Guest guest Posted August 18, 1999 Report Share Posted August 18, 1999 Hello, again, Bjorn, Dear me, no, I am not an anthropologist. I am an attorney, and my observations stem from my former specialty in drawing up contracts to regulate the contracts of unmarried couples, homosexual, lesbian and heterosexual, with regard to real and personal property, income, support, estate planning, and so forth. My observations are that the dominant thinking in this society (American, descended from European) is as follows: The heterosexual male wants to expel the homosexual from the herd, because the homosexual will not reproduce. This arouses fear in the heterosexual male. Lesbians are less threatening because they may reproduce, being in the eyes of the heterosexual male a sort of " room " in which the male deposits his seed and grows his child. This is a tacit admission on the part of heterosexual males that they are the only people who rape. Homosexuals and lesbians are not threatening to women, because women know that homosexuals will not harm them and that lesbians will take no for an answer. Lesbians are less threatening than homosexuals to heterosexual males because such males realize that they can still be raped. However, men who will take no for an answer resent lesbians because these are women that they cannot " possess. " I don't believe in the theories that you mention. My thinking on this subject is simplistic, unscientific, anecdotal, offensive and raw. Yet I find it has a very high degree of predictive power. Possibly this says more about me than about the many prejudiced heterosexuals I have known. kayleigh-@... wrote: original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=7549 > > 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 Hi, Rita, I hope my response to Bjorn explains what I meant by attitudes toward homosexuality. Your views coincide with mine. If I were to say how many sexes there are, I would say at least eight, and possibly more: lesbian, homosexual, heterosexual men, heterosexual women, transsexual men, transsexual women, bisexual men, bisexual women. I think these gender identities exist pretty independently of each other, yet have things in common with each other. Yet perhaps some have more in common with each other than others, and I don't think you can guess which ones will have more in common with each other based on physical gender. Then there is the whole spectrum of sexuality, along which there are some who are completely bisexual, some who are 51% bisexual, and all the others in between, and that analysis goes for all the other possible percentages and permutations, which themselves will shift with life circumstances, age, education, what have you. So I see the whole thing as being pretty fluid. It's probably best to take people as you find them, accept that they love whomever they love in whatever way they love them and try not to categorize them. That being said, I realize that my opinions are generally pretty anti-male, since, as you say, they seem to be by far the most threatened by variations in sexuality, and I wonder whether this is a biological trait based in the herd mentality that Bjorn talks about. 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. kayleigh-@... wrote: original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=7553 > > 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 > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 1999 Report Share Posted August 18, 1999 Hi, Rita, I hope my response to Bjorn explains what I meant by attitudes toward homosexuality. Your views coincide with mine. If I were to say how many sexes there are, I would say at least eight, and possibly more: lesbian, homosexual, heterosexual men, heterosexual women, transsexual men, transsexual women, bisexual men, bisexual women. I think these gender identities exist pretty independently of each other, yet have things in common with each other. Yet perhaps some have more in common with each other than others, and I don't think you can guess which ones will have more in common with each other based on physical gender. Then there is the whole spectrum of sexuality, along which there are some who are completely bisexual, some who are 51% bisexual, and all the others in between, and that analysis goes for all the other possible percentages and permutations, which themselves will shift with life circumstances, age, education, what have you. So I see the whole thing as being pretty fluid. It's probably best to take people as you find them, accept that they love whomever they love in whatever way they love them and try not to categorize them. That being said, I realize that my opinions are generally pretty anti-male, since, as you say, they seem to be by far the most threatened by variations in sexuality, and I wonder whether this is a biological trait based in the herd mentality that Bjorn talks about. 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. kayleigh-@... wrote: original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=7553 > > 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 > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 19, 1999 Report Share Posted August 19, 1999 Hi Bjørn, I know Darwin said it is the survival of the fittest. I guess the author of the poem thought that saying, the " fittest feed " didn't sound as good as the " strongest feed " . Of course strength can be measured in ways other than merely physical such as power of concentration. In the ancient practices of many martial arts for example being fit is more valued than being strong just as cunning is more valued than being aggressive. Man's communication abilities do indeed make him the most individualistic as well as the most sophisticated herd animal. How we educate new generations seems to be directly linked to why we educate them and what we teach. Survival is at it's base but all kinds of beliefs come into play that looked at in the light of logic and reason have nothing to do with survival of the herd or the individual but more to do with the survival of the belief. While an animals reason for living is pretty automatic people strive to find purpose for living. Purpose which initially comes in the form of assuming what you are told as a child by your parents, culture, religion etc. is true. What is moral, what is a good mate, what is high and low on the social scale etc. When these beliefs falls short, don't function in a changing society etc. it seems people get stuck on a quest to replace that void with another set of beliefs. A set which usually falls close to the tree of beliefs they came from. AA is full of people raised in religious homes that left their faith to pursue hedonistic drinking habits. Now they sit in AA trying to be good little cardboard cut outs of model AA behavior. It would seem while individauls are able to grasp this here and there and cast off useless beliefs to become more autonomous the human race in general takes big backward leaps such as this Kansas attempt at censorship. So in my opinion looking through the workings of the myths and their effects on behavior is an important step in individual development as well as bringing improvement in humans overall ability to coexist as a whole. For example tribes or races very often believed (and still do) that they were the chosen people of God, superior due to race and culture and everyone else was below them. A belief based on genetic material as a pre-requisite for membership. Introduction of certain religious beliefs superceded this for many people and they in theory now believe all people to be on a level spiritual field (whatever that means). However the belief system of the religion now replaces the genetic material based view and those outside the beliefs system are now below them. The believers get the big reward at the end of the rainbow and the non-believers get an eternal spanking. The chosen are now superior as a result of adopting beliefs that are perceived as absolute divine truths which coincidentally cannot be proven only accepted as true. Is religion in this respect no more than a search for a model of our own parental experience or in some cases the one we never had? A search for the ultimate spiritual mommy and daddy to take care of us in this frightening and uncertain universe of unknowns? Parents which of course have a set of rules that we must abide by to live in their house or be cast out into the void. AA'ers often speak about AA as their real family. Religions in one way leave us all as kids in a big foster home waiting for the real parents to come back to earth and set things right (????). Right, which is of course is a bunch of conjured up beliefs by the children in what the parents would say if they could speak directly to all of us. Instead they of course operate like the wizard of OZ behind the curtain speaking with burning bushes and in Bill 's case white lights in a hospital bed. So the myth gets passed on and on until a mushroom of absurdity finds anchor in millions of believers. Now the myth has the appearance of fact due to numbers. A body of believers is born again and again with the object to increase the size of the herd in order to preserve the beliefs that hold the herd together. What is next? I think AA in one respect is a misguided attempt to create a homogenized religion for all people. An attempt at why can't we all just get along. The big hole in it all is AA uses a cultural based set of religious beliefs to try and build a non cultural, non religious religion and sub-culture. The foolishness of such a construct should be obvious but it is not to many, many people or AA would just be laughed away along with it's preposterous notions of reality. For example all it really takes to dispel the AA notion that you have an incurable disease of alcoholism as opposed to a dependence on alcohol from repeated behavior is to not believe in the incurable disease. Poof, like magic the perception of reality alters itself in the mind. You mention snip, " the survival of the individual must be complemented with principles for herd survival. " As I understand it this looks like a humanist principle where individual concerns, needs, wants etc. take into account the concerns, needs, wants etc. of others as well. In this respect one can realistically looks at oneself in relationship to others as both a separate unit and a part of a larger group called the human race. This can be done as an individual without having to adopt any religious beliefs or outside rituals of initiation to a sub cultural order. AA is based on an adopted set of beliefs that are not in reality necessary for survival but are perceived as such and acted on accordingly. AA people see their survival dependent on the AA herd and then there is the rest of the scary uncertain world who do not understand them. The preservation of the belief is more important than the preservation of the individual or even the group itself. Exposing such myths for the paper tigers they are I think is a central theme to this list. Many people such as blind faith AA'ers simply want to be comfortable in their thinking as an end in itself. They do not want to face the enormous uncertainties of what we do not know weighed against the facts we do know and instead want security. As children we are all raised to one degree or another on myths and add to our pool of superstition with our own imagination. AA survives on a continuation of the same. I think the " mentally fitter " you become the more inclined you will be towards a healthy tendency to filter through outside information. Like asking yourself who could possibly know you better than you do as opposed to accepting some hogwash from AA as you walk in the door and hear " We know you better than you know yourself " . To that end I think this list is part of a larger development of a more modern mentality. By that I would mean to say a mentality that goes beyond the constraints of a herd collective based on main stream cultural or subculture superstition and beliefs. A mentality where it is possible for a person to navigate the complexities of life questioning and seeking it's realities. Not based merely on the power of belief and agreement to feel secure but using beliefs that are flexible and changeable when faced with better information. 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 19, 1999 Report Share Posted August 19, 1999 Hi Bjørn, I know Darwin said it is the survival of the fittest. I guess the author of the poem thought that saying, the " fittest feed " didn't sound as good as the " strongest feed " . Of course strength can be measured in ways other than merely physical such as power of concentration. In the ancient practices of many martial arts for example being fit is more valued than being strong just as cunning is more valued than being aggressive. Man's communication abilities do indeed make him the most individualistic as well as the most sophisticated herd animal. How we educate new generations seems to be directly linked to why we educate them and what we teach. Survival is at it's base but all kinds of beliefs come into play that looked at in the light of logic and reason have nothing to do with survival of the herd or the individual but more to do with the survival of the belief. While an animals reason for living is pretty automatic people strive to find purpose for living. Purpose which initially comes in the form of assuming what you are told as a child by your parents, culture, religion etc. is true. What is moral, what is a good mate, what is high and low on the social scale etc. When these beliefs falls short, don't function in a changing society etc. it seems people get stuck on a quest to replace that void with another set of beliefs. A set which usually falls close to the tree of beliefs they came from. AA is full of people raised in religious homes that left their faith to pursue hedonistic drinking habits. Now they sit in AA trying to be good little cardboard cut outs of model AA behavior. It would seem while individauls are able to grasp this here and there and cast off useless beliefs to become more autonomous the human race in general takes big backward leaps such as this Kansas attempt at censorship. So in my opinion looking through the workings of the myths and their effects on behavior is an important step in individual development as well as bringing improvement in humans overall ability to coexist as a whole. For example tribes or races very often believed (and still do) that they were the chosen people of God, superior due to race and culture and everyone else was below them. A belief based on genetic material as a pre-requisite for membership. Introduction of certain religious beliefs superceded this for many people and they in theory now believe all people to be on a level spiritual field (whatever that means). However the belief system of the religion now replaces the genetic material based view and those outside the beliefs system are now below them. The believers get the big reward at the end of the rainbow and the non-believers get an eternal spanking. The chosen are now superior as a result of adopting beliefs that are perceived as absolute divine truths which coincidentally cannot be proven only accepted as true. Is religion in this respect no more than a search for a model of our own parental experience or in some cases the one we never had? A search for the ultimate spiritual mommy and daddy to take care of us in this frightening and uncertain universe of unknowns? Parents which of course have a set of rules that we must abide by to live in their house or be cast out into the void. AA'ers often speak about AA as their real family. Religions in one way leave us all as kids in a big foster home waiting for the real parents to come back to earth and set things right (????). Right, which is of course is a bunch of conjured up beliefs by the children in what the parents would say if they could speak directly to all of us. Instead they of course operate like the wizard of OZ behind the curtain speaking with burning bushes and in Bill 's case white lights in a hospital bed. So the myth gets passed on and on until a mushroom of absurdity finds anchor in millions of believers. Now the myth has the appearance of fact due to numbers. A body of believers is born again and again with the object to increase the size of the herd in order to preserve the beliefs that hold the herd together. What is next? I think AA in one respect is a misguided attempt to create a homogenized religion for all people. An attempt at why can't we all just get along. The big hole in it all is AA uses a cultural based set of religious beliefs to try and build a non cultural, non religious religion and sub-culture. The foolishness of such a construct should be obvious but it is not to many, many people or AA would just be laughed away along with it's preposterous notions of reality. For example all it really takes to dispel the AA notion that you have an incurable disease of alcoholism as opposed to a dependence on alcohol from repeated behavior is to not believe in the incurable disease. Poof, like magic the perception of reality alters itself in the mind. You mention snip, " the survival of the individual must be complemented with principles for herd survival. " As I understand it this looks like a humanist principle where individual concerns, needs, wants etc. take into account the concerns, needs, wants etc. of others as well. In this respect one can realistically looks at oneself in relationship to others as both a separate unit and a part of a larger group called the human race. This can be done as an individual without having to adopt any religious beliefs or outside rituals of initiation to a sub cultural order. AA is based on an adopted set of beliefs that are not in reality necessary for survival but are perceived as such and acted on accordingly. AA people see their survival dependent on the AA herd and then there is the rest of the scary uncertain world who do not understand them. The preservation of the belief is more important than the preservation of the individual or even the group itself. Exposing such myths for the paper tigers they are I think is a central theme to this list. Many people such as blind faith AA'ers simply want to be comfortable in their thinking as an end in itself. They do not want to face the enormous uncertainties of what we do not know weighed against the facts we do know and instead want security. As children we are all raised to one degree or another on myths and add to our pool of superstition with our own imagination. AA survives on a continuation of the same. I think the " mentally fitter " you become the more inclined you will be towards a healthy tendency to filter through outside information. Like asking yourself who could possibly know you better than you do as opposed to accepting some hogwash from AA as you walk in the door and hear " We know you better than you know yourself " . To that end I think this list is part of a larger development of a more modern mentality. By that I would mean to say a mentality that goes beyond the constraints of a herd collective based on main stream cultural or subculture superstition and beliefs. A mentality where it is possible for a person to navigate the complexities of life questioning and seeking it's realities. Not based merely on the power of belief and agreement to feel secure but using beliefs that are flexible and changeable when faced with better information. 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 19, 1999 Report Share Posted August 19, 1999 Hello Bjørn, FYI I don't know about the six genders of Japan. Japanese are much more accepting of such things though. When I lived in the Middle East I was told that for a common man to sleep with a man is overlooked but to sleep with a woman out of wedlock will get you beheaded or stoned to death. I was invited to watch an execution once but I politely declined. Rape is handled in the same manner as adultery. Off with the head. Drinking however will only get you a public floggin in the hot desert sand. Eye for an eye type of place. > > > > 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 19, 1999 Report Share Posted August 19, 1999 Hello Bjørn, FYI I don't know about the six genders of Japan. Japanese are much more accepting of such things though. When I lived in the Middle East I was told that for a common man to sleep with a man is overlooked but to sleep with a woman out of wedlock will get you beheaded or stoned to death. I was invited to watch an execution once but I politely declined. Rape is handled in the same manner as adultery. Off with the head. Drinking however will only get you a public floggin in the hot desert sand. Eye for an eye type of place. > > > > 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 19, 1999 Report Share Posted August 19, 1999 Adultery = woman has head chopped off, at least in Saudi. In Saudi they chopped of a 17 yr old Princess's head. I understand that the man just gets a fine or something, or possibly nothing at all. Would you believe that a woman got 4 yrs in prison for adultery in SPAIN a few yrs ago? Pete > In truth I don't remember but I believe the woman gets the stones and > the man gets the chopped head in the case of adultery. In the only rape > I heard of the man had his head cut off. I don't know what happened to > the woman. It was in > Saudi Arabia which is ruled by more moderate Arab Sunni Muslims. In > Iran you have the extremist radical Persian Shiite Muslims. They are > quite different from eachother in many ways when viewed at close range. > > > > > > > > When I lived in the Middle East I was > > > told that for a common man to sleep with a man is overlooked but to > > > sleep with a woman out of wedlock will get you beheaded or stoned to > > > death. I was invited to watch an execution once but I politely > > > declined. Rape is handled in the same manner as adultery. Off with > the > > > head. > > > > May I ask, who's head do they cut off, the rapist's or the > > victim's? > > > > It needs to be asked. I heard of in Iran a 12 yr old boy > > being executed for being raped - homosexuality = death, > > even if involuntary. > > > > Pete > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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/751 > > > 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 19, 1999 Report Share Posted August 19, 1999 Thanks , An eye opener to start the day. A real gem. wrote: > > Hi Bjørn, > > I know Darwin said it is the survival of the fittest. I guess the author of > the poem thought that saying, the " fittest feed " didn't sound as good as the > " strongest feed " . Of course strength can be measured in ways other than > merely physical such as power of concentration. In the ancient practices of > many martial arts for example being fit is more valued than being strong > just as cunning is more valued than being aggressive. > Man's communication abilities do indeed make him the most individualistic as > well as the most sophisticated herd animal. How we educate new generations > seems to be directly linked to why we educate them and what we teach. > Survival is at it's base but all kinds of beliefs come into play that looked > at in the light of logic and reason have nothing to do with survival of the > herd or the individual but more to do with the survival of the belief. While > an animals reason for living is pretty automatic people strive to find > purpose for living. Purpose which initially comes in the form of assuming > what you are told as a child by your parents, culture, religion etc. is > true. What is moral, what is a good mate, what is high and low on the social > scale etc. When these beliefs falls short, don't function in a changing > society etc. it seems people get stuck on a quest to replace that void with > another set of beliefs. A set which usually falls close to the tree of > beliefs they came from. > AA is full of people raised in religious homes that left their faith to > pursue hedonistic drinking habits. Now they sit in AA trying to be good > little cardboard cut outs of model AA behavior. It would seem while > individauls are able to grasp this here and there and cast off useless > beliefs to become more autonomous the human race in general takes big > backward leaps such as this Kansas attempt at censorship. > So in my opinion looking through the workings of the myths and their effects > on behavior is an important step in individual development as well as > bringing improvement in humans overall ability to coexist as a whole. For > example tribes or races very often believed (and still do) that they were > the chosen people of God, superior due to race and culture and everyone > else was below them. A belief based on genetic material as a pre-requisite > for membership. Introduction of certain religious beliefs superceded this > for many people and they in theory now believe all people to be on a level > spiritual field (whatever that means). However the belief system of the > religion now replaces the genetic material based view and those outside the > beliefs system are now below them. The believers get the big reward at the > end of the rainbow and the non-believers get an eternal spanking. The chosen > are now superior as a result of adopting beliefs that are perceived as > absolute divine truths which coincidentally cannot be proven only accepted > as true. Is religion in this respect no more than a search for a model of > our own parental experience or in some cases the one we never had? A search > for the ultimate spiritual mommy and daddy to take care of us in this > frightening and uncertain universe of unknowns? Parents which of course have > a set of rules that we must abide by to live in their house or be cast out > into the void. AA'ers often speak about AA as their real family. Religions > in one way leave us all as kids in a big foster home waiting for the real > parents to come back to earth and set things right (????). Right, which is > of course is a bunch of conjured up beliefs by the children in what the > parents would say if they could speak directly to all of us. Instead they of > course operate like the wizard of OZ behind the curtain speaking with > burning bushes and in Bill 's case white lights in a hospital bed. So > the myth gets passed on and on until a mushroom of absurdity finds anchor in > millions of believers. Now the myth has the appearance of fact due to > numbers. A body of believers is born again and again with the object to > increase the size of the herd in order to preserve the beliefs that hold the > herd together. > What is next? I think AA in one respect is a misguided attempt to create a > homogenized religion for all people. An attempt at why can't we all just get > along. The big hole in it all is AA uses a cultural based set of religious > beliefs to try and build a non cultural, non religious religion and > sub-culture. The foolishness of such a construct should be obvious but it is > not to many, many people or AA would just be laughed away along with it's > preposterous notions of reality. For example all it really takes to dispel > the AA notion that you have an incurable disease of alcoholism as opposed to > a dependence on alcohol from repeated behavior is to not believe in the > incurable disease. Poof, like magic the perception of reality alters itself > in the mind. > You mention snip, " the survival of the individual must be complemented with > principles for herd survival. " As I understand it this looks like a humanist > principle where individual concerns, needs, wants etc. take into account the > concerns, needs, wants etc. of others as well. In this respect one can > realistically looks at oneself in relationship to others as both a separate > unit and a part of a larger group called the human race. This can be done > as an individual without having to adopt any religious beliefs or outside > rituals of initiation to a sub cultural order. > AA is based on an adopted set of beliefs that are not in reality necessary > for survival but are perceived as such and acted on accordingly. AA people > see their survival dependent on the AA herd and then there is the rest of > the scary uncertain world who do not understand them. The preservation of > the belief is more important than the preservation of the individual or even > the group itself. Exposing such myths for the paper tigers they are I think > is a central theme to this list. Many people such as blind faith AA'ers > simply want to be comfortable in their thinking as an end in itself. They do > not want to face the enormous uncertainties of what we do not know weighed > against the facts we do know and instead want security. As children we are > all raised to one degree or another on myths and add to our pool of > superstition with our own imagination. AA survives on a continuation of the > same. I think the " mentally fitter " you become the more inclined you will be > towards a healthy tendency to filter through outside information. Like > asking yourself who could possibly know you better than you do as opposed to > accepting some hogwash from AA as you walk in the door and hear " We know you > better than you know yourself " . > To that end I think this list is part of a larger development of a more > modern mentality. By that I would mean to say a mentality that goes beyond > the constraints of a herd collective based on main stream cultural or > subculture superstition and beliefs. A mentality where it is possible for a > person to navigate the complexities of life questioning and seeking it's > realities. Not based merely on the power of belief and agreement to feel > secure but using beliefs that are flexible and changeable when faced with > better information. > > > > 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 19, 1999 Report Share Posted August 19, 1999 Thanks , An eye opener to start the day. A real gem. wrote: > > Hi Bjørn, > > I know Darwin said it is the survival of the fittest. I guess the author of > the poem thought that saying, the " fittest feed " didn't sound as good as the > " strongest feed " . Of course strength can be measured in ways other than > merely physical such as power of concentration. In the ancient practices of > many martial arts for example being fit is more valued than being strong > just as cunning is more valued than being aggressive. > Man's communication abilities do indeed make him the most individualistic as > well as the most sophisticated herd animal. How we educate new generations > seems to be directly linked to why we educate them and what we teach. > Survival is at it's base but all kinds of beliefs come into play that looked > at in the light of logic and reason have nothing to do with survival of the > herd or the individual but more to do with the survival of the belief. While > an animals reason for living is pretty automatic people strive to find > purpose for living. Purpose which initially comes in the form of assuming > what you are told as a child by your parents, culture, religion etc. is > true. What is moral, what is a good mate, what is high and low on the social > scale etc. When these beliefs falls short, don't function in a changing > society etc. it seems people get stuck on a quest to replace that void with > another set of beliefs. A set which usually falls close to the tree of > beliefs they came from. > AA is full of people raised in religious homes that left their faith to > pursue hedonistic drinking habits. Now they sit in AA trying to be good > little cardboard cut outs of model AA behavior. It would seem while > individauls are able to grasp this here and there and cast off useless > beliefs to become more autonomous the human race in general takes big > backward leaps such as this Kansas attempt at censorship. > So in my opinion looking through the workings of the myths and their effects > on behavior is an important step in individual development as well as > bringing improvement in humans overall ability to coexist as a whole. For > example tribes or races very often believed (and still do) that they were > the chosen people of God, superior due to race and culture and everyone > else was below them. A belief based on genetic material as a pre-requisite > for membership. Introduction of certain religious beliefs superceded this > for many people and they in theory now believe all people to be on a level > spiritual field (whatever that means). However the belief system of the > religion now replaces the genetic material based view and those outside the > beliefs system are now below them. The believers get the big reward at the > end of the rainbow and the non-believers get an eternal spanking. The chosen > are now superior as a result of adopting beliefs that are perceived as > absolute divine truths which coincidentally cannot be proven only accepted > as true. Is religion in this respect no more than a search for a model of > our own parental experience or in some cases the one we never had? A search > for the ultimate spiritual mommy and daddy to take care of us in this > frightening and uncertain universe of unknowns? Parents which of course have > a set of rules that we must abide by to live in their house or be cast out > into the void. AA'ers often speak about AA as their real family. Religions > in one way leave us all as kids in a big foster home waiting for the real > parents to come back to earth and set things right (????). Right, which is > of course is a bunch of conjured up beliefs by the children in what the > parents would say if they could speak directly to all of us. Instead they of > course operate like the wizard of OZ behind the curtain speaking with > burning bushes and in Bill 's case white lights in a hospital bed. So > the myth gets passed on and on until a mushroom of absurdity finds anchor in > millions of believers. Now the myth has the appearance of fact due to > numbers. A body of believers is born again and again with the object to > increase the size of the herd in order to preserve the beliefs that hold the > herd together. > What is next? I think AA in one respect is a misguided attempt to create a > homogenized religion for all people. An attempt at why can't we all just get > along. The big hole in it all is AA uses a cultural based set of religious > beliefs to try and build a non cultural, non religious religion and > sub-culture. The foolishness of such a construct should be obvious but it is > not to many, many people or AA would just be laughed away along with it's > preposterous notions of reality. For example all it really takes to dispel > the AA notion that you have an incurable disease of alcoholism as opposed to > a dependence on alcohol from repeated behavior is to not believe in the > incurable disease. Poof, like magic the perception of reality alters itself > in the mind. > You mention snip, " the survival of the individual must be complemented with > principles for herd survival. " As I understand it this looks like a humanist > principle where individual concerns, needs, wants etc. take into account the > concerns, needs, wants etc. of others as well. In this respect one can > realistically looks at oneself in relationship to others as both a separate > unit and a part of a larger group called the human race. This can be done > as an individual without having to adopt any religious beliefs or outside > rituals of initiation to a sub cultural order. > AA is based on an adopted set of beliefs that are not in reality necessary > for survival but are perceived as such and acted on accordingly. AA people > see their survival dependent on the AA herd and then there is the rest of > the scary uncertain world who do not understand them. The preservation of > the belief is more important than the preservation of the individual or even > the group itself. Exposing such myths for the paper tigers they are I think > is a central theme to this list. Many people such as blind faith AA'ers > simply want to be comfortable in their thinking as an end in itself. They do > not want to face the enormous uncertainties of what we do not know weighed > against the facts we do know and instead want security. As children we are > all raised to one degree or another on myths and add to our pool of > superstition with our own imagination. AA survives on a continuation of the > same. I think the " mentally fitter " you become the more inclined you will be > towards a healthy tendency to filter through outside information. Like > asking yourself who could possibly know you better than you do as opposed to > accepting some hogwash from AA as you walk in the door and hear " We know you > better than you know yourself " . > To that end I think this list is part of a larger development of a more > modern mentality. By that I would mean to say a mentality that goes beyond > the constraints of a herd collective based on main stream cultural or > subculture superstition and beliefs. A mentality where it is possible for a > person to navigate the complexities of life questioning and seeking it's > realities. Not based merely on the power of belief and agreement to feel > secure but using beliefs that are flexible and changeable when faced with > better information. > > > > 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 19, 1999 Report Share Posted August 19, 1999 Hello I have found an interesting address for you at 2think.org. Interesting web site for all kind of freethinking persons. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2106hum1.html On the address above you can find transcriptions from a PBS broadcast, it starts like this: Broadcast Transcript PBS Airdate: June 3, 1997 ANNOUNCER: Tonight on NOVA, a tiny female collapses into an ancient lake. She emerges three million years later, and a determined anthropologist finds her fossilized bones. Could she be the missing link between ape and us? For Don Johanson, she is the starting point of a tireless quest to understand our past. " In Search of Human Origins. " It will give you an insight into the time span related to evolutionary changes in man. Actually I think the fast developing science related to genetic manipulation will mean, that the next evolutionary steps will be made by man and not by evolution. We have 98% genetic material in common with the apes (chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans), so what about an individual with a brain like Einstein, strong like a gorilla, a penis like a horse and a speed like a gepard. I have read about a goat with a gene from a spider producing a material like cobweb instead of milk. The material is very strong, but the spiders produce to little. Well, one shouldn't believe everything in the papers, but it was in a normally trustworthy newspaper. But the point is, if this is possible, than only imagination sets the limit. About brain and individualism. My proposition, which is a general assumption, says that the individual and the herd are not mutually excluding concepts. They are dialectical contradictions presupposing each other. Therefore a development in individuality cannot take place without a change in the herd, to which individuality is related. When we say that someone is a highly individualistic person, we cannot say this without a herd as a reference. Ten different humans that didn't relate to each other would not be considered as individuals, but just as different. In the moment they started to relate, individual differences would start to sort themselves out, and there would be ten individuals in no time. A thinker, an artist, a leader, a servant, a follower, a revolutionary etc. I hope this clarifies my position better, and it of course means that your arguments does not run contrary to my paradigm. Then to the brain. The corpus callosum connects the two hemispheres as you say, and must transform information which an example later on will show. In some variants of epilepsy (grand mal) the cells in one side of the brain starts firing at the same time. Then this can amplify areas in the other hemisphere, which then amplifies the first area of cells etc. This of course goes very swift, and soon you'll have a large part af the brain cells firing at the same time. This kills a lot of brain cells, why the corpus collosum in certain cases has been cut through. So mass firing of brain cells aren't healthy at all, but removes individuality and fosters psychopathic behavior due to loss of brain cells. The left hemisphere is normally the site for logical, analytical and verbal abilities, while the right hemisphere has to do with feelings and intuitions. It's the right hemisphere that helps you with situational conduct and social relations. But even though there must be a flow of information, the activity in one hemisphere also suppresses the activity in the other. This is very practical because they would disturb each other if working at the same time. I think NLP (neurolinguistic programming) uses this knowledge. Before I'll give you my example I think it's important to know that the right side of the body projects it's impulses to the left side of the brain and vice versa. This means that the left side of the left eye, and the left side of the right eye projects its impulses to the right side of the brain. In an experiment with a man with his corpus callosum cut through they were able to project an image of a nude female to the right side of the brain. Because there were no connection to the left, verbal side he couldn't tell what he was seeing, but he blushed heavily. But without this apparatus controlling the projections the picture would have been projected to both hemispheres, and then he would have been able to say what he saw. Interesting, don't you think? But your point of view about increased neural activity can't be ruled out as a possibility. Some people are born with a closed channel (aquaducta de Silvia, I think) to the other fluid filled chambers in the brain. There are four. The result of this is that the cerebral fluid cannot escape the skull, and therefore they will get a so-called 'water head'. The result of this is of course that a great part of the brain will have to disappear to give place to the fluid. I once saw an English program with some of these people as grown ups. Many of them had excellent abilities in certain areas, and when they measured their brain activity it showed that the cells they had left worked a lot faster than normal brain cells. This of course could be a possibility, but there lacks a connection to the evolutionary selection process. Anyway, brain cells working very fast can actually burn down due to waste products from the process, poisoning the cells. So maybe it's not such a good idea after all. Bjørn > 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? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 19, 1999 Report Share Posted August 19, 1999 Hello , I repeat, this is complete cow's udder. The brain is so dynamic that some hydrocephalus patients have been found to have 90% of their brain mass missing, including whole areas thought essential for healthy functioning, but they are not not only healthy but are actually of above average intelligence. One has a first in Mathematics form Cambridge University! When the first " split brain " patients were operated on by having their corpus callosum severed to limit epileptic seizures, the behavioral effects were initially found to be so unnoticeable that one neurologist commented that the function of the corpus callosum was merely to " stop the cerebral hemispheres flopping apart " . (Now, of course, there has been much research done on such patients and the operation's effects, but this is usually using very contrived situations that exploit the bilaterality of the visual field.) I have myself met a small boy who has been one of the few patients who have undergone a complete hemispherectomy to control epilepsy, as his father put it: " MY son has had half his brain removed. " When this operation is performed in the first 18 months of life, the patients can develop perfectly normally, especially when, as this boy's father did, the child is encouraged to use the limbs of the body that would normally be comtrolled by the missing hemisphere and hence strengthen the neural connections to the other remaining one. Normal brains do show so some localization of function yes - but this is nothing like the rigid specialization that says it always your liver that eats the alcohol. The brain has immense plasticity of function, especially in early life, to the point where it can cope with gross insults like hydrocephalus and hemispherectomy. Hence there is absolutely no requirement whatsoever for any evolutionary change to accomodate different behavioral norms - and such changes take thousands of years in any case. You dont need to change the RAM chips to reprogram your puter do you? You dont need to change the brain to program it differently either. Such ideas are bullshit! Pete On Wed, 18 Aug 1999 15:51:14 -0600 Klingbeil wrote: > 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. > > > > Bjxrn > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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/751 > > > 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 19, 1999 Report Share Posted August 19, 1999 When I lived in the Middle East I was > told that for a common man to sleep with a man is overlooked but to > sleep with a woman out of wedlock will get you beheaded or stoned to > death. I was invited to watch an execution once but I politely > declined. Rape is handled in the same manner as adultery. Off with the > head. May I ask, who's head do they cut off, the rapist's or the victim's? It needs to be asked. I heard of in Iran a 12 yr old boy being executed for being raped - homosexuality = death, even if involuntary. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 19, 1999 Report Share Posted August 19, 1999 HI Bjorn I see you fleshed out some of the same examples I have given in my reply. One minor point: I believe the split brain patient you refer to was a woman, hence her embarassed reaction; a heterosexual male my have felt arousal without knowing why, unless he was a Catholic or something! Something I forgot to mention is that some ppl are born with out a corpus callosum such " agenesis " patients show such small behavioral consequences that the condition isnt usually detected until they develop a different neurological anomaly that results in a brain scan. Best, Pete On Thu, 19 Aug 1999 22:41:40 +0200 =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F8rn?= Herring wrote: > Hello > > I have found an interesting address for you at 2think.org. Interesting > web site for all kind of freethinking persons. > > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2106hum1.html > On the address above you can find transcriptions from a PBS broadcast, > it starts like this: > > Broadcast Transcript > PBS Airdate: June 3, 1997 > > ANNOUNCER: Tonight on NOVA, a tiny female > collapses into an ancient lake. She emerges three > million years later, and a determined anthropologist > finds her fossilized bones. Could she be the missing > link between ape and us? For Don Johanson, she is the > starting point of a tireless quest to understand our past. > " In Search of Human Origins. " > > It will give you an insight into the time span related to evolutionary > changes in man. > Actually I think the fast developing science related to genetic > manipulation will mean, that the next evolutionary steps will be made by > man and not by evolution. > We have 98% genetic material in common with the apes (chimpanzees, > gorillas and orangutans), so what about an individual with a brain like > Einstein, strong like a gorilla, a penis like a horse and a speed like a > gepard. I have read about a goat with a gene from a spider producing a > material like cobweb instead of milk. The material is very strong, but > the spiders produce to little. Well, one shouldn't believe everything in > the papers, but it was in a normally trustworthy newspaper. But the > point is, if this is possible, than only imagination sets the limit. > > About brain and individualism. > My proposition, which is a general assumption, says that the individual > and the herd are not mutually excluding concepts. They are dialectical > contradictions presupposing each other. > > Therefore a development in individuality cannot take place without a > change in the herd, to which individuality is related. When we say that > someone is a highly individualistic person, we cannot say this without a > herd as a reference. > Ten different humans that didn't relate to each other would not be > considered as individuals, but just as different. In the moment they > started to relate, individual differences would start to sort themselves > out, and there would be ten individuals in no time. A thinker, an > artist, a leader, a servant, a follower, a revolutionary etc. > I hope this clarifies my position better, and it of course means that > your arguments does not run contrary to my paradigm. > > Then to the brain. > The corpus callosum connects the two hemispheres as you say, and must > transform information which an example later on will show. > In some variants of epilepsy (grand mal) the cells in one side of the > brain starts firing at the same time. Then this can amplify areas in the > other hemisphere, which then amplifies the first area of cells etc. This > of course goes very swift, and soon you'll have a large part af the > brain cells firing at the same time. This kills a lot of brain cells, > why the corpus collosum in certain cases has been cut through. > So mass firing of brain cells aren't healthy at all, but removes > individuality and fosters psychopathic behavior due to loss of brain > cells. > > The left hemisphere is normally the site for logical, analytical and > verbal abilities, while the right hemisphere has to do with feelings and > intuitions. It's the right hemisphere that helps you with situational > conduct and social relations. > But even though there must be a flow of information, the activity in one > hemisphere also suppresses the activity in the other. This is very > practical because they would disturb each other if working at the same > time. I think NLP (neurolinguistic programming) uses this knowledge. > > Before I'll give you my example I think it's important to know that the > right side of the body projects it's impulses to the left side of the > brain and vice versa. > This means that the left side of the left eye, and the left side of the > right eye projects its impulses to the right side of the brain. > In an experiment with a man with his corpus callosum cut through they > were able to project an image of a nude female to the right side of the > brain. Because there were no connection to the left, verbal side he > couldn't tell what he was seeing, but he blushed heavily. > But without this apparatus controlling the projections the picture would > have been projected to both hemispheres, and then he would have been > able to say what he saw. > Interesting, don't you think? > > But your point of view about increased neural activity can't be ruled > out as a possibility. > Some people are born with a closed channel (aquaducta de Silvia, I > think) to the other fluid filled chambers in the brain. There are four. > The result of this is that the cerebral fluid cannot escape the skull, > and therefore they will get a so-called 'water head'. The result of this > is of course that a great part of the brain will have to disappear to > give place to the fluid. > I once saw an English program with some of these people as grown ups. > Many of them had excellent abilities in certain areas, and when they > measured their brain activity it showed that the cells they had left > worked a lot faster than normal brain cells. > This of course could be a possibility, but there lacks a connection to > the evolutionary selection process. > Anyway, brain cells working very fast can actually burn down due to > waste products from the process, poisoning the cells. So maybe it's not > such a good idea after all. > > Bjxrn > > > > 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? > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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 > > > > ---------------------- 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 19, 1999 Report Share Posted August 19, 1999 In truth I don't remember but I believe the woman gets the stones and the man gets the chopped head in the case of adultery. In the only rape I heard of the man had his head cut off. I don't know what happened to the woman. It was in Saudi Arabia which is ruled by more moderate Arab Sunni Muslims. In Iran you have the extremist radical Persian Shiite Muslims. They are quite different from eachother in many ways when viewed at close range. > > > When I lived in the Middle East I was > > told that for a common man to sleep with a man is overlooked but to > > sleep with a woman out of wedlock will get you beheaded or stoned to > > death. I was invited to watch an execution once but I politely > > declined. Rape is handled in the same manner as adultery. Off with the > > head. > > May I ask, who's head do they cut off, the rapist's or the > victim's? > > It needs to be asked. I heard of in Iran a 12 yr old boy > being executed for being raped - homosexuality = death, > even if involuntary. > > Pete > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 1999 Report Share Posted August 20, 1999 I was always under the impression that there was more rape in the Middle East, and since women have less rights there, the rapists get away with it more readily. Or, is rape punished more harshly, because the woman is the property of a man (father or husband), and HIS property has been damaged? And perhaps servant girls get raped all the time, and this goes unchecked, since they don't have much " value " ? What do you think ? Apple original article:/group/12-step-free/?start=7582 > In truth I don't remember but I believe the woman gets the stones and > the man gets the chopped head in the case of adultery. In the only rape > I heard of the man had his head cut off. I don't know what happened to > the woman. It was in > Saudi Arabia which is ruled by more moderate Arab Sunni Muslims. In > Iran you have the extremist radical Persian Shiite Muslims. They are > quite different from eachother in many ways when viewed at close range. > > \ 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.