h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>>Native peoples accept that there are different realities and so the dream is real. I did go to the beach and talk to my dead cousin. And the accepting of that as real is what gives it power that it doesn't have if you think it's not really real. That last sentence is the crucial bit, and I'm sure now we'll all get caught up in arguing about what is real and what's not. Which is completely missing the point.

Fine. So let's be even-handed about it and except that the Western, Roman Catholic-style god representa a valid take on reality, by precisely the same kind of intellectual standard.

I really don't think this is a West vs Native critique.





My Marxist angle on the Australian Aborigines has been *slightly* misrepresented. Remember all that stuff I was saying about Anomie?

>>So let's be even-handed about it and except that the Western, Roman Catholic-style god representa a valid take on reality, by precisely the same kind of intellectual standard<<

Nope, you're talking about religion I think, which is a different thing.

Besides, by the time the Roman Catholics were around we'd already changed how we thought. You know, all the mystics were getting charged with heresy so it became more about politics and power than anything else. Plus the little matter of the patriarchy

Which is to say that the christian church does have some interesting takes on reality, but they've been so altered by the politics that I don't think it is comparable.

Where's the Marxist/Aborignal convo?

>>Nope, you're talking about religion I think, which is a different thing.

No. This is an arbitrary distinction we're making, from our Western-centric perspective.

Serious point though - if we come to talking about subjective phenomena such as dreams, religion - then the *only* way another person can sensibly think or talk about them is in terms of (male, Western ) analytic logic? There's no other reference point.



The Marxist angle on Aborigines - as summary:

Frs viewpoint is (and if I'm misrepresenting this, please put me right) that Aborigines' problems relate to our not respecting their culture. My argument is that this sort of thinking turns them into interesting museum pieces. As a (Marxist) Materialist, I suggest that their problems are material. Frs, quite rightly, points out that their material needs are met by the state and the result is that many are reduced to drunken boredom. My counter is that what they lack is economic self determination. Given that, they'll sort their culture out for themselves...although it may or may not be the dream time stuff we all like.





Forgive me if this has got too adversarial. Perhaps this is blokey - but I've always believed that the worst things allies can do is to agree with one another.

>but I've always believed that the worst things allies can do is to agree with one another.<

Crikey, agree with you there.

Sorry should have added a to that statement

>My counter is that what they lack is economic self determination. <

See that's the whole point. You're trying to analyse things which have nothing to do with 'economics' with such language. People don't drink themselves to death or go around in child gangs sniffing bags of glue for such reasons. What does economic determination have to do with a 'sense of meaning' in your life?

You possibly misunderstand my use of the word 'economics'. I don't (just) mean it in the narrow sense of 'finance'.
In essence, they don't have any control over their daily lives.

>>What does economic determination have to do with a 'sense of meaning' in your life?

It's a good point.

People do things. Our culture is the sum total of the things we do - and this is what determines our inner life. To suggest that they key to how we live our lives is our (internal) culture is to put the horse before the cart.

(Remember the stuff about Marx inverting Hegel?)

Cheers kea! Thanks for the interesting link:

http://tutubee1.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/week-9/

I like this summation:
“To assign to this great being the position of ‘fertility goddess’ is exceedingly demeaning: it trivializes the tribes and it trivializes the power of woman. Woman bears, that is true. She also destroys. That is true. She also wars and hexes and mends and breaks. She creates the power of the seeds, and she plants them."

It sums up the realisation that woman is the source of new life, a fact that would not escape both sexes and result in a natural deference and veneration to the female. From such a basic logical observation it is easy to postulate that the Goddess would be the first and natural 'answer' to the ultimate questions.

It makes equally logical sense to suggest that whenever a society faced catastrophic natural disasters that the survivors would be angry with women and likely to become dependent on male strength and leadership when forced to revert to a refugee status as nomadic hunter/gatherers venturing into new territories where they might be obliged to overpower (conquer) other tribes they encountered.


~jwf~

>>It makes equally logical sense to suggest

Possibly. *But did it happen*?

etc. etc.

>>Forgive me if this has got too adversarial. Perhaps this is blokey<<

Hey, no worries, I can do blokey with the best of them

We will miss quite a lot though.


*

I don't see how economics can be used to define all the ways in which a people can be self determining

*

>>But did it happen?<<

Who knows. What interests me is why you believe that it didn't instead of having an attitude of openness about it.

*

>>
It makes equally logical sense to suggest that whenever a society faced catastrophic natural disasters that the survivors would be angry with women and likely to become dependent on male strength and leadership when forced to revert to a refugee status as nomadic hunter/gatherers venturing into new territories where they might be obliged to overpower (conquer) other tribes they encountered.
<<

I'm not convinced ~jwf~. I mean I can see the possibility with the whole Flood/Garden of Eden example (am still thinking that one through). But I can't see it as being inevitable. Why would male strength and leadership be preferable as refugees?

>>
if we come to talking about subjective phenomena such as dreams, religion - then the *only* way another person can sensibly think or talk about them is in terms of (male, Western ) analytic logic? There's no other reference point.
<<

I'm giving this its own post, 'cos this is central to what we are talking about (although I'm not sure what that is precisely now ).

What I've been on about is that there are indeed other ways of understanding the world. And I can and do use other reference points when talking about this with people who are multi-lingual in terms of world views. But it is incredibly hard to have this conversation with you (and others here) precisely because you insist on speaking in a language that simply cannot discuss the concepts arising.

(and I'm starting to realise the additional limitations here if I am arguing with a Marxist).

One of the things I've been wanting to talk about is how different peoples experience and understand reality in different ways. In the West we have to choose. Everywhere else it's ok for there to be contradictory realities.

But see how we did in fact lose point I made about the dream?

>One of the things I've been wanting to talk about is how different peoples experience and understand reality in different ways. In the West we have to choose. Everywhere else it's ok for there to be contradictory realities. <

In my experience of the 'west' in these parts...being contradictory is very much the norm, and that's seen as normal and okay. It's only on certain threads on h2g2...that it's not

>> Why would male strength and leadership be preferable as refugees? <<


Remember that my theory of female ascendancy occurs only when a wandering tribe (wandering out of Africa over the millenia) decides to settle down in some particularly rich and friendly environment resulting in agriculture, more permanent shelters, daily routine and ritual, larger families, higher survival rates, etc.

It is probably 'sexist' of me but I compare the difference between a 'homemaker' (woman) and a scout leader (male). Even today we expect that Woman rules the 'home' but 'Man' leads the camping expeditions.
Their hunting and fighting skills are probably best utilised when wandering unknown territories where they will likely encounter strange beasts and local tribes.

peace
jwf

You're getting this mother earth hippy cr@p idea from where exactly, jwf?

And there's plenty of different *myths* about the female...such as the drunken demented maenad hordes that followed the androgynous god, Dionysus through the mountains of ancient Greece....if you're going to base your rambling musings on mythology rather than evidence.

Stop imposing your own narrow modern irrational fantasies on what you think the female is; I suggest you keep a bit more of an open mind.

I would have thought my use of the word 'theory' might have commanded a little more respect and understanding, or at least some tolerance of what appears to me fairly obvious standards of natural male/female skills and abilities. Studies of children reveal that girls instinctively tend to organise and nurture while boys jump on things and break stuff.

I will now crawl off to my corner and sulk while I further contemplate the pointlessness of my existence thus far. Thank you Madam for your kindness, correction and direction.


~jwf~

Kea:

You also possibly have a too narrow definition of 'economics'. Forget 'finance' for a moment. Its etymology is 'Household Mangement' - and its useful to bear that in mind.

What I'm saying is that if people have control over their means of existence and how they lead their lives, cultural self-determination follows. Alternately, we can (ahem) 'respect' a pre-conceived idea of their culture. Which does...admittedly not quite nothing...but very little for their long term wellbeing.

Frs:

>>In my experience of the 'west' in these parts...being contradictory is very much the norm, and that's seen as normal and okay.

Agreed. We are no different to non-Western cultures in that respect.

>>It's only on certain threads on h2g2...that it's not

Oof! That hurt. I *hope* I'm as contradictory as anyone. After all...surely this is what's meant by Dialectic Materialism? It's not as if there's any fixed human truth, after all.

Hello all. It took me a couple of days to catch up on the backlog.

There have been some very interesting discussions but I think that the original question was



I don't think that Stanley deserved the abuse that he got for it, It's a fair question.

You could write volumes on the subject but the short answer is that modesty evolved to preserve social cohesion in face of the disruptive influence of the antisex gene. It's not just a human thing, lots of animals do it, even meerkats.

Humans evolved not just the behaviour but have a genetically determined physical marker for it. Human females do not display outward signs of ovulation but keep it hidden. Evolved physical modesty, probably with behaviour to match. Clothes were invented much later but were used for the same reason.

What's the antisex gene?