So I guess its the last day of the worst year of my life. By worst I mean at a mentally and emotion low. The Year started with Tony's coffee and reading Nietzsche..........Hmmmm
I found a quarter on the ground the other day and it was the best thing that had happened to
me in weeks.................................................................................................I used it for bus fare.
It pisses me off that the older I get the harder it is to hold on to the ideals of my youth
As I walked to work a kitten with a disabled leg came by, meowing and licking itself.
I keep trying to tell myself that light will come from darkness, but its hard to believe that stuff after you've admitted to yourself what a selfish jerk you are
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Monday, December 22, 2008
War Powers - pre-WWII Cold War
Started a job at Pizzeria Fondi in U-district, that's why I haven't been blogging much lately. I have to ride 3 buses and it takes at least an hour and a half each way. Seattle got hit with the worst snow storm, cold weather and wind we've had in decades, right when I was starting my new job of course. It's fun though, we use a brick dome oven that gets 700 F and cooks a pizza in 5 minutes. Last night was winter solstice, so the days will start to get longer again. Me and Mandy (black lab/chow) go romping in the snow, she loves it.
The common perception is that the so-called Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union began after WWII, but the US was actively opposing the Bolsheviks after their revolution in 1917. Small wars fought in many countries and continents fall under the Cold War category not because the US was in combat with Russians, but because we used the perceived threat of Bolshevism to use military force to uphold the in equal arrangements of US capitalism. The actual threat of communist infiltration was minimal in most cases, the real danger was the effect socialist economic planning would have on the profits of US Corporations.
Take the case of Nicaragua for instance. The US intervened repeatedly in the years from 1909 to 1933 to support a conservative party of oligarchs who favored US business (United Fruit) against a liberal party that had popular support and wanted to change their role as a stockroom for the global economy. (Irons, 121) During Calvin Coolidge's administration, Adolfo Diaz, the illegitimate president of the country, faced a popular insurgency that he claimed was formed by Mexican Bolsheviks. When Coolidge sent troops and naval vessels to "supervise" an election, Congress responded with a bill that prevented him from sending any more. They didn't quite reassert their Constitutionally delegated war powers, but at least they didn't give a blank check.
A supreme court case from this time had major repercussions for the extend of executive privilege. In 1933, Congress allowed the package of legislation known as the New deal to go through due to the need to deal with the depression. The National Industrial Recovery Act (HIRA) and Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) gave the president the power to set prices and quotas for hundreds of products, and tax food manufacturers to pay farmers not to farm (reducing supply to up demand). (Irons, 122) The Supreme Court challenged this delegation of legislative powers onto the executive, and FDR used the Justice department to attempt to undermine the Courts authority.
In another instance, the Court backed FDR's intrusion into the foreign policy making power of Congress. The Paraguay River is the border between Bolivia and Paraguay, and major route for products going to the Atlantic. When the Bolivians tried to seize it, a war erupted and FDR made a congressionally backed proclamation outlawing the shipping of arms to either side. After the conflict, it was claimed by federal prosecutors that the Curtiss-Wright company had sent 15 machine guns to Bolivia. They company resisted indictment with the claim that congress had "improperly delegated legislative power to the executive branch". (Irons, 124)
The Supreme Courts ruling made a distinction between domestic affairs and foreign, and gave the president wide ranging power in the latter, and limited the delegation doctrine of Congresses role in shaping foreign policy. According to the Curtiss-Wright ruling, the nation's survival depended on the presidents control of international relations. Sutherland's opinion brought up a stance taken by former Justice Marshall, that the executive was the "sole organ of the nation in its external affairs, and its sole representative with foreign nations." (Irons, 125) The ruling set the shaky precedent of an inherent presidential power with no constitutional backing.
The Spanish civil war was a conflict that many US citizens felt demanded the intervention of the US, constituents of the left wanting support of the Republican government and Catholics supporting Franco as the Republicans were secular leftists, and to some degree persecuted Catholics in Spain. It was also important for its international significance and role as a prelude to WWII. The Republican group, made up of "communists, socialists, and anarchists" was supported by the Soviets and other left-leaning European governments. (Irons, 127) The Fascist rebel group was supported by the Nazis and Mussolini's Italy, who were using belligerent language about Socialist/Communists.
FDR refused to choose sides in the conflict, Irons suggests a motive in the role both leftists and Catholics have in the Democratic party. FDR enacted an arms embargo on either Spanish group, a move which did more to hurt the Republican left than the Fascist Right, and helped the Fascist movements in Germany and Italy. When Germany invaded Poland in 1939, FDR claimed neutrality, but started shipping arms and ammo to the British and the French, in a repeat of the lead up to US involvement in WWI. (Irons, 128) FDR made a deal with Churchill to give naval destroyers in return for US use of Islands in various parts of the British empire. Rather than consulting Congress, he used the argument of AG Jackson that he could do what was necessary to acquire and maintain naval and military bases as C in C. The deal was essentially a treaty, but cleverly crafted and unconstitutional legal doctrine allowed the bloated executive powers to be further enlarged.
The common perception is that the so-called Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union began after WWII, but the US was actively opposing the Bolsheviks after their revolution in 1917. Small wars fought in many countries and continents fall under the Cold War category not because the US was in combat with Russians, but because we used the perceived threat of Bolshevism to use military force to uphold the in equal arrangements of US capitalism. The actual threat of communist infiltration was minimal in most cases, the real danger was the effect socialist economic planning would have on the profits of US Corporations.
Take the case of Nicaragua for instance. The US intervened repeatedly in the years from 1909 to 1933 to support a conservative party of oligarchs who favored US business (United Fruit) against a liberal party that had popular support and wanted to change their role as a stockroom for the global economy. (Irons, 121) During Calvin Coolidge's administration, Adolfo Diaz, the illegitimate president of the country, faced a popular insurgency that he claimed was formed by Mexican Bolsheviks. When Coolidge sent troops and naval vessels to "supervise" an election, Congress responded with a bill that prevented him from sending any more. They didn't quite reassert their Constitutionally delegated war powers, but at least they didn't give a blank check.
A supreme court case from this time had major repercussions for the extend of executive privilege. In 1933, Congress allowed the package of legislation known as the New deal to go through due to the need to deal with the depression. The National Industrial Recovery Act (HIRA) and Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) gave the president the power to set prices and quotas for hundreds of products, and tax food manufacturers to pay farmers not to farm (reducing supply to up demand). (Irons, 122) The Supreme Court challenged this delegation of legislative powers onto the executive, and FDR used the Justice department to attempt to undermine the Courts authority.
In another instance, the Court backed FDR's intrusion into the foreign policy making power of Congress. The Paraguay River is the border between Bolivia and Paraguay, and major route for products going to the Atlantic. When the Bolivians tried to seize it, a war erupted and FDR made a congressionally backed proclamation outlawing the shipping of arms to either side. After the conflict, it was claimed by federal prosecutors that the Curtiss-Wright company had sent 15 machine guns to Bolivia. They company resisted indictment with the claim that congress had "improperly delegated legislative power to the executive branch". (Irons, 124)
The Supreme Courts ruling made a distinction between domestic affairs and foreign, and gave the president wide ranging power in the latter, and limited the delegation doctrine of Congresses role in shaping foreign policy. According to the Curtiss-Wright ruling, the nation's survival depended on the presidents control of international relations. Sutherland's opinion brought up a stance taken by former Justice Marshall, that the executive was the "sole organ of the nation in its external affairs, and its sole representative with foreign nations." (Irons, 125) The ruling set the shaky precedent of an inherent presidential power with no constitutional backing.
The Spanish civil war was a conflict that many US citizens felt demanded the intervention of the US, constituents of the left wanting support of the Republican government and Catholics supporting Franco as the Republicans were secular leftists, and to some degree persecuted Catholics in Spain. It was also important for its international significance and role as a prelude to WWII. The Republican group, made up of "communists, socialists, and anarchists" was supported by the Soviets and other left-leaning European governments. (Irons, 127) The Fascist rebel group was supported by the Nazis and Mussolini's Italy, who were using belligerent language about Socialist/Communists.
FDR refused to choose sides in the conflict, Irons suggests a motive in the role both leftists and Catholics have in the Democratic party. FDR enacted an arms embargo on either Spanish group, a move which did more to hurt the Republican left than the Fascist Right, and helped the Fascist movements in Germany and Italy. When Germany invaded Poland in 1939, FDR claimed neutrality, but started shipping arms and ammo to the British and the French, in a repeat of the lead up to US involvement in WWI. (Irons, 128) FDR made a deal with Churchill to give naval destroyers in return for US use of Islands in various parts of the British empire. Rather than consulting Congress, he used the argument of AG Jackson that he could do what was necessary to acquire and maintain naval and military bases as C in C. The deal was essentially a treaty, but cleverly crafted and unconstitutional legal doctrine allowed the bloated executive powers to be further enlarged.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
War Powers - WWI
Woodrow Wilson, who was elected on the promise to remain neutral in the conflict in Europe, demanded congress declare war in response to German U-boat attacks on US supply ships. Interestingly, the US, not Germany, had broken International law by sending supplies to England while professing neutrality. The Lusitania, an ocean liner sank by Germans, was carrying ammunition and the Germans had the right under international norms to sink it. The economy had been in a recession, and the US was making money off its neutrality by selling supplies. As Randolph Bourne said, "War is the health of the state." (Irons, 102,103) The declaration came after Wilson was inaugurated in his second term, again as a neutral candidate.
Wilson used propaganda and a compliant press to make the shaky case for war. He did so by invoking the evocative language of humanitarian intervention. This masked the true reasons America would enter the war; to make sure the global economy didn't collapse and keep the natural resources flowing from British and German colonies. Politicians and business leaders used the phrase "making the world safe for democracy" to cloak the economic imperatives. (Irons, 106)
The issue of the balance of war powers between executive and legislative branches was raised again when Wilson sought US involvement in the League of Nations. This international body would use parliamentary procedures among member nations to resolve international disputes. Dissent to the formation of this body was expressed by Senator Henry Cabot Lodge on the grounds that it gave further war-making powers to the executive. Wilson didn't approve of the power congress had been delegated by the constitution over executive foreign policy decision making. The formation of the League was a part of the Treaty of Versailles to end the war, but this treaty was rejected time and time again by Congress. The dissenters didn't disagree with the aims of the League, the wanted only to uphold the Constitutions explicit statement that war-making powers cannot be delegated to the executive, even through Congressional consent. (Irons, 111)
Opposition to the war was high, with Socialists aiding draft resisters and publicly calling the war "a crime against the people of the US." The Wilson administration took a hard line that betrays the importance of public sentiment to the war effort. The Espionage act was passed in 1917 with harsh sentences for anyone aiding in the resistance of the draft and enlistment efforts. The Socialists used the indirect methods of speeches and pamphlets, acts that were Constitutionally protected.
The Supreme court case dealing with limits on free-speech and dissent during war was the Schenck case. Schenck prepared a pamphlet that was sent to men who had been drafted or were going to be. The pamphlet contained information about constitutionally protected free speech and encouraged people to help repeal the draft by coming to meetings and petitioning the government. It asked people to assert their rights, not to take any other actions than voicing objection. Schenck and four others were arrested and charged under the Espionage act with obstructing "the recruitment and enlistment services of the US." (Irons, 114)
The case was decided by the Supreme court after the war was over with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes writing the unanimous decision. Holmes made the blasphemous ruling that free speech depended on circumstances, and that the circumstances of the Schenck case made questionable what would have otherwise been protected free speech. His vague and obfuscating metaphor about the limits of free speech is very well-known,"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." He also felt that the government didn't need to prove his pamphlet had induced draft resistance, the intent was enough.
The distinction between peacetime and wartime free speech was in direct conflict with the earlier ruling in Milligan. "The Constitution of the US is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances." None of its provisions "can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government" (Irons, 117) The Holmes standard of "clear and present danger" was later overturned during the Vietnam war with the ruling that only speech "directed to inciting of producing imminent lawless action" could be considered criminal.
Wilson used propaganda and a compliant press to make the shaky case for war. He did so by invoking the evocative language of humanitarian intervention. This masked the true reasons America would enter the war; to make sure the global economy didn't collapse and keep the natural resources flowing from British and German colonies. Politicians and business leaders used the phrase "making the world safe for democracy" to cloak the economic imperatives. (Irons, 106)
The issue of the balance of war powers between executive and legislative branches was raised again when Wilson sought US involvement in the League of Nations. This international body would use parliamentary procedures among member nations to resolve international disputes. Dissent to the formation of this body was expressed by Senator Henry Cabot Lodge on the grounds that it gave further war-making powers to the executive. Wilson didn't approve of the power congress had been delegated by the constitution over executive foreign policy decision making. The formation of the League was a part of the Treaty of Versailles to end the war, but this treaty was rejected time and time again by Congress. The dissenters didn't disagree with the aims of the League, the wanted only to uphold the Constitutions explicit statement that war-making powers cannot be delegated to the executive, even through Congressional consent. (Irons, 111)
Opposition to the war was high, with Socialists aiding draft resisters and publicly calling the war "a crime against the people of the US." The Wilson administration took a hard line that betrays the importance of public sentiment to the war effort. The Espionage act was passed in 1917 with harsh sentences for anyone aiding in the resistance of the draft and enlistment efforts. The Socialists used the indirect methods of speeches and pamphlets, acts that were Constitutionally protected.
The Supreme court case dealing with limits on free-speech and dissent during war was the Schenck case. Schenck prepared a pamphlet that was sent to men who had been drafted or were going to be. The pamphlet contained information about constitutionally protected free speech and encouraged people to help repeal the draft by coming to meetings and petitioning the government. It asked people to assert their rights, not to take any other actions than voicing objection. Schenck and four others were arrested and charged under the Espionage act with obstructing "the recruitment and enlistment services of the US." (Irons, 114)
The case was decided by the Supreme court after the war was over with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes writing the unanimous decision. Holmes made the blasphemous ruling that free speech depended on circumstances, and that the circumstances of the Schenck case made questionable what would have otherwise been protected free speech. His vague and obfuscating metaphor about the limits of free speech is very well-known,"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." He also felt that the government didn't need to prove his pamphlet had induced draft resistance, the intent was enough.
The distinction between peacetime and wartime free speech was in direct conflict with the earlier ruling in Milligan. "The Constitution of the US is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances." None of its provisions "can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government" (Irons, 117) The Holmes standard of "clear and present danger" was later overturned during the Vietnam war with the ruling that only speech "directed to inciting of producing imminent lawless action" could be considered criminal.
Monday, December 15, 2008
War Powers - Spanish-American War
As the US economy grew to an international level after the Civil War, the drive of US foreign policy shifted to expansionism. (Irons, 88) Close to our shores and home to much American investment and trade was Cuba, which was rebelling against Spain. Pressure from the business community was felt by Congress, which wanted President Cleveland to declare war on Spain and intervene in Cuba. The executive, for once, was against the war and he said he would refuse to mobilize if Congress declared. (Irons, 90) McKinley came to office in 1897 and was against the war as well until the February 15, 1898 sinking of the Maine in Havana. A report falsely concluded Spain was at fault (false flag??) and the public was firmly on the war wagon.
In a scenario reminiscent of the lead up to our current war, Congress passed the Teller amendment with a large margin, riding the wave of indignation that swamped any rational diplomatic thinking. The idea that this would be an easy victory dominated and kept any objectors silent. The amendment contained the vague hyperbole of American support for democracy and liberation of oppressed people. It stated that the US would leave Cuba after it could govern itself. (Irons, 91)
The true intentions of those who had pushed for the war became apparent with the provisions demanded of the Cuban constitution by the Platt Amendment. It stated the US could "...intervene for the preservation of Cuban Independence" and that Cuba must allow land naval bases. The US did intervene repeatedly, and the phrase "Cuban Independence" was shown to mean the continued profit from US trade and investment in Cuba. (Irons, 93)
The biggest gains to the US empire in this war were in the Pacific. The US navy went to the Philippines, a Spanish colony, and destroyed the Spanish fleet. Spain gave up the Philippines along with Guam and Puerto Rico for 20 million. The Philippines, while having some resources themselves, were more valuable for the access they give to the markets of Asia. The constant expansion of markets for the consumption of American products is the common theme to American foreign policy in the 2oth century and beyond. The intentions of the US business community were served well, and those who had been calling for expansion before the war used the sinking of the Maine as the excuse to set in motion their imperial ambitions. The similarities between this use of a convienent pretext to carry out policies that would otherwise be opposed, and our current War on Terror should be apparent.
In a scenario reminiscent of the lead up to our current war, Congress passed the Teller amendment with a large margin, riding the wave of indignation that swamped any rational diplomatic thinking. The idea that this would be an easy victory dominated and kept any objectors silent. The amendment contained the vague hyperbole of American support for democracy and liberation of oppressed people. It stated that the US would leave Cuba after it could govern itself. (Irons, 91)
The true intentions of those who had pushed for the war became apparent with the provisions demanded of the Cuban constitution by the Platt Amendment. It stated the US could "...intervene for the preservation of Cuban Independence" and that Cuba must allow land naval bases. The US did intervene repeatedly, and the phrase "Cuban Independence" was shown to mean the continued profit from US trade and investment in Cuba. (Irons, 93)
The biggest gains to the US empire in this war were in the Pacific. The US navy went to the Philippines, a Spanish colony, and destroyed the Spanish fleet. Spain gave up the Philippines along with Guam and Puerto Rico for 20 million. The Philippines, while having some resources themselves, were more valuable for the access they give to the markets of Asia. The constant expansion of markets for the consumption of American products is the common theme to American foreign policy in the 2oth century and beyond. The intentions of the US business community were served well, and those who had been calling for expansion before the war used the sinking of the Maine as the excuse to set in motion their imperial ambitions. The similarities between this use of a convienent pretext to carry out policies that would otherwise be opposed, and our current War on Terror should be apparent.
Friday, December 12, 2008
War Powers - continued starting with Civil war
The Civil War has obvious parallels to our current "War on Terror"(Newspeak anyone??) especially when we look at Supreme court rulings based on Lincoln's blockade of the Confederacy and suspension of Habeas Corpus. Lincoln issued these proclamations while congress was in recess and when they returned he said this about his actions. "Whether strictly legal or not, were ventured upon under what appeared to be a popular demand and a public necessity, trusting then, as now, that Congress would readily ratify them." (Irons, 70) Congress then performed that common dereliction of duty in giving Lincolns proclamations retroactive sanction.
Lincolns blockade stated that any ships from neutral countries trading with the Confederacy could be seized. The issue brought before the court in the Prize cases was whether or not the president had the right to issue the blockade under international law. A larger issue was how did a civil war, began as an domestic insurrection, fit into the constitutional delegation of war powers? (Irons, 72) The issue of the blockade centered on this question: were the Union and Confederacy independent nations and belligerents in an actual war?? Justice Grier wrote in the majority opinion that this was the case and that Lincoln had the right to enforce the blockade, even though a blockade is an act of war that only congress can enact.
In making this ruling, Grier forfeited the duty of the court to apply the constitution to the other two branches of government and any disputes or transgressions that might occur. Grier's statement that the issue of the blockade was "...a question to be decided by him ,(Lincoln) and this Court must be governed by the decisions and acts of the political department of Government" exempted this type of executive action from judicial scrutiny. (Irons, 74) The dissenters argued that the court hadn't done its duty to "say what the law is" and that "no subsequent ratification could make them (unconstitutional executive proclamations) valid". (Irons, 75)
The suspension of habeas came about because union soldiers heard that there were plots to blow up trains carry war supplies through Maryland (a slave state still in the Union). The order ""..allowed Union officers to arrest and detain without trial anyone suspect of threatening "public safety."" (Irons, 75) The Constitution put the ability to suspend habeas to protect public safety in the event of rebellion or invasion in the hands of Congress. A confederate supporter named Merryman was arrested and his lawyer petitioned the Supreme Court Justice Taney to apply habeas to the case. He allowed Merryman to remain in military custody but asserted that Lincolns suspension of habeas was unconstitutional, and that arbitrary arrests meant we lived under a military government.
Lincoln replied with the same justification that Jefferson used: following the law too strictly could lead to our destruction. When he said that "...some single law (habeas), made in such extreme tenderness of the citizens liberty that practically it relieves more of the guilty that of the innocent..." he expressed his disdain for habeas and the concept of protection from executive abuse it embodies. (Irons, 80) Sound familiar?? Maybe the Patriot act, enemy combatants, and Guantanamo Bay ring a bell.
The Milligan case centered on the trial before a military commission of suspects in a plot to set Confederate POW's free. Milligan and three others were sentenced to death, and this sentence was signed by Lincolns successor, Andrew Johnson. The Case was appealed to the Supreme court with the argument that military tribunals had no jurisdiction in Indiana because it was not in danger of invasion, martial law had not been imposed, and federal courts were still functioning. The Court, now headed by Salmon Chase, questioned the legal authority of military tribunals. The unanimous decision to release Milligan from military custody was written by Davis and stated that Milligan had not received his basic constitutional protections.
In case it is not obvious, I will spell out the similarities between these Civil War incidents and contemporary ones.
1. Granting of emergency powers to the executive by congress without debate.
2. Executive taking unconstitutional action.
3. Subversion of civil liberties and suspicion of civilians as traitors.
4. The use of military tribunals.
Lincolns blockade stated that any ships from neutral countries trading with the Confederacy could be seized. The issue brought before the court in the Prize cases was whether or not the president had the right to issue the blockade under international law. A larger issue was how did a civil war, began as an domestic insurrection, fit into the constitutional delegation of war powers? (Irons, 72) The issue of the blockade centered on this question: were the Union and Confederacy independent nations and belligerents in an actual war?? Justice Grier wrote in the majority opinion that this was the case and that Lincoln had the right to enforce the blockade, even though a blockade is an act of war that only congress can enact.
In making this ruling, Grier forfeited the duty of the court to apply the constitution to the other two branches of government and any disputes or transgressions that might occur. Grier's statement that the issue of the blockade was "...a question to be decided by him ,(Lincoln) and this Court must be governed by the decisions and acts of the political department of Government" exempted this type of executive action from judicial scrutiny. (Irons, 74) The dissenters argued that the court hadn't done its duty to "say what the law is" and that "no subsequent ratification could make them (unconstitutional executive proclamations) valid". (Irons, 75)
The suspension of habeas came about because union soldiers heard that there were plots to blow up trains carry war supplies through Maryland (a slave state still in the Union). The order ""..allowed Union officers to arrest and detain without trial anyone suspect of threatening "public safety."" (Irons, 75) The Constitution put the ability to suspend habeas to protect public safety in the event of rebellion or invasion in the hands of Congress. A confederate supporter named Merryman was arrested and his lawyer petitioned the Supreme Court Justice Taney to apply habeas to the case. He allowed Merryman to remain in military custody but asserted that Lincolns suspension of habeas was unconstitutional, and that arbitrary arrests meant we lived under a military government.
Lincoln replied with the same justification that Jefferson used: following the law too strictly could lead to our destruction. When he said that "...some single law (habeas), made in such extreme tenderness of the citizens liberty that practically it relieves more of the guilty that of the innocent..." he expressed his disdain for habeas and the concept of protection from executive abuse it embodies. (Irons, 80) Sound familiar?? Maybe the Patriot act, enemy combatants, and Guantanamo Bay ring a bell.
The Milligan case centered on the trial before a military commission of suspects in a plot to set Confederate POW's free. Milligan and three others were sentenced to death, and this sentence was signed by Lincolns successor, Andrew Johnson. The Case was appealed to the Supreme court with the argument that military tribunals had no jurisdiction in Indiana because it was not in danger of invasion, martial law had not been imposed, and federal courts were still functioning. The Court, now headed by Salmon Chase, questioned the legal authority of military tribunals. The unanimous decision to release Milligan from military custody was written by Davis and stated that Milligan had not received his basic constitutional protections.
In case it is not obvious, I will spell out the similarities between these Civil War incidents and contemporary ones.
1. Granting of emergency powers to the executive by congress without debate.
2. Executive taking unconstitutional action.
3. Subversion of civil liberties and suspicion of civilians as traitors.
4. The use of military tribunals.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
War Powers - History of expanding executive privelege
One of the most important issues regarding Obama's presidency will be his stance on the fact that the executive branch of our government has been expanded far beyond the intentions spelled out in the constitution. How does he view the notion of inherent and implied powers and the balance of war powers between legislative and executive branches? I guess we can't really expect the president to voluntarily give up the executive privileges he has inherited, so the real question is will the legislative and judicial branches attempt to restore the balance of power, which it has been reluctant to do. I've been reading the book War Powers which examines the steady enlargement of the executive branches authority to make decisions regarding use of force without congressional approval. It does so by looking at various administrations, the relevant military conflicts and supreme court rulings. I'll discuss this work below.
The concept of federal government hashed out by the constitutional convention rested upon the balance of between legislative, executive, and judicial branches. The legislative was to the law-making branch, whose laws were enforced by the executive with the judicial there to resolve conflict between the other two. (Irons, 16) The constitution that they approved stated "the legislature of the US shall have the power to declare war" showing that the delegates wanted to exclude the executive from this function. (Irons, 20) The document gave the executive "...the power to repel sudden attacks" and this statement, along with the vague commander-in-chief provision, has been used to justify an amazing amount of clearly offensive war-making directed by the executive with a complacent congress. It was clearly the intentions of the framers that "...only Congress could authorize the deployment of forces outside the nation's territory in combat against foreign troops." (Irons, 21)
From the beginning, presidents acted unconstitutionally by taking exclusive control of foreign-policy decisions. Take Washington's Proclamation of neutrality in the conflict between British and French, which countered the congressionally ratified Franco-American treaty. The essential dispute that will continue to our own day was laid down here, and it was rooted in the vagaries of the constitution in defining terms such as war, commander-in-chief, and declaration of war. Was there such a thing as congress acknowledging a state of war without formally declaring it?? A supreme court case settled in 1804, Little V. Barreme stated that the "president must follow congressional directives" in directing foreign policy and authorizing troop deployments. (Irons, 39)
The issue was touched on again during Jefferson's presidency when he ordered military purchases without congressional approval in response to the British firing on the American ship Chesapeake. He stated the dangerous "law of necessity doctrine", that in times of emergency the president could take extralegal action. "To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property, and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means." (Irons quoting Jefferson, 43)
An important case following the war of 1812 involved soldiers refusing duty and the executive power to mobilize state militias. In Martin V. Mott, Mott was court-marshaled for refusing to report for duty in the state militia. He argued that New york state "...faced no imminent danger of British invasion." (Irons, 49) The court convicted him and set the precedent that troops or citizens couldn't ask for proof of the legitimacy of executive military actions. The did so on the grounds that "the disclosure of the evidence might reveal important secrets of state, which the public interest, and even safety, might imperiously demand to be kept in concealment." (Irons, 50)
Our first clear instance of a president deliberately provoking military attack and masking imperial ambitions behind the visage of defense was the annexation of Texas and the subsequent Mexican War under Polk. Texas joined the union in 1845 and Polk set an envoy to Mexico auspiciously to clear boundary disputes and offer a price for California that he knew would be rejected. US troops moved to the Rio Grande and began making the preparations for invasion in sight of a Mexican fort, which send troops over the border in response to this deliberate provocation. Despite dissent, congress approved a declaration of war, authorizing retroactively Polks unconstitutional deployment of troops. A quote from Lincoln summarizes the concerns raised by this instance. "Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion,and you allow him to make war at pleasure." (Lincoln quoted by Irons, 59)
The concept of federal government hashed out by the constitutional convention rested upon the balance of between legislative, executive, and judicial branches. The legislative was to the law-making branch, whose laws were enforced by the executive with the judicial there to resolve conflict between the other two. (Irons, 16) The constitution that they approved stated "the legislature of the US shall have the power to declare war" showing that the delegates wanted to exclude the executive from this function. (Irons, 20) The document gave the executive "...the power to repel sudden attacks" and this statement, along with the vague commander-in-chief provision, has been used to justify an amazing amount of clearly offensive war-making directed by the executive with a complacent congress. It was clearly the intentions of the framers that "...only Congress could authorize the deployment of forces outside the nation's territory in combat against foreign troops." (Irons, 21)
From the beginning, presidents acted unconstitutionally by taking exclusive control of foreign-policy decisions. Take Washington's Proclamation of neutrality in the conflict between British and French, which countered the congressionally ratified Franco-American treaty. The essential dispute that will continue to our own day was laid down here, and it was rooted in the vagaries of the constitution in defining terms such as war, commander-in-chief, and declaration of war. Was there such a thing as congress acknowledging a state of war without formally declaring it?? A supreme court case settled in 1804, Little V. Barreme stated that the "president must follow congressional directives" in directing foreign policy and authorizing troop deployments. (Irons, 39)
The issue was touched on again during Jefferson's presidency when he ordered military purchases without congressional approval in response to the British firing on the American ship Chesapeake. He stated the dangerous "law of necessity doctrine", that in times of emergency the president could take extralegal action. "To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property, and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means." (Irons quoting Jefferson, 43)
An important case following the war of 1812 involved soldiers refusing duty and the executive power to mobilize state militias. In Martin V. Mott, Mott was court-marshaled for refusing to report for duty in the state militia. He argued that New york state "...faced no imminent danger of British invasion." (Irons, 49) The court convicted him and set the precedent that troops or citizens couldn't ask for proof of the legitimacy of executive military actions. The did so on the grounds that "the disclosure of the evidence might reveal important secrets of state, which the public interest, and even safety, might imperiously demand to be kept in concealment." (Irons, 50)
Our first clear instance of a president deliberately provoking military attack and masking imperial ambitions behind the visage of defense was the annexation of Texas and the subsequent Mexican War under Polk. Texas joined the union in 1845 and Polk set an envoy to Mexico auspiciously to clear boundary disputes and offer a price for California that he knew would be rejected. US troops moved to the Rio Grande and began making the preparations for invasion in sight of a Mexican fort, which send troops over the border in response to this deliberate provocation. Despite dissent, congress approved a declaration of war, authorizing retroactively Polks unconstitutional deployment of troops. A quote from Lincoln summarizes the concerns raised by this instance. "Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion,and you allow him to make war at pleasure." (Lincoln quoted by Irons, 59)
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Been discussing architecture with my sister when I went to visit and again over Tgiving. She's taking a class on modern arch at UCSC and I've studied it a little, my interest centering on how architecture reflects historical socio/cultural patterns as well and power dynamics. The use of architecture by the state (the original propaganda??) goes back to what Mumford calls the megamachine and its monumental products; the pyramids, ziggurats, Stonehenge, Tikal, Angkor Wat. Architecture was the symbol used to express the sacred ordination of the secular, the king/priest alliance. Flash forward to the use of romantic architecture by totalitarian/fascist/democratic movements in the 20th century.
The history of modern arch seems to begin (perhaps some overemphasis from Gideon) in Germany after WWI with the Bauhaus movement. This movement was suppressed and many of its adherents came to America where modern arch was centered after the war. An exception, Mies, submitted a design for the Reichsbank that the Nazi's approved of. Nazi's said Bauhaus was decadent, Bolshevik and cosmopolitan.
Watching doc now, Gropius builds the Bauhaus at Dessau with Ford style assemble line, very modern. Glass facade detached from load bearing pillars, transparent, no isolation, designed to encourage interaction and banish privacy. Its very industrial (radiators as ornaments), function is beauty. Influence of Cubism, interpenetration of space, all superfluous elements removed.
The history of modern arch seems to begin (perhaps some overemphasis from Gideon) in Germany after WWI with the Bauhaus movement. This movement was suppressed and many of its adherents came to America where modern arch was centered after the war. An exception, Mies, submitted a design for the Reichsbank that the Nazi's approved of. Nazi's said Bauhaus was decadent, Bolshevik and cosmopolitan.
Watching doc now, Gropius builds the Bauhaus at Dessau with Ford style assemble line, very modern. Glass facade detached from load bearing pillars, transparent, no isolation, designed to encourage interaction and banish privacy. Its very industrial (radiators as ornaments), function is beauty. Influence of Cubism, interpenetration of space, all superfluous elements removed.
Karl Popper - The Open Society and its Enemies
I'll take a break from Mumford to discuss Popper. Some comments on the megamachine first though. Me and some friends were in Port Orchard looking across at the shipyard and wondering why the Armed Forces, who have outsourced so much, still produce Navy ships. We saw that the Air Force buys planes from other companies, weapons as well. The Naval shipyard is a modern example of the megamachine. It requires the mobilizations of much labor and the accountability of the chain of command.
Karl Poppers book critics the methods of the social sciences, what he calls historicism. His critic is situated in the context of the totalitarian and fascists states in the 1930's. He see the argument that the phenomenon of fascism was inevitable as an social impotence born from the dominance of historicism in the social sciences. (Popper, 2) Historicism means the belief that we can look at the past and draw scientific laws of history that allow us to give historical prophecies. (Popper, 3) The belief in this "metaphysics of history" prevents us from effectively applying science to the reform of social problems.
Popper gives psychological explanations for the desire of some, usually leaders or elite cirlces, to give prophecy, and the willingness of others to follow it. Those prophesying apocalypse give expression to a feeling of dissatisfaction and alienation with current conditions. By using the method of prophecy, humans can write off any calamity as inevitable, and rid themselves of the responsibility of attempting to change repressive situations. (Popper, 4) Popper wants to save the social sciences from its fall into historicism, but fears that many have already given up on reason and social science because they cannot conceptualize it without the prophetic undertones. Historicism appeals to us because we are not satisfied with "...a world which does not, and cannot, live up to our moral ideals and to our dreams of perfection." (Popper, 5)
Historicism is a reaction against the ideal of individual responsibility held so highly in our society.
Popper discusses Plato at length, as a founding father of historicism, following Heraclitus. Plato holds that tenet of historicism, that it is the ruling elite which must be concentrated upon as the vehicle of social change, and not the blind masses who simply follow the whims of the chosen few. He also attempted to explain laws regulating the evolution of political society.
Karl Poppers book critics the methods of the social sciences, what he calls historicism. His critic is situated in the context of the totalitarian and fascists states in the 1930's. He see the argument that the phenomenon of fascism was inevitable as an social impotence born from the dominance of historicism in the social sciences. (Popper, 2) Historicism means the belief that we can look at the past and draw scientific laws of history that allow us to give historical prophecies. (Popper, 3) The belief in this "metaphysics of history" prevents us from effectively applying science to the reform of social problems.
Popper gives psychological explanations for the desire of some, usually leaders or elite cirlces, to give prophecy, and the willingness of others to follow it. Those prophesying apocalypse give expression to a feeling of dissatisfaction and alienation with current conditions. By using the method of prophecy, humans can write off any calamity as inevitable, and rid themselves of the responsibility of attempting to change repressive situations. (Popper, 4) Popper wants to save the social sciences from its fall into historicism, but fears that many have already given up on reason and social science because they cannot conceptualize it without the prophetic undertones. Historicism appeals to us because we are not satisfied with "...a world which does not, and cannot, live up to our moral ideals and to our dreams of perfection." (Popper, 5)
Historicism is a reaction against the ideal of individual responsibility held so highly in our society.
Popper discusses Plato at length, as a founding father of historicism, following Heraclitus. Plato holds that tenet of historicism, that it is the ruling elite which must be concentrated upon as the vehicle of social change, and not the blind masses who simply follow the whims of the chosen few. He also attempted to explain laws regulating the evolution of political society.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Mumford - Chap. Nine - The Megamachine
In this chapter Mumford introduces a key concept of the book, that of the megamachine. The first aspect of the megamachine is the invisible machine which means the ability to organized mass amounts of labor. The invisible machine is made up of people who have been assigned specialized roles in the creation of large works. The results of this machine are visible, as are the tools and remains of workers, the invisible part is the organizing structure. This is what an art history teacher of mine was trying to get us to see when showing us slides of Stonehenge, the pyramids and ziggurats. These monuments tell us that whoever built them had the ability to coordinate and enforce a rigorous long term work project.
The invisible machine is founded on the ability of kings to coerce conformity to their authority. This ability, as we have seen, is based on an alliance between the military force of the kings and their armies, and the supernatural sanction lent by the priestly class. The order born from this alliance was fragile and those who lead through fear of earthly and heavenly harm were paranoid of losing there ability to intimidate. "Without submissive faith and unqualified obedience to the royal will, transmitted by governors, generals, bureaucrats, taskmasters, the machine would never have been workable. When these attitudes could not be sustained, the megamachine collapsed." (Mumford, 191)
If the ability to coerce conformity exists in sufficient amounts, the next problem is how to use it to unify individuals into a mechanized group that blindly followed orders. This requires a commander with exact knowledge of the end product and the means for reaching it, and with the means to transmit and reproduce these ends and means through the chain of command. The solution to this problem came from the organizational methods of the army, and the technology of written language. This tech allows for exact message transmission and accountability in the dual sense of knowing who didn't follow orders and know how much of what the collective has. This represents a further centralization of intelligence, the ability to report to headquarters.
The invisible machine is founded on the ability of kings to coerce conformity to their authority. This ability, as we have seen, is based on an alliance between the military force of the kings and their armies, and the supernatural sanction lent by the priestly class. The order born from this alliance was fragile and those who lead through fear of earthly and heavenly harm were paranoid of losing there ability to intimidate. "Without submissive faith and unqualified obedience to the royal will, transmitted by governors, generals, bureaucrats, taskmasters, the machine would never have been workable. When these attitudes could not be sustained, the megamachine collapsed." (Mumford, 191)
If the ability to coerce conformity exists in sufficient amounts, the next problem is how to use it to unify individuals into a mechanized group that blindly followed orders. This requires a commander with exact knowledge of the end product and the means for reaching it, and with the means to transmit and reproduce these ends and means through the chain of command. The solution to this problem came from the organizational methods of the army, and the technology of written language. This tech allows for exact message transmission and accountability in the dual sense of knowing who didn't follow orders and know how much of what the collective has. This represents a further centralization of intelligence, the ability to report to headquarters.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Mumford - chap. eight - Proto-state, king/priest alliance
We saw how the shift to ag took place and created a surplus of food. The existence of this surplus means that people are freed from the necessity of farming and other professions can come about (social specialization). It also means that when somebody controls the food, the can control society. Mum identifies the 3rd century BCE as the period when the shift from the essentially democratic neolithic village culture to an authoritarian proto-state begins to take place in the river valleys of Mesopotamia, Egypt, and India. This new culture unified over large areas in a hierarchical manner what used to be autonomous, loosely organized villages. Again, this shift was not due to tech, it took place in Egypt before the wheels, plows, or written language, but due to the appearance of a more "efficient" type of social organization. (Mumford, 163-165)
Control of agriculture on a large scale is the basis of the new authority. In order to control agriculture an institution was needed to coordinate large-scale irrigation, planting, and harvesting of grains. This institution was the priestly temple and it was here that the first written languages arise to record the production, storage, and distribution of grain. The exclusive control of this technology went along with the priestly knowledge of the cycles of nature, on earth and in the heavens, to give authority to the priest caste. They could predict weather and astronomic phenomenon, and this gave them the appearance of supernatural powers. A shift in religious emphasis takes places here, from plant-gods and animal-spirits, to vindictive omnipotent gods of the heavens.
The roots of the institution and cult of the divine ruler was in the transformation of the "paleolithic hunting chief" into the king. They possessed the necessary quality of ruthless self-confidence and the hunting weapons that could be used to create armed men to enforce the kings will. The new social arrangement was a mutant fusion of neolithic peasant farming with paleolithic hunting culture. The Neolithic villages were easily assimilated by proto-states because they lacked the weapons of hunting cultures and the ability to mobilize under the command of a strong leader. Even so, they contributed the agriculturalists persistence, orderly social life, and food surplus that was necessary to form the armies of the proto-state. (Mumford, 169)
The proto-state also rested on the fusion of the authoritarian hunting chief and the nascent priests, originally tenders of shrines and performers of rituals. The supernatural authority of this group was necessary to legitimize the demands of the king and force submission and consent. "The efficacy of kingship...rests precisely on this alliance between the hunter's predatory prowess and gift of command, on one hand, an priestly access to astronomical lore and divine guidance" (Mumford, 171) The mace or club was the tech symbol of this union, one which lives on in the royal scepter.
A new type of observation is displayed here, one derived from the earlier style that lead to domestication but different in that it utilized abstract symbols to count, measure and quantify. The Egyptian solar calender is symbolic of this new science, which was the occupation of the new priestly class. All of the technological advances follow from this application of mathematical calculation and observance of cyclical, natural phenomenon. The authority of the king is an extrapolation of the knowledge of these ordered and unchanging processes.
A major attribute of this new political institution is its demand for complete obedience. There was a need for this obedience in the larger scale communities of the late neolithic. Many myths of the origins of kings tell of a time of disaster, famine, or other emergency that necessitated the delegation of absolute powers. As kings obtained subservience to their "divine will", they began to come into conflict with other kings equally convinced of their heavenly ordination. This coerced relationship between ruler and ruled is displayed as natural in Mesopotamian folk lore. The belief is expressed that the king is always right, what he commands is like words from god written in stone. The parallels with our current political situation in America are obvious. The problems raised by this unqualified decision making are also obvious, there was no room for common sense or deliberation of ideas and policies by a group.
(Mumford, 175-179)
Control of agriculture on a large scale is the basis of the new authority. In order to control agriculture an institution was needed to coordinate large-scale irrigation, planting, and harvesting of grains. This institution was the priestly temple and it was here that the first written languages arise to record the production, storage, and distribution of grain. The exclusive control of this technology went along with the priestly knowledge of the cycles of nature, on earth and in the heavens, to give authority to the priest caste. They could predict weather and astronomic phenomenon, and this gave them the appearance of supernatural powers. A shift in religious emphasis takes places here, from plant-gods and animal-spirits, to vindictive omnipotent gods of the heavens.
The roots of the institution and cult of the divine ruler was in the transformation of the "paleolithic hunting chief" into the king. They possessed the necessary quality of ruthless self-confidence and the hunting weapons that could be used to create armed men to enforce the kings will. The new social arrangement was a mutant fusion of neolithic peasant farming with paleolithic hunting culture. The Neolithic villages were easily assimilated by proto-states because they lacked the weapons of hunting cultures and the ability to mobilize under the command of a strong leader. Even so, they contributed the agriculturalists persistence, orderly social life, and food surplus that was necessary to form the armies of the proto-state. (Mumford, 169)
The proto-state also rested on the fusion of the authoritarian hunting chief and the nascent priests, originally tenders of shrines and performers of rituals. The supernatural authority of this group was necessary to legitimize the demands of the king and force submission and consent. "The efficacy of kingship...rests precisely on this alliance between the hunter's predatory prowess and gift of command, on one hand, an priestly access to astronomical lore and divine guidance" (Mumford, 171) The mace or club was the tech symbol of this union, one which lives on in the royal scepter.
A new type of observation is displayed here, one derived from the earlier style that lead to domestication but different in that it utilized abstract symbols to count, measure and quantify. The Egyptian solar calender is symbolic of this new science, which was the occupation of the new priestly class. All of the technological advances follow from this application of mathematical calculation and observance of cyclical, natural phenomenon. The authority of the king is an extrapolation of the knowledge of these ordered and unchanging processes.
A major attribute of this new political institution is its demand for complete obedience. There was a need for this obedience in the larger scale communities of the late neolithic. Many myths of the origins of kings tell of a time of disaster, famine, or other emergency that necessitated the delegation of absolute powers. As kings obtained subservience to their "divine will", they began to come into conflict with other kings equally convinced of their heavenly ordination. This coerced relationship between ruler and ruled is displayed as natural in Mesopotamian folk lore. The belief is expressed that the king is always right, what he commands is like words from god written in stone. The parallels with our current political situation in America are obvious. The problems raised by this unqualified decision making are also obvious, there was no room for common sense or deliberation of ideas and policies by a group.
(Mumford, 175-179)
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Mumford - Chap. six - Agri. Revolution
Mumford breaks the history of domestication into three periods:
(late) paleolithic 30,000 - 15,000 BCE
Mesolithic 15,ooo - 8,000 BCE
neolithic 8ooo - 3500 BCE
He starts with the caveat that domestication was a slow process with no "revolutionary" moment. Material remains can't be our only guide, sickles along with mortar + pestle were used long to cut grain and grind minerals long before people performed intentional planting. The one tool that did have obvious ramifications was the stone axe, used to clear land, build dams + irrigation networks, allow the large human communities we see a step to civilization. (Mumford, 127) The ramifications are that man now applied the tendency of order-forming, that he used to transform himself, onto his environment at large.
The trend towards intensified labor noted in the paleolithic shaping of tools grew into a spirit of industriousness in the neolithic, meaning "...the capacity for assiduous application to a single task, sometimes carried over years and generations." Mumford laments, and I agree, that something was lost in this process. There is a freedom to the hunter/gatherer life and a closeness to nature that is lost when men become domesticators. In the effort to domesticate, to take things out of their natural context, we ourselves became domesticated and taken out of our natural context. (Mumford, 128, 129)
While the great advances make themselves apparent in the period between 9000-7000 BCE, they rested on a serious of stages going back much further. The first was the paleolithic acquisition and retention of knowledge about plants. The mesolithic saw the use of horticulture with crops such as the yam and taro roots, which, being supplemented by hunting and fishing, allowed for year-round sedentary existence. This stable occupation of the land allowed people to observe plant reproduction and experiment with cultivation. Stable occupancy also gives rise to the domestication of the dog, who started hanging around settlements to scavenge garbage. The original use of dog and pig by humans was for scavenging (think pigs/truffles).(Mumford, 132-133)
The rise of high-yielding crops in the Near East was due to knowledge of soil fertility, irrigation, and seed-selection, not to any tool improvements. Almost all the crops we utilized today were domesticated before the rise of metallurgy and what we call science. The selection of these particular species out of thousands was the result of identification and experimentation done well before domestication. For example, all five natural sources of caffeine found in the natural realm were discovered by pre-ag humans; tea, coffee, cola, cacao, and yerba mate. This selection was about more than picking the most nutritious plants, it involved knowledge of soil, season and climate, and water requirements.
The shift in tool making from from knapping to grinding indicates a shift from ritualized labor to painstakingly tedious work. The repetition of a single act to the point of drudgery is indicative of the conditions of civilized life. It is the other side of the disciplined observation and repetition of action necessary for agriculture, and it is embodied in a specific personality type. "These repetitive habits proved to be immensely productive. But there is hardly any doubt that in some degree they dulled the imagination, and tended to select and advance the more submissive types..." (Mumford, 137,138)
Another manifestation and symbol of the shift towards man-made life was the use of bread as a staple. Bread represents the security farmers received as a reward of diligent labor. Sedentary agriculture man could plan for the future and "improve his land" for generations. The storage of grain represents the birth of capital accumulation, the hierarchical power relations typical of civilization have their birth with this social surplus. Paul Shepard discussed the opposing tendency of agricultural life, the instability of having to rely upon a few sources of nourishment and the regularity of weather. But Mumford's point of further imposition of order on the environment, and regimentation of social life remain valid. (Mumford, 139)
A last important technological innovation was the use of baked clay containers, born from the need to store grain. Many processes indicative of the "Neolithic economy" rest on the use of containers. Beer requires vats, grain must be protected from moisture and rodents, baskets store and transport good, barns shelter animals. The permanent home is a container as well. The tool associated with creating clay containers is the potters wheel, which was the grandfather of the wheel. This technological step continues that started with stone working, and rests on the idea of furthering continuity. Stone tools allowed a continuous supply of meat, clay containers a continuous supply of grain, and this thread of continuity allows the progress of civilization.
(late) paleolithic 30,000 - 15,000 BCE
Mesolithic 15,ooo - 8,000 BCE
neolithic 8ooo - 3500 BCE
He starts with the caveat that domestication was a slow process with no "revolutionary" moment. Material remains can't be our only guide, sickles along with mortar + pestle were used long to cut grain and grind minerals long before people performed intentional planting. The one tool that did have obvious ramifications was the stone axe, used to clear land, build dams + irrigation networks, allow the large human communities we see a step to civilization. (Mumford, 127) The ramifications are that man now applied the tendency of order-forming, that he used to transform himself, onto his environment at large.
The trend towards intensified labor noted in the paleolithic shaping of tools grew into a spirit of industriousness in the neolithic, meaning "...the capacity for assiduous application to a single task, sometimes carried over years and generations." Mumford laments, and I agree, that something was lost in this process. There is a freedom to the hunter/gatherer life and a closeness to nature that is lost when men become domesticators. In the effort to domesticate, to take things out of their natural context, we ourselves became domesticated and taken out of our natural context. (Mumford, 128, 129)
While the great advances make themselves apparent in the period between 9000-7000 BCE, they rested on a serious of stages going back much further. The first was the paleolithic acquisition and retention of knowledge about plants. The mesolithic saw the use of horticulture with crops such as the yam and taro roots, which, being supplemented by hunting and fishing, allowed for year-round sedentary existence. This stable occupation of the land allowed people to observe plant reproduction and experiment with cultivation. Stable occupancy also gives rise to the domestication of the dog, who started hanging around settlements to scavenge garbage. The original use of dog and pig by humans was for scavenging (think pigs/truffles).(Mumford, 132-133)
The rise of high-yielding crops in the Near East was due to knowledge of soil fertility, irrigation, and seed-selection, not to any tool improvements. Almost all the crops we utilized today were domesticated before the rise of metallurgy and what we call science. The selection of these particular species out of thousands was the result of identification and experimentation done well before domestication. For example, all five natural sources of caffeine found in the natural realm were discovered by pre-ag humans; tea, coffee, cola, cacao, and yerba mate. This selection was about more than picking the most nutritious plants, it involved knowledge of soil, season and climate, and water requirements.
The shift in tool making from from knapping to grinding indicates a shift from ritualized labor to painstakingly tedious work. The repetition of a single act to the point of drudgery is indicative of the conditions of civilized life. It is the other side of the disciplined observation and repetition of action necessary for agriculture, and it is embodied in a specific personality type. "These repetitive habits proved to be immensely productive. But there is hardly any doubt that in some degree they dulled the imagination, and tended to select and advance the more submissive types..." (Mumford, 137,138)
Another manifestation and symbol of the shift towards man-made life was the use of bread as a staple. Bread represents the security farmers received as a reward of diligent labor. Sedentary agriculture man could plan for the future and "improve his land" for generations. The storage of grain represents the birth of capital accumulation, the hierarchical power relations typical of civilization have their birth with this social surplus. Paul Shepard discussed the opposing tendency of agricultural life, the instability of having to rely upon a few sources of nourishment and the regularity of weather. But Mumford's point of further imposition of order on the environment, and regimentation of social life remain valid. (Mumford, 139)
A last important technological innovation was the use of baked clay containers, born from the need to store grain. Many processes indicative of the "Neolithic economy" rest on the use of containers. Beer requires vats, grain must be protected from moisture and rodents, baskets store and transport good, barns shelter animals. The permanent home is a container as well. The tool associated with creating clay containers is the potters wheel, which was the grandfather of the wheel. This technological step continues that started with stone working, and rests on the idea of furthering continuity. Stone tools allowed a continuous supply of meat, clay containers a continuous supply of grain, and this thread of continuity allows the progress of civilization.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Mumford - Chap. Five - Paleolitic Tech
When looking at the material record of stone tools and the developments from Chellean and Acheulian to Aurignacian, anthropologists assumed hunting was a primary occupation of early man. What we classify as weapons may in fact be tools used for foraging, trapping, or non-food purposes. Humans are by nature omnivorous and our diet has always been mainly vegetarian. Methods of trapping with snares no doubt preceded language and hunting. Mumford emphasis is that the original technology humans utilized was the body itself, and we developed many techniques for survival before we used any manufactured tools.
The ability to observe and mimic other animals gave a unique advantage to early humans. We may have learned "trapping from the spider, basketry from birds, dam building from beavers, burrowing from rabbits, and the art of using poison from snakes" (Mumford, 101) The drive to explore the world, identify and classify its parts is an essential aspect of human nature that far preceded tool use, and one that is overlooked by literate man (who views problem-solving and construction as the primary attributes of intelligence). Taxonomy was the original act of data compilation, one that existed before we had the means to communicate this data culturally.
Pattern recognition was a catalyst for the intellectual expansion of mankind. The habit of exploring the environment, identifying a multitude of useful and dangerous organisms, and recognizing the categories of nature is the precedent to naming these things (language), and to human science.
Mumford discusses body modification as part of the process of exploration and manipulation that lead to human technology and civilization. Humans needed to understand and master their own bodies before they could move on to the environment at large. The act of body modification did not give any survival advantage to individuals, it was done as an act of self-actualization, again showing a drive in man separate from that of the animal instincts. It was part of the drive toward aesthetics and beauty, which Mumford relates to a formation of self identity. "As with language and ritual, body decoration was an effort to establish a human identity, a human significance, a human purpose" (Mumford, 111)
Mumford now turns to a more concrete historical explanation of the changes in human culture and technology engendered by the Pleistocene glacial periods. He talks about the slow rates of change in Acheulian and Levalloisian tools, which persisted relatively unchanged for periods over a hundred thousand years. Once you get to the last glacial period, about thirty thousand years ago, the shift from one discernible culture (in terms of tools) to another takes place in only 3-5 thousand years. This is explained by the fact that the climactic changes shortened the growing season dramatically and forced humans to shift from foraging to hunting of large herd mammals. In order to accomplish this, humans had to develop an extensive tool kit, and have the intelligence and communicative ability to pass on the knowledge needed to create tools and perform group-hunting of animals.
Mumford identifies the bow and arrow as the first machine. Tools before this were merely extensions of the human body. It is an abstract design, but combines the three ingredients of early technologies: stone, wood, and animal products. Mumford speculates on the possibility that the idea for the bow came from using twine to create music. He emphasizes the connection he sees between technology for tangible survival purposes and the drive towards aesthetics and beauty, the uniquely human attempt to express an inner state. (Mumford, 114)
When humans started using stone tools extensively they introduced a key concept of civilization; work. The mining of usable stone and the pain-staking shaping of tools displays characteristics not found before. It was an operation in which persistent effort was needed to achieve future pleasure, rather than the following of impulse and expectation of immediate reward. After downplaying the role of stone tools, Mumford acknowledges their late role in the creation of the human condition. (Mumford, 116)
The tools used reflect a bigger change in social arrangements for the hunting of big game requires cooperation of individuals with specialized tasks. It also required subordinates following the lead of a commander, the most experienced and knowledgeable. A position of authority like this was not necessitated by foraging or early agriculture. The psychological disposition necessary for life in civilization ("the collective human machine") was evident in the "docile ritualistic conformity" existing alongside with "exhilarating self-confidence, venturesome command, and....a certain savage readiness to take life." A side effect of this over-emphasis on masculine traits was the appearance of the mother goddess, which may have been utilized as a psychological counterbalance. (Mumford, 117)
Another significant human creation appears in a new form during this period; the cave painting. Mumford believes this art, like language, song, and dance, began as simply symbolic but became detached from ritual as it became a useful technology. Cave paintings reenacting the hunt were used to teach initiates the methods. Crude anatomical drawings show where to thrust a spear. Hunting was thus an impetus to artistic expression. (Mumford, 118-121) Another aspect of this new artistic sensibility is the emphasis on sex. Art may have been used to stimulate reproduction in a climate that depleted sex drive.
The ability to observe and mimic other animals gave a unique advantage to early humans. We may have learned "trapping from the spider, basketry from birds, dam building from beavers, burrowing from rabbits, and the art of using poison from snakes" (Mumford, 101) The drive to explore the world, identify and classify its parts is an essential aspect of human nature that far preceded tool use, and one that is overlooked by literate man (who views problem-solving and construction as the primary attributes of intelligence). Taxonomy was the original act of data compilation, one that existed before we had the means to communicate this data culturally.
Pattern recognition was a catalyst for the intellectual expansion of mankind. The habit of exploring the environment, identifying a multitude of useful and dangerous organisms, and recognizing the categories of nature is the precedent to naming these things (language), and to human science.
Mumford discusses body modification as part of the process of exploration and manipulation that lead to human technology and civilization. Humans needed to understand and master their own bodies before they could move on to the environment at large. The act of body modification did not give any survival advantage to individuals, it was done as an act of self-actualization, again showing a drive in man separate from that of the animal instincts. It was part of the drive toward aesthetics and beauty, which Mumford relates to a formation of self identity. "As with language and ritual, body decoration was an effort to establish a human identity, a human significance, a human purpose" (Mumford, 111)
Mumford now turns to a more concrete historical explanation of the changes in human culture and technology engendered by the Pleistocene glacial periods. He talks about the slow rates of change in Acheulian and Levalloisian tools, which persisted relatively unchanged for periods over a hundred thousand years. Once you get to the last glacial period, about thirty thousand years ago, the shift from one discernible culture (in terms of tools) to another takes place in only 3-5 thousand years. This is explained by the fact that the climactic changes shortened the growing season dramatically and forced humans to shift from foraging to hunting of large herd mammals. In order to accomplish this, humans had to develop an extensive tool kit, and have the intelligence and communicative ability to pass on the knowledge needed to create tools and perform group-hunting of animals.
Mumford identifies the bow and arrow as the first machine. Tools before this were merely extensions of the human body. It is an abstract design, but combines the three ingredients of early technologies: stone, wood, and animal products. Mumford speculates on the possibility that the idea for the bow came from using twine to create music. He emphasizes the connection he sees between technology for tangible survival purposes and the drive towards aesthetics and beauty, the uniquely human attempt to express an inner state. (Mumford, 114)
When humans started using stone tools extensively they introduced a key concept of civilization; work. The mining of usable stone and the pain-staking shaping of tools displays characteristics not found before. It was an operation in which persistent effort was needed to achieve future pleasure, rather than the following of impulse and expectation of immediate reward. After downplaying the role of stone tools, Mumford acknowledges their late role in the creation of the human condition. (Mumford, 116)
The tools used reflect a bigger change in social arrangements for the hunting of big game requires cooperation of individuals with specialized tasks. It also required subordinates following the lead of a commander, the most experienced and knowledgeable. A position of authority like this was not necessitated by foraging or early agriculture. The psychological disposition necessary for life in civilization ("the collective human machine") was evident in the "docile ritualistic conformity" existing alongside with "exhilarating self-confidence, venturesome command, and....a certain savage readiness to take life." A side effect of this over-emphasis on masculine traits was the appearance of the mother goddess, which may have been utilized as a psychological counterbalance. (Mumford, 117)
Another significant human creation appears in a new form during this period; the cave painting. Mumford believes this art, like language, song, and dance, began as simply symbolic but became detached from ritual as it became a useful technology. Cave paintings reenacting the hunt were used to teach initiates the methods. Crude anatomical drawings show where to thrust a spear. Hunting was thus an impetus to artistic expression. (Mumford, 118-121) Another aspect of this new artistic sensibility is the emphasis on sex. Art may have been used to stimulate reproduction in a climate that depleted sex drive.
Friday, November 14, 2008
More on Mumford
Just back from road trip from Texas through OK, Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming, Idaho and NE Oregon. Whats up Manhappenin Kansas!! Nebraska is lame. Wyoming is beautifull. Crater of the moons in Idaho is spectacular. See my photos on Picasa.
In this entry I'll relate Mumfords thoughts on dreaming, ritual, and their relation to the growth of distinctly human thinking and culture. Mumford sees dreaming as an overflow mechanism of the brain. (Mumford, 49) He thinks humans got to know their own minds and the creativity the mind engenders through dreaming. The notion of a life beyond death, the other world or ancestoral realm inhabited by spirits and gods could have originated in the act of dreaming. We could explore our own unconscious and irrational side through dreaming, and bring order to it through instruments. "The invention and perfection of these instruments - rituals, symbols, words, images, standard modes of behavior - was....more neccesary to survival than tool-making, and far more essential to his later development." (Mumford, 51)
Since humans had to a degree cast off instinctual animal behavior, they had to develop a method of ordering their schizophrenic consciousness (waking, dreaming), of relating current events to past. The origins of ritual are in repetive dance and gesture in response to or recognition of natural or social events. Meaning could be applied to this behavior only if done over and over again by a group, "shared feelings" produced by "sequences of connected actions." (Mumford, 60) This type of communication is very different from any other animal communication because of its abstraction and the creative role played by the group. We used our bodies as the technology to express individual expierence through ritual behavior with meaning shared by the group.
Humans display a need for order and repetition that can only be satisfied by ritual behavior. You can see this in the infants insisitence on hearing a story read exactly the same way night after night. Repetitive play gives much satisfaction, thus showing how the human brain is geared toward the performance ritual. This order seeking aspects counters the openess and instability of human intelligence. Ritual does not always function this way, it can retard innovation and delay the development of intelligence. Rituals are group habitual behavior, and lend a conservative aspect to culture; they are concerned with doing things as they have always been done. But the establishment of order on the human psyche is what is important, and how this order was then discovered in the natural world.
In this entry I'll relate Mumfords thoughts on dreaming, ritual, and their relation to the growth of distinctly human thinking and culture. Mumford sees dreaming as an overflow mechanism of the brain. (Mumford, 49) He thinks humans got to know their own minds and the creativity the mind engenders through dreaming. The notion of a life beyond death, the other world or ancestoral realm inhabited by spirits and gods could have originated in the act of dreaming. We could explore our own unconscious and irrational side through dreaming, and bring order to it through instruments. "The invention and perfection of these instruments - rituals, symbols, words, images, standard modes of behavior - was....more neccesary to survival than tool-making, and far more essential to his later development." (Mumford, 51)
Since humans had to a degree cast off instinctual animal behavior, they had to develop a method of ordering their schizophrenic consciousness (waking, dreaming), of relating current events to past. The origins of ritual are in repetive dance and gesture in response to or recognition of natural or social events. Meaning could be applied to this behavior only if done over and over again by a group, "shared feelings" produced by "sequences of connected actions." (Mumford, 60) This type of communication is very different from any other animal communication because of its abstraction and the creative role played by the group. We used our bodies as the technology to express individual expierence through ritual behavior with meaning shared by the group.
Humans display a need for order and repetition that can only be satisfied by ritual behavior. You can see this in the infants insisitence on hearing a story read exactly the same way night after night. Repetitive play gives much satisfaction, thus showing how the human brain is geared toward the performance ritual. This order seeking aspects counters the openess and instability of human intelligence. Ritual does not always function this way, it can retard innovation and delay the development of intelligence. Rituals are group habitual behavior, and lend a conservative aspect to culture; they are concerned with doing things as they have always been done. But the establishment of order on the human psyche is what is important, and how this order was then discovered in the natural world.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Lewis Mumford
A major similarity between Mumford's view on the evolution of human consciousness and Shepard's is that they both acknowledge that the enlargement of the brain was not an adaptation of immediate value. It carried with it many factors that would seem to be counter-adaptive, such as the fragile state of a newborn whose skull has not fused, and the problems with birthing a larger cranium through a birth canal already restricted by bipedalism. Although this long period of infant dependency created the conditions for cultural learning, effective use of culture to formulate and pass down human experience was not a direct result of cranial capacity.
The hardware was there to create Aristotle before we even learned to effectively use language. (Mumford, 39, 40) It took much experimentation to arrive at the level of tribal culture. That is what evolution gave us, the ability to use free-thinking to devise new strategies, to experiment. The proactive creation of the human identity is very important to Mumford's thinking. He feels that the evolution of human culture was not innate or passive. It was active, evolution made us more than animals, but we became human on our own, through trial and error using our minds to adapt our behavior and cultural institutions to the environment. All culture functions by shaping the plastic human personality offered by biology. We don't instinctually follow, but attempt to use our bodies and organs for different purposes. (Mumford, 46) Technologies, as extensions of our bodies, build on this foundation.
In a dog eat dog world, I'm a bowl of antifreeze.
If it really is me against the world, I think I'd put my money on the world.
If you really have to play the hand thats dealt you, can't we at least choose the game??
The hardware was there to create Aristotle before we even learned to effectively use language. (Mumford, 39, 40) It took much experimentation to arrive at the level of tribal culture. That is what evolution gave us, the ability to use free-thinking to devise new strategies, to experiment. The proactive creation of the human identity is very important to Mumford's thinking. He feels that the evolution of human culture was not innate or passive. It was active, evolution made us more than animals, but we became human on our own, through trial and error using our minds to adapt our behavior and cultural institutions to the environment. All culture functions by shaping the plastic human personality offered by biology. We don't instinctually follow, but attempt to use our bodies and organs for different purposes. (Mumford, 46) Technologies, as extensions of our bodies, build on this foundation.
In a dog eat dog world, I'm a bowl of antifreeze.
If it really is me against the world, I think I'd put my money on the world.
If you really have to play the hand thats dealt you, can't we at least choose the game??
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
I'm back......with Lewis Mumford
Back from a hiatus, my intellectual rantings come in periodical outpourings. Went to California for a week, Santa Cruz, SF. Good brewpub in Arcata, Humbolt brewery, love the red nectar. Was moved by Obama's victory speech, I am wary of politicians who can stir my emotions. I can't buy into the whole "hope" thing, not because I don't have hope, but because I know better than to invest it on a politician. Some people thought that some desperate false-flag terrorism or other fascist power grab would take place, but they are missing the fact that its not only republicans who are part of the power structure. Big business, intel, and other players we despise as having hijacked our government can play either side of the game, they'll support democrats or republicans, so long as the status quo is maintained. Obama is acceptable to the ruling class because he is not going to rock the boat. He is a friend of Israel (speech to AIPAC) and is not going after the intel community (retroactive immunity). Hope is OK, but I would rather place it on the rationality of the human mind than a politician.
The rationality of the human mind and its need for creative expression are topics Lewis Mumford adresses in his 1966 book The Myth of The Machine. I've been wanting to read Mumford for a while, as he is frequently sourced by anthro/soc writers. The relation between him and Paul Shepard is obvious from the initial 40 pages I have read so far. He is dealing with the historical paradigm/preconception of human history as being the development of man the tool-maker, homo faber. This view, which we are somewhat beyond today, sees technology as the driving force of cultural development to the level of civilization. He explains how this comes from the transposition of modern views, and the emphasis of archaeology on material remains (stone tools, architecture). Its is his hypothesis that use of technology is a byproduct of the real key to human culture, human thought and its unique vehicle, symbolic language.
Rather than tool making to increase food supply being the key to the growth of intelligence, Mumford sees toolmaking as connected to the artisitic dimension born of mans need to express "...superorganic demands and aspirations". (Mumford, 8) He balances his emphasis on rationality with the observation that man can be most irrational. He relates this to the minds capacity for adaptabilty seen in phenomena such as uncertainty, creativity, and counterproductive behavior. We are not simply instictual, but have the freedom of creative thought. As a counterbalance to this creative unpredicability, we create ordered systems to explain the natural world. (Mumford, 39)
The parellels between this and Shepard's ideas are blatant, if you compare this to earlier entrys.
The rationality of the human mind and its need for creative expression are topics Lewis Mumford adresses in his 1966 book The Myth of The Machine. I've been wanting to read Mumford for a while, as he is frequently sourced by anthro/soc writers. The relation between him and Paul Shepard is obvious from the initial 40 pages I have read so far. He is dealing with the historical paradigm/preconception of human history as being the development of man the tool-maker, homo faber. This view, which we are somewhat beyond today, sees technology as the driving force of cultural development to the level of civilization. He explains how this comes from the transposition of modern views, and the emphasis of archaeology on material remains (stone tools, architecture). Its is his hypothesis that use of technology is a byproduct of the real key to human culture, human thought and its unique vehicle, symbolic language.
Rather than tool making to increase food supply being the key to the growth of intelligence, Mumford sees toolmaking as connected to the artisitic dimension born of mans need to express "...superorganic demands and aspirations". (Mumford, 8) He balances his emphasis on rationality with the observation that man can be most irrational. He relates this to the minds capacity for adaptabilty seen in phenomena such as uncertainty, creativity, and counterproductive behavior. We are not simply instictual, but have the freedom of creative thought. As a counterbalance to this creative unpredicability, we create ordered systems to explain the natural world. (Mumford, 39)
The parellels between this and Shepard's ideas are blatant, if you compare this to earlier entrys.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Shepard essay #5
In this essay, The Domesticators, Paul Shepard gives a "pyschohistory" of the changes entailing the shift from nomadic hunter/gathering to sedentary agriculture. It was a slow transition, earlier agriculturalist still did much hunting and foraging, but by the time of the earliest city states is Mesopotamia and Egypt, distinct differences in psychology, ontology and cosmology can be identified. Shepard identifies six themes of sedentary agricultural psychology that contrast with the earlier and more fitting hunter/gatherer mode. The six themes are quality of attention, significance of place, trophic patterns, possessions, and domestication.
Quality of attention refers to culturally relative interpretations of sensory perceptions and patterns of thought,attention and inattention. Attention to sound was greater in the relative silence of the sparsely populated world of the nomadic forager than it was in the village with its monotonous sounds (moving water, domesticated animals, people doing daily chores). The vision of the hunter is multi directional and open to any possibilities, the vision of the gatherer is tuned to minute clues identifying desirable foods out of the smorgasbord of wilderness. The vision of the sedentary agriculturalist is much more limited, concentrating of the crops grown and the factors of their success or failure (weather, annual cycles). Shepard calls this attention to the "birth, growth, death, and rebirth of the crops" the kernel of civilized thought. (Shepard, 166)
The significance of places to a nomadic forager were wrapped up in the mythology of the people. A network of places of spiritual or social significance played a role in shaping group and individual identity. They had a sense of territory and trespass, but with people widely dispersed little of the conflicts of sedentary peoples arose.Village life tends to be more defensive, with many men living in a small area. Agriculturalist tended to view the land like a body from which they were nourished and protected, this is the origin of the great mother earth. The gods had become human and the story of creation and nature reflected human values rather than an awareness of ecological interconnection. Another mythological motif that arose with agriculture is the notion of a lost golden age. This comes from the fact that farmers lead a laborious life and the fluctuations of season and weather can mean disaster. Combine this with the fact that soils are depleted over time meaning less productivity and we can see how people would feel they were being punished by the gods. From this the idea that humans had fallen from the grace of the natural world, seen best in the garden of Eden, a place devoid of labor, bad weather, and death.
To explain how village life leads to a dualistic world view, Shepard uses the example of a thunderstorm. To the nomadic forager, a thunderstorm has many effects and meanings, as their foods were varied, while to the farmer it was either good for the water or bad for causing flooding. This is another clue to the fact that farming life cripples maturation, as hunter/gatherers possess the adult position of reconciling the multiplicity of natural events rather than maintaining the juvenile either/or contradiction. "Getting stuck in the binary view strands the adult in a universe torn by a myriad of oppositions and conflicts" (Shepard, 173)
Farmers live with a nagging uncertainty and apprehension about their food supplies. When they look at "savage" hunter/gatherers, they see them as being inattentive to food and family, and they transpose this view onto the rest of existence, only farming humans are really human. Having to plan for the storage and distribution of food places a burden of responsibility on villagers that cause feelings of guilt when failure leads to scarcity. Less diverse diets increase the danger of malnutrition as does the fact that domestication causes a decrease in the nutritional value of foods.
Shepard explains the difference in concept of possession between the two groups by stating that the drive to posses man-made belongings is an attempt to compensate for a loss of identity in civilized agricultural peoples. The self-conception of a pre-agricultural person is formed by interaction with the natural world, the self is formed by reflection on the other, the non-human world. A person in civilized agricultural society is surrounded by man-made or modified objects, everything is owned by someone and their is no balance by reflection upon the other. The other, or the natural, undomesticated world, is seen as the opponent of civilized life made up of domesticated plants and animals, and human artifacts.
To frame the issue of domestication, Shepard points to the observation articulated in an earlier piece that humans observe animal behavior and use it form their cosmology and to reflect upon human life. Domestication has an infantilizing effect on animals; they become submissive, have simplified behavior and social interaction, are slower and less intelligent. This is observed and used as a metaphor for human life, a life of obeying rules, following leaders, the strong few using the rest. Rather than seeing the variety of natural life as an inspiration for a vibrant social life, civilized humans see only the repetition of subservience and drudgery in a small number of psychologically deformed, immature animals.
Quality of attention refers to culturally relative interpretations of sensory perceptions and patterns of thought,attention and inattention. Attention to sound was greater in the relative silence of the sparsely populated world of the nomadic forager than it was in the village with its monotonous sounds (moving water, domesticated animals, people doing daily chores). The vision of the hunter is multi directional and open to any possibilities, the vision of the gatherer is tuned to minute clues identifying desirable foods out of the smorgasbord of wilderness. The vision of the sedentary agriculturalist is much more limited, concentrating of the crops grown and the factors of their success or failure (weather, annual cycles). Shepard calls this attention to the "birth, growth, death, and rebirth of the crops" the kernel of civilized thought. (Shepard, 166)
The significance of places to a nomadic forager were wrapped up in the mythology of the people. A network of places of spiritual or social significance played a role in shaping group and individual identity. They had a sense of territory and trespass, but with people widely dispersed little of the conflicts of sedentary peoples arose.Village life tends to be more defensive, with many men living in a small area. Agriculturalist tended to view the land like a body from which they were nourished and protected, this is the origin of the great mother earth. The gods had become human and the story of creation and nature reflected human values rather than an awareness of ecological interconnection. Another mythological motif that arose with agriculture is the notion of a lost golden age. This comes from the fact that farmers lead a laborious life and the fluctuations of season and weather can mean disaster. Combine this with the fact that soils are depleted over time meaning less productivity and we can see how people would feel they were being punished by the gods. From this the idea that humans had fallen from the grace of the natural world, seen best in the garden of Eden, a place devoid of labor, bad weather, and death.
To explain how village life leads to a dualistic world view, Shepard uses the example of a thunderstorm. To the nomadic forager, a thunderstorm has many effects and meanings, as their foods were varied, while to the farmer it was either good for the water or bad for causing flooding. This is another clue to the fact that farming life cripples maturation, as hunter/gatherers possess the adult position of reconciling the multiplicity of natural events rather than maintaining the juvenile either/or contradiction. "Getting stuck in the binary view strands the adult in a universe torn by a myriad of oppositions and conflicts" (Shepard, 173)
Farmers live with a nagging uncertainty and apprehension about their food supplies. When they look at "savage" hunter/gatherers, they see them as being inattentive to food and family, and they transpose this view onto the rest of existence, only farming humans are really human. Having to plan for the storage and distribution of food places a burden of responsibility on villagers that cause feelings of guilt when failure leads to scarcity. Less diverse diets increase the danger of malnutrition as does the fact that domestication causes a decrease in the nutritional value of foods.
Shepard explains the difference in concept of possession between the two groups by stating that the drive to posses man-made belongings is an attempt to compensate for a loss of identity in civilized agricultural peoples. The self-conception of a pre-agricultural person is formed by interaction with the natural world, the self is formed by reflection on the other, the non-human world. A person in civilized agricultural society is surrounded by man-made or modified objects, everything is owned by someone and their is no balance by reflection upon the other. The other, or the natural, undomesticated world, is seen as the opponent of civilized life made up of domesticated plants and animals, and human artifacts.
To frame the issue of domestication, Shepard points to the observation articulated in an earlier piece that humans observe animal behavior and use it form their cosmology and to reflect upon human life. Domestication has an infantilizing effect on animals; they become submissive, have simplified behavior and social interaction, are slower and less intelligent. This is observed and used as a metaphor for human life, a life of obeying rules, following leaders, the strong few using the rest. Rather than seeing the variety of natural life as an inspiration for a vibrant social life, civilized humans see only the repetition of subservience and drudgery in a small number of psychologically deformed, immature animals.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Shepard essay #4
In this essay, the Dance of Neotony and Ontogeny, Shepard gets to the heart of the matter he has been adressing in the past essays I have reviewed: the social and environmental problems of modern life are due to out maladjusted psychology. He begins by describing how the ontogenetic (after birth) development of humans has a schedule of age-specific transitions that must be accompanied by particular experiences. An example of this would be the critical phase theory of linguistics, that children must be exposed to and experiment with language at a certain early age, or they cannot learn it properly. The pattern of development is based on an extension of immaturity, a "retarded growth rate" which is know as neotony (the retaining of infant features as the organism develops). (Shepard, 143)
The attention of the infant is programmed to receive responses from the mother to "fill archetypal forms with specific meaning." (Shepard, 144) The biological process of neotony builds the identity of the individual as it passes through self-centered adolescence to a socially inclusive and interrelated adulthood. This process includes various social bonds and interaction with the ecosystem which is symbolic of the inner transformations and widening social interactions. For this process to unfold as intended, the adults caring for a child must give appropriate responses. Neotony must be countered by culture for the person to become mature.
After establishing all this, Shepard makes a very political statement, that civilization is best served by members whose ontogenetic development was interfered with in certain ways. Individuals who accept the ruling of higher powers need not become full adults. They need only the immature submission and conformity of juveniles. Without the use of the ecosystem as a model of order and meaning, people interact with domesticated, submissive animals, and paint their vision of the world accordingly. Individuals raised in this manner have anxieties and hostilities towards life, which they may treat as an incompetent parent.
The next step in civilization alienating people from our natural development were the "desert fathers" and their patriarchal anthropocentric monotheism. The emphasis that Western civilization has had since then on individual responsibility is essentially a fixation on the juvenile superego. The view of creation as being fallen or evil means we no longer live according to natural cycles and rhythms, and that we celebrate our separation. This schizoid ontology tells us to fear our own bodies, and causes a lack of integration with the rest of existence.
Initiations are the mechanism by which the adults respond to the neotonic traits of immaturity. These adults have gone through the process and are integrated social beings. The effects of missing or partially received steps of the process result in improperly integrated individuals with resentment for unfulfilled childhoods. Versions of psychotherapy exist in all cultures to alleviate these problems.
Shepard looks finally at our modern urban societies made up of "identity cripples." (Shepard, 153) We envy the innocence of childhood and view aging negatively. We long to go back to childhood because our own development has been mismanaged since then. We never moved out of the juvenile mentality that our selves were the center of existence, we never learn to see the natural world as symbolic, and our destruction of our ecosystems betrays this. Our individual maladjustment is extrapolated onto society at large, and we lash out at it and the natural world that we feel has let us down.
"There is a secret person undamaged in every individual, aware of the validity of these, sensitive to their right moments in our lives. All of them are assimilated in perverted forms in modern society: our profound love of animals twisted into pets, zoos, decorations, and entertainment; our search for poetic wholeness subverted by the model of the machine instead of the body; the moment of pubertal idealism shunted into nationalism or ethereal otherworldly religion instead of an ecosophical cosmology" (Shepard, 162)
The attention of the infant is programmed to receive responses from the mother to "fill archetypal forms with specific meaning." (Shepard, 144) The biological process of neotony builds the identity of the individual as it passes through self-centered adolescence to a socially inclusive and interrelated adulthood. This process includes various social bonds and interaction with the ecosystem which is symbolic of the inner transformations and widening social interactions. For this process to unfold as intended, the adults caring for a child must give appropriate responses. Neotony must be countered by culture for the person to become mature.
After establishing all this, Shepard makes a very political statement, that civilization is best served by members whose ontogenetic development was interfered with in certain ways. Individuals who accept the ruling of higher powers need not become full adults. They need only the immature submission and conformity of juveniles. Without the use of the ecosystem as a model of order and meaning, people interact with domesticated, submissive animals, and paint their vision of the world accordingly. Individuals raised in this manner have anxieties and hostilities towards life, which they may treat as an incompetent parent.
The next step in civilization alienating people from our natural development were the "desert fathers" and their patriarchal anthropocentric monotheism. The emphasis that Western civilization has had since then on individual responsibility is essentially a fixation on the juvenile superego. The view of creation as being fallen or evil means we no longer live according to natural cycles and rhythms, and that we celebrate our separation. This schizoid ontology tells us to fear our own bodies, and causes a lack of integration with the rest of existence.
Initiations are the mechanism by which the adults respond to the neotonic traits of immaturity. These adults have gone through the process and are integrated social beings. The effects of missing or partially received steps of the process result in improperly integrated individuals with resentment for unfulfilled childhoods. Versions of psychotherapy exist in all cultures to alleviate these problems.
Shepard looks finally at our modern urban societies made up of "identity cripples." (Shepard, 153) We envy the innocence of childhood and view aging negatively. We long to go back to childhood because our own development has been mismanaged since then. We never moved out of the juvenile mentality that our selves were the center of existence, we never learn to see the natural world as symbolic, and our destruction of our ecosystems betrays this. Our individual maladjustment is extrapolated onto society at large, and we lash out at it and the natural world that we feel has let us down.
"There is a secret person undamaged in every individual, aware of the validity of these, sensitive to their right moments in our lives. All of them are assimilated in perverted forms in modern society: our profound love of animals twisted into pets, zoos, decorations, and entertainment; our search for poetic wholeness subverted by the model of the machine instead of the body; the moment of pubertal idealism shunted into nationalism or ethereal otherworldly religion instead of an ecosophical cosmology" (Shepard, 162)
Friday, October 3, 2008
Shepard Essay #3 continued
In the last entry I discussed Paul Shepard's essay On the Significance of being Shaped by the Past and his refutation of the common story of human progression from savage to civilized. I will finish summarizing this essay now, the second half dealing with the implications of the first. Civilized peoples attempt to downplay the degree to which our actions are the result of biological necessity, we would rather believe our culture, family and selves have shaped our behavior. Shepard argues that our bodies and minds evolved to a way of life that we have abandoned. The effects of this are seen in our poor mental and physical health.
Our hunter/gather ancestors were healthier than us because they got plenty of exercise and ate sparsely. Our cardiovascular system evolved to fit the hunter life, with plenty of running. For us to be healthy, we need to use our "....muscles and glands in functional equivalents of the environments in which our primate forebears and the human organism evolved." (Shepard, 129) Without this environment, even an artificial recreation of it, our bodies suffer deleterious effects.
As far as our diets go, studies have found that underfeeding is far healthier than overfeeding. The carnivore aspect of our biology allows us to eat over three pounds of meat at a time and make and store fat for less plentiful times. When we exercise this ability daily and don't exercise enough, our "....muscles, joints, bones, lungs, body metabolites, coordination, disease resistance, and psychological function(ing)" deteriorate. (Shepard, 131) There are differences in men and women in diet and exercise needs, women don't need to run as much and don't have as many problems relating to fat-storage systems taxing the vascular.
Lastly, Shepard looks at war as "...the states expression of social pathology." (Shepard, 137) The only non-human incidence of cooperative murder take place in caged or stressed creatures. Like most mental illness, the real cause is subconscious. We don't have large ranges to roam and prey to hunt. As Shepard concludes "...war emerged with the sift in ecology; which produced the arrogant concept of land ownership and the struggles for resources, space, and power." (Shepard, 140)
Our hunter/gather ancestors were healthier than us because they got plenty of exercise and ate sparsely. Our cardiovascular system evolved to fit the hunter life, with plenty of running. For us to be healthy, we need to use our "....muscles and glands in functional equivalents of the environments in which our primate forebears and the human organism evolved." (Shepard, 129) Without this environment, even an artificial recreation of it, our bodies suffer deleterious effects.
As far as our diets go, studies have found that underfeeding is far healthier than overfeeding. The carnivore aspect of our biology allows us to eat over three pounds of meat at a time and make and store fat for less plentiful times. When we exercise this ability daily and don't exercise enough, our "....muscles, joints, bones, lungs, body metabolites, coordination, disease resistance, and psychological function(ing)" deteriorate. (Shepard, 131) There are differences in men and women in diet and exercise needs, women don't need to run as much and don't have as many problems relating to fat-storage systems taxing the vascular.
Lastly, Shepard looks at war as "...the states expression of social pathology." (Shepard, 137) The only non-human incidence of cooperative murder take place in caged or stressed creatures. Like most mental illness, the real cause is subconscious. We don't have large ranges to roam and prey to hunt. As Shepard concludes "...war emerged with the sift in ecology; which produced the arrogant concept of land ownership and the struggles for resources, space, and power." (Shepard, 140)
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Countering myth of civilized progression - Shepard essay #3
I'll be summarizing Paul Shepards essay On the Significance of Being Shaped by the Past. He starts by summarizing the pedestrian view of the birth of civilization as a beneficial progression. This view states that the Ag. Rev. allowed people to give up impovershed nomadic existence lived at the mercy of the elements for the security, health, and plentitude of sedentary farming life. This made civilization possible with its art, spirituality, and political rights. Shepard knows this is a myth, that the majority who underwent the Neolithic revolution found a less healthy, less free existence. We can't see this because history (the written kind) was recorded by the powerfull for their own benefit. He will dispel this myth by explaining what the hunter/gatherer life was really like, and how the transition to Ag took place and its detrimental effects.
According to the standard view, Ag allowed greater food production which lead to pop. increase, the populations of pre-ag people being limited by their lower production. However, the envirnoment of modern hunter/gatherers can support more than the number maintaned by the group. This corresponds with a similar phenomenon in large predators, who have replacement rates tuned to the worst food years. These people are not on the verge of starvation, but have a diet of diverse plants and animals that take little labor to obtain. We are omnivores, but we have the psychology and group behavior of carnivores, as we are the only omnivores who perform group hunts of large game. (Shepard, 110-113)
Since pre-ag humans had small stable social groupings, their populations were limited by birth rates, not death rates. The higher infant mortality of these groups had an evolutionary purpose, they remove incompatible genes. Small family size is encouraged by the fact that the 1st born have higher IQs and that the chance of miscarriage increases with succesive births. Human-induced controls also existed; infanticide, abortion, contraception, and an awareness of the menstrual cycle. The mythology of Ag. people reverses this natural limiting of family size, Farmers want more farm hands, proto-states need slaves and soldiers, fecundity is seen as a blessing. From this Shepard concludes "....the connection between the first farming and the burst of population probably lies in the alteratino of the birth rate" (Shepard, 116)
Hunter/gatherers living in small, geographically isolated groups had less infection from disease and parisites. As the human population has gone up, the number of human disease has as well. This is not only because of increased density, but because of the alteration and homogenization of the environment (More swamps in cleared ag. land, more malaria). The habitat of the hunter/gatherer was more diverse with more organisms, bacteria, and diseases competing with each other, and with more natural adaptation serving as a balance to these afflictions. Psychologically, the human mind is adapted to the same small group size, and will malfunction when placed in a higher density. Expieriments with rabbits and mice show that overcrowding leads to "....failure of maternal behavior, increased gender-role confusion, and widespread social withdrawl....". (Shepard, 119) Studies of primate groups in captivity show a breakdown of social organization and immunity to disease.
Individuality is detrimental to group functioning. Humans use the adaptation of learning of cultural and conventional behavior to get around this barrier to individuality, using culture to protect the group from "...the disrupting effects of individual variation." (Shepard, 122) This adaptation allows for greater genetic diversity, polymorphism. "Human individuality and rarity were achieved because essential social activities could be coordinated in small groups of very different persons through a common system of beliefs and values" (Shepard, 123) The conservative cultures that evolved to unify polymorphic populations were disrupted when agricultural was introduced. We now idolized cultural change and individual genius, which used to be discouraged.
Shepard identifies two styles of human species-specific population density. The first is the band of about 25 individuals, the second the tribal network of bands, which numbered from a few hundred to fifteen hundred. These systems evolved for group equilibrium and pyschological health. These small groups have a far greater rate of evolutionary change than larger groups, and may have came about through different evolutionary pressures. 25 may be the number of people that could be fed off a large mammal, or to provide the number of adults needed to kill one. It may be the number that could be supported by the environment surrounding a camp.
Tribes were needed to prevent inbreeding, to replace lost members, and allow the rise of unique leaders. These arrangements came about through evolution, no wonder people living in modern nation states feel so out of place, alienated, unhealthy and unsatisfied.
According to the standard view, Ag allowed greater food production which lead to pop. increase, the populations of pre-ag people being limited by their lower production. However, the envirnoment of modern hunter/gatherers can support more than the number maintaned by the group. This corresponds with a similar phenomenon in large predators, who have replacement rates tuned to the worst food years. These people are not on the verge of starvation, but have a diet of diverse plants and animals that take little labor to obtain. We are omnivores, but we have the psychology and group behavior of carnivores, as we are the only omnivores who perform group hunts of large game. (Shepard, 110-113)
Since pre-ag humans had small stable social groupings, their populations were limited by birth rates, not death rates. The higher infant mortality of these groups had an evolutionary purpose, they remove incompatible genes. Small family size is encouraged by the fact that the 1st born have higher IQs and that the chance of miscarriage increases with succesive births. Human-induced controls also existed; infanticide, abortion, contraception, and an awareness of the menstrual cycle. The mythology of Ag. people reverses this natural limiting of family size, Farmers want more farm hands, proto-states need slaves and soldiers, fecundity is seen as a blessing. From this Shepard concludes "....the connection between the first farming and the burst of population probably lies in the alteratino of the birth rate" (Shepard, 116)
Hunter/gatherers living in small, geographically isolated groups had less infection from disease and parisites. As the human population has gone up, the number of human disease has as well. This is not only because of increased density, but because of the alteration and homogenization of the environment (More swamps in cleared ag. land, more malaria). The habitat of the hunter/gatherer was more diverse with more organisms, bacteria, and diseases competing with each other, and with more natural adaptation serving as a balance to these afflictions. Psychologically, the human mind is adapted to the same small group size, and will malfunction when placed in a higher density. Expieriments with rabbits and mice show that overcrowding leads to "....failure of maternal behavior, increased gender-role confusion, and widespread social withdrawl....". (Shepard, 119) Studies of primate groups in captivity show a breakdown of social organization and immunity to disease.
Individuality is detrimental to group functioning. Humans use the adaptation of learning of cultural and conventional behavior to get around this barrier to individuality, using culture to protect the group from "...the disrupting effects of individual variation." (Shepard, 122) This adaptation allows for greater genetic diversity, polymorphism. "Human individuality and rarity were achieved because essential social activities could be coordinated in small groups of very different persons through a common system of beliefs and values" (Shepard, 123) The conservative cultures that evolved to unify polymorphic populations were disrupted when agricultural was introduced. We now idolized cultural change and individual genius, which used to be discouraged.
Shepard identifies two styles of human species-specific population density. The first is the band of about 25 individuals, the second the tribal network of bands, which numbered from a few hundred to fifteen hundred. These systems evolved for group equilibrium and pyschological health. These small groups have a far greater rate of evolutionary change than larger groups, and may have came about through different evolutionary pressures. 25 may be the number of people that could be fed off a large mammal, or to provide the number of adults needed to kill one. It may be the number that could be supported by the environment surrounding a camp.
Tribes were needed to prevent inbreeding, to replace lost members, and allow the rise of unique leaders. These arrangements came about through evolution, no wonder people living in modern nation states feel so out of place, alienated, unhealthy and unsatisfied.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Once its cool, its square
Spent weekend in PO. Lucy's MetalMania/get out of jail party. Climbed Green Mountain. Applied on Thursday to Spiro's, applying at Metro market today. Friends of the Library book sale, account at bookstore next to West 5.
Finished The Birth of the Cool, it ended with Warhol, Velvets, Seeger, and Dylan. Good pop culture history, altho the original concept of cool was something unpopular but savy. Cool was no longer cool once it was popular to be cool, you dig?? Same with punk, the rebellious outsider attitude can't exist along with mass acceptance of even the superficial, marketable aspects of the movement. Cool, like punk, was an attitude, and once it was defined, emulated, and commodified it ceased to exist. Thats not accurate though, the statement "punk is dead" is not accurate. It just evolved into new forms. Once punk was popular, it became neccesary to move onto new frontiers in order to maintain its precept of non-conformity. So it is with cool. As image of the hip beret and sunglasses clad jazz musician became trendy, trivial and stereotyped, cool moved elsewhere. Now we have a meaning of cool that is somewhat opposed to the original. What is cool is what is trendy. Once enough people see how cool something in, it isn't cool anymore, but that meaning has been lost.
The really cool people are not labeled as such, they are ahead of the trends. The period between something being cool and countercultural, and the commericialized selling of that image has grown shorter and shorter. But cool lives on, the punk attitude lives on, the visionaries stay one step ahead, and the market continues to coopt countercultual values for maintainence of the status quo.
Finished The Birth of the Cool, it ended with Warhol, Velvets, Seeger, and Dylan. Good pop culture history, altho the original concept of cool was something unpopular but savy. Cool was no longer cool once it was popular to be cool, you dig?? Same with punk, the rebellious outsider attitude can't exist along with mass acceptance of even the superficial, marketable aspects of the movement. Cool, like punk, was an attitude, and once it was defined, emulated, and commodified it ceased to exist. Thats not accurate though, the statement "punk is dead" is not accurate. It just evolved into new forms. Once punk was popular, it became neccesary to move onto new frontiers in order to maintain its precept of non-conformity. So it is with cool. As image of the hip beret and sunglasses clad jazz musician became trendy, trivial and stereotyped, cool moved elsewhere. Now we have a meaning of cool that is somewhat opposed to the original. What is cool is what is trendy. Once enough people see how cool something in, it isn't cool anymore, but that meaning has been lost.
The really cool people are not labeled as such, they are ahead of the trends. The period between something being cool and countercultural, and the commericialized selling of that image has grown shorter and shorter. But cool lives on, the punk attitude lives on, the visionaries stay one step ahead, and the market continues to coopt countercultual values for maintainence of the status quo.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Human language and self-consciousness - Shepard essay #2 continued
I'm going to finish summarizing the essay On Animal Thinking today and reflect on the observations of the past two days, tying it together. Shepard thinks the key to human language is that the shift from primate scavenging to hominid hunter/gathering. This shift caused to us to combine the predatorial mode of attention to other animals with the primate attention to the group. Primate sociality was not fitted for a hunting creature as it is characteized by pecking orders, infighting and an overall concern with social relations and ranking. What was needed was the carnivore attention to environment and away from themselves, the concern with "...symbiotic relations with prey species." (Shepard, 43)
The vague sense of past and future possesed by primates and carnivores combines in an important way. Primates used their time-sense to establish kinship. Carnivores used it to create knowledge of the ecosystem. When combined in man, "He begins to apply the idea of kinship obligations to the interplay of other species." (Shepard, 44) The neurological nexus of the primate hunter gave birth to mythology, explaining the orgins of our species in relation to the rest of existence. It allowed humans to view our social arrangements in terms of the ecosystem. For the transmission of these abstract idea to take place humans needed speech and its counterparts, song and dance.
For Shepard, song and dance are a conservative force that gives cohesion and continuity to the group, countering the social frictions of primate sociality which undermine the need for cooperative hunting. Speech gives us history, the mythological explantions tie us into the ecosystem and uses its order as metaphors for our own social arrangements. While music gives connectedness and an identity beyond the individual, speech dissects and classifys. In classifying the natural world through observation of similarities and differences, names are given and the use of these linguistic symbols by others, and the basis of human cognition is created.
The use of names to direct our attention to past expierences parellels the searching, comparing, and data integration of the hunt. It allows us to recreate the hunt with speech and give sequence to an otherwise unordered mess of stimuli. Shepard postulates that these early linguistic hominids used the charateristics of named animals to classify and examine human emotion, personality, and social categories. Human culture, which is learned, is full of abstract and intangible notions of past and future, spirtuality, personality, acceptable behavior, social roles. There is no image we can associate these things with, so we use the behavior animals, which do have names and can be visualized, as metaphors.
The vague sense of past and future possesed by primates and carnivores combines in an important way. Primates used their time-sense to establish kinship. Carnivores used it to create knowledge of the ecosystem. When combined in man, "He begins to apply the idea of kinship obligations to the interplay of other species." (Shepard, 44) The neurological nexus of the primate hunter gave birth to mythology, explaining the orgins of our species in relation to the rest of existence. It allowed humans to view our social arrangements in terms of the ecosystem. For the transmission of these abstract idea to take place humans needed speech and its counterparts, song and dance.
For Shepard, song and dance are a conservative force that gives cohesion and continuity to the group, countering the social frictions of primate sociality which undermine the need for cooperative hunting. Speech gives us history, the mythological explantions tie us into the ecosystem and uses its order as metaphors for our own social arrangements. While music gives connectedness and an identity beyond the individual, speech dissects and classifys. In classifying the natural world through observation of similarities and differences, names are given and the use of these linguistic symbols by others, and the basis of human cognition is created.
The use of names to direct our attention to past expierences parellels the searching, comparing, and data integration of the hunt. It allows us to recreate the hunt with speech and give sequence to an otherwise unordered mess of stimuli. Shepard postulates that these early linguistic hominids used the charateristics of named animals to classify and examine human emotion, personality, and social categories. Human culture, which is learned, is full of abstract and intangible notions of past and future, spirtuality, personality, acceptable behavior, social roles. There is no image we can associate these things with, so we use the behavior animals, which do have names and can be visualized, as metaphors.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Evolution of Intelligence - Shepard essay #2
Continuing with Shepard, today's speculations on the essay On Animal Thinking traces the evolution of intelligence and addresses the anthropocentric tendency to see human intelligence as seperate from the rest of existence. His thesis is that "Progressive intelligence is the evolutionary sharpening of mind due to the interplay between animals." (Shepard, 28) He begins by pointing out that modern life is increasingly devoid of wild animals. A major aspect of Shepard's thinking is that animals play a large role in the ontogeny (development after birth) of human beings. He argues convincingly elsewhere that animals play a role in "...the shaping of personality, identity, and social consciousness" but that is not the main topic of this piece. (Shepard, 22) Its just the presupposition he states to give relevance to the argument to come.
Along with the presupposition noted above, Shepard offers an alternative to the view of evolution as a hierarchical process leading the pinnacle of human intelligence. This flawed notion of transcendent humanity leaves us viewing the others (rest of life on earth) with resentment. The alternative to this ingrained notion is that mind is universal, expressing itself in many forms. Human intelligence emerged from a framework of organs and mechanisms we share with other creatures.
Shepard traces this framework back to flowering plants and insects, whose interaction created the literal ground from which the mammalian mind evolved. This symbiotic relationship (plants as food, insects as pollinators) gave earth the layer of organic soil that is the basis for the complex ecological arrangements to follow. It also produced the nutritious seeds needed for larger life forms to evolve. The diversity of plants is the primary factor in the diversity of ecosystems, the complex nervous systems of later creatures has its basis in the complexity of plant/insect communities. Shepard lists five types of intelligence found in the world at the time of primate evolution. First is the insect, characterized by instinctual behavior based on fine tuned sensory apparati and hive social activity. Second is birds, who possess integrated audio/visual systems. Third and fourth are large predator and prey mammals, and Fourth is primate intelligence. We discussed yesterday how primate intel developed in tropical jungles, but today we will concentrate on the hominid habitat of grasslands and the large mammal predator/prey bond.
The evolution of large mammals and large brains took place most dramatically on grasslands, because there was plenty of available energy to exploit in this ecosystem. Grasslands produce very rich soil which creates plants with plentiful yields of high protein seeds, grain, and vegetable matter readily available for digestion (as opposed forests of trees which require fungi and bacteria to slowly break down woody indigestible matter). Initially brain size increased only to accommodate larger body size. At some point a specialized adaptation of the brain began in carnivores who developed hunting skills like tracking, stalking, and group coordination. Before this they had followed innate reflex, now they used "....combined sensory modalities, memory, experience, and skill." (Shepard, 31)
As predators evolved killed hunting, the pressure of natural selection produced elaborate escaped tactics in herbivore prey such as utilizing geography for protection, acting as decoy to protect most vulnerable, group defensive maneuvering. The result of this is an "....upward spiralling of intelligence..." (Shepard, 32) From our perspective this selection for intel seems an inevitable progression, but there are costs. More brains requires more food and a longer period of infant dependency, and instincts are sometimes better suited than more complex thinking. Only 5 of 20 mammalian orders have gone this route (primates, marine mammals, even and odd toed herbivores, and carnivores). Shepard believes that the number of species with specialized thinking is limited by the number of smaller brained creatures in an ecosystem, a ratio of sorts.
We now concentrate on the type of intelligence found in this predator/prey adaptation. It is defined by a vigilant awareness, an attention to sensory details. The mind places stimulus in the context of past experience, and can cause arousal Arousal in prey releases fear-inducing adrenaline. Arousal in predator releases norepinephrine which causes aggression. This leads us to the omnivores, our selves included, who combine aspects of both mentalities; the cunning of predator and the caution of prey. To find what distinguishes us from other omnivores we need to look at how primates evolved out of nocturnal mammals.
Nocturnal mammals developed heightened hearing and smelling abilities, which were integrated in the mind, forming awareness of time and space (where did that sound or smell come form?When did it occur in relation to other sounds and smells?). This process is known as the "...encephalization...of tissues for storing information" and is characterized by the ability to perceive patterns and create order out of sensory inputs. (Shepard, 39) When this hardware is placed in the context of diurnal arboreal mammals, images could likewise be stored and placed in a spatial/temporal context. This allows the ability to perceive past (recalling image) and future (prediction based on experience), making human consciousness dependent on particular brain adaptations and function that precede primates. Evolution is not as straight forward as it is commonly understood, it involved rewiring older adaptations for new purposes.
Along with the presupposition noted above, Shepard offers an alternative to the view of evolution as a hierarchical process leading the pinnacle of human intelligence. This flawed notion of transcendent humanity leaves us viewing the others (rest of life on earth) with resentment. The alternative to this ingrained notion is that mind is universal, expressing itself in many forms. Human intelligence emerged from a framework of organs and mechanisms we share with other creatures.
Shepard traces this framework back to flowering plants and insects, whose interaction created the literal ground from which the mammalian mind evolved. This symbiotic relationship (plants as food, insects as pollinators) gave earth the layer of organic soil that is the basis for the complex ecological arrangements to follow. It also produced the nutritious seeds needed for larger life forms to evolve. The diversity of plants is the primary factor in the diversity of ecosystems, the complex nervous systems of later creatures has its basis in the complexity of plant/insect communities. Shepard lists five types of intelligence found in the world at the time of primate evolution. First is the insect, characterized by instinctual behavior based on fine tuned sensory apparati and hive social activity. Second is birds, who possess integrated audio/visual systems. Third and fourth are large predator and prey mammals, and Fourth is primate intelligence. We discussed yesterday how primate intel developed in tropical jungles, but today we will concentrate on the hominid habitat of grasslands and the large mammal predator/prey bond.
The evolution of large mammals and large brains took place most dramatically on grasslands, because there was plenty of available energy to exploit in this ecosystem. Grasslands produce very rich soil which creates plants with plentiful yields of high protein seeds, grain, and vegetable matter readily available for digestion (as opposed forests of trees which require fungi and bacteria to slowly break down woody indigestible matter). Initially brain size increased only to accommodate larger body size. At some point a specialized adaptation of the brain began in carnivores who developed hunting skills like tracking, stalking, and group coordination. Before this they had followed innate reflex, now they used "....combined sensory modalities, memory, experience, and skill." (Shepard, 31)
As predators evolved killed hunting, the pressure of natural selection produced elaborate escaped tactics in herbivore prey such as utilizing geography for protection, acting as decoy to protect most vulnerable, group defensive maneuvering. The result of this is an "....upward spiralling of intelligence..." (Shepard, 32) From our perspective this selection for intel seems an inevitable progression, but there are costs. More brains requires more food and a longer period of infant dependency, and instincts are sometimes better suited than more complex thinking. Only 5 of 20 mammalian orders have gone this route (primates, marine mammals, even and odd toed herbivores, and carnivores). Shepard believes that the number of species with specialized thinking is limited by the number of smaller brained creatures in an ecosystem, a ratio of sorts.
We now concentrate on the type of intelligence found in this predator/prey adaptation. It is defined by a vigilant awareness, an attention to sensory details. The mind places stimulus in the context of past experience, and can cause arousal Arousal in prey releases fear-inducing adrenaline. Arousal in predator releases norepinephrine which causes aggression. This leads us to the omnivores, our selves included, who combine aspects of both mentalities; the cunning of predator and the caution of prey. To find what distinguishes us from other omnivores we need to look at how primates evolved out of nocturnal mammals.
Nocturnal mammals developed heightened hearing and smelling abilities, which were integrated in the mind, forming awareness of time and space (where did that sound or smell come form?When did it occur in relation to other sounds and smells?). This process is known as the "...encephalization...of tissues for storing information" and is characterized by the ability to perceive patterns and create order out of sensory inputs. (Shepard, 39) When this hardware is placed in the context of diurnal arboreal mammals, images could likewise be stored and placed in a spatial/temporal context. This allows the ability to perceive past (recalling image) and future (prediction based on experience), making human consciousness dependent on particular brain adaptations and function that precede primates. Evolution is not as straight forward as it is commonly understood, it involved rewiring older adaptations for new purposes.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Irie Eye - Shepard essay #1
Got the Paul Shepard reader yesterday, bringing my attention back to an issue that I haven't explored in some time, the evolution of human consciousness. Shepard's main idea is that we are endowed with the genetic heritage of our Pleistocene ancestors. Our minds, bodies and genes are adapted to the hunter/gatherer lifestyle. In his essay titled The Eye, Shepard explores how the human eye evolved and the possible influences our unique vision had and has on our unique mental ability's and artistic proclivities.
He starts by talking about how what became the primate eye evolved mainly in the Sea, before the first amphibians. This sea-eye was carried by reptiles and early mammals, who for the most part neglected vision while emphasizing smell (think of a dog, with its nose in front, dominating the face). The emphasis on one organ, the nose, lead to an "elaboration of the cerebrum....whose enlargement was begun for receiving, mixing, analyzing, and storing information from the nose." (Shepard, 2) This elaboration is a step towards to the explosive growth of the human cerebral cortex. When the first arboreal primate ancestors evolved, they put the mammalian eye back in a context similar to that of the sea. Gravity is used for orientation, sensed by the eye and endolymphatic fluid in the labyrinth of the ear. Horizontal lines are used as guides (the seafloor and surface, the horizon and branches) for both marine and arboreal creatures.
Once adapted to the trees, early primates evolved stereoscopic vision; the snout shrank and the eyes came to the fore as the dominate organ. You can get an idea of the process by looking at the lemur, who is in between a tree shrew and a monkey as far as dominance of eyes and recession of nose. Stereoscopic vision allows good depth perception through the mechanism of the ciliary muscles which can tilt the lenses in our eyes to focus on objects at varied distances. (Shepard, 6)Color vision evolved the allow us to discern bright fruits in an other wise monochrome world. The keen eyes of these creatures lend themselves to the ability of acute observation, foresight (should I approach it or not) and remembrance of past events. Primate eyes are freed from instinctual signal response, and allowed to examine and interpret its whole environment.(Shepard 11)
The next step is the use of vision by arboreal primates to acquire information from one another. Primates could develop social organization that is learned rather than inherited. This began the process of delaying development to allow for a longer learning period. Communication through para language (body language) developed, with much concentrating on the eyes (tears, furrowed brows, squinting when angry, eyes wide open when concerned, rolling eyes). Movement in the three dimensional arboreal realm required quick decision making and planning ahead by prediction based on past experience. This development will allow terrestial man to develop cultural traditions.
Shepard also discusses how the stereoscopic vision we inherited can explain some of our aesthetic sensibilities. Our affinity for horizontal and vertical lines and our tendency to follow them can be related to concentration on horizontal (horizon, branch) and vertical (tree trunk) that were necessary for balanced movement in the trees. Children enjoy climbing and it seems to be natural. The artist is highlighting or manipulating an image or part of their environment that creates an emotional reaction in their nervous system. This reaction may be felt by others observing it.
He closes with an explanation of how vision works like the other cycles of ecology. Sight begins when energy (light) penetrates our retinas. This energy is translated into "...an electrochemical code of impulses to the brain." (Shepard, 18) This translation is powered by energy we obtained from food which originated in photosynthesis. So our eyes evolved to observe the world and the order in it, which structures our brains and allows us to reflect this order in our art.
Good stuff, Eh?
He starts by talking about how what became the primate eye evolved mainly in the Sea, before the first amphibians. This sea-eye was carried by reptiles and early mammals, who for the most part neglected vision while emphasizing smell (think of a dog, with its nose in front, dominating the face). The emphasis on one organ, the nose, lead to an "elaboration of the cerebrum....whose enlargement was begun for receiving, mixing, analyzing, and storing information from the nose." (Shepard, 2) This elaboration is a step towards to the explosive growth of the human cerebral cortex. When the first arboreal primate ancestors evolved, they put the mammalian eye back in a context similar to that of the sea. Gravity is used for orientation, sensed by the eye and endolymphatic fluid in the labyrinth of the ear. Horizontal lines are used as guides (the seafloor and surface, the horizon and branches) for both marine and arboreal creatures.
Once adapted to the trees, early primates evolved stereoscopic vision; the snout shrank and the eyes came to the fore as the dominate organ. You can get an idea of the process by looking at the lemur, who is in between a tree shrew and a monkey as far as dominance of eyes and recession of nose. Stereoscopic vision allows good depth perception through the mechanism of the ciliary muscles which can tilt the lenses in our eyes to focus on objects at varied distances. (Shepard, 6)Color vision evolved the allow us to discern bright fruits in an other wise monochrome world. The keen eyes of these creatures lend themselves to the ability of acute observation, foresight (should I approach it or not) and remembrance of past events. Primate eyes are freed from instinctual signal response, and allowed to examine and interpret its whole environment.(Shepard 11)
The next step is the use of vision by arboreal primates to acquire information from one another. Primates could develop social organization that is learned rather than inherited. This began the process of delaying development to allow for a longer learning period. Communication through para language (body language) developed, with much concentrating on the eyes (tears, furrowed brows, squinting when angry, eyes wide open when concerned, rolling eyes). Movement in the three dimensional arboreal realm required quick decision making and planning ahead by prediction based on past experience. This development will allow terrestial man to develop cultural traditions.
Shepard also discusses how the stereoscopic vision we inherited can explain some of our aesthetic sensibilities. Our affinity for horizontal and vertical lines and our tendency to follow them can be related to concentration on horizontal (horizon, branch) and vertical (tree trunk) that were necessary for balanced movement in the trees. Children enjoy climbing and it seems to be natural. The artist is highlighting or manipulating an image or part of their environment that creates an emotional reaction in their nervous system. This reaction may be felt by others observing it.
He closes with an explanation of how vision works like the other cycles of ecology. Sight begins when energy (light) penetrates our retinas. This energy is translated into "...an electrochemical code of impulses to the brain." (Shepard, 18) This translation is powered by energy we obtained from food which originated in photosynthesis. So our eyes evolved to observe the world and the order in it, which structures our brains and allows us to reflect this order in our art.
Good stuff, Eh?
Monday, September 22, 2008
I'm here. Come get to know the digital me.
The theme I've been exploring lately is Futurism/Cyberpunk.What comes next??Where will our technology take us??I Started with William Gibson's Pattern Recognition and Spook Country which are more properly called post-cyberpunk. The original genre of Cyberpunk is extinct since the type of world envisioned in books like Neuromancer where Corporations have superseded Nation-States as the primary force in shaping social/political/economic is already with us. In fact, Huey Newton was arguing that this was a fact back in the early seventies with his notion of Intercommunalism. Our technology has already surpassed the then-fantastic ideas of highly intelligent computers, biometric surveilance, nanotechnology, and biosensors.
So gone are the historic conditions from which this genre arose, the early days of computing and the Internet. Really cyberpunk is just a period in the history of Sci-fi, which has alwaysponders the future while reflecting the conditions of the society at that particular time. Much of it has a darker vison then what came before it, but all of it deals with pertinent issues of the period from the early 80's to the mid 90's. The word was first used in 80, Bladerunner was out in 82, Neuromancer in 84. The most basic defintion of Cyberpunk is Postmodern Science fiction, but I think its fairly accurate, as accurate as a concept like postmodernism can get, but it fits.
Ray Kurzweil's book The Age of Spiritual Machines is an example of modern futurism that sees the inevitable growth of computing power to the level of self-consciousness and beyond as a benevolent event. To be fair, Kurzweil acknowledges that tech is a double-edged sword, but thinks we can direct the growth of tech to our advantage. I think his hypothesis that computers will become more human as humans merge with computers is accurate. The most interesting part of the book was the beginning where he explains how the evolution of technology follows the pattern of evolution in general. Natural selection gave humans larger, more complex brains with ever-increasing computation ability, and computers are just an extension of this, but can take to the next level. The question is not whether technology will continue to evolve, but what our fate in all of it will be.
Our intelligence has obvious shortcoming (Nuclear weapons, pollution), so perhaps the evolution of an intelligence above our own will help correct these self-destructive tendencies. But what will a correction of human failings look like?? This question is explored in sci-fi movies like Appleseed and I, Robot. I feel the intellectual speculation behind these Sci-fi scenarios is actually the most relevant philosophical investigations we can undertake.
This leads me to a field of study that I could devote a lot of time to researching, which is the effects of technology on culture and society. Looking at the historic record, studying the direction of tech growth and speculating and how future society will function. What I really want to get at is that we don't need to be passive observers of social change. We can ask ourselves what we want our future society to look like and then focus our tech developments on that. We have the tools and the intelligence to create a society we find more fitting, but the power to direct change is concentrated in the hands of people who have another sort of vision. It is the vision of using tech to further control society and stifle human potential.
As long as we are alienated, jaded, and sedated consumers, we will not take the steps to create the world we want to live in. As long as our idea of human nature is a Hobbesian world of selfish individuals stabbing each other in the back for egotistic gain, we will accept coercive control and a society that has been hacked apart to create autonomous consumers seeking satisfactions not in human relationships, but in products. So I want to study how tech has impacted society and show how the use of tech and the changes engendered have not been the natural outcomes of the tech, but the result of direction in manners benefiting the ruling class. (That may sound dangerously Marxist to some, but we should get over that linguistic taboo. Marx's critique of capitalism was quite valid and we would be fools to ignore it. You don't need to be a Marxist to realize that. Marx himself is quoted as saying he was not a Marxist, but I digress)My point is that tech changes society (tip of the hat to McLuhan) but the uses of technology are many and the resulting changes are conditioned by the objectives of those creating and controlling them.
An example of the effects of tech on society is found in another book I'm reading, The Birth of the Cool which explores the links between Bebop, the Beat movement in literature, abstract expressionism, and Zen Buddisms introduction to the west. I feel all these phenomenon adress the fear and uncertainty of life after the invention of atomic weopons. Bebop and abstract Exp. take the fractured world of cubism to a new level of frantic excitement and confusion. They try to give order to the disorder and incongrous world we found ourselves in as americans after WWII. Zen buddism enters western consciouness at the time we need it most, a time of irrationality and frenzied emotional reaction to the development of the technology neccesary to make our planet uninhabitable. Seeing the effect that the bomb had on society, most now feel Nuclear weapons should be abolished. The demand is there to use tech in a wiser manner, but the political power to do so is lacking. That doesn't say much about democracy in America, but if you still believe that our government is democratically accountable you have probably stopped receiving any news about what has gone on the last 50 years or you just have turned off your criticial thinking abilities and bought the lies they sold ya, but hey, its easier that way.
This issue combines my interests in political science, economics, (our poli-systems are run by the biggest players, corporations) history, media studies, and anthropology. We should remember at all times that we are talking about is how to change things to make life more satisfying for us, our families, and those that live around us. The idea of satisfaction I'm talking about is basic; enough food, clean water, health care, education, and social interaction thru viable communal institutions to function as human beings. By viable I mean created by members of a community to satisfy the needs of the community, rather than to satisfy the needs of any dominate group. We know what we want, we have to tools to achieve it. What we're lacking is the will. As long as our minds are shackled by corporately controlled media, government by big business, and an indoctrination system that tells us capitalism and the individual are the only valid concerns in our lives, the will to create change, even if its a small scale alternative to the structured way of life, is not present in any significant amount.
The will is there, in all of us, or at least he knowledge that something about the way we are living is wrong. Its just buried by layers of egotism, distrust, and a negative concept of human nature. We are taught that what I'm saying is childish crap, we can't change the system, its the only way to prevent us evil humans from murdering one another. If you look at history with a mind that can see through some of these ideological filters you see that the only thing that ever has effected positive social change has been small groups of dedicated people, and that our systems of state control has lead to the most murderous era in human existence.
If any of this strikes you as being true or if you feel that it is bullocks, please let me know.
The only way to get anything done is to share ideas, and that is my intention.
So gone are the historic conditions from which this genre arose, the early days of computing and the Internet. Really cyberpunk is just a period in the history of Sci-fi, which has alwaysponders the future while reflecting the conditions of the society at that particular time. Much of it has a darker vison then what came before it, but all of it deals with pertinent issues of the period from the early 80's to the mid 90's. The word was first used in 80, Bladerunner was out in 82, Neuromancer in 84. The most basic defintion of Cyberpunk is Postmodern Science fiction, but I think its fairly accurate, as accurate as a concept like postmodernism can get, but it fits.
Ray Kurzweil's book The Age of Spiritual Machines is an example of modern futurism that sees the inevitable growth of computing power to the level of self-consciousness and beyond as a benevolent event. To be fair, Kurzweil acknowledges that tech is a double-edged sword, but thinks we can direct the growth of tech to our advantage. I think his hypothesis that computers will become more human as humans merge with computers is accurate. The most interesting part of the book was the beginning where he explains how the evolution of technology follows the pattern of evolution in general. Natural selection gave humans larger, more complex brains with ever-increasing computation ability, and computers are just an extension of this, but can take to the next level. The question is not whether technology will continue to evolve, but what our fate in all of it will be.
Our intelligence has obvious shortcoming (Nuclear weapons, pollution), so perhaps the evolution of an intelligence above our own will help correct these self-destructive tendencies. But what will a correction of human failings look like?? This question is explored in sci-fi movies like Appleseed and I, Robot. I feel the intellectual speculation behind these Sci-fi scenarios is actually the most relevant philosophical investigations we can undertake.
This leads me to a field of study that I could devote a lot of time to researching, which is the effects of technology on culture and society. Looking at the historic record, studying the direction of tech growth and speculating and how future society will function. What I really want to get at is that we don't need to be passive observers of social change. We can ask ourselves what we want our future society to look like and then focus our tech developments on that. We have the tools and the intelligence to create a society we find more fitting, but the power to direct change is concentrated in the hands of people who have another sort of vision. It is the vision of using tech to further control society and stifle human potential.
As long as we are alienated, jaded, and sedated consumers, we will not take the steps to create the world we want to live in. As long as our idea of human nature is a Hobbesian world of selfish individuals stabbing each other in the back for egotistic gain, we will accept coercive control and a society that has been hacked apart to create autonomous consumers seeking satisfactions not in human relationships, but in products. So I want to study how tech has impacted society and show how the use of tech and the changes engendered have not been the natural outcomes of the tech, but the result of direction in manners benefiting the ruling class. (That may sound dangerously Marxist to some, but we should get over that linguistic taboo. Marx's critique of capitalism was quite valid and we would be fools to ignore it. You don't need to be a Marxist to realize that. Marx himself is quoted as saying he was not a Marxist, but I digress)My point is that tech changes society (tip of the hat to McLuhan) but the uses of technology are many and the resulting changes are conditioned by the objectives of those creating and controlling them.
An example of the effects of tech on society is found in another book I'm reading, The Birth of the Cool which explores the links between Bebop, the Beat movement in literature, abstract expressionism, and Zen Buddisms introduction to the west. I feel all these phenomenon adress the fear and uncertainty of life after the invention of atomic weopons. Bebop and abstract Exp. take the fractured world of cubism to a new level of frantic excitement and confusion. They try to give order to the disorder and incongrous world we found ourselves in as americans after WWII. Zen buddism enters western consciouness at the time we need it most, a time of irrationality and frenzied emotional reaction to the development of the technology neccesary to make our planet uninhabitable. Seeing the effect that the bomb had on society, most now feel Nuclear weapons should be abolished. The demand is there to use tech in a wiser manner, but the political power to do so is lacking. That doesn't say much about democracy in America, but if you still believe that our government is democratically accountable you have probably stopped receiving any news about what has gone on the last 50 years or you just have turned off your criticial thinking abilities and bought the lies they sold ya, but hey, its easier that way.
This issue combines my interests in political science, economics, (our poli-systems are run by the biggest players, corporations) history, media studies, and anthropology. We should remember at all times that we are talking about is how to change things to make life more satisfying for us, our families, and those that live around us. The idea of satisfaction I'm talking about is basic; enough food, clean water, health care, education, and social interaction thru viable communal institutions to function as human beings. By viable I mean created by members of a community to satisfy the needs of the community, rather than to satisfy the needs of any dominate group. We know what we want, we have to tools to achieve it. What we're lacking is the will. As long as our minds are shackled by corporately controlled media, government by big business, and an indoctrination system that tells us capitalism and the individual are the only valid concerns in our lives, the will to create change, even if its a small scale alternative to the structured way of life, is not present in any significant amount.
The will is there, in all of us, or at least he knowledge that something about the way we are living is wrong. Its just buried by layers of egotism, distrust, and a negative concept of human nature. We are taught that what I'm saying is childish crap, we can't change the system, its the only way to prevent us evil humans from murdering one another. If you look at history with a mind that can see through some of these ideological filters you see that the only thing that ever has effected positive social change has been small groups of dedicated people, and that our systems of state control has lead to the most murderous era in human existence.
If any of this strikes you as being true or if you feel that it is bullocks, please let me know.
The only way to get anything done is to share ideas, and that is my intention.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)