Re: Frankfurt School (Re: What does an evolutionist actually believe?)

"Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP, BLT, DOA" <someonelse@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb
im Newsbeitrag news:63Qdf.533499$x96.533373@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Sylvia Knörr" <sylvia.knoerr_NoSpam_@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:dkop84$8ou$02$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> >> This takes us back up to the previous thread, where we spoke of
> > xenophobia,
> >> kinship, preference, and altruism.

> > Yesterday I attended a lecture of one of my favorite ethnologues, Wulf
> > Schiefenhövel (probably unknown in the US). He presented his model of
> > human
> > xenophobia, and according to him there are, like the skins of an onion,
> > spheres of decreasing altruism and increasing xenophobia going from the
> > ego as the center.

> Schiefenhovel is new to me.

To view:
http://erl.orn.mpg.de/~schiefen/

> However, his model seems to be correct, as far
> as I know. The farther we move away from our immediate selves and
concerns,
> the less altruism we have to share. There have been the exceptional cases
> (like Gandhi and Mother Teresa), but they are quite rare.

We find them remarkable BECAUSE they are exceptions to the rule that we care
about our relatives, not about strangers. Nobody is considered a hero or
anything special because s/he made big sacrifices for their family.

> > The closer related we are, the more altruism will be found. We would
share
> > everything with our next of kin (children, brothers and sisters), a lot
with
> > our extended family, a lot with our clan, and still some things with
distant
> > members of our ethnicity or our language group. But with growing genetic
> > distance, xenophobia will increase.

> The interesting part of that business comes in mate selection, where one
> tries to find someone enough like oneself (shared genes) but just
different
> enough (variety helps sustain and tends to protect against undesirable
> traits); thus we see, for bad example, the GIs who traveled to rather
> "exotic" foreign shores and married local women (like all the guys who
> brought home wives from Japan, Korea, Indonesia, and such).

I wouldn't call it a BAD example, I actually advocate mixed marriage (as
long as it is done in due fairness for both sides), because some foreign
genes supply variety to the gene pool, thus people might be healthier.
Many tribal people maintain complicated mating rules which make sure that
inbreeding can't abound.
However, the general rule is that the overwhelming majority of people
worldwide find their mating partner within the reach of about 50 kilometers
(a wider circle for citizens of industrialized, highly mobile societies, a
smaller circle for people from the hinderland with low infrastructure). Most
of us prefer partners who share the same culture, or at least speak the same
language.

> > In most so-called "primitive" societies it is considered normal to hate
and
> > wage war against "the others", even if they are just from the neighbor
> > village. But our modern society demands a lot of altruism towards
> > foreigners
> > and forbids xenophobia. Thus our instincts and the claims of society are
> > in contradiction. But then, isn't culture almost always contradicting
nature?

> There are always tensions between diads. We've seen that since the
> pre-Socratic thinkers, and Heidegger did an excellent job of laying out
the
> ontological and phenomenological bases for those tensions. One ought be
> careful whether to speak of them as "contradictory." While they may seem
> contradictory, these traits tend to serve useful purposes, either short-
or
> long-term. If, however, we define "useful" in terms of genetic survival.

You are right, we should look at each trait in the light of its usefulness,
genetically-wise.

> As to culture and nature being contradictory, that is part of the crux of
> the problem. Since our innate natures were formed three or four million
> years ago (or much longer), that nature is geared towards the
hunter-gather
> scenario. Modern socio-cultural influences and settings tend to operate
> counter to that innate nature and thus increases "internal" tensions
> (psycho-emotional problems) unless the individual finds ways in which
to...
> what's the proper Freudian term... transfer those tensions into useful
daily
> pursuits. Those who are less well educated (that's not quite the right
term,
> either) tend to be less capable of sublimating or transferring those
> tensions into something useful. That's why ever once in a while such
people
> blow up and do destructive things, either to themselves or to others.

Yes, sublimating or transferring tensions has become crucial in our urban
surrounding where our hunter-gather instincts have to be strictly controlled
to avoid conflicts. And it's often the "intellectually challenged" people
who lose control and do inappropriate things. After all, to call someone
"primitive", "caveman" or "neanderthal man" is derogatory! :-)

> >> Your last line, "not a dramatic increase but it will sum up," just
sounds
> >> so positively Hegelian! Thanks for the smile!

> > This Hegelian trait must be in my German genes! :-))

> Good old Hegel. He's still dead, too.

Yes, but *I* am still alive. ;-))


.