I think your comment about abstract thinking is deep. I do abstract thinking every day in my work, but I do see how one has to be careful to not go in the wrong direction. I dont have a clear idea of what to do about it. When you say "it could have been different", can you say more?
I think your comment about abstract thinking is deep. I do abstract thinking every day in my work, but I do see how one has to be careful to not go in the wrong direction. I dont have a clear idea of what to do about it. When you say "it could have been different", can you say more?
Alexander, I'm an ignorant man but curious and therefore I read a little and my perspective is that we all are made of vile mud and mind meaning that we can address our problems with sufficient thinking of the consequences of our actions and are not fated to cause evil actions. I think Anthropology can illuminate modern man on how to avoid falling into the abysm. Following are some few notes on Professor Scott M. Lacy, Ph.D. in his lecture series "Anthropology and the Study of Humanity":
"Anthropology, with its 4-field approach, can clear up 3 major myths about humanity and our so-called violent nature. Myth 1 is that there has always been warfare. Myth 2 is that we are biologically predisposed to violence. Myth 3 is that warfare is universal.
Regarding myth 1: War is a recent development in our human history. Homo sapiens have been around for 200,000 years. But the archaeological record indicates that war, as we understand it today, only emerged some 10,000 years ago, around the advent of agriculture. Before agriculture, the survival of small hunter-gatherer groups required a level of cooperation that made conflict counterproductive for all parties.
Now for myth 2, the idea that we are biologically predisposed to violence. Are we programmed for conflict? In some ways, it appears so. But there might be other
biological factors at work that show us that we’re not predestined for violence and war.
In their book Demonic Males, Richard Wrangham and Dale Peterson show that chimpanzees, like some humans, beat, rape, and kill other chimpanzees. But this predilection of our chimpanzee cousins is not an inevitable dimension of our own biological being. Wrangham and Peterson remind us to look at bonobo apes too. Unlike the violence we see in chimpanzees and gorillas, bonobos are relatively
peaceful. Bonobo males do occasionally become aggressive and violent, but
they rarely kill or rape. Why? Tight-knit bands of female bonobos gang up on and
attack male counterparts who act up. Now for the 3rd myth: the idea that war is universal. There are people in the human family tree who make peace seem as inevitable as war. The Amish, for example, refuse to fight in wars. They don’t even take disputes to court unless all internal efforts to resolve a conflict have failed. One of the core Amish beliefs is the doctrine of nonresistance. Similarly, India’s Jain religion
sees the path to peace as our ultimate purpose. The San of the Kalahari region are
super-sharers. They’re one of the oldest indigenous populations on earth, tracing
their cultural history back some 20,000 years. They are known as peaceful people
who discourage fighting, aggression, and even competition."
Thanks, I didnt know about Lacey but have read some Wrangham. That addresses the relationship between human disposition and violence. But I dont think that violence by humans is the problem. I think the problem is violence by non-human persons and organizations. And I see a relation to abstract thinking there. Non-human persons and organization are always based on legal abstractions.
Completely agreed. The abstraction of corporations as entities with personhood and the power it gives to them is the force that generate our wars against other nations and the ecology. So, I believe that a better use of our big brain is to recognize what you just said, that this kind of abstraction is hurtful and try to eliminate it by voting out of power politicians that are benefiting from the bribes of those "persons"
I think your comment about abstract thinking is deep. I do abstract thinking every day in my work, but I do see how one has to be careful to not go in the wrong direction. I dont have a clear idea of what to do about it. When you say "it could have been different", can you say more?
Alexander, I'm an ignorant man but curious and therefore I read a little and my perspective is that we all are made of vile mud and mind meaning that we can address our problems with sufficient thinking of the consequences of our actions and are not fated to cause evil actions. I think Anthropology can illuminate modern man on how to avoid falling into the abysm. Following are some few notes on Professor Scott M. Lacy, Ph.D. in his lecture series "Anthropology and the Study of Humanity":
"Anthropology, with its 4-field approach, can clear up 3 major myths about humanity and our so-called violent nature. Myth 1 is that there has always been warfare. Myth 2 is that we are biologically predisposed to violence. Myth 3 is that warfare is universal.
Regarding myth 1: War is a recent development in our human history. Homo sapiens have been around for 200,000 years. But the archaeological record indicates that war, as we understand it today, only emerged some 10,000 years ago, around the advent of agriculture. Before agriculture, the survival of small hunter-gatherer groups required a level of cooperation that made conflict counterproductive for all parties.
Now for myth 2, the idea that we are biologically predisposed to violence. Are we programmed for conflict? In some ways, it appears so. But there might be other
biological factors at work that show us that we’re not predestined for violence and war.
In their book Demonic Males, Richard Wrangham and Dale Peterson show that chimpanzees, like some humans, beat, rape, and kill other chimpanzees. But this predilection of our chimpanzee cousins is not an inevitable dimension of our own biological being. Wrangham and Peterson remind us to look at bonobo apes too. Unlike the violence we see in chimpanzees and gorillas, bonobos are relatively
peaceful. Bonobo males do occasionally become aggressive and violent, but
they rarely kill or rape. Why? Tight-knit bands of female bonobos gang up on and
attack male counterparts who act up. Now for the 3rd myth: the idea that war is universal. There are people in the human family tree who make peace seem as inevitable as war. The Amish, for example, refuse to fight in wars. They don’t even take disputes to court unless all internal efforts to resolve a conflict have failed. One of the core Amish beliefs is the doctrine of nonresistance. Similarly, India’s Jain religion
sees the path to peace as our ultimate purpose. The San of the Kalahari region are
super-sharers. They’re one of the oldest indigenous populations on earth, tracing
their cultural history back some 20,000 years. They are known as peaceful people
who discourage fighting, aggression, and even competition."
Thanks, I didnt know about Lacey but have read some Wrangham. That addresses the relationship between human disposition and violence. But I dont think that violence by humans is the problem. I think the problem is violence by non-human persons and organizations. And I see a relation to abstract thinking there. Non-human persons and organization are always based on legal abstractions.
Completely agreed. The abstraction of corporations as entities with personhood and the power it gives to them is the force that generate our wars against other nations and the ecology. So, I believe that a better use of our big brain is to recognize what you just said, that this kind of abstraction is hurtful and try to eliminate it by voting out of power politicians that are benefiting from the bribes of those "persons"