Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
On Human Egalitarianism
12-03-2012, 10:00 PM, (This post was last modified: 12-04-2012, 12:47 AM by macfadden.)
#16
RE: On Human Egalitarianism
(11-30-2012, 06:05 PM)macfadden Wrote:
Quote:
Quote:Your other massive blunder is in equating hierarchy with authoritarianism, a group need not be hierarchical to establish authoritarian norms or enforce those norms by imposing sanctions on transgressors. A group does not need a hierarchy to levee taxes or exact tribute from its members. An absence of hierarchy does not imply that a group is tolerant, egalitarian, or enlightened, nor does it imply a functioning anarchy where everyone is free to do what they please.


That's true, a group doesn't need a hierarchy to levee taxes or tribute from it's members. The question is, how exactly are they going to get those taxes and what keeps the tax base immobile to be exploited in the first place?


So you're hot blooded and slow witted, a very common combination to be found among the "forrest people", you'd make a fine savage. The answer is, the group can extort taxes from the individual because the individual needs the group for his/her survival far more than the group needs any particular individual. Now it is not called taxation in hunter gatherer society, it is termed 'sharing' or 'gifting', but make no mistake, the 'sharing' is obligatory and any member that fails to share, and share generously(the tax rate among hunter gatherers is astronomical), is made a pariah and either ostracized or exiled, this would mean almost certain death for the individual. The power to extort is based on the threat of expulsion from the collective.

It does not matter that the group is mobile or immobile, the individual is wholly dependent on the group for his sustenance and security, the power of the group over the individual is exercised through snubbing, shunning, and ultimately exile.

This form of taxation is a counterdominance strategy that was highly successful for ensuring group cohesion and thus ultimately survival, but survival was all that was ensured. All strategies have a cost benefit ratio and this particular strategy had the benefit of making survival under harsh conditions possible, but it had the cost of repressing individuality to the point of severely retarding social and technological evolution for a couple hundred thousand years as well as maintaining an extremely repressive collectivist tyranny of the many over the one. This dynamic largely accounts for much of the arrested development and cultural stagnation of the savage.

Quote:On the basis of such observations, Christopher Boehm proposed the theory that hunter-gatherers maintained equality through a practice that he labeled reverse dominance. In a standard dominance hierarchy - as can be seen in all of our ape relatives (yes, even in bonobos) - a few individuals dominate the many. In a system of reverse dominance, however, the many act in unison to deflate the ego of anyone who tries, even in an incipient way, to dominate them.

According to Boehm, hunter-gatherers are continuously vigilant to transgressions against the egalitarian ethos. Someone who boasts, or fails to share, or in any way seems to think that he (or she, but usually it's a he) is better than others is put in his place through teasing, which stops once the person stops the offensive behavior. If teasing doesn't work, the next step is shunning. The band acts as if the offending person doesn't exist. That almost always works. Imagine what it is like to be completely ignored by the very people on whom your life depends. No human being can live for long alone.

Quote:In anthropology and the social sciences, a gift economy (or gift culture) is a mode of exchange where valuable goods and services are regularly given without any explicit agreement for immediate or future rewards (i.e. no formal quid pro quo exists). Ideally, voluntary and recurring gift exchange circulates and redistributes wealth throughout a community, and serves to build societal ties and obligations.


Mauss

French sociologist Marcel Mauss argues that a gift, a perfect example of 'total' social phenomenon, is essentially never "free". They not only entail the obligation to reciprocate presents received, but also "supposes two other obligations just as important: the obligation, on the one hand, to give presents, and on the other hand, to receive them". According to Mauss, while it is easy to romanticize a gift economy, humans do not always wish to be enmeshed in a web of obligation. Mauss wrote, "The gift not yet repaid debases the man who accepts it."

The French writer Georges Bataille in his book La part Maudite uses Mauss's argument in order to construct a theory of economy: to his point of view the structure of gift forms the presupposition for all possible economy. Particularly interested about the potlatch as described by Mauss, Bataille claims that its antagonistic character obliges the receiver of the gift to confirm a subjection; the structure of the gift can refer thus immediately to a practice that bears out different roles for the parts that undertake an action in it, installing in this act of donating the Hegelian dipole of master and slave.
Reply
12-05-2012, 01:19 AM, (This post was last modified: 12-05-2012, 02:11 AM by macfadden.)
#17
RE: On Human Egalitarianism
What is the nature of human nature?

Quote:
Nothing is more basic theoretically than our concept of human nature. How we understand human nature guides our investigations and our interpretations of our findings. An awareness of our assumptions and critical reflection on them would seem a necessary prerequisite for the success of anthropology.
The central tenet of American cultural anthropology since Frans Boaz and his students Margaret Mead (Coming of Age in Samoa) and Ruth Benedict (Patterns of Culture) has been biological amorphism and cultural determinism. This view countered biological and racial determinism, and any political policies based on them. It also furthered a view of humans as sharing little, their unique cultures separating them. Culture determinism was further enforced, one doesn’t like to say sanctified, by Clifford Geertz, who argued, brilliantly as always, in “The Impact of the Concept of Culture on the Concept of Man,” Ch. 2 in The Interpretation of Cultures (1973), in favour of taking the view that culture preceded human biology and determined it! “As our central nervous system–and most particularly its crowning curse and glory, the neocortex–grew up in great part in interaction with culture, it is incapable of directing our behaviour or organizing our experience without the guidance provided by systems of significant symbols” (p. 49). Which means? “We are, in sum, incomplete or unfinished animals who complete or finish ourselves through culture–and not through culture in general but through highly particular forms of it...” (p. 49). Viva cultural determinism!
While cultural determinism was by far the dominant view in American cultural anthropology, not all anthropologists returned from their studies with their faith intact. A case in point is Melford Spiro, who reports his intellectual journey in a wonderful essay called “Culture and Human Nature,” chapter one of a volume of his collected papers of the same title (1987). Spiro began his research career as a convinced and determined (no pun intended) cultural determinist. His anthropological understanding was reinforced by his socialist sympathies, for he realized the necessity of human plasticity for socialist theory and practice. (Of course, human plasticity and cultural determinism, or maybe I should say social determinism, were official doctrines of the Soviet Union. Lysankian “biology” was a reflection of this. So too did latter day feminists adopt this doctrine to advance their cause.) Spiro carried out ethnographic field research on Ifaluk Atoll, famously on a kibbutz in Israel, and in Burma. What happened through the course of his research, was that he kept seeing things that were not consistent with cultural determinism, and which, after decades of “denial,” he finally accepted as pre-cultural determinisms. Specifically, drawing on Freud, he identified psychodynamic processes and influences that, he argues, were critical in explaining much behaviour and many institutions that could not be accounted for by cultural determinism.
Also in anthropology, evolutionary ecologists (ne: sociobiologists), pursuing Darwinian explanations of social behaviour and cultural norms, have challenged cultural determinism, although they tend to skate around biological determinism. Somewhat more forthright are recent geneticists and neurologists who give greater emphasis to the hardwiring of human biology and its social consequences. We are by now all aware that gender is influenced by differential neurological patterns. (Feminists have found that they can accommodate such a view and use it in their interests.) With the new findings, probably not known terribly well by most cultural anthropologists, questions arise as to the extent to which biology must be weighed in anthropological analyses. At the very least, I think we can say some uncertainty has broken into the previously confident assumptions of absolute cultural determinism.
In more specialized fields of anthropology, such as the study of aggression and war, a significant literature has developed debating causes, including biology and culture, such as Lawrence H. Keeley”s War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage (Oxford 1997) and Douglas P. Fry’s The Human Potential for Peace: An Anthropological Challenge to Assumptions about War and Violence (Oxford 2006), among others. The debate has also been pursued, as well, in regard to gender.
So where do we stand now on human nature? Of course, it is easy enough, if we are so inclined, to say that both biology and culture play a part. But if we do not get rather more specific than that, we are not on very firm ground, and will be hard put to provide very definite results in our explanations (always assuming that we are prepared to extend ourselves to give explanations). So where do we stand now? What do you think?
http://openanthcoop.ning.com/group/theoryinanthropology/forum/topics/what-is-the-nature-of-human?commentId=3404290%3AComment%3A12169&groupId=3404290%3AGroup%3A3094





Quote:
Derek Freeman unmask the fake research done by Margaret Mead in his book "Coming on age in Samoa" and his Cultural Determinism.

This book describes a society, the Samoans, with no sexual inhibitions and no competition. That influenced deeply the western world about the image of herself and turned upside-down the scale of values, by rising primitive cultures to the top scale of civilization and depicting Western culture as plenty of unnecessary war agression and market competition and religious repression.

The inmediate effect when the book was written, in the 1930s, where the end of many colonial governments, leaving the power mostly to local tyrans. In the 1960s, the hippie movement, the new left and the cultural determinism, stablished as undiputable orthodox theory about human nature in intelectual life, risen up Margaret M. to levels of divinity and omniscence. No other woman has been so popular in science.

Derek Freeman, a formerly enthusiast follower on MM theories, went to samoa for many years to continue his work. But he found absoluterly contrary evidences. DF even interviewed the same samoan girls and reach the conclussion that the research made by MM during is few weeks study was a fake. She even could´nt learn Samoan language in his short stay. His work was, mostly, an invention with misunderstandigns of Samoan jokes.

Anyway the doccumentary is balanced, taking both sides of the polemic, with the testimony of followers of both MM and DF.


Quote:
The Margaret Mead Hoax

Once upon a time, in a land far, far away, some mischievous Polynesian girls played a joke on a gullible young utopian named Margaret Mead and the world was never the same again.

Young Margaret was a student and disciple of the anthropologist Franz Boas. Though few people recognize his name today, the social influence that Franz Boas has exerted through the efforts of his renowned students is exceeded by only one other German Jew: Karl Marx. Like Marx, Boas was an extreme leftist utopian. His contribution to the science of anthropology was the doctrine of cultural relativism, which holds as axiomatic that no culture is any better than any other culture, but merely different. This doctrine is a great leveler, for its seemingly value-free approach to cultural studies has the effect of placing Western civilization on the same level with any clan of Brazilian headhunters.

Boas was a foreign transplant. He arrived in America in 1886 already imbued with radical ideas, and like so many radical immigrants, hating America even before his feet left the gangplank. He became one of a rising generation of young scholars, many of them Jewish immigrants like himself, who were hostile to America’s Anglo-Saxon establishment and who were bent on subverting its values. Once he had established himself at Columbia University, Boas began his political campaign by nurturing a following of admiring students, many of them women, who would go on to become apostles of his new approach to social analysis which would do so much to subvert traditional social values and sexual morality.

Franz Boas, his disciples, and other like-minded academics launched a full-scale intellectual war against the notion of cultural hierarchy, the idea that cultures could be graded or ranked on a scale of comparison. They questioned all standards of classification, they denied that there was any intrinsic difference between the races, they revived the debate about nature and nurture. They denied that there was any such thing as “human nature”. It was, in short, an assault on Western standards and values.

In 1883 Boas had made a field trip to Baffinland where he became enamoured with the Eskimo way of life. He revealed his alienation from the modern world and a romantic inclination toward Rousseau’s noble savage when he wrote in his diary: “I often ask myself what advantages our “good society” possesses over the “savages”. The more I see of their customs, the more I realize that we have no right to look down upon them.”

When Boas completed his study of the Kwakintl Indians of Vancouver Island he wrote a glowing and detailed account of their culture. In keeping with his concealed subversive political agenda, he kept from his readers the fact that these “noble” savages also had a long tradition of slavery. Boas didn’t want his readers to question his “value-free” approach to anthropology, especially then, when it had been only eighteen years since 600,000 European-Americans had died in a struggle over the worthiness of slavery in America.

It was Franz Boas who suggested that the young Margaret Mead should go to Samoa. Boas suggested to Mead that the difficult phase of adolescent sexual adjustment might be peculiar to Western culture and that a truly liberated people, such as the Samoans, might not behave in so repressed a fashion as Western youth. He impressed upon her that this would be a very important contribution to social science.

It should come as no surprise that the impressionable young Mead “discovered” exactly what her influential mentor sent her to find. The fruit of Mead’s 1925-1926 south sea voyage was Coming of Age in Samoa, which was published in 1928. Millions of copies have since been sold in dozens of languages. It is easily one of the most influential books in the social sciences ever written; it made Margaret Mead the most famous anthropologist on the planet.

Like her mentor, Mead was every inch a cultural relativist. She believed that other cultures should not be held to Western standards, she insisted that in some ways other cultures were superior to her own. She saw the Samoans as admirable behavioral models to be emulated, like Rousseau’s unrepressed noble savages. Her book was a tour guide to Paradise Found. She wrote of the Samoans: “They laugh at stories of romantic love, scoff at infidelity...believe explicitly that one love will quickly cure another...adultery does not necessarily mean a broken marriage...divorce is a simple, informal matter...Samoans welcome casual homosexual practices...In such a setting, there is no room for guilt.”

Mead’s tale of sexual liberation, which boldly challenged Western moral values and perceptions of perversion, was a message which many people were eager to hear and she was eager to tell. She believed that Americans were far to constrained by conventional morality; they were, in her opinion, repressed, guilt ridden and unhappy; they raised their children , she thought, to be repressed and joyless as well. Ultimately her book was not so much about Samoa as it was about what was wrong with America and Western moral norms. Her ode to free love places her squarely in the forefront of what became The Sexual Revolution.

Mead’s cultural relativism trivialized Western moral precepts by making them out to be no more valid than those of the south sea islanders, indeed, even less valid because they were the cause of unhealthy repression. If, as she claimed, humans had no hereditary human nature, if our emotional selves were infinitely elastic, then why not shed the confining garments of our prudish culture and go completely native? It told millions of people that their morals were a mere hangup, it altered people’s behavior, it changed the way people in America raised their children. Throughout it all, Margaret Mead kept well hidden her own inclination toward homosexuality.

Sadly for America and the Samoans, it was all rubbish. The gullible young Mead breezed into Samoa in 1925 without any knowledge of the language. She picked up what she could in one short course. She did not live with the Samoans, but stayed in the home of a Navy pharmacist. She spent much of her time working on an unrelated project and she quit the island after only nine months. What she took away with her is revealed, upon closer examination, to be little more than an adolescent prank lovingly bundled up inside Mead’s own cultural relativist illusions.

Years later, Samoan students studying at American colleges would denounce Mead for grotesquely distorting the truth about their culture. Anthropologist Derek Freeman, who completed over six years of field work on Samoa, concluded that Coming of Age in Samoa stands as the worst example of “self-deception in the history of the behavioral sciences.” Freeman clearly documented that almost everything Mead said about Samoan behavior was dead wrong.

Mead claimed that the free-loving Samoans were never jealous or anxious in sexual matters. Repression and guilt are, in fact, widespread in Samoa and bridal virginity is highly valued. While Mead had asserted that Samoans took adultery lightly, the Samoan legal code in force at the time of her visit made adultery a crime punishable by fine and/or prison. In former times it had been punishable by death. Suicides were regularly reported in the local Samoan newspapers, but Mead proclaimed the absence of suicide among the Samoans to be a sign of their robust mental health. Mead wrote that rape was alien to the Samoans, but Freeman demonstrated that the rate of commision was several times higher in Samoa than in the United States. In fact, “among the highest in the world.”

Mead’s preposterous distortion of Samoan culture is in part traceable to the adolescents who were Mead’s informants. Mead’s unceasingly prurient fascination with their sex lives apparently led these girls to make up the sorts of stories that they sensed Mead wanted to hear. So the girls tried to please Mead, who, in turn, was trying to please Boas, and the result was junk social science. In the end, Mead is unmasked as a dupe and a fraud. For his part, Boas was uncritically enthusiastic in his acceptance of whatever his students brought him that flattered his political prejudices.

As time passed, the products of the Boas school of anthropology took on a certain rubber-stamp familiarity. All of the cultures studied by the Boasians, no matter how seemingly primitive, were revealed to be wellsprings of richness worthy of admiration, comparing favorably to Western culture. Europeans who thought their culture superior to that of the headhunters and slavers were merely being arrogant.

There was nothing “value-free” about the way that disciples of cultural relativism employ their scholarship today. The notion that all “cultures” are co-equal is now used to excuse an out-of-wedlock birth rate of seventy percent among African Americans. It is used to promote “ebonics” in America’s schools. It is used to excuse high rates of woman-beating among minorities. We are told that cultures that still practice slavery are just as good as our Western culture which invented institutional anti-racism and spent much of its wealth to stamp out slavery around the world.

In an ideal world truth would displace falsehood, but in the hermetic left-liberal strongholds of America’s colleges beloved fantasies are not soon relinquished. On many benighted campuses Margaret Mead’s Coming of Age in Samoa is still to be found in classrooms. If you are a student who is being indoctrinated with this nonsense, then you are a victim of educational malpractice. Demand a tuition refund.

Recommended reading: Margaret Mead and the Heretic by Derek Freeman, published by Penguin Press. For another example of educational malpractice see “Rigoberta Menchu” in this series.
http://www.weirdrepublic.com/episode12.htm


Quote:
Franz Boas – Liberal Icon, Scientific Fraud
By Sam Francis on October 14, 2002 at 1:00am

Two of the major superstitions of our time are the notion that man is merely a blank slate whose behavior is merely the product of the social environment and its sister, that race doesn't exist. Yet one by one, the pseudo-scientific sources of these myths are being discredited by serious scientists, and last week, one of the biggest sources of all took a nose dive.

Franz Boas, often called the grandfather of modern anthropology and a pioneer pusher of the idea that race is not a very meaningful concept, merely a "social construct" not found in nature, probably ranks with Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud as one of the most influential thinkers of the modern age. As a Columbia professor from 1899 to 1942, he virtually created modern anthropology, and the students he trained—among them, Margaret Mead and some of the most famous names in the field—dominated the discipline until only a few years ago.

One of Boas' favorite targets was so-called "scientific racism," and much of his own writing was intended to combat what he saw—sometimes rightly—as unscientific or simply false thinking about race.

But it now turns out that Boas himself was guilty of no small degree of unscientific blunder—and maybe even fraud.

In 1912, Boas published what became a classic study that claimed to show that the skull shapes ("cranial forms") of the descendants of European immigrants to the United States altered from those of the original immigrants. Boas offered no explanation for why the changes took place, but if they were real, his finding pretty much wiped out the idea that different racial and ethnic types differ in fixed physical characteristics.

Boas's study, write Abram Kardiner and Edward Preble in their popular history of anthropology, They Studied Man, [pay archive]

"did much to establish the notion in human genetics that what are transmitted in the germ plasm are not fixed characters but potentialities ... dependent upon the environment for the particular form they will assume. The 'nature-nurture' controversy was largely obviated by this alternative."

In political terms, if human beings have few or no "fixed characters" and are shaped by the social environment, then what we know as modern liberalism is in business. So is communism, which also assumes that human beings can be transformed by manipulating the social environment.

It's no accident that Boas was a lifelong sympathizer of Marxism.

Unfortunately, for the social and human engineers, the study has now been shown to be invalid. Last week in the New York Times Science section, science reporter Nicholas Wade reported on an article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by anthropologists Corey Sparks and Richard L. Jantz that took another look at Boas's study and methods. The effects of the new environment on the skulls of the immigrants' descendants, they found, are "insignificant," and the difference between the European and American born children were "negligible in comparison to the differentiation between ethnic groups." ["A New Look at Old Data May Discredit a Theory on Race" By Nicholas Wade, NYT.Oct 8, 2002]

Moreover, as Dr. Jantz told the Times, Boas

"was intent on showing that the scientific racism of the day had no basis, but he did have to shade his data some to make it come out that way."

In other words, Boas decided what his conclusions would be before he finished the research and then "shaded"—i.e., cheated on—the data to make them support the conclusion he wanted.

This is not science; it's fraud -- and modern liberalism is founded on it.

It doesn't mean that the "scientific racism" Boas wanted to destroy is valid, but then again, as Dr. Jantz, says, it also "doesn't mean cranial morphology [the classification of skulls by race] is meaningless either."

Yet Boas was by far not the worst offender when it came to twisting data to support politically desired conclusions. His student Margaret Mead has been shown to have outright fabricated much of her data on Samoan sex life in the 1920s, and the claims about the lack of genetic influence on IQ of several other scientists trained or influenced by Boas have also been challenged by later research.

Anthropologist David Thomas, curator of anthropology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, tells the Times

"once we anthropologists said race doesn't exist, we have ignored it since then,"

but now, the reappraisal of Boas' work

"really does have far-reaching ramifications."

You can say that again.

Not only has a giant of modern social science—and a pillar of modern liberalism—tumbled from his pedestal, but the dogma that man is merely a blank slate, on which state bureaucrats and social engineers may scribble whatever ideologies they please, has toppled with him.

If that dogma really can be killed, then much of the tyranny and chaos it has helped create will die with it.

COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

October 14, 2002

http://www.vdare.com/articles/franz-boas-liberal-icon-scientific-fraud

Quote:
But the 20th century suffered "two" ideologies that led to genocides. The other one, Marxism, had no use for race, didn't believe in genes and denied that human nature was a meaningful concept. Clearly, it's not an emphasis on genes or evolution that is dangerous. It's the desire to remake humanity by coercive means (eugenics or social engineering) and the belief that humanity advances through a struggle in which superior groups (race or classes) triumph over inferior ones. - Steven Pinker
http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/books/tbs/media_articles/2002_10_30_upi.html
Reply
12-07-2012, 12:19 AM, (This post was last modified: 12-07-2012, 12:21 AM by Watchdog.)
#18
RE: On Human Egalitarianism
One thing strikes me in this thread. The arguments raised here are concerned with the material aspects of human nature. In other words, the “animal” part of us which includes such things as how our organic bodies “evolved”, and all the physic-psycho-chemical and social-collect links that are therefore made to other animal species. And while I cannot deny the importance of the materialistic aspects of humans and can also agree that human beings as naturally egalitarian is the great fallacy, I also feel the need to broaden the discussion the non-materialistic components of humans that have nothing to do with the animalistic evolution arguments. In other words, what conclusions would we reach if we think of humans as non-corporal spirits living in synergy inside a physical body? Could we not then argue that we are also fundamentally egalitarian? How about this: if we strip every human of his/her bodies and all other forms of karmic conditioning should we not all be pure energy; everyone being “the same” fundamentally?

Having said that, I would like to build as a working hypothesis that we are indeed fundamentally equal, but we differ because of several spiritual and physical laws that have affected us differently in time. Karmic laws for example in the spiritual realms and “evolution theory” in the physical. Not that I really subscribe to the theory of evolution, but that’s a whole other topic on its own.

Please don’t see as derailing the thread. I’m simply expanding the ideas, as I always feel a bit taken back when I find that unifying theories about humans fail to talk about non-materialistic aspects. Bringing spirit, energy, and other ideas is a way for me to try to make the picture more complete, and therefore more realistic. Having said that, I understand that such expansions are not welcomed in the formulation of current scientific paradigms.
Paix, Amour et Lumiere
Reply
12-07-2012, 12:59 AM, (This post was last modified: 12-07-2012, 01:33 AM by Frank2.)
#19
RE: On Human Egalitarianism
think what one will of Z Sitchin but in terms of human nature it probably is worth being familiar with his full translations of the Sumerian texts, regardless of whether he was a disinformation agent or not or whether his translations are flawed - reading the entire texts can prove to be quite a revelation in terms of what the Sumerians were saying about genetics and human nature.

It suggests we cannot ever be happy as slaves, it isn't in our genes.

re: Margaret Mead - if it wasn't her in Samoa it would have been someone else somewhere else. Ideologies only incubate traits which are already hardwired in human nature. jmo
“The truth, of course, is that a billion falsehoods told a billion times by a billion people are still false.” Travis Walton
Reply
12-07-2012, 07:26 AM, (This post was last modified: 12-07-2012, 09:04 AM by macfadden.)
#20
RE: On Human Egalitarianism
(12-07-2012, 12:19 AM)Watchdog Wrote: One thing strikes me in this thread. The arguments raised here are concerned with the material aspects of human nature.

That is only because only the material is material to the matter, the immaterial is of no matter ::rimshot:: Icon_biggrin


(12-07-2012, 12:19 AM)Watchdog Wrote: Having said that, I would like to build as a working hypothesis that we are indeed fundamentally equal, but we differ because of several spiritual and physical laws that have affected us differently in time. Karmic laws for example in the spiritual realms and “evolution theory” in the physical. Not that I really subscribe to the theory of evolution, but that’s a whole other topic on its own.

Unequal yet equal? There is no physical, intellectual, or psychological equality between individuals, or between the ages, the genders, or the races, the idea that there is such equality is absolute rubbish. On the other hand, 'social equality' and 'equality before the law' are very good ideas upon which, for very practical reasons, social attitudes, policies, and practices should be based.



(12-07-2012, 12:19 AM)Watchdog Wrote: Please don’t see as derailing the thread.

I don't think you're derailing the thread.


(12-07-2012, 12:19 AM)Watchdog Wrote: I’m simply expanding the ideas, as I always feel a bit taken back when I find that unifying theories about humans fail to talk about non-materialistic aspects. Bringing spirit, energy, and other ideas is a way for me to try to make the picture more complete, and therefore more realistic.

I am simply debunking the myth of egalitarian savages, I am not presenting any unifying theory of anything.


(12-07-2012, 12:19 AM)Watchdog Wrote: Having said that, I understand that such expansions are not welcomed in the formulation of current scientific paradigms.

For good reason. Don't confuse metaphysical naturalism with Science, the two are most assuredly not the same, and absolutely do not confuse materialism with Science, definitely not the same.
Reply
12-08-2012, 01:44 AM, (This post was last modified: 12-08-2012, 01:47 AM by Frank2.)
#21
RE: On Human Egalitarianism
Hey mcFadden, sorry if i have been intentionally abtruse in your thread - it's just because i already read the one on outlaw...

what is it exactly you want to say about the issues raised - are you just doing your best to inform the ignorant?

you think some races might have a higher intelligence quotient on average and that this might be of result that in some races/cultures, intelligence is feared and therefore those with a better brain are ostrasized or subjugated?

it is an interesting and intelligent - musing.

but what of it.

surely what is of primary importance in all this is to realise that humanity is enslaved..

You would be shocked, as i was, at how racially facially similar i look to that dick in the phillipines, andre/gassegeir - when i see his avatar on outlaw it is almost like looking at a photo (rare) of myself. haha!

it seems his priority in debate is also the issue of enslavement - but he has proscribed a group target - very clean cut. i am not like that. nor a "zionist" etc.

i dont really understand what the hell you are attempting to say with this thread other than look at me i am intelligent.

like i said - to your disdain - perhaps it is of worth to read the full translations of what is surviving from sumeria vis a vi creation - doesn't take long - you can even go the low road on youtube and have josh reeves read them for you according sitchin's interpretation.

without any understanding of such pretexts all the talk of Boaz oder whoever is anchorless.

zum bespiel - leo stauss liked this, tolstoy liked that, bobby the baker liked bread. blah blah blah. what true coherence are you hoping to find in it all by analysing only specific facets and exploding them to represent an all consuming panancea.

I have been to independent Samoa, you don't need to warble on about Margaret Mead to me!°

here's for the question mark i forgot - ?

is everyone on outlaw getting infected with fascist thought or what?? surfer steve seems unaffected.
“The truth, of course, is that a billion falsehoods told a billion times by a billion people are still false.” Travis Walton
Reply
12-08-2012, 05:15 AM, (This post was last modified: 12-08-2012, 05:28 AM by macfadden.)
#22
RE: On Human Egalitarianism
Mairzy doats and dozy doats and liddle lamzy divey
A kiddley divey too, wooden shoe?

Which one are you on outlaw journalism forum?
Reply
12-08-2012, 06:29 AM, (This post was last modified: 12-08-2012, 06:53 AM by Frank2.)
#23
RE: On Human Egalitarianism
you are clearly under the delusion that you are more intelligent than most concen members...or come to it, more intelligent than most human beings... so what, you are above average - get over it ..most people are dumb but you are not actually a savant. I'm autistic and have met a bunch of savants -- you are not in their class. end of story. sorry to say - but you are no help to the world whilst you are on your high horse clattering around in circles in your ivory tower. GTFOOT



I dont have an account at outlawjournalism - have a look in fists of fury - i am trying to register but they wont even let me have an account lol
“The truth, of course, is that a billion falsehoods told a billion times by a billion people are still false.” Travis Walton
Reply
12-08-2012, 07:13 AM, (This post was last modified: 12-08-2012, 07:23 AM by macfadden.)
#24
RE: On Human Egalitarianism
(12-08-2012, 06:29 AM)Frank2 Wrote: high brow

highfalutin

(12-08-2012, 06:29 AM)Frank2 Wrote: I wasn't offended and am still not but you started to mock me as an imbecile - you see your strengths, i see your weaknesis

I have at the moment lots of time to go on the internet - would you like me to take you to pieces in a dedicated way? I am not a buddhist and quite happy to do it now you have tried to scatter your piss on me too.

So far, you have posted a lot of so called high brow articles and videos on this forum and also outlawjournalism - thread for thread exactly the same postings.

but you say nothing aside from - people might be clever in "other" (darker) races but they get kept down because the mob like monkey society they have fears intellect! - it seems like you feel that you have a validation or some kind of self appointed certificate of authentic intelligence because you have the ability to "post things"

how do you say it? LULZ

[Image: happy-birthday-to-me-20091102034755165-000.jpg]
Reply
12-10-2012, 05:28 AM, (This post was last modified: 12-10-2012, 06:27 AM by macfadden.)
#25
RE: On Human Egalitarianism
The tyranny of the egalitarian collective

Quote:Faced with banishment, a punishment nearly equivalent to a death sentence, Cephu relented. “He apologized profusely,” Turnbull wrote, “and said that in any case he would hand over all the meat.” This ended the matter, and members of the group pulled chunks of meat from Cephu’s basket. He clutched his stomach and moaned, begging that he be left with something to eat. The others merely laughed and walked away with their pound of flesh. Like the mythical figure Atlas from Greek antiquity, condemned by vindictive gods to carry the world on his shoulders for all eternity, Cephu was bound to support the tribe whether he chose to or not.
http://mysticpolitics.com/ayn-rand-v-pygmies-does-evolution-favor-individualism-or-altruism/

The !Kung have a practice whereby killing a big game does not earn them praises and approvals. They are treated negatively, but are expected to react positively to the demeaning treatment. They are expected to be self-demeaning in response to the negative treatment. The goal of this practice is to prevent "a few talented individuals from towering over others in terms of prestige"
http://sc2218.wetpaint.com/page/Insulting+the+Meat+Commentary

Quote:In cultural anthropology, a shame culture, also called honour-shame culture or shame society, is the concept that, in a given society, the primary device for gaining control over children and maintaining social order is the inculcation of shame and the complementary threat of ostracism. A shame society is contrasted with a guilt society in which control is maintained by creating and continually reinforcing the feeling of guilt (and the expectation of punishment now or in the hereafter) for certain condemned behaviors.

Paul G. Hiebert characterizes the shame society as follows:

Shame is a reaction to other people's criticism, an acute personal chagrin at our failure to live up to our obligations and the expectations others have of us. In true shame oriented cultures, every person has a place and a duty in the society. One maintains self-respect, not by choosing what is good rather than what is evil, but by choosing what is expected of one.

Personal desires are sunk in the collective expectation. Those who fail will often turn their aggression against themselves instead of using violence against others. By punishing themselves they maintain their self-respect before others, for shame cannot be relieved, as guilt can be, by confession and atonement. Shame is removed and honor restored only when a person does what the society expects of him or her in the situation, including committing suicide if necessary. (Hiebert 1985, 212)

Quote:Sanction: Any type of social pressure in the form of “reward” or “punishment” that can be imposed on people to influence and control their behavior.

The social values present in individuals are products of informal social control, exercised implicitly by a society through particular customs, norms, and mores. Individuals internalize the values of their society, whether conscious or not of the indoctrination. Traditional society relies mostly on informal social control embedded in its customary culture to socialize its members.

Informal sanctions may include shame, ridicule, sarcasm, criticism, and disapproval, which can cause an individual to stray towards the social norms of the society. In extreme cases sanctions may include social discrimination and exclusion. Informal social control usually has more effect on individuals because the social values become internalized, thus becoming an aspect of the individual's personality.

Informal controls reward or punish acceptable or unacceptable behaviour (i.e., deviance) and are varied from individual to individual, group to group, and society to society.


Quote:In cultural anthropology, a leveling mechanism is a practice that acts to ensure social equality, usually by shaming or humbling members of a group that attempt to put themselves above other members.

One commonly given example of a leveling mechanism is the !Kung practice of "shaming the meat", particularly as illustrated by the Canadian anthropologist Richard Borshay Lee in his article "Eating Christmas in the Kalahari" (1969). When Lee gave the !Kung an ox as a Christmas gift, the !Kung responded by insulting the gift, calling it a "bag of bones" and joking that they would have to eat the horns because there was no meat on it. Lee later asked a man named Tomazo why his gift was insulted in this way. He responded that it was because the gift was arrogant. Lee asked what he meant by this and was told:

Yes, when a young man kills much meat he comes to think of himself as a chief or a big man, and he thinks of the rest of us as his servants or inferiors. We can’t accept this. We refuse one who boasts, for someday his pride will make him kill somebody. So we always speak of his meat as worthless. This way we cool his heart and make him gentle."
—Tomazo, "Eating Christmas in the Kalahari"

Leveling mechanism A practice to establish or re-establish social equality or parity, usually by “bringing down” individuals or groups that threaten to get “above” or “better than” others.

http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/9780415485395/glossary.asp#l

Case in point:

(12-08-2012, 06:29 AM)Frank2 Wrote: you are clearly under the delusion that you are more intelligent than most concen members...or come to it, more intelligent than most human beings... so what, you are above average - get over it ..most people are dumb but you are not actually a savant. I'm autistic and have met a bunch of savants -- you are not in their class. end of story. sorry to say - but you are no help to the world whilst you are on your high horse clattering around in circles in your ivory tower. GTFOOT

I have at the moment lots of time to go on the internet - would you like me to take you to pieces in a dedicated way? I am not a buddhist and quite happy to do it now you have tried to scatter your piss on me too.

So far, you have posted a lot of so called high brow articles and videos on this forum and also outlawjournalism - thread for thread exactly the same postings.

but you say nothing aside from - people might be clever in "other" (darker) races but they get kept down because the mob like monkey society they have fears intellect! - it seems like you feel that you have a validation or some kind of self appointed certificate of authentic intelligence because you have the ability to "post things"

how do you say it? LULZ



Reply
01-03-2013, 11:31 AM,
#26
RE: On Human Egalitarianism
The evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker writes:

Adjudication by an armed authority appears to be the most effective violence-reduction technique ever invented. Though we debate whether tweaks in criminal policy, such as executing murderers versus locking them up for life, can reduce violence by a few percentage points, there can be no debate on the massive effects of having a criminal justice system as opposed to living in anarchy. The shockingly high homicide rates of pre-state societies, with 10 to 60 percent of the men dying at the hands of other men, provide one kind of evidence. Another is the emergence of a violent culture of honor in just about any corner of the world that is beyond the reach of law. ..The generalization that anarchy in the sense of a lack of government leads to anarchy in the sense of violent chaos may seem banal, but it is often over-looked in today's still-romantic climate.
Reply
01-05-2013, 09:48 AM,
#27
RE: On Human Egalitarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ach%C3%A9#Social_Organization

The Aché people are a traditional hunter-gatherer tribe living in eastern Paraguay.

From the earliest Jesuit accounts of the Aché in the 17th century until their peaceful outside contacts in the 20th century the Aché were described as nomadic hunter-gatherers living in small bands and depending entirely on wild forest resources for subsistence.


Women were involved in most discussions, but some men were clearly politically dominant, and men who had killed (called "jaychagi") were especially feared and "respected". These killers often sharpened their bowstave at one end to look like a spear point, and threatened others by their demeanor. Children were especially terrified of the killers who made a grand display of noise (growling), bluff and bluster (shaking tree branches and swaggering) when entering a residential camp after a day of hunting.

The most important northern Aché ritual was the club-fight. These events were organized by "big men" and took place once every year or two. Several bands would converge on a single camping area. Those who invited the others would prepare a cleared area in which to do ritual combat. Men prepared long hardwood clubs with sharpened edges (paddle-shaped), and decorated themselves with charcoal (mixed with honey and saliva) and vulture down. Although club fights consisted of hosting and invited teams of men, after the fighting began all men were free to choose opponents from either group. Men faced off and took turns swinging at each other's heads. Some men were hit directly on the top of the head and sustained fractured skulls that later healed but with tell-tale signs of combat. Other men dodged the clubs but might be hit on the arms or shoulders. Some men died in almost every large clubfighting event. Sometimes clubfighting would also emerge spontaneously within a small residential band when one band was caught having sexual relations with another man's wife.

Aché demography has been extensively studied and analyzed in the framework of evolutionary life history theory.[2] Major causes of death in the forest period were in-group homicides (especially of infants and children), external warfare, respiratory disease, tropical fevers, and accidents. Over 40% of all adult deaths and more than 60% of all child deaths were due to violence by other Aché or outsiders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ach%C3%A9#Social_Organization
Reply
01-05-2013, 06:21 PM, (This post was last modified: 01-05-2013, 06:43 PM by Frank2.)
#28
RE: On Human Egalitarianism
Yeah, I was drunk that day and it was a rough one.My bad.

I cringe reading my own delirious venom. so i am sorry? do you accept my apology.

I reckon this last decade or so i got really informed about shame culture somehow and I think I might have been projecting.

Maybe it was cos my neighbour is my ex gf and i have to put on some loud music to drown out the lovemaking sounds of her and her bf sometimes. could it be simply that? or is it not having a job? or ostrasizm? or the state starting to trying mould my child? who knows? could it be because i know that levitation shouldnt be a problem, feels more natural than gravity and that is frustrating? i dont know. that life is relatively tedious pitted with brief moments of geniune living and joy? i guess i just wanted to fuck with your head and i am sorry for that. it was a lame effort anyhow and basically ridiculous.

I dunno. It is a shit time, generally. I was projecting - clearly - I am not sure why I even attacked you, possibly it was a feeling of clinical grandiosity i got from about you trying to read your internet threads. i dont know. i am very sorry.

it was discriminate. and my prejudice against neurotypicalality is not cool. so what if i am autistic, it doesn't mean I wasn#t drunken twat posting shite, does it?

it was a puerile dirge, drunken dirge from me. but, these things can happen on the internet. one day it will probably happen somewhere again. no one should feel bad about it, though. its just nonsense, it's not Stalin.

i hope you accept my apology.

human egalitarianism exists but it is often conditional and forever fleeting.jmo


(12-10-2012, 05:28 AM)macfadden Wrote: The tyranny of the egalitarian collective

Quote:Faced with banishment, a punishment nearly equivalent to a death sentence, Cephu relented. “He apologized profusely,” Turnbull wrote, “and said that in any case he would hand over all the meat.” This ended the matter, and members of the group pulled chunks of meat from Cephu’s basket. He clutched his stomach and moaned, begging that he be left with something to eat. The others merely laughed and walked away with their pound of flesh. Like the mythical figure Atlas from Greek antiquity, condemned by vindictive gods to carry the world on his shoulders for all eternity, Cephu was bound to support the tribe whether he chose to or not.
http://mysticpolitics.com/ayn-rand-v-pygmies-does-evolution-favor-individualism-or-altruism/

The !Kung have a practice whereby killing a big game does not earn them praises and approvals. They are treated negatively, but are expected to react positively to the demeaning treatment. They are expected to be self-demeaning in response to the negative treatment. The goal of this practice is to prevent "a few talented individuals from towering over others in terms of prestige"
http://sc2218.wetpaint.com/page/Insulting+the+Meat+Commentary

Quote:In cultural anthropology, a shame culture, also called honour-shame culture or shame society, is the concept that, in a given society, the primary device for gaining control over children and maintaining social order is the inculcation of shame and the complementary threat of ostracism. A shame society is contrasted with a guilt society in which control is maintained by creating and continually reinforcing the feeling of guilt (and the expectation of punishment now or in the hereafter) for certain condemned behaviors.

Paul G. Hiebert characterizes the shame society as follows:

Shame is a reaction to other people's criticism, an acute personal chagrin at our failure to live up to our obligations and the expectations others have of us. In true shame oriented cultures, every person has a place and a duty in the society. One maintains self-respect, not by choosing what is good rather than what is evil, but by choosing what is expected of one.

Personal desires are sunk in the collective expectation. Those who fail will often turn their aggression against themselves instead of using violence against others. By punishing themselves they maintain their self-respect before others, for shame cannot be relieved, as guilt can be, by confession and atonement. Shame is removed and honor restored only when a person does what the society expects of him or her in the situation, including committing suicide if necessary. (Hiebert 1985, 212)

Quote:Sanction: Any type of social pressure in the form of “reward” or “punishment” that can be imposed on people to influence and control their behavior.

The social values present in individuals are products of informal social control, exercised implicitly by a society through particular customs, norms, and mores. Individuals internalize the values of their society, whether conscious or not of the indoctrination. Traditional society relies mostly on informal social control embedded in its customary culture to socialize its members.

Informal sanctions may include shame, ridicule, sarcasm, criticism, and disapproval, which can cause an individual to stray towards the social norms of the society. In extreme cases sanctions may include social discrimination and exclusion. Informal social control usually has more effect on individuals because the social values become internalized, thus becoming an aspect of the individual's personality.

Informal controls reward or punish acceptable or unacceptable behaviour (i.e., deviance) and are varied from individual to individual, group to group, and society to society.


Quote:In cultural anthropology, a leveling mechanism is a practice that acts to ensure social equality, usually by shaming or humbling members of a group that attempt to put themselves above other members.

One commonly given example of a leveling mechanism is the !Kung practice of "shaming the meat", particularly as illustrated by the Canadian anthropologist Richard Borshay Lee in his article "Eating Christmas in the Kalahari" (1969). When Lee gave the !Kung an ox as a Christmas gift, the !Kung responded by insulting the gift, calling it a "bag of bones" and joking that they would have to eat the horns because there was no meat on it. Lee later asked a man named Tomazo why his gift was insulted in this way. He responded that it was because the gift was arrogant. Lee asked what he meant by this and was told:

Yes, when a young man kills much meat he comes to think of himself as a chief or a big man, and he thinks of the rest of us as his servants or inferiors. We can’t accept this. We refuse one who boasts, for someday his pride will make him kill somebody. So we always speak of his meat as worthless. This way we cool his heart and make him gentle."
—Tomazo, "Eating Christmas in the Kalahari"

Leveling mechanism A practice to establish or re-establish social equality or parity, usually by “bringing down” individuals or groups that threaten to get “above” or “better than” others.

http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/9780415485395/glossary.asp#l

Case in point:

(12-08-2012, 06:29 AM)Frank2 Wrote: you are clearly under the delusion that you are more intelligent than most concen members...or come to it, more intelligent than most human beings... so what, you are above average - get over it ..most people are dumb but you are not actually a savant. I'm autistic and have met a bunch of savants -- you are not in their class. end of story. sorry to say - but you are no help to the world whilst you are on your high horse clattering around in circles in your ivory tower. GTFOOT

I have at the moment lots of time to go on the internet - would you like me to take you to pieces in a dedicated way? I am not a buddhist and quite happy to do it now you have tried to scatter your piss on me too.

So far, you have posted a lot of so called high brow articles and videos on this forum and also outlawjournalism - thread for thread exactly the same postings.

but you say nothing aside from - people might be clever in "other" (darker) races but they get kept down because the mob like monkey society they have fears intellect! - it seems like you feel that you have a validation or some kind of self appointed certificate of authentic intelligence because you have the ability to "post things"

how do you say it? LULZ




(12-08-2012, 05:15 AM)macfadden Wrote: Mairzy doats and dozy doats and liddle lamzy divey
A kiddley divey too, wooden shoe?

Which one are you on outlaw journalism forum?

I don't understand that "gibberish" prose and I am not currently a member of that forum.
“The truth, of course, is that a billion falsehoods told a billion times by a billion people are still false.” Travis Walton
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Effects of Exess Iron on Human Health - Ray Peat. bristopen 2 996 06-14-2014, 04:40 AM
Last Post: vagabonder
  GM Corn Infected with Virus to Destroy Human From Inside out mexika 0 1,023 02-05-2013, 01:20 AM
Last Post: mexika
  Geo-Engineering / Chemtrails, Cover-ups and Human Experiments mexika 3 1,300 11-17-2012, 01:54 AM
Last Post: macfadden
  Bird flu 'could mutate to cause deadly human pandemic' TriWooOx 0 926 06-21-2012, 08:40 PM
Last Post: TriWooOx
  Suppressed data on mutant H5N1 human-killer virus PUBLISHED h3rm35 2 901 05-04-2012, 05:39 AM
Last Post: nwo2012
Video "Monsanto Go Away" Anthem - Performed by Human (Occupy Maui) Dunamis 2 778 02-10-2012, 01:18 PM
Last Post: Dunamis
  New Deadly Rat To Human Disease --- 3 2,033 10-13-2011, 05:10 AM
Last Post: nwo2012
  GM cows producing human breast milk April 12 4,286 04-23-2011, 09:21 AM
Last Post: rsol
  Watch a tumor disappear via human feelings and intentions Solve et Coagula 0 601 01-20-2011, 04:00 PM
Last Post: Solve et Coagula
  Electromagnetic Pulse Can be Used to Disrupt Morality in the Human Brain hilly7 25 5,768 08-30-2010, 03:50 AM
Last Post: hilly7

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)