Reply
Tue 27 Feb, 2007 03:23 pm
Whence comes inequality for sapiens?
The very first class distinction was between mortal and immortal; between human and superhuman. For primitive wo/man it was the dead who held most power.
Since the eighteenth century the great minds have formed this question, ?'what is the source of inequality?' and have sought the answer. Rousseau asked why humanity had gradually fallen from a primitive state of innocence into the conflicts of classes and states. Marx capitalized (a pun perhaps?) on Rousseau's idea to remind us that humanity did not all start out as exploited peons. Today this class and state differential is more abundantly clear.
It has been deduced that power and coercion are not the only culprits here, it is that wo/man harbors an "enemy within"; perhaps the "slave is somehow in love with his own chains".
Rousseau offered this answer "The first person who, having fenced off a plot of ground, took it into his head to say ?'this is mine' and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society."
The salient question became ?'not when' but ?'why' it happened?
Primitive man recognized differences in talent, strength, and merit and easily deferred to these characteristics. Why?-because such characteristics served well the needs of the tribe or community. Certain individuals showed ability for defying death and others wished to share in that immunity.
We see here that he "carries within himself the bondage that he needs in order to continue to live
we are born in need of authority and we even create out of freedom, a prison
This insight is the fruit of the outcome of modern psychoanalysis
it penetrates to the heart of the human condition and to the principle dynamic of the emergence of historical inequality
primitive religion starts the first class distinction
That is, the individual gives over the aegis of his own life and death to the spirit worlds; he is already a second-class citizen."
"The first class distinction, then, was between mortal and immortal, between feeble human powers and special superhuman beings."
Quotes from "Escape from Evil" by Ernest Becker
coherts, All the observed inequalities are the result of our genes and environment. Much of it has to do with the leadership of the cultures from long past, but continues to influence the culture in many ways even today.
Migration and immigration of the human animal continues from the first homo sapien with two feet on the ground. With man's ability develop language, then to read and write history, we have advantages over the other life forms on this planet.
From the most primitive invention of the wheel to space flight, man has come a long way. The only problem with humans is also our ability to build destructive bombs and killing machines.
More and more people are now experiencing modernisms, but we still have cultures who have not advanced very far.
Inequality is in the eye of the observer.
My .02c worth.
coberst wrote:Rousseau offered this answer "The first person who, having fenced off a plot of ground, took it into his head to say ?'this is mine' and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society."
Yes... I have often wondered; by what right did he do so? By what right did he claim the land as his own?
When we get down to it, the only rule is that the owner of the land is he who gives you hell to pay if you try to use it, and if this lies at the foundation of our civilization, it is not a very civilized one.
I also have a queston that's never been answered or seen explained. Where did all the kings come from in all the different parts of the world?
cicerone imposter wrote:I also have a queston that's never been answered or seen explained. Where did all the kings come from in all the different parts of the world?
Many were King by Divine Right (Rite?). Meaning the gods chose them.
Hmm.. But before that, they chose the gods...
Re: Whence comes inequality for sapiens?
coberst wrote: Rousseau asked why humanity had gradually fallen from a primitive state of innocence into the conflicts of classes and states. Marx capitalized (a pun perhaps?) on Rousseau's idea to remind us that humanity did not all start out as exploited peons.
The problem with this of course is that it is all navel gazing. Rosseau THEORIZED on the history of mankind but, as with many philosophical theories, he had little scientifc evidence to offer any proof. He had absolutely no idea how ancient mankind actually organzied itself or how "civil society" and classes came into being. He created a theory that fit his own notions. Marx's "reminder" as such, means nothing.
Quote:Rousseau offered this answer "The first person who, having fenced off a plot of ground, took it into his head to say ?'this is mine' and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society."
Which, if we accept as fact on it's own, means that most of the animal kingdon must also be considered as "civil society".
fishin
But it is Ernest Becker who has written the book I reference.
Ernest Becker (1924-1974) won the Pulitzer Prize foe General Nonfiction for the "Denial of Death". A distinguished social theorist and a popular teacher of anthropology, and sociology psychology.
coberst wrote:fishin
But it is Ernest Becker who has written the book I reference.
Ernest Becker (1924-1974) won the Pulitzer Prize foe General Nonfiction for the "Denial of Death". A distinguished social theorist and a popular teacher of anthropology, and sociology psychology.
And? Are you trying to claim that because that you copied the quotes form Becker's book it somehow changes Rosseau's theories into the realm of fact?
If Becker relies on Rosseau as his basis and Rosseau is wrong where does that leave Becker?
fishin wrote:coberst wrote:fishin
But it is Ernest Becker who has written the book I reference.
Ernest Becker (1924-1974) won the Pulitzer Prize foe General Nonfiction for the "Denial of Death". A distinguished social theorist and a popular teacher of anthropology, and sociology psychology.
And? Are you trying to claim that because that you copied the quotes form Becker's book it somehow changes Rosseau's theories into the realm of fact?
If Becker relies on Rosseau as his basis and Rosseau is wrong where does that leave Becker?
The essays I post are summaries of many pages of a book. They can only give a course outline of the authors story. They are designed to present a sufficient idea of the author's ideas such that the reader can decide if the ideas are worth further study. The reader makes a mistake when s/he takes such a summary and expects to comprehend what the author has taken a chapter to relate.
coberst wrote: The essays I post are summaries of many pages of a book. They can only give a course outline of the authors story. They are designed to present a sufficient idea of the author's ideas such that the reader can decide if the ideas are worth further study. The reader makes a mistake when s/he takes such a summary and expects to comprehend what the author has taken a chapter to relate.
I see. So basically you admit that you don't know what the heck it is that you are talking about. Thanks. I already knew that. Carry on with your silliness.
coberst wrote:The essays I post are summaries of many pages of a book. They can only give a course outline of the authors story. They are designed to present a sufficient idea of the author's ideas such that the reader can decide if the ideas are worth further study. The reader makes a mistake when s/he takes such a summary and expects to comprehend what the author has taken a chapter to relate.
Hmm... Then what is the purpose of your essays? Misguidance? That is all that can come of it if the above is true. You are basically saying that you post empty words. Or am I missing something?
And if you consider your posts an advertisement of sorts to the books you quote, then you are just spamming. And that is against the rules...
Cyracuz wrote:coberst wrote:The essays I post are summaries of many pages of a book. They can only give a course outline of the authors story. They are designed to present a sufficient idea of the author's ideas such that the reader can decide if the ideas are worth further study. The reader makes a mistake when s/he takes such a summary and expects to comprehend what the author has taken a chapter to relate.
Hmm... Then what is the purpose of your essays? Misguidance? That is all that can come of it if the above is true. You are basically saying that you post empty words. Or am I missing something?
And if you consider your posts an advertisement of sorts to the books you quote, then you are just spamming. And that is against the rules...
I think it is worth while to recognize that comprehension is a hierarchy and can be analogized by a pyramid. At the base is awareness followed by consciousness (awareness plus attention). Follows knowing and understanding is at the pinnacle.
One must pass through each lower level to reach any higher level. People must become conscious of important ideas before they can be knowledgeable of them. I am the rider galloping throughout the land telling the readers of important ideas that they might wish to be knowledgeable of.
Any adult who wishes to become an enlightened citizen must acquire a "Friend of the Library" card from a local college library. This card is the ticket to a life time journey throughout the marvelous land of reality and sophisticated intellect.
If you're "the rider galloping through the land" then you're just advertising. Not neccesarily a bad thing. Depends on what one advertises, and you're not advertising some consumer product, so I guess that is to the good.
But words have never been the source of understanding for me. Words come after, they are what I dress ideas in after contemplating them. True wisdom is beyond words, and cannot be put into words.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace