"Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca>
wrote:
Helmut - Remember the economic triad: Investment, Production, Consumption.
You could compare Investment to Thirdness. Production to the actualities of Secondness. ...and Consumption to the immediacy of Firstness.
A slave merely picks the apples and potatoes. That's one of the last steps in Production. But what about the other steps?
That is -- who has bought the land? Who keeps and maintains it as a stable site? Who pays the mortgage and taxes? Who has bought the wagons and trucks and equipment? Those 'capital objects' are INVESTMENT! Investment is 'capital'..which you use to make goods and services - but - it stays stable; it lasts for a long time. You need it and use it to produce goods and services.
Money is a Symbol of this capital Investment. So- when you buy a pair of shoes, and give that person money - you are acknowledging the many steps in the Economic Triad: the Investment in the factory and machines that make the shoes; the Investment in the raw products to make the shoes; then..the costs of actual Production: the electricity, taxes, wages for workers, costs of delivery to shops. The money that you hand over is a Symbol of all the Investment capital and Production costs of that pair of shoes.
As for H&G being 'free' - I suggest that you shouldn't romanticize their lifestyle. Please remember - that this economic mode could only support around 30 people in a band. And travelling to see the sights of another city is not the same as having to migrate because you have run out of food and water where you live. Plus- what if people in the 'other places' ...didn't want them intruding? What if the other places didn't have enough food for both the H&G living there - and the newcomers? What then?
Edwina
On Thu 21/06/18 1:30 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
Supplement: I mean, imagine any image of a slave, and most likely it will be an image of a person producing food. About investment I recall a scene, ok, from a "Freak-brothers" comic, ok, not scientifical, but in which someone says that he has seen many things in his life, vomiting horses and else, but he has never seen money doing work.----------------------------- 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 .Edwina, list,I did not say, that slavery produces food, I said, that slaves produce food.H/Gs did not work 40 hrs a week, but much less, so they had a lot of free time, so they were quite free. Ok, they had to travel, but why should they have disliked that? I like travelling.I think, that values like liberty, equality, fraternity, dont come out of the blue, but are based on instincts. We instinctively want to be free, equal, and fraternal. Instincts are from the DNA, other than learned cultural concepts. If ants would become intelligent for some evolutionary opening of gaps, they would presumably not have these values.In rigid cultures, like Rome, these values also appeared nevertheless: The Spartacus gang. Because you cannot extinguish the DNA.And: Legality is not the same as justice. Laws may be unjust, and were and are, examples are galore.Best,Helmut21. Juni 2018 um 18:28 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
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,Helmut20. Juni 2018 um 20:43 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:
Helmut, listI 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.----------------------------- 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 .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,Helmut20. 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,Helmut19. 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.Helmut19. 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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
