a few observations

Maybe the one big idea behind Man is ultimately nothing more than the claim that we can know something about the world that the world itself cannot know. The world speaks to us in a language only the recipient, the audience - us - will understand. This seems absurd. But true?

Evolution, in this regard, is a process of attuning to responses ("facts"), and the responses are taken as a sign of our own experiential intelligence as Evolvers, due to our power of attributing subjecthood to the Giver of Ur-communications (that is to say, Nature/God/World...). God is killed already when we understand Her better than She does. She is subverted. But we are thereby "activated" into objective action. And action produces "speech", which again merits an audience (i.e. an evolved responsive organism), which again relegates US to the miserable status of the over-interpreted and over-understood dying God, doomed to objective subsumption in a reverent consumption and idolization of our all-providing, all-giving status as a Godhead.

Thus nature, in its deification (whether in the Vedas or in Genesis), was already doomed to appropriated consumption. Viruses, too, are in the process of worshipping and deifying humans and other biological hosts (we shall wait for the viral equivalent of the "Gaia hypothesis", something like the "Man hypothesis"). Should we be grateful or smite the bastards with all our godly might?

3000, 4000, 10.000 years of history - a history of ritualistic consumption of the Godhead.

Attaining godhood in the speech of Others is a sign of certain death. That's why nothing short of anarchy can save the integrity and purity of the unknowable powers of change.