Traditional man and country

[KanadaHye]

Re: Traditional man and country

Thats much better KanadaHye. You actually made valid points and managed to do it without insults. You are right you cannot escape those things because they are so prevelant in our lives but you can be aware of them and their influence on you and those around you.By having this awareness you gain a tremendous edge over those who do not have it because by understanding things you can, to some extent, controll their influence on you and even others.You also gain a better understanding of why people think the way they do, in your own society or even in another.

You do realize my insult was to make a point don't you? I hope so

[Haykakan]

Re: Traditional man and country

You do realize my insult was to make a point don't you? I hope so

Yes i do but insulting people to make your point weakens your argument plus it looks bad and you are insulting another person.Luckily you can get away with insults on the internet unless a moderater kicks you out but in rl things can be different.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Traditional man and country

Yes i do but insulting people to make your point weakens your argument plus it looks bad and you are insulting another person.Luckily you can get away with insults on the internet unless a moderater kicks you out but in rl things can be different.

Not really, you reacted exactly like I thought you would react... after all, you're only human.

[KanadaHye]

Re: A Treasury of Traditional Wisdom

I disagree with this assertion for the following rationale:

You imply that somehow peoples' consciousness, spiritual make up, and morals are simply products of the time, and shift with the times. This is very close to what Marx was babbling about in his "materialist conception of history," also known as historical materialism. The main point of that being that people and their thoughts are a product of the society and environment, and specifically, that our class and rank determine our thoughts and consciousness. In the process, aside from the many errors and fallacies he commits in such an assertion, he denies that we have free will, and implies that we are nothing more than a middle ground between a sponge and putty with no originality.

People have always been "materialistic," because that is an innate human trait and feature. To use a reference from the Bible, man is in a "fallen" state: therefore, he is imperfect. He has always had his imperfections. This is not an argument about a past era of goodness or utopia. If you presume and read anything about that into this, you are reading things into the discussion that do not exist. Money is simply a means and a medium of exchange. It is only representative of the value we place on it and it has had many different forms over time. Do not think that prior to money, in the age of barter or cavemen, that people were not materialistic, or possessive or engaged in feuds over this lust for booty.

Just wanted to clarify.

Excellent point. Money is a measure of the value we put on material objects and services. The more rare things are, the higher value we put on them. There is an ABUNDANCE of diamonds on the planet.... yet we pay an absurd amount for them... why? Are they rare? In essence, no.... but because you can't find one in your backyard, you pay the price. Why do we value a shiny rock? Somebody convinced society it was rare and ever since, we've been blindly using it for cultural reasons. Is it really a measure of "love". Of course not, but try convincing society it isn't.

[Haykakan]

Re: A Treasury of Traditional Wisdom

I disagree with this assertion for the following rationale:

. This is very close to what Marx was babbling about in his "materialist conception of history," also known as historical materialism. The main point of that being that people and their thoughts are a product of the society and environment, and specifically, that our class and rank determine our thoughts and consciousness. In the process, aside from the many errors and fallacies he commits in such an assertion, he denies that we have free will, and implies that we are nothing more than a middle ground between a sponge and putty with no originality. Yet, in the process he commits a fallacy because somehow he is the only who can view outside of the looking glass and notice these things.

People have always been "materialistic," because that is an innate human trait and feature. To use a reference from the Bible, man is in a "fallen" state: therefore, he is imperfect. He has always had his imperfections. This is not an argument about a past era of goodness or utopia. If you presume and read anything about that into this, you are reading things into the discussion that do not exist. Money is simply a means and a medium of exchange. It is only representative of the value we place on it and it has had many different forms over time. Do not think that prior to money, in the age of barter or cavemen, that people were not materialistic, or possessive or engaged in feuds over this lust for booty.

Just wanted to clarify.

My ideas are not in any way based on Marx or any other thinker, they are my own.I base my theories on facts and observation gathered by valid scientific research.The south american tribe i mentioned was living proof that people have not always been materialistic.That same example also showed you how money completely transformed that society once it was introduced,Did you not read my post?How can you make such arguments if you did?My point is that we have lived in a materialistic society for so long that we have forgotton what being human is.Money is a representation of the value we place on it you are right about that, the problem is we place so much value in it that we forgo our own humanity to possess it. It changes people who otherwise would have been different."The main point of that being that people and their thoughts are a product of the society and environment, and specifically, that our class and rank determine our thoughts and consciousness."This is absolutly not what i am saying, i am saying that we as humans have a natural way of living and existing and that money, possesions, religion..alter this natural state of humanity.People choose this unnatural state because it will help them get more things like money,power etc..Marx is all about class struggle between different classes mainly workers vs owners, what i am talking about is the natural state of the human condition.

[Haykakan]

Re: A Treasury of Traditional Wisdom

I imagined you would attempt to somehow create a straw man. Whether or not you subjectively believed you are reciting Marx's style of argument is irrelevant because that's not what I was saying. Apparently, you did not read my post, and yet are accusing me of not reading yours. My point was not pertaining to the form of his argument vs the form of what you're purportedly saying. This is about the substance of the arguments both you and Marx appear to be conveying on a larger and more conceptual scale.

You are impliedlyarguing that environment determines consciousness, and this is the core of what Marx was saying in his materialistic version of history. The difference is that you are impliedly doing what you are explicitly claiming you are not, i.e., you argue essentially conveying what Marx' main point was, without coming out of the closet and admitting so.

But in an attempt to sidestep the fact that Marx's argument has lost its validity and in fact, has been discredited, it's natural and in fact, it is the trend of most people, 'academics,' and self-styled intellectuals that subscribe to this behavioralist-type mentality and argument, to somehow claim "Well, I'm not exactly saying what Marx is saying, mine are based on my own scientific research and observations!" Notice that Marx, too, thought he had reduced history down to a "science" via his own "scientific research and observations."

However, as is usually the case, this is just another example of how fungible language and words can be, and how if one somehow attaches the label of "scientific research and observation" to their argument, that this somehow transforms it into some talismanic shield, free from defects and fallacies.

So what exactly is your point?Should we base our theories on something other then scientific research and observation? If so then what do you suggest?Are you also implying that environment has no effect on people and society?You keep linking my argument to Marx when they are clearly different and i clearly already explained how.I do read what you write in your post but the problem is it makes no sence.In my opinion and that of most rational people the strength of your argument is measured by the facts you have to back it up so yeh having done scientific research and observation definetly adds to the validity of any theory or argument if the results suport the said theory.I don't like your iplication that i am some kind of undercover marxist because i am not.Even after i clearly explained to you how i am not you still label me as such.You and kanadahye are starting to switch places, he is starting to be less offencive and make more sence while you are heading in the opposite direction in a feeble attempt to discredit me for some reason i don't yet know.

[jgk3]

Re: Traditional man and country

Haykakan, in your scientific research, how do you approach the belief systems and rituals of the people being studied in your research? Could you elaborate a bit on how the South American tribe you brought up interpreted the world they lived in, how they understood the balance of nature, what kind of gods they had, etc... How does your science interpret their mythology and rituals?

[Haykakan]

Re: Traditional man and country

The south american tribe was not my research.It was done by anthropologists over a decade ago and it was on the discovery channel i think.The most striking part of that case was how peacefull and content people were before the introduction of money into their society and the amazing transformation of it once materialism took hold. The sexual freedom for both sexes was also very interesting and refreshing to witness.The acceptance of all the childeren by the men of that society was also cool to witness.Their belief system was a mild form of animal worship which is typical of hunting/gathering societies.A tragic scene unfolded while the study was going on, a child was taken by a large snake into the river while the mother tried to fight off the giant snake.The mother and child lost the battle with the child disapearing into the river along with the snake while the mother cried and moaned on shore.The actual scuffle was not on film cause no one got there to help in time or to film it but the mother would not leave the riverside and kept weeping and asking the snake to bring back her child, it was very emotional to watch her in such agony but there was no pleas to any god or higher power for the return of her son since they do not have such beliefes.Unfortunatly societies such as this one are probably extinct now and i dought we will be able to find anymore new tribes such as these who are unspoiled and retain their truely human nature.Almost forgot to mention that (maybe this should have been in the armenian womens discussion thread) the women in that society flirted openly with the men, there was no taboo in a women openly expressing her sexual desire twords a man.My own background is more in psychology/sociology/biology and i have done research in all these fields (some of the more interesting of which involved studying differences in behaviour between men and women).Now i am working on my MBA and am doing tons of research in bussiness related
fields.I did not think research in this field would be interesting but as usual research continues to surprise me.My research on economic cycles not only turned out to be interesting but rather profitable as well.These courses are very intence since they are condenced into 6 week semesters and i don't enjoy it as much because i have to rush to get it done in time but i learn what i need and thats what matters.Wether it is business,social science or biology the scientific method remains the same(articulate a hypothesis, test it and see if the test supports or does not support it).I hope i have not bored you too much with my longwinded responce.

[Haykakan]

Re: Traditional man and country

I don't think you know much about actual research procedure, science is not "subjective like anything else" and if a researcher is not being objective then he is not doing science! I stated earlier that research often reveals surprising findings and this is impossible to get if you are not objective and openminded.I absolutely stand by my absolute statement! There is curruption in some fields of science but that is bad science and it should not be used to discredit all scintific work because most of it is done by well meaning and ethical scientists.Look if you really want to compare me to Marx then go ahead i couldn't care less hell ill even grow out my hair and grow a beard for you.To argue with you seems pointless but ill try to clear this up one more time, my hypothesis is that humans have a innate (which means not effected by environment!) preferance/tendency to live life in a specific human way(which i already have described).Outside factors like religion,money and social norms based on these and other concepts prevent us from living the human way.If this means to you that "environment determines our consciousness' then so be it i couldn't care less.If Marx said "environment determines our consciousness" ( i dought he did,his work is all about class struggle) then so be it again i could't care less.My main point is to understand humans for what we really are and if in doing so my conclusion looks similar to Marx or Hitler or i dont give a xxxx who then so be it, i arrived to my conclusion independent of them and it is only in your mind that i am preaching marxism.You and some others in here seem to have a dislike and distrust to science and this is truely unfortunate.

[jgk3]

Re: Traditional man and country

Outside factors like religion,money and social norms based on these and other concepts prevent us from living the human way.

So you're theory suggests that religion, money and some other arbitrarily picked social norms are outside of this "human way"? Doesn't that strike you somewhat as a bad way of accounting for the whole of human behavior and interaction in communities? To place only our most primitive setting in the forest or jungle, where we only recently discovered money, as the most natural, rudimentary expression of "the human way"?

Doesn't this strike you at all as cherry picking taken to an extreme? I mean afterall, it is just one tribe on the earth you've found. On top of this, you are implying that the rest of the world isn't remotely anywhere near the level of non-materialism this tribe previously knew, perhaps because they 1. Use money, 2. have father-son relationships, or 3. because they have sexual taboos.

I dunno... It's just not a very convincing argument for me.