About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


Post 20

Sunday, August 14, 2011 - 10:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
primitive
c.1400, "of a thing from which something is derived, not secondary" (a sense now associated with primary), from O.Fr. primitif (fem. primitive), from L. primitivus "first or earliest of its kind," from primitus "at first," from primus "first" (see prime (adj.)). Meaning "of or belonging to the first age" is from 1520s. In Christian sense of "adhering to the qualities of the early Church" it is recorded from 1680s. Of untrained artists from 1942.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Sunday, August 14, 2011 - 10:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe,

That's what I said.

:-)

Ed


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 22

Sunday, August 14, 2011 - 11:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yeah, but mine was a "return of the primitive." :)

Post 23

Monday, August 15, 2011 - 6:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The distinction between "primitive" and "civilized" comes better from an encyclopedia than it does from a dictionary.  That is why I cited the "pattern making" and "pattern finding" nature of the brain, which may be more like a gland than like a digital computers.  Differentiating "primitive" from "civilized" depends on an array of social facts whose relative placement is as important as the facts themselves. 

These citations would read differently if they were a summary of Aristotle on The Athenian Constitution and a few paragraphs about the introduction of coinage at Athens by Peisistratus, the political opponent of Solon the Law-Giver. 
The Cheyenne live with a relatively complex constitutional law. Forty-four appointed chiefs serve for ten years. Only half of them are replaced at one time.  Sons rarely succeed fathers.  In addition, as separate councils, each warrior society has its own leaders.  (The warrior societies were the Fox Soldiers, Bowstring Soldiers, Elk Soldiers, Dog Men and Northern Crazy Dogs.  Their names changed over time for reasons not clearly understood by ethnographers.)  Their word counted for much within the tribal councils because these men bore the brunt of action not only in war but simply in policing the move of a tribe from one place to another across great distances.  (This was a significant community policing.duty, larger than defensive or aggressive war.)  Yet, all of this served for a people numbering perhaps never more than 7,000.  Therefore, justice, guidance, rule and responsibility were always personal and close.  
 According to their own legends, this “traditional” arrangement was given to them by a captive girl from the Assinboine tribe.  Anthropologists figure that this dates to about 1750.  ... These institutions were recent developments to the Cheyenne, only slightly older than the Federal Constitution of the Whites when the two groups met.  (Based on Llewellyn, K. N. and E. Adamson Hoebel. 1941. The Cheyenne Way: Conflict and Case Law in Primitive Jurisprudence. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.) 


We know that the Founding Fathers of the American Republic thought highly of the "Five Civilized Tribes."  Robert Leonard and Charles Opitz are numismatists who separately investigated primitive money.  The invention of wampum made possible the Confederation of Tribes.

 Transcript No. 1745  June 11, 1999  WAMPUM  by Robert Leonard
   Hiawatha is remembered today as the principal character in Longfellow's
poem, "The Song of Hiawatha." But there was an historical Hiawatha, who
deserves to be remembered . . . and he was the disciple of the prophet
Dekanawida, the inventor of wampum.
   Dekanawida was born to the Huron tribe in about 1520.  After the French
explorer Cartier arrived among the Huron in 1535, Dekanawida recognized
that the Europeans posed a threat to Native American ways of life. He
journeyed south to warn the Iroquois about the Europeans. Hiawatha, a
reformed cannibal, became his disciple and spokesman.
   Dekanawida's plan was to bring together the five regional tribes--who
were constantly making war on each other--and to form a single nation, the
Iroquois Nation. To succeed, he needed some peaceful means for resolving
disputes. Compensation would have to replace retaliation. His solution
was to introduce wampum--North America's earliest money.
   Wampum was tubular beads about a quarter of an inch long and less than
an eighth of an inch thick. Purple beads were also made . . . they were
worth twice as much as white beads because they could be made only from a
clam shell heart.
   The first string of wampum was made in about 1570 as a gift to a chief
who agreed to hold a council. After 1600, wampum spread rapidly for use as
blood money, ransom, and ceremonial presentations. It was even used as
money by the English and Dutch settlers, who made it legal tender as early
as 1637.
   Over the next few decades, coins became more plentiful in the Colonies,
and wampum passed out of use as currency early in the 1700s. However,
imitations were made for the western Indian trade as late as 1889.
   This has been "Money Talks."  Today's program was written by Robert
Leonard. "Money Talks" is produced and underwritten by the American
Numismatic Association in Colorado Springs, America's coin club for over a
century. Take a tour of ANA's virtual Money Museum on the web at
www.money.org. Copyright 1999 ANA

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 8/15, 6:34am)


Post 24

Wednesday, August 17, 2011 - 5:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
One of the "small town" guys on that Facebook page I mentioned was in the local "gifted students" program with me in middle school. He has since converted to the Jehovah's Witnesses (JW) cult and said something totally outrageous. I cannot locate the exact quote, but it went something like this: "Columbus supposedly sailed across the sea to prove that the Earth is round. I learned from JW that if he had studied the Bible carefully, he could have saved himself the trouble. The Bible clearly implies that the Earth is a sphere."

Argh! I could tear this apart easily on multiple levels. But I will not waste the effort. I just had to share it here for chuckles and horrors.

Post 25

Wednesday, August 17, 2011 - 7:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke, I understand that this is difficult for you.  Knowing intellectually that you are 1 of 3 in 1000 is not much help when you find yourself marginalized by the very people (" ... 'gifted students' program with me")  whom you would expect to have an open and active mind does not change the emotional consequences for you.  I get that.

I also point out that you can find it closer to home.
In the "Bad Science" blog, Ed Thompson wrote: "...  there are a lot of things in life that can be explained via reference to first principles. ...  You can even parse it down to first principles. You do not need to stay at the complex level where you like to stay, Mike (for whatever reason) -- always holding out and saying "Well, it could have turned out differently." ..  Identity exists and prevents some things from "turning out differently." I invite you to consider accepting that fact and integrating it into new experiences in your life journey.
Ed's point was that he knows first principles, so he does not need to have experimental verification of theories.  He is "in church."  He came to Objectivism from progressivism: he changed ideologies without changing his mind.  Truthfully, I see the same thing in you.  You are an orthodox Objectivist.  You are not alone, certainly.  We have a body of published doctrine.  We have original sources.  Disagreement with "minor" points such as the sense of life in the music of Beethoven and Mozart is allowed. Here on RoR have rock 'n' roll and comics and homosexuality. Beyond that, you can be relegated to the Dissent forum. 

You cannot rationally talk a man out of a position he was not rationally talked in to. 

It is common among Objectivists to believe that rational arguments bolstered by empirical evidence can convince and convert.  You find this often, that someone says that they were a socialist or a Christian or whatever and then they read Anthem or Fountainhead  - in Ed's case it was non-fiction - and then they saw the light and realized the error of their ways and accepted the truth.  What does that sound like, but a religious conversion? 

I think that such people, like you, are genetic individualists.  They finally read something that resonated.  It resounded within them on a chord or harmony that was consonant with their true being.  "This, I believe." 

But it is complicated. To speak of "genetic individualism" is not to say that someone adheres to the Bill of Rights or venerates Andrew Carnegie.  And it is not a matter of correct individualism versus erroneous individualism.  I do not have an easy answer.  That is me.  I live with ambiguity.  Here on RoR, some people have a problem with ambiguity and with mine.  (I point to Penn & Teller burning an American flag: did we burn it or vanish it? Totalitarian regimes hate ambiguity.)  You do not live well with ambiguity and I made fun of you and your Franklin Planner Approach to Freedom.  That was unfair and unkind.  But it expressed a difference in our worldviews.  I did not accept the validity of yours and for that, I apologize.

All of this is to say that Jehova and the Bible are not so important when you look at whether a person is productive and keeps their word.  I agree 100% that a world of Objectivists might be better than a world of Religionists... until you fast forward to 2200 AD and find Kelleyites and Peikovians at war from their floating colonies and wonder how it all went so wrong...


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


User ID Password or create a free account.