Re: assumptions ?

In a message dated 12/28/2001 5:57:49 PM Central Standard Time, snedeker@concentric.net writes:


> there seems to be a bit of confusion between history and evolutionary
> psychology. 

[snip]
History and psychology of any sort are two different studies.  History is the study of what happened, and to some extent, why it happened.  In this way the study of psychology enters in.  To understand why events in history took place you must study the psychology of the people and the time.  So the two studies are tied together in this manner.  I don't think that is confusion, it is simply the situation that prevails, as Jimmy Durante used to say.
[snip

nations are a product of modernity, what might be called the
> capitalist world system. they are a relatively recent social invention. the
> human psyche is something quite different. I assume that the human psyche is
> subject to change. how much change? well, that is a good question to
> contemplate.

[snip]
I don't think that the human psyche is subject to a very high degree of change.  The same types of desires and hates were present in our primitive ancestors as are present today.  Perhaps not in you; but in 99.99% of the population of the world.  I can agree that the world would be a better place if people could put their wants, desires, demands, etc. aside and try to help their fellow man.  It just ain't a'gonna happen.  Not in my lifetime anyway and I would be willing to be not in the next thousand years.  People have been the same for thousands of years and one more thousand will make little difference.
[snip] 
 
world systems theory is a historical science. it tries to make
> sense of the role of nation-states within the capitalist world economy.
[snip] 
I wish you all the luck in the world in this effort.  Unless, however, you realize that mankind functions through selfishness I don't think that you will have much success.
I am not attempting to stop your attempt.  I hope you succeed next year in understanding all there is to know about how all governments function and why.  I can only say what I believe to be true.

I am reading a book written by a Sir Samuel W. White who explored in the Sudan and Central Africa in the 1860s and 1870s.  I just read one passage that I think fits into this discussion.  He was discussing with a Sudanese chief with whom he had developed a friendship.  They were discussing beliefs.  I quote from the book:

"One day I sent for Commoro after the usual funeral dance was completed, and, through my two young interpreters, I had a long conversation with him on the customs of his
country. I wished if possible to fathom the origin of the extraordinary custom of exhuming the body after burial, as I imagined that in this act some idea might be traced to a belief
in the resurrection.

Commoro was, like all his people, extremely tall. Upon entering my tent he took his seat upon the ground, the Latookas not using stools like the other White Nile tribes. I
commenced the conversation by complimenting him on the perfection of his wives and daughters in the dance, and on his own agility in the performance; and inquired for whom
the ceremony had been performed.

He replied, that it was for a man who had been recently killed, but no one of great importance, the same ceremony being observed for every person without distinction. I asked
him why those slain in battle were allowed to remain unburied. He said, it had always been the custom, but that he could not explain it.

"But," I replied, "why should you disturb the bones of those whom you have already buried, and expose them on the outskirts of the town?"

"It was the custom of our forefathers," he answered, "therefore we continue to observe it."

"Have you no belief in a future existence after death? Is not some idea
expressed in the act of exhuming the bones after the flesh is decayed?"

Commoro (loq.).--"Existence AFTER death! How can that be? Can a dead man
get out of his grave, unless we dig him out?"

"Do you think man is like a beast, that dies and is ended?"

Commoro.--"Certainly; an ox is stronger than a man; but he dies, and his
bones last longer; they are bigger. A man's bones break quickly--he is
weak."

"Is not a man superior in sense to an ox? Has he not a mind to direct
his actions?"

Commoro.--"Some men are not so clever as an ox. Men must sow corn to
obtain food, but the ox and wild animals can procure it without sowing."

"Do you not know that there is a spirit within you more than flesh? Do
you not dream and wander in thought to distant places in your sleep?
Nevertheless, your body rests in one spot. How do you account for this?"

Commoro (laughing).--"Well, how do YOU account for it? It is a thing I
cannot understand; it occurs to me every night."

"The mind is independent of the body; the actual body can be fettered,
but the mind is uncontrollable; the body will die and will become dust,
or be eaten by vultures, but the spirit will exist for ever."

Commoro.--"Where will the spirit live?"

"Where does fire live? Cannot you produce a fire (The natives always
produce fire by rubbing two sticks together.) by rubbing two sticks
together, yet you SEE not the fire in the wood. Has not that fire, that
lies harmless and unseen in the sticks, the power to consume the whole
country? Which is the stronger, the small stick that first PRODUCES the
fire, or the fire itself? So is the spirit the element within the body,
as the element of fire exists in the stick; the element being superior
to the substance."

Commoro.--"Ha! Can you explain what we frequently see at night when lost
in the wilderness? I have myself been lost, and wandering in the dark, I
have seen a distant fire; upon approaching, the fire has vanished, and I
have been unable to trace the cause--nor could I find the spot."

"Have you no idea of the existence of spirits superior to either man or
beast? Have you no fear of evil except from bodily causes?"

Commoro.--"I am afraid of elephants and other animals when in the jungle
at night, but of nothing else."

"Then you believe in nothing; neither in a good nor evil spirit! And you
believe that when you die it will be the end of body and spirit; that
you are like other animals; and that there is no distinction between man
and beast; both disappear, and end at death?"

Commoro.--"Of course they do."

"Do you see no difference in good and bad actions?" Commoro.--"Yes,
there are good and bad in men and beasts."

"Do you think that a good man and a bad must share the same fate, and
alike die, and end?"

Commoro.--"Yes; what else can they do? How can they help dying? Good and bad all die."

"Their bodies perish, but their spirits remain; the good in happiness,
the bad in misery. If you have no belief in a future state, WHY SHOULD A
MAN BE GOOD? Why should he not be bad, if he can prosper by wickedness?"

Commoro.--"Most people are bad; if they are strong they take from the
weak. The good people are all weak; they are good because they are not
strong enough to be bad.""
 
[snip]

I think this last statement from Commoro is genius from the mouth of what could be considered a primitive.

I must state that I agree with the chief.

Gordon Hale