Tuesday, 10 April 2018

Trump, May, Climate Change and Sex.

Good questions

1. Whether warfare and violence are a necessary condition for humankind to progress - even if we don't like the idea - is the "authoritarian tendency" an evolutionary adaptation inherited from our primate ancestors?

2. Or is it a culturally defined mode of action which we can choose to reject?

3. What evolutionary advantage can be held by societies that reject warfare if their neighbours who don't accept it wipe them out?




My answers:

1. The evidence, biological, archaeological and psychological is clear that the bulk of human existence we have lived as egalitarian societies, ranging from small bands of nomads to large concentrations in villages, towns and small 'cities', built with natural materials and no monumental structures of any kind. Our evidence is that that healthy human behaviour is pro-social, nurturant, connected, sensitive and yet robust, We also know that most behaviours are learned.

2, http://www.violence.de/prescott/letters/Social-Behavioral_Characteristics.pdf - the research by Textor and others such as Sorensen, Ward, Prescott, Murdock and Demeo and many others since then suggests that hierarchy is a cultural dynamic, rather than a biological mandate.(more on this below)

3. Evolutionary advantage - what are the assumptions behind the phrase, would such a phrase emerge from within an egalitarian mindset, or is it a projection of the hierarchical mindset? Does the culture seek advantage over the habitat or do they 'co-operate' with the habitat and all that lives in it.

We, as individual human bodies, are comprised of a myriad of organisms which we cannot see, and without which we would not survive.

If one looks at it carefully, one can see that seeking advantage (over nature and other humans) is the core dynamic of the bully, or the parasite, whereas working together (with nature and other humans) is the core dynamic of a healthy individual within a healthy group.

Evolution is driven by health rather than dysfunction.

Violent Hierarchy inhibits natural evolutionary processes.

The damage caused by Violent Hierarchies runs directly against healthy evolution, and it is not logical to describe a dysfunctional behaviour as evolutionary - evolved to be diseased - as the terms are mutually exclusive..
An article that explores this in more detail, with references.



Cultural Social Behavioural Variables.

As mentioned above,  anthropologists in the 1920s - 70s were very busy indeed : Robert Textor surveyed 400 cultures, George Murdock looked at 117 cultures , and these were then meta-analysed by Demeo in the 80s, looking at  a number of social-behavioural variables and measuring their incidence, with geographical mapping as an output, to see the world wide distribution of data.

There is another vast written record of first contact with many, many more pre-conquest cultures, contained in the accounts of Christian missionaries during the initial expansions into un-conquered lands...

Patri- and Matri-lineal Cultures.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Histograms-of-Regional-Behaviors-Textor-Data-400-Cultures-63-Variables_fig1_233954702

DeMeo’s work supports the assertion that there is a profound correlation between the way children are related to and the behaviour of a given society. It mirrors what is known about trauma when it afflicts entire communities, not least when his patterns of trans-generational post trauma behaviours can emerge as social behavioural characteristics...

" It is highly significant that strong positive correlations, with only a small minority of exceptions (related to confounding data codings, as mentioned above), exist between infant and childhood trauma, adolescent sex-repression, male dominance, social hierarchy, destructive aggression and warfare."
 
That said this narrative has it's critics.. 

Demeo wrote a book on this in 1998, after many decades of research...

Most seem to wilfully misinterpret what the narrative is saying, and thus their critique is not of that, but of what they think it is.. 

It did not help that his book, produced in the late 90's, had a rather incendiary title, Saharasia, the 4000bc Origins of Child Abuse, Sex-repression, Warfare, in the Deserts of the old world.

Some people have assumed that this evidence neatly explains the 'nature' of the existing North African, Arab, Persian cultures. They fail to see the tragic irony of their own Anglo-Saxon legacy with regard to egalitarian cultures world wide.. They miss the meaning, and seek to enunciate their own values.

DeMeo stated the case, clearly. 

The institutionalisation of violent hierarchies, as a social behavioural pattern, is the issue, not the 'nature' of a given 'people'.  It is learned. It started somewhere. There is nothing natural about power hierarchies, other than as un-resolved post trauma response that has environmental and experiential dynamics.

The dynamic of violent hierarchies also emerged in South America, in areas where desertification occurred, which gave rise to the Inca and Aztec Empires.. 

It also emerged in lessor forms, locally across the globe.. 

Others then attempt to debunk DeMeo, in order to maintain public order, to undermine the previous critique, which is seen as incendiary. They want to prove that the Arab, Persian, North African, peoples are just ordinary folk, like us. They are, of course.

The see no need, there is nothing but nastiness there, and I agree with them, to impugn any group or individual people with 'scientific evidence' in that fashion, and because the second set of debunkers misunderstand the misunderstanding of the previous critique, they fire ahead, that complicates matters...  they are debunking the wrong thing.

Then there's the adherents of Monotheism in all it's glory.

They hate this book. The Abrahamic Religions in particular.

Too bad.,

Climate change and Sex!

We now understand that intense climate change occurred in the Saharasian regions around 4000 bc, which co-incides with the emergence of patriarchy as a force majeur in human culture.

Where previously a lush land existed, rainfall vanished,  deserts emerged, and living conditions became very harsh. 

Traumatisingly harsh?

We see too, in the archeo-historical record, areas of desertification in South America and China correlated with aspects of emergent patriarchy. The Inca, The Aztec, etc…

However, the Australian history is different..... 

That group of humans (nearly 1 billion live lived, in total, so hardly insignificant) went through two or three massive climate changes, which involved desertification of previously lush ecosystems, and this has happened within a period of 60,000 years of continuous human culture, and we see that in this experience, somehow patri-linealism, violent hierarchies etc did not emerge.

Instead that group remained largely co-operative, egalitarian, connected to the land base, responsive to it, and developed traditions of respect for and knowledge of food resources available, providing a hugely variable diet, and it might have been that alone that allowed them to survive and indeed thrive.  

They were more at peace with each other, than at war, is I think a fair assumption. I’d call that healthy..

There were, across Australia, at least 250 language groups, with huge genetic variations across the population, when the first Europeans arrived.... and there was no war, clans had minimal hierarchy, men and women had equal standing, children were treated with utmost respect and empathy, although there was degrees of conflict and some violence, they were adept at de-escalation and their connection to the land base and food resource base was peerlesss.

This consciousness can be called pre-conquest consciousness. Before violent expansionary hierarchies emerged...

Thus the history of our species contains the resolution of the current Climate Change issue - co-operation rather than competition enables human societies to thrive in almost any circumstance.

Violent Hierarchy - the competing powers dynamic of the dominant industrial system undermines that ability, and the issue is less a matter of evolution, or revolution - it is a matter of healing.

This is not a question of winning, rather it is a question of balance and healing, and any aspect of that dynamic - winning - will undermine the pursuit of balance and healing, which is the very definition of natural justice.

Sex-economic Theory, Trump and May

Economic power mediated through sex and gender, with men as buyers, and women as sellers.

Reich. And many others, have looked at this.g 

Fuck it, we're all looking at this every ef

The woman as property, the woman placed in a state of dependence, the religious consecration of that dynamic, the woman as breeding ground for expansion, the children as the expansion medium, the shock troops of future cultural hegemony. Children as objects..

These are all still deeply rooted in our culture, in spite of it’s self declared Christian-Secular vision of progress.

There is so much pain in sexual and gender relationships world wide..... so much harm, and that is a symptom of the dominant social power systems, as much as the wounds and flaws of individual human beings under socialised pressure. We are looking at The Vatican, Rugby, Swimming, Schooling, Care systems and seeing widespread sexual assault still being ‘managed rather than directly and robustly confronted. In the 21st Century…

Hello!?

A lot of people may well have moved on, as many claim, and good for them - however  it has not yet altered the fundamentals of the existing social behavioural dynamics of power, economic or otherwise.

Can we see the toxins in the water we are swimming in?

How to meet as true equals, albeit uniquely different, in a culture deeply and historically rooted in this dynamic, when all our social behavioural conditioning has been influenced sub-liminaly as much as consciously by growing up in that environmental experiential dynamic and we are taught to see each other as stereotypes, rather than precise individuals that we are, where value is unmeasured and the price is irrelevant, because it is freely given.

Isn’t this what Feminism, for both men and women alike?

No more bullying.

The pleasure in fully meeting life - that sense of connection is intimate, it is our sensory acuity heightens that intimacy, that sense of connection; insecurity and competitive-ness undermines that, and it is no place for the exercise of power over another.

That, for me at least, ranges from sexuality to cooking, from child care to elder care, it is an acute sensitivity, a natural sensitivity, a natural tool kit… a responsive modality of living.

Men, women and children - we are all are born into this acculturation, and yet we are not of it, and our liberation can only emerge as we decolonise our minds and our bodies, and allow our natural sensitivity towards optimal health to emerge.

Thus the positions taken on either side of the Men vs Feminist mainstream discourse (if one can call it that, it's more like a competition debate) cannot, by definition, resolve the issue. 

Obviously neither Donald Trump nor Teresa May are Feminists They are bullies.

Bullies cannot, by my definition, be Feminists.

Men and Women alike must understand what they have been born into, as observers and as participants, and be given the option to disengage, by their own choice.... to assert their own most genuine sense of self within a cooperative social dynamic.

As nature intended.

That is my expression of what true liberty means.






Kindest regards

Corneilius

"Do what you love, it's Your Gift to Universe"

Thank you for reading this blog. All we need to do is be really honest, responsive to the evidence we find,and ready to reassess when new evidence emerges. The rest is easy.

No comments: