Re: Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...
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.
Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...
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 -
Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems...
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
