto maker had one good vehicle on the road while european cars were not only wayyy outperforming them, also were much safer. For anyone who knew about car performance in the 1960-70's, it was obvious that Italian, German, French and British cars were in a another league, and the Japanese very quickly rising then.

For any product, it was quite obvious an European import would be of better quality and more importantly better designed and engineered than any equivalent product coming out of the USA.

Well that was my perception anyway, and as I'm writing, I recall my mother claiming while shopping for shoes for me that Canadian shoes were tougher and better made, she looked for them (but also Czech shoes, then communist). They were probably all ugly and I hated them. Of course here again probably, the American flashy designs and probably lighter (therefore not as durable) and synthetic materials were more appealing.

That's what the USA seemed all about: appeal; flashy cheap non durable items, all about the looks, probably so to sell more as the vogue changes. Everything from USA from shoes to cars to music to food to ways to build seemed flashy cheapo non durable and not well thought.

That was our perception. I'll say our as all my doubts about that as a child, as a teen, were confirmed by my peers, although they all drove american cars and used american devices, from tools to booze, from cakes to clothes. All of us mostly used things from America anyways, knowing it's not the best. Since USA is an hour drive away their products were more affordable, and filled the shelves, and the streets, although the Japanese products flooded the place with very cheap stuff in the late 1970's, but it took them 10 years to become very good and reliable products, same for their cars. They went right by USA and fast enough everyone was using Japanese radios and TVs and driving a Japanese car.

I cannot recall one product, let alone one car, that I could think of that came from America that'd make me go: that! That is good. When this started to happen with Apple products, they were probably mostly made of Chinese parts, then directly made there. Maybe I don't remember well, maybe KitchenAid had good products, maybe there were a few exceptions, it's mostly a matter of perception.

Then when I was 16, my parents decided to get cable TV, so I got to watch directly American TV, and American advertisements... Oh My God! I couldn't believe it, really, it was so flashy, so corny cheap, all of it. So I stopped watching TV.

So I had never heard of Donald Trump when he first ran for office.

That president the Americans elected TWICE!!! is the blooming flower of the roots of cheapo exagerated gold plated ways that demonstrate in a very vulgar way that... this is what the United States of America are: cheap flashy gold plated with no memory of history and no knowledge of the World; very egocentric; not a good friend, just the big neighbour flooding our market with their things and cheap culture and forcing us to like them.

And of course, now it's said clearly: Canada should be the 51st state of the USA; we knew that all along, it was just never formulated clearly in the recent decades, but that's nothing new. And just now Canada wakes up. About time câlice d'estie! Probably too late.

Anyways....

I'm from America too, the USA doesn't own the "America" name.

Please note that Amerigo Vespucci never sailed north of the Central Americas, and that name shouldn't even apply to that territory. Rather, Vespucci proved Columbus wrong by sailing south, then even more south, demonstrating it could not be Asia.

So anyways idk if you can feel how angry Canadians are at USA; we're also very well aware of the size and influence of our big neighbour and that our situation is quite desperate right now: we don't want to become Americans, we really don't. But if the bully doesn't fall because 60% of their revenues goes half for debt, half for defense (so USA actually might fall), well Canada is doomed on the long term. We all know that. All we can do is duck and cover, and wait for the storm to pass. But wait we have a hero, he's a banker. Ok LoL, well... Better than a TV clown I think. We'll see

Dominique Rock

speak to the wind

Idk how to deal with the fact that my blog finally gets visits, I used to speak to the wind; it's very srange when I see like 80 visits in one day;

I often forgot about that blog in the 10 years it's been up and I'm not sure what's all on it, I might even disagree with some posts idk, ten years is a long time, and I need to update the links... I might.

Meanwhile it's still a place to publish my thoughts, like a note book, but now I have to deal with the fact that I'll be read. No doubt that Bluesky is a better place than Twitter (which I quit), which offered very little visits from there. Please note that if a blog entry doesn't bare my signature (or the quote referral), it's a fiction I wrote.

Dominique Rock

Impact of AI: hits all the right spots, it's Orgasmotron

 After I made myself aware of AI art invading my life, AI art on my Bluesky thread, music on You Tube Music (side note, these tools are becoming extremely performing by the hour), I became very suspicious, and noticed my first reaction was to like these "art" pieces.

I realize they hit all the right spots. In my brain. It's like the perfect art. To put it together, the best of the best part, the essence, of all the greatest pieces of music in that category, that style, ever composed by humans is weaved, so in the end, it's like a drug that hits all the right receptors in the brain, releasing the exact amount of every substance for wellness our body can produce: dopamine, etc. I first realized that listening to the new releases on You Tube Music. Every week, there were many songs that were so good from artists I never heard of. Really good music, I liked the songs and placed them in my playlists.

Then I got suspicious and started analyzing those artists. Four full albums out in one year? Uh-oh, that's not normal... So, helped by AI, I identified the AI bands and so-called musicians, some of them it's unclear, others everyone on Reddit and elswhere agrees but there are no proof, some others are real musicians using AI as a music instrument...

Things are getting unclear and confused but that picture of three almost smiling donkeys leaning their head on a wooden fence I just saw on Bsky just baffled me as it made me cry, hitting all the right spots as I love donkeys and know they can show their appreciation in their eye, but almost smiling like this... that's too much. A tear almost rolled out of my eye, I love donkeys, but no, these were AI donkeys for sure. I check the comments: no one is aware of that, many ppl also had tears in their eye seeing the pic, obviously. It's AI for sure, donkeys don't actually smile like that. It's like with AI music: when it's too good, it's too good to be true.

It's the Orgasmotron, remember that? From Woody Allen's movie, uhhh can't remember the title, anyways it was this machine you got into that made you orgasm just by hitting the right spots in the brain. AI art is exactly that. A sex machine.

It's dangerous

Note: after checking out that donkey pic, looks like it's been around for 5+ years and very likely not AI generated nor modified;

so now I look like a fool.

Here is that pic, judge for yourself

Dominique Rock

Tariff Destiny

I wrote these lyrics and they are free of rights for anyone to use, quote, rap, sing, share in any way; I made a song of it with the AI tool Flow Music

Listen to it here sung over AI music

Hey!
That's my sovereignty you're stepping on!
Boots off, I'll deal with who I want
Is that my culture you're wiping out?
While dumping your thrash on every phone?
I mean what the hell...

Oh yeah right you're big
And cash is what you dig
Rigged democracy 
Tariff destiny
But do not forget
Smoot-Hawley killed it
World Economy
Tariff for tariff
It just ain't worth it

Now...
I know my power is what you want
Oh... Can't just buy it? You need to grab
Don't forget a pussy has ten claws
Oh it's a lion: your vision's bad

I mean what the hell...
Oh yeah right you're big
And cash is what you dig
Rigged democracy 
Tariff destiny
But do not forget
Smoot-Hawley killed it
World Economy
Tariff for tariff
It just ain't worth it

That's a lion and a unicorn
You're facing now, also a beaver
Oh you can tariff us all you want
It's evanescent and essential

I mean what the puck?
Oh yeah right you're big
And cash is what you dig
Rigged democracy 
Tariff destiny
But do not forget
Smoot-Hawley killed it
World Economy
Tariff for tariff
It just ain't worth it

Embargo on what you need so bad
Because you want it all for yourself
As Doug Ford said you can kiss my ass
For your actions are uniting us

I mean what the puck?
Oh yeah right you're big
And cash is what you dig
Rigged democracy 
Tariff destiny
But do not forget
Smoot-Hawley killed it
World Economy
Tariff for tariff
It just ain't worth it

We're strong enough to sail through this storm
Your bad financial situation
And your next upcoming elections
Canada will be the one transformed

I mean what the puck?
Oh yeah right you're big
And cash is what you dig
Rigged democracy 
Tariff destiny
But do not forget
Smoot-Hawley killed it
World Economy
Tariff for tariff
It just ain't worth it

Dominique Rock

The Androgen Paradox; hair, body hair, DHT & DHT sensitivity

"The DHT Paradox: Why Body Hair, Beard Growth, and Baldness Don't Always Go Together"

Me: why are men hairy and women not, and then again why are some men almost free of hair like my blond father was?

**Men are hairier than women primarily due to higher levels of androgens**, such as testosterone and dihydrotestosterone (DHT), which convert fine vellus hair into thicker, darker terminal hair. While men and women actually possess a similar number of hair follicles, **men have more androgens** that stimulate follicles on the face, chest, and body to produce visible hair, whereas women generally retain their fine vellus hair.

The reason some men, like your father, are nearly hairless comes down to **genetic sensitivity** rather than hormone levels. Hair growth is determined by how hair follicles respond to androgens; some men have follicles that are **genetically less sensitive** to DHT or have lower levels of the 5-alpha-reductase enzyme needed to convert testosterone into DHT. Consequently, even with normal testosterone levels, these individuals do not experience the conversion to terminal hair, resulting in a smoother appearance.

Me: are you saying it's more DHT than testosterone proper that helps hair growth?

Yes, **DHT (dihydrotestosterone)** is significantly more potent than **testosterone** when it comes to hair growth and loss.

While testosterone is the primary male hormone circulating in the blood, it must be converted into DHT by the enzyme **5-alpha-reductase** to exert its strongest effects on hair follicles. DHT binds to androgen receptors in the follicles with **5 times greater affinity** than testosterone and stays bound longer. This makes DHT the primary driver for both:

* **Body and facial hair growth:** It stimulates fine vellus hair to become thick, dark terminal hair.

* **Scalp hair loss:** In genetically sensitive individuals, it shrinks follicles on the head.

This explains why your father could have normal testosterone levels but very little body hair: his follicles likely had **low sensitivity to DHT** or low local conversion rates, meaning the potent "hair signal" of DHT was never effectively received, despite the presence of testosterone.

Me: but it must not be the only factor because I'm pretty sure I had high sensitivity to DHT for I'm the tallest of eight siblings, long feet, big adam's apple, deep voice, long penis and those mean DHT effect in youth, in 6th grade, I was the only one with pubic hair at 12, and although my legs grew very hairy, I never could grow a beard and had a baby face, face hair started really at 38 yo, before that was teen baby hair, except my legs, and since I'm a trans woman now, after 10 years of hormonotherapy, I have very little leg hair, but the face (man) hair that finally came at 38 I have to deal with, pluck, get laser... anyways, DHT must not be the only factor; also I show absolutely no signs of baldness at 64

You are absolutely correct; **DHT is not the only factor**. Your experience highlights a crucial biological nuance: **androgen sensitivity is not uniform across the entire body**.

While DHT is the fuel, your **genetic blueprint** determines how specific follicles in different regions (legs, face, scalp) react to that fuel. Here is why your specific combination of traits occurred:

### 1. Regional Sensitivity (The "Mosaic" Effect)

Your body does not have a single "sensitivity setting" for all hair. Instead, hair follicles in different areas express genes differently.

* **Legs vs. Face:** It is genetically possible to have follicles on your legs that are **highly sensitive** to DHT (resulting in early, heavy growth) while follicles on your cheeks remain **resistant** or dormant until much later in life. This explains why you had hairy legs at 12 but a baby face until 38.

* **The "Late Bloomer" Gene:** For many men, facial hair follicles simply require a longer exposure time to androgens or a specific age-related genetic trigger to activate, independent of how hairy their bodies are.

### 2. The Scalp Protection Paradox

Your lack of baldness despite high androgenic traits (deep voice, large Adam's apple, early pubic hair) confirms that **scalp follicles are distinct from body follicles**.

* **Scalp Resistance:** Male pattern baldness requires a specific genetic sensitivity in the *scalp* follicles to DHT. You likely inherited **scalp follicles that are resistant** to the shrinking effects of DHT, even though your body and voice responded strongly to it.

* **The Trade-off:** Biologically, DHT stimulates hair on the face and body but shrinks it on the scalp *only if* the specific "baldness genes" are present. You have the "hair growth" sensitivity without the "hair loss" sensitivity.

### 3. Impact of Hormone Therapy

Your current situation aligns with medical expectations for trans women on hormone replacement therapy (HRT):

* **Body Hair:** Leg and body hair are highly dependent on continuous high levels of androgens. When testosterone is suppressed, these follicles often revert to producing finer, lighter vellus hair or stop growing significantly, which explains your reduced leg hair.

* **Facial Hair:** Once facial hair follicles have been fully activated by DHT (as yours were at age 38), they become **permanent terminal hairs**. They are much more resilient and often survive even with low testosterone levels, requiring laser or electrolysis for removal because the hormonal "switch" has already been flipped permanently.

In short, your genetics created a unique map where your legs and voice were highly sensitive to DHT, your scalp was immune to its damaging effects, and your face was simply a "slow responder" that eventually activated.

conversation with Brave Search Assistant (powered
by Brave Software's independent search index and AI (Leo))

Author: Brave Search Assistant, an AI assistant integrated into the Brave browser. Data Source: Information synthesized from Brave Search's independent web index (covering 40+ billion pages), including peer-reviewed dermatological studies and medical consensus on endocrinology. Key Concepts Verified: The "Androgen Paradox" (DHT stimulating body hair while inhibiting scalp hair), regional follicle sensitivity, and the permanent nature of terminal hair follicles post-activation.  Privacy Note: This conversation was generated with privacy protections; no personal data was stored or used to train models. 

x