Pretentious Crap

[swears]

plus, misery and neurosis being pre-condition for "great art" is, if not entirely a crock of shit, an extremely myopic view.

for one thing plenty of "great art" in our society is made by non-neurotic, non-miserable people. and just because "great art" is made in our neurotic and miserable society under those conditions, you think "great art" can not be made (or experienced) in a different society?

My point is that great art comes from a variety of experience, sometimes it's all sunshine and lollipops, sometimes it's the blooz. Usually it's a sweet spot between the two.

I do think you're in danger of romanticising primitive societies, (which vary widely anyway) imagine a civilisation a thousand years older than ours, looking back wistfully at life in the early 21st century, before innovations we can scarcely imagine made their lives a hundred times more complicated.

 

[nomadthethird]

agree with the gist of what nomad said. but just one correction: for the vast majority of the history of humans on earth, the pre-tribal, band level society (like the dobe) is the principle form of social organization. which involves little to no ritual or warrior initiation rites.

No, it's not. Hunter-gatherer societies were the principle form of social organization for most of human evolution.

 

[zhao]

I don't think Swears has ever said that misery and neurosis was a pre-condition for "great art", though you accuse someone of doing that here on the regular.

i don't think i am putting words in Swear's mouth at all. he said he prefers neurosis and misery to contentment, and then insinuated that the Dobe, because of their supposed "lack" of neurosis, can not produce (experience) great art.

I don't think Swears has ever said that misery and neurosis was a pre-condition for "great art", though you accuse someone of doing that here on the regular.

this depends on your definition of neurosis and misery. i can cite many examples of amazing artists who lead balanced and disciplined lives not fitting in the general category of "neurotic" and "miserable".

 

[zhao]

No, it's not. Hunter-gatherer societies were the principle form of social organization for most of human evolution.

yes, it is. you are confusing anthropological terms. Gatherer Hunter (not the other way around) societies are BAND level - around 50 people, with no central power, no hierarchy, no private property. Tribal came later, and involves extensive power, ritual, and some agriculture.

did you ever listen to the lecture Nomad? or are you just presuming that you know everything there is to know about these things already?

 

[nomadthethird]

yes, it is. you are confusing anthropological terms. Gatherer Hunter (not the other way around) societies are BAND level - around 50 people. Tribal came later, and involves extensive ritual, and some agriculture.

did you ever listen to the lecture Nomad? or are you just presuming that you know everything there is to know about these things already?

I've listened to all sorts of anthropological and biological lectures, Zhao.

Why would it matter which way you say it, "hunter gatherer" or "gatherer hunter"? That's entirely arbitrary.

 

[nomadthethird]

There are plenty of tribal societies that are still considered "hunter-gatherer" today...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer

"Hunter-gatherer" merely describes a certain sort of subsistence level, or method of survival, it doesn't have anything to do with the size of the society, necessarily. There's no size cut off at 50 members.

 

[zhao]

Why would it matter which way you say it, "hunter gatherer" or "gatherer hunter"? That's entirely arbitrary.

because, for most of human history, gathering provided the vast majority of food, and hunting, very little.

because the emphasis on hunting as more important is a product of our competitive society which prizes aggression, violence, domination.

because it is a false picture of our ancestors painted by our fucked up way of life.

it is SO not arbitrary.

things like this make me think you have not listened to enough anthropology lectures.

 

[nomadthethird]

because, for most of human history, gathering provided the vast majority of food, and hunting, very little.

because the emphasis on hunting as more important is a product of our competitive society which prizes aggression.

because it is a false picture of our ancestors painted by our fucked up way of life.

it is SO not arbitrary.

things like this make me think you have not listened to enough anthropology lectures.

None of these statements are true.

Our entire metabolism evolved around ketogenesis, the metabolism of protein. Sure, we gathered food, but we hunted. When we didn't kill, we often starved. This is why women have hips and store more fat than men, and have a hard time losing weight, because for millions of years our metabolism evolved around "feast and famine" periods.

It's probably not even worth discussing, though, because I'm going to get a bunch of nonsense from a vegan brochure that someone made up.

 

[zhao]

There are plenty of tribal societies that are still considered "hunter-gatherer" today...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer

yes. this does not detract from the fact that it is the Band Level society which has been the principle form of social organization in human history (pre-power, pre-heirarchy, pre-ritual).

 

[zhao]

None of these statements are true.

yes they are.

what you are choosing to subscribe to is an out dated version of early history. a huge amount of data has over turned that version and pretty much proven that our ancestors were mainly vegetarian, and hunted very little.

 

[zhao]

It's probably not even worth discussing, though, because I'm going to get a bunch of nonsense from a vegan brochure that someone made up.

those "someones" being the vast majority of leading figures in biology, archaelogy, and anthropology.

 

[nomadthethird]

yes. this does not detract from the fact that it is the Band Level society which has been the principle form of social organization in human history (pre-power, pre-heirarchy, pre-ritual).

Whoa whoa. What does ritual have to do with hierarchy or power? That's a strange association to make.

A band society isn't necessarily not a hunter-gatherer society, either.

 

[nomadthethird]

yes they are.

what you are choosing to subscribe to is an out dated version of early history. a huge amount of data has over turned that version and pretty much proven that our ancestors were mainly vegetarian, and hunted very little.

According to...???

This is not true, Zhao, I'm so sorry. I know you want to believe this. But it isn't true. You only need to look at our organs, and the pH of our stomachs, and basically everything about us, to understand that eating meat was integral to human evolution.

Many, many animals eat meat. Why wouldn't we? It's a very efficient source of amino acids, protein, (fish) omega 3s, etc.

I was a vegetarian for a long time, so don't try to tell me I'm only saying this because I'm some sort of mean, biased, steak loving puppy killer.

 

[zhao]

According to...???

Jared Diamond for one, and the vast majority of scientists in these fields.

Many, many animals eat meat. Why wouldn't we?

because gathering is/was easier, takes less energy, more efficient, productive and a more dependable source of food.

don't get me wrong, gatherer/hunters prized meat very much. but the truth is that they didn't eat very much of it.

 

[nomadthethird]

those "someones" being the vast majority of leading figures in biology, archaelogy, and anthropology.

For example?

Because I worked with some of the leading biologists in the U.S./world, and they all disagreed with what you're saying. Our metabolisms clearly evolved around ketogenesis. Carbohydrates are difficult for us to digest. They need to be broken down into sugar and fat in the liver. This is difficult for us. Carbs fuck up our insulin levels, and eventually, as you see now, in humans who eat primarily carbohydrates rather than a ketogenic diet, you see high levels of obesity and type II diabetes.

 

[nomadthethird]

Jared Diamond for one, and the vast majority of scientists in these fields.





because gathering is/was easier, takes less energy, more efficient, productive and dependable.

don't get me wrong, gatherer/hunters prized meat very much. but the truth is that they didn't eat very much of it.

This is not true. Foods one can gather, let's say, blueberries, have very few calories, but walking around all day to find a few baskets full is a lot of work. This means they have a negative net caloric value. You'd actually lose weight gathering these. This is bad, ESPECIALLY if you're a woman, who needs to be sure to hang on to every last calorie she gets because lean times are plenty. If she doesn't, she will most likely miscarry if she even menstruates at all.

Nuts such as almonds are a little better, as they have more fats and are more densely packed with nutrients. But still, walking around all day to find a few handfuls of nuts (worth about 300 calories) might burn 300 calories or more, making the trip worthless in terms of net gain for the community.

By far, the most efficient, best source of nutrients for our ancestors were fatty, high calorie meats. One kill could feed several people for a couple of days.

 

[zhao]

By far, the most efficient, best source of nutrients for our ancestors were fatty, high calorie meats. One kill could feed several people for a couple of days.

sure. but hunting was not an efficient or easy way to get food. it takes too much energy.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article631931.ece

Until now, research on the shape of the teeth has suggested that the hominid became extinct because it was unable to adapt to environmental changes as its diet was too specialised. But analysis of four Paranthropus teeth found at Swartkrans in South Africa has shown that, far from living on tough, low-quality vegetation, the species had a varied diet.

Among the foods that it consumed were fruit and nuts, sedges, grasses, herbs, seeds, tree leaves, tubers and roots. Meat may have been eaten, although it is impossible to tell whether it was hunted or scavenged. The Anglo-American team said in its report, featured in the journal Science, that the teeth showed evidence of seasonal variety in diet. There were also variations that may reflect annual rainfall.

and that's the thing: many are of the opinion that most meat was scavenged, and that hunting became popular very late in the game.

 

[nomadthethird]

sure. but hunting was not an efficient or easy way to get food. it takes too much energy.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article631931.ece



and that's the thing: many are of the opinion that most meat was scavenged, and that hunting became popular very late in the game.

No, our TOOLS like ARROWS made hunting easier, much easier, than gathering. Also, scavenging already dead animals was relatively easy as well. Especially for societies that domesticated horses or other animals, and hunted on horseback (or elephant back, or whatever.)

P.S. That article is about an extinct hominid, probably not the best example of a successful evolutionary model. Besides, all it says is that there was a variety in the diet--so? Of course there was. No one denies that people didn't also eat whatever edible was around--when you want to survive you scavenge anything. The point is, protein from animal sources was very important, even from early on. It is to other primates, why not us?

 

[zhao]

No, our TOOLS like ARROWS made hunting easier, much easier, than gathering.

huh? you think hunting, even with arrows, is easier than picking nuts, fruits, and roots? err...

from "The Archaeology of Human Origins"

"terms such as "hunters" or "carnivores" should probably only be applied to recent representattives of the human species with qualifications.

 

[nomadthethird]

this depends on your definition of neurosis and misery. i can cite many examples of amazing artists who lead balanced and disciplined lives not fitting in the general category of "neurotic" and "miserable".

Well, I think "neurotic" (the clinical definition, not the common use one that I think Swears probably meant) can be the very antithesis of creative, open, receptive, imaginative, whatever. In fact, it is by definition. So I agree with you there.

Miserable? I'm not sure that is any sort of direct relationship with creativity.

But I do think that people with exceptional abilities, who actually engage critically, artistically, philosophically, intellectually with the world are very unwelcome these days by most people.

This cool guy professor I had (M Joyce) told me once that they used to be called prophets, but they've always been feared and exiled.