Government

[hagopn]

Re: Government

Distinction between the Urartuan vernacular and cuneiform, or as he termed it, "the regional possible diplomatic" language of Hurrian (hence the neo-Hurrian clasification) was first proposed by Martiros Gavoukjian in 1976. I first heard of it in 1991 from a historian named Azat Vehuni who introduced me to Gavoukjian's work.

[hagopn]

Re: Government

Yes, partly sorry. But going off-topic is common every where here. And it was as a response to hagopn who went wildly off-topic by starting to suggesting circumstances in 800bc urartu or 4thc Armenia or 12thC Cilicia had some relevance to governance issues inside today's Armenia. And who claimed that chosen methods of government are dependant on "genetic behavioral memory" and that there is some sort of particular "genetic behavioral memory" that Armenians have (even before there even were Armenians) and that other don't have.

This above is truly a fanatical stance. This fellow's job seems to be to stop discussions he doesn't agree with.

The above is speculation (my proposals, which I derived chiefly from Markale's analyses on the Celts) on the possible reasons for adhering to a non-centralized political model, a traditional tribal and autonomous model despite changes in geopolitics. There is nothing I have stated that has not been discussed in academia, but apparently the "open minded" Scot here, the Judge of Armenians, the Ayatollah of Truth, has chosen to yet again barge in like a rabid bull.

All possible factors are mentioned without necessarily a bias or fanatical stance for any. We already know the orthodox theories of "nationalism", but Markale's proposed Celtic model is closer to the ARmenian tradition than the Roman.

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Government

Another wrench throwing bout via ridicule. This fellow's job seems to be to stop discussions he doesn't agree with.

Well, maybe you can find some expert who agrees with you that there is such a thing as "genetic behavioral memory" in the choice of governance of modern human societies (as opposed to, say, the "fear of the dark" genetic behavioral memory that arose from prehistoric human communities).

[hagopn]

Re: Government

As to the relevance to today's situation, Derenik Demirjian was my inspiration on this as well as Grigor Artsruni, who were both obsessed, rightly so, with the reasons for Armenian political disunity and its roots. I am mostly repeating and embellishing their thoughts on the matter.

[hagopn]

Re: Government

Well, maybe you can find someone who agrees that there is such a thing as "genetic behavioral memory" in the choice of governance of modern human societies (as opposed to, say, the "fear of the dark" genetic behavioral memory that arose from prehistoric human communities).

The global primal or the local more idiosyncratic, which takes precedence? I don't pretend to have an answer, but I have seen discussion on the topic, yes, among political historians and geneticists.

[Haykakan]

Re: Government

Where is a mod when you need one..This sounds like a Urartu history forum now.

[hagopn]

Re: Government

Where is a mod when you need one..This sounds like a Urartu history forum now.

I'm trying to keep the sail in the right direction, my friend.

[hagopn]

Re: Government

As to my genetic memory entry that was of course used to blow things out of proportion, not for the sake of having a discussion and explore possibilities, but to derail the discussion and discredit the entire set of proposals, I just remembered one more example from our region and genetics.

Was it Nature or Nurture that prompted the Janissary to rebel and end with their abolishment? This is a corps of orphans, totally deprived of their society of birth, their traditions, upbringing, maturation and adoption of values. They were a corps of "confiscated" orphans from Christian subjects, of which the Armenians constituted a large part in the Empire, especially Asia Minor and the Armenian Plateau. So what happened? The were obviously bred to be the "Good Ottoman Soldiers", and yet they rebelled. This was a question that Artstruni posed and Leo the historian elaborated on. Leo argued that it was their arrogance and ambition that caused for the "Auspicious Incident" to come about, their fear of losing their power to a western mercenary based military model that was being adopted. Artsruni argued that their natural inclination for independence and mutiny was the reason that the Sultan adopted the mercenary model to begin with. It's always a toss up. ("Mercenary" with the intent of eventually replacing the foreign officers with Turks)

[hagopn]

Re: Government

Haykakan, despite the parasitic noise from this maniac above, you might be on the right path. Especially after reading the latest posting on the "Is Russia an ally or foe, nowadays?" thread, I'm defaulting to what is probably the main cause and component in all of this heartache, just plain lack of knowledge, education, centralized effort of at least in the systematic propagation of Armenian history, historical knowledge among the general population, and proper understanding of just what our interests are as a people, as a collective. The level of ignorance and myopia is appalling, and the Soviets managed to sow the seeds of confusion by catering to one extreme to the other. I remember a thesis on "Gyughagrutyun" that a Russian author had written about the undulation between "populist anti-nationalism/internationalism" and "populist nationalism" depending on the mood that the central bureau needed among the masses. The Diaspora on average is more historically aware than the average citizen when it comes to the Turks. The Bleyans of this world are causing serious confusion among the totally amnesiac public.

[hagopn]

Re: Government

Aha, I found my source on the "genetic memory" ideas, to which I refer in the strictly biological sense, not metaphysical or parapsychological nonsense (except in the Platonically inspired "archetype" theories, which are the very foundation of the study of comparative mythology).

I recommend you read the works of Vigen Geodakian. Check out his site http://geodakian.com/ . There was a forum that expanded upon his theory of inherited biologically transmitted genetic memory.

From the most base pathological results such as fetal alcohol syndrome and like physical development issues to the most complex behavioral patterns and imprints, all organisms that reproduce by way of meiosis apparently carry on more "memory" than previously thought says this theory.

Part of the discussion was related to political structuring of societies as related to the environment in which the given culture had developed and how repeating patterns of individual and group behavior can be attributed to instinct, which in human evolution is a bigger package. C. Jung tackled the idea with the archetype idea, and the particularities of any given ethnos was also discussed. Yet, while we attempt to explain "stubbornness" in clutching onto to a certain pattern even when that patterns proves to be harmful possibly (and I say possibly) points to a more genetic instinctual source.

Now, despite the intentional out of context misrepresentations and "isolated quote collecting" above, I never made claims of attributing all (or even little) of behavioral heritage to this phenomenon.

Do I at this point even understand the science behind his theories? I'm just scratching the surface at this time, but the discussion I saw on Russian television, that was being translated live from Russian to Armenian for me, was fascinating and did deal with political behavior.

Do I believe in such a phenomenon? I don't disbelieve it.