Guest guest Posted August 17, 1999 Report Share Posted August 17, 1999 , can you turn this into a piece I can post on the site? Something freestanding that isn't a response to a letter? Apple > Hello , > > I think about such things. > > Food for thought: > > The jungle creed > says the strongest feed > on any prey it can > and I was branded beast > at every feast > before I ever > became a man > (forgot where I got this) > > To answer your question there is no simple answer. In nature natural > selection dictates that the weak be eaten by predators or driven out of > the > herd. In one view man lives under the laws of nature as every animal but > > has also created a complex and diverse man made pecking order that > people > try to adapt to for survival. In my opinion weaker or weakened people > spend > much time establishing themselves in a group for a feeling of protection > > against those perceived hostilities and unpredictability's of life. This > > adopted set of beliefs may and usually is filled with all kinds of mumbo > > jumbo, superstition etc. Yet the individual sells out to them because > they > believe that they must in order to survive. Then some tragic reality > hits > and they search their dogma to rationalize and explain it. E.g.. It was > God's will and we can't understand it but our (whoever) is in heaven > with > Jesus now and better off than us in this world filled with uncertainty > and > hostility. However since people are themselves rather complex and will > really do what they want anyway they transgress against the set of > adopted > beliefs and hide their acts and thoughts in a veil of secrecy and shame. > > The cycle repeats as it eats them up inside. AA is ripe with this > particularly since it's beliefs go contrary to normal human thinking and > > behavior. > AA'ers it would seem are constantly hiding from their own thoughts that > contradict their adopted beliefs. Their own thoughts are perceived as > uncertain and hostile to them. They shun thinking outside the constructs > of > their AA beliefs because that in itself threatens them. > It is just an adopted set of beliefs that may as well come from taking > some > principles from a few religions, writing them down on cards and picking > 12 > from a hat and saying ok here is the path to salvation for all alcohol > dependent people. Then the more people who get sucked into the mass mind > > meld the more agreement there is and the more established the beliefs > become as perceived facts. So AA in a way does not weed out and > eliminate > the weak so the human race can become stronger. It groups them together > in > a massive mind meld so they can survive.On their own they are just lost > and > unable to cope or make sense of their lives. AA gives them a purpose > that > they are unable to find otherwise. > > In my view AA acts like a group predator organized and designed to > devour > a persons ability to think for themselves when they are in a weak state > of > mind and body. This does not mean that people who stay in AA and go > full > bloom in practicing the rituals of the AA adopted persona were actually > freethinkers to begin with. I think in cases as in those I have heard > described on this list people became compromised in their thinking due > to > alcohol/drug dependence. At some point a change in that behavior was > strongly desired. Due to the combination of impaired judgment from > substance dependence and possible other mental, emotional, health and > situational problems the person went to AA. Despite their better > judgment > they stayed until a point where they could no longer carry out the > charade. > AA as a group to an individual down and out substance abuser has a lot > of > persuasive power. One becomes more inclined to listen to the idealistic, > > embellished statements than observe the actual realities occurring > within > the group. As this process continues and one becomes more and more > indoctrinated in the AA way the individuals thinking process adopts an > AA > way of looking at life. Staying in AA means a person will forever be > trying > to adjust their thinking to fit the AA mold they are trying to cram > their > brain and life into. Unless of course, as in what seems to be the case > of > many on this list, the removal of the alcohol problem came with the > stopping of the alcohol abuse. As mental clarity and emotional balance > grew so did the realization of how foolish it is to be selling out one's > > autonomy to the restricted absurdity of AA ritual. > > I think you speak correctly in stating that some of our greatest assets > are > found in the abilities to change and adapt. These can be cultivated for > growth. When we know better we can do better and to not do so is our own > > crime against ourselves. AA leaves no room for further question, > exploration or growth. It is a cheap sell out of self for an adopted > know > it all solution to the many varieties of humans and their complex > relationships with substance abuse as well as arrogantly implying that > is > has found an answer to the many problems of the human race in general. > > Adapt to changes > > I feel the wind of change upon my back > blowing the stale air of mediocrity and fear away. > Blow on you winds of fate > Your result is no need for fear anymore > I am no longer the tyrant of life I tried to be > I follow where you lead my experience. > Wind of change be welcome in my house > > . > > > > wrote: > > > Hi Rashley! > > > > In looking at the big picture and in terms of natural selection, > > believing > > and practicing steppism is one way that we can become weak and become > > " selected out " thus allowing stronger people (those that USE their > > brain to > > survive) to lead our species into the next generation. A.A. and N.A. > > teach > > NOT to use our own bodily resources in creating change from > > psychological > > pathololgy. This is a profound mistake and we must NOT allow these > > idiots > > (AAers) to influence our people in such a scandoulous way! I feel > > strong > > about this issue. What can we do to stop this from spreading! This > is > > just > > another example of many that shows how some religions can do its cause > > > us to > > go astray. Clearly, the predominant religions here in this country do > > > not > > stop violence and other asocial behavior or promote health. Let us > > teach > > our people to use their most important assets that involve changing > and > > adapting to a often perceived and hostile world. Perhaps they ( aa, > > religions ) are part of a plan to " select " the weak out so the strong > > can > > survive. What do you think? > > > > I think on this stuff, > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 1999 Report Share Posted August 17, 1999 : Damn, that was a GREAT response to my question. Right on! When I commented on the natural selection process and how we can become a victim of A.A. faulty logic and dogma, I should have mentioned that anxiety and depression, which are two very common problems in this society, is exasberbated by many people in steppism that suffer from persistant long term internal conflicts. It is well established that anxiety and depression kills. Last night I listened to the " hardliners " in N.A. talk about how " self-centered " they are and if they are not able to get outside themselves in some way, they will surely relapse. I could deduct from their statements that they are not very comfortable with a healthy concept of their selves and could see the anxiety in their faces. The real tragedy here is about the desperate youth that come to these meetings and believe that their self is rotten to the core and to achieve a healty concept of the self is not ever possible. I challenged the faulty logic by stating that we can cultivate a healthy concept of ourselves by taking care of our bodies in a wholistic way (mind, body, spirit) (non christian). We are not doomed because we have temporary behavioral problems. I go up against this shit every night here. Man, is it frustrating to observe their indoctrinating process. I am thinking about writing a letter to the editor about the local and worldwide steppism tragedy. Any suggestions on what to write? Thanks . In " the thick of it " , Beyond OZ > Hello , > > I think about such things. > > Food for thought: > > The jungle creed > says the strongest feed > on any prey it can > and I was branded beast > at every feast > before I ever > became a man > (forgot where I got this) > > To answer your question there is no simple answer. In nature natural > selection dictates that the weak be eaten by predators or driven out of > the > herd. In one view man lives under the laws of nature as every animal but > > has also created a complex and diverse man made pecking order that > people > try to adapt to for survival. In my opinion weaker or weakened people > spend > much time establishing themselves in a group for a feeling of protection > > against those perceived hostilities and unpredictability's of life. This > > adopted set of beliefs may and usually is filled with all kinds of mumbo > > jumbo, superstition etc. Yet the individual sells out to them because > they > believe that they must in order to survive. Then some tragic reality > hits > and they search their dogma to rationalize and explain it. E.g.. It was > God's will and we can't understand it but our (whoever) is in heaven > with > Jesus now and better off than us in this world filled with uncertainty > and > hostility. However since people are themselves rather complex and will > really do what they want anyway they transgress against the set of > adopted > beliefs and hide their acts and thoughts in a veil of secrecy and shame. > > The cycle repeats as it eats them up inside. AA is ripe with this > particularly since it's beliefs go contrary to normal human thinking and > > behavior. > AA'ers it would seem are constantly hiding from their own thoughts that > contradict their adopted beliefs. Their own thoughts are perceived as > uncertain and hostile to them. They shun thinking outside the constructs > of > their AA beliefs because that in itself threatens them. > It is just an adopted set of beliefs that may as well come from taking > some > principles from a few religions, writing them down on cards and picking > 12 > from a hat and saying ok here is the path to salvation for all alcohol > dependent people. Then the more people who get sucked into the mass mind > > meld the more agreement there is and the more established the beliefs > become as perceived facts. So AA in a way does not weed out and > eliminate > the weak so the human race can become stronger. It groups them together > in > a massive mind meld so they can survive.On their own they are just lost > and > unable to cope or make sense of their lives. AA gives them a purpose > that > they are unable to find otherwise. > > In my view AA acts like a group predator organized and designed to > devour > a persons ability to think for themselves when they are in a weak state > of > mind and body. This does not mean that people who stay in AA and go > full > bloom in practicing the rituals of the AA adopted persona were actually > freethinkers to begin with. I think in cases as in those I have heard > described on this list people became compromised in their thinking due > to > alcohol/drug dependence. At some point a change in that behavior was > strongly desired. Due to the combination of impaired judgment from > substance dependence and possible other mental, emotional, health and > situational problems the person went to AA. Despite their better > judgment > they stayed until a point where they could no longer carry out the > charade. > AA as a group to an individual down and out substance abuser has a lot > of > persuasive power. One becomes more inclined to listen to the idealistic, > > embellished statements than observe the actual realities occurring > within > the group. As this process continues and one becomes more and more > indoctrinated in the AA way the individuals thinking process adopts an > AA > way of looking at life. Staying in AA means a person will forever be > trying > to adjust their thinking to fit the AA mold they are trying to cram > their > brain and life into. Unless of course, as in what seems to be the case > of > many on this list, the removal of the alcohol problem came with the > stopping of the alcohol abuse. As mental clarity and emotional balance > grew so did the realization of how foolish it is to be selling out one's > > autonomy to the restricted absurdity of AA ritual. > > I think you speak correctly in stating that some of our greatest assets > are > found in the abilities to change and adapt. These can be cultivated for > growth. When we know better we can do better and to not do so is our own > > crime against ourselves. AA leaves no room for further question, > exploration or growth. It is a cheap sell out of self for an adopted > know > it all solution to the many varieties of humans and their complex > relationships with substance abuse as well as arrogantly implying that > is > has found an answer to the many problems of the human race in general. > > Adapt to changes > > I feel the wind of change upon my back > blowing the stale air of mediocrity and fear away. > Blow on you winds of fate > Your result is no need for fear anymore > I am no longer the tyrant of life I tried to be > I follow where you lead my experience. > Wind of change be welcome in my house > > . > > > > wrote: > > > Hi Rashley! > > > > In looking at the big picture and in terms of natural selection, > > believing > > and practicing steppism is one way that we can become weak and become > > " selected out " thus allowing stronger people (those that USE their > > brain to > > survive) to lead our species into the next generation. A.A. and N.A. > > teach > > NOT to use our own bodily resources in creating change from > > psychological > > pathololgy. This is a profound mistake and we must NOT allow these > > idiots > > (AAers) to influence our people in such a scandoulous way! I feel > > strong > > about this issue. What can we do to stop this from spreading! This > is > > just > > another example of many that shows how some religions can do its cause > > > us to > > go astray. Clearly, the predominant religions here in this country do > > > not > > stop violence and other asocial behavior or promote health. Let us > > teach > > our people to use their most important assets that involve changing > and > > adapting to a often perceived and hostile world. Perhaps they ( aa, > > religions ) are part of a plan to " select " the weak out so the strong > > can > > survive. What do you think? > > > > I think on this stuff, > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Just Tell Us What You Want... > Respond.com - Shopping the World for You! > http://clickhere./click/738 > > > eGroups.com home: /group/12-step-free > - Simplifying group communications > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 1999 Report Share Posted August 17, 1999 Hi . There are several discussions embedded in your very interesting mail. The quotation below is an attempt to explain my starting point more clearly than I have done in the past. As a paradigm it is IMO a powerful analytical tool, which I would like to explain on another occasion if my point of view sounds acceptable. > > To answer your question there is no simple answer. In nature natural > selection dictates that the weak be eaten by predators or driven out of > the > herd. In one view man lives under the laws of nature as every animal but > > has also created a complex and diverse man made pecking order that > people > try to adapt to for survival. In my opinion weaker or weakened people > spend > much time establishing themselves in a group for a feeling of protection > > against those perceived hostilities and unpredictability's of life. > First of all I think that in this particular discourse it is most fruitful to consider man as an animal. The interesting question is then: " What are the natural, inborn differences between man and other animals? " I think it is ability for advanced and multichanneled communication. The killer whales are intelligent herd animals heavily dependent on their abilities to communicate. Different herds have different dialects, and the 'language' can change over time. But I don't think they have individuals understanding dialects. Man can even communicate about communication. The ability to communicate in many subtle ways is the precondition for individuality, and at the same time the ability to communicate is an expression of an advanced herd ability. Therefore man is both the most individualistic animal and the most advanced herd animal. That's what is unique about man. It has given man an enormous advantage in relation to every other animal competing directly for survival. They never really had a chance. Now we even are killing each other to save the animals. The plasticity of human accommodation is both faster and more accurate than with every other animal. Education of the next generation, as Japanese chimpanzees do, is a far more effective way of surviving changes in environment then just waiting for a passive selection forced upon the individuals by the living conditions. BTW, the darwian thesis is 'survival of the fittest', not the 'strongest'. Several very strong animals has been extinct through the eons. The sable tiger and an enormous shark. I've read about a fish ( writers last name was Badcock, and he tried to make a synthesis between freudianism and darwinism) where the male is very big territorial fish, and the females are very small. While the male tries to seduce the females to spawn their eggs within his territory so he can fertilize them, he is also chases every other male away. But among this fish there is a tiny male that looks like a female, and if he's not discovered, this swift little transvestite can fertilize a certain amount of the eggs. The survival ability of this weak and small fish is then greater than much bigger males that are weaker than the strongest and most attractive males. Survival of the fittest. But as well as there is a survival principle for the individual (transmitting genes means eternal life, sort of), there is also a survival principle for the herd. Both man and apes go to war against other herds of the same species for securing survival for the herd. Then the survival of the individual is subsumed the survival of the herd. Man has of course developed this into heroism. Once I saw a program about lions and antelopes. When the lions made an collectively planned attack all the animals ran away from an old, 'impotent' and big buck. This buck was isolated and an easy prey for the lions. After the kill the herd calmed down. Sacrifice for the sake of the herd? Arctic wolf herds living under harsh conditions have reserved the breeding right to the dominant male and female. If they just followed their doggy instincts they would soon be extinguished. Once again on TV I saw a 'coming male' jumping the female in heat. But the dominant male discovered it, and drove the 'immoral' offender away from the herd. He tried to come back, showing all signs of shame, but there was no mercy. His only chance was acceptance from another pack of wolves. Expulsion and shame in that order. It's not strange that dogs and humans communicate so well, and that we have demonized the wolf. Man can under some circumstances take the shape of a wolf, the werewolf. In reality wolves seldom attacks humans. They know better. BTW are humans eating far more sharks than sharks are eating humans. Shortly I think the survival of the individual must be complemented with principles for herd survival. Scapegoating and humans sacrifices are human elaboration of the principle of the herd survival on behalf of the individual. I say shame is a result of expulsion processes becoming anticipated (feared). Shame is essentially a request for a reunion with the herd. Therefore treatment for 'antisocial' behavior is often harsh and punitive, but the counter productivity of this approach is increasing due to developments in modern mentality. The other view is that shame is God given, which is a creationist point of view. I have read about Kansas on this list. Before I go any further I would like some comments on this more or less paradigmatic conceptualization. Bjørn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 1999 Report Share Posted August 17, 1999 Hi . There are several discussions embedded in your very interesting mail. The quotation below is an attempt to explain my starting point more clearly than I have done in the past. As a paradigm it is IMO a powerful analytical tool, which I would like to explain on another occasion if my point of view sounds acceptable. > > To answer your question there is no simple answer. In nature natural > selection dictates that the weak be eaten by predators or driven out of > the > herd. In one view man lives under the laws of nature as every animal but > > has also created a complex and diverse man made pecking order that > people > try to adapt to for survival. In my opinion weaker or weakened people > spend > much time establishing themselves in a group for a feeling of protection > > against those perceived hostilities and unpredictability's of life. > First of all I think that in this particular discourse it is most fruitful to consider man as an animal. The interesting question is then: " What are the natural, inborn differences between man and other animals? " I think it is ability for advanced and multichanneled communication. The killer whales are intelligent herd animals heavily dependent on their abilities to communicate. Different herds have different dialects, and the 'language' can change over time. But I don't think they have individuals understanding dialects. Man can even communicate about communication. The ability to communicate in many subtle ways is the precondition for individuality, and at the same time the ability to communicate is an expression of an advanced herd ability. Therefore man is both the most individualistic animal and the most advanced herd animal. That's what is unique about man. It has given man an enormous advantage in relation to every other animal competing directly for survival. They never really had a chance. Now we even are killing each other to save the animals. The plasticity of human accommodation is both faster and more accurate than with every other animal. Education of the next generation, as Japanese chimpanzees do, is a far more effective way of surviving changes in environment then just waiting for a passive selection forced upon the individuals by the living conditions. BTW, the darwian thesis is 'survival of the fittest', not the 'strongest'. Several very strong animals has been extinct through the eons. The sable tiger and an enormous shark. I've read about a fish ( writers last name was Badcock, and he tried to make a synthesis between freudianism and darwinism) where the male is very big territorial fish, and the females are very small. While the male tries to seduce the females to spawn their eggs within his territory so he can fertilize them, he is also chases every other male away. But among this fish there is a tiny male that looks like a female, and if he's not discovered, this swift little transvestite can fertilize a certain amount of the eggs. The survival ability of this weak and small fish is then greater than much bigger males that are weaker than the strongest and most attractive males. Survival of the fittest. But as well as there is a survival principle for the individual (transmitting genes means eternal life, sort of), there is also a survival principle for the herd. Both man and apes go to war against other herds of the same species for securing survival for the herd. Then the survival of the individual is subsumed the survival of the herd. Man has of course developed this into heroism. Once I saw a program about lions and antelopes. When the lions made an collectively planned attack all the animals ran away from an old, 'impotent' and big buck. This buck was isolated and an easy prey for the lions. After the kill the herd calmed down. Sacrifice for the sake of the herd? Arctic wolf herds living under harsh conditions have reserved the breeding right to the dominant male and female. If they just followed their doggy instincts they would soon be extinguished. Once again on TV I saw a 'coming male' jumping the female in heat. But the dominant male discovered it, and drove the 'immoral' offender away from the herd. He tried to come back, showing all signs of shame, but there was no mercy. His only chance was acceptance from another pack of wolves. Expulsion and shame in that order. It's not strange that dogs and humans communicate so well, and that we have demonized the wolf. Man can under some circumstances take the shape of a wolf, the werewolf. In reality wolves seldom attacks humans. They know better. BTW are humans eating far more sharks than sharks are eating humans. Shortly I think the survival of the individual must be complemented with principles for herd survival. Scapegoating and humans sacrifices are human elaboration of the principle of the herd survival on behalf of the individual. I say shame is a result of expulsion processes becoming anticipated (feared). Shame is essentially a request for a reunion with the herd. Therefore treatment for 'antisocial' behavior is often harsh and punitive, but the counter productivity of this approach is increasing due to developments in modern mentality. The other view is that shame is God given, which is a creationist point of view. I have read about Kansas on this list. Before I go any further I would like some comments on this more or less paradigmatic conceptualization. Bjørn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 1999 Report Share Posted August 17, 1999 Hi Bjorn: (no offense, could'nt find the slash) I recently heard or herd about an interesting relevation that involves the evolution of the human brain from a herd orientated brain to one that is more individual. Apparently, and as we know from looking at the brain, it is divided into two spheres, the right and left hemispheres. The theory suggests that since we no longer need the primitive support of the herd as shown by our dramatic movement from the neuclear family and into the industrial era, we no longer need the split brain. Theorists also suggest that since the two spheres of the brain are no longer needed, the brain is evolving into one brain that is not divided. Does this make any sense to you? I would like to find out more about this issue and others of similar thought evoking matter. Re: Beyond OZ > Hi . > > There are several discussions embedded in your very interesting mail. > The quotation below is an attempt to explain my starting point more > clearly than I have done in the past. > As a paradigm it is IMO a powerful analytical tool, which I would like > to explain on another occasion if my point of view sounds acceptable. > > > > > To answer your question there is no simple answer. In nature natural > > selection dictates that the weak be eaten by predators or driven out of > > the > > herd. In one view man lives under the laws of nature as every animal but > > > > has also created a complex and diverse man made pecking order that > > people > > try to adapt to for survival. In my opinion weaker or weakened people > > spend > > much time establishing themselves in a group for a feeling of protection > > > > against those perceived hostilities and unpredictability's of life. > > > > First of all I think that in this particular discourse it is most > fruitful to consider man as an animal. The interesting question is then: > " What are the natural, inborn differences between man and other > animals? " > I think it is ability for advanced and multichanneled communication. > The killer whales are intelligent herd animals heavily dependent on > their abilities to communicate. Different herds have different dialects, > and the 'language' can change over time. But I don't think they have > individuals understanding dialects. Man can even communicate about > communication. > The ability to communicate in many subtle ways is the precondition for > individuality, and at the same time the ability to communicate is an > expression of an advanced herd ability. > Therefore man is both the most individualistic animal and the most > advanced herd animal. That's what is unique about man. It has given man > an enormous advantage in relation to every other animal competing > directly for survival. They never really had a chance. Now we even are > killing each other to save the animals. The plasticity of human > accommodation is both faster and more accurate than with every other > animal. Education of the next generation, as Japanese chimpanzees do, is > a far more effective way of surviving changes in environment then just > waiting for a passive selection forced upon the individuals by the > living conditions. BTW, the darwian thesis is 'survival of the fittest', > not the 'strongest'. Several very strong animals has been extinct > through the eons. The sable tiger and an enormous shark. > I've read about a fish ( writers last name was Badcock, and he tried to > make a synthesis between freudianism and darwinism) where the male is > very big territorial fish, and the females are very small. While the > male tries to seduce the females to spawn their eggs within his > territory so he can fertilize them, he is also chases every other male > away. But among this fish there is a tiny male that looks like a female, > and if he's not discovered, this swift little transvestite can fertilize > a certain amount of the eggs. The survival ability of this weak and > small fish is then greater than much bigger males that are weaker than > the strongest and most attractive males. > Survival of the fittest. > But as well as there is a survival principle for the individual > (transmitting genes means eternal life, sort of), there is also a > survival principle for the herd. > Both man and apes go to war against other herds of the same species for > securing survival for the herd. Then the survival of the individual is > subsumed the survival of the herd. Man has of course developed this into > heroism. > Once I saw a program about lions and antelopes. When the lions made an > collectively planned attack all the animals ran away from an old, > 'impotent' and > big buck. This buck was isolated and an easy prey for the lions. After > the kill the herd calmed down. Sacrifice for the sake of the herd? > Arctic wolf herds living under harsh conditions have reserved the > breeding right to the dominant male and female. If they just followed > their doggy instincts they would soon be extinguished. Once again on TV > I saw a 'coming male' jumping the female in heat. But the dominant male > discovered it, and drove the 'immoral' offender away from the herd. He > tried to come back, showing all signs of shame, but there was no mercy. > His only chance was acceptance from another pack of wolves. Expulsion > and shame in that order. It's not strange that dogs and humans > communicate so well, and that we have demonized the wolf. Man can under > some circumstances take the shape of a wolf, the werewolf. In reality > wolves seldom attacks humans. They know better. BTW are humans eating > far more sharks than sharks are eating humans. > > Shortly I think the survival of the individual must be complemented with > principles for herd survival. Scapegoating and humans sacrifices are > human elaboration of the principle of the herd survival on behalf of the > individual. > > I say shame is a result of expulsion processes becoming anticipated > (feared). Shame is essentially a request for a reunion with the herd. > Therefore treatment for 'antisocial' behavior is often harsh and > punitive, but the counter productivity of this approach is increasing > due to developments in modern mentality. > The other view is that shame is God given, which is a creationist point > of view. I have read about Kansas on this list. > > Before I go any further I would like some comments on this more or less > paradigmatic conceptualization. > > Bjørn > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ebates.com. Earn up to 25% cash back for shopping online at 75 stores > like Borders, CDNow and Beyond.com. Refer a friend and earn even more! > http://clickhere./click/690 > > > eGroups.com home: /group/12-step-free > - Simplifying group communications > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 1999 Report Share Posted August 17, 1999 Hi Bjorn: (no offense, could'nt find the slash) I recently heard or herd about an interesting relevation that involves the evolution of the human brain from a herd orientated brain to one that is more individual. Apparently, and as we know from looking at the brain, it is divided into two spheres, the right and left hemispheres. The theory suggests that since we no longer need the primitive support of the herd as shown by our dramatic movement from the neuclear family and into the industrial era, we no longer need the split brain. Theorists also suggest that since the two spheres of the brain are no longer needed, the brain is evolving into one brain that is not divided. Does this make any sense to you? I would like to find out more about this issue and others of similar thought evoking matter. Re: Beyond OZ > Hi . > > There are several discussions embedded in your very interesting mail. > The quotation below is an attempt to explain my starting point more > clearly than I have done in the past. > As a paradigm it is IMO a powerful analytical tool, which I would like > to explain on another occasion if my point of view sounds acceptable. > > > > > To answer your question there is no simple answer. In nature natural > > selection dictates that the weak be eaten by predators or driven out of > > the > > herd. In one view man lives under the laws of nature as every animal but > > > > has also created a complex and diverse man made pecking order that > > people > > try to adapt to for survival. In my opinion weaker or weakened people > > spend > > much time establishing themselves in a group for a feeling of protection > > > > against those perceived hostilities and unpredictability's of life. > > > > First of all I think that in this particular discourse it is most > fruitful to consider man as an animal. The interesting question is then: > " What are the natural, inborn differences between man and other > animals? " > I think it is ability for advanced and multichanneled communication. > The killer whales are intelligent herd animals heavily dependent on > their abilities to communicate. Different herds have different dialects, > and the 'language' can change over time. But I don't think they have > individuals understanding dialects. Man can even communicate about > communication. > The ability to communicate in many subtle ways is the precondition for > individuality, and at the same time the ability to communicate is an > expression of an advanced herd ability. > Therefore man is both the most individualistic animal and the most > advanced herd animal. That's what is unique about man. It has given man > an enormous advantage in relation to every other animal competing > directly for survival. They never really had a chance. Now we even are > killing each other to save the animals. The plasticity of human > accommodation is both faster and more accurate than with every other > animal. Education of the next generation, as Japanese chimpanzees do, is > a far more effective way of surviving changes in environment then just > waiting for a passive selection forced upon the individuals by the > living conditions. BTW, the darwian thesis is 'survival of the fittest', > not the 'strongest'. Several very strong animals has been extinct > through the eons. The sable tiger and an enormous shark. > I've read about a fish ( writers last name was Badcock, and he tried to > make a synthesis between freudianism and darwinism) where the male is > very big territorial fish, and the females are very small. While the > male tries to seduce the females to spawn their eggs within his > territory so he can fertilize them, he is also chases every other male > away. But among this fish there is a tiny male that looks like a female, > and if he's not discovered, this swift little transvestite can fertilize > a certain amount of the eggs. The survival ability of this weak and > small fish is then greater than much bigger males that are weaker than > the strongest and most attractive males. > Survival of the fittest. > But as well as there is a survival principle for the individual > (transmitting genes means eternal life, sort of), there is also a > survival principle for the herd. > Both man and apes go to war against other herds of the same species for > securing survival for the herd. Then the survival of the individual is > subsumed the survival of the herd. Man has of course developed this into > heroism. > Once I saw a program about lions and antelopes. When the lions made an > collectively planned attack all the animals ran away from an old, > 'impotent' and > big buck. This buck was isolated and an easy prey for the lions. After > the kill the herd calmed down. Sacrifice for the sake of the herd? > Arctic wolf herds living under harsh conditions have reserved the > breeding right to the dominant male and female. If they just followed > their doggy instincts they would soon be extinguished. Once again on TV > I saw a 'coming male' jumping the female in heat. But the dominant male > discovered it, and drove the 'immoral' offender away from the herd. He > tried to come back, showing all signs of shame, but there was no mercy. > His only chance was acceptance from another pack of wolves. Expulsion > and shame in that order. It's not strange that dogs and humans > communicate so well, and that we have demonized the wolf. Man can under > some circumstances take the shape of a wolf, the werewolf. In reality > wolves seldom attacks humans. They know better. BTW are humans eating > far more sharks than sharks are eating humans. > > Shortly I think the survival of the individual must be complemented with > principles for herd survival. Scapegoating and humans sacrifices are > human elaboration of the principle of the herd survival on behalf of the > individual. > > I say shame is a result of expulsion processes becoming anticipated > (feared). Shame is essentially a request for a reunion with the herd. > Therefore treatment for 'antisocial' behavior is often harsh and > punitive, but the counter productivity of this approach is increasing > due to developments in modern mentality. > The other view is that shame is God given, which is a creationist point > of view. I have read about Kansas on this list. > > Before I go any further I would like some comments on this more or less > paradigmatic conceptualization. > > Bjørn > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ebates.com. Earn up to 25% cash back for shopping online at 75 stores > like Borders, CDNow and Beyond.com. Refer a friend and earn even more! > http://clickhere./click/690 > > > eGroups.com home: /group/12-step-free > - Simplifying group communications > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 1999 Report Share Posted August 17, 1999 Hi Any theory that suggests siginificant evolution in the last 300 years is total BS, especially one concerning the highly dynamic brain. Pete On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 16:29:08 -0600 Klingbeil wrote: > Hi Bjorn: (no offense, could'nt find the slash) > > I recently heard or herd about an interesting relevation that involves the > evolution of the human brain from a herd orientated brain to one that is > more individual. Apparently, and as we know from looking at the brain, it > is divided into two spheres, the right and left hemispheres. The theory > suggests that since we no longer need the primitive support of the herd as > shown by our dramatic movement from the neuclear family and into the > industrial era, we no longer need the split brain. Theorists also suggest > that since the two spheres of the brain are no longer needed, the brain is > evolving into one brain that is not divided. Does this make any sense to > you? I would like to find out more about this issue and others of similar > thought evoking matter. > > > Re: Beyond OZ > > > > Hi . > > > > There are several discussions embedded in your very interesting mail. > > The quotation below is an attempt to explain my starting point more > > clearly than I have done in the past. > > As a paradigm it is IMO a powerful analytical tool, which I would like > > to explain on another occasion if my point of view sounds acceptable. > > > > > > > > To answer your question there is no simple answer. In nature natural > > > selection dictates that the weak be eaten by predators or driven out of > > > the > > > herd. In one view man lives under the laws of nature as every animal > but > > > > > > has also created a complex and diverse man made pecking order that > > > people > > > try to adapt to for survival. In my opinion weaker or weakened people > > > spend > > > much time establishing themselves in a group for a feeling of > protection > > > > > > against those perceived hostilities and unpredictability's of life. > > > > > > > First of all I think that in this particular discourse it is most > > fruitful to consider man as an animal. The interesting question is then: > > " What are the natural, inborn differences between man and other > > animals? " > > I think it is ability for advanced and multichanneled communication. > > The killer whales are intelligent herd animals heavily dependent on > > their abilities to communicate. Different herds have different dialects, > > and the 'language' can change over time. But I don't think they have > > individuals understanding dialects. Man can even communicate about > > communication. > > The ability to communicate in many subtle ways is the precondition for > > individuality, and at the same time the ability to communicate is an > > expression of an advanced herd ability. > > Therefore man is both the most individualistic animal and the most > > advanced herd animal. That's what is unique about man. It has given man > > an enormous advantage in relation to every other animal competing > > directly for survival. They never really had a chance. Now we even are > > killing each other to save the animals. The plasticity of human > > accommodation is both faster and more accurate than with every other > > animal. Education of the next generation, as Japanese chimpanzees do, is > > a far more effective way of surviving changes in environment then just > > waiting for a passive selection forced upon the individuals by the > > living conditions. BTW, the darwian thesis is 'survival of the fittest', > > not the 'strongest'. Several very strong animals has been extinct > > through the eons. The sable tiger and an enormous shark. > > I've read about a fish ( writers last name was Badcock, and he tried to > > make a synthesis between freudianism and darwinism) where the male is > > very big territorial fish, and the females are very small. While the > > male tries to seduce the females to spawn their eggs within his > > territory so he can fertilize them, he is also chases every other male > > away. But among this fish there is a tiny male that looks like a female, > > and if he's not discovered, this swift little transvestite can fertilize > > a certain amount of the eggs. The survival ability of this weak and > > small fish is then greater than much bigger males that are weaker than > > the strongest and most attractive males. > > Survival of the fittest. > > But as well as there is a survival principle for the individual > > (transmitting genes means eternal life, sort of), there is also a > > survival principle for the herd. > > Both man and apes go to war against other herds of the same species for > > securing survival for the herd. Then the survival of the individual is > > subsumed the survival of the herd. Man has of course developed this into > > heroism. > > Once I saw a program about lions and antelopes. When the lions made an > > collectively planned attack all the animals ran away from an old, > > 'impotent' and > > big buck. This buck was isolated and an easy prey for the lions. After > > the kill the herd calmed down. Sacrifice for the sake of the herd? > > Arctic wolf herds living under harsh conditions have reserved the > > breeding right to the dominant male and female. If they just followed > > their doggy instincts they would soon be extinguished. Once again on TV > > I saw a 'coming male' jumping the female in heat. But the dominant male > > discovered it, and drove the 'immoral' offender away from the herd. He > > tried to come back, showing all signs of shame, but there was no mercy. > > His only chance was acceptance from another pack of wolves. Expulsion > > and shame in that order. It's not strange that dogs and humans > > communicate so well, and that we have demonized the wolf. Man can under > > some circumstances take the shape of a wolf, the werewolf. In reality > > wolves seldom attacks humans. They know better. BTW are humans eating > > far more sharks than sharks are eating humans. > > > > Shortly I think the survival of the individual must be complemented with > > principles for herd survival. Scapegoating and humans sacrifices are > > human elaboration of the principle of the herd survival on behalf of the > > individual. > > > > I say shame is a result of expulsion processes becoming anticipated > > (feared). Shame is essentially a request for a reunion with the herd. > > Therefore treatment for 'antisocial' behavior is often harsh and > > punitive, but the counter productivity of this approach is increasing > > due to developments in modern mentality. > > The other view is that shame is God given, which is a creationist point > > of view. I have read about Kansas on this list. > > > > Before I go any further I would like some comments on this more or less > > paradigmatic conceptualization. > > > > Bjxrn > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ebates.com. Earn up to 25% cash back for shopping online at 75 stores > > like Borders, CDNow and Beyond.com. Refer a friend and earn even more! > > http://clickhere./click/690 > > > > > > eGroups.com home: /group/12-step-free > > - Simplifying group communications > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Just Tell Us What You Want... > Respond.com - Shopping the World for You! > http://clickhere./click/738 > > > eGroups.com home: /group/12-step-free > - Simplifying group communications > > > > ---------------------- Pete Watts Owner PSY-PHAR Psychotherapy/Pharmacotherapy Outocomes Discussion PERSONALITY-DISORDERS Support/Discussion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 1999 Report Share Posted August 17, 1999 Hi Any theory that suggests siginificant evolution in the last 300 years is total BS, especially one concerning the highly dynamic brain. Pete On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 16:29:08 -0600 Klingbeil wrote: > Hi Bjorn: (no offense, could'nt find the slash) > > I recently heard or herd about an interesting relevation that involves the > evolution of the human brain from a herd orientated brain to one that is > more individual. Apparently, and as we know from looking at the brain, it > is divided into two spheres, the right and left hemispheres. The theory > suggests that since we no longer need the primitive support of the herd as > shown by our dramatic movement from the neuclear family and into the > industrial era, we no longer need the split brain. Theorists also suggest > that since the two spheres of the brain are no longer needed, the brain is > evolving into one brain that is not divided. Does this make any sense to > you? I would like to find out more about this issue and others of similar > thought evoking matter. > > > Re: Beyond OZ > > > > Hi . > > > > There are several discussions embedded in your very interesting mail. > > The quotation below is an attempt to explain my starting point more > > clearly than I have done in the past. > > As a paradigm it is IMO a powerful analytical tool, which I would like > > to explain on another occasion if my point of view sounds acceptable. > > > > > > > > To answer your question there is no simple answer. In nature natural > > > selection dictates that the weak be eaten by predators or driven out of > > > the > > > herd. In one view man lives under the laws of nature as every animal > but > > > > > > has also created a complex and diverse man made pecking order that > > > people > > > try to adapt to for survival. In my opinion weaker or weakened people > > > spend > > > much time establishing themselves in a group for a feeling of > protection > > > > > > against those perceived hostilities and unpredictability's of life. > > > > > > > First of all I think that in this particular discourse it is most > > fruitful to consider man as an animal. The interesting question is then: > > " What are the natural, inborn differences between man and other > > animals? " > > I think it is ability for advanced and multichanneled communication. > > The killer whales are intelligent herd animals heavily dependent on > > their abilities to communicate. Different herds have different dialects, > > and the 'language' can change over time. But I don't think they have > > individuals understanding dialects. Man can even communicate about > > communication. > > The ability to communicate in many subtle ways is the precondition for > > individuality, and at the same time the ability to communicate is an > > expression of an advanced herd ability. > > Therefore man is both the most individualistic animal and the most > > advanced herd animal. That's what is unique about man. It has given man > > an enormous advantage in relation to every other animal competing > > directly for survival. They never really had a chance. Now we even are > > killing each other to save the animals. The plasticity of human > > accommodation is both faster and more accurate than with every other > > animal. Education of the next generation, as Japanese chimpanzees do, is > > a far more effective way of surviving changes in environment then just > > waiting for a passive selection forced upon the individuals by the > > living conditions. BTW, the darwian thesis is 'survival of the fittest', > > not the 'strongest'. Several very strong animals has been extinct > > through the eons. The sable tiger and an enormous shark. > > I've read about a fish ( writers last name was Badcock, and he tried to > > make a synthesis between freudianism and darwinism) where the male is > > very big territorial fish, and the females are very small. While the > > male tries to seduce the females to spawn their eggs within his > > territory so he can fertilize them, he is also chases every other male > > away. But among this fish there is a tiny male that looks like a female, > > and if he's not discovered, this swift little transvestite can fertilize > > a certain amount of the eggs. The survival ability of this weak and > > small fish is then greater than much bigger males that are weaker than > > the strongest and most attractive males. > > Survival of the fittest. > > But as well as there is a survival principle for the individual > > (transmitting genes means eternal life, sort of), there is also a > > survival principle for the herd. > > Both man and apes go to war against other herds of the same species for > > securing survival for the herd. Then the survival of the individual is > > subsumed the survival of the herd. Man has of course developed this into > > heroism. > > Once I saw a program about lions and antelopes. When the lions made an > > collectively planned attack all the animals ran away from an old, > > 'impotent' and > > big buck. This buck was isolated and an easy prey for the lions. After > > the kill the herd calmed down. Sacrifice for the sake of the herd? > > Arctic wolf herds living under harsh conditions have reserved the > > breeding right to the dominant male and female. If they just followed > > their doggy instincts they would soon be extinguished. Once again on TV > > I saw a 'coming male' jumping the female in heat. But the dominant male > > discovered it, and drove the 'immoral' offender away from the herd. He > > tried to come back, showing all signs of shame, but there was no mercy. > > His only chance was acceptance from another pack of wolves. Expulsion > > and shame in that order. It's not strange that dogs and humans > > communicate so well, and that we have demonized the wolf. Man can under > > some circumstances take the shape of a wolf, the werewolf. In reality > > wolves seldom attacks humans. They know better. BTW are humans eating > > far more sharks than sharks are eating humans. > > > > Shortly I think the survival of the individual must be complemented with > > principles for herd survival. Scapegoating and humans sacrifices are > > human elaboration of the principle of the herd survival on behalf of the > > individual. > > > > I say shame is a result of expulsion processes becoming anticipated > > (feared). Shame is essentially a request for a reunion with the herd. > > Therefore treatment for 'antisocial' behavior is often harsh and > > punitive, but the counter productivity of this approach is increasing > > due to developments in modern mentality. > > The other view is that shame is God given, which is a creationist point > > of view. I have read about Kansas on this list. > > > > Before I go any further I would like some comments on this more or less > > paradigmatic conceptualization. > > > > Bjxrn > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ebates.com. Earn up to 25% cash back for shopping online at 75 stores > > like Borders, CDNow and Beyond.com. Refer a friend and earn even more! > > http://clickhere./click/690 > > > > > > eGroups.com home: /group/12-step-free > > - Simplifying group communications > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Just Tell Us What You Want... > Respond.com - Shopping the World for You! > http://clickhere./click/738 > > > eGroups.com home: /group/12-step-free > - Simplifying group communications > > > > ---------------------- Pete Watts Owner PSY-PHAR Psychotherapy/Pharmacotherapy Outocomes Discussion PERSONALITY-DISORDERS Support/Discussion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 1999 Report Share Posted August 17, 1999 Pete Watts wrote: > > Hi > > Any theory that suggests siginificant evolution in the last > 300 years is total BS, especially one concerning the highly > dynamic brain. > > Pete > Right on Pete. We will all benefit from a more skeptical approach to are world then is exhibited by the " Art Bell crowd " . No offense intended , I have no idea whether you fall in with the pseudo science junkies fueling the " mis " -information age. If you are interested in some thoughtful writing about the development of the human brain try " Broca's Brain " by Carl Sagen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 1999 Report Share Posted August 17, 1999 Hello, Bjorn, In my opinion you have articulated very well my theory of why many people fear (and therefore repudiate) homosexuals, touching as well on why lesbians are so much less threatening. I would be very interested in knowing whether you concur. kayleigh-@... wrote: original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=7533 > Hi . > > There are several discussions embedded in your very interesting mail. > The quotation below is an attempt to explain my starting point more > clearly than I have done in the past. > As a paradigm it is IMO a powerful analytical tool, which I would like > to explain on another occasion if my point of view sounds acceptable. > > > > > To answer your question there is no simple answer. In nature natural > > selection dictates that the weak be eaten by predators or driven out of > > the > > herd. In one view man lives under the laws of nature as every animal but > > > > has also created a complex and diverse man made pecking order that > > people > > try to adapt to for survival. In my opinion weaker or weakened people > > spend > > much time establishing themselves in a group for a feeling of protection > > > > against those perceived hostilities and unpredictability's of life. > > > > First of all I think that in this particular discourse it is most > fruitful to consider man as an animal. The interesting question is then: > " What are the natural, inborn differences between man and other > animals? " > I think it is ability for advanced and multichanneled communication. > The killer whales are intelligent herd animals heavily dependent on > their abilities to communicate. Different herds have different dialects, > and the 'language' can change over time. But I don't think they have > individuals understanding dialects. Man can even communicate about > communication. > The ability to communicate in many subtle ways is the precondition for > individuality, and at the same time the ability to communicate is an > expression of an advanced herd ability. > Therefore man is both the most individualistic animal and the most > advanced herd animal. That's what is unique about man. It has given man > an enormous advantage in relation to every other animal competing > directly for survival. They never really had a chance. Now we even are > killing each other to save the animals. The plasticity of human > accommodation is both faster and more accurate than with every other > animal. Education of the next generation, as Japanese chimpanzees do, is > a far more effective way of surviving changes in environment then just > waiting for a passive selection forced upon the individuals by the > living conditions. BTW, the darwian thesis is 'survival of the fittest', > not the 'strongest'. Several very strong animals has been extinct > through the eons. The sable tiger and an enormous shark. > I've read about a fish ( writers last name was Badcock, and he tried to > make a synthesis between freudianism and darwinism) where the male is > very big territorial fish, and the females are very small. While the > male tries to seduce the females to spawn their eggs within his > territory so he can fertilize them, he is also chases every other male > away. But among this fish there is a tiny male that looks like a female, > and if he's not discovered, this swift little transvestite can fertilize > a certain amount of the eggs. The survival ability of this weak and > small fish is then greater than much bigger males that are weaker than > the strongest and most attractive males. > Survival of the fittest. > But as well as there is a survival principle for the individual > (transmitting genes means eternal life, sort of), there is also a > survival principle for the herd. > Both man and apes go to war against other herds of the same species for > securing survival for the herd. Then the survival of the individual is > subsumed the survival of the herd. Man has of course developed this into > heroism. > Once I saw a program about lions and antelopes. When the lions made an > collectively planned attack all the animals ran away from an old, > 'impotent' and > big buck. This buck was isolated and an easy prey for the lions. After > the kill the herd calmed down. Sacrifice for the sake of the herd? > Arctic wolf herds living under harsh conditions have reserved the > breeding right to the dominant male and female. If they just followed > their doggy instincts they would soon be extinguished. Once again on TV > I saw a 'coming male' jumping the female in heat. But the dominant male > discovered it, and drove the 'immoral' offender away from the herd. He > tried to come back, showing all signs of shame, but there was no mercy. > His only chance was acceptance from another pack of wolves. Expulsion > and shame in that order. It's not strange that dogs and humans > communicate so well, and that we have demonized the wolf. Man can under > some circumstances take the shape of a wolf, the werewolf. In reality > wolves seldom attacks humans. They know better. BTW are humans eating > far more sharks than sharks are eating humans. > > Shortly I think the survival of the individual must be complemented with > principles for herd survival. Scapegoating and humans sacrifices are > human elaboration of the principle of the herd survival on behalf of the > individual. > > I say shame is a result of expulsion processes becoming anticipated > (feared). Shame is essentially a request for a reunion with the herd. > Therefore treatment for 'antisocial' behavior is often harsh and > punitive, but the counter productivity of this approach is increasing > due to developments in modern mentality. > The other view is that shame is God given, which is a creationist point > of view. I have read about Kansas on this list. > > Before I go any further I would like some comments on this more or less > paradigmatic conceptualization. > > Bjørn > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 1999 Report Share Posted August 17, 1999 Hello, Bjorn, In my opinion you have articulated very well my theory of why many people fear (and therefore repudiate) homosexuals, touching as well on why lesbians are so much less threatening. I would be very interested in knowing whether you concur. kayleigh-@... wrote: original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=7533 > Hi . > > There are several discussions embedded in your very interesting mail. > The quotation below is an attempt to explain my starting point more > clearly than I have done in the past. > As a paradigm it is IMO a powerful analytical tool, which I would like > to explain on another occasion if my point of view sounds acceptable. > > > > > To answer your question there is no simple answer. In nature natural > > selection dictates that the weak be eaten by predators or driven out of > > the > > herd. In one view man lives under the laws of nature as every animal but > > > > has also created a complex and diverse man made pecking order that > > people > > try to adapt to for survival. In my opinion weaker or weakened people > > spend > > much time establishing themselves in a group for a feeling of protection > > > > against those perceived hostilities and unpredictability's of life. > > > > First of all I think that in this particular discourse it is most > fruitful to consider man as an animal. The interesting question is then: > " What are the natural, inborn differences between man and other > animals? " > I think it is ability for advanced and multichanneled communication. > The killer whales are intelligent herd animals heavily dependent on > their abilities to communicate. Different herds have different dialects, > and the 'language' can change over time. But I don't think they have > individuals understanding dialects. Man can even communicate about > communication. > The ability to communicate in many subtle ways is the precondition for > individuality, and at the same time the ability to communicate is an > expression of an advanced herd ability. > Therefore man is both the most individualistic animal and the most > advanced herd animal. That's what is unique about man. It has given man > an enormous advantage in relation to every other animal competing > directly for survival. They never really had a chance. Now we even are > killing each other to save the animals. The plasticity of human > accommodation is both faster and more accurate than with every other > animal. Education of the next generation, as Japanese chimpanzees do, is > a far more effective way of surviving changes in environment then just > waiting for a passive selection forced upon the individuals by the > living conditions. BTW, the darwian thesis is 'survival of the fittest', > not the 'strongest'. Several very strong animals has been extinct > through the eons. The sable tiger and an enormous shark. > I've read about a fish ( writers last name was Badcock, and he tried to > make a synthesis between freudianism and darwinism) where the male is > very big territorial fish, and the females are very small. While the > male tries to seduce the females to spawn their eggs within his > territory so he can fertilize them, he is also chases every other male > away. But among this fish there is a tiny male that looks like a female, > and if he's not discovered, this swift little transvestite can fertilize > a certain amount of the eggs. The survival ability of this weak and > small fish is then greater than much bigger males that are weaker than > the strongest and most attractive males. > Survival of the fittest. > But as well as there is a survival principle for the individual > (transmitting genes means eternal life, sort of), there is also a > survival principle for the herd. > Both man and apes go to war against other herds of the same species for > securing survival for the herd. Then the survival of the individual is > subsumed the survival of the herd. Man has of course developed this into > heroism. > Once I saw a program about lions and antelopes. When the lions made an > collectively planned attack all the animals ran away from an old, > 'impotent' and > big buck. This buck was isolated and an easy prey for the lions. After > the kill the herd calmed down. Sacrifice for the sake of the herd? > Arctic wolf herds living under harsh conditions have reserved the > breeding right to the dominant male and female. If they just followed > their doggy instincts they would soon be extinguished. Once again on TV > I saw a 'coming male' jumping the female in heat. But the dominant male > discovered it, and drove the 'immoral' offender away from the herd. He > tried to come back, showing all signs of shame, but there was no mercy. > His only chance was acceptance from another pack of wolves. Expulsion > and shame in that order. It's not strange that dogs and humans > communicate so well, and that we have demonized the wolf. Man can under > some circumstances take the shape of a wolf, the werewolf. In reality > wolves seldom attacks humans. They know better. BTW are humans eating > far more sharks than sharks are eating humans. > > Shortly I think the survival of the individual must be complemented with > principles for herd survival. Scapegoating and humans sacrifices are > human elaboration of the principle of the herd survival on behalf of the > individual. > > I say shame is a result of expulsion processes becoming anticipated > (feared). Shame is essentially a request for a reunion with the herd. > Therefore treatment for 'antisocial' behavior is often harsh and > punitive, but the counter productivity of this approach is increasing > due to developments in modern mentality. > The other view is that shame is God given, which is a creationist point > of view. I have read about Kansas on this list. > > Before I go any further I would like some comments on this more or less > paradigmatic conceptualization. > > Bjørn > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 1999 Report Share Posted August 17, 1999 : Another theory debunked....oh well. Thanks for the " Broca's " link. I think I heard of this man in freshman or sophmore pschologly. Did'nt he study human language? Must have donated his brain to science. And no, I am not a seudo science junkie. Just curious. Thanks I could'nt stand the comment of a wanna be N.A. guru at the meeting tonight so I walked out. What a sad state of affairs this is! The blind leading the blind to HELL! aaaarg. Re: Beyond OZ > Pete Watts wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > Any theory that suggests siginificant evolution in the last > > 300 years is total BS, especially one concerning the highly > > dynamic brain. > > > > Pete > > > > Right on Pete. We will all benefit from a more skeptical approach to are world > then is exhibited by the " Art Bell crowd " . No offense intended , I have no > idea whether you fall in with the pseudo science junkies fueling the > " mis " -information age. If you are interested in some thoughtful writing about > the development of the human brain try " Broca's Brain " by Carl Sagen. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ebates.com. Earn up to 25% cash back for shopping online at 75 stores > like Borders, CDNow and Beyond.com. Refer a friend and earn even more! > http://clickhere./click/690 > > > eGroups.com home: /group/12-step-free > - Simplifying group communications > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 1999 Report Share Posted August 17, 1999 : Another theory debunked....oh well. Thanks for the " Broca's " link. I think I heard of this man in freshman or sophmore pschologly. Did'nt he study human language? Must have donated his brain to science. And no, I am not a seudo science junkie. Just curious. Thanks I could'nt stand the comment of a wanna be N.A. guru at the meeting tonight so I walked out. What a sad state of affairs this is! The blind leading the blind to HELL! aaaarg. Re: Beyond OZ > Pete Watts wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > Any theory that suggests siginificant evolution in the last > > 300 years is total BS, especially one concerning the highly > > dynamic brain. > > > > Pete > > > > Right on Pete. We will all benefit from a more skeptical approach to are world > then is exhibited by the " Art Bell crowd " . No offense intended , I have no > idea whether you fall in with the pseudo science junkies fueling the > " mis " -information age. If you are interested in some thoughtful writing about > the development of the human brain try " Broca's Brain " by Carl Sagen. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ebates.com. Earn up to 25% cash back for shopping online at 75 stores > like Borders, CDNow and Beyond.com. Refer a friend and earn even more! > http://clickhere./click/690 > > > eGroups.com home: /group/12-step-free > - Simplifying group communications > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 1999 Report Share Posted August 18, 1999 Hi . Thought provoking issues are always stimulating. I have done some rehabilitation of brain injuries, but I have never heard about this theory before. It runs contrary to every wild thought I ever heard about. I would like to have the references or names. All evolutionary evidence of brain development suggests lateralization (specialization) of brain functions, but you obviously know someone thinking that development goes in the opposite direction. Interesting. While you are reading this anyway I would like to know what relevance you meant your mail had to my arguments about the connection between herd mentality and individualism? Your hypothesis could of course be tested by examining the brains of Chinese and Americans as the latter is normally described as individualists. Which I personally doubt. No offense. Bjørn > Hi Bjorn: (no offense, could'nt find the slash) > > I recently heard or herd about an interesting relevation that involves the > evolution of the human brain from a herd orientated brain to one that is > more individual. Apparently, and as we know from looking at the brain, it > is divided into two spheres, the right and left hemispheres. The theory > suggests that since we no longer need the primitive support of the herd as > shown by our dramatic movement from the neuclear family and into the > industrial era, we no longer need the split brain. Theorists also suggest > that since the two spheres of the brain are no longer needed, the brain is > evolving into one brain that is not divided. Does this make any sense to > you? I would like to find out more about this issue and others of similar > thought evoking matter. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 1999 Report Share Posted August 18, 1999 Hi . Thought provoking issues are always stimulating. I have done some rehabilitation of brain injuries, but I have never heard about this theory before. It runs contrary to every wild thought I ever heard about. I would like to have the references or names. All evolutionary evidence of brain development suggests lateralization (specialization) of brain functions, but you obviously know someone thinking that development goes in the opposite direction. Interesting. While you are reading this anyway I would like to know what relevance you meant your mail had to my arguments about the connection between herd mentality and individualism? Your hypothesis could of course be tested by examining the brains of Chinese and Americans as the latter is normally described as individualists. Which I personally doubt. No offense. Bjørn > Hi Bjorn: (no offense, could'nt find the slash) > > I recently heard or herd about an interesting relevation that involves the > evolution of the human brain from a herd orientated brain to one that is > more individual. Apparently, and as we know from looking at the brain, it > is divided into two spheres, the right and left hemispheres. The theory > suggests that since we no longer need the primitive support of the herd as > shown by our dramatic movement from the neuclear family and into the > industrial era, we no longer need the split brain. Theorists also suggest > that since the two spheres of the brain are no longer needed, the brain is > evolving into one brain that is not divided. Does this make any sense to > you? I would like to find out more about this issue and others of similar > thought evoking matter. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 1999 Report Share Posted August 18, 1999 Hello Kayleigh. > Hello, Bjorn, > > In my opinion you have articulated very well my theory of why many > people fear (and therefore repudiate) homosexuals, touching as well on > why lesbians are so much less threatening. > > I would be very interested in knowing whether you concur. > You are the anthropologist, and I would like to hear more about your theory. My experience goes very well with your assumption, as most men are suspicious about homosexuals. The freudian theory suggests anxiety due to denied bisexuality, and the evolutionary theory suggests anger because homosexuals are often very popular with women. I once lived with a woman that said she had been to a party with among others some homosexuals. One of them said that she might be the person that 'cured' him. In Arabic harems they didn't use homosexuals, but eunuchs. The sheiks played it safe. If some man creeps into my wives life pretending to be harmless, I think I would be on guard. I simply don't believe it. Guess I'm brainwashed. But as you know human diversities are manifold. I have heard about Indian tribes where homosexuals had an important role to play, and a friend of mine was in India last year, he told me that the tolerance was much greater in that respect, that homosexuals could find an accepted role in the society. I have also read an article stating that in Japan (help me ) there were six genders, and that it was possible to change from one to another without difficulty. On the other hand, it was nearly impossible to change class. Maybe your theory could predict the differences between mainly patriarchal societies and matriarchal societies. I would think that the degree of patriarchal mentality could predict the degree of homophobia. The most patriarchal being most homophobic, and the most matriarchal being least. But matriarchal societies might have another view on lesbianism than the patriarchal. Just some thoughts. Bjørn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 1999 Report Share Posted August 18, 1999 Hello Kayleigh. > Hello, Bjorn, > > In my opinion you have articulated very well my theory of why many > people fear (and therefore repudiate) homosexuals, touching as well on > why lesbians are so much less threatening. > > I would be very interested in knowing whether you concur. > You are the anthropologist, and I would like to hear more about your theory. My experience goes very well with your assumption, as most men are suspicious about homosexuals. The freudian theory suggests anxiety due to denied bisexuality, and the evolutionary theory suggests anger because homosexuals are often very popular with women. I once lived with a woman that said she had been to a party with among others some homosexuals. One of them said that she might be the person that 'cured' him. In Arabic harems they didn't use homosexuals, but eunuchs. The sheiks played it safe. If some man creeps into my wives life pretending to be harmless, I think I would be on guard. I simply don't believe it. Guess I'm brainwashed. But as you know human diversities are manifold. I have heard about Indian tribes where homosexuals had an important role to play, and a friend of mine was in India last year, he told me that the tolerance was much greater in that respect, that homosexuals could find an accepted role in the society. I have also read an article stating that in Japan (help me ) there were six genders, and that it was possible to change from one to another without difficulty. On the other hand, it was nearly impossible to change class. Maybe your theory could predict the differences between mainly patriarchal societies and matriarchal societies. I would think that the degree of patriarchal mentality could predict the degree of homophobia. The most patriarchal being most homophobic, and the most matriarchal being least. But matriarchal societies might have another view on lesbianism than the patriarchal. Just some thoughts. Bjørn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 1999 Report Share Posted August 18, 1999 Hello Kayleigh. > Hello, Bjorn, > > In my opinion you have articulated very well my theory of why many > people fear (and therefore repudiate) homosexuals, touching as well on > why lesbians are so much less threatening. > > I would be very interested in knowing whether you concur. > You are the anthropologist, and I would like to hear more about your theory. My experience goes very well with your assumption, as most men are suspicious about homosexuals. The freudian theory suggests anxiety due to denied bisexuality, and the evolutionary theory suggests anger because homosexuals are often very popular with women. I once lived with a woman that said she had been to a party with among others some homosexuals. One of them said that she might be the person that 'cured' him. In Arabic harems they didn't use homosexuals, but eunuchs. The sheiks played it safe. If some man creeps into my wives life pretending to be harmless, I think I would be on guard. I simply don't believe it. Guess I'm brainwashed. But as you know human diversities are manifold. I have heard about Indian tribes where homosexuals had an important role to play, and a friend of mine was in India last year, he told me that the tolerance was much greater in that respect, that homosexuals could find an accepted role in the society. I have also read an article stating that in Japan (help me ) there were six genders, and that it was possible to change from one to another without difficulty. On the other hand, it was nearly impossible to change class. Maybe your theory could predict the differences between mainly patriarchal societies and matriarchal societies. I would think that the degree of patriarchal mentality could predict the degree of homophobia. The most patriarchal being most homophobic, and the most matriarchal being least. But matriarchal societies might have another view on lesbianism than the patriarchal. Just some thoughts. Bjørn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 1999 Report Share Posted August 18, 1999 In a message dated 8/18/99 8:18:53 PM Central Daylight Time, kayleighs@... writes: > As I said in my reply to Bjorn, I know that my opinions are offensive > (and unscientific, raw, anecdotal, etc.), and if someone wants to > explore my opinions with me I will welcome it. I am quite willing to > modify what I think, and the ideas I'm expressing are old (to me -- > haven't thought about it for about 20 years), but if you (not you, > Rita, anybody at all out there) want to flame me, I'll ignore you. What does this nonsense have to do with 12-step-free-related topics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 1999 Report Share Posted August 18, 1999 In a message dated 8/18/99 8:18:53 PM Central Daylight Time, kayleighs@... writes: > As I said in my reply to Bjorn, I know that my opinions are offensive > (and unscientific, raw, anecdotal, etc.), and if someone wants to > explore my opinions with me I will welcome it. I am quite willing to > modify what I think, and the ideas I'm expressing are old (to me -- > haven't thought about it for about 20 years), but if you (not you, > Rita, anybody at all out there) want to flame me, I'll ignore you. What does this nonsense have to do with 12-step-free-related topics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 1999 Report Share Posted August 18, 1999 Hi Bjorn: At the moment, I am unable to locate the person that stated this interesting hypothesis. She and I were both participating in a workshop in Estes Park CO and through flurry of all the information being exchanged, I tuned into part of what she had said involving an evolution pattern from a herd orientated thinking to one that is more individaulistic. I will, however, attempt to locate her and satisfy our mutual interest in this matter. I apologize if I mislead you. Obviously, you know more about the human brain than I. Though an organic evolutionary process of the brain into one organ as opposed to two hemispheres connected by the corpus callosum seems somewhat science fiction, the brain does indeed share information from one hemisphere to the other. Perhaps a better way to describe what I stated about the evolution of the brain would take into consideration the electrical activity that is shared. If the brain was evolving to a more individual one, then, would it be logical to assume that more electrical (neural) activity that is individual specific is being shared by both hemisheres? Is an organic change in evolution of the brain necessary for this change to occur? Provoking the thought, Re: Beyond OZ > Hi . > Thought provoking issues are always stimulating. I have done some > rehabilitation of brain injuries, but I have never heard about this > theory before. It runs contrary to every wild thought I ever heard > about. I would like to have the references or names. > All evolutionary evidence of brain development suggests lateralization > (specialization) of brain functions, but you obviously know someone > thinking that development goes in the opposite direction. Interesting. > While you are reading this anyway I would like to know what relevance > you meant your mail had to my arguments about the connection between > herd mentality and individualism? Your hypothesis could of course be > tested by examining the brains of Chinese and Americans as the latter is > normally described as individualists. Which I personally doubt. > No offense. > > Bjørn > > > > Hi Bjorn: (no offense, could'nt find the slash) > > > > I recently heard or herd about an interesting relevation that involves the > > evolution of the human brain from a herd orientated brain to one that is > > more individual. Apparently, and as we know from looking at the brain, it > > is divided into two spheres, the right and left hemispheres. The theory > > suggests that since we no longer need the primitive support of the herd as > > shown by our dramatic movement from the neuclear family and into the > > industrial era, we no longer need the split brain. Theorists also suggest > > that since the two spheres of the brain are no longer needed, the brain is > > evolving into one brain that is not divided. Does this make any sense to > > you? I would like to find out more about this issue and others of similar > > thought evoking matter. > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Just Tell Us What You Want... > Respond.com - Shopping the World for You! > http://clickhere./click/738 > > > eGroups.com home: /group/12-step-free > - Simplifying group communications > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 1999 Report Share Posted August 18, 1999 Hi Bjorn: At the moment, I am unable to locate the person that stated this interesting hypothesis. She and I were both participating in a workshop in Estes Park CO and through flurry of all the information being exchanged, I tuned into part of what she had said involving an evolution pattern from a herd orientated thinking to one that is more individaulistic. I will, however, attempt to locate her and satisfy our mutual interest in this matter. I apologize if I mislead you. Obviously, you know more about the human brain than I. Though an organic evolutionary process of the brain into one organ as opposed to two hemispheres connected by the corpus callosum seems somewhat science fiction, the brain does indeed share information from one hemisphere to the other. Perhaps a better way to describe what I stated about the evolution of the brain would take into consideration the electrical activity that is shared. If the brain was evolving to a more individual one, then, would it be logical to assume that more electrical (neural) activity that is individual specific is being shared by both hemisheres? Is an organic change in evolution of the brain necessary for this change to occur? Provoking the thought, Re: Beyond OZ > Hi . > Thought provoking issues are always stimulating. I have done some > rehabilitation of brain injuries, but I have never heard about this > theory before. It runs contrary to every wild thought I ever heard > about. I would like to have the references or names. > All evolutionary evidence of brain development suggests lateralization > (specialization) of brain functions, but you obviously know someone > thinking that development goes in the opposite direction. Interesting. > While you are reading this anyway I would like to know what relevance > you meant your mail had to my arguments about the connection between > herd mentality and individualism? Your hypothesis could of course be > tested by examining the brains of Chinese and Americans as the latter is > normally described as individualists. Which I personally doubt. > No offense. > > Bjørn > > > > Hi Bjorn: (no offense, could'nt find the slash) > > > > I recently heard or herd about an interesting relevation that involves the > > evolution of the human brain from a herd orientated brain to one that is > > more individual. Apparently, and as we know from looking at the brain, it > > is divided into two spheres, the right and left hemispheres. The theory > > suggests that since we no longer need the primitive support of the herd as > > shown by our dramatic movement from the neuclear family and into the > > industrial era, we no longer need the split brain. Theorists also suggest > > that since the two spheres of the brain are no longer needed, the brain is > > evolving into one brain that is not divided. Does this make any sense to > > you? I would like to find out more about this issue and others of similar > > thought evoking matter. > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Just Tell Us What You Want... > Respond.com - Shopping the World for You! > http://clickhere./click/738 > > > eGroups.com home: /group/12-step-free > - Simplifying group communications > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 1999 Report Share Posted August 18, 1999 Hi Bjorn: At the moment, I am unable to locate the person that stated this interesting hypothesis. She and I were both participating in a workshop in Estes Park CO and through flurry of all the information being exchanged, I tuned into part of what she had said involving an evolution pattern from a herd orientated thinking to one that is more individaulistic. I will, however, attempt to locate her and satisfy our mutual interest in this matter. I apologize if I mislead you. Obviously, you know more about the human brain than I. Though an organic evolutionary process of the brain into one organ as opposed to two hemispheres connected by the corpus callosum seems somewhat science fiction, the brain does indeed share information from one hemisphere to the other. Perhaps a better way to describe what I stated about the evolution of the brain would take into consideration the electrical activity that is shared. If the brain was evolving to a more individual one, then, would it be logical to assume that more electrical (neural) activity that is individual specific is being shared by both hemisheres? Is an organic change in evolution of the brain necessary for this change to occur? Provoking the thought, Re: Beyond OZ > Hi . > Thought provoking issues are always stimulating. I have done some > rehabilitation of brain injuries, but I have never heard about this > theory before. It runs contrary to every wild thought I ever heard > about. I would like to have the references or names. > All evolutionary evidence of brain development suggests lateralization > (specialization) of brain functions, but you obviously know someone > thinking that development goes in the opposite direction. Interesting. > While you are reading this anyway I would like to know what relevance > you meant your mail had to my arguments about the connection between > herd mentality and individualism? Your hypothesis could of course be > tested by examining the brains of Chinese and Americans as the latter is > normally described as individualists. Which I personally doubt. > No offense. > > Bjørn > > > > Hi Bjorn: (no offense, could'nt find the slash) > > > > I recently heard or herd about an interesting relevation that involves the > > evolution of the human brain from a herd orientated brain to one that is > > more individual. Apparently, and as we know from looking at the brain, it > > is divided into two spheres, the right and left hemispheres. The theory > > suggests that since we no longer need the primitive support of the herd as > > shown by our dramatic movement from the neuclear family and into the > > industrial era, we no longer need the split brain. Theorists also suggest > > that since the two spheres of the brain are no longer needed, the brain is > > evolving into one brain that is not divided. Does this make any sense to > > you? I would like to find out more about this issue and others of similar > > thought evoking matter. > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Just Tell Us What You Want... > Respond.com - Shopping the World for You! > http://clickhere./click/738 > > > eGroups.com home: /group/12-step-free > - Simplifying group communications > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 1999 Report Share Posted August 18, 1999 I'm afraid I don't understand what either Bjorn or Kayleigh are saying about attitudes about homosexuality. My understanding is that homophobia is totally based on the misinformed notion that gay men are somehow " not really men " (in fact, one can hear crude comments sometimes concerning " I wonder when he's going for the operation " -- ostensibly implying that gay men are really " women trapped in a man's body " and hence desire surgical penis/testicle removal as for transsexuals) which is threatening to the homophobe's sense of his own masculinity. (The majority of virulent homophobes are men; women may echo their boyfriend/husband's opinions, or may have fundie Biblical positions on homosexual " abomination " , but are rarely personally threatened by homosexuality either male or female.) Such persons OTOH find the idea of lesbianism titillating rather than threatening -- in fact in their silly ignorance they believe cheap actresses hired to make so-called " lesbian " porn films actually are lesbians and the films provide an accurate representation of lesbian style. Freudian theories about the supposed cause of homosexuality fall flat, as do most Freudian theories, when critically examined from a cross-cultural perspective. You are absolutely correct, Bjorn, that there are many Native American and other cultures in which homosexuals of both genders are highly respected and sometimes even thought to be spiritually enlightened in some way. Homophobia does not exist in these cultures. Yet the rate of occurrence of homosexuality is the same as for cultures in which homosexuals are vilified and persecuted. ~Rita ------------------------------------- Bjorn H wrote: original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=7549 > Kayleigh wrote: > > > Hello, Bjorn, > > > > In my opinion you have articulated very well my theory of why many > > people fear (and therefore repudiate) homosexuals, touching as well on > > why lesbians are so much less threatening. > > > > I would be very interested in knowing whether you concur. > > > > You are the anthropologist, and I would like to hear more about your > theory. > My experience goes very well with your assumption, as most men are > suspicious about homosexuals. The freudian theory suggests anxiety due > to denied bisexuality, and the evolutionary theory suggests anger > because homosexuals are often very popular with women. > I once lived with a woman that said she had been to a party with among > others some homosexuals. One of them said that she might be the person > that 'cured' him. > In Arabic harems they didn't use homosexuals, but eunuchs. The sheiks > played it safe. > If some man creeps into my wives life pretending to be harmless, I think > I would be on guard. I simply don't believe it. Guess I'm brainwashed. > > But as you know human diversities are manifold. I have heard about > Indian tribes where homosexuals had an important role to play, and a > friend of mine was in India last year, he told me that the tolerance was > much greater in that respect, that homosexuals could find an accepted > role in the society. > I have also read an article stating that in Japan (help me ) > there were six genders, and that it was possible to change from one to > another without difficulty. > On the other hand, it was nearly impossible to change class. > > Maybe your theory could predict the differences between mainly > patriarchal societies and matriarchal societies. > I would think that the degree of patriarchal mentality could predict the > degree of homophobia. The most patriarchal being most homophobic, and > the most matriarchal being least. But matriarchal societies might have > another view on lesbianism than the patriarchal. > Just some thoughts. > > Bjørn > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 1999 Report Share Posted August 18, 1999 I'm afraid I don't understand what either Bjorn or Kayleigh are saying about attitudes about homosexuality. My understanding is that homophobia is totally based on the misinformed notion that gay men are somehow " not really men " (in fact, one can hear crude comments sometimes concerning " I wonder when he's going for the operation " -- ostensibly implying that gay men are really " women trapped in a man's body " and hence desire surgical penis/testicle removal as for transsexuals) which is threatening to the homophobe's sense of his own masculinity. (The majority of virulent homophobes are men; women may echo their boyfriend/husband's opinions, or may have fundie Biblical positions on homosexual " abomination " , but are rarely personally threatened by homosexuality either male or female.) Such persons OTOH find the idea of lesbianism titillating rather than threatening -- in fact in their silly ignorance they believe cheap actresses hired to make so-called " lesbian " porn films actually are lesbians and the films provide an accurate representation of lesbian style. Freudian theories about the supposed cause of homosexuality fall flat, as do most Freudian theories, when critically examined from a cross-cultural perspective. You are absolutely correct, Bjorn, that there are many Native American and other cultures in which homosexuals of both genders are highly respected and sometimes even thought to be spiritually enlightened in some way. Homophobia does not exist in these cultures. Yet the rate of occurrence of homosexuality is the same as for cultures in which homosexuals are vilified and persecuted. ~Rita ------------------------------------- Bjorn H wrote: original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=7549 > Kayleigh wrote: > > > Hello, Bjorn, > > > > In my opinion you have articulated very well my theory of why many > > people fear (and therefore repudiate) homosexuals, touching as well on > > why lesbians are so much less threatening. > > > > I would be very interested in knowing whether you concur. > > > > You are the anthropologist, and I would like to hear more about your > theory. > My experience goes very well with your assumption, as most men are > suspicious about homosexuals. The freudian theory suggests anxiety due > to denied bisexuality, and the evolutionary theory suggests anger > because homosexuals are often very popular with women. > I once lived with a woman that said she had been to a party with among > others some homosexuals. One of them said that she might be the person > that 'cured' him. > In Arabic harems they didn't use homosexuals, but eunuchs. The sheiks > played it safe. > If some man creeps into my wives life pretending to be harmless, I think > I would be on guard. I simply don't believe it. Guess I'm brainwashed. > > But as you know human diversities are manifold. I have heard about > Indian tribes where homosexuals had an important role to play, and a > friend of mine was in India last year, he told me that the tolerance was > much greater in that respect, that homosexuals could find an accepted > role in the society. > I have also read an article stating that in Japan (help me ) > there were six genders, and that it was possible to change from one to > another without difficulty. > On the other hand, it was nearly impossible to change class. > > Maybe your theory could predict the differences between mainly > patriarchal societies and matriarchal societies. > I would think that the degree of patriarchal mentality could predict the > degree of homophobia. The most patriarchal being most homophobic, and > the most matriarchal being least. But matriarchal societies might have > another view on lesbianism than the patriarchal. > Just some thoughts. > > Bjørn > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.