RE: three paradigm shifts?
Dan Minette wrote ... the shifts are analog, compared to the digital paradigm shifts in physics. That is for sure! As far as I can see, we have three major social paradigms in place now. It is not like physics, where everyone agrees that Newton's Laws are wrong for precise calculations, but right more generally. Social circumstances are more vague and less decisive. On a world wide basis, the largest paradigms may well be various pre-industrial and agricultural. David Brin stated what from our point of view is their most salient characteristic, a belief in blood lines, an aristocracy: for those that like reading fantasy, magical powers only for some; for those who like power, corporate inheritances for some. For the rest of us, peonage. This is, I think, part of the appeal of movies like Lord of the Rings and Narnia. Many possess a Newtonian paradigm, especially in western Europe and the United States. That paradigm enabled technology to advance for generations, not for the short spurts of ancient times or the Renaissance. I also think the Newtonian paradigm led to the political notion that people should succeed on their own and not be prevented by others as well as to a loss in certain beliefs. Put another way, only some geniuses from an agricultural society see mechanical devices as non-living, although everone can use them, just as everyone can use a cell phone. The point of the Newtonian paradigm is that ordinary people began to see mechanical devices as non-living. Thus, in the early 1820s, the British, using very crude river steamboats were able to conquer the Burmese using sophisticated galleys, after the Burmese rowers grew tired. Geniuses like Watt and Fulton invented the first steam engines and their application to steamboats; but London military bureaucrats sent them to the East. As for the third paradigm, I think very few ordinary people have adapted it. That paradigm concerns itself with probability and feedback. I am not sure whether young children can take it on. Certainly, the third paradigm has not entered any widespread culture yet. In contrast, for a Newtonian paradigm in some places, a nine year old will understand, vaguely, how a 1917 motorcycle engine works by looking at it when it is stopped. The understanding is `in the air' and the child picks it up. But a modern motorcycle engine is is computer controlled. To understand it, a child needs a tool. He or she cannot just look at it. (I don't know about electricity, except that my nephews, whose father was an electrician, learned to play with electric circuits when they were four. However, that may be like playing with dolls or toy cars, a learning about action, not understanding.) ... it isn't clear to me that the difference between nomads that follow a herd and nomads that lead herds is more significant than that between nomads and city dwellers. When did cities first arise? I am not speaking of villages, such as gatherer/hunters might settle -- incidently, over the centuries, how do the people in such a village prevent a more populous neighbor from conquering them, or prevent their own increase in population, thereby reducing their resources per person? For the pre-agricultural, pre-Aristotelian paradigms, I am speaking of time more than twelve millenia ago. I don't think cities existed then. As for nomads that followed and those that led herds, I don't know anything about them. (How do you gather that information before writing? Do you compare archeological studies of ancient nomads with those of nomads about whom we know through writing?) I wonder: can a general, social paradigm succeed when you cannot see how entities `work'? -- that a supreme being, along with help from the sun, water, and warmth, inspires the grass to grow; or that this rod controls that valve in a steam engine? On the other hand, you cannot see with your own senses how a telephone works, only the result of it working. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: three paradigm shifts?
I think there are three paradigm shifts in the way that we understand that order can arise from chaos. 0. Nobody/everybody is in charge 1. Hierarchical -- somebody is in charge: feudalism, the Great Chain of Being, creationism 2. Self-regulating -- feedback loops, democracy, Darwinism, classical economics 3. Self-organizing -- networks, post-modernism, endosymbiosis Each of these contains its predecessors, in the sense that they are increasingly complete models of nature. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: three paradigm shifts?
From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think there are three paradigm shifts in the way that we understand that order can arise from chaos. I'm adding a fourth from anthropology ... 0. Nobody/everybody is in charge *0.5: Animistic. The spirits are in charge; the entire tribe is charged with keeping them happy. More amorphous than the hierarchical model, but less so than nobody in charge.* Magic considered as a technology. 1. Hierarchical -- somebody is in charge: feudalism, the Great Chain of Being, creationism 2. Self-regulating -- feedback loops, democracy, Darwinism, classical economics 3. Self-organizing -- networks, post-modernism, endosymbiosis Each of these contains its predecessors, in the sense that they are increasingly complete models of nature. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: three paradigm shifts?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert J. Chassell Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2006 8:59 AM To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: three paradigm shifts? Were there three major paradigm shifts? I go further back than Dan. Over the course of human history, were there three paradigm shifts implying four paradigms? The shifts would be 1. from foraging and hunting to agriculture and herding, 2. from agriculture and herding to mechanics and electric power, 3. from mechanics and electric power to biological and computational activities. I've took a bit of time to think about this, and see some problems with these broad outlines. When I look at three paradigms of physics, there is extensive documentation of each paradigm and the shifts between paradigms. In the West, the three paradigms are fairly well documented. I've taken two semester courses on original Classical works: one on Plato and Aristotle and one on Thomas Aquinas. My senior thesis in college was on interpreting Quantum Mechanics using Aristotle's philosophy. So, I think I have at least a fair understanding of this worldview by reading (translated) original works. My point here is not to boast about the extent of my studyingbut to point out what is available to be studies. We have a fairly extensive library of classical writings. We do not have any real library of writings by hunter-gatherer tribes. Our present knowledge is rather limited. In addition, it isn't clear to me that the difference between nomads that follow a herd and nomads that lead herds is more significant than that between nomads and city dwellers. So, the first step is uncertain. In addition, the last two proposed shifts aren't as clearly demarcated as the physics shifting. For example, water mills had been used as a source of mechanical power for over 2000 years, while electric power has been used for less than 150 years. The Greeks and Romans had rather complex gearing (e.g. the Roman mile marker required fairly sophisticated gearing.) Our economy has certainly changed with the prevalence of computers, and there are differences in how we view things than how people 50 years ago viewed things. But, simpler computers have existed for a long time, and the Turing machine goes back 70 years, compared to the 140 years for Maxwell's equations. Further, we still find strong neo-Classical influences in popular culture. For example, two of the biggest movie series (Lord of the Rings and Narnia) are based on books by rather opinionated neoclassicists. Thus, I would argue that our culture has not experienced paradigm shifts in the manner that paradigm shifts are seen in physics. In physics, Kepler's laws provided a simple explanation for planetary motion, perfect circles require an infinite number of epicycles. A mechanistic aether cannot fit EM. Classical real objects are inconsistent with the experimental results of QM. Having said that, I don't wish to argue that there haven't been shifts in viewpoint over the last 2500 years. Clearly there have been shifts. I'm just arguing that the shifts are analog, compared to the digital paradigm shifts in physics. I'll try to get to the rest of your post later, but that's a start at least. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: three paradigm shifts?
-Original Message- From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 13:59:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: three paradigm shifts? Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] said Animals suitable to be domesticated must, in general, have a native hierarchy ... That is extemely interesting. For whatever reason, I never thought of it. Well, it's not exactly my original thinking; 'be the leader' is the big theme in current horsemanship training, and has been important in dog training for a while. I'm fairly sure I read it during the past ten years, in books on animal behavior; IIRC, it was articulated at least partially in _Guns, Germs And Steel_ also. Yes defintely in GGS In one sentence: domesticated animals were bred from those with a strong social hierarchy or family structure which humans could usurp, with an emphasis on juvenile (and therefore dependent) as well as territorial behaviors, in breeding programs, in addition to the desired characteristics of milk/meat production, strength, swiftness etc. That whole posting helps make sense of the pre-industrial, agricultural world -- it is terrific (and terrifying). With attacks this week by a bear (Tenn., fatal outcome) and a cougar (here, child survived), we are reminded of why our far ancestors were so afraid of and awed by Nature, and the creatures therein. That first alliance with social wolves must have had a tremendous impact on hunter-gatherers: here were allies who could see in the dark, smell from afar, and race to attack, while puny humans had to cower near a fire or risk being carried off by equally 'magic' predators. So too, the reverence for Cow by the ancients: provider of milk, meat, and covering, and able to pull far heavier loads (plow) than humans alone; and to the needs of humans these large creatures *submitted* (more or less quietly). Familiarity breeds contempt -- in myth, the Hound is a near-sacred partner of the Hunter, and the Bull sacrifices his great strength to humanity's survival. Now, 'cur,' 'cow,' 'bitch,' and 'bullshit' are terms of scorn; our foreparents would find our use of them blasphemous. I think one of the reasons some people have gotten on a Native American kick (or DownUnder, an aboriginal kick) is to recapture that sense of wonder at the creatures that, at one time, meant Life or Death. I can see why a God or Goddess would appear as Cow or Wolf or Ram... Debbi Equus Of The Shining Mane! Maru __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: three paradigm shifts?
On 19/04/2006, at 1:41 AM, Dave Land wrote: That variant spelling of extrovert only finds 236,000 pages on Google. Spot on, William. I searched for introvert OR intravert vs extravert OR extrovert and came up with closer, but still skewed results: intr(o|a)vert: 2,470,000 extr(o|a)vert: 2,150,000 Dave Where are the missing 420,000 extr*verts? Land Out, obviously. The introverts are at home on the PC. :) Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
cats are evil, why they must be eradicated [was: three paradigm shifts?]
Later, several American cat lineages returned to Asia. With each migration, evolutionary forces morphed the pantherlike patriarch of all cats into a rainbow of species, from ocelots and lynxes to leopards, lions and the lineage that led to the most successful cat of all, even though it has mostly forsaken its predatory heritage: the cat that has induced people to pay for its board and lodging in return for frugal displays of affection. Which animal is he talking about in this sentence? I don't know of any successful cat-like animal that has mostly forsaken its predatory heritage Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: cats are evil, why they must be eradicated [was: three paradigm shifts?]
Alberto Monteiro wrote: Which animal is he talking about in this sentence? I don't know of any successful cat-like animal that has mostly forsaken its predatory heritage As Granny Weatherwax says, If cats weren't so cute, we would realize what nasty little bastards they are. Jim The only cat I like wears a stovepipe hat Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: three paradigm shifts?
Charlie Bell wrote: And people ask why I chose Australia for my big solo rip... no large terrestrial maneaters is a good reason I feel! (s about the crocs and sharks... ;) ) But doesn't Oz have, what, nine out of the ten most poisonous spiders on the planet? Not to mention evil jellyfish and heaven only knows what else. I'll take cougars and bears, which generally have the good sense to avoid humans, over mindless vermin that you can't see and think your ass is a snack bar any day. :-) Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: three paradigm shifts?
On 19/04/2006, at 3:37 PM, Jim Sharkey wrote: Charlie Bell wrote: And people ask why I chose Australia for my big solo rip... no large terrestrial maneaters is a good reason I feel! (s about the crocs and sharks... ;) ) But doesn't Oz have, what, nine out of the ten most poisonous spiders on the planet? 2 out of the worst 3... Black widows kill more people than funnelwebs (mind you, that's largely 'cause Aussies take their antivenin very seriously, an untreated funnelweb bite can bury you in a couple of hours...). 8 of the world's 10 most venomous land snakes. Not to mention evil jellyfish and heaven only knows what else. Box jelly, peanut jelly. Plus the world's only poisonous mammal... And you know what? Bees kill more than the rest combined. :) Glad I'm not allergic. I'll take cougars and bears, which generally have the good sense to avoid humans, over mindless vermin that you can't see and think your ass is a snack bar any day. :-) Yeah yeah... :p Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: three paradigm shifts?
Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 18/04/2006, at 11:59 PM, Deborah Harrell wrote: snip Familiarity breeds contempt -- in myth, the Hound is a near-sacred partner of the Hunter, and the Bull sacrifices his great strength to humanity's survival. Now, 'cur,' 'cow,' 'bitch,' and 'bullshit' are terms of scorn; our foreparents would find our use of them blasphemous. I think one of the reasons some people have gotten on a Native American kick (or DownUnder, an aboriginal kick) is to recapture that sense of wonder at the creatures that, at one time, meant Life or Death. I can see why a God or Goddess would appear as Cow or Wolf or Ram... Nice. :) Also not original, but I must agree twisted arm! that it was well-expressed. Debbi Now Wondering When Karmic Slappage Will Follow Maru :) __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: cats are evil, why they must be eradicated [was: three paradigm shifts?]
Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alberto Monteiro wrote: Which animal is he talking about in this sentence? I don't know of any successful cat-like animal that has mostly forsaken its predatory heritage Some folks don't realize that their cute tabbies still belong to 'the tribe of tiger,' and might revert to killing prey at any moment. OTOH, my Lihleete enjoys the chase, but rarely kills anything except for insects; she has brought me unharmed hummingbirds and bats, which I then released. As Granny Weatherwax says, If cats weren't so cute, we would realize what nasty little bastards they are. UNtrue! serious I have a friend who was *saved* by her cat (I'm sure I posted the story several years ago), and have had terminal patients whose lives were bearable because of their pet cat(s). No doubt unattached cats are only interested in their food and own comfort, but cats bonded to their humans _behave_ as if they are distressed when their human is in pain (soft mewing, following their human about closely, grooming or 'patting'**), 'mourn' when their human is away for long periods of time (frex refusing food and play), and greet the returned one with enthusiasm and what I would call joy: tail-up, ears up, whiskers forward, mewing and purrs, bouncing like Tigger, etc. **'patting' - While cats will smack each other with paws in play or in anger, or hold a kitten down (to groom it) with paws, I have never seen one 'pat' another like human-bonded ones do. It is a very deliberate touching of a sheath-clawed paw, usually to skin rather than clothing, frex face or hand. I think it is a learned behavior, imitating us. Jim The only cat I like wears a stovepipe hat Maru Hmm, methinks this could be tied into the whole betrayal discussion in the Judas thread: he comes, incites the children to do 'wrong,' silences the fish of conscience, and just before disaster strikes in the parent's return, whisks away all evidence of wrongdoing... Debbi I Am Too Happy Enough! Maru ;-} __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: three paradigm shifts?
Bemmzim wrote: Cats are a perfect example of non-domestication. We have certainly bred them to be smaller and tamer but they are not domesticated in the way that dogs are domesticated. They do not connect with humans in the same way. I may be among the few humans who like _both_ cats and dogs. I admire dogs because they are loyal and trustful, and I admire cats for their independence and irreverence. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Dogs 'n cats (was Re: three paradigm shifts?)
On 4/18/06, Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I may be among the few humans who like _both_ cats and dogs. I admire dogs because they are loyal and trustful, and I admire cats for their independence and irreverence. We had cats and a dog when I was a kid.. and I have had cats as an adult. But a few weeks ago, we got our first dog, Kairo, who is a Maltese (though a big one at 13 lbs.). We've been calling him Fluffy the last few days after using stuff called D-Mat on him to help remove and prevent mats in his hair (it's hair, not fur, which is why my wife's allergies aren't going crazy). Dogs certainly are different from cats. I like both, too. One of the most entertaining parts of my day is walking Kairo past Joey's house. Joey is a black-and-white cat who apparently loves dogs. The two of them wrestle for a while and then we continue our walk. Kairo tries to get romantic with Joey sometimes, even though he no longer has all the parts necessary for reproduction even within his species. He's still young enough that he's chewing everything. It's a bit of a battle to stay ahead of what he finds. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: three paradigm shifts?
On Apr 17, 2006, at 6:14 PM, Deborah Harrell wrote: Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip In the relevant manner, how do domesticated animals differ from hunted animals? (I know they differ; the question is how?) Deborah Harrell, can you comment? snip^2 In one sentence: domesticated animals were bred from those with a strong social hierarchy or family structure which humans could usurp, with an emphasis on juvenile (and therefore dependent) as well as territorial behaviors, in breeding programs, in addition to the desired characteristics of milk/meat production, strength, swiftness etc. The same can be said of humans who have been inculcated to believe in a strong social hierarchy or family values that neconservatives could usurp, with an emphasis on juvenile (generation whatever) as well as territorial behaviors (I'll give up my gun...). Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: three paradigm shifts?
On Apr 18, 2006, at 5:38 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: I may be among the few humans who like _both_ cats and dogs. I admire dogs because they are loyal and trustful, and I admire cats for their independence and irreverence. Allow me to affirm your open-mindedness w/r/t cats and dogs. I think the whole dog person vs. cat person meme is not as useful as others seem to think it is. We had both dogs and cats when I was growing up, so I never saw myself as favoring one over the other. They're definitely different, but so are introverted and extroverted humans. While I am definitely the latter, and seem to gravitate towards other extroverts (and compete with them for airtime), I can get along with introverts, too. I may even be married to one, although her outgoing ways seem to mask her introversion. That said, my 9-year-old son wants /nothing/ to do with dogs of any size and personality, but adores our two cats Oreo and Fannie Mae. Dave Always Thinking Out Loud Land PS: There are 2.45M pages for introvert on Google, but only 2.0M pages for extrovert. Wonder what that means? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: three paradigm shifts?
On 4/18/06, Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PS: There are 2.45M pages for introvert on Google, but only 2.0M pages for extrovert. Wonder what that means? It means you probably should have searched on extravert. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: three paradigm shifts?
On 18 Apr 2006, at 7:21PM, Nick Arnett wrote: On 4/18/06, Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PS: There are 2.45M pages for introvert on Google, but only 2.0M pages for extrovert. Wonder what that means? It means you probably should have searched on extravert. That variant spelling of extrovert only finds 236,000 pages on Google. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Putting an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of keyboards will _not_ result in the greatest work of all time. Just look at Windows. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On Cats (Was: three paradigm shifts?)
Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 08:14 PM Monday 4/17/2006, Deborah Harrell wrote: snip Animals suitable to be domesticated must, in general, have a native hierarchy, which humans can then utilize to their own advantage... in carnivores, a relatively stable pack or strong family structure is required. Humans usurp the alpha position of the herd leader(s) or mother/father. So how do you explain cats? Ronn, Ronn, Ronn...cats are inherently inexplicable. I suspect Midnight has his paws over his eyes at your obtuseness... ;-} Damon opined: Intelligence and inherent laziness obviously selected itself in cat evolution. In some circles, cats taking on us as their masters can be seen as a stoke of genius that outstrips the greatest of human achievements! Your cat(s) have obviously brainwashed - er, _trained_ - you well, but your understanding of the feline purpose underlying exploitation of humanity is a bit flawed. *Laziness* has little to do with it; rather, they desire leisure time to contemplate Big Ideas: the Good, the True, the Real, the Invisible, the Ineffable...and what Truth bits of string twitched across floors represent. ;-) Pat noted: We never domesticated them. They just took advantage of free food and shelter, in true predator style. Or, why doesn't your cat obey you? Pat, human servant to Dufus Claudius Felis and Spot Optimus Maximus Another human who clearly understands her place in the Great Food Chain. Your rulers have been a little harsh, perhaps, if they have never deigned to allow you the illusion of miniscule control; most felids find the antics of humans trained with the 'diminishing rewards'** system absolutely hysterical. `:-) **The diminishing rewards method involves initially frequent responses to human 'orders,' such as coming-when-called; then response should be lowered until it is entirely sporadic -- it drives many humans to massive expenditure of effort. While most cats see this as harmless fun, others feel it is unnecessarily humiliating for their thralls -- a rare few think that humans are too dangerously arrogant to be allowed even the illusion of having a measurable effect upon the universe. Rob stated: I'm not by nature a cat person. But our cats love me to death and will obey any imperative command I give (Get Down!...Get Back In The House!) especially if accompanied by a single clap. G They also know what the phrases Malt and Canned Cat Food mean and will come immediately if you ask them if they want some. (Malt is a malt or salmon flavored hairball gelapparently quite yummy) See?!?! A well-conditioned human, providing not only nourishment of Their Imperiousnesses' Mortal Frames, but delighting Their Incomparable Sense Of Whimsy as well! A miracle of felicitous cohabitation to behold! ;-) Getting back to a serious and scientific approach- Bob Z wrote: Cats are a perfect example of non-domestication. We have certainly bred them to be smaller and tamer but they are not domesticated in the way that dogs are domesticated. They do not connect with humans in the same way. It is true that cats must be 'imprinted' at an earlier age than dogs to truly attach to humans; it's ~ 8 weeks of age for kittens, while the figures I recall for dogs is more like 6-8 months of age. Feral cats can be tamed/trained, but having missed that early kittenhood experience, they will almost never accept a human as mother-figure. I have heard of adult feral dogs becoming family members, but this can still be dangerous - think of dingos. Cats relate to us as mother-figures: they call to us as they did to their dam, answer our calls as they would hers, greet us with tail-in-the-air as they did her, and learn from us as they would from her. Adult cats rarely call to each other except in mating heat, and greet by touching muzzles instead of kittenish begging (the raised tail). [Of course, some adult cats are very social with other adult cats, while others avoid or are openly hostile toward them. There was a fascinating British study of farm cats in which lion-pride-like behavior occurred: queens caring for and nursing kittens not their own, a creche-type kitten-sitting service, and friendly or at least mostly peaceful cohabitation with a large number of other queens and their kits. Toms are driven away from the creche, as they tend to kill kittens, much as invading male lions will destroy the cubs of a pride they conquer.] Dogs, OTOH, are pack animals, and therefore are more social than cats; there is a much higher degree of interdependence among wolves and their descendants, as a lone wolf will have a very difficult time raising any pups to adulthood, while a feral queen has a good chance of bringing at least one kitten per litter to independence. So for a dog, being a member of a pack is more a matter of life, while for a cat, being a member of the family is more a matter of pleasure or convenience. A very
Re: three paradigm shifts?
--text follows this line-- Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] said Animals suitable to be domesticated must, in general, have a native hierarchy ... That is extemely interesting. For whatever reason, I never thought of it. In one sentence: domesticated animals were bred from those with a strong social hierarchy or family structure which humans could usurp, with an emphasis on juvenile (and therefore dependent) as well as territorial behaviors, in breeding programs, in addition to the desired characteristics of milk/meat production, strength, swiftness etc. That whole posting helps make sense of the pre-industrial, agricultural world -- it is terrific (and terrifying). -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: three paradigm shifts?
Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] said Animals suitable to be domesticated must, in general, have a native hierarchy ... That is extemely interesting. For whatever reason, I never thought of it. Well, it's not exactly my original thinking; 'be the leader' is the big theme in current horsemanship training, and has been important in dog training for a while. I'm fairly sure I read it during the past ten years, in books on animal behavior; IIRC, it was articulated at least partially in _Guns, Germs And Steel_ also. In one sentence: domesticated animals were bred from those with a strong social hierarchy or family structure which humans could usurp, with an emphasis on juvenile (and therefore dependent) as well as territorial behaviors, in breeding programs, in addition to the desired characteristics of milk/meat production, strength, swiftness etc. That whole posting helps make sense of the pre-industrial, agricultural world -- it is terrific (and terrifying). With attacks this week by a bear (Tenn., fatal outcome) and a cougar (here, child survived), we are reminded of why our far ancestors were so afraid of and awed by Nature, and the creatures therein. That first alliance with social wolves must have had a tremendous impact on hunter-gatherers: here were allies who could see in the dark, smell from afar, and race to attack, while puny humans had to cower near a fire or risk being carried off by equally 'magic' predators. So too, the reverence for Cow by the ancients: provider of milk, meat, and covering, and able to pull far heavier loads (plow) than humans alone; and to the needs of humans these large creatures *submitted* (more or less quietly). Familiarity breeds contempt -- in myth, the Hound is a near-sacred partner of the Hunter, and the Bull sacrifices his great strength to humanity's survival. Now, 'cur,' 'cow,' 'bitch,' and 'bullshit' are terms of scorn; our foreparents would find our use of them blasphemous. I think one of the reasons some people have gotten on a Native American kick (or DownUnder, an aboriginal kick) is to recapture that sense of wonder at the creatures that, at one time, meant Life or Death. I can see why a God or Goddess would appear as Cow or Wolf or Ram... Debbi Equus Of The Shining Mane! Maru __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: three paradigm shifts?
At 09:00 PM Monday 4/17/2006, PAT MATHEWS wrote: From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: three paradigm shifts? Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 20:54:34 -0500 At 08:14 PM Monday 4/17/2006, Deborah Harrell wrote: Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip In the relevant manner, how do domesticated animals differ from hunted animals? (I know they differ; the question is how?) Deborah Harrell, can you comment? snip Animals suitable to be domesticated must, in general, have a native hierarchy, which humans can then utilize to their own advantage. In herbivores, this means a socially bonded herd as opposed to a 'gathering of convenience;' in carnivores, a relatively stable pack or strong family structure is required. Humans usurp the alpha position of the herd leader(s) or mother/father. So how do you explain cats? Meow Maru We never domesticated them. They just took advantage of free food and shelter, in true predator style. Some of you may remember this New York Times Science Times article from January. (Still available to registered members at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/06/science/06cats.htm.) Note the last sentence in this excerpt: DNA Offers New Insight Concerning Cat Evolution By NICHOLAS WADE Published: January 6, 2006 Researchers have gained a major insight into the evolution of cats by showing how they migrated to new continents and developed new species as sea levels rose and fell. [Photo of kitten exploring a clothes dryer] Researchers have gained a major insight into the evolution of cats by showing how they migrated to new continents and developed new species as sea levels rose and fell. About nine million years ago - two million years after the cat family first appeared in Asia - these successful predators invaded North America by crossing the Beringian land bridge connecting Siberia and Alaska, a team of geneticists writes in the journal Science today. Later, several American cat lineages returned to Asia. With each migration, evolutionary forces morphed the pantherlike patriarch of all cats into a rainbow of species, from ocelots and lynxes to leopards, lions and the lineage that led to the most successful cat of all, even though it has mostly forsaken its predatory heritage: the cat that has induced people to pay for its board and lodging in return for frugal displays of affection. Or, why doesn't your cat obey you? Pat, human servant to Dufus Maybe _yours_ objects to being called Dufus . . . --Ronn! :) Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country and two words have been added to the pledge of Allegiance... UNDER GOD. Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that would be eliminated from schools too? -- Red Skelton (Someone asked me to change my .sig quote back, so I did.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: three paradigm shifts?
On 18/04/2006, at 11:59 PM, Deborah Harrell wrote: That is extemely interesting. For whatever reason, I never thought of it. Well, it's not exactly my original thinking; 'be the leader' is the big theme in current horsemanship training, and has been important in dog training for a while. I'm fairly sure I read it during the past ten years, in books on animal behavior; IIRC, it was articulated at least partially in _Guns, Germs And Steel_ also. It was commonly articulated around ethnology groups when I was doing zoology too. It's not a new thought, it's just one of those kind-of- obvious-ones that takes a while to trickle into common sense. In one sentence: domesticated animals were bred from those with a strong social hierarchy or family structure which humans could usurp, with an emphasis on juvenile (and therefore dependent) as well as territorial behaviors, in breeding programs, in addition to the desired characteristics of milk/meat production, strength, swiftness etc. That whole posting helps make sense of the pre-industrial, agricultural world -- it is terrific (and terrifying). With attacks this week by a bear (Tenn., fatal outcome) and a cougar (here, child survived), we are reminded of why our far ancestors were so afraid of and awed by Nature, and the creatures therein. And people ask why I chose Australia for my big solo trip... no large terrestrial maneaters is a good reason I feel! (s about the crocs and sharks... ;) ) Familiarity breeds contempt -- in myth, the Hound is a near-sacred partner of the Hunter, and the Bull sacrifices his great strength to humanity's survival. Now, 'cur,' 'cow,' 'bitch,' and 'bullshit' are terms of scorn; our foreparents would find our use of them blasphemous. I think one of the reasons some people have gotten on a Native American kick (or DownUnder, an aboriginal kick) is to recapture that sense of wonder at the creatures that, at one time, meant Life or Death. I can see why a God or Goddess would appear as Cow or Wolf or Ram... Nice. :) Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: three paradigm shifts?
On Apr 18, 2006, at 12:05 PM, William T Goodall wrote: On 18 Apr 2006, at 7:21PM, Nick Arnett wrote: On 4/18/06, Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PS: There are 2.45M pages for introvert on Google, but only 2.0M pages for extrovert. Wonder what that means? It means you probably should have searched on extravert. That variant spelling of extrovert only finds 236,000 pages on Google. Spot on, William. I searched for introvert OR intravert vs extravert OR extrovert and came up with closer, but still skewed results: intr(o|a)vert: 2,470,000 extr(o|a)vert: 2,150,000 Dave Where are the missing 420,000 extr*verts? Land ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: three paradigm shifts?
On 4/18/06, Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave Where are the missing 420,000 extr*verts? Land Apparently there was a party and we weren't invited. Well, you weren't. I'm an intravert. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: three paradigm shifts?
Nick On Apr 18, 2006, at 4:00 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: On 4/18/06, Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave Where are the missing 420,000 extr*verts? Land Apparently there was a party and we weren't invited. Well, you weren't. I'm an intravert. You are? How odd. Google only has 13,500 pages for intravert, but pages for introvert. In fact, I'm not even sure that intravert is a word. Dictionary.com says: No entry found for intravert. Did you mean introvert? I notice that there are two ways to spell extravert/extrovert, because we'll come no matter what you call us. In fact, just try and stop us. Introverts, on the other hand, stubbornly sit there thinking about whatever the hell it is that you think about until we get around to addressing them correctly, as introvert, thank you very much. Dave ExtrEMEvert Land ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: three paradigm shifts?
Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip In the relevant manner, how do domesticated animals differ from hunted animals? (I know they differ; the question is how?) Deborah Harrell, can you comment? snip Animals suitable to be domesticated must, in general, have a native hierarchy, which humans can then utilize to their own advantage. In herbivores, this means a socially bonded herd as opposed to a 'gathering of convenience;' in carnivores, a relatively stable pack or strong family structure is required. Humans usurp the alpha position of the herd leader(s) or mother/father. Territorial behavior is also helpful, as migratory herds must be followed or lost - reindeer are the only migrating quasi-domesticated mammals I can think of; geese will cease migrating if sufficient food and protection is available, but hummingbirds depart no matter how much nectar is provided. Desirable features in companion/working animals are sociability, which includes friendliness, curiosity, and adaptability. At least some of these can be bred for, as was shown by a Russian experiment with foxes; I've quoted this one previously, but basically they initially selected foxes least afraid of humans to breed, then their friendliest offspring and so on for ~ 36 generations. They wound up with foxes that wagged their tails, yipped like cubs, and generally demonstrated increasingly juvenile behavior from generation to generation. [gasp And we're now on-topic with Himself's essay on neotany!] (Oddly, they also developed varigated coat coloring - think Dalmations vs. wolves, or calico cats vs. leopards.) For food animals, less intelligence and independence are desirable from the human standpoint, so docility was also selected for - domestic sheep vs. bighorn sheep, domestic turkeys vs. wild. Multipurpose animals, used for food or clothing and/or transportation and/or guarding/warning, were allowed to retain more independent behavior (goat vs. sheep). Friendliness is still desirable no matter what, however; even chickens have personalities and can interact rather charmingly with their human, and calves are quite inquisitive about what that two-legged crittur is doing. Heck, among fish, family-building cichlids are a lot more fun to have in your aquarium than tetras, because they can recognize *you.* Solitary animals, with minimal family bonding, are much less able to accept human leadership - Tasmanian devils and leopards come to mind. This doesn't mean such animals can't be trained or tamed somewhat: elk can be raised on a ranch, but since their herd structure is short-lived, they cannot be relied upon to respect a human would-be-leader. If considerable effort was made, animals like zebra, cheetah and buffalo might be domesticated, but how is a Cape buffalo superior to a domestic cow? Well, resistance to sleeping sickness comes to mind - ditto for zebra and horse/donkey, but these herbivores are so fiercely unsubmissive that no one has bothered to try. Cheetah are so subspecialized that there is probably no advantage compared to dogs like salukis, unless you just want that elegant look (not that salukis and their near-relatives are less than svelte). In one sentence: domesticated animals were bred from those with a strong social hierarchy or family structure which humans could usurp, with an emphasis on juvenile (and therefore dependent) as well as territorial behaviors, in breeding programs, in addition to the desired characteristics of milk/meat production, strength, swiftness etc. Debbi Quasi-domesticated Herself Maru;-) __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: three paradigm shifts?
At 08:14 PM Monday 4/17/2006, Deborah Harrell wrote: Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip In the relevant manner, how do domesticated animals differ from hunted animals? (I know they differ; the question is how?) Deborah Harrell, can you comment? snip Animals suitable to be domesticated must, in general, have a native hierarchy, which humans can then utilize to their own advantage. In herbivores, this means a socially bonded herd as opposed to a 'gathering of convenience;' in carnivores, a relatively stable pack or strong family structure is required. Humans usurp the alpha position of the herd leader(s) or mother/father. So how do you explain cats? Meow Maru --Ronn! :) Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country and two words have been added to the pledge of Allegiance... UNDER GOD. Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that would be eliminated from schools too? -- Red Skelton (Someone asked me to change my .sig quote back, so I did.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: three paradigm shifts?
So how do you explain cats? Intelligence and inherent laziness obviously selected itself in cat evolution. In some circles, cats taking on us as their masters can be seen as a stoke of genius that outstrips the greatest of human achievements! Damon ;) Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: EE's BRDM-1 Recce Vehicle -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/313 - Release Date: 4/15/2006 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: three paradigm shifts?
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: three paradigm shifts? Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 20:54:34 -0500 At 08:14 PM Monday 4/17/2006, Deborah Harrell wrote: Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip In the relevant manner, how do domesticated animals differ from hunted animals? (I know they differ; the question is how?) Deborah Harrell, can you comment? snip Animals suitable to be domesticated must, in general, have a native hierarchy, which humans can then utilize to their own advantage. In herbivores, this means a socially bonded herd as opposed to a 'gathering of convenience;' in carnivores, a relatively stable pack or strong family structure is required. Humans usurp the alpha position of the herd leader(s) or mother/father. So how do you explain cats? Meow Maru We never domesticated them. They just took advantage of free food and shelter, in true predator style. Or, why doesn't your cat obey you? Pat, human servant to Dufus Claudius Felis and Spot Optimus Maximus http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: three paradigm shifts?
So how do you explain cats? Cats are a perfect example of non-domestication. We have certainly bred them to be smaller and tamer but they are not domesticated in the way that dogs are domesticated. They do not connect with humans in the same way. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: three paradigm shifts?
On 4/17/2006 10:34:03 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So how do you explain cats? Cats are a perfect example of non-domestication. We have certainly bred them to be smaller and tamer but they are not domesticated in the way that dogs are domesticated. They do not connect with humans in the same way. I'm not by nature a cat person. But our cats love me to death and will obey any imperative command I give (Get Down!...Get Back In The House!) especially if accompanied by a single clap. G They also know what the phrases Malt and Canned Cat Food mean and will come immediately if you ask them if they want some. (Malt is a malt or salmon flavored hairball gelapparently quite yummy) xponent Catmunication Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
three paradigm shifts?
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006, in `RE: Liberal Capitalist Fundamentalism', Dan Minette wrote ... there were two paradigm shifts...which implies three paradigms. Were there three major paradigm shifts? I go further back than Dan. Over the course of human history, were there three paradigm shifts implying four paradigms? The shifts would be 1. from foraging and hunting to agriculture and herding, 2. from agriculture and herding to mechanics and electric power, 3. from mechanics and electric power to biological and computational activities. In the change from foraging and hunting to agriculture and herding, people had to learn that - plants grow slowly and when you don't gather, you need to cultivate plants for months, - domesticated animals are different from hunted animals. Put another way, you need to learn the importance of caring over the long term, of plants, animals, children, and adults ... Did the ancient religions focus more on caring and love than those before? Many of you, espcially Dan Minette, Nick Arnett, and Dave Land, will know. In the relevant manner, how do domesticated animals differ from hunted animals? (I know they differ; the question is how?) Deborah Harrell, can you comment? Also, Dan Minette, does Aristotelian physics fit a pre-industrial, agricultural society especially well? (I think so.) Incidentally, hot air balloons required no more than ancient Egyptian or ancient Chinese technology. They wove cloth light enough and tight enough to bag a vast volume of air when treated with the right sap. Ancient leaders, Pharoahs and Emperors had the riches and the military to fund balloons: they would have been useful in war, especially to a besieged city or to an warrior general. Balloons would not just vanish. Even if their builders thought them lifted by fire-generated smoke rather than by hot air, balloons would have flown. But they weren't invented for another four thousand years. But for balloons to be invented, humans needed a paradigm shift, a cultural or social shift, not just a technological shift. In the change from agriculture and herding to mechanics and electric power, people had to learn that - non-living machines that move too quickly for human sight can be understood when slowed, - invisible electric currents flow in certain solids, unlike water in hollow pipes, and more. I have heard it said that the US acculturated to mechanics and electric power sooner than others, which is why the US was able to become so rich in the first two-thirds of the 20th century. Now, I have questions: - in a mechanical and electrical era, is traditional caring less important than in an agriculture and herding era? - And, if so, is this why certain `liberal religions' have fewer followers? - As they ended up, are Marxism, libertarianism, and the like false, 19th century, attempts at creating new religions? Incidently, in a mechanical and electrical era, caring must expand to the environment, if only because in such an era, more happens. In an agriculture and herding era, it hardly mattered what got dumped into a river three hours' row upstream of you; the material would be diluted by the time it reached you. But in a mechanical and electrical era, a three hours' row could take a great deal less time in a different vehicle. The stuff dumped might be too much or too persistent to dilute sufficiently. Since untrammeled accounting does not measure `externalities', conservatives must favor government regulation of one sort or another. (Banning if you expect corruption; this is traditional `regulation'; pricing if you expect honesty; this is `market regulation'.) Conservatives have no choice. Only short-term hucksters are against this kind of government action. Another question for Dan Minette, does Newtonian physics fit a mechanical and electrical era exceptionally well? It looks to me that the notion of probability provided for a transition to a yet newer paradigm: - In 19th century, Darwin noted that the individuals of a biological species were different from one another -- something others had noted for millennia, but not considered -- and applied probability to living populations, thereby discovering the Laws of Evolution. - In that same 19th century, once atoms became an acceptable idea, all atoms of the same mass and species were perceived as identical except for position and velocity. Probabilities were applied to those parts that differed, which led to the discovery of thermodynamics. The newest paradigm shift is from mechanics and electric power to biological and computational activities. Biology requires probabilities applied to varigated living populations; physics requires probabilities applied to everything. Are extreme environmental organizations and Nader's groups the false religions of this era? (In this model, anti-environmental, anti-climate-change groups hark
