10-31-2024, 07:02 PM
A noble endeavor, and I submit, a worthy treatise.
Meaning absolutely no disrespect, I hope I can add some criticism, philosophically-speaking. I will try to be brief, as best I can.
In the context of Evolutionary and Sociobiological Roots, I am a dissenter of the predominant characterization of what we somewhat condescendingly call "Primitive Man."
Clearly, once the human currency of shared knowledge and experience was established... we have little reason to assume that these people couldn't think for themselves. We shouldn't assume that they were brutishly devoid of reason. It was not be some matter-of-fact evolutionary force making them congregate and cluster. The abstract idea of tribes and clans is thus poorly contrived, in my opinion. These are inevitabilities of social structure. It is manifested in all life sharing social nature.
But humans "speak" to each other, and the process of negotiation was sure to follow - a necessity of communication.
Every development thereafter is not one of animal instinct, but of a conjoining of agendas... cooperation.
The struggles of nations, empires, corporations and combines are not the struggles of "humans"... they never were.
The dominance drive is not about humans, but instead of human 'constructs,' ultimately about competency.
Humans do not naturally 'seek' to assimilate others, "groups" of human do...
I tend to refuse the precept that human nature is all that complicated... rather that humans 'create' or 'engender' complications in the "human" world... like a toxic compulsion.
None of this is meant to take away from an otherwise brilliant analysis.
I was just offering a counter opinion for you to mull over, if you find it worthy.
Meaning absolutely no disrespect, I hope I can add some criticism, philosophically-speaking. I will try to be brief, as best I can.
In the context of Evolutionary and Sociobiological Roots, I am a dissenter of the predominant characterization of what we somewhat condescendingly call "Primitive Man."
Clearly, once the human currency of shared knowledge and experience was established... we have little reason to assume that these people couldn't think for themselves. We shouldn't assume that they were brutishly devoid of reason. It was not be some matter-of-fact evolutionary force making them congregate and cluster. The abstract idea of tribes and clans is thus poorly contrived, in my opinion. These are inevitabilities of social structure. It is manifested in all life sharing social nature.
But humans "speak" to each other, and the process of negotiation was sure to follow - a necessity of communication.
Every development thereafter is not one of animal instinct, but of a conjoining of agendas... cooperation.
The struggles of nations, empires, corporations and combines are not the struggles of "humans"... they never were.
The dominance drive is not about humans, but instead of human 'constructs,' ultimately about competency.
Humans do not naturally 'seek' to assimilate others, "groups" of human do...
I tend to refuse the precept that human nature is all that complicated... rather that humans 'create' or 'engender' complications in the "human" world... like a toxic compulsion.
None of this is meant to take away from an otherwise brilliant analysis.
I was just offering a counter opinion for you to mull over, if you find it worthy.
