Helmut, list
I'm not sure what you mean by 'automatism'. Do you mean
'generalization'?
Slavery - which has been [and remains] worldwide, - does not
'produce the food. The owners of that-which-produces-the food - are
functionally and legally 'those who produce the food. Therefore,
whoever has INVESTED capital into ownership of food-production: land,
equipment, animals....whoever buys and protects and nurtures this
capital - they are politically dominant.
An economy is triadic [remember Peirce?!] It's made up of three
phases: Investment/Production/Consumption. Whoever controls the first
two- must be politically dominant.
You wrote:" liberty, equality, fraternity, genetically result from
the H/G-DNA. The H/Gs were free, equal, and had to rely on each
others. The H/G-era was so long, some 100,000 years, that it did
impress in the DNA."There is nothing genetic about beliefs or
behaviour; there is nothing genetic about such beliefs/ behaviour as
'liberty, equality, fraternity! Have you ever heard of such a
gene????
The H/G were free? Of what? They were totally dependent on nature;
on what the land offered to them naturally - since they did not
domesticate either plants or animals. That's why they were also
migratory; when they 'ate what was there' - they had to move on. When
man began to domesticate plants and animals [agriculture] then, he
GAINED freedom from this dependency on the 'whims of Nature' and the
need to migrate - and was able to support larger populations.
Admittedly, this agriculture takes a LOT of hard work - but- it
supports larger populations.
Just because a mode of behaviour has been around for 100,000 years
among mankind doesn't mean it is genetic! Fire has been around for
that long; it's not genetic.
Edwina
On Thu 21/06/18 12:05 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
Edwina, list, I mostly agree with you, save that there is an
automatism, like in what you wrote: "Again, the basic view is that
'whoever provides the sustenance and protection of the food for the
group - is politically dominant.", and: "If crafts bring in more
economic wealth for the community than administration - then, it will
be socially valued." I guess, that in the early years of the "new
world" America it first was like that, the farmers who had fled
economic and religious opression in Europe, self-organized their
politics. But then there was slavery. Slaves mainly produced food. In
Europe the farmers (peasants), the ones who produced the food, were
also opressed by the landlords, and very poor, even serf, in Russia
until the 1860 s. Under Stalin it was even worse. And today, managers
who burn money get high bonuses, and lawyers earn scaleswise more than
farmers, and many people who work in the food business get minimum
wage. Or less, as there still is some sort of slavery in food
production, like illegal immigrants from northern Africa in the
Spanish greenhouses in Almeria. So I think that there is no just
automatism, so there is a need for politics to provide that justice.
My opinion is neither anarchistic, because anarchists believe in an
automatism I dont believe in, nor communist, nor communitarist, as I
rather am an individualist. Nor liberal, nor conservative, I dont
know how to call it. I guess, that the ideals of the French
revolution (which soon were destroyed by the Jakobiners) liberty,
equality, fraternity, genetically result from the H/G-DNA. The H/Gs
were free, equal, and had to rely on each others. The H/G-era was so
long, some 100,000 years, that it did impress in the DNA. Best,
Helmut 20. Juni 2018 um 20:43 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:
Helmut, list
I don't think that the Indus Valley societies were matriarchal!
There is no evidence of that.
Indeed, there is essentially no evidence of any society being
matriarchal [ political governance by the women]. This is
differentiated from matrilineal, which means that descent is defined
by the women. In Judaism, you are not consider a member of the Jewish
faith unless your mother was Jewish. That's matrilineal not
matriarchal. A number of tribes are matrilineal.
Among the Hopi - where much of the agricultural work was done by
women, where there was no war [and no need for warriors], women were
dominant in the household; men were dominant in the clan/tribe.
Similar to the Iroquois -
Again, the basic view is that 'whoever provides the sustenance and
protection of the food for the group - is politically dominant.
Edwina
On Wed 20/06/18 2:15 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
Supplement: And I think, but I dont know how certain this is, that
there have been matriarchalic societies that were not H/G, but already
agricultural, e.g. the Indus- culture. Édwina, list, I see, but I
think that division of labour is something else than power hierarchy.
Like with the shaman who is not a leader, but a servant to the
community, doing spiritual psychotherapy for them. Or the women who
care for the children and gather, while the men hunt. And I do not
see a natural reason, why admistrative work should be better paid and
held in higher esteem than crafts or agriculture. People are different
and want to do different jobs, but should (and can) be equal regarding
their status, wealth and esteemedness, I think. But of course, someone
who works in administration has more opportunities to misuse his/her
work for gaining power over others than a peasant has. But that is
what democracy is for, to have the governing process controlled by
the people to avoid misuse and nonequality. Best, Helmut 20. Juni
2018 um 19:36 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
Helmut, list:
No - I very much disagree with you. We are not 'genetically H/G'. We
are genetically- as far as social organization is concerned --
-nothing -- which means, that our mode of life is entirely socially
or intellectually constructed.
Our social organization has absolutely nothing to do with genes -
but - as I keep saying - with our economic mode. And our economic
mode is directly linked to our environment; - which is to say - with
what our environment has, naturally, in it [temperature, soil type
and fertility, water source, seasons, plants and animals]...and what
we can introduce that will grow/live there. For example - we can't
grow wheat in the arctic; we can't farm milk cows in the rain forest
etc.
Animals in herds have a ranking order - and that is meant to keep
the herd safe. And a human society - MUST have normative rules of
'how to live' [remember Thirdness??]. And since our rules are not
genetic - then - we must develop them. And we develop them to enable
a certain size population to live - to obtain food and shelter, to
reproduce in security and health.
So- in a H/G society - there may be no leader because the population
is too small for that and because the economic mode is based around
sharing. But there is no such thing as 'gender equality' - whatever
that means. Men hunt; women gather. Do you know why? Does a crying
baby frighten away the prey?
But- when you get into any type of agriculture - even the most
basic/smallest [eg, swidden] - then, there MUST be leaders. Why?
First, because the 'capital' or 'wealth producing goods'...i.e., the
LAND and the domesticated plants and animals - can't be allowed to be
split up into bits. Do you know what happens when you split up 10 cows
among 5 brothers? Who gets the bull? Who gets the possibility of
future cattle? Instead - to secure the viability of the family, the
'capital' [the land, the cattle, the pigs whatever]...must be kept
'as one set'. That - is the duty and responsibility of The Leader.
This will almost always be a man. That's also because once you get
settled food production, rather than Hunting/Gathering...then, you
have to protect this land and the domesticated animals - not merely
from other tribes but from prey animals. You need warriors. That's
always - men...and do I have to explain why?
In even larger agricultural societies - where the food is produced
on large acres - again, heredity rights and duties are paramount -
for the same reason. To ensure the security and ongoing capacity of
the food production system. And there will be a need for security as
well.
And that's why - in all agricultural economic modes ...as well as
pastoral nomadic -..men will be privileged over the women. Why?
Because they do all the hard work in agricultural food production and
also, the hard work of the military. It's as simple and basic
commonsense as that.
In large populations - of course there must be a hierarchy of legal
authority. Without it - it's called anarchy. There must be a set of
common rules - and a means to enforce these rules. That's where you
get hierarchical authority, where a policeman has more authority
than the kid on his skateboard. And a premier has more authority than
the policeman..etc.
Equally- we have ranking orders of laws - where a federal law takes
precedence over a municipal law.
As for gender equality- as a woman - I think it's a load of semantic
BS. Each gender is biologically and physiologically different and has
different capacities. We can certainly be intellectually equal - but -
I don't see a pregnant woman out in the 5 am fields with a plough; or
scaling a castle wall - no matter what our video games show us. In
our economic mode of industrialism - where the heavy work is done by
machines rather than human labour - we can indeed say that our work
is equal. BUT - this has absolutely nothing to do with evolution or
advancement - but strictly - with our economic mode. That's just
basic commonsense.
Edwina
On Wed 20/06/18 12:19 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
Edwina, list, Thank you! I think it is very important, that H/G-
societies donot have a leader, because we are genetically H/G. The
short time afterwards has not yet relevantly shaped our DNA. And
most other mammals, primates too, have a ranking order. So I think
that it is a great achievement of humankind to have overcome that.
Something we can be proud of. And the ranking orders we have in our
civilisation, in politics, work situations like companies, and also
the gender hierarchy that favours men over women, is a lamentable
retrograde into prehuman, animalic times. Best, Helmut 19. Juni
2018 um 22:22 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:
Helmut, list:
Yes, that's right. Hunter-gatherer societies do not have a leader.
There is no such thing as 'early' or 'late' H/G societies! A good set
of books on the H/G peoples are - by Richard Lee [who studied, in
particular, the Dobe !Kung], Also Lee and Irven Devore, Man the
Hunter]. There are quite a few good books on this economic mode -
which examine their economy and societal organization and belief
systems.
I wouldn't take popular literature or TV shows as accurate - and
that includes stories about the 'king' being killed as a sacrifice.
Edwina
On Tue 19/06/18 4:02 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
I have read, that the early hunter/gatherer communities were
"acephal", they had no leader. The role of the medicine man or woman
(shaman) in popular literature about shamans is often described of
being rather a servant to the people than a leader, and that the
shaman first didnt want to become one, but has followed a call from
the otherworld and its inhabitants, first being reluctant, and gotten
into a shamanic crisis, before finally accepting his/her job. About
the time of beginning agriculture I have seen in TV something about a
king of a small community in England, whose role was not a good job
either: He had to symbolically marry mother earth, and convince her
to give good harvest. If then the harvest was not good, he was killed
and thrown into the swamp, and a new king was elected. Helmut 19.
Juni 2018 um 16:43 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:
Hmm- I'm inclined to think that 'religions' - by which I am
assuming a belief in metaphysical powers, begins first at the
individual psychological level, where the individual becomes aware of
his own finite nature and lack of power to 'make things happen'. AND -
his awareness that, despite his best intentions, 'the best laid plans
gang oft awry'.
Then, there is a second reality, which is that we, as a species, are
necessarily social. We can live only as a collective; our brains - and
physique - require a long nurturing period and this necessitates a
'family' situation. Plus, since our knowledge base is primarily
learned rather than innate - it is stored within the community. So-
to even learn how to live requires that socialization and community.
Third - socialization rests on continuity, normative laws of
behaviour and belief, dependent expectations of how to interact with
others. So- we develop shared beliefs, a shared metaphysics of 'what
happens when we die'; why do bad/good things happen'.
I don't think this has anything to do with a 'religious leader' or
medicine man...Such a specialization will take place only in larger
populations where specialization of tasks does take place. But in
small bands [about 30 people] - there will rarely be a spiritual
leader, much less a military!! Again - it depends on the size of the
population which is itself dependent on the economic mode which is
itself dependent on the ecological viability of the land to support
large populations.
As for corruption - that's also basic to our species, unfortunately.
Edwina
On Tue 19/06/18 9:53 AM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net sent: On
6/19/2018 9:15 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote:
> Groupthink is the problem...
> I believe that Christianity might provide some pointers.
All the religions of the world began at the village level,
usually as a social group with a guru or medicine-man as
the social-religious leader who shares power with the
military leader.
Because of the sharing of power, the guru can only retain
social power by persuasion. That means an emphasis on
normative values: aesthetics by stories and ceremonies;
ethics by morality and justice; and truth by knowledge of
history, medicine, and good counsel.
But religion can be corrupted by wealth and political power.
It's important to keep the guru poor and honest.
John
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply
List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L
posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a
message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line
"UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [1] .
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply
List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L
posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a
message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line
"UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [2] .
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply
List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L
posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a
message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line
"UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [3] .
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply
List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L
posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a
message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line
"UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [4] .
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply
List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L
posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a
message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line
"UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [5] .
Links:
------
[1] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
[2] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
[3] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
[4] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
[5] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
