Pretentious Crap

[zhao]

I love how you flatter yourself, Zhao, as if what you're saying is somehow especially profound. It's not profound, it's just naive and stupid.

Take a look around. Check out the daily police blotter for Tampa. Or Dallas. Pick a city, any city.

Check out the self-offender registries. There are several of them online.

THIS is naive and stupid. it is the equivalent of that retard argument:

"if 4 people are starving and there is only 1 piece of bread, they would all want it for themselves --- thus humans are selfish"

humans under one set of conditions does not prove some kind of intrinsic nature.

because if these same 4 people are all on ecstasy, they would be laughing and massaging eachother. (which does not prove that humans are inherently lovey dovey either)

 

[nomadthethird]

THIS is naive and stupid. it is the equivalent of that retard argument:

"if 4 people are starving and there is only 1 piece of bread, they would all want it for themselves --- thus humans are selfish"

humans under one set of conditions does not prove some kind of intrinsic nature.

because if these same 4 people are all on ecstasy, they would be laughing and massaging eachother. (which does not prove that humans are inherently lovey dovey either)

I never said that. I didn't say that *all* humans are violent. I said that violence is a behavior that is common in humans. (And most other animals, too...)

Full stop. No historical sell-by date on that one.

 

[zhao]

i said you were hallucinating because you see points that i never made.

 

[zhao]

band level society is the predominant form of human social organization.

If hierarchy is evident in other pack animals like apes and wolves then why not early humans? What made them different? Not arguing, honest question....

because we evolved intelligence and realized that cooperation is better than war. especially when resources are abundant, as is proven to be the case back then.

 

[nomadthethird]

i said you were hallucinating because you see points that i never made.

You never said it outright, but you'll argue something, then provide "evidence" that actually supports the exact opposite view, over and over, to the point of absurdity. This has happened so many times, in so many different contexts, about this particular point (pre-modern societies, and especially African ones), that I have to wonder why you are so intent on believing this.

There is no reason to believe that humans were once non-violent and peaceful and then suddenly, out of nowhere, became violent lunatics.

Sure, the forms of violence typical to certain societies has changed over time along with cultures at large, but violence is one of those constants in human history that you can count on being there.

Violence happens where there's scarcity of some type--it can be food that's at stake, or power, or money, or love, or sex, or whatever. But there's always something.

 

[swears]

band level society is the predominant form of human social organization.



because we evolved intelligence and realized that cooperation is better than war. especially when resources are abundant, as is proven to be the case back then.

Cooperation can still involve leaders, hierarchy does not automatically mean "war".

 

[nomadthethird]

But band level society is not the predominant form of human social organization. It would be nice. But it's not, and it never has been.

 

[nomadthethird]

Cooperation can still involve leaders, hierarchy does not automatically mean "war".

If this were true, what Zhao says about band level societies, then why wouldn't we still be in cooperative societies that weren't warlike?

The point is, hunter-gatherer societies were cooperatives. But because resources in certain geographic regions could be scarce, they often had to fight with other societies just to survive.

People like to avoid fighting, but they like their kids to avoid starving to death even more.

 

[zhao]

Cooperation can still involve leaders, hierarchy does not automatically mean "war".

you are right. sorry to conflate heirarchy with war. what the lecture i linked to described (which people seem not want to hear and intent on having this argument anyway), is temporary authority -- a leader will emerge for a specific project, and after it's over, revert to another member of society. and there are things such as elders having more respect, etc.

what we are talking about is all degrees, no absolutes.

what i am arguing is that egalitarianism played a much greater role in early human history than what the stories we are told would have us believe.

 

[zhao]

violence is a behavior that is common in humans. (And most other animals, too...)

the point is how common, and has it always been as common as now.

capitalism (and civilization itself), with its emphasis on competition and aggression, paints a certain picture of our ancestors; and i have encountered information which challenges these views.

you all know the political environment of a certain time period can have a powerful impact on the stories being told, and representation of history.

my point is that our view of our ancestors are tainted by the times we live in.

i don't think it's profound. i believe it to be the truth.

and i don't think there is need for personal attacks when we talk about these things. Nomad.

 

[zhao]

If this were true, what Zhao says about band level societies, then why wouldn't we still be in cooperative societies that weren't warlike?

lots of theories exist. diminishing resources around the time of the last ice age is a main one. but keep in mind the time scale: last ice age: 10-15,000 years ago. humans on earth: 2-4 million depending on who you ask.

there are lots of different views regarding this stuff.

in this thread i have always talked about degrees: "more egalitarian than we think", "hunting less important than we are told", etc.

to make any definitive claims is pretty silly. as there were lots of diversity, things being different from band to band, region to region. (not to mention non of us were there to know what it was like.)

 

[zhao]

i'm finished for tonight.

this is not the first time we have talked about this, and it won't be the last.

but really, Nomad, there is no need to get angry and bitchy with your personal attacks.

(and now you'll say something about passive aggression because I'm being civil. )

good night all.

 

[nomadthethird]

i'm finished for tonight.

this is not the first time we have talked about this, and it won't be the last.

but really, Nomad, there is no need to get angry and bitchy with your personal attacks.

(and now you'll say something about passive aggression because I'm being civil. )

good night all.

Zhao, I didn't personally attack you, I disagreed with certain statements you made, and called a couple of them naive and/or stupid. I never called you naive and stupid, though. I think I agree with you on a lot of things. I'm sorry if it seemed that I was attacking you, because of course I didn't intend to.

If you read back through this thread, you are the one who insisted I was "hallucinating" and "brain washed" among other direct personal attacks, though. I find it strange that you don't see yourself as ever being responsible for making personal attacks on anyone.

Where you'd get the idea that I was "angry" about anything is beyond me entirely. I wasn't. At all. I simply disagreed with you.

 

[nomadthethird]

And I'll be damned if I'm going to be accused of being "bitchy" in a way that you somehow are not, simply because I have an opinion and I'm sticking up for it. Even though it doesn't line up with yours. Is that what "bitchy" is now, having an opinion? Oh, I forgot, that's what it's always meant.

So much for "band level" societies theory...at the first sign of someone on the internet having a divergent view from your own, they are immediately to be branded "brainwashed", hallucinating, bitchy, and "angry"...

 

[nomadthethird]

See what's happening here?

I don't really expect you to agree with me. I've heard the same arguments about some pre-modern utopia of cooperation and non-violent leaf chewing peaceful coexistence of all humanity from lots of people before, usually vegans of the anarchoprimitivist persuasion. In point of fact, I share a lot of ethical ideals with these people. But I disagree entirely with the way the try to "justify" or support these ideals, because I think they are revising human evolution to suit their purposes.

Ok, so we disagree. We're probably not going to come through seeing eye to eye. That's just fine with me, I don't really mind. But when me (the female, usually the only one here) fails to submit to the dominant male in a discussion, I get the usual slew of insults--bitch, you're angry, you're just brainwashed, you don't understand anything, blah blah blah.

I've heard em all before. This is how wars start and violence gets stirred up. Someone gets all upset because someone lower on the hierarchy doesn't submit.

 

[pfflam]

Well,

I just want to say that I am enjoying this discussion immensely - I've worked my way up to page 9 so far- but I need to go to sleep now.

I would just say that I think there are different forms of pretentious crap
one form I would call youthful pretentious crap and that would seem to be characterized by trying too hard, too soon. I generally think this is great, though it can be annoying when it is a student in a class.

Then there is the form that uses language beyond one's capabilities for the sole purpose of seeming smarter or more informed and coming from a mature individual. This would be deliberate and therefor a sort of a lie. This seems to happen all the time and can sometimes result in fortuitous utterances of brilliance beyond what the speaker thought they themselves were capable of . . . so I am not sure it should be frowned upon too severely.

Then there is the Entertainment industry. An old friend, an old days-of-wild-excess buddy, is now a CEO of a major production company. Conversations with him are now awkward, and I do believe that the reason is is that he is constantly sizing up the situation and seeing how to best steer the conversation so as to either gain from it or facilitate or some other alternative purpose. The point being that I think he has come to exhibit a form of pretentiousness that involves dislocation form face-to-face relating, or one to one relating.

This too is natural, and I would say is actually an art for people like him; people who have gotten far through his ability to manage others, and read motives and desires and nuance and innuendo. However it is still pretentious, and, when done with less skill it is painful - to talk to a set of eyes that are always flashing to the invisible crowd at the edge or behind the room.

When I read the first post it seemed to be a pretty obvious dig at the use and abuse of rhetoric for life. I think that this happens. I won't presume to be the one who sees through the misuse. But clearly, in the world of academia there are a lot of airplane-trip-written conference papers, where it serves the writer to be less than clear on the actual work done on the topic. And when tenure is at stake, there are plenty of such conferences to fly off to.
I'm pretty sure the the 'French/Continental/POMO/etc' vocabulary (however much I love the stuff) was a godsend, in its heyday, to many tenure bound culture-studies/humanities folks.
Why? Because it simply took too long for over-worked committees to see through the dense crap and to understand that they shouldn't get tenure.
I am not saying that the original vocabulary is crap, just that it has potential for serious misuse for other purposes (even though, like the secondary Derridean source itself being a sort of Derridean gesture(upthread), this too can be stretched ironically and appreciated)

There are other forms too, but as I said . . . right now I am sleepy.

Is it pretentiously un-pretentious of me to actually enjoy, both Foucault and American Football?

Also - the term for making excuses in advance - prolepsis

 

[pfflam]

Hm?

Back in page 9 (where I was) there was a sort of argument about narcissism that sort of was taking place . . is that back?

 

[vimothy]

[BTW, I haven't read any of the posts since logging off yesterday... in case this seems totally irrelevant!]

Just had an epiphany. Think I’ve been talking past people a bit. “Sociocultural” and “identity” are social science terms, because that’s the only language that I’ve got to talk about this. Maybe they’re not ideal because they suggest something specific, when I’m trying to be general. Anyway. Identity is made up by people. The people who make it up are broadly the same (biologically speaking), but the stuff they make it up out of – the sociocultural stuff – is different. Different people in different times have had different ways of thinking about themselves. Have had different “constructions of the self”, or whatever the original phrase was. A merchant in Ancient Rome would have had a way of thinking about the world, what that world was and his place in it, totally unlike you or me.

Personality, I think, is something more nebulous. Personality is how other people think of you, or how you think other people think of you. And that’s tied into identity. I guess I figure ultimately that different identity equals different personality, because identity mediates personality. This makes intuitive sense to me, at least, because I think I do have a different personality depending on the social scene (at work, with friends, with family, etc).

Where this relates to the internet – and I apologise in advance for the banality of this insight – is that the internet provides a venue, is a machine, no less, for the production of identity, and for mass experimentation in the production of identity. The internet facilitates its splintering, because it creates these linkages across multiple social fields. Everyone gets more confused, everything gets more complicated. The more you learn, the less you think you know. Genres will keep on sub-dividing. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

It’s not all bad. The fact that I don’t think my interest is the same as my country’s interest, and my country’s interest is to invade Poland, is a gain. The loss in national identity (such as it has been – I’m not suggesting it has disappeared) is twinned with a rise in global identities, multinational identities, intra-national identities. Identifying with the tribe (i.e. the state) is probably going to be replaced by something else. Of course, that’s probably going to be identifying with a new kind of tribe – we won’t stop being human, but we will change the way we think about ourselves (and surely we always are), and therefore change the way we interact with the world and interpret that interaction to ourselves and to each other. Not all good, not all bad. Material well-being will keep going up; identity will keep changing*.

*Obvious caveat: I understand that change is relative. With regards to identity, I think the centre is calmer than the edges. But then if you look at anything closely enough, it’s almost certainly in flux.

 

[vimothy]

All very much related to a book I'm reading by Steven Pinker about how the mind has evolved.

If you bring Pinker into it we'll never get anywhere!

 

[zhao]

all of this about what constitutes identity and self is all very interesting, but just for clarification, when i originally said "the 20th century construction of individuality", i meant the 20th century version of the concept or idea of individuality, and not "what the self is made out of in the 20th c".