|
Post by brandt on Mar 10, 2012 10:17:09 GMT 10
We could work from the Big Bang forward if you would like. At which point was society always there? I am game, are you?
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Mar 10, 2012 15:15:32 GMT 10
In the telling of just so stories I defer to you. .... please tell us where you think society came from.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 11, 2012 10:04:01 GMT 10
We could work from the Big Bang forward if you would like. At which point was society always there? I am game, are you? Personally, I feel any answer is likely to be purely arbitrary. At one extreme we might speculatively hypothesize about pre-human primate bands and at the other extreme we might think of the extended families of Australian Aboriginal tribal groups. A similarly speculative approach is that of Bicamersalism, as controversially advanced by American psychologist Julian Jaynes. He argued, "that a bicameral mentality was the normal and ubiquitous state of the human mind as recently as 3,000 years ago." While his argument seems to me to be based on inconsistent evidence and faulty premises, he makes some thought provoking observations, such as: "What is the meaning of life?" This question has no answer except in the history of how it came to be asked. There is no answer because words have meaning, not life or persons or the universe itself. Our search for certainty rests in our attempts at understanding the history of all individual selves and all civilizations. Beyond that, there is only awe
and
O, what a world of unseen visions and heard silences, this insubstantial country of the mind! What ineffable essences, these touchless rememberings and unshow- able reveries! And the privacy of it all! A secret theater of speechless monologue and prevenient counsel, an invisible mansion of all moods, musings, and mysteries, an infinite resort of disappointments and discoveries. A whole kingdom where each of us reigns reclusively alone, questioning what we will, commanding what we can. A hidden hermitage where we may study out the troubled book of what we have done and yet may do. An introcosm that is more myself than anything I can find in a mirror. This consciousness that is myself of selves, that is everything, and yet is nothing at all — what is it? And where did it come from? And why?
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Mar 11, 2012 20:37:57 GMT 10
Where does he come up with 3000 years? Jaynes seems to think that humanity has uniformly proceeded across the globe. Even today we have people living virtually stone age lives not far from technologically advanced cities.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Mar 12, 2012 13:06:28 GMT 10
In the telling of just so stories I defer to you. [/quote] Smithee, I would appreciate if you could cease attacking my intelligence and integrity. The most prominent of psychologists that do support evolutionary psychology acknowledge the importance of culture. You are either ignorant or purposefully ignoring that fact. In any case, accusations of "just so" stories should at least qualify as misattributions which I was called on the carpet for and you should not have carte blanche. Any time you want to work from the Big Bang forward I am game. If you want to have the discussion that is. I haven't described anything that would be an attack on your native intelligence but I do take offense at your suggestion that you need to defer to me on "just so" stories. It is inappropriate and I had thought you were possibly above that. Am I correct in that summation?
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Mar 12, 2012 19:53:02 GMT 10
Some of the most prominent critics of Evolutionary Psychology point to the telling of just so stories. While I cannot imagine how anyone can objectively talk about the origins of societies I have yet to hear what you have to say. I was wrong and I apologise. Please share your evidence.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Mar 13, 2012 15:41:13 GMT 10
Forget it. I fully realize that you are not capable of being able to imagine being able to talk objectively about the origins of society. You have yet to hear what I have to say because there is some preliminary knowledge that is necessary to understand where I am coming from. You have been reluctant to even approach that material. I should have stopped when you offered that "monkeys aren't people" as an attack on something else that you did not read. Even the behaviorist used animal models as do many other sciences. I recommend that you stop taking and refuse to accept any medicines. You should also reject all social science theories and ideas because they have used animal models.
I have dealt with prominent critics, some of which are close friends and colleagues. I have also dealt with prominent supporters.
So tell me sir, if you don't mind, when should I expect the next apology that will be followed with the same behavior that was so sincerely apologized for?
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Mar 13, 2012 17:13:14 GMT 10
Forget it. I fully realize that you are not capable of being able to imagine being able to talk objectively about the origins of society. Personal attack. You have yet to hear what I have to say because there is some preliminary knowledge that is necessary to understand where I am coming from. I have yet to hear any valid evidence from you. If preliminary knowledge is required please supply it. Otherwise what are you doing here? You have been reluctant to even approach that material. I should have stopped when you offered that "monkeys aren't people" as an attack on something else that you did not read. Demonstrating instincts in monkeys does not demonstrate instincts in humans. As for not reading links, I have already said I read them. Today you asked for empirical evidence on a subject which had been given a couple of posts back on the same thread. Earlier your defence against a damning quote relied on your counter articles having being peer reviewed. If you had read the article linked to the quote you would seen it too was peer reviewed. Even the behaviorist used animal models as do many other sciences. I recommend that you stop taking and refuse to accept any medicines. You should also reject all social science theories and ideas because they have used animal models. Any evidence needs to be relevant as to whether or not humans still have instincts. I have dealt with prominent critics, some of which are close friends and colleagues. I have also dealt with prominent supporters. What is your point here? My point was to point out that I am not alone or even original in my criticisms. Yet you are mad at me for mentioning them. So tell me sir, if you don't mind, when should I expect the next apology that will be followed with the same behavior that was so sincerely apologized for? Where I am shown to be in the wrong I will change my mind and, if, at the same time I have offended anyone, I will sincerely apologise. B.T.W. my apology was sincere as I had jumped to a conclusion as to what you were going to say. Whether that assumption was right or wrong you were entitled to your say. Come to think of it I did nothing to stop you from having your say. I have apologised and have in turn been personally attacked. Shall we call it quits and have you provide your long awaited evidence?
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Mar 14, 2012 17:29:09 GMT 10
Truce?
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Mar 15, 2012 7:36:06 GMT 10
Don't worry about it Brother. Please continue with what you are doing, I won't interfere.
|
|